In order of how I think each did from worst to best. This should not be confused with support of the candidate, just how much traction I think they got.

Huntsman. He seems like a reasonable guy and he got a few good responses, but I got the sense that he doesn't have a lot of substantive plans behind the comments and if pushed like some of the other debaters were would crumble. I do not get the vibe of a president from him at this juncture. I don't think he will do that well.

Perry. He did better than previous debates and seemed more comfortable in his own skin. He had a few good one liners and came across a bit better, but some of his ideas are ambitious and he did not project the sort of powerful personality it would take to be an effective president much less a transitional figure.

Santorum. He fails to excite. He is repetitive and uninspired, but that recurring message will resonate with much of the GOP. That being said, he is not strong when venturing out from his family values platform into foreign policy or what i feel to be the issue this cycle, the economy.

Bachman. She was the most aggressive of the bunch. She got in Gingrich's face over and over on his relationship with Fanny and Freddie, his pro life, or lack of a strong enough stance on pro life by her assertion. She seemed really miffed about him questioning her facts and broke stride a bit. I think she would say she did well and while the lady scares the hell out of me, so does newt and I am glad someone put the heat to him. The enemy of my enemy.

Paul. In case it's not obvious, this is the guy I most closely align my views with. Not on all things, but on civil liberties, constitutional policy, monetary policy and some of his foreign policy. He seemed to resonate on government spending and the need for a serious effort to get our fiscal house in order. His desire to bring troops home was received well, but his statements on Iran were not popular with the GOP. i think those statements are going to push him down to third when Iowa goes to the polls, perhaps fourth behind Bachman.

Romney. Personally I would not rank him second, but first. I do not feel many of the GOP faithful likely do, though so he gets a second. He fended off attacks well, never really losing step. His emphasis on his real world experience and insistence on attacking Obama not the others on the stage was very astute and forward thinking. That registers with me. I'm not ready to say I would vote for the guy, but in this field he is the one aside from Paul that would not bring bile to the back of my throat like the guy that I have to rank 1st.

Gingrich. He's dirty. He's transitory, He has a personal life that speaks volumes to his character and I do not lean as strongly on the "family values" platform as I suspect a lot of people in that audience do. Despite the fair charges leveled at him leading up to and during the debate, I believe his ability to weather the storm and push back won people over. A president must be strong and unflappable and he stood strong as Bachman attacked in earnest. Is he clean, hell no, but in elections we see truth is not nearly as important as the personality and he was the strongest on that stage.

I like your assessments, but with the liberties these candidates take with the truth and the ease with which they lie, they should probably consider fewer debates.

For example, Romney boasted he spent his entire life in the private sector. Uh, yeah. Well, except maybe those years he spent as Governor and a failed presidential candidate in the last election

And Newt? I laughed when he claimed he balanced the governments budget for straight 4 years while Speaker of the House. Sure, there were 4 consecutive government surpluses, but he was not even a member of Congress for the final two. He also failed to mention that the first two years he was Speaker, the government ran deficits. Plus he also dismissed any role the POTUS had in any of those surpluses, simply because he was a Democrat.

Santorum: I agree. He was a not particularly revered congressman here in PA, and he did some controversial things while in office before losing in the primaries after his second term when PA finally had enough of him. I'm surprised he's even running for president as I'm not sure at this point he could get elected dog catcher in his home state.