There Are No Ties in Debate

Andrew Romano:

If tonight’s presidential face-off between Barack Obama and John McCain were held before, say, the Harvard University Debating Society, it might have been scored a tie. On points, the two contenders were evenly matched. Both spoke clearly, crisply and confidently about the major issues facing the country, rebutting his rival’s attacks and launching his own assaults when necessary. Neither looked at his watch, or sighed, or forgot to remove his 5 o’clock shadow. There were no memorable gaffes–or devastating zingers–that will define the debate on cable news and, later, in the single sentence devoted to the event in our grandkids’ high-school history textbooks. It was a consummately professional affair.

The analysis is fair enough, but the premise is ridiculous. The judge of any debate round has one main goal and one subsidiary goal. The main goal is determining who was more persuasive. The secondary goal is determining allocation of points. Every single debate judge in the history of debate would have been able to pick a winner. That’s not to say they would all make the same decision. But there are no ties in debate, any more than there are in baseball games.

I also think Romano’s grading on the curve when he gives credit to McCain for ignoring problems of the past 8 years. Optimism has a border with being out of touch, and McCain may have gone over it. But I do think McCain’s messaging was superior. Listen to our free podcast for more.