Rudy is widely seen as the winner of the last debate by NRO-style pundits based on his (just) whipping up on the insane member of the panel.
I gave him his due at the time, but I think people are missing the central point of the Rudy campaign. With every debate, Rudy is narrowing the number of Republicans who feel they can vote for him in the primary. When he gets to the point where only 1 in 3 or 4 Republicans will consider voting for him . . . he can be the short term front runner, and be promised many delegates, while having no potential to win the nomination.
There is no chance social conservatives will vote for Rudy in the primaries after this last debate. In that sense, it was a disaster for him. His status now depends on there remaining 3 or 4 viable “others” in the race to the end and beating them state by state.
This has not been how the races have turned out in my lifetime. There is always a crowded field that gets down to two real contenders with a weak third.
1988 was the first election where I was active as an adult . . . and it is typical on the Republican side. We started with many options, but Iowa narrowed them to George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. Pat Robertson sucked up the rest of the money and attention. He could not win, but knocked candidates like Jack Kemp out.
The same thing will likely happen this time and unless Rudy can break 1/3 of Republican primary voters (and I see him getting more like 1/4) a strong “other” (which will be Thompson or Romney) will always narrowly beat him. Some other person (a flagging McCain?) will make it seem close, but Rudy will keep losing “close” races that would not be close if the third guy left.
Rudy’s debate performance left me thinking, “Great secretary of defense! Great guy! Whack Dr. Mole again! Oh, I am not voting for him.”
In short, Rudy’s clearly articulated positions at the debate left many Republicans cheering him on, but deciding not to vote for him. You can (ask John Kerry) lose a debate while winning it.