Is it right to say there's no clear winner, and the GOP is in chaos right now?

[Blue3]

Is it right to say there's no clear winner after the main debate, and the GOP is in chaos right now?

That's what I thought immediately during and after the debate, but I figured I'd give it more time, and the aftermath makes me think it's even more chaotic than I initially thought.

[Mehmentum]

Yes, the GOP field is in chaos right now.  There is no frontrunner. 

While Trump leads massively in the polls, its obviously unsustainable. 

Bush and Walker are both polling well but have major weaknesses as candidates. 

Rubio has high favorables yet seems to be nobody's first choice (though might make a good consensus candidate).

Cruz, Huckabee, Carson, and Paul will have a hard time appealing to a broad enough swath of the party.  The same is true for Christie and Kasich. 

Fiorina is a wildcard, it seems like she might be rising, and could cast out one of the poorer polling candidates.

[Torie]

No. Silly. Chaos would be a situation where there are a bunch of losers that hate each other running, lashing out at each other as unfit, or a situation where Trump looks like, absent the establish taking off the gloves, and loading the dice, he might be the nominee, taking down a host of Pubs down ballot.

[Likely Voter]

I guess the fact that there is no traditional establishment frontrunner means it is 'chaos' but the race looks the way most open Democratic contests looked.

I think the next phase for the GOP will be with a whole bunch of candidates bunched together in the 10% range, maybe as many as 5. So things may be even more 'chaotic' than they are now.

[Kingpoleon]

The former? Yes. The latter? No.

It isn't in chaos - the serious primary fielding has just begun, and most voters start paying attention when the media starts covering early primary states - something the general populace can grasp.

Also: "Chaos" this early is a lot like the Democratic field forty years ago. They did okay in the election.