Fox News' Republican Primary Debate: We Grill, You Decide

Thursday night brought us the first of nine Republican primary debates this season. The Republican National Committee (RNC) is attempting to tame the chaos that reigned in 2012, and I believe they're off to a good start. Fewer debates, so far competently moderated, might bring some sanity to the process. Will the countless candidates be up to this challenge?

The Main Stage

Fox, famously, split the 17 major candidates into two groups. I'll address the performances of the Top 10 first, and then hit the Kids' Table below. These are my thoughts on each candidate's performance relative to the others; I'm surely not in the core constituency of any of these people.

Moderators

Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace dominated this debate by keeping the candidates on-topic and off-balance. They directed cutting questions at each candidate, probing major flaws in the backgrounds of each. Fox News was the only news outfit that could pull off this aggressive approach, as any other channel would be accused of having a liberal agenda. This may have been the best-run debate I've seen, despite having the most-ever candidates on stage.

Top 10

Some candidates made the most of the spotlight, lapping up exposure they've lacked so far. Others wilted. 

• John Kasich, the Governor of Ohio, was the winner for me. He barely qualified for this debate, but he was engaging, positive, and espoused moderate policy positions. Kasich passionately defended his decision to expand Medicaid, opening up some daylight between him and his opponents. He managed Trump better than anyone, by brushing off the man but addressing his constituency. His campaign brilliantly timed his official entry into the race, allowing his post-announcement bump to carry him into the Top 10 in the polls. Given his nascent name-ID so far, this exposure may have served him better than anyone else.
• Chris Christie also did a good job of mixing personality and policy accomplishments. His personality is bombastic, and he clashed with others onstage, but I thought it was a good showing. 
• Rand Paul's strategy was obviously to create buzz by arguing with others. He went after Trump, Christie, and others. This diminished him. He came away looking like a petulant child, and his unique Libertarian viewpoint was lost. 
• Jeb Bush: Remember when I mentioned wilting? He wilted. Like a Bush. If you didn't know he was supposed to be the front-runner, you never would have guessed it from this debate. He didn't do anything ruinous, but he did have some strange remarks:

"I've got a record in Florida. I'm proud of my dad, and I'm certainly proud of my brother. In Florida, they called me Jeb, because I earned it." 

• Marco Rubio had a great night, according to a lot of pundits. I must have missed something. He seemed inoffensive, and he spoke well, but he mainly stayed away from policy. He tried to make an electability argument, but it feels early in the process for that sort of thing. 
• I'd forgive you for forgetting Ted Cruz was in this debate. Expectations were high for this former Ivy League debate champion, but he didn't really do anything. Borrowing a sports phrase, he came across as "just another guy". 
• Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson were about as absurd as you'd expect. Huckabee always sounds angry anymore. His hectoring style lingers from his years as a talk show host. This was all that was memorable about his performance. Carson, meanwhile, got lost in the fray due to his mild personality. When given the chance to speak, he didn't have any obvious policy knowledge. Pressed on his record of apparently not knowing anything about politics, government, or international relations, he answered that he's "smart, and can learn quickly". Reassuring. 
• To quote the New Yorker, Donald Trump was more heinous than previously thought. He defended himself, at all times, by lashing out at others. This made him hugely entertaining, despite the layers of misogyny and incoherence. Republican operative reactions, after the debate, were that he was terrible. I suspect the base loved it. His answers were utterly incoherent. I suspect the base loved that too.
• Scott Walker. I almost forgot about him. Maybe that's his strategy? Remember when Kramer got a job by just showing up at an office, and blending in by pretending to work there? He learned that he couldn't be fired, since he was never hired. That seems to be Walker's approach.

The Kids' Table

You didn't need to look hard to figure out why these seven candidates couldn't make the Top 10. This group hewed closely to their talking points. Charisma was forgotten. The Republican field will lose nothing if six of these seven are never seen again during this cycle.

• Coming in, I expected to like Lindsey Graham the best of these seven. I expected him to have a cogent national security position, coupled with moderate views at home. Other than the pointless Jim Gilmore, Graham may have been the least impressive candidate onstage. His answers were both preachy and boring, while delivering some extreme-fringe views. Graham went to absurd lengths to focus on ISIS, here pivoting to ISIS in response to a question about Planned Parenthood:

• For some reason, I seem to retain a soft spot for Rick Perry. Despite his new glasses, he still doesn't seem smart. Mispronunciations abound, and he's far too proud of himself each time he finishes answering a question. His answers, in this debate, were basically nothing but his stump speech. Regardless, there's something charming about how Texan he is.
• Carly Fiorina was by far the most competent among the seven, and with more exposure, she could do some damage to the more preposterous candidates in the top 10. I've mostly hated everything she said prior to this debate. The thesis of her campaign has been that she's a woman, and Hillary Clinton is a woman, so she can attack Clinton. That's a pretty low bar. Still, she showed in this debate that she deserved to be on the main stage, and I hope to see her there in the next debate.
• The moderators' questions were astoundingly somnolent. They seemed to be trying for "thorough, precise questions". What they achieved were paragraphs-long, indecipherable questions. By the time the moderators were done talking, I forgot what the premise of the question was. I felt bad for the candidates.
• The most surprising policy position I saw was broad distrust of Muslims. Lindsey Graham advocated for a standing surveillance program in mosques, and George Pataki seemed to say that Muslim religious speech is not a protected category of speech. I thought these guys were the moderates?
• Bobby Jindal was there too, but he's too silly to dwell on. Rick Santorum refused to speak to the camera, instead hunching toward the moderators. By this point, you know who he is. America's economy needs to look like the coal and steel heyday of Pennsylvania. Booo abortions. Yay God.

Overall, it was clear why these candidates were the undercard. None had any supporters in attendance, and they largely failed to deliver eloquence. Fox said that this first debate was closed to the public. That was a strange choice, if true, as the candidates clearly suffered from the empty room. They were literally yelling into a partisan echo chamber.


Wrapping Up

Much more to come soon. I'm new to blogging, but this should collect things that I'd otherwise be posting on Facebook. Here, formatting options abound!