Hudak won the debate overall I think, but not decisively. Preliminary polling from last night still shows a significant 7 point lead by the liberals, so it doesn't seem to have affected much.
The PC and NDP's goal for the debate is about momentum, voter turnout and targeted voter messages. Not about policy but about personality (people that care about policies have already decided who to vote for). There has only been two debates with knockout blows that I can remember (Regan and Mulroney) which would have an immediate impact on voter intentions. The others are effective but have longer-term impacts.
Hudak was very good at communicating his messages. Kept it on topic and was less robotic than normal. He sounded sincere (whether you agree with his position is a seperate discussion). He also used real-life examples from his family and Howarth's family. I guess they took this from Obama.
Horwath was OK. Had some good punch lines but felt a bit contrived (sounded like she was on script and fumbled when she forgot it in her closing statement). She was very good at attacking Wynne but I found her platform did not get pushed enough. I think they prepared for the attack but did not prepare how to transition the attack to move to why she is different. A bit to negative for me. But I think the voters that are sitting on the fence (the ones right now leaning towards Liberals) it gives them a real alternative. She was also very successful in differentiating herself from Rae (which still haunts her party in SWO and the 905).
Wynne was attacked from both sides. I almost felt sorry for her. But her advisors should have been ready for this. Unlike Hudak who had a retort ready for the math (I'll resign in 2 or 8 years and my cabinet members will be fired), she did not have a retort for the corruption other than I'm sorry.
I think people have been ingoring gas plants, Orange, Mars, etc because they assumed all politicians are the same. Will Horwath/Hudak's conviction during the debate change this? Not sure. (again...they are not targeting the people on this site but the undecided voters in the 905 who are swing voters...mainly low-middle class voters with a family)
For transportation, Wynne sounded like she had a province-wide plan. Horwath focused on the North (where she has most of the votes guaranteed so I was confused with this). Hudak targeted the grass-is-always-greener crowd with the allocation of money to each township (or county). Again, a non-416 target where they think Toronto/Ottawa/anywhere but their own riding gets funding and they are shortchanged.
I was interested in hearing Howarth's and Hudak's plans for transit as I haven't heard it as detailed before. For the next 4 years, they sound the same....it's just what will be in planning after the 4 years are up.
My decision who to vote for will come down to (1) who can deliver transit improvements in the next 4 years (GO, DRL), (2) how much of this will go to corruption and (3) general pocketbook issues. From the debate I've ruled out one (Wynne). Still debating on the other 2. For the NDP I'm worried that the caucus will revolt and go back to the old NDP once the election is won including a big deficit. But I think longer-term was a great debate for the NDP (i.e. for the next election). Moving towards a Prarie version of the NDP which will be electable.
The PC's...I wish there was clearer communication where the 100,000 jobs will come from. I know there is waste and mismanagement in government, it's just hard to weed out the bad and keep the good. Worried that the bad will stay and the good that is needed will disappear. But doing nothing is also not an answer.