Like the GOP candidates discussing climate change, I readily admit I am not a scientist. I understand entropy to mean the dispersal of energy, and that’s exactly what we saw in Saturday’s GOP debate. Just when I thought the Republicans may have learned something about argument in the last debate, Saturday’s GOP matchup proved me wrong. Let’s look at how this debate again failed the voters.

Moderators—I was ready to level some serious criticism at the moderators, and although they certainly didn’t provide a model of journalistic professionalism, there wasn’t much they could do about the playground fight that erupted. They tried to enforce time limits, but what options are open to them when the candidates become completely uncooperative? I’m still in favor of turning off the mic Bless their hearts (as we say in Texas) for trying to include Carson more in the debate, even if Carson said little. Some of the questions were probing, but they didn’t follow up well when they received vague responses. Also, when you can predict with great accuracy how the candidates will respond to a given question, it should tell you the questions aren’t that productive.

Audience—The audience was almost as poorly behaved as the candidates with plenty of jeers and boos. Although I didn’t raise the idea when I first wrote about what had gone wrong with the debates, I’m now wondering if a live audience serves any real purpose. I invite comments suggesting how the debates are enhanced by their presence.

The Candidates Specifically—no clear winners or losers emerged from Saturday’s debate. I doubt anyone garnered more support or increased his poll numbers as a result of the debate.

Bush—This is probably the toughest we’ve seen Bush, but it may have come too late in the primary process. His demeanor isn’t as much presidential as it is the preppie kid who follows the rules, defends the blue blood legacy of the family and gets upset when the school bully is more popular than him. Channeling his “inner Chris Christie” fell flat. His greatest accomplishment was flustering Trump.

Carson—Ben Carson gets this debate’s award for taking the most time to respond to a question without actually saying anything. He spent an inordinate amount of time talking about how he was finally getting questions earlier in the debate.

Cruz—Cruz weathered the label “liar” fairly well given the number of times the charge was leveled at him. He sounded reasonable during the earlier portion of the debate, but was dragged down by participating in the free-for-all later.

Kasich—Again, Kasich gets the “statesman” award for trying to stay positive and on issue. If his money holds out, he could easily emerge as the only “reasonable” GOP candidate. His greatest challenge will be appearing to be “conservative” enough.

Rubio—Rubio still hasn’t recovered from his caponizing at the previous debate. The best he can hope for is to cauterize the wound. Memorized sound bites still dominate his responses and he’ll continue to be dogged by the “soft on immigration” label regardless of the facts. Christie has turned out to be prescient when he compared disputes over Senate debates as akin to discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Trump—It’s become increasingly clear that Trump supporters aren’t interested in practical wisdom, reasoned discourse or facts. Trump simply once again argued by adjective while failing to provide specifics about how he would accomplish anything. He has an odd understanding of what power a president can actually exercise, another reason why ruling by fiat proves why political “outsiders” should stay outside politics. It’s an interesting historical phenomenon that GOP populism has become tainted with fascist rhetorical themes. Although one could level the same charge against George Wallace, no one would accuse the leading populist of his time, William Jennings Bryan, of xenophobia.

The Candidates in General—Much like the earlier debates, candidates spent too much time arguing about facts (see why this is unproductive). The two areas of agreement: (1) No candidate believes President Obama should nominate a replacement for Scalia. (2) This country faces a monumental, approaching the cliff, crucial decision in the coming election. If you’ll look at previous primary speeches, you’ll find it turns out that we face such decisions every time we approach election time. It’s reassuring to know that America faces absolute disaster every four years.

It’s time for lower-tier candidates to “suspend” their campaigns after South Carolina. Every debate, ad and tweet criticizing fellow GOP candidates make the Democrats look more and more as the only adults in the room.