The Official Fox News/Google Debate Discussion Thread

[Averroës Nix]

Pre-debate coverage is casting this as a big Romney-Perry confrontation and barely mentioning the other candidates, and after the chaotic free-for-all that was the CNN/Tea Party debate, I hope that this expectation is accurate.

[Averroës Nix]

For some people, Ron Paul would be considered to have a "bad performance" regardless of what he says or how much support he gains.

Well, he has a tendency to seem like he's ranting: he goes on tangents that seem off-topic, he gets visibly over-excited when he talks about his favorite issues, and he refers to concepts and arguments that most debate viewers probably have no familiarity with. And his esoteric positions are bound to cause him trouble, no matter how well he can explain himself. Regardless of the merits of his positions, he sounds loopy to the uninitiated.

Paul is also really poorly endowed with regard to almost all of the superficial qualities that have been shown to influence voters (poor posture, waves his arms wildly when he talks, wispy stature, high pitched voice that frequently cracks, talks really fast). He'd perform better if he didn't suffer from these disadvantages.

[Averroës Nix]

But that's exactly why he did better at this debate compared to the others!

Usually he has a way of going on a long winded rant when asked a question. This time, his first question was answered very briefly and concisely, which he was then invited to expand on. He laid out the most important points and he said them clearly rather than endlessly extrapolate until reaching "The Federal Reserve is the problem!".

I forgot to indicate my agreement with you on this point in my previous post. In my opinion, this was Paul's best debate performance yet. He lacked any really great moments (I guess he should have plagiarized a joke or told a personal story that totally misrepresented actual policy if he wanted one), but he looked polished and professional and managed to answer every question succinctly and directly.

[Averroës Nix]

Anyway, he was aiming less for "Ron Paul sticks it to the man again!" and more trying to present himself in a way that doesn't alienate Republican voters. Considering the only negativity I have heard about his performance was along the lines of "Well, Ron Paul doesn't count for anything because he can't win because I say so", making it a good sign.

His campaign definitely seems to have adopted a different tone, and this was the first debate in which his performance reflected this change. But there's still plenty of daylight between Paul and most primary voters on foreign policy and social issues, his spirited and effective defense of his pro-life credentials aside.

Imagine Perry imploding and Ron Paul suddenly surging to 25% in polls. Can you imagine how Paul would stand up to the kind of volleys that Romney, Santorum, and Bachmann would undoubtedly send his way both in and out of the debates? (Admittedly, it'd be difficult to perform worse than Perry in the debates, at least.) Think about endorsements, too: How many Republican senators and governors would be willing to publicly support Paul?

[Averroës Nix]

The Reagan from that era would have destroyed any of the current 2012 Republican candidates in a debate.

Any idea what the factors are behind this change in candidate quality?