In last night's debate, Romney won because no one else did, and Pawlenty's showdown with Bachmann hurt Pawlenty more

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

The Fox-Examiner debate last night was supposed to be mainly about the economy, but it’s main headline is that, wow, Bachmann and Pawlenty sure don’t get along. Beyond the internecine warfare in Minnesota that America saw first-hand last night, the debate was solid and lively.

Here are the main takeaways:

• Romney won because nobody else did.

• Rick Perry came in second because he was a subject of questioning (he wasn’t in the debate), and the candidates who were asked about him didn’t do anything to diminish his stature.

• Pawlenty lost the most because his performance will be unlikely dissuade the doubters that he is dynamic and tough enough to be President. In fact, their numbers will probably grow.

• Fox and the Examiner scored a victory of their own because they put together a panel that asked tougher questions than the previous debate hosts have done.

The debate showed a primary field that has decided to dispense with being nice to each other. The sparring on the stage was not only entertaining, but at times revealed differences in policy and worldview among candidates.

Beyond the headlines, here are some more completed thoughts about what happened last night:

Romney looked more presidential than ever, but that may have been because the others didn’t. Attacking Romney in the past hasn’t helped bring him down, so everyone left him alone…and that helped him even more. He spoke fluidly and thoughtfully for the most part while the others clamored for attention. He’ll probably poll even higher this week.

Bachmann won’t win the White House, but she’s certainly ensuring that Pawlenty won’t either. When Pawlenty seemed hesitant to criticize Bachmann after Chris Wallace’s initial question, it seemed as though he would go weak as he did with the now-infamous ObameyCare question in the last debate. Bachmann didn’t follow suit. She went after him hard on cap and trade and healthcare. That upset him, and he fired back, but in a rather incoherent way that accused her of not winning on issues when he cited instances of her voting as a minority party member. She seemed more in grasp of the whole situation, and he seemed too defensive and less effective. Bachmann didn’t escape without some damage though. Her defensiveness and Pawlenty’s repeated insistence that she lacks experience removed some of her luster.

Huntsman should just drop out now. His campaign was far more exciting before he launched it. He got the political courage award last night for not flip-flopping on his support for civil unions, but he pretty much guaranteed by his overall performance there won’t be enough primary voters to get him over the line.

Romney still needs to loosen up. Despite his comfortable lead in the polls, he needs to change his rhetorical style to connect with ordinary people. For instance, while talking about immigration in the debate, he talked mainly in the abstract about policy. It was mellifluous and all that, but he needs to learn to say things like “Why would we give a young Chinese woman a Ph.D. in physics and then send her back to our biggest economic competitor so everything she learned in America helps China instead?” He could have gotten a real applause line, done something memorable, instead of just looking like the best executive in the room. He has a hard time doing that.

Overall, it was a very good debate. Fox News is consistently criticized as a tool of the right, but the Fox-Examiner panel hit the candidates with tougher questions than the previous debate hosts did. If Barack Obama gets asked such tough questions in a debate next year, the left will assume it was some right-wing plot.

There was quite a bit of post-debate commentary on how Gingrich came out to fight and served himself well. He was pretty solid at the beginning, not as much later. But there’s no indication anywhere that his campaign has any real life to it. Ron Paul could actually win the straw poll, given his performance and general appeal in Iowa, but his heated exchanges with Rick Santorum, though interesting, were something of a side show.

The main show was Romney winning, Pawlenty continuing to struggle, and Perry waiting in the wings.

Comments

[Tom]

The wonderful, uncorruptable, consistent, intelligent and economically literate Ron Paul was the clear winner!

Here are the highlights from the debate:
http://youtu.be/76LFwMnq6bE

Ron Paul's spat with Santorum was not a side show, you would do well to listen to him to appreciate history of Iran and the Shah.

BTW this article is rubbish, there is nothing on substance, on policy, on idealogy, on issues. Nothing. The article is empty, vacant, the reason, because to discuss the issues would be an admission that anti-establishment Ron Paul is leading the debate, and is streets ahead of the other candidates in his consistency, knowledge and understanding of the issues. A true American, Jeffersonian, and a great man. America will be making a grave mistake by not electing him in 2012.