We begin with The New York Times editorial board:
With the Darwinian efficiency that characterizes our modern electoral system, voters representing less than 1 percent of the American electorate may by Wednesday have effectively spoiled the chances of a half-dozen people who hoped they’d be the next American president.
The financing machine that drives America’s political system rarely produces sleepers later in the year. If candidates cannot strike a winning chord in the early contests, Iowa and New Hampshire, the money often dries up. [...] The pace and expense of modern campaigning means candidates have less time than ever to break through. The vote in New Hampshire on Tuesday will almost certainly narrow the field — but still not produce anyone with a surefire winning formula.
Next up, Eugene Robinson at The Washington Post on Marco Rubio’s debate glitch:
It’s time for establishment Republicans to face the truth about Marco Rubio: Once you get past the facade, there appears to be no there there.
The void behind his prettified rhetoric was stunningly revealed in Saturday night’s debate. Rubio sounded like a malfunctioning cyborg as he kept repeating one of his prepared lines. [...]
I dwell on this weirdly robotic performance because it was so revealing. Rubio became the darling of the Republican establishment because of his youth, his looks, his inspiring life story, his adherence to GOP orthodoxy and, perhaps above all, his compelling way with words. No one else in the generally dour and angry field has his ability to paint a hopeful future. A general election contest that pits either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders against Rubio, many leading Republicans believe, would be like asking voters to choose between yesterday and tomorrow.
Chris Cillizza offers up the his take on Rubio’s candidacy:
His critics -- mainly his rivals -- insisted that all of Rubio's smart talk was the thinnest of veneers, that when pressed the guy would show that he lacked the depth to be commander in chief. I'm not sure Rubio entirely proved his critics right on Saturday night. One debate does not a campaign end.
But what Rubio did reveal in the debate over the weekend was that there are cracks -- or at least one major crack -- in a candidate who looked close-to-perfect up until now. There's now a storyline afoot in the race that Rubio is a robot -- one with a gifted political patter, but a robot nonetheless. And that is not the sort of narrative any candidate wants going into a huge vote in New Hampshire...
Jay Bookman also looks at Robot Rubio:
That kind of argument should never come from the lips of a major presidential candidate. Unnamed trolls on the Internet may make such claims; talk-radio hosts eager to draw attention to themselves may do the same. But Rubio’s argument, with its intimations of disloyalty and treachery, ought to have no place in civil debate among those who aspire to lead all Americans.
On a final note, The Des Moines Register takes a bird’s eye view of the 2016 race:
The 2016 presidential race holds many lessons, but for now, the one we should take to heart is the same lesson Murrow spoke of in 1954: If we refuse to reject the politics of fear and hatred, we’re denying our own heritage — and we cannot escape responsibility for the result.