The question is not who "won," because that is meaningless in this context. The 90% plus of the population that is already firmly in favor of one or the other will not be moved a bit by either's performance, their adherance to or violation of the rules of the "debate," or the opinions of the various media talking heads.

The real question is which one was more likely to have had a positive effect on the undecided voters? The answer to that, I think, is Mr. Bush. He corrected his more obvious errors from the initial debate (ie, no smirks or looks of disgust were visible) and I think he did a better job of working the crowd. He also received a number of questions that led directly into some of his more practiced stump comments. Mr. Kerry missed several opportunities; for example, he could have killed the entire $87 million question if he had addressed that topic more completely.