So, who won ...

[Tender Branson]

Discuss.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

Obama shouldn't be an option. He play for the other team.

[Jayhawker]

Haha, did we both just delete ours?

Deja Vu as I just typed this...Romney. He was clear and concise tonight, and showed more emotion and fire than he has previously. More importantly, his biggest obstacle, Perry, had a terrible performance overall. I wouldn't go as far as to say Romney's back in control, but he's at least evened things out. Perrentum () is over.

[King]

To the sane eye, Romney won, but in reality Obama won because, to the base, Perry won.

[Governor Scott]

I didn't see a winner.  Honestly, I was disappointed by this one.  Things just aren't the same without a T-Paw for Bachmann to kick around.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

To the sane eye, Romney won, but in reality Obama won because, to the base, Perry won.

Romney, Cain, and Paul were the winners,  Perry and Bachamann  was disappointing, Gingrich was solid, and they largely ignored Santorum again.

[angus]

Several threads already.  

Well, I voted for Romney.  I had a brainfart and forgot about the debate actually, till I watched the PBS Newshour replaying at 9PM CDT and they mentioned it.  Luckily, MSNBC replayed the debate, in toto, beginning at 11PM CDT.  I was sort of dozey, and as usual, had a fairly high blood alcohol content by that hour, and was going in and out of consciousness for the duration.  

But, from what I could see, Romney was in fine form.  He was attacked, mostly by Perry but also by others, and he defended the attacks well.  He also came off as warm (for example, when he defended Perry's misguided decision to inoculate young girls), and as humorous (for example, when he made reference to Al Gore's invention of the internet), and as ready to take on Obama (for example, when he sparred with Perry about Social Security).

Others exceeded my expectations as well.  For example, Perry came off much more polished and well-rehearsed than I was led to expect.  And Huntsman really knows his stuff, and apparently doesn't mind taking cheap shots at other candidates, which is a very important characteristic when you're running for any public office.  And Santorum actually looked sane and level-headed and knowledgeable, the few times he was afforded the chance to answer questions.  But overall Romney performed best.  At least that was my impression last night as I drifted off to sleep.

Jmfcst hasn't posted in these threads, though.  It'd be interesting to read his reviews.  He has some sort of crystal ball I guess, or an uncanny ability to predict things like primary winners, judicial appointments, and state-by-state general election winners, so I always like reading his post-debate musings.  Maybe he'll chime in.

[TXMichael]

Romney probably had the best performance.

I don't think Perry hit it out of the park like he could have.  Also, I don't think he had a poor performance.  Bacmann on the other hand, not only is her front runner status gone but I don't know if she can even be considered a top tier candidate anymore.

[angus]

From NPR's Jonathan Chait:

"Perry, stylistically, ruled the roost. The media seems to consider Romney the winner. Pardon the condescension, but they're not thinking like Republican base voters. Romney approaches every question as if he is in an actual debate, trying to provide the most intellectually compelling answer available, within the bounds of political expediency. Perry treats questions as interruptions. What scientists do you trust on climate change? I don't want to risk the economy. Are you taking a radical position on social security? We can have reasons or we can have results. His total liberation from the constraints of reason give Perry a chance to represent the Republican id in a way Romney simply cannot match."

Not sure that I buy into it, but it's a compelling piece, and short.  Read it here:
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/08/140284577/new-republic-how-rick-perry-won-the-debate

[Keystone Phil]

I guess Romney won it, sadly. Perry wasn't nearly as bad as people have made him out to be. His obvious issues were with delivery (he'd have awkward pauses in the middle of sentences) but it wasn't a total disaster. Huntsman and Newt were good, too. Santorum as well. I loved his response on military intervention/foreign affairs/Libya the most. Maybe it's just me but Cain seemed to disappear in the second half of the debate.

[stegosaurus]

I find it hard to name a winner because several of the people on stage were completely ignored. Between Romney and Perry, I think you could call it a draw as both of their performances only seemed to reinforce what we already knew (Romney is moderately conservative and collected whilst Perry is allegedly very conservative and has swagger). I wouldn't say that one's platitudes and posturing was any more impressive than the other's.  Other than that, Bachmann looked lost and devoid of purpose and Gingrich was typically impressive. Cain is very much a conservative Obama, and not because he's black, but because he's an excellent, captivating orator with absolutely no comprehension of what makes for reasonable or effective policy. Santorum gave a typically good performance, even if he only got a chance to speak for total of two minutes. Ron Paul was...Ron Paul.

[pbrower2a]

President Obama won this debate by default. Perry showed why he will get the support of the Lords of Money in the GOP -- and he just supplied the line that will defeat him in the general election,

"Social Security is a Ponzi scheme"


which we can all expect  the Obama campaign to use unless Perry comes up with something so crass as  "Invade Cuba/Venezuela/Iran now!"

 

[angus]

Perry showed why he will get the support of the Lords of Money in the GOP

Not so fast...

Sure, Wall Street would like to see social security privatized.  It makes sense for them.  But more and more insecurities linger in the minds of those same lords of money about Perry's electability.  It's a subtle point.  Saying social security is "a ponzi scheme," and saying it "needs to be salvaged," may sound like radically different statements, but in fact, they could both be saying exactly the same thing:  social security needs to be privatized.  Those Wall Street types probably do have a preference regarding the language used to explain it to the great unwashed masses, and if so, you could reasonably conclude that they might just like Romney's more subtle way of saying it.  After all, no bill becomes law till it gets signed, and those Lords of Money probably do not think that the current President would be keen on privatizing social security, no matter how you phrase it.  

Both Romney and Perry are in line with the American people here, and they may very well be saying the same things.  Consider that a WaPo/ABC News poll from March showed that the vast majority of Americans think social security is headed for a crisis and that the program needs a serious overhaul.  

It's all in the nuance, and I'm not certain that the Wall Street types necessarily prefer Perry's nuance to Romney's.  

[Governor NVGonzalez]

To the sane eye, Romney won, but in reality Obama won because, to the base, Perry won.

[ChairmanSanchez]

In order of who won and their grade..

1. Ron Paul-A Gave solid answers, stood up to Perry, and didn't get into the mud slinging.
2. Mitt Romney-B+ Gave good answers, defended his record, but got to involved in Perry's record.
3. Newt Gingrich-B- Was giving good answers, stood up to the attempts to get them fighinting
4. Jon Huntsman-B- Gave good answers, took on both Romney and Perry.
5. Herman Cain- C+ Didnt say much, but didnt attack anybody.
6. Michelle Bachmann-C- Gave nothing new, continued her usual style, which isnt really working.
7. Rick Santorum- D+ Went on his usual rant on Abortion, and whined later on TV because he didnt get any questions.
8. Rick Perry-F He sucks. He can't debate, tries to physically intimidate, laughs with that "F-You" half smile, and is an asshole in general.

[Zarn]

I think this question is going to be heavily dependent on the whole assault and battery theme that is starting to spark. See drudgereport.com... Right side of the page.

Many GOPers view that site.

Someone said Perry forced Paul away from the podium. I'm not so sure if that's true. I doubt Paul will press charges, and I cannot find a clear definition of California's law on this (Battery?).

This reminds me of when Perry put his finger on the chest of a Paul supporter a couple of weeks back. I also recall him giving a female officer trouble, when his driver was pulled over (this was years ago).

If you want me to start a separate topic, I will. I just don't think the question of who won will be answered, until we can figure out how this whole thing sorts out.

[greenforest32]

To the sane eye, Romney won, but in reality Obama won because, to the base, Perry won.

[pbrower2a]

In order of who won and their grade..

8. Rick Perry-F He sucks. He can't debate, tries to physically intimidate, laughs with that "F-You" half smile, and is an asshole in general.

He may be horrible, but he does much that Tea Party types like, including physical intimidation.

[Korwinist]

Romney did.

Romney was given lots of chances to talk, did a fairly good job about it, seemed affable/intelligent, and avoided getting dragged into a fistfight.

He was kind of lucky, though, that Perry had a giant target painted on him. Ron Paul in particular seems to seriously dislike Perry and fired all cannons at him for quite a while. Perry then responded by trying to slug it out with Paul, and Bachmann took advantage of the situation to piggyback onto Paul's objections regarding the vaccinations (though it helps her in that it lets her attack Perry and gain attention back, having to do so as backup for a candidate who isn't viewed in the same tier generally isn't a good way to improve the situation; I think she just likes Paul in general). Meanwhile, Santorum said his usual nonsense, Huntsman talked about SCIENCE for some reason, and Cain kind of rambled on in the corner, oblivious to the concept of a "debate" requiring disagreements as opposed to outlines of policies.

[angus]

I think this question is going to be heavily dependent on the whole assault and battery theme that is starting to spark. See drudgereport.com... Right side of the page.

Many GOPers view that site.

Someone said Perry forced Paul away from the podium. I'm not so sure if that's true. I doubt Paul will press charges, and I cannot find a clear definition of California's law on this (Battery?).

This reminds me of when Perry put his finger on the chest of a Paul supporter a couple of weeks back. I also recall him giving a female officer trouble, when his driver was pulled over (this was years ago).

If you want me to start a separate topic, I will. I just don't think the question of who won will be answered, until we can figure out how this whole thing sorts out.

So you're saying basically that Romney probably won on merit, but if it can be shown that Rick Perry is a true Bad Boy, Nature's Child, Born to be Wild, in a court of law, then he wins?  Even if he's not wearing a leather jacket and smoking Camels?

Maybe.  At the very least, his cool factor will definitely go up.

Then again, it's a short, skinny, slow-talking septegenarian obstetrician that he's bullying, so it's not exactly like he's giving the cops the finger and riding his Harley off into the sunset.

I'm just not seeing that it helps him in the "cool" department.

[Politico]

I think this question is going to be heavily dependent on the whole assault and battery theme that is starting to spark. See drudgereport.com... Right side of the page.

Many GOPers view that site.

Someone said Perry forced Paul away from the podium. I'm not so sure if that's true. I doubt Paul will press charges, and I cannot find a clear definition of California's law on this (Battery?).

This reminds me of when Perry put his finger on the chest of a Paul supporter a couple of weeks back. I also recall him giving a female officer trouble, when his driver was pulled over (this was years ago).

If you want me to start a separate topic, I will. I just don't think the question of who won will be answered, until we can figure out how this whole thing sorts out.

Apparently Paul has photographic evidence of Perry touching him. Could he make a case for assault? It would be quite the story...

[Brandon H]

He was kind of lucky, though, that Perry had a giant target painted on him. Ron Paul in particular seems to seriously dislike Perry and fired all cannons at him for quite a while. Perry then responded by trying to slug it out with Paul, and Bachmann took advantage of the situation to piggyback onto Paul's objections regarding the vaccinations (though it helps her in that it lets her attack Perry and gain attention back, having to do so as backup for a candidate who isn't viewed in the same tier generally isn't a good way to improve the situation; I think she just likes Paul in general).

I'm thinking if Bachmann get the nomination (unlikely but still not impossible) she'll pick Rand Paul as her running mate. (Before Perry jumped in, I had the delegate count going into the convention as Romney, Bachmann, Paul. Bachmann makes a deal for Paul's delegates by selecting Rand as her running mate.)

[Zarn]

I think this question is going to be heavily dependent on the whole assault and battery theme that is starting to spark. See drudgereport.com... Right side of the page.

Many GOPers view that site.

Someone said Perry forced Paul away from the podium. I'm not so sure if that's true. I doubt Paul will press charges, and I cannot find a clear definition of California's law on this (Battery?).

This reminds me of when Perry put his finger on the chest of a Paul supporter a couple of weeks back. I also recall him giving a female officer trouble, when his driver was pulled over (this was years ago).

If you want me to start a separate topic, I will. I just don't think the question of who won will be answered, until we can figure out how this whole thing sorts out.

So you're saying basically that Romney probably won on merit, but if it can be shown that Rick Perry is a true Bad Boy, Nature's Child, Born to be Wild, in a court of law, then he wins?  Even if he's not wearing a leather jacket and smoking Camels?

Maybe.  At the very least, his cool factor will definitely go up.

Then again, it's a short, skinny, slow-talking septegenarian obstetrician that he's bullying, so it's not exactly like he's giving the cops the finger and riding his Harley off into the sunset.

I'm just not seeing that it helps him in the "cool" department.

I wouldn't say Romney won at all. Perry is seen as the winner, because Paul didn't make a big deal out of it. If Perry came off as a punk, then Paul would have been seen as the winner. Paul would be the one who caused the front runner to have a 'meltdown.'

[Korwinist]

Actually, retrospectively, I think Paul won.

It wasn't his best performance, but he successfully provoked a fight with the frontrunner, something that increases his perceived importance considerably.

Romney, meanwhile, is unlikely to have gained any new supporters from his good performance.

[argentarius]

Actually, retrospectively, I think Paul won.

It wasn't his best performance, but he successfully provoked a fight with the frontrunner, something that increases his perceived importance considerably.

Romney, meanwhile, is unlikely to have gained any new supporters from his good performance.

True, Paul gained attention from this debate and I think that he portrayed himself as a more serious candidate than say, Bachmann, structuring the race as a 2-horse race between him and Perry, both in the ads and the debate.