Ashe Schow has a roundup of each candidate’s features and failures.
I have to say that I find the (mostly male) criticism of Fiorina’s “sternness” and failure to smile silly. And maybe even sexist. In her deep knowledge of the issues, willingness to do her homework, and articulation, she is the anti-Trump.
[Afternoon update]
More debate observations from Andrew McCarthy.
[Update a while later]
According to the overnights, it was Carly’s night, and The Donald is starting to hemorrhage support from women:
A Fiorina surge would be more dangerous to the rest of the field than a Carson surge because there’s no reason to think she won’t continue to have excellent substantive debates. Carson tends to disappear at these things and his policy proposals seem like afterthoughts vis-a-vis his persona. If you’re backing him, it’s because you believe in the man and what he represents as a healer and a political outsider, not because you’re excited about his immigration proposals or whatever. Fiorina knows the issues, she’s unflappable, and she’s better than the boys are at taking Trump down a peg. Her weakness is her record at HP, but she was prepared for that last night and Republican voters have proved themselves willing to nominate a CEO whose business was responsible for many layoffs. Besides, the guy who’s ahead of her in the polls is a billionaire whose catchphrase is “you’re fired.” He’s the last person who’s going to try to Romney-fy Fiorina in the debates. I don’t think she’ll be the nominee, but that feeling owes more to simple tradition — people who haven’t held office before don’t win presidential primaries — than to any reasoned “here’s why Carly can’t win” argument. Of the three outsiders in the field, she’s easily the one the donor class would be most comfortable with as nominee. If people like Walker and Christie and even Jeb start to fall away, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Fiorina pick up some of their money (although most of it will go to Rubio).
As I’ve repeatedly noted, Trump is the “front runner” only in the sense that he has a plurality in a field of over a dozen candidates splitting a majority. Seven out of ten want a non-Trump. Some non-Trump is going to consolidate that vote.