Kevin at LA Observed well illustrates that winning a debate is in the eye of the beholder.
For my own part, I find it hard to declare a winner. Partially it depends on what the goal was.
One could say that Arnold won, because he didn't screw up.
McClintock, though the most thoughtful, lost, because he didn't do anything that would expand his base of voters.
Arianna could be said to have won, because she will get lots of pub out the whole affair, which seems to be what she is after (surely she knows she can't win, so PR is all there is get here). Indeed the rather ugly, but rather apt term "media whore" keeps springing to mind. Anyone have a more polite appellation that I could use that is still as evocative??
Camejo lost, but then again, who cares? If he gets more than 2% of the vote it will be amazing. Although I will give him points for being intellectually honest and consistent.
Cruz seemed the calmest and most knowledgeable about state government, so maybe won in terms of "points" (or maybe tied with McC), but like McC, I am not sure he did anything to help exapnd his voting base. Plus, he came across as a tad arrogant.
I think I just talked myself into saying that Arnie won because he held his own and may have convinced a few fence-sitters that he could maybe really be governor. As PoliPundit put it:
Ordinary viewers don't watch debates like journalists do. They're voting for governor, not judging a debate. What voters are asking is, does the phrase "Governor Schwarzenegger" pass the smell test? After last night, it does.
If true (and I think it is), I guess Schwarzenegger was the winner.
Still, the proof will be in the numbers.
Posted by Steven at September 25, 2024 10:09 AM | TrackBack