Thread by @CitizenCohn

I've said previously who you think "won" a debate usually says more about which candidate you support than how that candidate performed. I still think that. I'm not even sure how you define "win." Most truthful? Most articulate? Most engaging? ... #MIGov

But after the last #MIGov debate, I noticed conservatives flooding twitter with declarations that Dixon won -- I guess because she had some good lines and looked like she belonged on the stage. Not how I saw it. ...

So in case that happens again, following #MIGov debate 2, I'd just like to note that Whitmer -- to my eyes and ears -- was sharper, seemed more engaged, and had a lot more to say about what she's actually done and what she wants to keep doing ...

And while both candidates dodged some questions, stretched truth here and there, Dixon seemed -- again, by my lights, pending a closer review of the notes -- to be doing a lot more of both. #MIGov

Not sure how much that matters. Ultimately, how you vote should depend on which candidate's views are closest to yours, which one you trust most to govern. I'm not sure a debate tells you that. #MIGov ...

But these post-debate tweets have a habit of shaping perceptions, for media and funders etc., so I hope anybody drawing a judgment on #MIGov will actually watch the debate or read a transcript, rather than going by tweets.

Including mine!