Todd Graham is director of debate at Southern Illinois University. His teams have won national championships for three years, and he's been recognized twice as the national debate coach of the year. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. 
 
 (CNN) Debaters should adapt to the latest circumstances, and those are quite simple for the Republicans running for President: Donald Trump's steamrolling them in this election unless his opponents either (1.) Present a better case to be President while differentiating themselves from Trump or (2.) Attack Trump in a coherent and unified way. Haphazardly attacking Trump is ineffective. 
 
 For his part, Trump only needed to keep doing what has worked in the debates. Remind us why we dislike politicians, repeat his general themes, and don't get trapped having to provide specific policy proposals. 
 
 With those considerations in mind, here are my grades for Thursday's debate: 
 
 Ted Cruz: A 
 
 Cruz was assertive and his positions more clearly explained. Plus, he went on the offensive against Trump instead of against Marco Rubio. His answers on immigration were his best in any debate, talking about faith, family and patriotism. Both he and Rubio forgot their squabbles and focused on Trump. All great strategic moves. 
 
 Plus, Cruz selected a unique theme to attack Trump. He harped on Trump's donations to Democrats time and time again. Why? Because Cruz positioned himself to be a consistent conservative and this differentiated him from Trump. Sure. But it was craftier than that. 
 
 Trump's theme in the entire election is that he's an outsider, and we can't trust politicians. By constantly reminding us that Trump throws money (and influence) at one Democrat after another, Cruz stole a little bit of that "outsider" luster away from Trump. In this debate, Trump seemed like just another player in the business-as-usual political machine. 
 
 Marco Rubio: A 
 
 Like Cruz, Rubio showed up last night. He was much stronger and more forceful. His answers on immigration, Israel and health care were all better and his presence was way stronger than in previous debates. 
 
 Indeed, he pulled his own inner Chris Christie when he forced Trump to repeat himself several times without substance. Trump tried to remind Rubio that he'd repeated himself badly in a debate five weeks ago, but Rubio exclaimed, "I saw you repeat yourself five seconds ago!" It was fascinating to see Rubio do the same thing to Trump that Christie did to him. 
 
 At times, due to their similar debating tactics, it almost felt as if Rubio and Cruz were one candidate. They presented a unified attack, two against one, one position at a time. Cruz and Rubio consistently asked Trump for more details. Rarely letting him off the hook, their interrogation was targeted at the "how" question. 
 
 The idea was to get the Republican audience thinking along with them: How would you do that Donald? How would you save the budget? How would you fix health care? How would you support Israel? How can you be tough on illegal immigration if you've hired undocumented workers yourself? How can we trust you since there's a fraud suit against Trump University? 
 
 As for the interruptions, it was as if both Cruz and Rubio decided to give Trump a taste of his own medicine. While I don't approve of interruptions in debates, it's the only thing that's worked to slow down the playground-quarrelling techniques from Trump. Use his tactics against him. 
 
 John Kasich: A- 
 
 For Kasich, the grade is based off a different set of criteria. Kasich may be positioning himself to be a vice presidential selection (and Trump recently said he'd want someone with more political experience as his running mate). But if not, he's still trying to position himself as the level headed, cheerful, nonconfrontational voice of reason. And he pulled it off nicely. He demonstrated his own strengths, continually using examples of his governorship while avoiding criticizing Trump or others. 
 
 Donald Trump: C 
 
 What I liked most about Trump was his humor. After hearing quotes from Mexican politicians attacking him about paying for the wall, Trump retorted that, "the wall just got 10 feet taller!" I had to laugh. When Hugh Hewitt asked a question referencing his own radio program, Trump responded that, "very few people listen to your radio show ... check out the ratings." And when Cruz said Trump couldn't beat Clinton, Trump fired back that he hasn't attacked Clinton but one small time, and after his attack, "they had a rough weekend between Bill and Hillary." 
 
 A sense of humor goes a long way in debates, and even though Trump was constantly challenged, he did his best to maintain his humor, even by telling Rubio and Cruz, "I know you two are embarrassed" (by the polls), "but keep swinging at me ..." 
 
 Trump's failure in this debate, which was in large part due to sustained and organized attacks from Rubio and Cruz, was that he forgot his general themes and he missed opportunities to attack Washington politicians. Only in his opening and closing did he remind us strongly that politicians couldn't get things done. More importantly, both Rubio and Cruz forced Trump, time and time again, to defend (quite unsuccessfully) his policy stances. 
 
 Ben Carson: D 
 
 I don't know what Ben Carson wanted to achieve in the debate. He's not deep on policy specifics, so he's not debating to force other candidates toward detailed positions. And Carson doesn't present a unifying thesis, so he's not a single-issue debater (such as Sanders is with campaign finance/Wall Street greed). This late in the race, trailing badly in all polls, and without a compelling theme, Carson is mostly just spinning his wheels in the debates. ||||| Cruz was tough and canny—no surprise there. He went the full-Gingrich in his assault on CNBC’s ridiculous moderators. He did a better job explaining Social Security reform than Chris Christie, even (which is no mean feat). And managed to look downright personable compared with John Harwood, whose incompetence was matched only by his unpleasantness. If you’re a conservative voter looking for someone who is going to fight for your values, Cruz must have looked awfully attractive. 
 
 Rubio ended Jeb Bush’s campaign with the kind of body shot that buckles your knees. That’s on Bush, who never should have come after Rubio in that spot for a host of strategic and tactical reasons. But what should scare Hillary Clinton is how effortless Rubio is even with throwaway lines, like “I’m against anything that’s bad for my mother.�? Most people have no idea how fearsome raw political talent can be. Clinton does know because she’s seen it up close. She sleeps next to it for a contractually-obligated 18 nights per year. 
 
 Tonight’s debate showed that the GOP field is smaller than it looks. Technically, there are still fourteen people running, but the winnowing is far along. We probably have a final six and possibly a final four. 
 
 Then there was Trump. Over the last few weeks, Trump has gotten better on the stump. Well, don’t look now, but he’s getting better at debates, too. Trump was reasonably disciplined. He kept his agro to a medium-high level. And his situational awareness is getting keener, too. Note how he backed John Kasich into such a bad corner on Lehman Brothers that he protested, “I was a banker, and I was proud of it!�? When that’s your answer, you’ve lost the exchange. Even at a Republican debate. 
 
 And Trump had a hammer close: “Our country doesn’t win anymore. We used to win. We don’t anymore.�? I remain convinced that this line (along with his hardliner on immigration) is the core of Trump’s appeal. But he didn’t just restate this theme in his closing argument. He used it to: (1) beat up CNBC; and (2) argue that his man-handling of these media twits is an example of what he’ll do as president. It was brilliant political theater. 
 
 Those were your winners. You also saw tonight several campaigns which are over, even if the candidates don’t know it yet. Kasich was less likable than Rand Paul. Rand Paul was mostly invisible, and petulant when he was visible. Mike Huckabee wasn’t visible enough, except when he was doing his populist defense of Medicare and Social Security. But the effectiveness of this spot was diminished by Cruz’s excellent response, which is what people are apt to remember. There just isn’t enough space for him to make an impact by dint of personality in a field with a bunch of other strong and attractive personalities. And as for Bush? Jeb’s dead, baby. Jeb’s dead. 
 
 That leaves us with Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, and Ben Carson, who, by the way, is actually leading the field in some polls. 
 
 Christie was as impressive tonight as he could be, given his position. He had a great opening. His interjection on regulating fantasy football was tremendous. The “Even in New Jersey what you’re doing is called rude�? line to Harwood just killed. If the establishment had jumped on Christie early, instead of being scared off by the GW bridge scandal and going for Bush . . . well, this race would probably be different. But they didn’t. That said, we’ll keep Christie in our final grouping because he’s so talented that he’s always going to have a puncher’s chance. 
 
 Fiorina had a solid debate, but wasn’t the run-away winner she’d been in the first two debates. If her numbers couldn’t hold when she was the class of the field, I doubt they’ll move much when she’s merely on the high-side of the average. It looks more and more like Fiorina isn’t running to win the nomination. 
 
 And what to do about Carson? Gentle Ben was fine—great in some moments; pedestrian in others. I don’t think many people in the media fully grasp the passion for Carson, but that doesn’t make it any less real. And if you look at the history of Iowa, and Carson’s numbers now, it’s not hard to imagine him doing very well there. 
 
 So there’s your final six: Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, and maybe—just maybe—Fiorina and Christie. ||||| At the CNN debate in Miami, GOP candidates sparred over immigration, social security, how to talk about Muslims and more. Here are the key moments. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post) 
 
 The 12th Republican presidential debate is over. The Fix team annotated it while I tweeted and picked a handful of the best and worst of the night that was. They're below. 
 
 Winners 
 
 * Marco Rubio: The Florida senator was poised, confident and knowledgeable. He avoided any sort of personal attacks on Donald Trump and largely steered clear of clashing with the race's front-runner at all. It worked. (It also helped that Rubio had a hometown crowd ready to cheer his every word.) Watching Rubio on Thursday night, I found myself wondering where he might have been in this race if he hadn't (a) had brain-lock in the debate just before the New Hampshire primary and (b) hadn't spent 72 hours earlier this month getting in the gutter with Trump. Of course, that's besides the point now. Rubio's last hope in the race is to win Florida, denying Trump the state's 99 delegates and praying that, somehow, the race changes drastically and puts him back in the mix. It's a long shot. But Rubio deserves credit for performing extremely well when the chips were down. 
 
 * Donald Trump: Let me be honest here. I have no idea what to make of Trump when it comes to his debate performances. On the good side, Trump was far more measured and under control in this debate than in any of the previous ones. Gone were references to "Little Marco" and "Lyin' Ted" and the general rhetorical nastiness that has been a Trump hallmark since he announced his candidacy. And Trump was, largely, given a pass by the other men on the stage. Rubio, clearly scorched by his collapse in the wake of his juvenile attacks on Trump, wanted no piece of him. John Kasich, with a campaign built on hope and optimism, ignored Trump. Ted Cruz occasionally engaged Trump -- trying to paint him as a policy simpleton -- but the real estate mogul refused to take the bait. So, that was the good side. Scroll down for the bad side. 
 
 * Ted Cruz: The Texas senator succeeded, at times during the debate, in making it seem as though it was a one-on-one race between him and Trump. Cruz was also less deeply rehearsed in this debate -- to the good. He has a different challenge than Rubio or Kasich, who need to bend the arc of the contest. They need a knockout of Trump; Cruz is trying to beat him on points. And, on that front, this was a good debate for Cruz. He repeatedly hammered Trump's policy solutions as nothing more than empty rhetoric. Also, Rubio's good debate works in Cruz's favor. Cruz can't win Florida but needs to keep those 99 delegates away from Trump somehow. 
 
 * Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović: She's the Croatian president. (But, of course, you knew that.) And thanks to Kasich joking that he'd be running for president of Croatia if there wasn't immigration to the United States, I googled Ms. Grabar-Kitarović. I am certain I wasn't the only one. 
 
 
 
 Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic celebrates her victory against Ivo Josipovic in the presidential elections in Zagreb, Croatia. EPA/ANTONIO BAT 
 
 * Jake Tapper's pocket square: Hell yeah, Jake. I applaud men being a bit fashion forward. Dark suits, white shirts and red/blue ties? Boring. Pocket square? Now we're talking! 
 
 Losers 
 
 * Donald Trump: Imagine where Trump might be if he was willing to pick up a policy briefing book and, you know, skim it. He's often able to coast by in these debates even with an almost total lack of policy knowledge. But, he got caught flat-footed a few times in this one. The most painful? Trump's clear cluelessness about Cuba policy, made all the worse by Rubio's deep knowledge, which he dropped on Trump's head. The question, as always with Trump, is whether he lacks engagement on policy matters at all. It's nothing new, and he continues to win states and rack up delegates. Trump's supporters seem uninterested in the minutiae of his policy positions. Rather they respond to his toughness and his tone. So.... 
 
 * John Kasich: Kasich wasn't bad. He just didn't really stand out in any meaningful way. The Ohio governor kept up his Mr. Nice Guy routine, but it played slightly less well in this debate because everyone was much nicer to each other. Kasich's debate performance speaks to the larger conceit his campaign is built on; hang around, don't make mistakes and offer yourself as an optimistic alternative. The only way a strategy like that works, of course, is if all of the people in front of you implode or kill each other off. 
 
 * Reince Priebus: This was the 12th Republican debate. It is March. Given the lateness of the hour -- in terms of the primary -- it is never a good sign when the chairman of the Republican National Committee has to go out before a debate and assure voters everything is going to be just fine, no need to worry, the situation is under control, please move along, nothing to see here. 
 
 "This party is going to support the nominee, whoever that is, 100%." -- RNC Chair Reince Priebus — Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) March 11, 2016 
 
 * CNN: Look. I'm a man. I'm 40. I have two small children. I work a lot. Just tell me EXACTLY when the damn debate starts. Don't promote -- with your countdown clock no less! -- that the debate begins at 8:30 p.m. Eastern time only to tell viewers (okay, me) when they tune in that "right at the top of the 9 p.m. hour" things will get started. I, of course, get that CNN is making a ratings calculation here. They are betting that even if you are annoyed at their ruse -- you know, their cunning attempt to trick you -- you'll be too lazy to change the channel because you know it's only 30 more minutes until the debate starts. And, it works (on me). Still, CNN. Can't we all just act like grown-ups? Come on, man. What are we doing out here, man? ||||| Ten Republican candidates spent two-plus hours trading rhetorical jabs in the third GOP presidential debate in Boulder, Colo. Marco Rubio won; Jeb Bush lost. Also, some others. 
 
 I separated the good from the bad below. 
 
 Winners 
 
 * Marco Rubio: The senator from Florida was good in the first two debates. He was outstanding in this one. The long-awaited showdown between Rubio and Bush wound up being a romp; Jeb tried to attack on Rubio's Senate attendance but got schooled by a very well-prepared Rubio. Rubio repeatedly took tough questions and turned them to his advantage, finding ways to tell his compelling personal story and steer the conversation toward what the GOP needs to do to beat Hillary Clinton. Rubio, as I've long noted, is the most naturally talented candidate in either party's field; he showed it tonight. 
 
 * Ted Cruz: Cruz had the single most memorable moment of the debate when, early on, he took on the CNBC moderators for the alleged "gotcha" questions they were asking. It drew a huge response in the debate hall and outside of it — and set the stage for a litany of attacks against the media from Cruz's rivals as the night wore on. Cruz, as he did in the first two debates, used his time wisely — driving home the message that he's the only guy with the backbone to stand up not just to Democrats but to leaders in his own party. Had Rubio not been so good, Cruz would be the story of the night. 
 
 * Chris Christie: For the second straight debate, Christie found ways to do more with less (time). His "Why the hell are we talking about fantasy sports" riff was outstanding and reinforced the idea of the New Jersey governor as a plain-spoken truth-teller. The question for Christie is whether it will make any difference; he continues to struggle to make up ground on the front-runners and is barely clinging to his spot on the debate stage. 
 
 * Donald Trump: This was a most un-Trump performance. With the exception of a smack-down of John Kasich in the early going, Trump was largely content to stay out of the fray and stick to his talking points when he did get a question. And, somewhat amazingly to me, he skated by without any real attacks by any of his rivals for the nomination. Yes, Trump has lost some momentum of late but didn't anyone notice he is still in first or second place in every single state and national poll? Hard to see him slipping from that perch as a result of tonight's proceedings. 
 
 * Lindsey Graham: For the second straight undercard debate, the senator from South Carolina was in a class of his own. He was funny and knowledgeable. But, it was in the undercard debate. 
 
 Losers 
 
 * Jeb Bush: Oh, Jeb. This was a really bad night for someone who needed a good-to-really-good night. Bush tried to drop the opposition research book on Rubio's head in the early going but got beat by someone who is just better at this stuff. After that swing and miss, Bush seemed totally cowed for much of the next hour. Sure, he made one good joke about his fantasy football team. But one good joke in a two-plus hour debate does not a victory make. And as for his campaign's chagrin at CNBC for his lack of speaking time, that feels to me like a smokescreen designed to distract people from his poor performance. Prediction: The buzz about whether Jeb is up to this race, which was at a relatively low level before tonight, is going to start getting a lot louder. 
 
 * Ben Carson: The doctor's first three answers of the night were close to nonsensical. He repeatedly seemed surprised when called on and struggled to articulate his points or use facts to help bolster them. He seemed out of his depth. Now, Carson's appeal — and what has made him the race's front-runner of late — is that he sounds and acts nothing like a polished politician. So, I suppose, by that logic, Carson might have had a less-bad night than I think. 
 
 During the third GOP debate, candidates got feisty with the CNBC moderators. They took aim at the questions asked, at the "mainstream media" and at the moderators interrupting their answers. (Victoria M. Walker/The Washington Post) 
 
 * CNBC: Yes, some of the bashing of the network was simply politicians playing to the crowd. Republican voters think the media is biased, so when you as a candidate bash the media for being biased, you win. But, a lot of the questions the moderators asked seemed to be framed like this: "You said or did X controversial thing. Explain." I'm all for some of that — after all, politicians need to be accountable for their public statements — but it veered occasionally into "gotcha" territory. 
 
 CNBC should be ashamed of how this debate was handled. #GOPDebate — Reince Priebus (@Reince) October 29, 2015 
 
 One other note: No one wants to hear talking heads, um, talk over the candidates being introduced on stage. (I say this as a sometime talking head myself.) The candidates and how they interact with one another is all anyone cares about. Show that and get out of the way. Period. Full stop. 
 
 * Rand Paul: The senator from Kentucky seemed barely there. When he did get questions, which wasn't often, he recited stump-speech material without much vim or vigor. It's hard to see how Rand stays in the race all that much longer — particularly with the pressure he is getting from fellow Republicans to come back to Kentucky to defend his Senate seat next November. 
 
 * John Kasich: I get what the Ohio governor was going for. He knew he needed to stand out and figured the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more" schtick was the way to do it. It worked — the first time. But, after the first 15 minutes, I felt like Kasich was just shouting at me and that the actual message — to the extent there was one — got lost. ||||| GOP presidential candidates clashed over immigration, government spending and how to handle Russia's Vladimir Putin during Tuesday night's debate. As the night got heated, the audience got involved: here are the must-watch moments. (Ashleigh Joplin and Rebecca Schatz/Fox Business Network) 
 
 The eight top Republican presidential candidates gathered for the fourth debate of the 2016 campaign Tuesday night in Milwaukee. It was a more understated affair than the last GOP debate sponsored by CNBC but still managed to yield some bests and worsts. 
 
 Here are my winners and losers from the night that was: 
 
 Winners 
 
 * Marco Rubio: Rubio's line about welders making more money than philosophy majors will be quoted all over the place in the post-debate analysis. (And, no, it wasn't totally accurate.) Rubio knocked it out of the park when debating military spending and the right role for America in the world with Rand Paul. He got a meatball of a question when asked by the moderators about Hillary Clinton's résumé as compared with his own; he, unsurprisingly, answered it well and easily. Time and time again, he oozed knowledge while appearing entirely relaxed. One nit to pick with Rubio: He can — and did at times Tuesday night — come across as slightly too rehearsed, the student reciting things back to the teacher from memory but without actually understanding what any of it means. 
 
 * Ted Cruz: For the second straight debate, the senator from Texas shone under the bright lights. His line about the tax code having more words than the Bible was a good and memorable one. His repeated denunciations of Washington's "crony" culture will leave a lot of Republican heads nodding in agreement. Cruz proved Tuesday night that of the "outsider" candidates, he is the one best equipped to carry their message going forward. 
 
 * Ben Carson: In the first three debates, I watched in wonder as Carson's numbers kept moving up after what I perceived to be nearly nonexistent performances. But Carson — from his first answer on Tuesday night — was more energetic (that's a pretty low bar given Carson's past performances) and more dialed in than I had seen him. He was helped by a moderator question on his past exaggerations/inaccuracies regarding his life story that would give the term "softball" a bad name. And by the fact that none of his rivals seemed interested in taking the fight to him on the issue of the inconsistencies of his recounting of the past. Carson was, as usual, very shaky on foreign policy and wasn't much better on regulatory reform. But he did more than enough to keep himself at or near the top of the GOP field. 
 
 * Carly Fiorina: Like Cruz and Rubio, Fiorina proved something Tuesday night that we already knew: She's an able debater. She inserted herself into a variety of discussions — foreign policy, taxes — where she left a positive mark. It also helped that the audience in the room in Milwaukee seemed very much on her side. I still think Fiorina, like Rubio, can come across as too rote at times. 
 
 * Rand Paul: The senator from Kentucky (finally) found ways to get his voice heard in a debate. The problem for him is that he's almost certainly too far down in polling — and in the money chase — for it to matter much. Still, Paul found a platform to voice his unique views on foreign and fiscal policy, and, at this stage of his candidacy, that amounts to a win. 
 
 Losers 
 
 * Donald Trump: Trump, as he has in each of the first four debates, stood center stage in Milwaukee on Tuesday night. But for the two-plus hours that the debate ran, Trump felt ancillary to the conversation. When he did get time to speak, he simply repeated his now-familiar lines — we don't win anymore, I have a great company, etc. — and little else. His answers on foreign policy were not good. His random attack on Fiorina — "why does she keep interrupting everybody?" — earned him boos from the crowd (and helped her). Trump just didn't seem all that interested in being there. It likely won't affect his poll numbers, since nothing seems to. But that doesn't change the fact he was off his game. 
 
 * John Kasich: The Ohio governor came out with a strategy to install himself right in the center of the debate. To do that, he interrupted, cajoled and pouted his way through it. His positions on immigration and on Wall Street banks won't win him any support from the GOP base (he got booed for his Wall Street answer). But it wasn't really about policy. Kasich seemed peevish, short-tempered and anything but presidential. 
 
 * Jeb Bush: Look, the former Florida governor wasn't bad in this debate. In fact, he was far better than the lifeless showing he put in last month. But he wasn't good enough. Jeb's first answer — pledging to repeal all of Obama's executive orders — was forceful and quite good. But as the debate wore on, Bush repeatedly missed chances to jump into conversations — a long back-and-forth involving multiple candidates over taxes jumps to mind — and when he did speak he was somewhat halting and awkward. The Bush people readily acknowledge that debating is not his strong suit. And I readily acknowledge that being a good debater doesn't guarantee victory. But Bush just isn't comfortable on the debate stage — and it shows. 
 
 * Anecdotes: Virtually every candidate took a question about broad fiscal policy and turned it into a heartwarming/heart-wrenching tale of "Jim and Aileen Jones from random city in random state." I know candidates and their staffs believe these anecdotes bolster the idea that they are out meeting regular people and not sitting in the halls of Washington — wherever those are — opining on stuff. But the anecdotes come across more often than not as trite and cliched rather than revealing and powerful. Let's just stop doing it! Okay? Good. It's a deal. 
 
 * Debate format: The Fox Business moderators went out of their way to make clear that they, unlike the unmentioned but ever-present CNBC moderators, would be sticking to substantive economic issues in the debate. Then they went out of their way to praise themselves for doing so. Fine. But the debate was largely lifeless throughout, and the lack of candidate exchanges — whether because of the rules of the debate or a simple unwillingness to engage — meant that many of the answers offered were straight from oft-repeated talking points. I don't think that serves the voters' interests — at all. ||||| The fourth Republican presidential debate on Tuesday night was a less dramatic, more substantive affair than the previous three clashes of the 2016 cycle. Who shone and who wilted under the lights in Milwaukee? 
 
 WINNERS 
 
 Sens. Marco Rubio Marco Antonio RubioNauert faces questions about qualifications at UN The Memo: Trump puts isolationism at center stage Trump's military moves accelerate GOP search for next McCain MORE (Fla.) and Ted Cruz Rafael (Ted) Edward CruzWhat a year it’s been: A month-by-month look back at 2018's biggest stories O'Rourke rips Trump's border wall in video: 'A symbol of division' Bloomberg ready to spend at least 0M if he runs for White House in 2020 MORE (Texas) 
 
 On a night without a single standout moment, the polish and poise of the two senators were valuable assets. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 Rubio is probably the most charismatic figure in this year’s GOP field among those who hold public office. Some of his best moments Tuesday night were on very different topics, including college education and foreign policy. 
 
 In the debate’s closing stages, he displayed a light touch when moderator Maria Bartiromo delivered a lengthy and positive summary of Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonHillary Clinton says goodbye to 2018: 'A dark time for our country' 2019 forecast: Chaos with a chance of progress What a year it’s been: A month-by-month look back at 2018's biggest stories MORE’s resumé, to the consternation of the Republican crowd. Before going on to answer how someone with his relative lack of experience could compete with Clinton, Rubio merely laughed and said wryly that Bartiromo had asked a "great question." 
 
 Cruz had delivered an especially strong performance at the previous debate, in Boulder, Colo., on Oct 28, and he kept the momentum going here. His responses on entitlement reform and the need to avoid bailing out the financial system again were fluent and clear. 
 
 Cruz did have an uncharacteristic misstep when, having stated he would get rid of five government agencies, he in fact named only four. Cruz cited the Department of Commerce twice, but his stumble was immeasurably less damaging than then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s infamous “oops” moment, on the same subject, in 2012. 
 
 Sen. Rand Paul Randal (Rand) Howard PaulRand Paul's Festivus 'grievances' include comparing Lindsey Graham to Senator Palpatine Santorum: Trump base might not back Syria pullout Coons: Trump handing a ‘great big Christmas gift’ to Russia and Iran with Syria withdrawal MORE (Ky.) 
 
 Paul has seemed at best a marginal figure in previous debates, but he came alive in Milwaukee. He hit early on his distrust of the Federal Reserve, an article of faith for the libertarians who backed the presidential bids of his father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). 
 
 He also went after Rubio on the Floridian’s plans for an increased tax credit and then expanded that critique to attack his proposals to increase military spending as well. That clash had no clear winner, but Paul held his own. His strong performance will hardly transform him into a front-runner, but the improvement from his previous showings was notable nonetheless. 
 
 Fox Business Network 
 
 The debate hosts were always likely to avoid the fate of CNBC, which drew heavy criticism after the Colorado debate, with moderators accused of asking “gotcha” questions and adopting a generally querulous tone. By contrast, Tuesday’s debate was smoothly run and substantive, with the three moderators being neither spineless nor gratuitously rude. The ratings have yet to be revealed, but Fox Business will surely win critical praise for how it ran the show. 
 
 New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie 
 
 After Fox Business decided that only eight contenders would be present on the main stage Tuesday, Christie found himself confined to the undercard debate. If that hurt his pride, it didn’t show. The New Jersey governor was clearly the best performer of the four candidates in the earlier clash, the others being Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.). In particular, Christie turned Jindal’s attacks on his conservative credentials to his advantage, positioning himself as a would-be uniter of the party and Jindal as a petty divider. 
 
 MIXED 
 
 Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush 
 
 This was Bush’s best performance in any of the debates so far. Unfortunately for him, that’s a rather low bar. 
 
 He did get two effective lines in early, both of which alluded to Clinton. One mocked her sunny assessment of President Obama’s economic record. The other was his insistence that Clinton’s campaign would be “doing high-fives...right now” after listening to Donald Trump Donald John TrumpTrump: 'No choice' on continuing government shutdown Syrian troop withdraw will take four months: report Kim Jong Un: North Korea may 'seek a new path' if US doesn't negotiate MORE restate his hard line on illegal immigration. 
 
 But there were two big problems for Bush. His performance was marginal for much of the debate — 18 minutes passed at the start before he was asked a question, something he pointed out in a display of assertiveness not seen in the previous debates — and there was no outstanding moment that seemed likely to reinvigorate his ailing campaign. 
 
 Retired surgeon Ben Carson 
 
 Carson’s low-wattage style has both fans and detractors, but he is clearly sticking with it. His best moment in the debate came early on when he wryly deflected a question about the media coverage he has received in recent weeks. But Carson can also come across as meandering. Additionally, he ruled out raising the minimum wage despite having indicated in May that he supported such a move. That could spark yet another controversy in a campaign that, for all its strengths, doesn’t need any more of them. 
 
 Businesswoman Carly Fiorina 
 
 It was more of the same from the former Hewlett Packard CEO. She is a very effective communicator who wraps many of her policy positions in the same overarching theme: that vested interests control the political system and that she is the person to take them on. But the suspicion lingers that Fiorina had her moment in the sun after the second GOP debate in September. She has faded since then, and there’s no apparent reason to believe she can reverse that trend. 
 
 Businessman Donald Trump 
 
 This was the mogul’s weakest performance in any of the four debates. No single disaster befell him, but he had a couple of bad moments. One came when he complained about Fiorina interrupting other candidates, in the process reminding people of a previous uproar over his comments about her appearance. The other came when, asked about the threat from Russia, he delivered an answer that was conspicuously lacking in detail. Still, Trump remains far ahead in the polls, alongside Carson, despite endless predictions of his imminent demise. Don’t be surprised if his poll ratings prove durable one more time. 
 
 LOSERS 
 
 Ohio Gov. John Kasich 
 
 Kasich needed a big night and he got one — but in all the wrong ways. Kasich tried to mix it up with several candidates and almost always emerged the loser. Early on, Trump swatted his attacks aside. Much later, he tangled with Cruz on the wisdom of bailing out troubled banks. At one point during that exchange, Kasich appeared to suggest he could decide who should lose their deposits during a bank failure in a financial crisis. Such moments undercut Kasich’s central claim as a pragmatic executive. It was a very bad night for Kasich, and deeper questions are now likely to be asked about the viability of his candidacy.
– The debate post-mortems have a clear theme Friday morning: Marco Rubio is the consensus winner after his relentless attacks on Donald Trump, with the big question being whether it's too late to stop the frontrunner's momentum. Some highlights: "This was not only Rubio's best debate performance. It was the best debate performance by any candidate in any debate so far in the 2016 election." So declares Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post; he thinks it's now a two-man race between Rubio and Trump. Ted Cruz also scored points for his Trump assaults, and Todd Graham at CNN gives him an A. "His answers on immigration were his best in any debate, talking about faith, family, and patriotism. Both he and Rubio forgot their squabbles and focused on Trump. All great strategic moves." "For those fearful of Trump as the party’s nominee, Thursday was supposed to be the night that the dynamic of the race began to change," writes Dan Balz at the Washington Post. "Certainly Rubio and Cruz tried to make that happen, with some success. But Tuesday’s balloting will be the real first test of whether things actually are changing." Trump generally is getting bad to mediocre reviews—the New York Times says the attacks on him resulted in a "less nimble performance"—but David A. Graham of the Atlantic thinks it was his "worst debate of the campaign." Of course, "one rule of thumb so far has been that no matter how Trump performs during these debates, it doesn’t seem to hurt him." One succinct wrap-up comes from Mary Kissel of the Wall Street Journal via Twitter: “Blitzer loses. Cruz-Rubio tag team against Trump effective, but too late? Trump took big hits. Kasich blah. Goodbye, Ben.” Click to read some of the debate's best lines.