Usually, coming off a debate, there's not really much in the way of gamechangers, so it's hardly surprising when people just stick with the person they liked going into the debate. After all, there's not really much in the way of objectively assessing points to definitively declare a winner. But last night's debate? I know it's impossible to really distance myself from my own biases, but I really can't fathom how anyone thinks that this was pretty much an even match.
Sure, Joe may have come across as unlikable via condescending laughter or aggressive interruption that may not play well with some viewers, but it just seemed to me that one guy had a pretty good understanding of actual facts, and the other was just peddling disingenuous talking points with no clear understanding of what any of it really meant.
