My Five-Step Method for Determining Who Wins Presidential Debates and How to Apply It to Last Night's Debate

I have a five-step method for determining who wins presidential debates. Here it is:

1. I switch to Fox News to see how Sean Hannity is feeling;2. I then switch to CNN to see how Jake Tapper (or Anderson Cooper) is feeling;3. If Sean Hannity looks grim and Tapper (or Cooper) looks chipper, then Hillary won;4. If Sean Hannity is chipper and Tapper (or Cooper) grim, then Trump won.5. If they book look about the same, then it was a draw

Applying this method last night, I determine that Trump won.

Tapper looked like his dog had just died. He had circles under his eyes and looked like he badly needed a long vacation. Of course, he wouldn't admit that Trump won, and he had to settle for saying that the debate wouldn't help him to win, which, of course, has nothing to do with the question, and which, if Trump had engaged in any similar confusion would have prompted Anderson Cooper to interrupt him and pointed it out and if Hillary had done it would have prompted neither moderator to do anything, since she can do no wrong.

Hannity, on the other hand, was positively ecstatic. The Donald had perpetrated the most decisive victory in the history of debate, beating out Demosthenes, Pericles, Cicero, and every other -es and -o who ever rose to a podium. He made Clarence Darrow look like a Sunday School teacher. He had destroyed Hillary so utterly and decisively that it was a wonder she wasn't taken off the stage on a gurney.

The first debate was, of course exactly the opposite.

What always gets me is the utter bias with with both networks deal with issues, although I will have to say that in the days leading up to the debate at least Fox extensively covered Trump's video scandal in addition to its coverage of Hillary's emails, while CNN hardly mentioned the emails.

And this morning on NPR, Mara Liasson's report on the debate included a discussion of everything but the emails. This is just unethical journalism, and it is why public broadcasting has so little credibility any more. And it isn't even necessary: Trump tends to hang himself. He doesn't need liberal journalists grinding an ax and pretending to be objective to do it for him.

The Clinch: The last presidential debate

Clearly, Obama won the third debate. The question is whether it was a Pyrrhic victory. On points, I don't think there is any question that Obama won and won fairly easily--largely because he was more aggressive. The question is whether it matters.

Several observations: 

• Whatever happened to Libya? The glaring thing about the debate was Romney's decision not to mention Libya. And it was very obviously his decision. It was clearly intentional. It floors me that Romney did not use this, since it couldn't have failed to score. As the debate went on, I kept thinking, I wonder, since Romney got the coin toss, if that meant he was speaking last. That would be the perfect time to launch the criticism, since Obama could not respond. What a brilliant tactic! So when Obama gave his closing remarks and it want back to Romney, I thought, okay here goes. He's going to nail him. But ... nothing. I think this was a huge missed opportunity. 
• The gravitas game. The Romney's clear strategy coming into the debate was to look Commander-in-Chiefish. I do think he succeeded here. He looked an awful lot like the guy who already was. I think Charles Krauthammer was right: Obama looked small; Romney looked large. Chris Wallace made the remark that if he had been parachuted in from another planet into the audience of this debate, he would have thought that it was Romney who was president, not Obama. This was an atmospheric consideration that does not get detected by debate judges, but it matters nonetheless. 
• A kinder and gentler toughness. Then there was Romney's peace offensive. If you put this together with the fact that Romney toned down the aggressiveness all around, I think this bolsters David Gergen's contention that Romney was trying to appeal to women voters. All of the Romney's agreements with Obama and his mentions of peace don't really get my blood pumping, but maybe Gergen's right and it will do that for women. If it does, it will have been the first time anyone looked more like a good commander-in-chief by sounding dovish.
• They still use bayonets, don't they? I winced when Obama said, in response to Romney's charge that the number of ships has gone down since 1917, that we don't use horses and bayonets any more either. I say this comes back to haunt him. It won't help him in the shipyards of North Carolina--or in the Navy at large. If I were the Romney campaign, I would immediately get out an ad, showing a series of Marines (who still use bayonets), saying, "Mr. President, I still use a bayonet."
• And that's why I want to talk about ... the economy. Romney repeatedly turned this issue back to his chief issue. I think this helped him.
• The staredown. I know these things aren't supposed to matter, but, thanks to this new split-screen view where we see both candidates facial expressions at every moment (will someone please pass a law banning this?), I think Romney won the grimace battle. Romney has a strange kind of smile that I don't find particularly attractive, but people are apparently used to it. Tonight, Obama unveiled The Glare. It was this intense, head-stuck-forward, jaw-jutting grimace that he was clearly trained to use by his handlers in this debate. I thought it was kind of creepy. I can just see John Stewart making fun of this. I don't think it looked good.

I'm also wondering if this was some kind of clinch. Romney figures he's ahead on points and all he has to do in this round is come out roughly even. We'll see.