Who won the debate?

[Lincoln Republican]

I agree Santorum did well, and this will help Romney.

However, I have to say this was a great night for Romney.  He turned in a great performance.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Wolf Blitzer, what with the way he caught Romney with his pants down

[TheGlobalizer]

1.  Paul
2.  Romney
3.  Newt
4.  Santorum

Paul was hilarious and loose; Romney was less robotic and really landed some blows on Newt; Newt did a good job of working out some of the madcap stuff and even made the moonbase sound less crazy; Santorum did well on some attacks but caught a bit of Ron Paul Disease and was talking too fast for his mouth, with too much anger.

There seriously needs to be a South American jihadist drinking game for Santorum.  I mean, seriously, WTF is he talking about?  Also think his strategy to have the moderator ignore Ron Paul by giving Newt and Mitt rebuttal time is becoming a bit obvious.

[Franzl]

Gingrich performed poorly, Romney performed more strongly than normal, Santorum made a good argument for GOP primary voters.

De facto Romney win because Newt didn't win, though.

[tpfkaw]

Santorum was good on attacking Romney over Obamacare, though he probably kept at it too long (better to keep such things short and sweet), and the wife question was a gimme for him, although he came off as completely bonkers on foreign policy (jihadists overrunning South America?  Really?), and his call for civility kinda lost its impact when he launched into a series of obviously rehearsed attacks 45 seconds later or so.  Gingrich and Romney came off as childish in their bickering; though Romney got the better of it (but it was really MAD).  The questions about Gingrich's wacky ideas were awkwardly phrased, which Gingrich took advantage of to make them seem less wacky.  Ron Paul probably talked about ending the Cuba embargo a bit too much, and of course he doesn't have the best diction, but had a few good zingers ("I don't worry about Islamic jihadists under the bed").

All in all, a good debate for Santorum and Paul and a bad one for Gingrich and Romney, which makes Romney the "winner" by default.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Paul had the best debate means Paul won not Mittens or the neofauxcons. This primary is going to the convention floor.

[Joe Republic]

Paul had the best debate means Paul won not Mittens or the neofauxcons. This primary is going to the convention floor.

I get the impression you're going to keep shilling for Paul long after he's dropped out, and the convention passes without incident, aren't you?

[Keystone Phil]

1.  Paul
2.  Romney
3.  Newt
4.  Santorum

It's like this dude is literally begging to not be taken seriously. Like, not even considering his placement of Santorum in last place, the guy has Paul above Romney.

[J. J.]

Santorum won.  Which means Romney did.

What struck me most is that I'm going to have to amend my earlier statement of Romney supporters to include that they must have no brain either.  There were at least three or four times during that debate that he directly lied, and he got called out on it once, of course.  It's one thing for politicians to play around with the truth - they always do that.  It's quite another to completely and shamelessly lie - no wonder those with a brain don't believe anything he says.

The only one I saw was the commercial, and he flipped it right back at Gingrich.

You weren't listening then, no doubt thinking about how smart you are.

That was the only one I saw him called on.

[Torie]

It is hard to argue Mittens did not win, when he finished Newt off. The Republic is now safer.

[Phony Moderate]

It is hard to argue Mittens did not win, when he finished Newt off. The Republic is now safer.

Especially your ilk.

[Averroës Nix]

1.  Paul
2.  Romney
3.  Newt
4.  Santorum

It's like this dude is literally begging to not be taken seriously. Like, not even considering his placement of Santorum in last place, the guy has Paul above Romney.

It's not worth getting angry about.

[Eraserhead]

Ended up not watching it but the post-debate coverage indicates a Romney landslide. Dammit.

[Oakvale]

Santorum was by far the best, which means, I guess, Romney won. Ugh.

[TheGlobalizer]

1.  Paul
2.  Romney
3.  Newt
4.  Santorum

It's like this dude is literally begging to not be taken seriously. Like, not even considering his placement of Santorum in last place, the guy has Paul above Romney.

It's not worth getting angry about.

You just won the 2012 election.  The internet is yours.

To address Phil's idiotic comment, it's worth noting that I thought Santorum actually did quite well in the previous debate.  In this one, he came off as tired, agitated, and his attacks seemed overly forced and went on too long.  He didn't participate in the candidate lovefest that rest participated in (even Ron Paul in his own way, which is to basically giggle when he talks about sending them to the moon).  Rick is always grimacing, but when he's agitated and always on the attack (and then says crazy stuff about South American jihadists) I think he provides ample basis to look at him as a fringe, lower-tier candidate.  I don't think he won many new supporters last night.  Dude needs to work on being poised and presidential rather than simply a one-note culture warrior militarist.  He rambled on about pet issues and rehashed the same Obamacare lines about Newt and Romney that have already been digested by much of the electorate.

Paul, on the other hand, *is* a fringe lower-tier candidate, and knows it.  His baseline is low, and this debate more than any other demonstrated how he's learning to play against type.  He still rambles a bit, he still makes incomplete references that only his sycophants will understand, he still seems like a strange, awkward old man.  But all it takes is a few zingers ("looking for jihadists under the bed", "send some politicians to the moon") and an affable personality to keep him in the discussion.  He still has a lot of work to do to become mainstream accessible, but he's improving his delivery with every debate.  Also in my analysis - he wasn't appealing to Florida voters, because he DOES NOT CARE.  That debate was about Maine, Nevada, Colorado, etc. for him, and it let him address Florida issues from a non-Florida perspective, whereas the other candidates were forced to appeal to the locals at the expense of the nationals.

Romney and Gingrich are your typical frontrunners, and Romney clearly won that battle.  He attacked at times, was conciliatory at times, and reflected that the GOP is a party that's in it together to defeat Obama.  He did get dirty early on with the advertising battles with Newt, but came out ahead thereafter.  Newt was functionally tied with Santorum, but I think he did enough to mute the "crazy Newt" conversation that it worked to his advantage.

I just don't think Santorum did much at all to make his case last night, which is strange because his main obstacle (Newt) is such a profoundly flawed candidate.

[TJ in Oregon]

1.  Paul
2.  Romney
3.  Newt
4.  Santorum

It's like this dude is literally begging to not be taken seriously. Like, not even considering his placement of Santorum in last place, the guy has Paul above Romney.

Don't even bother. The Globalizer has already said he will never defend Santorum regardless of what he says or what is said about him, so let a hack be a hack. And he's put Santorum in last! So shocking! Ron Paul could go on stage reciting his racist newsletters and The Globalizer would probably still say he won the debate, not that Paul did any of that last night.

[Keystone Phil]

LOL at The Globalizer being critical of a candidate that focuses on "pet issues." Again, he is an admitted joke poster.

[TheGlobalizer]

LOL at The Globalizer being critical of a candidate that focuses on "pet issues." Again, he is an admitted joke poster.

Of course Ron Paul focuses on pet issues.  It's his whole goddamn campaign.  Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are not the same guy and are not running the same campaign.  Rick Santorum's pet issues have virtually zero resonance with the broader electorate, and where they do have some resonance, Newt makes the same case in more grandiloquent terms.

As of today, Santorum has no path, barring a Newt drop-out, which is rather unlikely.

[TheGlobalizer]

1.  Paul
2.  Romney
3.  Newt
4.  Santorum

It's like this dude is literally begging to not be taken seriously. Like, not even considering his placement of Santorum in last place, the guy has Paul above Romney.

Don't even bother. The Globalizer has already said he will never defend Santorum regardless of what he says or what is said about him, so let a hack be a hack. And he's put Santorum in last! So shocking! Ron Paul could go on stage reciting his racist newsletters and The Globalizer would probably still say he won the debate, not that Paul did any of that last night.

Read my recent follow-up post.  I thought Santorum did great in the last debate.

Whether or not I consider a candidate to be the Worst Person Ever^TM is not dispositive of my view of their debate performance.  I base my views on the relative improvement a candidate makes in their overall electoral prospects through the debate.  Santorum did almost nothing to improve his chances last night, IMO.  Any Gingrich supporters he peeled off (through attacks / militarist rhetoric) are likely to be offset by those lost to Romney (the more calm, stable, poised candidate).

[Keystone Phil]

Santorum has no path to the nomination but Paul does, right, Globalizer? Again...joke poster.

[TheGlobalizer]

Santorum has no path to the nomination but Paul does, right, Globalizer? Again...joke poster.

As of today?  Yes.  Microscopic, but there are breakout opportunities and contrasts.  Extremely unlikely.

There is virtually nothing Santorum could do to have an actionable path without shooting Newt in the head.  Please, tell me which of these states Santorum could win, and how:

Florida
Nevada
Maine
Colorado
Minnesota
Missouri
Arizona
Michigan
Washington
Alaska
Georgia
Idaho
Massachusetts
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia

The ones in bold are the only ones where I see a Santorum path that could overcome Newt.  He needs states with a large, conservative middle class and a manufacturing base, that are not in the south or the de facto south.

The ones in italics are where Paul could make an impact, and that impact could distort the race to give some primacy to his campaign and make it a three-way race.  He thrives in states that have an independent streak and are moderate on the right, and caucus states.

But, keep spouting the unsupported personal attacks, bro.

[TJ in Oregon]

1.  Paul
2.  Romney
3.  Newt
4.  Santorum

It's like this dude is literally begging to not be taken seriously. Like, not even considering his placement of Santorum in last place, the guy has Paul above Romney.

Don't even bother. The Globalizer has already said he will never defend Santorum regardless of what he says or what is said about him, so let a hack be a hack. And he's put Santorum in last! So shocking! Ron Paul could go on stage reciting his racist newsletters and The Globalizer would probably still say he won the debate, not that Paul did any of that last night.

Read my recent follow-up post.  I thought Santorum did great in the last debate.

Whether or not I consider a candidate to be the Worst Person Ever^TM is not dispositive of my view of their debate performance.  I base my views on the relative improvement a candidate makes in their overall electoral prospects through the debate.  Santorum did almost nothing to improve his chances last night, IMO.  Any Gingrich supporters he peeled off (through attacks / militarist rhetoric) are likely to be offset by those lost to Romney (the more calm, stable, poised candidate).

Okay, that makes sense as a way to rate Santorum lower from the debate, but you can't use that logic and say Ron Paul won because he also did nothing to improve his chances last night. If that's your metric, then Romney is the clear winner, Gingrich is the clear loser, and Paul and Santorum are the middle two (I'd say Santorum would benefit more than Paul because a Gingrich decline would likely benefit him, but that's splitting hairs).

[Keystone Phil]

The Globalizer somehow forgets to mention Pennsylvania. You can't make this up. Really.

[TheGlobalizer]

1.  Paul
2.  Romney
3.  Newt
4.  Santorum

It's like this dude is literally begging to not be taken seriously. Like, not even considering his placement of Santorum in last place, the guy has Paul above Romney.

Don't even bother. The Globalizer has already said he will never defend Santorum regardless of what he says or what is said about him, so let a hack be a hack. And he's put Santorum in last! So shocking! Ron Paul could go on stage reciting his racist newsletters and The Globalizer would probably still say he won the debate, not that Paul did any of that last night.

Read my recent follow-up post.  I thought Santorum did great in the last debate.

Whether or not I consider a candidate to be the Worst Person Ever^TM is not dispositive of my view of their debate performance.  I base my views on the relative improvement a candidate makes in their overall electoral prospects through the debate.  Santorum did almost nothing to improve his chances last night, IMO.  Any Gingrich supporters he peeled off (through attacks / militarist rhetoric) are likely to be offset by those lost to Romney (the more calm, stable, poised candidate).

Okay, that makes sense as a way to rate Santorum lower from the debate, but you can't use that logic and say Ron Paul won because he also did nothing to improve his chances last night. If that's your metric, then Romney is the clear winner, Gingrich is the clear loser, and Paul and Santorum are the middle two (I'd say Santorum would benefit more than Paul because a Gingrich decline would likely benefit him, but that's splitting hairs).

It would really be more accurate to say Paul/Romney tied and Gingrich/Santorum tied.  Paul's boost is by coming off as more personable and delivering quotable lines - I've already seen multiple media cites of both the "politicians to the moon" and "jihadists under the bed" quotes.  I'm not counting the boost that will come from winning FL, as I consider that to be a slam dunk for Romney, but will favorably affect his national numbers and numbers in upcoming primaries.

To be honest, I'm not sure a Gingrich decline helps Santorum much.  We're approaching primary season fatigue, and I think the conservative base is done with the spastic vacillating between champions.

Just my opinions.  As much as I hate Santorum, I think he presents well, but he's just not hitting the home runs he needs to hit.

[TheGlobalizer]

The Globalizer somehow forgets to mention Pennsylvania. You can't make this up. Really.

Pennsylvania follows all of those states.  Do you really think he's going to stroll through 20 consecutive losses just to get to his competitive home state?

Regardless:

"Yes, Phil.  Santorum can win Pennsylvania.  Congrats, Phil."