AFP

MITT ROMNEY said he did not feel it was dignified for presidential candidates to take questions from a snowman. Nonetheless, the Republican candidates for the presidency eventually agreed to face a YouTube debate, in which ordinary voters recorded questions on video and submitted them for broadcast to the candidates. None of the questions aired on the evening of Wednesday November 28th were quite as ridiculous as the snowman who asked Democrats about global warming in the other party's YouTube debate. But the questions, and answers, this time reflected much about the state of the Republican party heading into next year's election.

It is not known how exactly the producers of CNN, which co-sponsored the debate, chose which YouTube clips to show to the aspiring candidates. But the first half-hour of the debate, the longest dedicated to any single issue, focused on immigration. The subject is one of the most potent topics for Republicans. CNN asked a panel of undecided voters to turn up a dial when they heard things that pleased them: the broadcaster noted spikes of approval when the candidates talked tough on borders.

The harshest and longest exchange of the evening came between Rudy Giuliani, the national front-runner, and Mr Romney, who has nudged ahead in the crucial early polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. Mr Giuliani is trying to shake a reputation that he was easy on illegal immigration when he was mayor of New York. He attacked Mr Romney, accusing the former Massachusetts governor of hiring illegal immigrants to work on his house. The two sparred particularly fiercely as questioners asked if any candidate would support an “amnesty” (giving illegals a regular status and the possibility of citizenship). Minor candidates like Duncan Hunter, a Californian congressman, and Tom Tancredo, a congressman from Colorado, managed to get digs in on the subject. Neither man has a prayer at the nomination, but both remain in the race perhaps because they started beating the immigration drum earlier and harder than others.

At least on immigration the candidates, broadly, share the same views: tougher borders, intolerance for illegal migrants. This topic, along with fears of toxic toys from China or other worries about the outside world, helps Republicans forget, or minimise, the divisions between libertarians and Christian conservatives. But the debate grew distinctly awkward when other topics were raised.

Mr Giuliani was asked why he had supported gun control in the past. John McCain and Mr Romney debated whether waterboarding should be considered as torture. One questioner asked if the candidates believed every word of the Bible. This led Mr Giuliani to stumble towards the position that while the Bible was his favourite book, he perhaps did not literally believe in the story of Jonah and the whale. Another questioner asked whether Jesus would support the death penalty. Mike Huckabee—now, against all expectations, in first place in a recent poll from Iowa thanks to his longstanding Christian conservatism—said that the death penalty was painful but necessary. When pressed whether Jesus would be in favour, he got a laugh saying Jesus was too smart to run for office.

The race remains unusually wide open. Mr Huckabee's surge in Iowa coincides with the libertarian Ron Paul's recent fundraising feats and his hooting cheers at Wednesday's debate. These two have surged from the bottom because the party's two wings cannot yet agree on one of the better-known and more traditional candidates. In 1980 and 2000, a candidate united the party early and convincingly with a winning message about America's greatness and winks to both of the party's wings. This time the party is divided and the outcome is far from clear.