Both candidates cleared the almost-impossible-to-miss bars set for them, Joe Biden not melting into a puddle of gaffes, Palin not turning into a version of her SNL parody.
She was confident and assertive (if not very specific or interested in answering the questions posed), he was controlled and disciplined (if, especially for the first half of the debate, he seemed fairly shut down as a result that seems to be the impression, that he was too staid at first, I d n notice). He cried, she winked; they both attacked the top of the ticket more than each other.
I'm always leery of attempts by pundits afterward to declare who won the debate. Partly because it always devolves into cliches. ("There was no knockout blow," someone declares after every debate ever held. When is the last time you heard someone say "This was a knockout blow. This election is over"?) well ok d n hear "this election is over" but do sometimes hear "this was a game changer" right?
But mainly because—well, what does winning a debate mean? y y y. weird to talk about it as if it is a win/lose activity when it just is not structured like that. (a competitive debate where participants are scored on points made or missed is structured differently, right? must be.) Does it mean seeming to dominate your opponent, being in command? Does it mean being more likeable? Does it mean making more of your audience want to vote for you? Beating expectations? These don't all go hand in hand, and when a network polls its viewers—"Who won tonight's debate?"—different respondents will take the question to mean different things.
So, ahem: Who won the debate? And why?
-The debate didn't change my vote. But, I found myself increasingly annoyed by Palin's winking. She looked like she was flirting with the voters over cocktails. Uck! And...is it appropriate to do a "shout out" in a vice presidential debate?
No comments:
Post a Comment