Romney: A-. Co-winner of the debate. Did well, especially in playing to the establishment audience. This economic debate was his home turf, so to speak, and he had ready, complex responses to everything. Extra credit: for really the first time, he spent a lot of time talking, and for the first time I am pretty sure he would beat Obama in the debates.
Cain: A-. Co-winner of the debate. Survived attacks much better than Perry or Bachmann did- I don’t really see any reason for him to lose standing in the polls. Some confusing answers (secret economic advisors, secret Fed chairman nominees) but it will all play well in Iowa. Also, I don't think he terrified the establishment.
Perry: B. His best debate thus far, easily. If he had done this well in other debates he would probably still be the frontrunner. Trying to, like Cain, build his economic message around a single issue (energy exploration). But didn't participate and didn’t gain any ground- just didn’t lose any.
Paul: B-. Didn’t get much time here. And when he did, it was all Federal Reserve, gold standard, the usual. Many of the other Republicans have moved into these policy spaces.
Bachmann: B-. Again, much much less effective when she is not attacking.
Gingrich: B. Energetic, as usual. Wonky with sound bites, as usual. Faded away in the second half a bit.
Huntsman: B-. Again, no flash, didn’t stand out except to the people who already like him. A lot of unnecessary moderation, especially on China.
Santorum: B+. Not a lot of time, again. But when he spoke, it seemed like conservatives should like what he’s saying- I still don’t see why conservatives aren’t giving him more attention.
Charlie Rose/Bloomberg: A-. Co-winner of the debate (hey, it's Dartmouth, we can have some grade inflation). Needs no explanation.
Don't even talk about grade deflation...
