What sorts of first impressions can we draw from this debate?

Romney and Gingrich are clearly playing the centre role - high frequency of discussions about them from the moderating team, high criticism of their remarks by other candidates. It is difficult to speculate whether people will buy their explanations on bipartisanship or take a hard-line against them. Gingrich was able to present himself as a serious, knowledgeable leader with proven policy victories in the past. Romney, in turn, provided his private sector experience in contrast to Obama, while defending his ability for negotiating with the Democratic party.

Bachmann openly presented her case for sincere and serious consideration of her candidacy, lamenting the dismissal of her factual criticism of the other candidates. At the same time, this appears to be a strategy only applicable to someone approaching from the rear of the pack. She served well in criticizing Gingrich's pro-life credentials and his association with FM influence - but this is not enough to present yourself as a contender for the top.

In this debate, it seems that Santorum pulled back a lot from his usual reliance on citing his experience, instead using his participation in local Iowa townhalls to buttress his potential. He presented his social credentials, but not much else (he seems to have strange and dangerous opinions on Iran?).

Similarly, Perry has moved towards using down-country charm and blue-collar references (and direct criticism of Obama) to remain in the game. A lot of Perry's time was spent defending his policies in Texas - but this was largely as a result of moderator dialogue, rather than defending the centre position, which does not seem promising.

Ron Paul. He was ignored for essentially the second half of the debate. Nothing said between 22:15 and 22:55. He was able to present his foreign policy platform - it seems to be strong, but readily divisive based on audience reaction. It may be problematic that his approach appears to be more geared to a presidential campaign than a primary competition (in which he can be sniped at for failing to live up to 'American values'). His criticism of Gingrich was devastating. Paul seems to be a wildcard third-place contender: will the time spent attacking Romney and Gingrich open a door for serious attention over the long run?

If Huntsman does not increase his polling numbers beyond the 2-3% cap, he is rapidly going to fall into the 'running for VP' category. He does not attack other candidates, but presents a rational and academic stance to every question - he has the credentials and ability to reach the top, but the time is not yet right.