Who won?

There are a number of different ways to rate a debate. Speaking personally, I agree with Dick Morris that Kerry won on style, but Bush on substance.

Even this oversimplifies. The Democrats have often put up candidate who were smoother, slicker admen than their GOP rivals, only to go down in flames come November.

Most viewers actually judge a political candidate the way they judge a Hollywood actor. Can they identify with the candidate? Is he one of them? Is he someone they'd like to be for a day? Does he come across as authentic?

Parties tend to nominate candidates who project their self-image. The left-wing generally chooses to run urbane, academic-sounding candidates. The right-wing, although it has many urbane, academic-sounding commentators, rarely chooses to run them for public office. That is true, in part, because the GOP is more diverse and bottom-heavy, whereas the DNC is more homogenous and top-heavy.

Liberals either belong to the cultural elite, or aspire to that position. Some conservatives belong to the cultural elite, but if not, have no aspirations to that position. They are content to be good churchmen, family men, and businessmen.

To the extent that politics is perception, Kerry won simply because most people polled think that Kerry won.

Yet the internal numbers tell a--dare I say?--more nuanced story. Although, in public perception, he won, he didn't win over many converts to the Kerry cause.

On substance I would say that Kerry lost. Although he scored some valid points against Bush, a challenger must offer more than a critique, he must offer a choice. But Kerry lacks credibility at many levels.