Bush won the debate?

I've found it interesting to follow the "logic" of those on the right and the left who want to argue that their man won the debate. Mark Steyn makes an interesting argument that Bush won, but I think it's based on his positions rather than his performance. Steyn writes

Speaking as a third-rate hack, I'd say that as a general rule articulacy is greatly over-rated. It's not what it's about: Noel Coward would run rings round Mike Tyson in the prematch press conference, but then what? But, if articulacy is the measure, how come Kerry can't articulate an Iraq policy any of us can understand? By contrast, for an inarticulate man, Bush seems to communicate pretty clearly. He communicates the reality of the post-9/11 world, a world where you can't afford to err on the side of multilateral consensus and Hague-approved legalisms and transatlantic chit-chatting and tentativeness and faintheartedness about the projection of American power in America's interest.

A majority of the American people -- albeit not as big a majority as it ought to be -- get this. John Kerry still does not. Which means he lost the debate. He got a technical win on points from the pundits, but this election won't be won on points. It's primal. The pundits keep missing this. They thought Kerry was good in the debate, just as he was good in his convention speech, because on both occasions he was tactically artful. But that's not going to cut it. We're post-Clinton: you can't triangulate your way to victory.

OK, but what does that have to do with the debate?

There's been all sorts of comments made about expressions made or not made, points scored or not scored, positions taken or not taken. I'll stand by my comments made while live blogging it. The debate was a draw, which is a loss for Kerry.

Kerry will fail "the global test" because only Americans can vote for him.