If this debate proved anything, it’s that most political pundits don’t have the foggiest idea what they’re talking about. I popped over to Politico’s roundup of reactions, and the consensus is that McCain did great, even if it wasn’t a game changer. But look at the post-debate snap polls:
- Mediacurves: 60% of Independents say Obama won; 30% say McCain; 10% called it a tie
- CBS: 53% of voters say Obama won, 22% say McCain
- CNN: 58% of voters say Obama won, 31% say McCain
We’ve had four debates now, and each time the census from the pundits has been “it’s a tie on points.” But each time, voters have heavily favored Obama. How are so many people getting paid to be so wrong?
I think the problem here is political junkies and pundits are watching these debates for entertainment. They follow this stuff everyday, and they want a nice one-line zinger that they can dissect and replay and get excited about. But voters are looking for a president, not entertainment. Where pundits are giving McCain credit for “putting Obama on the defensive,” voters are docking him points for dodging questions and coming across as condescending. Where Obama comes across as boring and “professorial” to pundits, voters give him credit for being presidential.
Here’s the rub: Pundit reactions could actually change how the debate is interpreted after the fact. But if these initial polls hold up for a few days, John McCain is toast. He needed to turn this thing around tonight. If 60% of Independents are saying Obama won, he didn’t accomplish that goal.