I've been itching to blog about the debate, but I had limited computer access over a long weekend. Furhter, blogger.com has been down for most of the day. But here are some belated thoughts.
Judding the Debate. Judging presidential debates is obviously not like judging a traditional debate. That's one of the many reasons you don't see any college debating coaches called in as insta-pundits! There's no thesis (other than perhaps "I should win you should lose"), there's no back-and-forth questioning, and there's no scorecard. Judging who wins or loses is extremely subjective. There are a number of things to take into account: (1) The Expectations Game. (2) The Battle of the Styles. (3) The Battle of Substance. And (4) The Spin Zone.
Winner. There's no longer any question: Kerry won decisively. Let's take the four areas I identified above and analyze them one by one.
The Expectations Game. In my opinion, this was extremely significant--though I hear few people talking about it. In recent weeks, the Democrats have tempered their "Bush is an inarticulate simpleton" with "Bush is the greatest orator and debater since Cicero." They suggested that Bush had never lost a head-to-head debate. Perhaps. But if true, the reason is that Bush's secret weapon has always been that people "misunderestimate" him. Gore was widely expected to clean Bush's clock. But the low expectations helped turn a Bush victory. This time--perhaps for the first time in Bush's political career--the tables were turned. Many thought Bush would beat Kerry the unengaging stiff. Also, this was supposed to be Bush's best topic--foreign policy. The Bush campaign fought hard to make this the topic of the first debate--the most watched debate. This time, though, it was Kerry who was "misunderstimated." He didn't need to make any knock-out punches. He just needed to seem likeable, articulate, plausible. And that's what he did.
The Battle of the Styles. If the guy you are rooting for does bad in this respect, the knee-jerk reaction is "Style doesn't matter. Come'on people!" If the guy you are rooting against does bad on style (see Gore, Albert. See also Sighing; Interrupting; Pancake Makeup; Stiffness; and Awkward Entries into Personal Space), you think it is a huge deal!
Here's why it matters: There is a chunk of the electorate that does not easily land into the conservative or the liberal camp. They agree with Candidate A on some of the issues, and agree with Candidate B on other issues. More likely than not, they lack a coherent, consistent worldview. They view voting for President like hiring a person for their company. Examining a candidate's record--analogous to reading a resume--is fine. But what they'd really like is a job interview. Everyone knows that sitting down one-on-one with someone is one of the best ways to discern what they're really like. Political campaigns and their candidates are so scripted that these voters start to look for little things that would tip them off to the real person beneath the mask. That's why style matters.
Kerry won the battle of the styles. He came across as even-keel. When Bush would attempt to land some punches about how ridiculous Kerry's positions were, Kerry just looked at him, grinned, and pretended to write something. Curious. But not disconcerting. Bush, on the other hand, looked fairly ticked most of the time. He was doing his "sucking on a lemon" look. Now I wasn't terribly bothered by it. Kerry's positions and inconsistency are irksome. But Bush should have tempered this. Bush is a notoriously disciplined campaigner. My best guess is that he was tired and some of that famous discipline-level was lowered. "Insiders" say that visiting hurricane victims that day in Florida was "emotionally draining for him." But whatever the reason, Kerry won this category.
The Battle of Substance. This is a very difficult category to separate from one's one political opinions. If you agree with Candidate A, you'll think he won on the issues. And vice-versa. But I think that Bush won on this count. This should be the most important category, but I'm afraid it isn't. I somewhat agree with the critics who say that Bush spoke in generalities. He did at times. But my goodness, didn't Kerry as well?! For those who doubt that, I have two question: (1) What is Kerry's "one, consistent position" about the invasion of Iraq? (2) Kerry mentioned several times that he has "a plan" for what to do about Iraq. What is it?
The Spin Zone. Bush got killed here--and I was watching Fox News! I have yet to hear a MSM commentator say Bush won. In fact, I'm not sure I heard anyone praise anything from Bush's performance. Soon after the debate is done, it becomes virtually impossible to remember the debate qua debate. It soon becomes melded in with what the political punditry thinks. And they clearly saw a Kerry victory. Here's something interesting: after the debate was over, Kerry advisers Joe Lockhart and Mike McCurry rushed to compare notes before talking to the cameras. They didn't realize, though, that C-Span had their cameras rolling! McCurry told Lockhart he thought the debate was a "draw." But they obviously aren't saying that now.
It really is amazing how much the media-spin effects our perception of the debate. For example, in my opinion, Bush was extremely effective when he asked how Kerry was going to build a coalition. What's he going to say? Come join us in the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"? Come join a "grand diversion"? He also pointed out that Kerry and his campaign had belittled Allawi, Iraq's new leader, calling him a "puppet." Furthermore, Kerry committed some gaffes. He said he has "never, ever" used the word "lie" to refer to Bush taking us into Iraq. Not true. Poland is insulted that Kerry left them out of the naming of the coalition. Iran today rejected the Kerry-Edwards solution for appeasing them. The idea of the US needing to pass a "global test" and the idea that everything will be fine once we just call a "summit" were both a bit silly.
But the Media--to my knowledge--simply isn't talking about these things.
Immediate Impact. All of this will provide a monumental boost of enthusiasm to the Kerry campaign. Many Kerry supporters were losing heart, panicking, etc. But this has breathed new life into the campaign.
Ultimate Fallout. Hard to tell. I think it could do a number of things. (1) I think this is a good wakeup call to Bush and his supporters. No doubt about it--many were getting cocky due to the great pre-debate poll numbers. This will force all of them to wake up and realize this is going to be a very tough race to the finish line. (2) It could make the Kerry campaign over-confident. Kerry performed well on Thursday night. But--how shall I put this gently?--Kerry is a dreadful, terrible candidate. He is his own worst enemy. Often times the more he speaks and the more people see of him, the worse his numbers get. This debate means that some will be willing to reexamine Kerry. And once they do, it's hard to see how they'll like what they're seeing.
Who Will Win the Next Debates? Bold prediction: I think Bush will win the next two debates--though far fewer people will watch the next two. In part, it will be due to the fact that Bush will once again be "misunderestimated." He is now expected to lose the next two debates. Which is probably just fine with Karl Rover. Further, I think Kerry will do poorly in the townhall format. Bush is at his most comfortable when he is with average people. Kerry is at his most comfortable behind at lectern. I also think that Cheney will soundly beat Edwards, and that that will help. (Be sure to count how many times Edwards brings up "Halliburton" by the way!
Final Prediction. I'm neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. But... on November 2, George W. Bush will soundly defeat John F. Kerry. It won't be close, and Bush will win by 40 states. Counter-intuitive? Crazy? We'll know in 30 days!
