PhoenixDark said:
Romney went in the debate as the front runner and came out the front runner. The poor moderation and questions allowed him to escape untouched as two other main candidates - Bachman and Pawlenty - tore into each other. Pawlenty had a good performance overall but was brought down by Bachman's sheer insanity. Whereas someone like Palin stumbles through talking points, Bachman repeats them with cold efficiency regardless of reason, facts, or logic - and the audience loves it. Interestingly multiple candidates accused Bachman of making ridiculous statements.
But while Romney won by the conventional litmus test, Gingrich clearly had the best performance BY FAR.
- Agreed about Romney and Bachman. Though Bachman started off strong but appeared to fade at the end. It seems her debate prep only got her through the first 50 minutes.
- I disagree about Pawlenty. He attempted far too many folksy jokes and analogies, which just fell flat. He had an average performance at best.
- Cain didn't move the needle.
- Santoriam moved the needle for himself but he's such a non-entity that it doesn't make a difference.
- I agree Newt had the best performance but followed very closely by Ron Paul. The only person attacking Newt was the moderator so it was mostly smooth sailing. Whereas Ron Paul was attacked frequently by the other candidates as well and he still came out on top usually.
But yeah, Newt owns the debate podium. He looks relaxed up there. He has his talking points, but he uses them as an outline, not as a verbatim script. Also both Newt and Paul are capable of debating a variety of issues. Whereas the other candidates get BSOD errors when they have to answer/debate questions they didn't prep for.
EDIT: Oh, forgot about Huntsman. But I guess that pretty much sums up my assessment of his performance. Forgettable.