So, what have we learned from this mess, after all is said and done? We have learned much about each of these candidates — at least about how they handle themselves on a national stage — but of course none of them will be the GOP presidential or vice-presidential nominee. The most important takeaway is that none of these people will be seriously threatening Trump for the nomination, and it’s easy to understand why given that, over four full debates, none of them really bothered to attack him until this last one. After three scrums spent studiously avoiding Trump’s name like a religious taboo, the former president was finally brought up for real criticism by the other candidates during this debate. Haley attacked him on China, DeSantis on his failure to build the wall, Christie on his fundamental incompetence, untrustworthiness, and venal self-interest. And yet, those attacks felt like small-caliber bullets bouncing uselessly off armor plating, because Trump’s absence meant that there was no response in defense, no argument to be had.

[I missed last night’s debate due to a prior commitment at church, but I didn’t expect much from it anyway. Karen has her analysis coming up soon, and Beege kept pace with it last night. I’ve never been a fan of the game-show-style debates anyway, but Blehar is correct that these seemed pointless without having Trump on stage, made especially so by the fundamental failure of all these candidates to focus on the *real* question: “Why you rather than Trump?” DeSantis came closest to answering it in previous debates, but not with nearly enough focus to force voters to confront that question. Instead, the participants kept answering the question, “Why you and not the others on stage?” And that was never the question in this primary. — Ed]