Wow. That was way too easy. All I had to do was write it.
Of course, I don't really believe this. Though Obama wasn't strong in Denver, I think Obama was stronger last night than he was last week (and I thought he was great last week). He came across as a very strong Commander-in-Chief, and had Romney flailing for much of the night.
It was, in many respects, the flipside of the first debate.
But here's the difference. After last night, conservatives all over the web and television proclaimed last night a clear victory for Mittens (the most honest of them called it a draw). Despite the instapolls and what their lying eyes were telling them, they would not waver from saying that Romney prevailed last night. He didn't.
Contrast that with the honesty at play all over liberalland three weeks ago. Progressives saw Obama give a listless performance where he left many a Romney attack go unchallenged, and didn't go for the easy attack lines that Romney was setting up. But we were upset, and said so! We said so on DailyKos, we said so on MSNBC, Salon, CNN, HuffPo - anywhere and everywhere there was a forum for progressives to vent, progressives vented. Which fed into the narrative that Obama blew the debate (it wasn't THAT bad), and what went from a traditionally weak first-debate for an incumbent, became the most notorious first chapter since The Phantom Menace.
Romney may not suffer as much from his limp third-debate, because he has an amen corner. Conservatives won't feed the narrative that he lost, all evidence to the contrary.
There's something delusional about that, sure, and it does make you question their honesty, but from a purely political calculus, it makes a great deal of sense. If we had given Obama a pass on the first debate (I was as tough on him as anyone), I wonder if Romney's bump would have lasted for as long as it did.