I’m not a huge believer in the whole concept of the liberal media always being out to get those on the right, but even I have to admit the GOP has every right to be aggravated with how CNBC handled the third Republican presidential debate, held last Wednesday in Boulder, Co. Originally, CNBC talked about having a three hour debate that would cover a wide array of domestic, economic, and foreign policy issues. However, after front-runners Donald Trump and Ben Carson threatened to boycott the debate because it would be too long and not allot time for opening and closing statements, it appeared the network changed its course. Instead of talking about policy issues, moderators tried multiple bait and switch tactics to get candidates to butt heads. Instead of asking substantive questions about pertinent issues, moderators instead asked about things like candidates past endorsement deals and the need for regulation in the daily fantasy sports industry. By the end of the night, even the most liberal publications lambasted CNBC and its moderators for doing an awful job conducting the debate. Here’s to hoping the Republican establishment sticks to its guns and denies NBC another chance to host a debate this election cycle.

   Moving on to the little substance that actually occurred during the evening, I think two candidates really carved a nice niche for themselves moving forward. First and foremost, Carly Fiorina once again had a strong performance centered on a simple message that resonates with much of the Republican base: the need for less government involvement in all facets of the economy. Although Fiorina will inevitably be attacked for her lackluster stint as CEO of Hewlett Packard, it is still intelligent for the businesswoman to talk about the one area where she holds any sort of tangible experience; job creation and the economy. As we progress to early primary states like Iowa and South Carolina, it will be interesting to see how a strong, feisty, independent woman like Fiorina is viewed by a more conservative Republican electorate.

    The other candidate who flew under the radar on Tuesday night was Ohio Governor John Kasich. Before, during, and after the debate, Kasich made a call to all Republicans to wake up and realize fringe Tea Party candidates won’t win in the general election. He even went as far as to say that he can’t believe what the Republican Party is becoming. Kasich has a strong record as a governor, and has proven his ability to reach across party lines and take the sensible stance on issues, namely taking some of Ohio’s surplus money and putting it into the state’s Medicaid program, helping thousands of less fortunate Ohioans. With other establishment Republicans (i.e. former Florida Governor Jeb Bush) continuing to fade, Kasich has a real opportunity to establish himself as the moderate alternative to Carson or Trump, especially in the early voting state of New Hampshire.

    Speaking of Jeb Bush, man, does he even want to win the nomination? For the third debate in a row, Bush couldn’t gain any traction or separate himself from the other 9 candidates on stage. And, when he tried to by attacking potential establishment alternative and former protégé Marco Rubio about his high number of absent votes while serving as one of Florida’s senators, Rubio was quick to turn the tables on Bush and insinuate the only reason he was on the offensive was because his campaign is floundering and in need of a boost. Bush never regained momentum after that exchange. Bush still has the most funded and best organized campaign in the Republican field, so it would be shortsighted to count him out. However, Bush is all but guaranteed to finish poorly in the Iowa Caucuses, and many supporters are concerned about the recent cuts he has made to his campaign. Unless Bush can follow the footsteps of 2008 nominee John McCain and win in New Hampshire, there is reason to believe he will exit the race sooner rather than later.

    Concerning Rubio, who many in the media considered the darling of the debate, I think his performance was vastly overrated. One exchange in particular damned him in my eyes. At the beginning of the second hour of the debate, Rubio was pressed on his shaky personal financial history, which includes high amounts of debt, near foreclosures on property he owned, his recent decision to liquidate his retirement account just so he could afford to buy a refrigerator, etc. In fact, one moderator asked Rubio why he should be trusted to handle the nation’s economy if he can’t even handle his own finances. Rubio dodged the question and talked about how he wasn’t born into money and how he is still paying back student loans. Is it necessarily fair to disqualify Rubio as a viable President because he has struggled financially? No.

But, if Rubio does emerge as the nominee, expect to see the Democratic National Committee run ads about Rubio’s financial troubles all next fall.

Here are some quick thoughts on the rest of the field post-debate:

•Ben Carson and Donald Trump by and large stayed clean on the evening. For whatever reason, other candidates appear scared to attack the two frontrunners. The longer that lasts, the longer the charade either of these two unqualified outsiders can win the nomination will too.

•Texas congressman Ted Cruz continued to appeal to evangelical voters and those on the far right with a strong performance. Once Trump and Carson inevitably bow out of the race, expect Cruz to pick up their supporters and gain some traction. Although Cruz won’t be the nominee, he could follow the path former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum did back in 2012 and win a few nominating contests in the Midwest and down South.

•New Jersey Governor Chris Christie also turned in a very solid performance, although I’d still label his chances at securing the nomination as slim to none.

•It’s high time for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul to exit the race. Rand just doesn’t have the same libertarian charm his father Ron Paul did, and, with the emergence of Cruz, Trump, and Carson, Huckabee won’t get the support he did in 2008 from evangelical voters. The sooner the field narrows, the more focused and informative future debates will be.