Replies

What an excellent analysis.

Giuliani got himself behind in the count in the first debate and part of this one, but Ron Paul floated one over the plate for him, and he knocked it, along with Paul's chances, out of the park. Rudy didn't help himself on abortion, but the exchange with Paul is what people are going to remember, so I'm reluctantly going to have to call him the winner here. Ron Paul is the biggest loser, unless you consider his chances at winning some third party votes. He's done as far as the Republican nomination is concerned, masses of internet poll-stuffers notwithstanding.

Giuliani grandstanded over Paul's war positions and was laying in wait. No doubt, Ron Paul has heard this same attack on him before. My guess, Giuliani did himself some good, probably not enough to offset his poor previous showing. Paul's numbers may actually rise sharply, eclipsing a number of other second-tier candidates but not exceeding Duncan Hunter's, at least not yet. RP also will reap some funds. You notice, I'm not saying these will necessarily be conservatives or even Republicans. I would expect he will gain with libertarians nationally and those liberals in solidly blue states who might cross over in the primary (a hazard to our primaries I've personally always opposed). Even if FNC wants to exclude him from future debates, it doesn't mean PMSNBC will cooperate.

OTOH, given that Giuliani wants to appeal to conservative Republican voters despite his leftwing social positions, then there is no real test of party purity for discriminating against Paul except for his antiwar position. Giuliani does oppose major planks of the party platform. Ron Paul doesn't. In each case, the candidate has significant opposition from a large portion of the party base and is relying on crossover appeal for their support. The two are not equal in this but their positions and history make them stand out from the bunch starkly.

Romney could not dominate the FNC team easily as he did with PMSNBC. The other candidates were a little better prepared also. I think Romney and McStain didn't damage each other much though the talking heads will make much of it. McStain turned in a solid but uninspiring performance, not as creepy as the first debate.

Hunter did well and has improved his image and came across personally on a few of those questions. Still, he reminds you of your dad's Republican and not so much of a candidate for the 21^st century. Whether Duncan did himself 1% worth of good in the polls remains to be seen. But like the other second-tier guys, he has to move visibly soon or he won't be able to.

Huckabee didn't impress me much. Somehow, the stench of Arkansas politics sticks to the man. Not grossly corrupt like Xlinton but cast out of that mold. No thanks.

Tancredo was more likable than the rest. His personality came out a bit more and he came across personally, probably a little better than Duncan did. I doubt he'll budge in the polls but if the border/RealID issue is still hot, he could pick up a percentage point or two in what is an issues candidacy.

Tommy Thompson continues to bore, despite his excellent resume. Same for Gilmore. Brownback seems destined to recreate the career trajectory of Bob Dole and lead the party to defeat as its nominee in 2024. Depressing even to think about it.

I don't think Rudy helps himself all that much but I could be wrong. FNC is totally in the tank for him as was made clear tonight. McStain might gain a few points in key states, Romney might lose a few (despite the resume and all that money).

The race isn't over and may not have even begun as this second and more conservative-friendly FNC debate highlights that The Guy just doesn't seem to be in the field.

Me, I'm waiting to see what Fred Thompson does. He's the wild card. But he shouldn't wait too long.

I pretty much agree with your points. The reason I said Rudy won is because his best tactic is to keep the war and 9/11 fresh in voters' minds, and to keep social issues out of them. I think last night helped accomplish that. That was a good point that both Giuliani and Paul are looking for crossover appeal. Giuliani is at odds with most Republicans on more positions than Paul is, but Paul is on the most important one. The war issue might not be enough to get voters to ignore Giuliani's faults, but it's certainly important enough that Paul, regardless of his other virtues, is toast so long as he's the "antiwar" candidate.

As for the rest, the big problem Romney has is that, while he has some 86% or so name recognition in South Carolina, he's still in the 8% range in the polls. He's been spending all kinds of money there, and running a lot of ads. Evidently it isn't amounting to much. It seems to me that he needs to keep dominating and looking more presidential than the other candidates to make any headway. He really failed to do that last night.

The reason he needed to do that is because of Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich. Both are still polling ahead of Romney, not only nationwide, but in South Carolina where he's been campaigning relentlessly. If Romney doesn't get some committed voters before either of them get in the race, he's done for.

Also, even though this debate was much better than the first, I still think Fred and Newt gain from staying above the fray. Newt is right on the money when he says these debates look more like a reality TV show than a forum for Presidential politics. It's a great forum for the lesser-known candidates to introduce themselves to a national audience (such as it was). It's not so great a forum for the big guys, as it brings them down to the level of the second-tier, and it's a forum where they can't use their money and organization to frame the debate. It exposes their flaws, forces them to mix it up with candidates they're better off ignoring, and diminishes their Presidential image in general.

By staying above the fray, Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich, Fred especially, actually look more like "frontrunners" than the actual candidates leading the polls. I agree that they can't keep doing this forever, but for now, they seem to have the best strategy.

Oh yeah, and as a follow up to that last point...

While I was typing that, I heard a commercial for tonight's On the Record with Greta, and Newt's the main guest. A possible announcement is being hyped.

Won't happen, of course, at least not on her show. However, if Newt has decided to run, can you think of a better time to announce than right after a debate? Today, for example, he could neutralize whatever bump Rudy is going to get for tearing into Paul, as well as any other real gain any of the other candidates made at the debate. He'd completely crowd out the news-junkie cycle. It sounds more like something Newt would do than Fred, but it could be very effective.

I is looking a little like Newt is going to reneg on his earlier promise to wait until September to make any decision.