Analyze this: Stats on the first Republican debate

Introduction
Last night was the first Republican primary debate, closely followed by the customary declarations of victory by all involved. Now, you won't see me knocking a person for claiming to have won something that does not have an empirical method for deciding a winner. Much the opposite: I've been known to declare victory in events ranging from formal dinners to flossing. However, as someone with some experience at winning the un-winnable, allow me to give the candidates a tip: you have to quantify something to support your claim. So, in order to help out the White House hopefuls: I have broken down the debate into several quantifiable categories so we can see who the winner truly was.


Key
RR: Unprompted Reagan reference
P: Platitude (idealistic statement unsupported by substantive explanation)
A: Attack on another candidate
QD: Questions dodged
TQ: Total number of questions asked
%: Percentage of questions answered (not dodged)

Note: a series of questions in a row on a single topic are counted as one question, and if the candidate initially avoided the question, then gave a direct answer after being prodded, it is counted as half a dodge. The yes/no questions to the entire field were not counted here, but appear below in the raw data section.

Candidate_________RR___P____A___QD_____TQ____%
Rudy Giuliani_________2____1_____0_____4______13____69%
Jim Gilmore: _________1____3_____2_____6______9_____33%
John McCain:_________1____1_____0_____4______15____73%
Mitt Romney:_________2____0_____0_____3______15____80%
Sam Brownback:_______1____3_____1_____2______13____85%
Mike Huckabee:_______0____1_____1_____2.5_____10____75%
Tommy Thompson:_____1____2_____0_____2.5_____9____72%
Tom Tancedo:_________1____1_____1_____2.5_____9____72%
Duncan Hunter:_______1____0_____0_____1_______9____89%
Ron Paul:____________1____0_____9_____1______10____90%


Where I got my Stats: The Raw Data
Here is a question by question break down of the debate. Each individual question is listed either as A (Answered), or U (Unanswered). If a series of questions were asked, they are contained within parentheses. References to Ronald Reagan (R), platitudes (P), and attacks on other candidates (X) are also listed adjacent to the answer. So: a UP denotes a question dodged with a platitude, an AX shows the answer was accompanied at a barb at one of the other candidates, and the rare URP stands for a response that does not answer the question, contains an unsupported platitude, and cites Ronald Reagan.


Key
A: Answered question
U: Unanswered question
R: Reagan reference
P: Platitude (idealistic statement unsupported by substantive explanation)
X: Attack on another candidate
Y and N: Answer to one of the 4 yes/no questions posed to the entire field. U can still be given if the question is dodged. The number following the letter gives a reference to the yes/no question that was asked.

Candidates' answers in order
Rudy Giuliani: A (PUR) Y1 U (UUN2) (AUUA) A A Y3 A Y4 A (UR) A A A
Jim Gilmore: (PU) (AU) N1 Y2 (AX) (PU) (PU) N3 U Y4 (RAX) A U
John McCain: (UA) (UA) A U1 Y2 (PA) (RA) A A Y3 U A U Y4 A A A A
Mitt Romney: A (RA) A N1 (UR) Y2 (AA) (AAA) (AX) (UN3) A A Y4 A U A A U
Sam Brownback: A (PA) N1 Y2 (RAP) A U N3 A N4 A (AP) (AX) U A A A
Mike Huckabee: A N1 U Y2 (AP) (AX) (UUA) U N3 A N4 A A A
Tommy Thompson: (AP) N1 Y2 A (UA) U (URP) N3 A Y4 A A A
Tom Tancedo: (UA) N1 A Y2 A (UR) (PU) N3 (AX) N4 A A A
Duncan Hunter: A Y1 A Y2 (RA) U A N3 A A Y4 A A
Ron Paul: (AX) N1 (AX) Y2 (AX) (AX) N3 (AX) Y4 U (AX) (AX) (AX) (AX)

1. Should a foreign-born citizen be eligible for the presidency?
2. Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
3. Embryonic stem cell research: yes or no?
4. Evolution: real or not?

Notes: Whether or not a question was answered was determined by my own subjective analysis. If you feel that I have slighted any candidate, please feel free to contact me and make your case.

And yes, I did give Representative Tancredo a "Platitude" for his declaration, "No more platitudes."




The craziest moment of the debate in my eyes
There was one specific moment on the debate that really dropped my jaw and I would like to discuss. Here's Mayor Giuliani on what an American president should do in terms of Iran:

Giuliani: And [the Iranian PM] has to look at an American president, and he has to see Ronald Reagan. Remember the -- they looked in Ronald Reagan’s eyes, and two minutes they released the hostages.

Wow. Please tell me if my facts are wrong here, but I think that it was the secret shipments of weapons that convinced the Iranians to release the hostages, not President Reagan's eyes. As I recall that was something of a big deal, too. Not only was it giving in to terrorism, but it supplied a fanatic Islamic power with weapons, the same fanatic Islamic power that apparently now has enough weapon that it can loan them to Iraqi insurgents to kill US soldiers!

Did Mayor Giuliani really mean to suggest that he would have done the same thing? Is he saying that he would pay a ransom of weapons to the insurgents in Iraq to release a hostage? Probably not. Was Giulliani yearning to connect himself to Reagan so much that he was willing to invoke even Reagan's biggest blunder as long as he got a chance to speak the man's name? Definitely.




Stay tuned for...
Next time on Eclexia: I analyze the debate and chose a winner.