I watched most of it, and really thought the moderators were attempting to shape the debate and the time given to candidates appeared directly proportional to the latest poll results. Ithink that played against the group as a whole and put too much focus or lack thereof on specific individuals.
Huntsman supports AGW, so he's just lost 98% of the Republican base.
I thought Huntsman did well until he inferred I was an idiot because I am skeptical of the AGW theory and that the science was settled. Big mistake since that cuts his legs out regarding energy which is the core issue as it relates to climate change theory.
Newt, as usual was a great debater, but didn't do anything to indicate that his entire campaign won't implode tomorrow. THink he'd make a good Sec. of State though.
Perry was put on the hot seat all debate. Would like to see a percentage breakdown of questions (and follow ups) per candidate and time during the debate per candidate. The cameras were definately on him and they were looking for sound bites to use against him. Why did the field agree to MSNBC for this anyway?
Mitt was impressive. Some of that was due to format - never hit anything other than some fleeting Romneycare debate. Again - the debate seemed to be designed to pull ammo to use against Perry and was mostly softballs to Romney.
Every time Cain talked he made sense and talked well - but the moderators apparently wanted to minimize that and him. A shame in my opinion.
Bachmann was pretty flat in my opinion. Again - the moderators facilitated that, but she only did okay on the rare opportunities when the moderators blessed her with time to talk.
Ron Paul jumped the shark, looked lost, and paranoid. I very much like his dedication to the Constitution, but stating that we should not secure our borders from illegals coming in because those same securities might be used to fence us in was absurd. Not because it could never happen, but I want a president that believes that in the future our major problem is not going to be citizens trying to escape. Not a real positive concept in my opinion.
Nobody knocked it out of the part. The moderators and moderation were awful and in my opinion did their best to marginalize every candidate that was on stage.
Loved the balance of your analysis, but that particular question needs serious attention, in my view. There's no doubt that the group as a whole made a strategic error by agreeing to allow the debate to be hosted by MSNBC, who are arguably the most dedicated left-wing news channel in America.
Newt spoke for all (I hope) when he blasted Brian Williams et al for attempting to make the Republican candidates destroy each other, when the proper focus is on defeating Obama. I very much appreciate that he clearly defined who was debating on that stage, and that he drew a sharp distinction between them, and Obama.
That said, it's simply unconscionable that our people have (once again) allowed themselves to be corralled and manipulated by the enemy like that. It's time for candidates to be as outspoken as Palin is about the truth of the US media, and to demand something approaching a neutral forum to hold their debates.
They need to pull together for the greater good on this one key ground rule: no more debates controlled by major media outlets. Period.
Well being a first debate for perry it was no surprise the camera was on him...and Romney the MSNBC's favorite. It was there show after all.
But no candidate was about to give much for the talking heads at MSNBC, nor te moderators as far as that goes. They all knew tey were on 'enemy territory' who controlled it for the most part. They' weren't going to give anymore than necessary into the hands of Goo-dough or her side kicks to use their daggers on. I wouldn't have either. I think the idea was to maintain and lay pretty low....and they did so.
It'll be a different picture when they get on their own turf!