Last night's townhall debate leads to the constant question: "Who won?"
In some respects it is like answering the question for a bunch of 8 year olds doing foot races across the yard.
The first boy is very short compared to the group and is known to be slow. The leader of the bunch decides that he gets a 10 yard head start.
The second boy hates that "unfair" advantage but is the fastest in the group. He complains wildly in fear that he will not cross the finish line first given the head start.
The third boy is the leader and is trying to make the race competitive. He knows he will be beat, but he stands next to the fast boy and prepares to be beaten. Even so, he runs hard through the finish line.
When it is all over, boy #1 crosses the finish line half a step before boy #2. The yelling starts again in earnest.
Who won? The boys turn to you to referee the dispute after the fact.
Do you decide for boy #1 because he crossed the line first?
Do you decide for boy #2 because he covered the greater distance in a nearly identical period of time?
Do you decide for boy #3 because he has shown the greatest moral character trying to create a competitive race given the characteristics of each competitor?
Notice one assumption that I did not make. I did not assume that the boys agreed on what the definition of "victory" was. The boys start by assuming that winning means crossing the finish line first. When the fast boy #2 discovers that he could not win that way, likely changes his argument to be that he ran the fastest with an unfair head start to his opponent.
This scenario is what presidential debates are like. There are no set rules about how to define victory. It is all in the eyes of the beholder.
Simply put, with no definition of victory before the debate (and I don't count, "The President did better than last time" as a definition of victory), it is hard to give a fair and reasonable answer.
The President is like boy #1. He was given a forum in New York, a very blue state, among undecided voters who wrote questions with a significant Democrat overtone to them. These undecideds will decide no election. If this debate would have been held outside of Cleveland or in Akron, I doubt we would have had as much uniformity in tone.
Romney is a bit like boy #2 in performance and a bit like boy #3 in attitude. He outperformed the President in content, but he was starting from behind given the questioners, the location, and the moderator. Yet, Romney never complained about this. He agreed to it far in advance.
Using the finish line standard of measure, it was a solid tie. Both men got to the finish line on their points.
Using the quality of performance and distance covered in the period of time offered, Romney outperformed.
Ultimately, the problem in debates is that we do not have judges like Len Goodman holding up paddles showing scores on paddles while we wait for the public to vote. He has no immediate gratification of who won. We will know, though, in just a few weeks.
