text: Jeb Bush, who entered Tuesday night’s GOP debate with the most on the line, rose to the occasion and turned in his strongest debate performance to date, but it was Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz who again outshined their rivals. 
   
   While Bush's ability to find his footing on the primetime stage should reassure nervous donors, it’s unlikely to fundamentally change his position in the broader field—a B grade, after all, only brings an F up to a D. 
   
   Story Continued Below 
   
   Rubio and Cruz, now viewed as the two strongest candidates, ceded no ground, exploiting a much softer debate format in Milwaukee and again showcasing their mastery of the facts and ease under the bright lights. 
   
   Donald Trump also roared back to his caustic, combative form. But Ben Carson turned in his shakiest performance yet, struggling with a debate that focused more on substantive policy questions and taking up the least amount of speaking time despite his position in the center of the stage. 
   
   The two-hour debate, marked by a smattering of sharp exchanges but fewer fireworks than the three previous showdowns, is unlikely to dramatically alter the race as it now stands—and the status quo may hold through the end of the year, with the next GOP debate 35 days away and the month of December effectively a dead zone for campaign fundraising. 
   
   Many of the spats that generated heat on stage Tuesday night were familiar ones—illustrative of the broader ideological divisions within the GOP. 
   
   The first focused on immigration, with Trump and Cruz on one side opposite John Kasich and Bush, both desperate for air time given their standing behind the current front-runners and eagerly blasting Trump’s proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. 
   
   "It’s a silly argument. It’s not an adult argument. We all know you can’t pick them up and ship them back across the border,” said Kasich, paving a path for Bush to follow. 
   
   Trump responded by taking a dig at the Ohio governor and his state's economic recovery. "You’re lucky in Ohio that you struck oil," he said. 
   
   As the tussle escalated and Kasich started talking over him, Trump interjected, saying "I don't have to hear from this man." As Kasich looked to cut in again, Trump suggested he "let Jeb speak." 
   
   Bush followed by mockingly thanking Trump for "allowing me to speak at the debate." He also chided Trump for the mass deportation proposal, calling it "impossible." 
   
   “It’s not embracing American values, and it would tear communities apart,” Bush said about Trump’s plan. “And even having this conversation sends a powerful signal. They’re doing high-fives in the Clinton campaign when they hear this … the way you win the presidency is you have practical plans.” 
   
   Cruz followed with a defense of Trump’s position, asserting “it’s not anti-immigrant,” and landing a repeat of his well-received attack on the media. 
   
   “I understand when the mainstream media covers immigration, it often doesn’t see it as an economic issue, but I can tell you for millions of Americans at home watching this, it is a very personal economic issue,” Cruz said. “I would say the politics of it would be very, very, different if a bunch of lawyers or bankers were crossing the Rio Grande — or if a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press.” 
   
   Rubio, the author of the failed comprehensive immigration reform package that passed the Senate in 2013 but failed in the House for lack of support from grassroots conservatives, stayed out of the fray. 
   
   Rubio did land his own memorable moment when he tangled with Rand Paul, who criticized his proposals to increase military spending. 
   
   “I know that Rand is a committed isolationist,” Rubio said, dismissively. “I know that the world is a safer and a better place when the United States is the strongest country in the world.” 
   
   "Marco, Marco, how is it conservative to add a trillion-dollar expenditure to the federal government?” Paul shot back. “You cannot be a conservative if you’re going to keep promoting new programs that you’re not going to pay for. I want a strong national defense, but I don’t want us to be bankrupt.” 
   
   “You think defending this nation is expensive," Cruz chimed in. "Try not defending it." 
   
   Bush, desperate to improve on his disastrous performance in last month’s third GOP debate in Boulder, Colo., steadied himself with his response on immigration after showing some edginess early on. 
   
   Bush entered Tuesday night’s fourth GOP debate vowing to stop following the moderators’ rules and dead set on making his voice heard. 
   
   But in a major shift from the first three debates that quickly devolved into freewheeling slugfests, the five candidates who got questions before Bush did at the outset of the two-hour debate in Milwaukee were suddenly playing by the rules. 
   
   When Kasich, despite ranking behind Bush in the national polling, offered a lengthy answer to his first question and then threatened to interject after Cruz’s opening statement, an antsy Bush jumped in. 
   
   "I got about four minutes last debate, I'm gonna get my question,” Bush said. 
   
   “I appreciate it, Jeb,” Kasich shot back. “I’m all for you.” 
   
   Bush got his footing as the debate progressed, attacking Trump for his assertion that the U.S. cannot be the world's policemen. "Donald is wrong on this. He is absolutely wrong on this," Bush said. "We are not going to be the world’s policemen but we sure as hell better be the world’s leader." 
   
   “That’s like a board game. That’s like playing Monopoly or something," said Bush, who seemingly meant to refer to the game Risk, not Monopoly. 
   
   Twelve days after his rehearsed attack on Rubio backfired so spectacularly, Bush opted not to attack or engage Rubio at all. 
   
   Carson, who now sits atop some national polls, struggled on a foreign policy question about how he would combat ISIS in the Middle East. 
   
   “We have to say, how do we make them look like losers? And I think the way to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate,” Carson said, seemingly arguing for ground forces to remove ISIS from Iraq. 
   
   “Take that from them, take that land from them, we could do that fairly easily,” he said. 
   
   Carson also addressed the recent scrutiny of a number of his anecdotal biographical claims, again criticizing the media for portraying him unfairly. 
   
   “The fact of the matter is, we should vet all candidates,” Carson said early in the debate. “What I do have a problem with is being lied about and putting that out there as truth. I don’t even mind that so much if they do that with everybody … when I look at somebody like Hillary Clinton who sits there and tells her daughter and a government official that no this was a terrorist attack and tells everybody else it was a video, where I come from, they call that a lie. 
   
   “I think that’s very different from somebody misinterpreting when I said I was offered a scholarship to West Point,” he continued. “People who know me know that I’m a honest person.” 
   
   ||||| 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. ||||| Milwaukee — It was, at last, a debate about policy. If the emergence of Donald Trump and the efforts of previous debate moderators to pit candidates against each other have forestalled the policy arguments that typically characterize Republican primary contests, Fox Business Network’s debate on Tuesday brought them to the fore. 
   
   Less than three months before voters go to the polls in January, the candidates clashed on some of the major issues that have divided the Republican party over the past six years: The night’s big moments did not come from one candidate trashing another, but from policy exchanges, first on immigration and then on defense spending. After months of headlines dominated by a real-estate mogul-cum-reality-television star, it was a welcome change of pace. 
   
   The event was steady and studious, and the upshot was predictable — an evening that did little to alter the trajectories of individual candidates or the broader narrative of the race. In the course of two hours there were no knockout punches, no major gaffes, no made-for-opposition-research moments. Each of the candidates went silent for a stretch, but none completely disappeared as in previous debates — perhaps because the stage had shrunk to only eight, the smallest primetime grouping to date. 
   
   If a single issue can be said to have encapsulated the bitter divisions within the Republican party over the past six years, it is immigration, and the key disagreements between the candidates — over border security, legal immigration, and amnesty — came to the fore during Tuesday’s debate. 
   
   RELATED: Ted Cruz Wins the Night 
   
   It was Donald Trump, predictably, who started it all. Heaping praise on court rulings that struck down President Obama’s executive action on immigration, he reiterated his intention to build a wall on the Southern border. “We will have a wall, the wall will be built, the wall will be successful,” he said. “And if you don’t think walls work, just ask Israel.” 
   
   John Kasich, the prickly Ohio governor standing three podiums away, denounced Trump’s plan as “a silly argument” that “makes no sense,” earning notably louder applause than Trump had. 
   
   RELATED: Winners & Losers 
   
   Enter Jeb Bush, who rebuked his fellow Republicans for having a conversation about deporting illegal immigrants in the first place. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, he said, was trading “high-fives” over the terrible optics. 
   
   The event was steady and studious, and the upshot was predictable — an evening that did little to alter the trajectories of individual candidates. 
   
   “That’s the problem with this,” Bush said. “We have to win the presidency. And the way you win the presidency is to have practical plans.” He advocated allowing illegal immigrants to earn legal status after paying fines. “That’s the proper path to making this work,” he said. 
   
   The crowd again erupted in applause, seemingly handing the exchange to Bush and Kasich rather than to Trump. Bush was desperately in need of a standout performance after being bulldozed by Marco Rubio at last month’s Colorado debate, and this was perhaps the high point of his evening. As the debate wore on, he seemed to once again disappear for long stretches. 
   
   Ted Cruz, ignoring the crowd’s enthusiasm for Bush’s and Kasich’s more moderate immigration stances, then chimed in with the last word on the issue. “If Republicans join Democrats in granting amnesty, we will lose,” he said bluntly. He went on to argue that Republicans could embrace both legal immigration and the rule of law. It wasn’t a hit with the audience in the debate hall, but will play well with Cruz’s grassroots base. 
   
   Marco Rubio, whose introduction met with louder applause than any of his rivals’, once again played a starring role Tuesday night. Two weeks after slapping down Bush in a memorable exchange, the Florida senator was involved in another explosive back-and-forth with Rand Paul, the field’s most vocal champion of so-called “non-interventionism.” Rubio is perhaps its most visible proponent of a more muscular foreign policy. 
   
   Paul charged that Rubio’s call to increase defense spending is “not very conservative.” 
   
   Among Republican primary voters, Rubio knew he was on strong footing, and he pushed back. “I know that Rand is a committed isolationist,” he said, using a term that the Kentucky senator has openly bristled at. Indeed, when Paul laid out his foreign-policy platform a year ago, he declared explicitly that he was “not an isolationist.” 
   
   Paul was unfazed. “Marco, Marco, Marco,” he said. “How is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures?” 
   
   “We can’t even have an economy if we’re not safe,” Rubio replied. “There are radical jihadists in the Middle East beheading people and crucifying Christians. A radical Shia cleric in Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon. The Chinese taking over the South China Sea. Yes, I believe the world is a safer and better place when America is the strongest military power in the world.” 
   
   It was the biggest applause line of the night, but Paul would not be deterred. “Marco, I don’t think we are any safer from bankruptcy court. As we go further and further into debt, we are less and less safe. This is the most important thing we’re gonna talk about tonight. Can you be a conservative and be for unlimited military spending?” 
   
   Cruz jumped in to position himself between his two colleagues, calling for a “middle ground” in the debate — as he has in the Senate, where he’s said his views fall somewhere between those of Rand Paul and John McCain. But he was clearly closer to McCain’s end of the spectrum on Tuesday — or in this case, to Rubio’s. “You think defending this nation is expensive? Try not defending it. That’s a lot more expensive,” Cruz said, winning thunderous applause. 
   
   The debate over defense spending and America’s role in the world has roiled the GOP in the years since Barack Obama was elected in 2008 partly on the basis of his promises to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul’s election in 2010 gave non-interventionism a spokesman on the Republican side, and he rose to national prominence in large part by articulating his view that the United States should play a more restrained role in world affairs. Rubio was elected in 2010 too, and he has served as the leading spokesman of the opposing view, that strengthening and maintaining America’s role as a beacon of freedom abroad is essential to security at home. 
   
   On Tuesday, millions of Republican primary voters had the chance to see that debate and others play out in real time, and to make up their own minds. The reality that the night seemed not to move the needle in any significant direction was apparent from the tone and body language of campaign officials. No one had anything but praise for the moderators. Everyone took to the spin room looking pleased and relaxed if not especially triumphant or dejected, all of them satisfied with their candidate’s performance but none claiming a game-changing moment. Milwaukee produced no consensus loser in the eyes of the campaigns and media, no brewing speculation of anyone dropping out in the days ahead — just talk of soldiering on and bracing for a long, incremental slog to a nominating season that begins Feb. 1 in Iowa. 
   
   — Eliana Johnson is Washington editor of National Review. Tim Alberta is chief political correspondent for National Review. ||||| Tweet with a location 
   
   You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| “That,” he added, as the crowd erupted into applause, “is not how the real world works.” 
   
   On Tuesday night, Mr. Bush, whose chronic struggles on the debate stage have unnerved his supporters and dragged down his standing in the polls, was a feistier and more assertive combatant, demanding more time from moderators, offering flashes of improvised humor and delivering crisper answers than he has in the past. 
   
   Whether it will be enough to turn around his flagging campaign is uncertain: Mr. Bush has a well-documented gift for gaffes and his creaky candidacy feels out of sync with the furious mood of the electorate. 
   
   But on Tuesday, unlike in earlier debates, he no longer seemed as desperate to be somewhere else. 
   
   In fact, he pleaded for more questions. 
   
   Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
   
   When Gov. John Kasich of Ohio tried to horn in on an inquiry directed at Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida cut him off. 
   
   Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
   
   “You’ve already made two comments, John,’’ he said. “It’s my turn.” 
   
   Mr. Bush had stood by as rivals talked over him during the last Republican debate, a decision he regretted. But in intensive practice sessions in the weeks since, he had focused on squeezing out every last minute of time on camera. 
   
   Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
   
   “I got about four minutes in the last debate,” he said at one point on Tuesday night. “I’m going to get my question right now.” 
   
   Under intense pressure, after apologizing for his poor showings in the past, Mr. Bush hired a debate guru to refine his performance style. The changes were sometimes obvious. His gestures were less jangling. His answers were more concrete. He seemed, at times, more commanding. 
   
   Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
   
   Of course, it was not a total success — and Mr. Bush, the 62-year-old scion of an American political dynasty, did not entirely rid himself of awkward behaviors. 
   
   There were clenched smiles, obscure geographical references and hands that reflexively darted into his pockets. And after aggressively demanding that Mr. Kasich yield, Mr. Bush suffered a temporary setback: The Ohio governor talked over him anyway, at least temporarily. 
   
   Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
   
   But in contrast to previous debates, Mr. Bush generated a handful of memorable lines and moments, and seemed less daunted by Mr. Trump, the resident bully in each of the party’s confrontations so far. 
   
   At one point, Mr. Bush tartly thanked Mr. Trump for allowing him a chance to participate in a verbal rumpus. 
   
   Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
   
   “Thank you, Donald, for allowing me to speak at the debate,” he said. “That’s really nice of you. Really appreciate that. What a generous man you are.” 
   
   He repeatedly mocked Mr. Trump for what he said were pie-in-the-sky policy plans that could not possibly work and would play into Democratic plans to cast Republicans as the enemy of minority voters. After Mr. Trump reiterated his support for deporting 11 million illegal immigrants, Mr. Bush looked exasperated. 
   
   Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
   
   “They’re doing high-fives in the Clinton campaign right now,” he said. “The way you win the presidency is to have practical plans.” 
   
   Mr. Bush swallowed his long-held distaste for sound bites and managed to fire off a few of them. Asked which regulations he would cut to improve the economy, Mr. Bush pivoted, turning instead to a claim by Hillary Rodham Clinton that President Obama’s economic record should earn an A grade. He then lobbed a practiced-sounding barb. 
   
   Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Sign Up for the First Draft Newsletter Subscribe for updates on the 2016 presidential race, the White House and Congress, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday. Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. 
   
   “Really?” Mr. Bush asked. He ticked off a series of grim figures and wondered how Mrs. Clinton could say they were worthy of such a high grade. 
   
   Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
   
   “It may be the best that Hillary Clinton can do,” Mr. Bush said, “but it’s not the best America can do.” 
   
   As improved as Mr. Bush seemed, he still lacked the virtuoso skills and camera-ready ease of Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida. Mr. Bush reluctantly hired a debate coach last month, turning to a trusted family image maker, Jon Kraushar, who had polished the speaking skills of Mr. Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, who suffered from his own lapses in syntax. 
   
   Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
   
   During sessions held in Miami and Milwaukee, Mr. Kraushar and Mr. Bush’s aides counseled him to talk about real people and aim his fire at Mrs. Clinton, after an attempt to joust with Mr. Rubio badly backfired. And Mr. Bush vowed to embrace a philosophy long practiced by his more agile peers: Answer the question you want, not the one you were asked. 
   
   Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
   
   Moments after the debate, Mr. Bush’s top aides seemed palpably relieved that they would not, at least for a night, have to make excuses for him again. 
   
   In a midnight conference call with donors, Sally Bradshaw, a longtime Bush adviser, summed up the sentiment. 
   
   “Gosh, what a difference a week makes,” she said. ||||| Jeb Bush, left, speaks as Marco Rubio listens during Republican presidential debate at Milwaukee Theatre. | AP Photo Jeb Bush stops the bleeding His supporters say they were reassured by his performance. 
   
   MILWAUKEE — Jeb Bush didn’t try to beat Marco Rubio. He set a lower bar: shooting to best his own panned debate performances. And he succeeded on Tuesday, as top supporters declared a solid, mistake-free night in Milwaukee enough to wrap a “tourniquet” on a campaign that had been bleeding since the last debate two weeks ago. 
   
   “There’s always nervous Nellies in every campaign,” said former Sen. Mel Martinez, a Bush supporter spinning for the campaign in Milwaukee. “If they needed it, tonight certainly should have reassured them.” 
   
   Story Continued Below 
   
   “Thank God. He stopped the bleeding tonight,” added Ana Navarro, a Bush friend and adviser. “This can be the start of a turnaround if he builds on this solid performance.” 
   
   While Bush avoided any reprises of his failed confrontation with Rubio, he did come out the gate fiery. His first words were trying to get in his first words. “I got about four minutes in the last debate,” he interrupted early on. “I'm going to get my question — right now.” 
   
   After the previous debate, Bush’s donors urged him to back away from going on offense against Rubio. Some, most notably prominent Florida bundler Brian Ballard, have gone so far as to switch sides to back Rubio in recent days. The discussion of how to take on the candidate whom Bush’s orbit still believes is the biggest threat to his nomination took on added urgency after a report that Bush’s super PAC is considering a $20 million anti-Rubio campaign. 
   
   “There are donors in Florida who want to see peace in the valley, and rightfully so,” said Al Cardenas, a Florida Republican and Bush backer who is also close with Rubio, “and at the same time you’re in the midst of a competitive campaign.” 
   
   There were no interactions between the two men on Tuesday night — an indication, Rubio’s advisers argued, that Bush had learned that a battle with the senator was one it couldn’t win. 
   
   “The phrase where I come from is ‘There’s no education in the second kick of a mule,’” Terry Sullivan, Rubio’s campaign manager, said after the debate. “I kind of feel like folks figured out that taking on Marco isn’t such a great idea. … I don’t think anyone is itching to take on Marco on the debate stage.” 
   
   Bush instead took aim at Hillary Clinton and presented himself as a viable general-election candidate. At one point, he scolded his fellow Republicans when talk turned to deportations. “Even having this conversation sends a powerful signal — they're doing high-fives in the Clinton campaign right now when they hear this,” Bush said. 
   
   From Day One of his campaign, Bush has suffered from high expectations — that he would dominate the pursuit of donors, that he would blow away the field, that he would push away others in the field. Few have panned out. 
   
   In the two weeks after his disastrous Boulder performance, Bush worked to lower expectations heading into Milwaukee. At numerous campaign stops, in media interviews and on donor calls, Bush went out of his way to say that he’s not a great debater and that he recognizes he needs to improve. It was an intentional effort, aides said, to lower expectations. 
   
   Bush’s top aides even got in on the action. On a conference call with New York donors last week, campaign manager Danny Diaz said that Bush had been working with a new debate coach, longtime Republican image guru Jon Kraushar, and that his supporters should expect an improved performance. It was a subtle play to calm nerves, while simultaneously diminishing anticipation that the former Florida governor — never stellar on the debate stage — was headed for a breakout performance. 
   
   Those close to Bush say he spent time after the Boulder debacle working on optics — including his posture. In the first three debates, Bush — who hadn't waged a campaign since 2002 and showed signs of rust — tended to slouch. And he brought on Kraushar, a longtime adviser to Fox News honcho Roger Ailes, who specializes in helping his clients forge a connection with TV viewers. 
   
   Bush certainly looked more confident as he challenged Trump on his foreign policy. “Donald's wrong on this. He is absolutely wrong on this. We're not going to be the world's policeman, but we sure as heck better be the world's leader.” 
   
   Awkward Bush, however, didn’t disappear entirely. “I was in Washington, Iowa, about three months ago talking about how bad Washington, D.C., is. It was — get the — kind of the,” he said, gesturing in hopes that the audience would laugh at his double-Washington wordplay. “Anyway,” he relented as they didn’t. 
   
   For all the talk of a Bush campaign crashing out early, he’s planning for the long road ahead — and doing the donor maintenance involved. This week, his top advisers sent out invitations to top donors for a December campaign update in Miami. 
   
   “Jeb will show you the Miami he loves and tell you, in his own words, ‘how we are going to win this damn thing!’” read the invitation to donors from Bush finance chief Heather Larrison. 
   
   Following the debate, Bush has a breakneck pace. He'll be heading to Iowa for three events on Wednesday, going to Michigan for a quick fundraiser on Thursday and continuing on for two days of events in New Hampshire before flying to Florida for a big cattle call in his home state. 
   
   “I don’t know that you fix all the problems with one debate,” said Martinez. “This is an ongoing deal. This is going to be a long race. He’s in it for the long haul. He’s weathered some difficult days. That showed you something about his character, about who he is and what he’s made of.” 
   
   Rubio’s team was less circumspect. “We won. Again,” Sullivan declared. “4-0.” ||||| 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.
target: – Compared to last month's CNBC debate, Tuesday night's GOP debate in Milwaukee was long on policy and short on "gotcha" questions and clashes between candidates and moderators, though analysts say the scorecard isn't that different from last time around, with front-runners Donald Trump and Ben Carson both failing to shine. A look around at the chatter: Winners. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were widely seen as the night's standouts, with Politico describing them as "the two strongest candidates" after "showcasing their mastery of the facts and ease under the bright lights." Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post deems Cruz, after his attacks on DC's "crony culture, to now be the "outsider" candidate most likely to succeed. Honorable mentions. Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul both had praiseworthy moments, with Fiorina once again demonstrating a strong command of the issues and impressive debating skills. Paul managed to get his message on fiscal policy across, and, "at this stage of his candidacy, that amounts to a win," per the Post. Carson's performance was seen as middling, with policy answers lacking in substance, though he did ably deflect a question about the recent controversies over his life story. Jeb Bush. He needed a good night after a dismal performance last month, and opinions are split on whether he delivered. It "was Bush's best performance in any of the debates so far," according to the Hill—but "unfortunately for him, that's a rather low bar." He was more assertive than in previous debates, though it's "uncertain" whether that will be enough to give his campaign much of a boost, notes a New York Times assessment. Still, it adds that "he no longer seemed as desperate to be somewhere else," while a Politico analysis has a "Bush stops the bleeding" headline and theme. Losers. John Kasich was more of a presence in this debate, but it was not a presence many people liked, with the National Review calling him "angry, condescending, and unprincipled" and likening him to "the drunk, obnoxious uncle everyone wishes hadn't accepted the invitation to Thanksgiving dinner." Trump's performance was seen as his weakest yet, and Politico says he "committed perhaps the biggest gaffe of the night" by suggesting wages in America are too high. Fox Business Network. Unlike CNBC's widely criticized debate, Fox's debate was seen as "fair and balanced," with candidates receiving a roughly equal amount of speaking time, ranging from 13 minutes 35 seconds for Cruz to 9 minutes 22 seconds for Carson, according to Politico. "And that @CNBC is how you run a debate," tweeted RNC chairman Reince Priebus. Click for some of the biggest moments and best lines from the debate.