More Debate Thoughts, Including Some History
Dean
I wasn't going to say more, but it's been a few hours and, after reviewing the lengthy and thorough debate wrapup commentaries posted by Joe Gandelman and Allahpundit, I feel like I must be the only one remembering certain things. Since political history is my forte, I couldn't resist.
In 2000, in the immediate hours after the first Gore/Bush debates, most pundits and most viewers and most pollsters agreed that Gore had won easily. Within two or three days, almost everyone agreed that Gore had made an ass of himself and had lost. In 1984, in the first hours after the first Reagan/Mondale debates, almost everyone agreed that Mondale had won, but in retrospect all anyone remembers is Mondale going down in flames. I also seem to be the only one who remembers that in 1988, when Lloyd Bentsen laid out his famous "You're no Jack Kennedy" line in his debate with Dan Quayle, which everyone today remembers as some kind of political knockout punch, what actually happened is that the vast majority of people in the following few days thought Bentsen had behaved like a complete jerk. The Democratic ticket took am immediate nosedive in the polls. As a Dukakis supporter that year, I was mortified. It still astounds me that anyone ever remembers that as a good moment for Democrats.
My point is this, and it can't be emphasized enough: the real effects of this debate will not be felt for a few days. Yes I am a Bush supporter, but I'm not saying this to try to attack Kerry. I just think he didn't do himself more than a marginal amount of good, and may have hurt himself in the long run.
What I see is that Kerry seemed to come across as a credible challenger last night, and to inspire confidence. This is very much in his favor. But his rhetorical weaknesses are all still there, and he made several statements Bush could have hammered him for but didn't.
The thing is, the debate itself is not as important as what comes out of the debate the next few days, as people chew on it and the campaigns have time to say more about it. And in that regard, I think Kerry may have badly hurt himself. Case in point:
And what was that about experimenting with giving Iran nuclear fuel, anyway? Does anyone think that's not going to be talked to death in the next few days? The Bushies are going to go after it hard.
Bush, however, unless I missed something (and I might--as a Bush supporter I might be overlooking something big and if so you should let me know), seems to have avoided saying anything dramatic or going after his opponent too hard on more than a couple of things. In other words, he took no big risks, and otherwise appears to be exactly the same guy he's always been, only only a little more confident than he was four years ago. Like him or hate him, he's right where he's always been, with no surprises coming out. Which I suspect was his game plan going in.
Rather than take risks by throwing some haymakers and really mixing it up, he seemed content to go after two or three of Kerry's weaknesses, stay on message, and otherwise just bat away Kerry's most devastating attacks. He did all of that rather effectively.
In other words, he's the same Bush coming out that he was coming in, only seeming more confident, if perhaps a bit grumpier. Kerry, however, opened up new areas of vulnerability for himself.
I can't see into the future, but I will say that anyone who thinks he can say right now who "won" that debate is foolish. The real winner won't be determined for at least another couple of days--but I suspect that the Bush team will begin hammering away at Kerry for things he said in this debate.
Unless I miss something big, my guess is that Kerry will take a slight jump in the polls among women in the next few days, and then will start to flounder again. Because the only lines of attack open to Democrats will be... uh... well, all the same stuff they've been saying already.
(Cartoon by the estimable Cox & Forkum, who are just spooky fast today, aren't they? How do you do a political cartoon of that quality that freaking quickly? Wow!)
* Update * Gallup's post-debate numbers for Kerry are terrible. Yes, 57% say he "won" the debate. But look more closely at the numbers further below that assessment. In a few areas, he made tiny gains. In several others he actually lost ground. On crucial questions like who they agreed more with, who's more believable, who's toughest, who they found most likeable, and several others, Bush actually pulled ahead. Meanwhile, by taking risks, Kerry opened up areas Bush can exploit over the next few days, while Bush took no risks at all and just hammered home two or three messages people will remember. Mind you, it's still early--we won't really know for a couple more days--but I'm moving even now from thinking it's a minor win for Kerry to thinking it's just a question of whether this is a minor win for Bush, or a huge one.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Bellicose And Pregnant: Fire In The Hold!
- More Debate Thoughts, Including Some History
- Debate Aftermath
- Debate-Blogging
He also said that he made a point of keeping his boss in the dark about just how long it took him. ;)
That said, your inclusion of the Gallup Poll results is counterintuitive.
Also about the Gallup Poll, you say that "On crucial questions like who they agreed more with, who's more believable, who's toughest, who they found most likeable, and several others, Bush actually pulled ahead." There are no trend numbers in the poll; we can't tell if Bush "pulled ahead," stayed the same, or fell behind on those questions since the last poll.
Clearly, Bush is still the favorite; Kerry has an enormous hill to climb before he can get elected.
In short: it's Bush's election to lose and it always has been.
Bush didn't hammer him over and over again on the basic issue of flip flopping without good reason. That''s been the main "it's the economy stupid" highlight of the campaign since the beginning. Kerry''s ingenuous "explanation" of his decision to vote against the $87 Billion appropriation came back to haunt him once again. Surely he can do better with that?
On the whole I agree with all the pundits: when it comes to body language, tone of voice and a bunch of other matters which aren't relative to content or the concerns we should all have about political philosophy, on everything from negotiations with North Korea to to obtaining some sort of permission (?) from the global community before embarking on another first strike.....it struck me that Kerry shot himself in the foot so often that Bush couldn't keep up with the gaffs.
But Kerry won. He looked prettier, was more polished and wasn't as "irritable." ;)
LaShawn: No trackback here. If you will send me an email with a copy of the trackback URL you used, I can probably figure out what's wrong.
Your anecdote, despite the nature of anecdotes, reassures me :)
In my gut, I have long felt that the majority of voters get this exactly as you've said it here. Only not because it is "Bush's approach" but because it is is the right approach. For a long, long time I have felt I have had to explain at length something that seemed intuitively obvious to me.
I hope you are not just engaging in wishful thinking and that I am not just going along with it because I want to believe it. But a huge part of me says that more people grasp this than the (well-meaning but sincere Bush-haters like Tim) want to believe.
Tim: It kind of makes me sad that you feel that way. Not that you don't have your right to dissent because you do, but it feels like there must be some unimaginable gulf between us. You must think that people like me have signed on to this vision because of our adulation of Bush and our stupidity in believing in it, and yet here are guys like Jane and I thinking, "No, it's not because Bush said it but because it makes sense, don't you see?"
Ah but that's life in a free democracy I suppose. I just wish more of us could say, "I see where you're coming form and I respectfully disagree." It seems an impasse. Sadly.
I was really happy to read your analysis, because that happens to be exactly what I think. It takes time for the effects of something like this to be felt. First impressions are just that: first impressions. They mean little.
I really think Kerry will revert to form during the coming days and he will be unable to keep himself from contradicting things he said last night. That's his biggest weakness - he can't stay on message.
And your point: Bush took no risks at all and just hammered home two or three messages people will remember. was exactly what he needed to do.
This debate was fraught with peril for him. National security is his strength; paradoxically it's where he was also most vulnerable. If he'd made a major mistake, it would have been fatal. I think he avoided that nicely. Kerry, on the otter heiny, really failed to articulate a strategy for success in Iraq - or ANY strategy whatever. So why would we choose him?
Nice post.
Kim jong-il wants a showdown with the USA because he knows that we would have to blink in such a showdown - or lose Seoul.
His missed several moments that could have "won" him the debate. He's a weak debater and had always been weak when pressed. He doesn't do well under pressure. Senator Kerry does. Does that make him a better candidate? I don't know.
I certainly think it made Kerry's point about the war effort, however.
From my opinion, and it's about 1/2 and 1/2 at this juncture—I'd rather have a candidate that can stand up under the heat instead of one who makes faces and gets hot under the collar. Our President acted like he was a three year old. He needs to learn to control his facial displeasure and temper. Sometimes emotion does not come across as passion.
Not so fast. What you call "repetitious" now was called "staying on message" before the debate. It's one of Bush's great natural abilities. It's how he demolished Ann Richards in 1994. It's how he demolished Gore in 2000.
What happened to that guy?
WTF..?
?
That definately seems an irrational assumption to me.... if you could delete that assumption from your perspective, maybe you would still be able to support Bush?
It's where he's most vulnerable because if Kerry scores a solid hit on him, he's really going to reel from it. If his credibility is damaged, that hurts him because that's the best thing he has going for him.
On the other hand, Kerry has no record on national security. It's kind of hard to hurt him there because everything he's talking about is hypothetical. It's like trying to pin jello to a wall - it keeps moving.
With Bush, you can criticize what he's DONE. There are specific acts you can name, and things that have already happened, and hindsight is always 20/20 - it's easy for Kerry to say: "I would have done it differently".
With Kerry, you can only say that what he's proposing won't work, but you can never PROVE it won't work, because it's all in the future and you can't say how any of his vague ideas would turn out in practice.
Possibly... does it make him a better executive?
Personally I don't vote for a chief executive for his debating skills. I vote for him for his management and decision-making skills.
Bush has proven he has the skills. Kerry hasn't. What has he ever managed - ever? In his entire career? Has he ever managed a large organization? Bush ran a state - the second largest state in the nation. What large organization has Kerry been responsible for?
What crisis has Kerry had to deal with that shows his coolness under pressure? The guy ran out on his combat tour after only 3 months (the first was in training).
Being able to talk during a debate and being able to handle pressure like being able to manage two wars, a recession, a contested election, a bitterly partisan Congress (passing, by the way, the prescription drug bill and education bills that Clinton couldn't get through Congress in TWO terms in office during his first term) - THAT, in my book, shows coolness under pressure.
I'm not terribly impressed by being able to answer a few softball questions from a friendly moderator when you spent the morning getting a fricking manicure and your opponent spent it touring a disaster area. Kerry's been taking a paid vacation from the Senate for two years - he's missed 87% of the votes this year and 64% of the votes last year. Bush doesn't have that luxury - he can't devote the same amount of time to preparing for debates, and Kerry knows it. Why do you think Kerry is pressing for so many debates?
The good Senator is welcome to the title of Mass debater - he's earned it.
Now, you'd think that he would have featured that facet of his experience during his campaign, especially considering that he seems to prefer the "law enforcement" paradigm.
That kind of emphasis would have cast a more positive light on some of his "waffle" traits, such as tremendous capacity for detail, consulting with as many other voices as possible, and a preference for consensus.
(come on, you've all wanted to say that).
My fiance works at a unionized company with a largely female workforce...a surprisingly large number of whom are single mothers...ie, a normally Democrat-leaning demographic...the water cooler conversation according to the to-be Mrs was all about how Kerry looked good, but President Bush was the man with the plan and the guts to carry it out...
I think this is going to be the generalised take on the debate by Monday.
What happened to the logic I was so fond of that used to run rampant around here? I think I remember a certain someone fussing about the corruptness in polls last year, if I'm not mistaken, as well as how the "media" tend to skew them to make their points. We wouldn't be doing that here, would we? Never!
Truth be told, 615 voters who had already made up their minds are not going to make that much difference on election day. How are the swing states doing? That's where we need to look.
And yes, I would much rather have someone who is a good "lawyer" and "debater" than someone who isn't. That is why the constitution insists that the president be one. I want someone that can hold up under pressure—to other world leaders, in congress, in times of trouble, in times like 9/11, when things are going to hell in a handbasket, and can keep a cool head AND make decisions.
Our commander in chief needs to work on his cool head. He still doesn't have my confidence. As long as he is telling me what's wrong with the other guy, I will see him as an emotional school child that needs a time out.
I'm not sure that Bush's impatience with Kerry was seen by everyone your way but I guess we'll see.
"Who was the weak debater? Who cares? All we want to know is who was the master-debater.
(come on, you've all wanted to say that)."
I love it! Thank you! Give Mark the green border, I say.
I also hoped Mr. Kerry had spoken more on the decline of conditions in Iraq.
The truth should be told about our economy, and the impact of the war. I supported the efforts in Afganistan but Iraq without support from the U.N. was a poor decision. We are not the Roman empire and our goal should not be to occupy other counties because we do not like their policies.
The question of debates is minor, what each American needs to consider in picking a leader is will that leader make the U.S. a better place when he leaves office. If Mr. Bush left today, we can clearly see that the U.S. is not better off than we were four years ago. If the US were a company and Bush was the CEO with the level of deficits that have resulted from his policies or lack of them, he would be fired.
You can't bankrupt a company and keep your job, so why would citizens put up with a leader that has not performed.
I lived in Texas when Bush was Govenor and his record was not much better there, he has had his time now we need a change.
Senator Kerry will offer the needed change and a fresh start!
The Congress must authorize declarations of war. Therefore, every member of Congress who voted for the war resolution is every bit as responsible as the President.
As for the rest--ah, some other time. But it wasn't wrong, and conditions in Iraq are not "deteriorating" to anyone who's really looking at them.