WHEN it became clear that the first televised debate of the 2016 presidential season would feature ten Republicans on a sports arena stage in Cleveland, Ohio, with Donald Trump at the centre, pessimists braced for a circus. Optimists predicted that the high stakes would force a serious exchange between candidates who—for all their foibles—are mostly smart, accomplished men with distinctive conservative ideas about how to run the country. Few guessed that the evening would manage to be both at the same time. At some point soon after the Fox News debate kicked off at 9pm, some kind soul supplied the press room at the debate site in Cleveland with bowls of popcorn. This was appropriate. The very first question was a cliffhanger: would all ten candidates pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee, and not run as an independent? As soon as the question was posed, everyone understood what was afoot. For Fox News is not just any news channel, and it is no mere observer of Republican Party politics. It is a player, owned and run by people, notably Rupert Murdoch, whose hard-nosed commercial instincts combine with an equally hard-headed desire to see pro-business Republicans win important elections. The first question was aimed like a blunderbuss at Mr Trump, the clear frontrunner. When it seemed that the property developer was declining to rule out running as a third-party spoiler, the Fox News moderator Brett Baier scolded him in proprietorial tones. “Mr Trump to be clear, you're standing on a Republican primary debate stage,” he warned. Experts say an independent run “would almost certainly hand the race over to Democrats and likely another Clinton,” the host went on. Mr Trump’s refusal to buckle was met with boos from the thousands in the arena.

Mr Trump was given no mercy. He was asked about his record of horrible comments against women, which include calling those he does not like: "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals" (he responded with a snarl, and a half-explicit threat against his questioner, Megyn Kelly). He was pounded over his flip-flops on abortion and state-funded healthcare.

How to bring down the Donald The third host, Chris Wallace, demanded that Mr Trump produce evidence for his claim that the Mexican government deliberately sends criminals to America. He offered bluster, saying that unnamed border patrol agents had told him that the “cunning” Mexican government was sending “the bad ones” over because “our leaders are stupid. Our politicians are stupid.” Anyone who worried Fox would go easy on the candidates may have been surprised. Others on stage faced tough questions about issues on which they could be vulnerable, once Republicans start voting in primary contests next February. Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, was asked about his comment that many illegal immigrants enter America out of love for their families. To his credit, he stood by that opinion. John Kasich, governor of Ohio, was asked why he had expanded public health care for the poor with federal money; Reagan did the same, he answered, in part. Marco Rubio, a fresh-faced first-term senator from Florida, was asked about his limited experience; his answer was wise: if this election is going to be based on resumés (CVs) then Hillary Clinton will win, he said, before pivoting to his up-by-the-bootstraps story as the son of Cuban migrants. “If I'm our nominee, how is Hillary Clinton gonna lecture me about living paycheck to paycheck? I was raised paycheck to paycheck,” he said. Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, who achieved national fame by fighting and winning an epic battle with public sector unions in his state, was one of the few to face a question from the left. Ms Kelly asked him if he was out of the mainstream in opposing abortions even when a mother’s life was at risk. Mr Walker offered a non-answer, saying that there are “alternatives” which can protect unborn children and the life of “that mother”—as though he was being asked about a specific case, as opposed to a position of principle.

Elephants in the room: Meet the Republican candidates This was good journalism on the part of the Fox News hosts. The channel has its faults, but tonight its moderators did an excellent job of asking tough, crisp questions that left viewers better informed. But there was also an unmistakable sense of a powerful conservative organisation policing the 2016 field, and forcing the candidates to answer the queries that will undoubtedly come up during the primary process, but also later in the general election. How did the candidates do? Start with the front-runners. Mr Trump has dominated the race in recent weeks by telling disaffected, angry voters that America could be magically stronger if only someone as smart and tough as Mr Trump sat in the Oval Office. But tonight he was exposed as an unelectable boor and narcissist. His poll numbers in coming days will reveal much about his backers to date. Besides Mr Trump, Mr Bush had the most to lose—and he was a disappointment. He said nothing foolish, and avoided gaffes. But he was passionless, cautious and oddly joyless to watch. Even on issues where his views are aligned with the Republican grassroots, such as his hostility to abortion, he was passionless and unwilling to speak with his heart. He remains a formidable contender, with a vast war chest and many powerful admirers. But he can ill-afford another debate performance as underwhelming as tonight’s.

Carly Fiorina on the rise Mr Walker put in a competent performance—jumping in to attack Mrs Clinton at an apposite moment. He will not have panicked his supporters. Mr Rubio was one of the winners of the evening, making deft use of his life story and his core pitch: to be a candidate of the future, not the past. Mr Kasich was another winner. He only made it into the debate by the skin of his teeth, coming tenth in the basket of polls that decided who would be on stage. He had a good night, helped by a loyal home crowd that cheered his optimistic, pragmatic calls for Republicans to cut taxes and spending without forgetting the most vulnerable in society. Others struggled to make it out of Mr Trump’s shadow, notably Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. A Harvard-trained thrower of rhetorical bombs, he had planned to run to the populist right of the field until he met his match in Mr Trump, a man whose demagoguery comes to him by pure instinct. Mr Cruz was crisp and ferocious when given (rather limited) chances to speak. But his eagerness to stand out took him into startling territory, notably when it came to Islamic terrorism. In his zeal to condemn Mr Obama as an appeaser of radical Islam, Mr Cruz praised the military-backed dictator of Egypt who has responded to Islamist opponents by slinging them in jail (the unluckiest have ended up dead or sentenced to death under his rule). “We need a president that shows the courage that Egypt's President al-Sisi, a Muslim, when he called out the radical Islamic terrorists who are threatening the world,” Mr Cruz declared: the comment deserves to be hung around his neck.