Obama's Debate Win Failed To Get Him Many New Votes....

[BlooInBloo]

But that's ok, here's what it DID do:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/what-obama-accomplished-at-debate.html

"So Obama may not have persuaded that many voters on Friday night (I don't think his performance, frankly, was all that persuasive). But he may have reassured and locked in some of his soft supporters -- perhaps Clinton voters and working class Dems.

What that means is that Obama's floor is higher (and therefore McCain's ceiling is lower). What it also means is that negative attacks may be less effective for McCain, which are often targeted at soft supporters of the opposing candidate. The CW is that McCain ought to go starkly negative on Obama, but I'm not sure that he wouldn't stand a better chance by zigging when everyone expects him to zag, rebuilding his inherently strong brand, campaigning on the big-picture themes that dominated the GOP convention, and leaving it to the 527's to do his dirty work."


Everyone is expecting McNasty do do a full-press negative push for this last month. Stiffening up the spines of some of Obama's supporters could well be BETTER than gaining a lot of soft supporters, since we're in a VERY comfortable leading position at the moment.

[bluestateguy]

1. Debates rarely move poll numbers that much

and if they do it tends to be temporary.

That debate was on foreign policy. Obama passed the test with high marks. The next two are domestic policy, where there is far less of a so-called "experience gap".