The Art of the Scorecard

I learned a long time ago that debate-watching is a very subjective business.

Just when you're positive than one candidate slam-dunked the other, a passel of pundits somehow concludes the opposite.

In 1980, for instance, I thought that Jimmy Carter had outpointed Ronald Reagan in their sole faceoff, outmaneuvering him on the facts time and again. (I had company--I just looked up David Broder's analysis and he wrote: "For most of their nationally televised debate, Carter's challenger was kept on the defensive -- explaining that his views on arms-control, military weapons, Social Security and domestic programs were not the 'very dangerous, disturbing' and even 'radical' notions that the president said they were." But Broder also credited Reagan's "Are you better off now?" line as effective.)

What I failed to see was that Carter came off as tense and Reagan as confident and relaxed, especially with his "There you go again" dismissal of one of Carter's charges.

I learned that you have to watch these debates the way the average viewer might follow them, and that style, body language and one-liners are as important as the substantive details. Remember how reporters at the first Bush-Gore debate thought the vice president had won because they didn't see the sighing that the cutaway camera was feeding to the country? Again, for many people the substance mattered less than the theatrics.

And, of course, viewers tend to overestimate the performances of candidates they like or who say things they agree with.

But journalists also find themselves slipping into subjectivity mode. How else to explain the wildly different interpretations of Tuesday's Republican debate in New Hampshire?

Slate's John Dickerson gives the nod to Rudy:

"He seemed commanding during the debate, at ease with facts on issues like health care and immigration. When asked by an audience member what defines an American, his answer, including a quote from Lincoln, was so complete it sounded like he'd been given the question ahead of time. He continued to throw out red meat, attacking Democrats more than his opponents did. GOP voters will like this, and they'll ignore where he went overboard as the mayor did when claiming the Democratic candidate's plans for health care are socialized medicine (they're not) and suggesting they didn't talk about the threat from Islamic terrorists in their debate Sunday (they did)."

Arianna Huffington has a different winner, and a different view of America's mayor:

"This was vintage McCain. Perhaps energized by being in New Hampshire, home of his greatest political triumph in 2000, he provided the two most emotional moments of the night. The first came in his response to a question asked by Erin Flanagan, whose younger brother had been killed in Iraq eight days before he was scheduled to return home in December 2005.

"McCain rose from his chair and, his voice choked with emotion, thanked her for her brother's service and offered 'a little straight talk' on the war, which he said had been 'badly mismanaged for a long time,' leading to 'unnecessary' deaths. Of course, he then went on to defend the current surge strategy, and warned of Iraq turning into 'a center of terrorism' if we withdraw -- but, however wrong his position, it was McCain at his passionate best.