Republican primary voters are further to the right on many immigration issues than the general electorate. They support building a border wall, increasing border patrols, and defunding sanctuary cities. In 2020, the last presidential election year, 62 percent opposed a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrations. Ending birthright citizenship, as Ramaswamy says he wants to do, is even more extreme. Candidates tonight are trying to woo those voters tonight with their stances on immigration, but they risk boxing themselves into unpopular opinions should they make it to the general election.
— Analysis by Monica Potts of 538

DeSantis gets a question on China and says he wants a totally new approach to that country. He says that he wants to ban the Chinese Communist Party from buying land anywhere in America, and also says he doesn't want them in our universities. It wasn't clear if he was talking about all Chinese students, or just the Confucius Institutes he mentioned right after.

—Jacob Rubashkin, 538 contributor

This is accurate. From our colleagues at the Pew Research Center:

“In the nearly five decades that the current system for budgeting and spending tax dollars has been in place, Congress has passed all its required appropriations measures on time only four times: fiscal 1977 (the first full fiscal year under the current system), 1989, 1995 and 1997. And even those last three times, Congress was late in passing the budget blueprint that, in theory at least, precedes the actual spending bills.”
-Analysis by Aaron Sharockman, PolitiFact

In an August poll by YouGov/The Economist, Republicans were particularly likely to be wary of the U.S. relationship with China. Forty-three percent of Republicans said China poses an immediate and serious economic threat to the U.S., while only 16 percent of Democrats and 28 percent of independents agreed. When it comes to a military threat, 33 percent of Republicans said China poses an immediate and serious threat, compared with 13 percent of Democrats and 24 percent of independents.
—Analysis by 538

This was a weird debate, full of interruptions and crosstalk. I'm skeptical anyone actually "broke through" in some huge, game-changing way, and neither of the candidates I closely monitored — Haley or Christie — looked likely to suddenly gain 10 points in the polls next week.

But I did think Haley mostly had a strong night, building on her well-received showing in the first debate. She made the case for a more restrictive approach to border security, dinged Biden for his handling of the economy and immigration, and argued that TikTok is a huge danger to the country. That said, I do wonder if she might've rubbed some viewers the wrong way by saying she felt dumber after listening to Ramaswamy, and with her interruption-filled argument with Scott late in the debate. I say that because of how women are sometimes perceived in those sorts of situations — female candidates in the past have been tagged with misogynistic descriptors like "shrill," for instance. I look forward to seeing the post-debate 538/Washington Post/Ipsos poll to get a better read on how she came across.

As for Christie, he continued to be the one person in the room unafraid of attacking Trump, doing it on a good share of his answers. On the one hand, he's got nothing to lose as the GOP candidate with the worst favorability rating among Republican voters. On the other hand, his dings did occasionally free up opportunities for other candidates to make small digs at Trump without going after the former president as aggressively as Christie did. (For instance, DeSantis took a shot at Trump for adding significantly to the national debt after Christie brought it up.) Christie probably knows that he's got no chance of winning the GOP nomination, but he may also be thinking strategically about how he can help his party avoid renominating Trump. Still, it's going to take some pretty drastic changes in the race for that outcome — Trump winning the GOP primary — to not come to pass.

—Analysis by Geoffrey Skelley of 538