Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff during the 2011 English-language leaders' debate.Geoff Robins/AFP/Getty Images
Michael Ignatieff won - not the debate, but the debate spin wars.
Well before the crucial English-language debate was even over, the spinning from the political camps had begun in earnest, a sideshow the Canadian public was not privy to.
While the Liberal Leader hardly laid a glove on his Conservative rival, Stephen Harper, Mr. Ignatieff's team was the most aggressive when it came to trying to push its version of how the night was unfolding, sending missives into reporters' e-mail inboxes deconstructing the debate.
Here's how the camps stacked up in the spin wars:
Liberal spin
Just 45-minutes into the debate, Marc Roy, one of Mr. Ignatieff's communications strategists, declared that Round 1 - on corporate tax cuts - went to Mr. Ignatieff:
"Mr. Ignatieff … landed a blow by asking Mr. Harper how he can justify choosing corporations ahead of middle-class families when we have a massive deficit," Mr. Roy wrote. "He nailed Mr. Harper on his plan to balance the deficit when spending billions on jets, jails and corporate tax cuts: 'The numbers don't add up.'"
And it went on from there. Mr. Roy declared his guy the winner in the next five rounds - there were six segments to the two-hour debate. And the Liberals ended the night with the ultimate declaration: "Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff came out on top of the other party leaders in the English-language Leader's Debate tonight with a clear demonstration of how a Liberal government will respect democracy, protect health care, and make better economic choices."
It went on to note that Mr. Ignatieff left Mr. Harper in "stunned silence" at the 18-minute mark in the debate during an exchange on why the country is having an election.
Huh? Were we watching the same debate?
Conservative spin
Stephen Harper's team was not nearly as aggressive or enthusiastic about how their leader fared. There were a couple of releases sent out during the night, including one on the so-called coalition. While Mr. Harper barely uttered the word "coalition," Tory spinners were gleefully cooking up tales about how Michael Ignatieff "made clear his agenda to become prime minister with the support of the NDP and Bloc Québécois." The Conservative release, "Breaking News: Ignatieff Weasel Words Betray Plan to Become PM from 2nd Place," also claims that Mr. Ignatieff doesn't accept the view that the party that wins the most seats in the election gets to form the next government. Rather, they picked up on his use of the word "try" - he said the party with the most seats will try to gain the confidence of the House.
The Conservatives did not declare their guy a winner.
NDP spin
The New Democrats were more judicious with their spin. During the debate, in which Leader Jack Layton showed once again how adept he is at landing punches, the NDP sent out "reality checks" about their plan.
For example, during the exchange on crime and justice policy, the NDP outlined in a release their justice platform, including 2,500 new police officers and $100-million a year for crime prevention. And they couldn't resist throwing in a zinger aimed at the Liberals: "And unlike the Ignatieff Liberals, New Democrats didn't ... field a candidate who downplays sexual assault - and happens to be a judge." This is a reference to Alberta Wild Rose candidate John Reilly, who had made some controversial remarks about sexual assault victims. He apologized; Mr. Ignatieff did not fire him as a candidate.
What the pollsters said
In addition to the political camps, pollsters were busy, too, declaring the winners and losers.
Ipsos Reid released an instant poll for Global National showing 42 per cent of viewers believed Mr. Harper won, followed by 25 per cent for Mr. Layton, 23 per cent for Mr. Ignatieff and 2 per cent for Gilles Duceppe.
It also found that Mr. Harper met viewers' expectations as to how he would fare, but that the "big winner" was Mr. Layton: 55 per cent, or a majority of viewers, said their impression of him had improved. This means he could benefit from vote-switchers.