I agree with . . . well, just about everyone . . . that Hillary did well last night, but it just wasn't enough. But I'm not sure why we're commenting on it. Was there really any possibility that she was going to deliver a sweeping blow to Obama with her spectacularly charismatic responses? The debates draw about 4 million viewers, most of whom are not in Texas or Ohio--indeed, as far as I can tell, most of them are wonks, journalists, or political operatives of one type or another, none of whom needed to hear what Hillary thinks about NAFTA in order to decide how they're going to vote.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
It seems pretty clear to me that, as we've become more and more saturated with news, the debates become less and less likely to make a big difference in the election. The candidates are too seasoned to make the big gaffes at this point-- or at least are more likely to make them somewhere on the campaign trail than at a largely scripted media event-- and everyone has as much exposure to the candidates as they could reasonably need to make their decisions.
Megan, thank you so much for making this point. It can be tiring seeing so many DC pundits not realizing everyone isn't a DC pundit.
Right. I think a lot of people of people are pretty election fatigued at this point. I consider myself to be more election-followin' than the average person, and last night I just felt like watching hockey. I think it's going to be difficult for anybody to land a major uppercut for some time.