I didn't formally grade responses. But 2 things I didn't expect: (1) the rumors going into the debate implied that Ron DeSantis, as the apparent #2, would be targeted (not really); (2) I thought there would be more discussion about Trump than there was. I will admit I found the lively give and take entertaining.
I thought Nikki Haley was one of the winners with some thoughtful effective counterpoints on spending (rebuking fellow debaters when applicable of approving debt ceiling increases and Trump's $8T addition to the national debt, that spending is not just a Dem issue), abortion (on enacting a politically infeasible national ban on abortion given a split Congress with s likely Dem Senate block), and rebuking Vivek Ramaswamy's comments on foreign policy as inexperienced, uninformed and potentially risky. However, Gov. Doug Burgum gave the most principled pro-Dobbs opposition to federal legislation on abortion regulation. One of the debaters (Hutchinson?) ludicrously suggested Dobbs returned power on abortion regulation to federal as well as state legislators.
I thought the deference to frontrunner indicted Trump and most promising to support him if nominated, even if convicted, with notable exceptions of former prosecutors Christie and Hutchinson, was abominable. Most attacks if any on Trump were indirect, e.g., DeSantis bashing Fauci on COVID-19 policy and saying h he would have fired him. (Fauci was not a political appointee, and civil service laws restrict removal for political reasons). DeSantis also argued that he would be more effective than Trump, e.g., on border security, citing his own record of getting things done. (Let me point out the Congress is different than the GOP-controlled Florida state legislature.) I felt that the debaters largely failed to compare and contrast themselves from Trump in terms of policy, priorities, and behavior/leadership. In short, why not simply vote for Trump again? I think DeSantis would push his recent strong reelection in a purplish state, although recent polling doesn't show him outperforming Trump, but perhaps a more competitive position in battleground states.
I thought DeSantis performed adequately, although the other debaters largely didn't challenge him as #2 in the polls. I think he was most effective in pointing out his military experience (unlike his competitors although I don't recall him pressing the point in playing his fitness to be Commander in Chief. Most of his messages seemed to reflect on his success as governor, not so much ln federal policy beyond the border. He didn't mention entitlements, a primary Trump attack, almost surely amplified by Dems. At least to me, he came across as somber, somewhat combative, and uninspiring. I was particularly disturbed by his belligerent tone towards Mexico on the fentanyl issue, suggesting deployment of the military.
Probably the most attention was received by Ramaswamy, who got swiped by Christie as requiring on the job training as by Haley as described earlier. Vivek jokingly referenced Christie's pre-2012 election "hug" of Obama re Hurricane Sandy. To be honest, though, the same could have been said about Trump in 2016 and Christie still endorsed him. [Correction: I think Christie made a ChatGPT reference to Vivek, and it may have been Pence who referenced on the job training.] However, Ramaswamy personally turned me off (I'll note here I'm a Never Trumper) for a couple of reasons, one of them here. He blasted the rest of the field as bought and sold political whores. This is exactly what Trump did so divisively in the 2016 primary. In fact, Ramaswamy seems to be positioning himself as a younger, smarter Trump v. 2.0. But his willingness to pardon a defiant, unrepentant Trump if convicted on his federal indictments is an abomination.
Pence probably didn't help himself during the debate. He seemed to want to take credit for Trump's "achievements" while at the same time noting he was part of the last Congress to run a budget surplus. Trump's trade protectionism and spendthrift policies are hardly conservative. He's also taking a hardline push for pro-life federal legislation at a time the pro-aborts have been prevailing in multiple states since Dobbs, even red states.
The field generally took the expected shots at Bidenomics and the border, some nuanced criticisms of Biden's Ukraine funding. There was a confusing thread acknowledging education is not a federal responsibility but DeSantis and others wanting to take credit for state achievements on their watch. I don't think the field brought up Biden's college loan forgiveness policies. The problem in my view is I didn't hear a lot of specifics on policies, mostly things like Tim Scott taking credit for his part in the 2017 tax reform. There was some discussion of finishing Trump's wall, nothing on immigration reform. There was an obsessive thread on fentanyl, China's alleged supplier enabling role in stoking cross-border smuggling. DeSantis' dark hinting at military intervention and possible escalation of US/Chinese conflict are troubling.
I'll close with a libertarian clip reminding us of the disastrous war on drugs, that prohibitions don't work and in fact contribute to a more dangerous black market of possibly contaminated product. It doesn't deal with why Americans are turning to fentanyl.
