There was far from a consensus view on who won the debate in the hours after it ended. Two instant polls gave Obama a clean edge over Romney, but the pundit class was, to quote Obama, all over the map.
So, the instant polls of the public gave Obama a clear advantage but we aren't really sure who won because the pundit class couldn't agree. I wonder how that could've happened. Here is Kevin Drum's roundup of conservative pundits to help explain:
Was there any rending of garments anywhere else? Not for a second. Conservatives just reveled in the fact that Romney apparently made himself acceptable to undecided voters.Yuval Levin: "Romney clearly achieved his aim." Ramesh Ponnuru: "Advantage Romney." Rich Lowry: "Romney executed what must have been his strategy nearly flawlessly." Bill Kristol:"Tonight, Romney seems as fully capable as—probably more capable than—Barack Obama of being the next president." Stanley Kurtz: "Romney has now decisively established himself as a credible alternative to Obama." Erick Erickson: "Mitt Romney won this debate."A bunch of conservative commentators just flat refuse to admit that Romney lost and the story becomes "there was no consensus view on who won." Compare this with the first debate that Obama clearly lost, and the reaction of liberal pundits who not only admitted he lost but commenced with wailing and gnashing of teeth. The mainstream media story there was that "Obama was destroyed in the first debate."
And that is where we are today. Conservatives, using their own media outlets, can totally change the narrative of any story simply by refusing to accept reality. I suppose someday liberals will figure this out, and then reality will truly have no meaning at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment