Who won the debate?

[Phony Moderate]

Only Huntsman, Paul and Romney talked anything close to sense.

[Torie]

Mittens had a good night. The fact that I am not in love with his robust military plans, and in particular his love of boats (we can't afford it) is neither here nor there. He will be constrained to dial back on that anyway, if he becomes POTUS. It's just chatter.

I am more confident than ever that Romney will secure the nomination. Newt's jihad btw against Marbury v. Madison is really disturbing to me. But then I am a lawyer, and perhaps more sensitive to such lacunae, or what presumably is lacunae to a majority of folks out there on the Fruited Plain.

[redcommander]

Romney A
Huntsman B+
Perry B
Paul B-
Bachmann C+
Gingrich C
Santorum C-

Overall none of them were major fails, but Gingrich is going to continue to bleed support.

[BigSkyBob]

It wasn't a forensic debate where the "winner" is the type of speaker whom would be most likely to persuade a jury hand-selected to be as low-IQ as possible to find their guilty client "not guilty."
This debate was a chance for Republican candidates to woe enough caucus and primary voters to further their election chances. The "winner" was the person whom boosted his chances the most. That would have been either Perry, or Bachmann.

Romney would have "won" if running out the clock was his goal. He's behind in Iowa, and did little, if anything, to boost his vote total in Iowa. Gingrich was brilliant on the offense, but, was beaten up badly. Paul raised his floor, and lowered his ceiling. That ceiling is too low for him to win. Santorum and Huntsman did well enough to help themselves. But, neither did well enough to help themselves enough, nor did the people ahead of them do poorly enough lose their leads over the pair.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Gingrich had a rather poor first part of the debate, but his second half was good. Paul's first half was great, but while his foreign policy argument was entirely rational, whether it helps his chances or kills them depends on how many Dems and indies are willing to crossover and how many Republicans either don't care or now agree with him on foreign policy. Romney was a fairly steady constant.

So I'd reckon Romney won it.

[Reaganfan]

Saw the debate after the fact, and clearly Romney dominated. His response about Obama's policy of "pretty please" made me legitimately laugh. Might be the first time Romney ever said anything that truly made this Republican belly chuckle.

[TheGlobalizer]

Interesting how many here are boiling in personal feelings.

In terms of the point of the debate (to possibly convert voters) I'd give the edge to Huntsman.  He was actually in Iowa, got more applause for his answers than usual and sounded very polished.

Gingrich may have stopped some of the bleeding, but I think he's still on his way down.

Romney was a push.  Bachmann and Santorum continue to slide.

Paul?  Win some, lose some.  His earnestness re: Iran and war may be very refreshing to some, but may alienate "Empire America" socons that were supporting him on small government/social grounds.  A push, but a weird one.  He sounded a lot more poised than usual.

I'd probably say:

1.  Huntsman
2 (tie).  Paul, Gingrich
3.  Romney
4 (tie).  Santorum, Bachmann

No real major winners or losers, though.  For me, most curious thing will be watching Paul's numbers change (up, down, nothing?), and to see if Huntsman rises above blip status in IA.