The first Republican debate was a stellar show. The moderators asked questions that were neither softballs nor gotchas. It helped illuminate the Republican field.
The biggest winner of the day, by a mile, was former HP CEO Carly Fiorina. Below are all the 17 top GOP candidates, in order of their likelihood of winning the nomination, following Thursday night’s debates.
Walker: Scott Walker’s early lead evaporated long ago, but he’s still positioned very well in the primary. In Thursday night’s debate, he came across as more honest and relatable than the other candidates, as he usually does.
He got only a few opportunities to tout his record as one “who fights and wins,” as he put it. He didn’t help himself too much, but if there were viewers who had never seen him before, he made a positive first impression.
Bush: Jeb Bush did not do very well in the debate. He looked nervous, repeatedly stumbling. Occasionally, he seemed to have been caught off guard. He also received tougher questions than most candidates, including on No Child Left Behind.
He finally worked up a coherent answer about the Iraq War his brother began, but it wasn’t a great answer. He will need to improve his debate performance to hang in.
Rubio: Marco Rubio won the prime time debate. He came across as serious, well-informed and likable. He is very smooth on his feet and moving when speaking from a speech.
Every answer Rubio gave was good. He had zero missteps, and he parlayed a tough question on abortion into a homerun, lamenting the “barbarism” of our current abortion regime. If there was any question about whether Rubio belonged in the very top echelon of candidates, it was wiped out Thursday night.
Christie: Chris Christie was tough — mostly picking fights with Rand Paul, but also in defending his record as governor. At one point, there was a flashback to 2008, with Christie playing the hawkish Rudy Giuliani to Rand Paul’s impression of Ron Paul.
Christie typically comes across as supremely confident and decently competent. The crowded field muted that impression. But Christie probably didn’t hurt himself — unless it was by pumping up Rand Paul, giving Paul an opportunity to stick up for civil liberties.
Fiorina: Carly Fiorina, unsurprisingly, won the undercard debate hands down. It was undisputed. She was actually the biggest winner of the whole evening.
She came across as serious, sharp and relentless. She made a credible case that she is the best candidate to go after Hillary Clinton.
Frankly, Fiorina seemed smarter and more direct than the other candidates on stage.
“Hillary Clinton lies,” she began her closing statement. “We need a nominee who is not going to pull any punch.” This is harsh language, but it’s also true. She says things that can both rally the base and appeal to the thoughtful independent voter.
Her name recognition was desperately low. Her strong performance will cause a large spike in the polls. She could easily be on the main stage in future debates, and if she fares well against the big boys, she’ll be in the mix. In any event, she has moved into the attention of the media and Republican voters. And by all accounts, she has the ability to take on the other top-tier candidates.
Paul: Rand Paul was the fighter of the field, going out of his way to battle Trump, and not shying from a brawl with Christie.
Paul had promised to “mix it up,” and he did — to his benefit. Paul needs attention, given his flagging fundraising.
If there was a negative, he seemed a little too frenetic in his battles. While his blows on Christie and Trump were good, none were stellar. It’s truly a split decision as to who won in Christie-vs-Paul.
Kasich: John Kasich acquitted himself well after a rough first hour. The Ohio governor began the debate by defending his Medicaid expansion, and in his other early answers seemed over-caffeinated.
Kasich is used to being the most bombastic guy on stage — a committee chairman and a governor. When dwarfed by Trump and Christie and surrounded by top-tier politicians, he at times looked out of his league.
But he began to distinguish himself with his discussion of gay marriage — about opposing it, but respecting all people — and after that performed well. Nothing Kasich did Thursday will help him very much, but he showed promise.
Cruz: Ted Cruz, who can dominate a small crowd and enrapture a crowd, seemed shrunken — even physically smaller — in this debate. There were three other bombasts (Trump, Christie, and Kasich), plus characters (Paul and Huckabee), in addition to the other bodies.
Cruz ended strong — when he was allowed to basically speechify. But can he do anything other than speechify?
Perry: Rick Perry is a successful politician, a successful governor and a good speaker. He is not a very good debater.
By some measures, he was the second-best performer in the undercard debate. But having run for president before, having been the four-term governor of the largest Republican state, he should have done better — was expected to do better. He was the high school senior running in the J.V. track meet, and he got beat.
Perry has the skills to crack into the top tier. He didn’t do that Thursday night, though.
Santorum: Rick Santorum is a middling debater. In a crowded field, running as a retread, middling debate skills won’t do much. Santorum didn’t do anything wrong Thursday, and he probably finished fourth in the undercard debate.
Huckabee: Mike Huckabee, as always, was likable as he dished out his strong views. But he sits in single-digits in the polls in a year where voters aren’t giving retread candidates much love.
Jindal: Bobby Jindal argues forcefully, and energetically, especially compared to the others. But he needs at some point to distinguish himself. Thursday night didn’t do that.
Trump: Donald Trump was as bombastic as you would have expected, for better and for worse.
For his die-hard fans, Trump’s attacks on Fox hosts Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace will only prove that Fox hosts are MSM RINOs. To the Trumpkins, his preposterous statements (such as his claim that immigration was a non-issue until he began talking about Mexicans raping people) are just tough truths.
For the undecided, Trump had a complicated performance — at times sublime (his Rosie O’Donnell joke), and at times absurd. He is an entertainer, but clearly unversed in policy. He may be smart enough to study up before his next debate, and to pick his fights more wisely. If he does, he’ll continue to wreak havoc. If not, he’ll disappear.
Carson: Likable. Clearly smart. Didn’t make a big impression. Didn’t show a deep knowledge of the issues. On foreign policy looked out of his league.
Pataki: Pataki is a good politician, and he still has some of his skills left. He got a chance to tout his record in New York, which he successfully painted as a positive.
His lines about 9/11 and about defeating Mario Cuomo (who is now dead), highlighted how old he is and how long ago he governed.
Pataki handled the abortion question masterfully, but his low name-ID, and the lack of GOP appetite for a true moderate Republican (as opposed to an establishment-type such as Christie or Bush) will hurt him.
Gilmore: Jim Gilmore is barely part of the Republican field, and he was barely part of the first debate. Bragging about offices he held when most of today’s voters were too young to vote, and trying to share some 9/11 glory, Gilmore was the poor-man’s George Pataki.
It’s hard to see him going anywhere.
Graham: Lindsey Graham looked and sounded as if he were dying. He was a boring, single-issue candidate — even the abortion question yielded an answer about ISIS.
He is running for president for one purpose: To challenge Rand Paul on stage about foreign policy. Placed in the undercard debate, and thus deprived of the opportunity to confront Paul in person, Graham had no reason to be there.
