Mitt Romney: Because he’s the true front-runner, Romney didn’t have to win last night’s debate in order to win last night’s debate. But he won in both senses. Throughout the night, Romney gave compelling, conservative, and well-crafted answers. And oddly (perhaps because of Herman Cain’s troubles and Rick Perry’s massive gaffe), Romney didn’t have to play much defense Wednesday night. Just as his poll numbers continue to crawl upwards, Romney’s public speaking and his debating are improving over the course of the primary.
If you were to rank the eight candidates on stage in terms of rhetorical skill, knowledge of the issues, and the conservative appeal of their arguments, Romney would be tops or near the top in all three categories, Wednesday night more than ever. When the moderator asked Romney a dumb question about Cain’s character, Romney handled it with grace that endeared him to the base. The man has serious issues with the primary electorate, but it’s easy to forget that during the debates — especially when his rivals fail to attack him.
Newt Gingrich: Objectively, Newt continues to be the best debater, and the candidate most willing (and able) to call out moderators on questions that are stupid or unfair (“Explain your version of health-care reform in 30 seconds!”). He understands the issues better than any candidate on the stage, and articulates his arguments better, too. With the impending fall of Herman Cain, he seems better-positioned to take advantage than say, Santorum.
It would be easier to take his candidacy seriously if he were operating an actual presidential campaign. Newt was on Sean Hannity’s radio show earlier Wednesday promoting his new novel.
Rick Perry: If anyone had suggested, before this debate, that anything could take the focus off the Herman Cain sexual harassment allegations, we wouldn’t have believed it. It happened, though, when Perry had one of the worst moments in the history of American political debates.
If Perry didn’t already have a reputation for his inability to articulate himself, his stumble wouldn’t be so devastating. His early answers were nearly all garbled talking points, which seemed less than promising from the start. He failed to attack Mitt Romney when he had to, considering his status as a serious underdog at the beginning of the debate. He had already proven largely incapable of harnessing GOP voters’ discontent with the idea of Romney as the nominee.
But the real self-immolation occurred when Perry forgot one of the three federal agencies he wanted to abolish. It was an incident on par with George W. Bush’s famous (yet less consequential) choke during a 2004 debate against John Kerry. As an isolated incident, Perry’s terrible moment might not have been so bad. But as the climax of a terrible pattern of debating incompetence, it was devastating. Perry still has some money, but his campaign was already on life support before last night. Thursday morning, Perry did a decent job spinning this into a humanizing moment. He’ll have to do this very well if he wants to raise another dime.
Herman Cain: It’s a rare man who receives a stay of execution from Gov. Rick Perry. Cain was a lucky man, benefitting last night from both distraction and the same sort of media malpractice that has helped him throughout the harassment allegations. Perry’s headline-stealing gaffe took Cain out of the spotlight, and the moderator helped Cain by pointlessly asking Romney about Cain’s character.
But on substance, Cain is still thin. He finally elicited audience laughter for answering “9-9-9” once again. Staying on-message has its value, but with Cain, it’s becoming a joke — and a joke that plays into suspicions he lacks real policy knowledge.
Ron Paul: Whereas Herman Cain has a three-digit answer for every question, Ron Paul’s answers boil down to three words, “End the Fed.” He was more coherent than ever before Wednesday night, and when you combine his actual understanding of economics with his near-unique honesty, Paul was the best positioned to give serious answers on housing and student debt. The housing issue was most interesting, because Paul drew Romney out of his artful dodge, and got Romney to (almost explicitly) reject the very-CNBC premise that rising housing prices are always good and falling housing prices are evidently bad. It was one of the handful of ways in which Paul is steadily moving the GOP in his direction.
Michele Bachmann: She continues to prefer boilerplate conservative attacks on President Obama to any real innovations or challenges to the other candidates. She basically eats up valuable debate time — though mercifully not too much.
Rick Santorum: Santorum constantly reminds voters that his experience matters — as with his early involvement in the issue of medical savings accounts and his understanding of the reconciliation process (for repealing Obamacare). He has worked Iowa harder than any other candidate. His message of income mobility is a strong one. Were he to do better in the caucuses than, say, Ron Paul, he could become the actual anti-Romney. It is difficult to see this happening, though.
Jon Hunstman: The Huntsman candidacy still doesn’t quite make sense. The media want him to be the liberal in the group, but he’s running as a conservative. he wants to be the idea guy in the group, but Paul, Gingrich, and maybe even Romney have him beat on that score. As an Obama-administration defector, he could be the strongest anti-Obama guy, but he’s not playing that angle, either. Do we need to just play this out until he finishes third or worse in New Hampshire?
