Bloomberg debate, the reaction

I have to say that I found this debate to be far less stimulating than others we've seen so far. Perhaps because of its purely-economic focus; in my book, there really isn't all that much between the different candidates in terms of fiscal perspective. When it comes to social policy, though, we can get some interesting insight. Anyhow, onward to the reactions...

Andrew Sullivan:

I think Cain won this debate and Perry lost it. A mixed bag then. I wonder: has anyone this outside the political class ever led the polls in October in the year before an election? My mind goes back to Ross Perot - and Cain has a similar businessman's belief that he can do anything and a great, simple, effective sales technique. I've under-estimated him. The voters haven't. But can he actually win the nomination nationally? And beat Obama? I daren't predict, and won't.

Dave Weigel:

Rick Perry was as mediocre as ever, and the best you could say was that, unlike in previous debates, his energy level did not flag. It stayed low. He ran to generic answers about energies as if he was ordering a sandwich in an unfamiliar language and only knew a few words. Michele Bachmann was... wait, why am I bothering? Her only significant moment came when Romney threw her a lifeline, hopeful that the conservative vote would stay split.

Patrick O'Connor:

Herman Cain and his 9-9-9 plan were front-and-center all night, while Rick Perry, who many considered the frontrunner just a few weeks ago, was something of an after-thought in the debate. He hit a few bloop singles when a lot of people thought he needed clear home runs. Mitt Romney showed a little more verve than he has in previous debates and seemed perfectly comfortable defending his record and showed a knack for the counterpunch (particularly with regard to Cain's 9-9-9 plan). If he and Cain are one and two, voters will have a VERY clear choice between the maverick and the manager.

Ben Smith, prior to the debate:

Tonight's debate should, by all the usual laws of politics, turn an intense and unflattering spotlight on the obvious front-runner, Mitt Romney. He hasn't gotten many questions this cycle of the form, "You once said X. Now you say Y. Why did you change?" But there is no shortage of possible questions like that.

Taegan Goddard:

Mitt Romney had another good debate performance and none of his rivals really laid a glove on him. His experience really shows. He plays the game on an entirely different level. In fact, his biggest rival might be himself. When he rambles answers to questions, he comes off looking slick and untrustworthy. Herman Cain proved he'll be in the top tier for at least a few more weeks. Much of the debate focused on his 9-9-9 tax plan which was only good for his profile. He took some heat from his rivals -- particularly from Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve -- but handled it well enough. He doesn't get rattled easily.

Erick Erickson:

Rick Perry was largely a no show in the first half. The forgotten man who once dominated, he’s rapidly becoming the Fred Thompson of the campaign season, despite having the money and support to go forward. The Perry camp really and truly believes the debates do not matter. The problem for the Perry camp is that everyone else believes the debates do matter. And when one small side thinks they don’t matter and one large side thinks they do matter and the smaller group gives the larger group nothing to turn their gaze up and distract them or change their mind — well then the debates do matter and Perry’s staggeringly bad performances (though this debate was far better than the Fox one) are going to make it harder and harder for him to come back.

James Fallows:

Audience didn't embarrass itself! Apart from whatever was the one-person shouting protest near the end. To boil it down, if anyone asks you about the debate, you can say: "Romney by a mile." Now where is my beer?

Amen. My live-blogged take on the debate here.