This debate's $10,000 question wasn't asked by a moderator; it came from one of the candidates – and it's this: just how much will Mitt Romney's offer of a $10,000 bet cost him?

Romney made the wager in response to Rick Perry needling him (for the umpteenth time) about his Massachusetts healthcare plan. Perry said that in the first edition of his book, No Apology, Romney recommended an individual mandate for the entire nation – and then deleted it from further editions. Apparently, Romney would have won that bet, should Perry have taken it, but it's the casual invocation of ten grand that people will remember. That, and the GOP base voter belief that Romney had something to do with individual mandates, and so there.

Romney's inevitability has been slipping away for a while now, even as the electorate seemed unable to settle on who it would choose as their alternative. Newt's strong debate performance – that's pundit-speak for "he didn't make any unforced errors" – combined with his lead as the clock to the caucuses ticks down has convinced some that Gingrich will not just win Iowa, but could be the nominee, as well. One commentator on ABC even went so far as to hang "inevitable" label around Newt's thick neck.

The ads featuring former 2008 frontrunner Fred Thompson should keep people from making such pronouncements, but they don't. Newt did perform well tonight, though the debates' performative nature is part of Newt's problem: Newt's inveterate self-confidence that seemed so refreshingly sleek when he was a supporting character has started to show the tarnish of vanity that was always there. When he lists other people's errors, we are reminded that part of being "professorial" is giving out grades. And Newt Gingrich is judging you.

The candidate who will gain the most from this debate – I made a list of "winners" earlier, but that's sort of not the point – is probably Ron Paul.

There's an argument for Rick Santorum, too: he avoided blaming gays for stuff and made the night's most sane statements about Palestine; though one must consider the company. Poor Santorum has been so eager and defensive in past debates that even when he made sense (he's right to talk about keeping families intact in response to a foundering economy, even if he's wrong about what "family" means), he seemed unsuited to the office. He looks to have come to terms with his place in the contest – and that may actually give people a reason to take a second look.

But to return to Ron Paul: laughed off at first, and then deemed too far out of the mainstream, Paul has been slowly but steadily climbing in the Iowa polls. His debate showings have been similarly consistent. He is, unarguably, the most consistent of all the candidates – in his voting record, in his policies, in his persona, and I'm willing to guess in his personal life, too. Though, God bless him, he was the one candidate on stage to completely dismiss the idea that a candidate's personal life should matter. ABC hung out a huge piece of red meat, asking candidates about the importance of marriage fidelity in a politician ("HEY, NEWT, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT YOU"), and Paul pivoted to a brief rant about being "faithful to the oath of office".

"Why don't they read Article 1, Section 8?" he asked, going on to point out the continued invasion of privacy that is the USA Patriot Act.

Ron Paul can win Iowa. Throughout this contest, he has shown himself to be patient and a little angry, much like Iowa Republicans.