Replies

Just my initial impressions, but Romney and Hunter were the big winners. Rudy and McCain were slight losers. The rest lose by default, because they needed to win.

Good analysis. Brilliant even. Maybe just because those are my conclusions.

Your more extended comments really fleshed it out well.

You'd better be careful. PMSNBC might read your comments, hire you, and then you'd have to spend the next year and a half talking politics with Chrissy Matthews and Keith Obertroll.

Redstate has declared McCain the winner.

http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/who_won_who_lost_first_take#comment

I think Gilmore and Duncan came away looking presidential. I was impressed with Mitt but as so many people have said - he looks too polished. I didn’t think that was possible but in this case I felt like I was buying a new sedan. McCain was scripted, but probably won the soundbite contest on MSNBC with his 4 year disaster thing. Well calculated. Ron Paul was out there in space tying everything to the war - guess I didn’t take him seriously but he has some good ideas. Love Tommy T, reminds me a little of Grandpa Munster - always loved him from his days in Wisconsin. Huckabee had some good ideas (first one to bring up fair tax I think), Brownback ok, Tancredo ok, and Guiliani was the most disappointing like he was when I saw him in person in Richmond.

You'd better be careful. PMSNBC might read your comments, hire you, and then you'd have to spend the next year and a half talking politics with Chrissy Matthews and Keith Obertroll.

I'd end up like Savage.

After going back and watching it again (as I said, I was a bit distracted the first time around), I more or less stick by what I originally said, with a few revisions. One thing I looked for this time was whether or not the candidates answered the questions and showed some mental agility.

Hunter drops slightly because of this, as a lot of his confidence seemed to come from the fact that he largely stuck to his talking points, even if they only had a loose relationship with the question asked. He still looked strong, and I still think he benefits, but he's going to need to expand beyond defense, trade, and immigration if he wants to make the big leagues. He's hardly alone here, of course, as Brownback and Huckabee did much of the same. Huckabee sounded better on policy, while Brownback sounded better on principles. Neither did well enough to gain any traction, though.

Tommy Thompson gets a bump up. I think I mistook his quiet thoughtfulness for lack of confidence the first time around, as he seemed to genuinely want to answer every question directly, honestly, and completely. I'd almost say he's Lincolnesque in this way, except he lacks the rhetorical skills. The same could be said for Tancredo, but the way he handled the time constraints seemed weak, and I still think he was the biggest loser. He's a smart man, and his heart's in the right place, but he's just not ready for prime time.

I said Gilmore was forgettable, and I now realize that was largely because he didn't seem to get as much face time as the others. Still, he didn't really say much beyond touting his own record as governor and as a "consistent conservative", and so I don't think he really scored any points here. No one's going out of his way to vote for him unless they already knew him.

I still have McCain and Giuliani where they were. McCain said a lot that will please conservatives, but he stumbled a lot and liked to grin at his own statements; basically, he exhibited the things people hate about the President's speaking style, only it looked even worse on him. He did not seem very Presidential tonight. Giuliani did seem Presidential, and I think he handled that "gotcha" question on Sunnis and Shiites rather well considering the obscure subject matter, but he let slip a lot of things conservatives won't like. Between the two, Giuliani did better, but both will probably lose a little. This is bad for both, because even though they're frontrunners, their respective problems with conservatives mean they both have to be brilliant all the time to win. This is especially true for Rudy, whose vaunted leadership abilities are his number one selling point.

Overall, my list of winners and losers stays roughly the same. Romney was the biggest winner, followed by Hunter and, to a lesser extent, Paul. Rudy and McCain both lose a bit, though I think McCain's lack of composure will hurt him badly in the long run if he doesn't fix it. The rest lose by default, as I've said.

The biggest winners, though? Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich, because, aside from Romney, no one was particularly impressive. The only declared candidate who is going to gain a great deal of momentum out of this is Romney, and that's good news for anyone waiting to get in. Still, I wouldn't advise either to miss too many more of these, and I think both are missing opportunities to show their best qualities. I've never seen Fred in a debate, but I know he's both well-spoken and an intellectual who is knowledgeable about a wide range of subjects. I get the sense he could have wiped the floor with this field, Romney included. The only way Newt ever loses a debate is by putting the audience to sleep or by agreeing too much with the competition. If he can avoid those two things, he could still be a factor, if not necessarily the best candidate.