Your view of whether Romney won the first presidential debate probably has a lot to do with your feelings on what constitutes a victory in that situation. If you're scoring on how many times Romney bullied the moderator, it was a clear slam dunk.
If you taking the actual validity of his statements, it's not as clear. His spiels were as filled with distortions and total lies as ever, but the strategy of stating those with a maximum of testosterone in as pushy a way possible seemed to work.
If someone shoves it in your face, it must be true.
Hell, his forcefulness had me half convinced that the sky was falling and Obama was poking it with a stick, as well as scared at the thought of him sitting in meetings with foreign leaders.
It's always a good idea to step beyond the bluster and do some fact-checking, which is pretty simple in the 21st Century. You can fact check all you want now - there's this good Associated Press one, the PolitiFact one and the FactCheck one.
They all call out both candidates and show that "winning" a debate has more to do with demeanor and what the viewers are looking for than substance.
I can only say that presidential election time works with the same speed as Narnia time. Not even two weeks ago, television pundits were burying their heads and screaming "Sweet Jesus!" at the man and the National Review pretty much stuck a fork in him.
Just the day before the debates, it seemed as though the more Ohioans encountered him, the less they liked him. Whether the public spectacle of Romney ignoring Miss Manners help help him in the long run?
Personally, I think that sort of behavior flies once, but it's a long haul till November.