So one of our readers thinks that Andrea Silbert “won” Sunday afternoon’s Lt. Gov. forum, and another gives the nod to Tim Murray. Elsewhere, still others have commented on how well Deb Goldberg did, and I’d add my voice to that particular chorus – I thought everyone did well, but I thought Goldberg had a particularly good day. She showed a calm yet fairly intense demeanor, which I liked, and an impressive command of a wide variety of issues. It’s been suggested that Goldberg wasn’t in the “top tier” of this race and wasn’t talking about substance. To me, she went a long way toward dispelling those sorts of notions yesterday.
In any event, the diversity of opinion on who did best yesterday suggests to me that it’s not really that constructive to try to figure out who “wins” these things. Much better, I think, to talk about something you didn’t know before about a candidate that has made you more or less inclined to support him or her – really, that’s what these kinds of events are good for. Maybe people are using the concept of “winning” as a shorthand for that notion – but it strikes me as a less than useful shorthand that we might do well to abandon.
You’ve nailed what I felt after yesterday’s forum: I felt convinced. It wasn’t a debate, per se, so the winning mantra may not be appropriate. But it’s also a quick, clear concept – a way to get a point across. Put it this way: which is more persuasive: “Silbert Wins” vs. “Silbert Most Convincing”
<
p>
I think the former, but the latter represents more of what I felt yesterday. But I was also looking to write a catchy headline that would draw readers to click on my post and read it. By putting “wins” I probably got more clicks than had I written something else, and I got people to read my thoughts.
<
p>
But you’re right: winning isn’t the best way to evaluate an event like yesterday’s. There are really only two clear things left to win: the Convention and the Primary. (And of course the General!)