Sarah: Hi Pauline, Nik

I just finished watching the English leaders' debate without flipping to the vice-presidential debate, and I must admit my self-discipline was well rewarded. I found the debate interesting and illuminating. In particular, I though Elizabeth May was a terrific addition. Her responses were complex and I appreciated the historical context she provided on several occasions. I was hoping her presence would add depth to the debate and it definitely did.

There was a surprising amount of corroboration of ideas amongst the opposition. The biggest surprise for me though came when Layton, Dion, Duceppe and May all demanded greater protection for Canadian jobs and industries through a "made in Canada" policy. This flies in the face of all free trade agreements. Amazing.

In this debate all parties were leaning left, I'd even go so far to say that socialism was being reinvigorated. How many times was Sweden cited as an example of good economic management — at least two. Even Harper was doing everything he could to distance himself from American conservative policies. I'm interested in what you two have to say about this evening, but first I wanted to share my favourite lines of the night.

"Mr. Harper, where's your platform? Under your sweater?" Jack Layton, referring to the fact that the Conservatives have not released a platform.

"Good work on the parks, but everything else is a fraud." Elizabeth May to Harper on his approach to the environment.

"You don't leave Afghanistan like you leave camping." Stéphane Dion to Jack Layton after Layton stated he would activate an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.

"My wife's family is very artistic, they paint, they draw." Steven Harper establishing his love of the arts.

Nik:

Although political junkies and insiders may relish the cut-and-thrust of the debate and one line zingers, my sense is that the debate may have only reinforced existing political predispositions and left the undecided with few answers. I think it's going to take a few days for things to "politically digest" so to speak. Just by being in the debate, Elizabeth May comes out ahead. For Stéphane Dion, he performed better than expected. Stephen Harper managed to get through the four-on-one pile-on intact and Jack Layton scored some good points. Gilles Duceppe, the current "dean of debating" also did well in the English debate.

Politics in many ways is about having voters select from a series of imperfect choices. As I watched the debate, from a political consumer perspective I thought, imagine if you could combine the level headedness of Harper, with the sincerity of Dion, Layton's sense of social justice with the pep of May and the presence of Duceppe — you'd have quite the political animal. Something quite inspiring and aspirational. Separately, last night I saw quite a bit of bickering from the individual party leaders.

On the upside, I'm sure there are many voters who hope the campaigns will now shift to a more substantive battle of visions and the future. Let's have less puffin politics and more public policy. With uncertainty in the economy and political change in the air in the U.S., now is the time to focus on the future. I think Canadian voters are ready, if our leaders have the courage to think big and to think positive.

Pauline:

I like your favourite lines too, Sarah, and I agree that Elizabeth May was a terrific addition to the evening. This was even more visible last night, in the French-language debate, where the sheer fact of the female voice piercing the noise ensured that she got a hearing despite her limited capacity to articulate her point of view as effectively in her second language. What a difference tonight, where she could cram such efficient arguments into very short openings, although she seems to have irritated some viewers and bloggers. I suspect the reaction will be split along gender lines to some extent.

Language ability is also a huge factor. Last night, Stéphane Dion and Gilles Duceppe enjoyed the advantage of debating in their native tongue. Tonight, that advantage was reversed. English Canada is far less tolerant than Quebec of people who speak the language less than perfectly. I was struck by Stephen Harper's endurance under fire — and by the lack of a Conservative platform. This is highly unusual in an election. Nik, what do your numbers tell you about the importance of having a published platform? How much do a party's commitments weigh in people's voting decisions?

You're quite right, Nik, that debates take days to digest and play out in public opinion. One thing that shapes the way that happens is the choices that various media make about what clips to highlight, replay, analyze and spin. Two hours commercial-free is a big commitment of time that most people won't or can't make. The vast majority of Canadians didn't see the debates at all — but they will end up seeing some of these clips replayed. It's the repetition of the key moments from the debate, fairly or not, that will provide the "halo" effect that influences voters more than the debate itself.

These replay clips will focus more attention on the strong one-liners of the night (Elizabeth May on climate change and Stéphane Dion on the economy as it relates to people, among others, Jack Layton on the lack of a Tory platform and Gilles Duceppe on the arts and youth crime); they will also amplify Stephen Harper's calm, composed "Prime Ministerial" but slightly disengaged presence. He has certainly taken to heart the advice he has received to smile more, but there were moments when the result was slightly unnerving.

I don't know how you feel, but I much preferred the oval table format to the traditional lectern shouting match, and both moderators, Stéphane Bureau in French and Steve Paikin in English, did a terrific job of keeping the conversation more civilized than it has been in previous elections. I suspect I won't be alone in appreciating that.

Nik:

Pauline, apart from the zingers, I find the debates are about meeting or not meeting expectations. I suspect that even though Dion did not win the debates he exceeded expectations. Conversely although Harper got through the debates my sense is that the format was not conducive for him to meet expectations Canadians have of him.

Pauline:

Speaking of expectations, Canadians probably expect political parties to present a formal platform at election time. Perhaps the Conservative choice to be the only party not to present one yet was also a hampering factor in Harper's debate performance. It left him on the defensive, attacking the others but not promoting his own vision or ideas except for a "stand pat" stance. That may make sense in a financial crisis, but it's not very exciting.

Sarah:

I also really enjoyed this format. It was reminiscent of some of my family dinners.There were times of course, when it was impossible to discern what was going on with everyone talking at once, but for the most part I thought the format allowed for more engagement of ideas. I watched some of the U.S. debate last night and in comparison, it felt wooden and awkward.

I've since read that this format did not work because it resulted in one big pile-up on Harper, but I think that was purely circumstantial, he happens to face four opposition leaders who are ideologically opposed to many of his ideas, so I'm not sure how it could possibly have played out differently.

Sarah:

Pauline, I just took an informal poll at my work regarding the format of the debate. So far, the men who watched it were unhappy with the format, while most of the women really liked it.