NO "SHORT TAKES" TONIGHT SO WE CAN REVIEW THE DEBATE:

The Republicans had their final Iowa debate tonight, without Donald Trump.  It was an intelligent discussion, probably the best so far.  It still, though, suffered from a surplus of candidates.  There were seven.  Four would have been plenty.  It's hard for viewers to separate opinions when there are too many candidates onstage. 

Jeb Bush turned in his best, most vigorous performance.  He is rising in New Hampshire polls, and maybe his zest has gotten zestier.  And Chris Christie turned in his best performance as well.  He was able to exploit his experience as a U.S. attorney in answering questions about the war on terror.  The person most observers seemed to be looking at carefully was Marco Rubio, who some believe has a shot to move up if he does well in Iowa and New Hampshire.  I felt Rubio was a bit off his game in this debate.  He is usually smooth and measured.  But tonight he sounded, at times, nervous and jittery, speaking too quickly, trying to stuff too many points into too little time.  But the points he made were solid, and showed his command of the issues.

Ted Cruz.  He is presumed to be the guy in second place.  With Donald Trump taking a walk, Cruz got most of the arrows.  He has a chance to win the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday.  "Take down Ted" seemed to be the rallying cry of the other candidates.  Cruz, as usual, mastered the issues.  He is a man of unusual intellect, and a debater of consummate skill.  He is also, however, an ideologue, and often comes off as cold, even computer-like.  Mr. Warmth he is not.  But he's a solid conservative, and has strong appeal within the Republican Party.  The establishment, though, dislikes him intently, as he shows the party leadership almost no respect.  I don't think Cruz was hurt by any of the attacks tonight, but he didn't come out stronger either.

I can't say there was any clear winner, or any obvious loser.

One of the big questions of the night was the impact that Donald Trump's absence would have on the debate...and on Donald Trump.  I have to say that the decibel level of the debate seemed to be lower, but that may or may not have been due to Trump's absence.  I don't think his ideas were particularly missed.  His absence actually forced us to give more consideration to the other candidates.

But how did the episode affect Trump?  No one seems to know.  A Frank Luntz focus group leaned toward the idea that Trump owed it to the people of Iowa to show up, but I didn't sense much palpable anger about his no-show.  We'll have to wait for polls, and for the actual vote on Tuesday, to find out if Trump helped or hurt himself, or neither.

It's Iowa.  The Iowa caucuses often surprise us.  I'm looking forward to Tuesday.

January 28, 2016