Marco Rubio’s stumble in Saturday’s debate has people talking about Rick Perry’s failure to remember the names of three agencies he wanted to eliminate. Perry’s gaffe might be the most overrated event of the 2012 cycle.

If you look at the Real Clear Politics poll averages for the Republican nomination, Perry had already lost over two-thirds of his popular support before his famous November 9, 2011 gaffe. Perry’s campaign wasn’t destroyed (or even especially damaged) by his gaffe. The Perry campaign had already been destroyed by Perry’s repeated defeats at the hands of Romney, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul in earlier debates.

The Perry gaffe is primarily important as a symbol. It perfectly summed up how Perry had entered the presidential campaign underprepared and possibly overmedicated. But if Perry had somehow remembered the name of the third agency he want to cut, nothing would have changed except that we would have found some other Perry debate faceplant to obsess about.

I don’t know what any of this means for Rubio. Perry’s gaffe came at the end of a long series of bad debates. Rubio has been fine for most of this cycle’s debates. Rubio was even fine for most of Saturday’s debate – other than his exchange with Christie. (Yes, but other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show?)

That doesn’t mean that Rubio is going to be fine. Rubio’s greatest alleged advantage over his rivals is his rhetorical ability. He also has an… interesting strategy of planning to win the nomination by finishing third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, and reaping positive publicity through better-than-expected showings. The debate might have cost Rubio that second-place finish and he might never get the publicity he needs, even as his rhetorical skills are being discounted by the public. Rubio’s debate malfunction might turn out to be more consequential than Perry’s.

Or maybe Rubio will live up to his billing and overcome this spot of bother.