Who won?

[Wonkish1]

A conservative estimate on an immigration strategy like Newt's probably is worth 2-3% loss in support today in a GOP primary and practically all of that can be won back in not much time. It could likely result in no change.

Acceptance towards a real(not BS) comprehensive plan on immigration is rising with conservative voters. But for the most part its just showing up in people not willing to answer what happens after you have "secured the border" and "effectively stopped illegal immigration".

[California8429]

A conservative estimate on an immigration strategy like Newt's probably is worth 2-3% loss in support today in a GOP primary and practically all of that can be won back in not much time. It could likely result in no change.

Acceptance towards a real(not BS) comprehensive plan on immigration is rising with conservative voters. But for the most part its just showing up in people not willing to answer what happens after you have "secured the border" and "effectively stopped illegal immigration".

Well Cain's answer to secure the border is to "Secure the border" and everything will be saved. I'd like to know HOW people, to all the candidates. All they say is a fence, and that will magically ward off millions.

[Wonkish1]

A conservative estimate on an immigration strategy like Newt's probably is worth 2-3% loss in support today in a GOP primary and practically all of that can be won back in not much time. It could likely result in no change.

Acceptance towards a real(not BS) comprehensive plan on immigration is rising with conservative voters. But for the most part its just showing up in people not willing to answer what happens after you have "secured the border" and "effectively stopped illegal immigration".

Well Cain's answer to secure the border is to "Secure the border" and everything will be saved. I'd like to know HOW people, to all the candidates. All they say is a fence, and that will magically ward off millions.

Anybody that seriously looked at the issue said the only way you can really do it is some form of E-verify.

[Peeperkorn]

Great coverage by The Gurdian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/22/republican-presidential-nomination-2012-republicans

[King]

None of these grades are by jmfcst or Naso and, therefore, irrelevant.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

None of these grades are by jmfcst or Naso and, therefore, irrelevant.

don't you mean jmfcst and Naso's dad?

I tuned in late and only saw the immigration part onward.  From the parts I saw, thought Newt won with Huntsman in second.

Everyone else was either ballistic (Paul) or pandering (Perry, Romney, Bachmann)

[King]

Naso is the ambassador to forum for his dad.  Huntsman 2nd, eh?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Huntsman 2nd, eh?

that's not saying a lot with this field

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Naso is the ambassador to forum for his dad. 

Naso represents someone beyond himself?!  Don't SCARE me like that!!!11!1

  /jk

[Sam Spade]

Outside of the immigration question, Next won the debate.  That being said, his answer will hurt him, the question is figuring out how much.  My guess is much less than Perry (and possibly much less) because, oddly enough, Perry had more Republican support at that point, and combined it with an utterly amazing ability to not communicate at the same time (a double-whammy of sorts).  I might as well mention that, on all the issues out there, jmfcst is least reliable as a Republican bellwether on this issue being that he's from Texas.  The Republican base in Texas is in a different world on this one than most other Republican bases (see, e.g., Iowa)

Let me also add the various attempts Romney makes at pandering are beyond bad, and are starting to make me really think that the anti-Romneys might even take a gander at Ron Paul if Newt flames out.  Seriously.  I have never seen anyone as unbelievable as Romney is on this, and I've seen quite a lot.  No wonder he's stuck with the same numbers as always.

As for the others, Cain is once again completely outmatched by normal questioning.  Perry did ok, but tired out before the end (as always).  Ron Paul was Ron Paul.  Bachmann is very good at attacking others in her own way, but brings nothing new to the table.  Huntsman is, of course, an asshole, but performed better in this debate than before.  Santorum, well, who cares...

[Wonkish1]

Outside of the immigration question, Next won the debate.  That being said, his answer will hurt him, the question is figuring out how much.  My guess is much less than Perry (and possibly much less) because, oddly enough, Perry had more Republican support at that point, and combined it with an utterly amazing ability to not communicate at the same time (a double-whammy of sorts).  I might as well mention that, on all the issues out there, jmfcst is least reliable as a Republican bellwether on this issue being that he's from Texas.  The Republican base in Texas is in a different world on this one than most other Republican bases (see, e.g., Iowa)

Let me also add the various attempts Romney makes at pandering are beyond bad, and are starting to make me really think that the anti-Romneys might even take a gander at Ron Paul if Newt flames out.  Seriously.  I have never seen anyone as unbelievable as Romney is on this, and I've seen quite a lot.  No wonder he's stuck with the same numbers as always.

As for the others, Cain is once again completely outmatched by normal questioning.  Perry did ok, but tired out before the end (as always).  Ron Paul was Ron Paul.  Bachmann is very good at attacking others in her own way, but brings nothing new to the table.  Huntsman is, of course, an asshole, but performed better in this debate than before.  Santorum, well, who cares...

I think you would be surprised to hear that a decent number on the most conservative sites are coming out in agreement with Newt's answer because it puts such a far out "statute of limitations" that it can't be construed as a magnet. Nobody will come because people who've been here for 20 years are staying and people who've been here for a few years are getting the boot.

So there is some disagreement. But ultimately its still pretty quiet. Conservatives are currently in the middle of a respectful and thought out debate on the topic right now!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Let me also add the various attempts Romney makes at pandering are beyond bad...

yep, and quite obvious.  And most of all, not well thought out since a lot of his answers seem to come straight out of a cheap vastly oversimplified simulation program, which leaves his flank constantly exposed to reality, both logistically and politically - his answers aren't just unworkable, they are also impossible from a political standpoint.

His view of the GOP is vastly oversimplified, as if he had been outside of the GOP all his life...

[redcommander]

Perry- B+ Yes he was the winner in my opinion. He made an amazing recovery from his past missteps and should hopefully take support away from Gingrich in the coming days.
Huntsman- B This was his debate issue wise tonight. He did come off as a little too intellectual for the taste of the Tea Party tonight, and is still coming off mousy. Besides that, He was more confident tonight.
Romney- B- A little weaker than past debates, but still was the most articulate and presidential on the stage.
Gingrich- C Yeah I'm not seeing all the amazingness the Gingrich hacks are talking about. He came off as looking creepy, and a jerk when he interrupted Romney and Huntsman's exchange by saying "How about letting the rest of us speak?" The immigration issue is going to hurt any chance of more poll gains after tonight, and at most he will stay polling around where he is right now before deflating around the time of the next debate.
Bachmann- C She's picking up some steam again, so she's in my analysis. She sounded less crazy, and wasn't afraid to call out Gingrich when others on stage were.
Santorum- C Meh. He sounded the most sane after Romney and Huntsman, but couldn't get himself noticed that much.
Paul- D- Just horrible. He clearly has a niche of support for his views, but he stumbled when he was called out on them by the neo-cons on stage. Since the rest of the field is so bad though, he still has a great shot at winning Iowa.
Cain- F- FAIL. Seriously you're going to use the argument that Iran is too mountainous in your argument not to support Israel bombing it? I suppose if it were as flat as Kansas it would be ok then?

[exopolitician]

Gingrich
Paul
Huntsman
Bachmann

Tonight's debate just re-affirms how out of touch the GOP candidates are with anything foreign policy related. How the tables have turned.

[pbrower2a]

Gingrich
Paul
Huntsman
Bachmann

Tonight's debate just re-affirms how out of touch the GOP candidates are with anything foreign policy related. How the tables have turned.

I would have never expected the Democrat  to have that advantage. Well, Dubya talked the talk and walked the stagger.

[California8429]

Perry- B+ Yes he was the winner in my opinion. He made an amazing recovery from his past missteps and should hopefully take support away from Gingrich in the coming days.
Huntsman- B This was his debate issue wise tonight. He did come off as a little too intellectual for the taste of the Tea Party tonight, and is still coming off mousy. Besides that, He was more confident tonight.
Romney- B- A little weaker than past debates, but still was the most articulate and presidential on the stage.
Gingrich- C Yeah I'm not seeing all the amazingness the Gingrich hacks are talking about. He came off as looking creepy, and a jerk when he interrupted Romney and Huntsman's exchange by saying "How about letting the rest of us speak?" The immigration issue is going to hurt any chance of more poll gains after tonight, and at most he will stay polling around where he is right now before deflating around the time of the next debate.
Bachmann- C She's picking up some steam again, so she's in my analysis. She sounded less crazy, and wasn't afraid to call out Gingrich when others on stage were.
Santorum- C Meh. He sounded the most sane after Romney and Huntsman, but couldn't get himself noticed that much.
Paul- D- Just horrible. He clearly has a niche of support for his views, but he stumbled when he was called out on them by the neo-cons on stage. Since the rest of the field is so bad though, he still has a great shot at winning Iowa.
Cain- F- FAIL. Seriously you're going to use the argument that Iran is too mountainous in your argument not to support Israel bombing it? I suppose if it were as flat as Kansas it would be ok then?

That was Santorum...

[tmthforu94]

Mitt Romney wins, as usual. When you combine intelligence, whether or not they appear "presidential", and their debating style, Mitt Romney will win almost every time.

[Stardust]

None of them. Even Ron Paul, who I'm most sympathetic to, did quite poorly. They were all pretty uniformly awful, differing only in degree.

[angus]

I thought it was an excellent debate.  And I thought they all performed wonderfully.  This area, foreign policy, is where they really do differ, and it is the one area in which Obama is well regarded.  So in that regard it is perhaps more important, and more interesting, than the other debates.

I voted for Ron Paul in the poll, but I'm probably biased in his favor to begin with, but they all did well.  The only one who came off as less informed was Herman Cain. 

Objectively, if I were to predict their performances as a "typical" Iowa primary voter, with "typical Midwestern values" I'd rank them as follows:

Perry (especially for those voters who haven't followed his blundering history)
Bachmann (She was one stone cold bitch last night.  Well-informed and commanding)
Huntsman (moderated and sober and just scrappy enough but not quite testy)
Gingrich (for reasons I still don't understand, Iowans don't like illegals.  Otherwise he was excellent)
Santorum (Like Gingrich, he'd have also ranked higher, but his whining won't go over well here)
Romney (Probably his worst performance ever; hopefully for him folks didn't just start watching tonight)
Paul (he will seem ideological and decrepit to most Iowans, but his cult will love him even more after last night)
Cain (somebody ought to put him out of his misery)

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Bachmann (She was one stone cold bitch last night.  Well-informed and commanding)

OBAMA OUTSOURCED INTERROGATION TO THE ACLU!

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Bachmann (She was one stone cold bitch last night.  Well-informed and commanding)

OBAMA OUTSOURCED INTERROGATION TO THE ACLU!

Yeah... you've got to be kidding?!

Huntsman - someone who actually knows the detail of what he's talking about... therefore he's screwed in this primary before it starts

Romney - trying a little too much to sound like the tough-guy... plus now I watch thinking... "I wonder when he was for/against this" - actually talked up the US involvement in the Suharto installation in Indonesia... sure they got economic development, but they also got a 30-year dictatorship

Paul - knew what he was talking about, but had ridiculous solutions...Ron, the answer to world poverty is not free-markets...K

Santorum - was compassionate on foreign aid... albeit the dangerous Bush programs which would only given funding to HIV prevention programs that wouldn't advocate condom use...

Gingrich - Like many people who think they're smart, they say a lot, usually argue for the "bigger picture" and direct their answer to talking points - but realistic on Immigration

Bachmann - Not as brain-dead as normal - but seemed upset the rapture might be delayed if Israel isn't backed-up

Perry - see Bachmann... but less impressive than that

Cain - "mountainous region"... that's enough

[Yank2133]

Mitt Romney wins, as usual. When you combine intelligence, whether or not they appear "presidential", and their debating style, Mitt Romney will win almost every time.

I am really puzzled how people can say this with a straight face.

Romney was garbage last night, he was overaggressive and his pandering was so obvious.

[BigSkyBob]

Outside of the immigration question, Next won the debate.  That being said, his answer will hurt him, the question is figuring out how much.  My guess is much less than Perry (and possibly much less) because, oddly enough, Perry had more Republican support at that point, and combined it with an utterly amazing ability to not communicate at the same time (a double-whammy of sorts).  I might as well mention that, on all the issues out there, jmfcst is least reliable as a Republican bellwether on this issue being that he's from Texas.  The Republican base in Texas is in a different world on this one than most other Republican bases (see, e.g., Iowa)

Let me also add the various attempts Romney makes at pandering are beyond bad, and are starting to make me really think that the anti-Romneys might even take a gander at Ron Paul if Newt flames out.  Seriously.  I have never seen anyone as unbelievable as Romney is on this, and I've seen quite a lot.  No wonder he's stuck with the same numbers as always.

As for the others, Cain is once again completely outmatched by normal questioning.  Perry did ok, but tired out before the end (as always).  Ron Paul was Ron Paul.  Bachmann is very good at attacking others in her own way, but brings nothing new to the table.  Huntsman is, of course, an asshole, but performed better in this debate than before.  Santorum, well, who cares...

I think you would be surprised to hear that a decent number on the most conservative sites are coming out in agreement with Newt's answer because it puts such a far out "statute of limitations" that it can't be construed as a magnet. Nobody will come because people who've been here for 20 years are staying and people who've been here for a few years are getting the boot.

So there is some disagreement. But ultimately its still pretty quiet. Conservatives are currently in the middle of a respectful and thought out debate on the topic right now!

At the time of CIR, Newt used the example of someone who was 19, and had been here for three years. That isn't very far out at all.

[angus]

Bachmann - Not as brain-dead as normal - but seemed upset the rapture might be delayed if Israel isn't backed-up

But she didn't really play that record last night, did she?  It's as though someone on her team replayed for her the quote from the previous debate where she referred to Israel's "indefensible" 1967 borders.  Borders which, I might add, Israel defended pretty damn well.  

In fact, all of them, Perry included, seemed to have been sat down in front of cameras and made to listen to the asinine and inaccurate statements they'd made in past debates.

Not that there were no inaccuracies.  (I counted at least 14!)  But imho they all, except Cain, had commanding performances.  Bachmann included.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Bachmann - Not as brain-dead as normal - but seemed upset the rapture might be delayed if Israel isn't backed-up

But she didn't really play that record last night, did she?  It's as though someone on her team replayed for her the quote from the previous debate where she referred to Israel's "indefensible" 1967 borders.  Borders which, I might add, Israel defended pretty damn well.  

In fact, all of them, Perry included, seemed to have been sat down in front of cameras and made to listen to the asinine and inaccurate statements they'd made in past debates.

Not that there were no inaccuracies.  (I counted at least 14!)  But imho they all, except Cain, had commanding performances.  Bachmann included.

I didn't see commanding in any of them... even Huntsman, who I saw as the outstanding performer, looked 'informed and comfortable' - nobody was anywhere close to commanding.