The GOP candidates' first debate

Interactive: Rate the candidates - The Debates - MSNBC.com

I started to write this a few hours after the debate when the number of post-debate ratings was less than 18,000; but I got knocked off line by a computer glitch. Now the number of post-debate ratings is over 80,000 (about 10% more than the number of pre-debate ratings) but the shape of the numbers has held up pretty well, so my analysis isn't really changed.

On the MSNBC rating scheme whish allows only three options - positive, neutral or negative - for each candidate, even the three front-runners started rather dismally only one of them (Giuliani) getting more positive than negative assessments. Their positives ranged from 41% for Giuliani to 28% for Romney. The only others with double-digit positives were Huckabee, Thompson, Tancredo and Brownback and none of them did better than 14%.

Curiously, McCain, with negative ratings from 40% of pre-debate viewers, was only barely ahead of the bottom seven whose negavives ranged from 49% to 40%.

With such a lackluster response to this diverse field of contenders (two senators, three representatives, four former governors and an ex-mayor of New York), it is no wonder Fred Tompson and Newt Gingrich are keeping the door open. However, with all due respect to Gingrich, Hunter, Paul and Tancredo, I cannot recall a serious candidacy for the White House by a US House member in my lifetime. With the notable exception of Eisenhower, the serious contenders since FDR beat Hoover have been governors, senators or vice-presidents and even most of the Veeps had senate experience.

Trying to shoe-horn 10 candidates into a 90 minute Q&A session (not really a debate) was bound to produce less than satisfactory results. I would rather they had given us a 180 munute debate and skipped the 90 minutes of analysis and interviews that followed on MSNBC.

Still, I think it is true that none of these 10 men seriously embarassed himself. And, as one of them said, any of them would make a better president than any of the Democrat contenders. None of the second tier candidates increased his negative ratings, but all three of the leaders did.

My favorite, Jim Gilmore, used his marvelous speaking voice and clarity of thought rather well in the relatively few opportunities given him, but his appearance suffered from an excessively shiny forehead gleaming under the television lights. Tom Tancredo proved himself knowledgable on a range of issues and not merely a "Johnny one note" on immigration. Duncan Hunter's performance was a revelation to me, having known him only by reputation - he'd make a good candidate for vice president or he could be an excellent defense secretary.

Ron Paul was the real surprise of the evening. He jumped out of the pack in the post-debate ratings to 36% postive and 27% negative. That doesn't look too impressive by itself, but those were the best scores posted by any candidate in the post-debate poll.

Mitt Romney did best among the top three' holding his positives steady at 28% and dropping his negatives by four points. All things considered, this has to be good news for Romney.

John McCain dropped his positives by 11 points - from 31% to 20%, but nine points of that drop only moved into the neutral category. This reinforces my view that McCain doesn't have much room to improve. He has been a national figure for a long time, longer than any of his rivals; and. if folks were inclined to like him, they would by now.

Rudy Giuliani took the worst hit - dropping his positive ratings from 41% (the pre-debate poll leader) to only 25%, with almost half the 16 point difference going into the negative column. Giuliani is toast, the better known his positions are on a wide range of issues the farther he will fall among likely GOP primary voters.

I suspect that by Labor Day the race will change significantly. Both Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson will get into the race and Tommy Thompson will be gone by then, followed closely by Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee. Tom Tancredo probably has enough fans of the immigration issue to hang in until the primaries start and the serious spending starts. Whether Jim Gilmore and Duncan Hunter will still be in the race is hard to say, but they at least look and sound presidential.

As for Ron Paul's future, he has already been the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party once and there is some talk that they might put him forward again after the Republican primaries have run their course. He has no reason not to keep going even if he does poorly in the primaries.

Democrats should not assume that a Ron Paul candidacy on the LP ticket would hurt only the Republican nominee. Depending on who the Democrats nominate, and this includes both Clinton and Obama, Paul could take a lot of votes from the anti-war crowd and civil libertarians.