Political pundits seem to pull their analysis out of thin air, filtering the candidate's performances through their own filters and expectations. The result seems to be support for bland candidates whose ideas most closely match the reporters involved.
This is how we end up with nominees like old Bob Dole (1996), flopping John Kerry (2004), and grouchy John McCain (2008) and reject potential revolutionaries like Jack Kemp (1996, though he was the VP pick), Howard Dean (2004), and Ron Paul (2008). Say what you want about each man's politics; at least the latter group had something to say and a reason to be president beyond “I want to be president”.
Monday's debate seems to be bringing out the same silly analysis from Washington pundits. Romney is declared with winner despite saying nothing of substance. Bachmann gets high marks for not tripping over her words? Ron Paul gets a C grade despite being the only candidate to actually SAY something? Crap, crap, and more crap. Here are my grades for the debate.