on a number of counts. Or at least, he let his advisors talk him into suppressing his own strong suits. Cozening media elites is one: shutting them out was a huge mistake.

Swinging right was another: McCain's great appeal was as a pragmatic moderate & "maverick", a reputation he's managed to erase in the past 10 weeks or so.

Running on "change". Well, McCain 2000 might have pulled it off. But swinging right, spouting Bush party line, and *then* trying to convince everyone you'll change the last 8 years? The public isn't buying it.

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

The wonkosaurs pay close attention to these things, but this is rather like the Parable of the Lost Sheep. The good shepherd leaves his sheep in the fold to go in search of that which was lost.

The independents seem to have broken roughly 60/40 for Obama/McCain. There never were very many Independents to begin with. Republicans own and Democrats rent. Well, now that the Owners are being foreclosed, naturally they will drift into the Renter camp.

The debates try to lure in the Independents, but I don't know if they manage to do much except reinforce the base and provide talking points.

although "debates have had the greatest impact in close races" is nearly tautological.

I would say there are three things Americans look for in debates:

1. Temperament (forceful yet cool under fire)
2. Coherence (familiarity with issues & ability to tie them together into an understandable worldview)
3. Ideological buzzwords (does the candidate support my side of a controversy)

So what aren't viewers looking for? Pundits commit one error here, and partisans another.

Pundits, as you say, fetishize "strength", and tend to assign the win to whoever got the most punches in. They're like the guys who thought Foreman was destroying Ali in the Rumble in the Jungle -- they don't realize that what matters is the force of the punch. McCain clearly got off more attacks last night, but less than a third of independent voters scored the debate for him, because Obama's attacks were perceived as more legitimate & germane. McCain's sneering, obviously rattled responses & body language helped this perception. (I wouldn't be surprised if there were a significant pro-Obama difference in viewers who watched on a split screen. Really, McCain's reactions had to be seen to be believed.)

Partisans, on the other hand, focus on content and know exactly what they want to hear. I suspect that strongly partisan Democrats and Republicans each saw a better McCain performance last night than the average voter did. This is because McCain hit a lot more partisan buttons than Obama, and laced his remarks with buzzwords that are familiar to anyone who follows politics obsessively. To those who don't, though, such shorthand just seems confusing or vague. Of course everyone has political opinions, and wants a candidate who shares them, but they don't understand that (for example) when McCain invokes DC school vouchers or ethanol subsidies, he is referring to a much broader debate. (Obama's response to the school vouchers -- something like "Well, that's DC, but those of you in the other 50 states are out of luck" -- was pure evil genius, turning what is actually a substantive and important debate into a boutique issue, even a fetish.)

Obama, knowing that he needed first and foremost to reassure voters that he can be President while running to the center, focused on #1 and #2. McCain focused on #3, a transparent and awful strategic error, and confused flailing for forcefulness.

It was far and away McCain's worst performance. I was surprised the pundits & blogs didn't immediately pick up on that, but in retrospect I understand why.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.