[Thunderball]

I'm surprised there isn't a thread on this already... but here was my take.

The pundit on CBC believed everyone won insofar as they accomplished their goals... I say the opposite. I'd say the big loser was Taft, despite a very strong start.

Synopsis:

Stelmach: Under pressure in the beginning beared a striking resemblance to a combination of Porky Pig and Elmer Fudd. Fortunately for him, Mason turned his sights on Taft, and Hinman backed off to try and sell his own platform. His answers were predictable, scripted and generally unimpressive. Still, because Taft in particular didn't rip him apart from start to finish means he's assured an election win.

Taft: Started off strong, emphasized intelligent change, and largely let Hinman and Mason go for Stelmach's jugular. He even made a very good joke about the charisma gap. Once Mason caught on and started attacking him, he regressed into the unpopular candidate he was in the previous election and got into, essentially, a socialism contest with Mason as to who can spend Alberta into the ground faster. He started off looking like a Premier in waiting, he ended up looking like an opposition leader with declining fortunes. Points for mentioning blowing up the General Hospital... but he never attacked Stelmach with the kind of passion and charisma that one would expect a Premier candidate to do. He was a big let down.

Mason: He was fiery for most of the night, with some excellent vitriol causing Stelmach to derogatorily call him a socialist. He did an excellent job of essentially winning the election for Stelmach, as he exposed Taft as being a typical centre-lefty, and not a real viable electoral alternative for disenchanted conservatives. He didn't really help himself though. He may have lost voters that would otherwise vote for the NDP who will likely strategic vote against Stelmach.

Hinman: Innovative. He must have used that word 25 times. He started off wooden and scripted, but his policy was (with a couple exceptions, one critical... I'll get to it later) logical and coherent. His job was to come off as a legitimate candidate and be a real conservative alternative. He accomplished that. He made a big mistake in childcare. Like Taft, his true colors showed when he essentially said that the woman belongs in the home raising child. While I agree that institutional daycare is far from anyone's ideal, the way he articulated his position was terrible. Had he proposed that say, grandparents, siblings, relatives or parents be given a tax credit for performing babysitting/daycare services, or paying nannies out of pre-tax income (or some other incentive), he might have come off better and proposed a better alternative than the others arguing over who can spend the most money. That probably cost him Calgary and Edmonton... but it might play great in rural Alberta.

It was a subpar debate, with each candidate appearing very flawed and unpolished.