It's very hard for a political candidate to "win" a debate, to stand out so demonstrably better than opponents by their own volition. It is much easier for them to "lose" a debate because by their responses candidates can set themselves up to look inconsistent, hypocritical, uniformed, belligerent, or just plain un-statesmanlike. Nobody is impressed when candidates avoid these things, but it makes a negative impression when they can't. Tonight, Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu lost her debate with Republican state Treasurer John Kennedy to retain her seat, and lost it badly.

(But before explaining why, applause must go to the six television reporters from five outlets across the state who posed the questions and moderated. The questions mostly were tough and these journalists were fair but firm in trying to get the candidates to actually answer them instead of them answering unasked questions that candidates typically prefer to do. It was the most informative and entertaining debate I have ever witnessed.)

Both candidates held up decently well, although perhaps coming off as too keen to score points on each other, until Landrieu was questioned on the extremely fishy timing of her championing legislation for a certain interest at about the same time that interest held a fundraiser for her. She lost her composure through little more than lecturing the questioning reporter in a self-righteous fashion that never addressed his question about whether the timing looked bad, as if she were frantically trying to cover something up.

It got worse for her on the next question concerning privatization of Social Security funds. After Landrieu said she had never considered supporting that because it was too risky, Kennedy explained competently his position that he would allow it voluntarily for new system entrants and then coolly produced a 1999 article where Landrieu said she thought it was time to consider this "risky" alternative (he could also have used this more recent article). Flustered, she claimed she didn't remember saying that, thus destroying the main theme lying behind many of her previous comments that her effectiveness and competence made her the better choice; anyone who claimed she could not remember or even doubted she had said a direct quote from a news story on an important issue that contradicted her supposedly rock-solid issue preference would raise doubts about her suitability in any objective observer.

For the rest of the debate, Landrieu came across as combative and more interested in tearing down Kennedy than presenting solutions, and her assertions about her past achievements framed by these previous incidents made her look more like a self-aggrandizer than somebody with credentials. The rout was completed when, on a question asking Kennedy to definitively state his policy preference for abortion and one to Landrieu to explain why as a Catholic she supported many kinds of abortion, Landrieu answered in a legalistic way that the common man would call "weasel words" and Kennedy spoke from the heart about how the entrance into his life of his son made him pro-life except when the mother's life was endangered. The contrast could not have reflected more badly on her.

But the question is, does this mean anything in the scope of the larger campaign? We political scientists long ago learned most people who watch these debates (other than political scientists themselves) either already are intense supporters of one candidate or they are truly undecided and interested. Either way, they aren't large in numbers. Her disastrous showing will filter out to reach additional voters from those who watched, but unless this is a very close race, it won't matter.

It can matter more if Kennedy's campaign runs with it. A few key snippets here and there of it woven into a quality ad plastered around the state's airwaves during the last week of the contest could give a significant boost to his fortunes Holding a several percentage point advantage (as best could be told) going into the affair, Landrieu opened the door for Kennedy to eat into that by her performance. Now we'll see whether he can.

(If you'd like to have Prof. Sadow's column mailed to you, go to http://www.between-lines.com and click on "Join the mailing list!" on the left-hand side.)