I’ve only had a chance to watch bits and pieces of last night’s debate, where the leaders exchanged hockey metaphors as freely as hockey players exchange body checks. So far be it from me to try and make sense of who won or lost, especially when the clips I saw featured a charming Scottish translator voicing Jack Layton.

So here’s a sampling of what regular CalgaryGrit commenter, and genuinely undecided voter, Jacques Beau Vert thought:

Layton: In terms of surprising me out of my apathy, I thought Jack Layton won. His attitude was best all night, enthusiastic and feisty but never out of control. If I beamed down today and didn’t know the NDP (and mistakenly believed the people here were able to vote for their executive branch), I’d say he won.

Duceppe: Duceppe was angry and lost his composure (he certainly got mad and lost his cool and expressed himself with angry conviction – so if you’re a separatist, he won). Also I think he’s deluded in his separatist ambitions, and it came across tonight.

Ignatieff: His answers were weak and uninspiring and canned. His constant repetition of “democracy in Canada” was dreary. However his “It’s 2011, Mr. Duceppe. 2011. It’s 2011” act was a highlight. He didn’t go far enough to make a very strong impression on anyone’s ideas about the federation, yet it was good “theatre”, which is what “debates” are fought on on TV.

Harper: Harper was great! I know, many Liberals and NDPers see “a phony robot”, but if I beamed in from another planet tonite, I’d have seen a Walt Disney family movie Central Casting recruit for “Prime Minister of a Westminster-style Parliamentary System”. I guess that really, he “looked the most like a Prime Minister” – so, perhaps he was the winner after all.

That’s one review. Le Devoir offers their thoughts en francais here.

The poll numbers coming out of this suggest little movement, but indicate Ignatieff may have helped himself the most. Via Ipsos, the pre-debate expectation of who would win and the post-debate judgement:

Duceppe 31% / 42%
Harper 19% / 12%
Layton 16% / 19%
Ignatieff 15% / 22%

More importantly, on the Best Prime Minister question, Ignatieff went from 10 behind Harper before the debate to one ahead after. So, on that score, mission accomplished. From what I saw in the debate, Ignatieff did a much better job selling the Liberal alternative Wednesday than Tuesday. He won the exchange that got the most media play (“It’s 2011“), so he came out of this one quite well.

Layton didn’t improve his stock but, from that same poll, it’s clear he’s the most popular leader in Quebec right now, and the debate probably served to re-enforce that feeling.

Harper showed again how frustratingly on message he has been this campaign. During the aforementioned Ignatieff-Duceppe exchange, he calmly cut in, shook his head, and mused about how difficult it would be for the other leaders to agree in a coalition government. Well, yes. That’s why there would never be a coalition. But, his point was made – if you’re sick of all these elections, debates, and bickering, then give me a majority and a 4 year reprieve of all these unpleasant side effects of democracy.

I hate to comment on Duceppe, because I know Quebecers have a much different attitude towards him than I do. It’s an emotional connection – they see him as the Quebec’s guard dog, there to protect them.

So I’m not at all surprised to see the instant polls showing he won. But, to me, Duceppe looked like a man who has lost his raison d’etre. He prattled on about the 2004 coalition deal that, quite frankly, no one cares about. He demanded to know why the other parties wouldn’t ask Quebec to sign the constitution, even though he later admitted he didn’t want to see Quebec sign the constitution – he wanted them to separate. As I said after the English debates, he’s an angry man without a reason to be angry.

Sadly, that’s it for the debates, though I’d love to see more, be it with 2, 3, 4, or 5 participants. Over ten million Canadians watched at least some the English debates and, thanks to some stickhandling on the scheduling, I’m sure a few million more tuned in last night. Clearly, the interest is there, and it’s a shame we won’t get another opportunity to size our leaders up.

Although the french debate has been moved to accomodate millions of rabid hockey fans, the new date does not convenience me.

So I leave this as an open thread to comment on the debates – I’ll be back later tonight or tomorrow morning with some thoughts, after I’ve seen the tape.

Like you, I look forward to learning what the french word for “bling” is.

And now we spin.

I’m not going to call a winner on this one, because it’s very difficult for someone who eats and breathes politics to predict how people tuning in for the first time will absorb what they saw. Often it comes down to body language, or one toss away comment on an issue we all assume is inconsequential but just happens to connect to the person watching.

I do think this debate was a lot more exciting for political junkies than for most voters – at one point there was a 10 minute stretch when the leaders argued over the 2004 coalition letter, proportional representation, and the mechanism by which the House of Commons gives confidence to the Prime Minister. I’d wager these issues aren’t keeping many Canadians up at night. On this count, I think all four leaders got too caught up in Ottawa bubble squabbles and failed to connect with viewers as much as they could have.

So rather than score the debate, I’ll present reasons why each of the leaders won and lost.

Why Stephen Harper won: Harper takes it on style and substance. He looked directly at the camera, making a connection with viewers. He kept his cool. He talked about the need for a stable government during the economic recovery.

Even though we all expected him to go on a coalition rampage, he stayed above the fray and stayed positive. After all, why attack your opponents when you can have your attack ads do it for you? At one point, he actually had the gall to tell the Just Visiting guy that “I don’t think these personal attacks back and forth are very productive“.

Beyond all that, Harper won by not losing. The opposition needed a “game changer”, “a knock out blow”, or another sports analogy (a “golden snitch”?) to throw him off his game. They didn’t get that.

Why Stephen Harper lost: It’s all very good to say Harper won by not losing, but any way you add up the points, Harper lost. He was on the defensive the entire night, and the issues discussed were not ones he wants this election to be about – contempt, G20 waste, corporate tax cuts, fighter jets. To use yet another analogy, you can’t win when you’re in your own zone the whole game.

Why Michael Ignatieff won: I suspect the pundits will not be as kind to Ignatieff as the public. After all, the pundits formed their expectations of Ignatieff around what they’ve seen from him on the campaign trail where he has, by all accounts, performed well. The public, however, have built their expectations on what they’ve seen in attack ads. Short of announcing the Liberal’s National Puppy Genocide program (paid for by a new tax!), Ignatieff was going to look better than the Conservative caricature.

Ignatieff sounded forceful and confident in his attacks on Harper. He showed passion, pounding the podium when talking about Canadian troops. He highlighted Harper’s democratic abuses, then drew out issues that differentiated him from the Prime Minister – corporate tax cuts, fighter jets and prisons on one side…and family friendly Liberal policies on the other.

Why Michael Ignatieff lost: Sure, he attacked. He looked like a great opposition leader. But he attacked hardest on Harper’s contempt for Parliament, something few voters care a great deal about. And if they do, they assume the Liberals wouldn’t be any different.

Moreover, he did nothing to present a clear Liberal alternative – there was no reason given to voters on why they should vote Liberal. Ignatieff did do a good job on the Learning Passport – he identified a need and explained the Liberal alternative. Twice. But there were only scant mentions of the other Family Pack items, and nothing to convince voters he had a plan and was ready to govern.

Why Jack Layton won: These debates aren’t about what leaders say, they’re about how they sound. And Layton, as usual, struck the right tone. He was, by far, the least scripted of the leaders. He sounded genuine. He cracked jokes and looked like he was having a good time. He talked to viewers like they were real people.

Most importantly, he talked about the issues that actual matter. He identified solutions and offered NDP policies that addressed them.

Why Layton lost: Layton started strong, but faded down the stretch. His “man you’ve changed” routine against Harper was tiresome, and he sounded like your grandpa trying to be cool when he talked about “bling” and “#hashtagfail”. He did nothing to differentiate himself from Ignatieff this debate and was on the defensive during their one-on-one over Afghanistan.

Duceppe: It’s impossible to spin a win or loss for Duceppe so I’ll just give my synopsis. As usual, he had some good zingers. But much like 2008, he looked like someone who was angry with no real reason to be angry. In 2004 and 2006 when he had AdScam to fuel his indignation, but Duceppe didn’t have an issue to punch on. Quite honestly, it would have been a better debate had he not been invited.

7:00 pm: We are ready to go! Vegas had the over/under on “coalition” mentions by Stephen Harper at 8.5. Place your bets!

7:02 pm: Fun fact – this set was also used in the 1972 debate. Geez, you think they could have used some of the G20 stimulus money on new panelling.

7:08 pm: I’ll give Duceppe-Harper to Harper. The debate is all on the stimulus program, allowing Harper to tout what he has done, rather than talking about G20 waste or corporate tax cuts.

7:11 pm: Jack Layton to Stephen Harper – “you used to care about the environment”. Huh? Maybe when he was 5.

7:28 pm: Michael versus Jack…let’s call it a wash. After all, foreign policy won’t move any votes. The debate does give us the first “podium pounding” of the night, courtesy of Ignatieff.

7:34 pm: Well, that’s 5 questions Harper has answered. Time to go home!

7:40 pm: Harper versus Ignatieff…on the coalition! Oh man, here we go.

7:44 pm: WTF moment of the night, courtesy of Harper – “I don’t think these personal attacks back and forth are productive.”

7:48 pm: Iggy versus Harper…I give it to Ignatieff for looking strong and forceful. “This isn’t bickering, this is democracy” is likely the media clip of the night. But Ignatieff has made his point on contempt. He needs to start giving viewers a reason to vote for him.

7:57 pm: The last 10 minutes of coalitions, letters from 7 years ago, proportional representation, and how governments are formed was a lot of fun for polisci clubs watching. But I can’t imagine anyone else in Canada caring about this. Harper takes this exchange for making the simple point that Canadians don’t want mor elections.

8:08 pm: Layton versus Duceppe…I’l admit I found myself wishing there was a hockey game on I could switch over to. I did enjoy Jack implying we aren’t making enough babies though.

8:39 pm: And Jack Layton makes history by making the first ever Twitter joke in a nationally televised debate. And, I assume, the first to use the word “bling”. Somebody is courting the youth vote!

8:52 pm: Harper calls Health Care his top priority. What about our fragile economic recovery?

9:00 pm: Now we SPIN! I’ll have my thoughts later tonight. Comment away!

I’ll be live-blogging the debate tonight, so tune in here at 7 pm Eastern for kick-off. Until then, here’s everything you need to know to get ready:

FORMAT: Gone is the free for all PM-pile on. Gone is the round table. Instead, the focus will be on a series of one-on-one debates between the participants. The good news? This means we get to see Harper and Ignatieff go at it. The bad news? Half the one-on-ones will feature Gilles Duceppe, a man 95% of those watching the debates aren’t able to vote for.

Once again, Steve Paiken will moderate and, once again, Paiken will do an outstanding job.

EXPERIENCE: By my count, this will be Duceppe’s 7th English leaders debate, and the 5th for Harper and Layton. They’re all pros, and we kind of know what to expect from them.

While Ignatieff was tested to varying degrees in the 2006 Liberal leadership race, there’s a difference between taking questions from Hedy Fry on infrastructure and going all in against the Prime Minister. No one knows what to expect from Ignatieff, which means the pundits will be scrutinizing his performance more so than for the other leaders.

EXPECTATIONS: When I asked readers of this blog who the instant-polls would show winning the debate, the result was a split decision: Ignatieff 39%, Layton 24%, Harper 22%, Duceppe 10%

Here, as with the media, the expectation seems to be that expectations on Ignatieff are so low that he will win by virtue of exceeding expectations. Of course, this may have raised expectations on Ignatieff, making it more difficult for him to exceed expectations. Or the opposite.

WHAT HARPER NEEDS TO DO: Keep his cool. It’s that simple. The one-on-one format could lead to some heated exchanges, and that’s the danger zone for Harper.

HOW THE CONSERVATIVES WILL SPIN IT: “Despite the coalition gang-up, Harper stayed above the fray and looked Prime Ministerial.”

WHAT IGNATIEFF NEEDS TO DO: In his Globe article yesterday, John Ibbitson says it will all come down to the 6-minute exchange between Ignatieff and Harper. It very well might. But I think the rest of the debate will be just as important. For most voters, this will be the first time they’ll see Ignatieff outside of Tory attack ads. It will certainly be the first time they’ll judge his suitability for the office of Prime Minister. He doesn’t need to leave Harper stammering. He needs to look and sound like a Prime Minister (whatever that means), and make the case that his vision of Canada is better than Harper’s.

HOW THE LIBERALS WILL SPIN IT: “This is the turning point of the campaign. Ignatieff had Harper on the ropes over the Auditor General’s G20 bombshell.”

WHAT LAYTON NEEDS TO DO: For all our jokes about “kitchen tables”, Jack always comes across well in these debates – he sounds genuine and does a great job connecting NDP policies directly to voters. This time, I think Jack will need to be a bit more feisty in the one-on-one exchanges – the last thing he wants is for the debate’s defining moment to be a Harper-Ignatieff confrontation.

HOW THE NDP WILL SPIN IT: “Jack Layton took on Stephen Harper and won.”

WHAT DUCEPPE NEEDS TO DO: Show up sober. He really has nothing to lose.

HOW THE BLOC WILL SPIN IT: “Anyone have an update on whether Pacioretty has been cleared to skate yet?”

HOW THE MEDIA WILL SPIN IT: “There was no knock-out punch.”

WHO WILL WIN?: The media will crown a winner. Myself, and every blogger out there will crown a winner. We’ll find out 4 days later we were all wrong.

DEBATE BINGO: Click here for your card, to play along at home.

Since a debate drinking game is just too risky, with a little help from LynninTO, I present your BINGO card for tonight:

We all enjoy indulging in debate drinking games. I know I usually do. After all, you need to do something while Gilles Duceppe is talking.

However this year, I have one request – please do not use the word “coalition” in your drinking game. I know, I know – it seems like an obvious word to include. But if you do, you’ll inevitably be in the ER with alcohol poisoning by the time we get to the closing statements.