Official Discussion Thread for Tonight's GOP Presidential Debate

[Wonkish1]

Best Debate of the Year Not Even Close.

Now maybe you guys can help me by brainstorming the best way for Fox and CNN to get the message that 1 minute answers suck and candidates are capable of asking each other questions.

It took the little network Bloomberg to just destroy the model of all the other major networks.

[Peeperkorn]

Interview with Cain now:

40 seconds, 4 "9 9 9".

[Averroës Nix]

Best Debate of the Year Not Even Close.

Now maybe you guys can help me by brainstorming the best way for Fox and CNN to get the message that 1 minute answers suck and candidates are capable of asking each other questions.

It took the little network Bloomberg to just destroy the model of all the other major networks.

Agreed. Would have preferred podiums, but the format worked very well otherwise.

[All Along The Watchtower]

tracking...what happened?

I didn't watch it, but according to someone I know who did...
 
Romney: campaign has shot up
Perry: campaign has died
Bachmann: same spot as Perry
Others: roughly in same spot as before

[angus]

I missed 2nd half. what happened?

Questions dodged.

Jokes made.

Some were even funny.

Nine.  Nine.  Nine.



Oh, and Ron Paul cut into your boy Herman Cain.  (You understand that I'd call him "your boy" regardless of his ethnicity.  Just want to clear that up before someone starts a thread about it.)  

But overall, the candidates were all more impressive than they had been in the past.  Maybe it was the format.  Or the fact that it was run by a PBS talking head instead of a Fox or CNN one.  

[NHI]

Romney: A+
Gingrich: B
Cain: C
Bachmann: C-
Santorum: D+
Huntsman: D
Paul: D-
Perry: F

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

i love the cute lady and the old man who looks like Royal Tennanbaum doing the post-debate show

[Peeperkorn]

Romney: A+
Gingrich: B
Cain: C
Bachmann: C-
Santorum: D+
Huntsman: D
Paul: D-
Perry: F

So do you like Romney.

[Peeperkorn]

i love the cute lady and the old man who looks like Royal Tennanbaum doing the post-debate show

Political Scientists dress like that.

[Wonkish1]

Romney: A+
Gingrich: B
Cain: C
Bachmann: C-
Santorum: D+
Huntsman: D
Paul: D-
Perry: F

This is almost dead on!

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

tracking...what happened?

I didn't watch it, but according to someone I know who did...
 
Romney: campaign has shot up
Perry: campaign has died
Bachmann: same spot as Perry
Others: roughly in same spot as before

Paul: going up
Romney: shows how formittible he is
Cain: stabilized at third behind Paul and Romney

Perry: thanks for playing. Now go back to Texas and cut taxes
Bachamann: nice way to smack Cain
Gingrich, Huntsman, Santorum: where were you guys

[M]

i love the cute lady and the old man who looks like Royal Tennanbaum doing the post-debate show

She is pretty cute, but she's no Julianna.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I missed 2nd half. what happened?

Oh, and Ron Paul cut into your boy Herman Cain.  (You understand that I'd call him "your boy" regardless of his ethnicity.  Just want to clear that up before someone starts a thread about it.)  

[izixs]

I skipped the watch party and hung out with my dad instead to watch it.

My reaction is:

Bachmann was the first to hit the 'totally full of crap' limit with claiming 75% taxes could be in people's future.
Everyone likes asking Romney questions, which makes Romney look better as he gets to talk more.
Newt was very bored.
Huntsman is trying to figure out if he wants to keep up with playing to the crazy crowd or destroy Romney... either option won't work so he's trying both.
Cain doesn't understand economics or government.
Newt understands government but no one cares.
Paul likes to front load his question the most.
Paul also needed a tin foil hat.
Perry who?
Santorum likes gas.

[Roemerista]

Bachmann is STILL talking about the Iowa straw poll...

[cavalcade]

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.

[Wonkish1]

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.

Not bad!!

[Roemerista]

Perhaps my favorite part was how shocked/happy Huntsman looked when people laughed at his Cain joke.

[M]

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.

Not bad!!

Agreed, good analysis! Maybe just a bissel generous for my tastes, but certainly better than anything I'll read on RCP tomorrow morning.

[All Along The Watchtower]

So it's gonna be Romney.

[CatoMinor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MLry6Cn_D4

[mondale84]

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...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

They just "fact checked" the 999 plan, and said it comes up with "only" 2 Trillion. only 200 Billion less than current revenue? that's a lot closer to target than I thought.

[Wonkish1]

Bloomberg has a great debate, but before and now after its just, "We're going to attack the GOP candidates at every chance we can."

How anybody can't see obvious bias at this $hit is just unbelievable.

[Roemerista]

They just "fact checked" the 999 plan, and said it comes up with "only" 2 Trillion. only 200 Billion less than current revenue? that's a lot closer to target than I thought.

The "fact checking" on that was some of the laziest reporting I have ever seen.