Winning for losing

As every pundit knows, the best predictions are the ones that can’t be proven wrong. Thus, the very best prediction of who will win tonight’s gubernatorial debate comes from Republican strategist Holly Robichaud, in Kimberly Atkins’ “Monday morning briefing” column in the Boston Herald:

Initially Patrick will be perceived as the winner of the debate for his likeable performance, but Healey’s attacks will do a slow-burn with the voters that will turn Patrick from likeable to unacceptable.

Try disproving that a month from now.

By the way, for those of you who have yet to discover Atkins’ political blog, click here.

Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

6 thoughts on “Winning for losing”

  1. That should be a fairly easy hypothesis to test. Monitor debate coverage for Patrick’s review. Check Patrick’s favorable/unfavorable now and a month from now.The only thing that will be hazy is what caused the movement from now to then.And if it’s proven wrong, then, hey, who has a good track record on these predictions anyway?

  2. However, in the beginning Robichaud will be perceived as having great insight; be cited as a visionary, but as time passes her spindle will run out of wind.Wish I had more time.

  3. Why did a debate for an open seat start at 6 rather than 7 or 8? Sure would have liked a chance to have seen it, rather than tune in and out on my way home from work.Dan, do you have any insight on this?

  4. Mike — Well, sure. Fox’s lucrative network fare starts at 8 p.m. I suppose the debate could have started at 7 (or 6:50!) instead of 6, but they wanted to fill the rest of the 7 o’clock hour with talking heads.It looks like Channel 25 has posted highlights, but not the whole thing. I captured the live stream from WTKK and am listening to it on my iPod. I’m not that far into it yet. But I’m glad I didn’t have to sit down in front of the tube at 6.

  5. I realize the lure of money, but if a station wants to get the exclusivity of hosting the debate, something has to give; at least run it at 7 instead of 6.I presume that you and I (and anyone else who comments on this blog) represent the exception rather than the rule, as we’re interested in the process. That being said, however, let’s at least have the debate on when folks have a better shot of being able to watch the thing.

  6. Is it possible that the expert Republican strategist did not anticipate a GOP eating junk yard dog named Christy?

Comments are closed.