Debate commentary peeve

It's been bugging me that lots of commentators, when "scoring" debates, muddle the distinction between how a candidate did in the debate and to what extent the debate helped the candidate. It could be the case that a candidate was soundly beaten in a debate, but that the debate nevertheless helped the candidate because it, say, disproved the prevailing notion that the candidate could not form coherent sentences. By the same token, it could be the case that a candidate handily won a debate, but that this did not improve the candidate's chances in the overall election because everyone already expected this to happen (the debate victory was, you could say, already factored into the price of the candidate's stock).

Just looking at Sullivan's debate reax summary, we can see a couple of examples:

No heavy punches landed. The format scarcely helped. In fact it helped snuff out any threat of life or spark or conflict or, damn it, interest. And so, because of that, Obama, leading in the polls, won. (Alex Massie)

Gah! If the debate was a tie then it was tie, and nothing about anyone's positions in the polls is relevant to that. What Massie ought to be saying is that Obama's position in the polls makes it the case that a tie is favorable outcome for Obama. One more:

At this stage in the race, a tie goes to leader, and this was not a tie. (Fallows)

Bah! My Philosophy BA is rolling in its grave.