Debate post-mortem

I saw nearly all of the debate this time. Impressions:

• Jeb Bush's campaign is dead but too dumb to lie down. He flubbed both his opening and closing statements and while he clearly came prepared to match Donald Trump insult for insult, Trump flicked him away without a second thought. He doesn't project strength, or depth, or much of anything. At this point it seems the only reason his campaign goes on is that he has a lot of advisers who are drawing handsome salaries and they intend to bleed the donors dry. The money will dry up soon, though.
• John Kasich was a little less dyspeptic last night than he has been in previous debates, but I'm still not sure why he's even bothering. He's a contrarian and a charmless one at that. His applause lines generate crickets. I hear he's from Ohio, though.
• While I like Carly Fiorina a lot, she's getting diminishing returns at this point. I don't sense she broke any new ground. She played the Margaret Thatcher card; why wouldn't she? She's certainly more Margaret Thatcher than Margaret Dumont, but that's what we call damning with faint praise. I don't see where she goes from here.
• Ben Carson is clearly a great guy and I am certain he could teach all of us many things, but he's not going to be president. I don't see a path forward for him, either.
• I don't know if the money will run out for Rand Paul, but I hope he stays in the race. I don't see him having a way forward, either, but by offering a contrarian view of foreign policy generally, and military policy in particular, he provided a useful service in the debate. It's not a given that spending a lot more money on defense is the right answer. We do need to think long and hard about the failures of nation building and whether a return to a more neoconservative approach is proper. Paul is asking the right questions.
• My hunch is that Chris Christie made the most progress yesterday. The standard objections apply in his case, but his demeanor seems better suited for the moment than just about everyone else on the stage. I suspect he'll move up and will contend in New Hampshire.
• Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were going at it hammer and tong throughout much of the debate. On an intellectual level, Cruz seems far superior, but Rubio is a far more appealing politician. While the provenance of the Gang of Eight is a relevant consideration to the Republican primary electorate, I'm not convinced it will matter very much in the general election. What happened at the beginning of 2013 matters quite a lot less than what is happening now. In some important ways, Cruz is closer to Rand Paul's approach, while Rubio has become significantly more bellicose as the campaign goes on. I suspect both of these guys will be in the race for a while.
• Then we have our man Trump, candidate as performance artist. No one laid a glove on him yesterday. He will continue to throw out substance-free assertions as long as he can get by with it and I don't see anyone who can force him to be specific -- Hugh Hewitt tried with his questions about the triad, but Trump just blew the question off. We'll be tough and great, apparently, if Trump is at the helm. As that noted political savant Baron von Raschke would say, that is all the people need to know. Personally, I'd like to know a lot more but I'm doubtful we'll hear details any time soon.

In the end, I don't think yesterday changed much. How did you see things? Did you see it? Let me know in the comments.