After-action report: Santorum loses, Obama wins

With a few extra hours' distance from last night's debate, the consensus seems to be that Rick Santorum lost the evening -- and that while Mitt Romney won the day, the long-term winner was probably Barack Obama.

Here's (part of) Maggie's read, in the always-essential "takeaways" story:

[C]andidates need to make the most of every opportunity, and Santorum did not. In fact, he did the opposite — he offered up supporting evidence to Romney’s attack ads questioning whether he’s a solid conservative. He got deep into the weeds explaining the earmarking process, and why he considers some good and some bad. He described his support for Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter as an effort to preserve seats on the Supreme Court, a lengthy bit of logic that will be hard for voters looking for “straight talk” to process. And he defended his vote for No Child Left Behind — and apologized for it — by essentially saying he cast his support for something he didn’t actually believe in because he was acting as part of the president’s “team.” … Romney did little to sell himself or his own vision — he talked about the new tax plan he unveiled earlier in the day just once, and in response to a slam from Santorum about borrowing the Occupy Wall Street language — but he was effective in taking down his opponent. His strongest moment came in talking about the current situation in the Middle East, an answer that sounded more confident than the ones delivered by his opponents. Ultimately, Romney needed to avoid letting Santorum get ahead, and he accomplished that.

And here's John Harris, Jmart and me putting the debate in the context of a campaign that Republican leaders fret is shrinking the demographic and ideological appeal of their party:

[M]any … GOP leaders are watching with rising dismay as the 2012 presidential campaign has featured excursions into social issues like contraception and a sprint by the candidates to strike the toughest stance against illegal immigration, issues they say are far removed from the workaday concerns of the independent voters Republicans need to evict Barack Obama from the White House. To those Republicans, the probable result looks more and more like a general election fought on a much narrower band of turf than the GOP leaders assumed even a few months ago. … The phenomenon of a party talking to itself — rather than reaching out to new voters — was on sharp display at a candidates debate here Wednesday night marked by nearly two hours of peevish and often confusing exchanges between Mitt Romney and his surging challenger, Rick Santorum. Even before the debate, an array of prominent Republicans, in interviews with POLITICO, were pleading for the candidates to pay attention to the appearance of tone-deafness and do more to show they desire — and can deliver — a more inclusive and forward-looking party. “We can still be a party that’s for border security and one that at the same time says, ‘Hey we’re not an anti-immigrant party,’” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, himself the son of Indian immigrants. “As a country and as a party, we’re not people who are going to turn people away from the emergency room. … We don’t need to change our ideology. We need to be more articulate in voicing the aspirational spirit of America.” … “It’s important that voters see a Republican Party that is inclusive and is not exclusive,” agreed House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).