Opinion: The Republican contender with only one mood – U for unappealing!

Todd Graham, a debate professor at Southern Illinois University, has achieved significant success in the field, winning five national championships and earning multiple honors. He can be found on his website, Facebook, and Twitter. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. For more perspectives, visit CNN's opinion section.

The third Republican presidential debate took place in Miami on Wednesday night and was notably smoother, possibly due to a smaller debate stage and skilled moderators.

But that doesnt mean everyone performed well. I scored the five candidates withletter grades, ranging from A to F. Heres how they fared.

Chris Christie

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

I can't believe it! The former governor of New Jersey was the biggest surprise. During the debate, Chris Christie seemed to be doing well. However, upon reviewing my notes afterwards, I discovered something strange. Christie's usual trademark of brilliant moments followed by acts of self-flagellation was missing. He managed to eliminate his mistakes and had the most consistent debate overall.

While answering the moderators' questions may seem like a crucial part of the debating process, many candidates consider it optional. This was not the case for Christie. Although he could have been stronger in his initial response about how he differentiates himself from Donald Trump, he was the only one on stage to at least mention Trump's legal issues.

Christie consistently provided clear and concise responses throughout the debate. He effectively defended our support for Ukraine, proving himself to be an unrivaled contender on this topic. Furthermore, Christie enlightened me on the importance of nuclear submarines as a powerful deterrent against China, emphasizing the necessity of upgrading or building them before other naval vessels. Additionally, his insightful explanation on the relationship between energy and inflation convinced me that prioritizing our energy policy is vital for addressing inflation. While I recognize that Christie's chances of becoming the nominee may be slim and that he may not be favored by some MAGA Republicans, his performance during the debate did not exacerbate this issue. Ultimately, his no-nonsense approach to policymaking won me over.

A-

Nikki Haley

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

Only two candidates, Chris Christie and Nikki Haley, displayed a strong grasp of complex issues on stage. However, while Haley showed a deep understanding of various topics and excellent communication skills, there was another side to her. Watching the debates, I discovered that Haley also had a tendency to become overly defensive and dwell on inconsequential matters when faced with criticism. As someone who tends to let minor things bother me, I can understand this aspect of her personality. After the last debate, I noted that Haley tends to make poor decisions when she lets something or someone get under her skin. In the world of debating, where time is limited, it is important to teach debaters that they should not feel compelled to respond to every attack. Unfortunately, Haley takes this to a new extreme by revisiting tangential and irrelevant issues instead of letting them go.

Haley's strategy of engaging in continuous infighting, particularly with businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, exemplifies her struggle in determining her approach in these debates. Mr. Hyde's captivating personality, which often targets Ramaswamy, can be captivating at times. However, there are instances where it is more beneficial to channel the calm and rational demeanor of Dr. Jekyll during the debates.

At her worst, Haley fails to disregard insignificant insults and deviates from the topic to remind others that she can be just as petty and sensitive as anyone else on the stage. Unfortunately, this approach does not yield any positive results and is an ineffective debating strategy. It seems that Haley is unaware of her true strength. Hint: it does not involve engaging in heated arguments and interrupting any candidate who may have mentioned her in passing during a previous debate, which holds no significance to the current discussion.

Haley's strength lies in her expertise on various matters and her quick wit, which was evident during the most heated part of the debate. When Ramaswamy paused after saying the phrase "Here's the truth," the following words that resonated with everyone were Hyde/Haley's as she quietly muttered, "You're just scum." However, the real truth is that Dr. Jekyll was perfectly capable of handling the situation without resorting to name-calling.

Ron DeSantis

Joe Raedle/Getty Images depicts a notable shift in the debate proficiency of Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida renowned as an adversary of woke culture. Despite previously being deemed an average debater, DeSantis has transformed into a distinct persona, adopting a storytelling style that emphasizes the welfare of individuals and showcases his policy expertise.

The problem: DeSantis lacks storytelling abilities and his discussions on policymaking come across as exaggerated. If you're unsure about his storytelling, watch his nonverbal cues, particularly his forced smile, when he ends with "God bless you." Additionally, during the teasing by Ramaswamy and Haley about lifts in his shoes, DeSantis appeared puzzled and glanced at his feet, which was quite amusing (credit to NBC for the camera angle).

When it comes to defending specific policies, DeSantis oscillates between clear details (such as the number of ships he wants to build) and superficial slogans. One particular phrase, "My policy is very simple: We win, they lose," stood out until DeSantis reiterated his willingness to send the US military to Mexico to combat drug cartels. It was evident that conservative moderator Hugh Hewitt wanted concrete specifics on the feasibility of invading Mexico, but DeSantis simply repeated his line about fentanyl drug smugglers, stating, "We're gonna shoot them stone cold dead."

Lawless vigilante murdering as a solution? Now you see why Hewitt asked for specifics.

C-

Tim Scott

The Tim Scott pivot was unavoidable considering his poll numbers. Faced with this, the Senator from South Carolina opted to capitalize on his strengths. This change in direction can only be described as a revival, both figuratively and literally.

Inspired by the recently appointed Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, Scott took a cue from his biblical republic and centered his debate around his Christian faith. It wasn't just about Scott quoting scripture (even though he did). He placed great emphasis on upholding Christian values, almost sounding like a candidate vying for the position of Theocrat of the United States.

While Scott made a valid point about the necessity of ensuring transparency in the use of funds in Ukraine, he squandered his momentum by insulting voters who held different beliefs from his own. His moment of contemptuousness, similar to the "basket of deplorables" incident, occurred when he labeled individuals on the Left as "valueless, faithless, fatherless."

In comparison to the other participants, Scott appeared to be at a disadvantage in terms of knowledge, hence it is understandable for him to rely on his familiar territory. However, his use of phrases like "we need a great awakening" and his desire for collective victory in the battle for "Christian conservative values" creates a sense of foreboding.

Vivek Ramaswamy

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

At this point, Vivek Ramaswamys car only has one gear. D. No, not "drive." Dislikeable. And he keeps hitting the turbo button!

Prior to the debates, I had no knowledge of Ramaswamy's identity. However, after witnessing him speak on three occasions, I am confident in stating that there is no need to be reminded that Ramaswamy speaks from a male perspective. Based on my observations, his entire persona seems to be constructed around stereotypes and characteristics that he associates with masculinity. Ramaswamy's style of communication is dominating, boisterous, confrontational, haughty, impolite, and dismissive.

His worst moment occurred during a spar with Haley, when Ramaswamy went too far by bringing up Haley's daughter. In the previous debate, it was Jill Biden who was inappropriately mentioned, thanks to Chris Christie.

What made Ramaswamy's comment so inappropriate was the manner in which he mentioned Haley's daughter. The discussion was centered around TikTok, and it was known that Haley's daughter had previously had an account. Ramaswamy used this information against Haley's stance and suggested, "...So perhaps you should prioritize your family's well-being first..." Haley reacted by calling him despicable, but the debate carried on as if this behavior was now acceptable. *disapproving shake of the head*

F