Yes, it happened that way.
Anyway, here is my evaluation:
1. Rudy won the debate. His social views are killing me, but his comes out strong every else.
2. Huckabee. He redirects attacks very smoothly.
3. Romney loses a couple of steps, but he didn’t have help from Chris Matthews and he was on the defensive.
4. McCain. It is not that he did anything wrong, but whenever he explains McCain/Feingold and McCain/Kennedy legislation multiple times, it just hurts him in the primary. McCain is reaching for establishment votes and it is not working.
5. Hunter does suprisingly well.
6/7. Brownback/Gilmore. They seem to lack charisma.
8. Tancredo. He is golden on issues, but he rambles to much. He is not the best articulator.
9. Tommy Thompson.
10. Ron Paul. He sounds good in theory, but WOT is not about theory. Nutty professor material not executive material.
There is a political theory that the next president elected is usually a general response to what we didn’t get last time. In this case, President Bush’s reputation (rightly or wrongly) is someone who is inarticulate, a poor executive, and a big government spender. The nomination process will lean to candidates who are the anti-thesis of that. This favors Rudy (although his social views make it very tenous; a crowded field helps him a lot), Romney, Huckabee, and Hunter. The previous four as seen as very articulate. Three are good executives and two of them are good on fiscal issues. On the other hand, McCain is hurt on this theory. Fred is good communicator so in theory he could do well, but executive experience could be his achilles heel.
Bottom line, Rudy, Mitt, McCain (only because he is the establishment candidate), Huckabee, Hunter, Fred and Newt (if they get in) are the choices. Rudy wins under this scenario. Mitt maybe competitive in the early states but fizzles out on February 5th. McCain suffers a slow bleed. Huckabee or Hunter could emerge as the dark-horse. Fred’s lack of executive experience and Newt’s entry prevents him from overcoming Rudy.