Who Won the Debate?

I watched the debate last night, as I'm sure many of you did. And of course, I'm pretty biased because I know who I'm voting for already and for me its a clear choice. But I also think this is going to be a pretty close election, and so I was really interested in how the debate might change the prospects for what happens in November. Listening to what Don calls the 'pre-game' show and the 'post-game' wrapup, one wishes this political thing was as clear cut as a baseball game - in the end, there's a score and no question about who won. Its not like, 'well, no one expected the Indians to win against Boston, and they got a LOT of hits and Boston made a couple errors too, so even though Boston scored more runs, we think the Indians REALLY won the game.' Imagine how confusing that would make the pennant races!

Anyway, in thinking about it, the only real metric of success for the debate that makes sense is how it affected the way people plan to vote in November. And in particular, people, unlike myself, who have not already made up their mind. So with that in mind, I went looking for how the 'undecideds' responded. And on that basis, it seems like Obama was a clear 'winner' in the debate. Here's a CBS News poll taken of undecideds before and after the debate, which says that 46% of those polled had a better opinion of Obama after the debate as compared with the 32% who had a better opinion of McCain. Interestingly, only 8% of watchers had a worse opinion of Obama, but 21% had a worse opinion of McCain after watching the debate. Check the link for lots more interesting stats.

CNN did a poll, too, but didn't select out the undecideds from the Reps and the Dems. Their poll says 51% felt Obama did a better job in the debate, compared to only 38% who favored McCain. But since the audience was more blue (41%) than red (27%), with about 30% undeclared, one would expect a skew toward Obama. The CNN pollsters are also quick to point out that a perceived 'win' in the debate does not always translate to a win at the polls. Finally, a feature that I really like at CNN is the 'political ticker' blog on their website that has 'fact checker' posts. How many times last night did one candidate or the other accuse their opponent of not telling the truth? A lot. Go here for the real background, if you're interested in what is true and not just the soundbite.

Now I'm really looking forward to the VP debate on Thursday. Although Palin has been so bad lately, I'm starting to cringe just listening to her. I actually feel a little bad for her, so clearly out of her league, even with Katie Couric who isn't exactly known for hardball journalism. Go here for a video clip if you really want the full 'cringe' factor, but the transcript is bad enough:

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--
COURIC: Mock?
PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.
PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.