So, who won the debate today ?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

To his credit, Gingrich kicked everyone's ads. Romney did a good job staying right where he needs to. Pawlenty and Bachmann are DOA.

To be fair, Bachmann's campaign could conceivably recover if it really went into overdrive and won the Ames straw poll. Then again, Pawlenty might actually survive to do okay if he won Ames, too. Outside of something terrible happening or incredible luck, though, Paul probably has Ames in the bag now.

[Eraserhead]

Well, I actually convinced myself to sit through this torture, so that I could give an educated opinion for once.

Boy did the questions suck, in general.

Anyway, tonight's debate made it painfully obvious that the nominee is either going to be Romney or someone not at tonight's debate.

Bachmann has actually got the economic message about right that should resonate with the majority of GOP/GOP-leaning independent voters.  But it comes across too much in vague generalities (imo), and she's the wrong person to bring the message.  Not to mention that the submission stuff and other religious things comes off a bit kookish.  Granted, I was raised LCMS, so Wisconsin Synod is not really that far off, so I don't particularly view it weirdly, but it bothers other people. 

As to the actual debate tonight - Newt won.

Didn't you originally think that Romney wouldn't be nominated?

[Tender Branson]

No vote for Cain ?

I thought he did much better than Santorum, Pawlenty and Huntsman for example.

[anvi]

I haven't had time to watch the whole thing; I saw about 40% of it.  I don't really have a firm opinion on who won.  But what I did notice was that, regardless of who was answering, the audience rewarded flashy lines and dogfights and was mostly silent when substantive responses were offered.  In other words, as modern debates go, it was normal in that respect.  I did think, however, that it was on the whole better than an average early primary debate.

[Brandon H]

I'm really not a fan of the moderators at the Fox debates.

I thought Bachmann got the better of Pawlenty in the beginning. After some of Gingrich's problems early on in the campaign, I thought he did well here. I'm wondering if Santorum was intentionally trying to make Paul look good. Is he thinking if he helps Paul out enough, he may have a shot at being his VP? (sarcasm)

[Torie]

Romney: Was the adult in the room, and very focused and composed. Helped himself.

Bachmann: Finished off Pawlenty with a couple of nice twists of the knife who was already bleeding to death from self inflicted wounds, but it was a distraction for her. Came off smart and focused, and a cool customer, so she should solidify her position.  But really, her just sitting there saying we can slash spending by 40% right now, and no debt ceiling increase (said the latter, which means the former), which means this is yet another reason why in the end she will be shredded and tossed into the dust pin.

Gingrich: Sounded like he really knew what he was talking about better than usual (no he doesn't, and when pressed like he wasn't here, he can fall apart in a hurry), and the crowd enjoyed his media bashing,  so he won the debate award for the most entertaining (nosing out Paul). But nobody wants him to be president except the deranged, so he's irrelevant.

Pawlenty: Reinforced his image as an ineffectual nebbish, who can't talk his way out of a paper bag, but got out of the boring box and into the nasty box surprisingly. Insensitive cuss really. Destroyed himself. His money will dry up. Romney will probably get the biggest chunk of his supporters, but not a majority of it.

Huntsman: Missed opportunity for John.  He needed to take more risks explaining just why he favored civil unions, and distinguish himself on another matter or two from the crowd that some of the GOP mantra these days at its extremes is just unrealistic, and not really where this nation wants to go, or can go. He was pretty invisible in a word. He needs to be more specific. Say why John you did such a great job in Utah. Be more specific. Pick something that was tough to deal with, and how you did it, showing how problem solving and creative you are, and how you bring folks together, blah, blah, blah. Yes, you don't have much time, and need to learn from Mitt how to be really pithy and get it all out, which Mitt has become quite good it (Mitt's handling of the question that he loved as the Bain Capital boy to ship jobs to China was just outstanding). John can't miss many more opportunities. Not fatal, but it won't be long until he's moved to the critical condition ward, if he doesn't find the right prescription.

Cain: Reinforced  his image as a clown full of inane and silly generalities. Yes, he wants to slash spending by 40% immediately too, but he said something else that I can't remember now that was just ludicrous. His support will fade. He wasn't going anywhere anyway, although he was not in quite the same category as Newt (Newt being well known damaged and personally grating goods, while Cain was a fresh face and charming).

Santorum: Got a lot of attention as the most angry and extreme sounding of the lot, and added gay marriage to his existing chew toy abortion as an issue where ala Keyes, natural rights and The Declaration trumps all, and it means that its evil baby, and needs to be stopped by any means necessary really.  That is how he came across. So he may last forever and ever ala Keyes, with his loyal following of maybe 5% of the GOP voters. He's really become quite a frightening character; odd for a guy I once thought was quite charming and ingratiating. Things have changed baby!

Paul: The winner really of the debate in accomplishing the most. He did a great job of adding to his existing gold bug/economic kook base the now expanding remerging GOP isolationist vote. He will probably hang on forever too, and might get his chunk of the GOP up to 20%,, and those folks won't be going anywhere soon.  But you need a majority of delegates to win, and about 60% of the GOP voters are not going to vote for him ever, even for POTUS if he is the nominee. So he is becoming to the GOP perhaps what George Wallace once was to the Dems.

[pbrower2a]

Barack Obama. He is the only person running for President in 2012 who didn't make a fool of himself!

[tmthforu94]

Barack Obama. He is the only person running for President in 2012 who didn;t make a fool of himself!

I'd say quite a few candidates didn't make a fool out of themselves. Did you even watch the debate?

[MJM58]

As much as I would love to say Ron Paul, I have to say Michele Bachmann won. I think she sounded really sincere and charismatic. My mom was apathetic to her at the beginning of the debate, but at the end of it, she supports Bachmann over all the candidates (except maybe Ron Paul). I wonder if other people were swayed in similar ways.

[Del Tachi]

Romney was the winner.

The Paul/Santorum and Bachmann/Pawlenty battles that rages last night elevated Romney to the status of "adult in the room".

I was impressed by Santorum, I like the guy a lot.  Him and I hold very similar positions. 

[CJK]

Amazingly, all the candidates managed to diminish themselves further except for maybe Newt, who's already damaged goods.

Romney: He had nothing to offer, really. Came off as phony again. Couldn't deny Romneycare.

Pawlenty: Biggest loser by far. Came off as a combination of canned and petty.

Bachman: While she had some good moments, it was obvious she lacked the experience to lead the nation.

Santorum: Got into a gutter match with Ron Paul. Bad idea.

Paul: Biggest tool of the night, followed closely by his mentally ill fans in the audience.

Gingrich: He had some great answers, but he's still deep in the hole.

Cain: Sounded a bit unserious.

Huntsman: He was basically non-existent. Missed an opportunity to make a case for himself with something memorable or interesting.  

[pbrower2a]

Barack Obama. He is the only person running for President in 2012 who didn't make a fool of himself!

I'd say quite a few candidates didn't make a fool out of themselves. Did you even watch the debate?

Third-Party candidates don't usually count.

If someone like Mike Huckabee jumps back in, then I could also say that he "won" this debate. But in the meantime, every Republican now running for President has exposed serious weaknesses. Unless the Republicans get a hero that we cannot yet identify, then the President can win with a 45% approval rating -- in November 2012!

[TheGlobalizer]

Barack Obama. He is the only person running for President in 2012 who didn't make a fool of himself!

I'd say quite a few candidates didn't make a fool out of themselves. Did you even watch the debate?

Third-Party candidates don't usually count.

If someone like Mike Huckabee jumps back in, then I could also say that he "won" this debate. But in the meantime, every Republican now running for President has exposed serious weaknesses. Unless the Republicans get a hero that we cannot yet identify, then the President can win with a 45% approval rating -- in November 2012!

Yeah, Obama has no weaknesses at all.

I'll concede that 2012 is starting to look less like a heavyweight fight and more like Bum Fights, though.

[pbrower2a]

Barack Obama. He is the only person running for President in 2012 who didn't make a fool of himself!

I'd say quite a few candidates didn't make a fool out of themselves. Did you even watch the debate?

Third-Party candidates don't usually count.

If someone like Mike Huckabee jumps back in, then I could also say that he "won" this debate. But in the meantime, every Republican now running for President has exposed serious weaknesses. Unless the Republicans get a hero that we cannot yet identify, then the President can win with a 45% approval rating -- in November 2012!

Yeah, Obama has no weaknesses at all.

There just might be none left to discover. Such is the advantage that an incumbent has against a challenger, ceteris paribus... that the incumbent has been exposed longer and any possible weaknesses are either dealt with, are trivial or nearly harmless, or are so severe that no incumbent advantage can make the difference between winning and losing.  All challengers must show their strengths early in their efforts to win the election... but the incumbent has a head start.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Isn't that the truth! Such is how political life has deteriorated in America.

[Keystone Phil]

Of those participating: Newt

That's how I'm voting in this poll but I think Perry benefits greatly.

[Oakvale]

Bearing in mind I've only seen a little bit of the debate, here's some thoughts. Romney was competent but kind of creepy, although that's nothing new, Bachmann was pretty much what I'd expected, Gingrich actually did okay and would probably be the winner were he not Newt Gingrich, and Huntsman had a look on his face like he's slowly realising that entering the Presidential race might have been a bad move.

Pawlenty is rapidly approaching Paul/Santorum/Cain/(Gingrich?) levels of irrelevancy.

It's a clichéd and predictable response, but, yeah, the winners were Perry and Obama.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Because I didn't bother watching it, I'd say I'm the real winner here.

[Reluctant Republican]

1.Paul: Had quite  a few Giuliani moments, circa 2007. Since that moment was what erupted him into the public eye and caused his fundraising to explode, I don't think he'll be complaining. His performance also had the advantage of coming later in the night, keeping him in the public awareness going into Ames.

I will say that some of his fanboys were a bit... overzealous.

2. Bachmann: I think she utterly demolished Pawlenty(who I dislike more and more, given his aw shucks personality, and then the knife comes out. He's like a less successful Huckabee, including the jokes.) So that will help her in that it proved she can go a few rounds with the men. Not as good as her other performance, but I think she made a case to many of the voters who were already favoring her but still having doubts.

3. Romney: You know, I'm really torn on Romney. Most of the analysis I read seems to praise him for staying above the fray. But I had a hard time remembering he was there last night. The answers he did give were very academic and professional. But seeing candidates like Bachmann and Paul, I'm not sure he has the fire in his belly. Does he excite anyone? Then again, neither did McCain, so who knows.

4.Gingrich: I liked his aggressive take with Wallace. Until he did it again. A second round of it did move him over to whining, IMHO. Still, I have to say that I was really impressed with most of his answers. He knows what he's talking about, and it showed. But his tendency to pick a fight with the moderators rather then his fellow opponents or Obama cost him in my eyes.

5. Huntsman/Cain: I'd rank Cain  a little higher, but in practice it's a tie. Cain was good. reminds me the most of Huckabee of the candidates on the stage, but he did not really make an impression last night. The one thing I remember is his rather odd hand gesture during one part of the debate.

Huntsman I'd say had a net positive night, in that more people know who he is now. Unless you're Alvin Greene, mere exposure on the stage generally nets one a few votes. But his performance was frankly uninspiring, and sort of reminded me of a faux Romney, in that he tried to stay above the fray but did not do much as a result.

6. Santorum: My first vote was cast for this man... seems like a lifetime ago.

Well, to start with the positive, he needed to be an attack dog in this, so I think it was wise of him to be one. That being said, looking at it as unbiased as I can, I think Paul utterly crushed him in their argument, especially regarding Iran. Santorum also came off as a bit angry and petty at times. Not  agood night for him, I'd say, but at least he got some headlines out of it.

7. Pawlenty: Like Santorum, came off as petty and desperate. One attack against a particular candidate is fine. Two start to look personal. I don't think he helped himself at all going into Ames. And I did not think his joke was all that great, either.

Fun debate. Wish they were all like that.  

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

These guys need their own sitcom:

Romney-Dad
Bachman-Mom
Pawlenty and Santorum-Sons
Paul-Wacky Grandpa (Mitt's Dad)
Huntsman-Romney's Half-Brother (Same Mom, different Dad)
Cain- Wacky Neighbor
Gringrich-Other Neighbor


Obama-Laugh Track
Anyway, Obama won.

[Lincoln Republican]

Oh, yes, yes, Obama was the winner. 

The national debt is 14 trillion and counting.

Unemployment is spiralling out of control.

Obamacare is unrealistic and unsustainable, has massive hidden costs that nobody can explain, 16,000 new IRS employees to enforce the program, does not reduce the price of health care, etc., etc., etc.

U.S. casualties are mounting in Afghanistan, the war is becoming increasingly unpopular.

Tens of thousands of postal workers now threatened with losing their jobs.

The U.S. credit rating downgraded for the time in history, and Obama is the President presiding over it.

Oh, yes, yes, Obama was the winner.

Clearly, obviously, unquestionably, beyond the shadow of a doubt, Obama was the winner.