Who won the debate?

[cavalcade]

Last one before Iowa, so I should probably do full grades.

Romney: B.  Did well enough, but didn't we all learn some things tonight about his not-so-conservative record?

Gingrich: B+.  Struggled early and at the end, taking some fire, but owned the stage the whole middle of the debate.  The bleeding may have slowed.

Paul: B-.  Hit his ceiling, hard.  Pray for a blizzard, Paulites.

Perry: B+.  Ever since his campaign started buying Adderall in bulk about a month ago he's actually done okay in debates, and hit some applause lines tonight.  If he'd been this good from the beginning he'd still be the frontrunner.  But I don't think he moved the needle much.

Bachmann: A-.  Winner of the debate, though I guess I'm the only one in the world who thinks so.  I think she's most effective attacking people and she lit up the wounded Newt twice.  She took her opportunity to go strong on Iran.  The "serious candidate" thing was desperate, yes.  But Newt and Mitt just got too much dumped on them for me to say that either of them won.

Santorum: C+.  Oh hey it's that guy.

Huntsman: C+.  Oh hey it's that guy.

[Politico]

I can tell you this right now: The flip-flopping is not going to matter beyond the primaries. It is not going to hurt Romney among independents because independents do not care about abortion.

The flip-flopping accusations hurled at John Kerry hurt him a lot because we were in the midst of a war in Iraq that we were perceived to be losing. Kerry was accused of supporting the war and then not supporting the war. 9/11 was fresh in the minds of voters having occurred just three years prior. The Bin Laden tape came out right before the election. Despite all of this, Kerry came within a 70,000 vote swing in Ohio of winning that election. And this was 2004, back when the economy was actually on solid footing compared to now. And I think we can all agree that Romney is far better looking and far more articulate than John Kerry.

John Kerry's flip-flopping on matters of national security mattered because national security mattered in the 2004 election. Flip-flopping on gay rights and abortion rights is NOT going to matter in the 2012 election. It might matter among some Republican primary goers, but the general electorate only has one thing on its mind: The economy. And that's where Romney is strongest and can really clobber Obama. Force Obama to talk about something substantive regarding economics, and he won't have a leg to stand on. "Spread the wealth around," "hope and change," is not going to get him re-elected.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Ronnie.

[Simfan34]

The anti-Huntsmanism is disgusting.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I voted Paul for substance, but it was Newt as a whole.

Newt Gingrich: A+ Newt Gingrich was great tonight. He has dangerous views on foreign policy, and thankfully will not be the nominee, but he sure can debate.

Mitt Romney A: He was smart in allowing Bachmann to do his dirty work. Otherwise, rather bland and calm.

Rick Perry: B- Decent, his Tebow reference was the most memorable. He is finished after Iowa, unless he receives a miracle.

Jon Huntsman: C+ He performed well, but needs to stay within the allotted time.

Ron Paul: C He gets a A+ in substance, but rambled on, and did not make his mark. He is still a contender in Iowa.

Rick Santorum: F He does not get fair time, but comes across as desperate, and whiny.He has works harder then anyone in Iowa, but is still at 5%. That says alot.

Michelle Bachmann: F "I am a serious candidate sums it up".

[CLARENCE 2015!]

The anti-Huntsmanism is disgusting.

I agree... he is not near my favorite candidate but the fact that he was the only one the moderators cut off showed the bias

[President von Cat]

Clearly Romney. Anybody who believes Gingrich won is engaging in wishful thinking. Sorry Obama supporters, but Gingrich is not going to be Obama's opponent.

Yeah, whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy..

[Politico]

Clearly Romney. Anybody who believes Gingrich won is engaging in wishful thinking. Sorry Obama supporters, but Gingrich is not going to be Obama's opponent.

Yeah, whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy..

I think Gingrich clearly won the previous debate, and thought he was possibly going to be the nominee. I think Romney clearly won tonight and will most likely be the nominee. Cooler heads will prevail.

Obama is toast. I personally like the guy, and think he has done a good job on foreign policy as I expected, but he's gotta go. The markets do not like him, and no wonder.

[Politico]

Politico are you saying Romney is a shoe in for the nomination. You must be looking at different polling than I am.

I am saying Romney will most likely be the nominee. Cooler heads will prevail. This is first and foremost about beating Obama, not getting in a few potshots at the man ala Gingrich. Nobody is a perfect candidate, but Romney is the one who can actually beat Obama (Huntsman has pretty much buried his chances with the GOP). That is why cooler heads will prevail and Romney will be nominated. It might drag on, or maybe he will end it early. That is very much up in the air and depends upon Iowa.

[Politico]

On an unrelated note, am I the only one who found Bachmann particularly attractive tonight? I'd hit it. Or did I have too much to drink earlier?

[qochimodo]

Clearly Romney. Anybody who thinks Gingrich won is engaging in wishful thinking. Sorry Obama supporters, but Gingrich is not going to be Obama's opponent.

Why would we want Gingrich to be Obama's opponent? He's a stronger candidate than Moneybag Mittens...

Who do you think you're kidding? Obama would not have to do any work other than air variants of this ad a million times:

Obama just has to air the Mitt Romney flip-flopping ad a million times and he wins. Maybe sprinkle in a few "Mitt Romney is a Wall Street-loving 1%er" ads with some choice "Corporations are people" and "Let Detroit go bankrupt" clips if you really want to twist the knife.

None of that stuff will work. Mitt is too good-looking, articulate, and his personal history, the fact his parents made him earn his own way (lived in $75/month apartments in college, had to work summer jobs as a security guard, etc.) and the fact Mitt spent at least one day a week working for charities before running for president, does not bode well for your narrative.

Politics heavily favors offense, especially scorched earth elections like the one were heading into. So the idea that Mittens is going to damage the 1% narrative by telling people he earned his own way is asinine, most voters come election day won't have heard any of the defenses your pushing and if they have Mittens is in even more trouble because that would  mean he used an abundance of resources to tell voters he had to do a summer job in college when he should have saved that time for more attacks.

Romney may well win, but if he does it will be because Obama couldn't overcome the economy not because Romney's campaign defensively handled the 1% narrative.

[© tweed]

On an unrelated note, am I the only one who found Bachmann particularly attractive tonight? I'd hit it. Or did I have too much to drink earlier?

I thought she looked uncharacteristically terrible.  and I'm on my 9th beer.

[Politico]

Clearly Romney. Anybody who thinks Gingrich won is engaging in wishful thinking. Sorry Obama supporters, but Gingrich is not going to be Obama's opponent.

Why would we want Gingrich to be Obama's opponent? He's a stronger candidate than Moneybag Mittens...

Who do you think you're kidding? Obama would not have to do any work other than air variants of this ad a million times:

Obama just has to air the Mitt Romney flip-flopping ad a million times and he wins. Maybe sprinkle in a few "Mitt Romney is a Wall Street-loving 1%er" ads with some choice "Corporations are people" and "Let Detroit go bankrupt" clips if you really want to twist the knife.

None of that stuff will work. Mitt is too good-looking, articulate, and his personal history, the fact his parents made him earn his own way (lived in $75/month apartments in college, had to work summer jobs as a security guard, etc.) and the fact Mitt spent at least one day a week working for charities before running for president, does not bode well for your narrative.

Politics heavily favors offense, especially scorched earth elections like the one were heading into. So the idea that Mittens is going to damage the 1% narrative by telling people he earned his own way is asinine, most voters come election day won't have heard any of the defenses your pushing and if they have Mitts in even more trouble because that means he used an abundance of resources to tell voters he had to do a summer job in college when he should have saved that time for more attacks.

Romney may well win, but if he does it will be because Obama couldn't overcome the economy not because Romney's campaign defensively handled the 1% narrative.

It's a storyline about the candidate that people will hear at the convention, and again in the debates if Obama tries to pin the 1% narrative on Romney. It does not apply to Mitt. There's a reason why Romney has held back from talking a lot about his personal life. It is being saved for the real deal for maximum effect. He's actually a great guy, as I am sure Barack Obama is too. They can try to paint Romney as something else, try to make this election about Romney, but it will not work once all of the information is out there and once people are talking amongst themselves about the kind of person Romney really is. Doing plenty of volunteer work without cameras on, long before you even ran for political office, can pay dividends. Being a nice guy who listens even if it does not benefit you in any way can pay dividends. This is not John Kerry we are talking about, as much as Obama would like to think it's going to be that easy to just replicate Bush's 2004 scorched earth campaign.

Ultimately, this whole thing will come down to Obama's record because there is nothing about Romney that can possibly make this about anything other than Obama's record. In other words, this will be a referendum that will be a one-term proposition for the president.

[Simfan34]

On an unrelated note, am I the only one who found Bachmann particularly attractive tonight? I'd hit it. Or did I have too much to drink earlier?

You've had too much to drink.

The anti-Huntsmanism is disgusting.

I agree... he is not near my favorite candidate but the fact that he was the only one the moderators cut off showed the bias

There's a reason he was talking over time- HE DIDN'T GET TO SPEAK FOR NEARLY 40 MINUTES.

[FloridaRepublican]

On an unrelated note, am I the only one who found Bachmann particularly attractive tonight? I'd hit it. Or did I have too much to drink earlier?

No. That was Megyn Kelly.

[qochimodo]

Clearly Romney. Anybody who thinks Gingrich won is engaging in wishful thinking. Sorry Obama supporters, but Gingrich is not going to be Obama's opponent.

Why would we want Gingrich to be Obama's opponent? He's a stronger candidate than Moneybag Mittens...

Who do you think you're kidding? Obama would not have to do any work other than air variants of this ad a million times:

Obama just has to air the Mitt Romney flip-flopping ad a million times and he wins. Maybe sprinkle in a few "Mitt Romney is a Wall Street-loving 1%er" ads with some choice "Corporations are people" and "Let Detroit go bankrupt" clips if you really want to twist the knife.

None of that stuff will work. Mitt is too good-looking, articulate, and his personal history, the fact his parents made him earn his own way (lived in $75/month apartments in college, had to work summer jobs as a security guard, etc.) and the fact Mitt spent at least one day a week working for charities before running for president, does not bode well for your narrative.

Politics heavily favors offense, especially scorched earth elections like the one were heading into. So the idea that Mittens is going to damage the 1% narrative by telling people he earned his own way is asinine, most voters come election day won't have heard any of the defenses your pushing and if they have Mitts in even more trouble because that means he used an abundance of resources to tell voters he had to do a summer job in college when he should have saved that time for more attacks.

Romney may well win, but if he does it will be because Obama couldn't overcome the economy not because Romney's campaign defensively handled the 1% narrative.

It's a defense will hear at the convention, and in the debates if Obama tries to pin the 1% narrative on him. There's a reason why Romney has held back from talking a lot about his personal life. It is being saved for the real deal. He's actually a great guy, as I am sure Barack Obama is too. This whole thing will come down to Obama's record one way or another. In other words, this will be a referendum that will be a one-term proposition for the president.

Isn't it Newt Gingrich who coined the term 80/20 // 20/80 issues?

Raising the Retirement age and keeping billionaires tax rate at 15% (before loopholes) is one of those 20% Agree / 80% Disagree issues that Romney is on the wrong side of so call it wishful thinking if you wish, but come the debates I think Romney's going to wish his problem was that people thought he's some rich kid who was handed everything in life and not that he wants to keep his sub-blue collar tax rate on the millions he makes annually while asking the the average Joe to retire later. Doesn't he want to end the estate tax for rich kids as well?

This election will be about policy and the rich kid angle is just an amplifier of the real meat, the 1% policy platform that the whole GOP is embracing.

[Peeperkorn]

As an international and unbiased forumer, I would say that Ron Paul won.

Gingrich looked corrupt.

Romney was the ideologycal prostitute he has always been.

Huntsman is just a pitchforkmedia/uselectionatlas phenomenon.

Bachmann and Perry are stupid farmers.





 

[Politico]

Bachmann and Perry are stupid farmers.

LOL

You forgot about Santorum, though. Is he the creepy farmers' kid, the lovechild of Bachmann and Perry so to speak, suffering from repressed homosexual desires for Bret Baier? Maybe that's why Santorum makes that funny face every time he speaks...

[Peeperkorn]

Bachmann and Perry are stupid farmers.

LOL

You forgot about Santorum, though. Is he the creepy farmers' kid, the lovechild of Bachmann and Perry so to speak, suffering from repressed homosexual desires for Bret Baier? Maybe that's why Santorum makes that funny face every time he speaks...

Santorum probably has a second life raping male children at night or something like that, you can see it in his eyes.

[Peeperkorn]

Bachmann and Perry are stupid farmers.

LOL

You forgot about Santorum, though. Is he the creepy farmers' kid, the lovechild of Bachmann and Perry so to speak, suffering from repressed homosexual desires for Bret Baier? Maybe that's why Santorum makes that funny face every time he speaks...

Santorum probably has a second life raping male children at night or something like that, you can see it in his eyes.

Well, it would explain the existence of Santorum's supporters, right? That is, they are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome...

They are like the character Tim Robbins played in Mystic River.

[Politico]

Bachmann and Perry are stupid farmers.

LOL

You forgot about Santorum, though. Is he the creepy farmers' kid, the lovechild of Bachmann and Perry so to speak, suffering from repressed homosexual desires for Bret Baier? Maybe that's why Santorum makes that funny face every time he speaks...

Santorum probably has a second life raping male children at night or something like that, you can see it in his eyes.

Well, it would explain the existence of Santorum's supporters, right? That is, they are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome...

They are like the character Tim Robbins played in Mystic River.

Except substitute Philadelphia for Boston, right?

[Peeperkorn]

Bachmann and Perry are stupid farmers.

LOL

You forgot about Santorum, though. Is he the creepy farmers' kid, the lovechild of Bachmann and Perry so to speak, suffering from repressed homosexual desires for Bret Baier? Maybe that's why Santorum makes that funny face every time he speaks...

Santorum probably has a second life raping male children at night or something like that, you can see it in his eyes.

Well, it would explain the existence of Santorum's supporters, right? That is, they are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome...

They are like the character Tim Robbins played in Mystic River.

Except substitute Philadelphia for Boston, right?

Anyway, I won't attack him more because he's the favorite candidate de il mio fratello della Campania.

[M]

Bachmann and Perry are stupid farmers.

LOL

You forgot about Santorum, though. Is he the creepy farmers' kid, the lovechild of Bachmann and Perry so to speak, suffering from repressed homosexual desires for Bret Baier? Maybe that's why Santorum makes that funny face every time he speaks...

Santorum probably has a second life raping male children at night or something like that, you can see it in his eyes.

Well, it would explain the existence of Santorum's supporters, right? That is, they are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome...

They are like the character Tim Robbins played in Mystic River.

Except substitute Philadelphia for Boston, right?

Santorum is connected to Pittsburgh, not Philly.

[Politico]

Bachmann and Perry are stupid farmers.

LOL

You forgot about Santorum, though. Is he the creepy farmers' kid, the lovechild of Bachmann and Perry so to speak, suffering from repressed homosexual desires for Bret Baier? Maybe that's why Santorum makes that funny face every time he speaks...

Santorum probably has a second life raping male children at night or something like that, you can see it in his eyes.

Well, it would explain the existence of Santorum's supporters, right? That is, they are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome...

They are like the character Tim Robbins played in Mystic River.

Except substitute Philadelphia for Boston, right?

Santorum is connected to Pittsburgh, not Philly.

We were talking about Santorum's victim who is suffering from Stockholm syndrome

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I'd rank them as:

Paul
Romney
Bachmann
Gingrich
Huntsman
Perry
Santorum