Okay okay, so that’s not what the president said (or almost said) when he flubbed the line, “We can’t send mixed messages”, but for me that was the highlight of the debate entertainment-wise.
Which goes to show, I suppose, just how substantive, serious, and outstanding this debate really was. It’s not just Jonah Goldberg–this was the best presidential debate in decades. Perhaps that is because the seriousness of the time calls for a serious substantive debate, or perhaps it’s just because neither candidate is a great orator. Whatever the case, I was impressed with the format, with the questions, and with the content. I seriously don’t know what all the pre-debate media bitching was about, as the two campaigns seem to definitely have hit upon a winner as far as formats go. Additionally, each man presented a clear, distinct vision for how he thinks we should move forward. For those who failed to see the difference between the candidates last time around, I don’t know how anyone can make that mistake now.
So who won?
Like most things in life, it depends on how you want to look at it. John Derbyshire got his summation completely right:
John Kerry plus: He does not come across as arrogant and obnoxious as we believe him to be.John Kerry minus: His positions don’t hold together in any coherent way.
George W. Bush plus: He has an air of authority, experience, and purpose I don’t recall from 2000.
George W. Bush minus: The President is a dismally poor public speaker.
Taking a glance around the dial and the net, it appears the viewing public is in agreement that Kerry won the debate. I am not surprised at this result.
Coming into this debate, Sen. Kerry had some of the most dismal like/dislike numbers a presidential candidate has ever seen, and his credibility has been hammered repeatedly by the Bush campaign and other critics to great effect. Yet instead of reinforcing all the negative expectations we had about him (”He does not come across as arrogant and obnoxious as we believe him to be”), he comes across as straightforward, intelligent, and nuanced (and I mean that in a non-ironic good way). He did what he had to do to achieve success, which, minus an absolute disastrous performance by the president, was to appear smart, credible, and a better choice for the next four years.
To that end, we had a lot of substantive criticisms and ideas floated, and in fact their were so many that Bush really didn’t have a chance to coherently respond to all of them. Advantage: Kerry. Additionally, Kerry succeeded in the role of Medicine Man: He has a solution to every problem, and everything that the president is doing wrong, Kerry will do it better, faster, stronger, more quickly, more efficiently, and with more friends and allies. Really, I’m not sure what his options were other than to make such incredible claims, but he came across as authoritative and credible. To win here, Kerry had to A. offer promising solutions and ideas, B. sound credible and authoritative, C. be relatively mistake-free, and D. have the president screw up badly.
Meanwhile, Bush had far more to lose than he had to gain. As is usually the case (and a stumbling, pathetic Kerry campaign only helped), the challenger is less well known, more distrusted, and thus has a greater opportunity to rise to the occasion and prove his worth to the viewers. On the other hand, we’ve heard Bush’s positions for four years, so we’ve had it drilled into us what he stands for. Plus, we know he’s not a great off-the-cuff speaker, so his gaffes are easier to overlook. Therefore, movement in either direction for the incumbent is difficult. In the context of this particular campaign, Bush wins by A. Kerry proving to be an absolute disaster, B. not putting his foot in his own mouth and making bad mistakes, or C. cementing the numbers since he’s ahead.
What actually happened is that Kerry was able to do everything he needed to do within his power, and Bush was able to do everything he needed to do in his power; neither made the major mistakes that would hand the opponent victory, thus in one sense they both won. For the snapshot, I think Kerry gained a lot of ground with this debate, and I think he can now move to significantly improve those polling “internals” that have looked so bad as of late. Bush, on the other hand, can expect a level of stasis, which in this situation can be counted as a reasonable measure of success.
I assume the next few debates will score relatively similarly. The stakes get higher, and the pressure tougher, so a major gaffe on one candidate’s part becomes more and more likely. However, debates are like national conventions in that they can be ephemeral if the campaign cannot quickly capitalize on the momentum to cement gains. Having seen Kerry’s campaign in action the past few months, I am incredibly skeptical the man can capitalize on this positive snapshot and overcome the credibility gap that his opponents have been able to open up on him.
Bush, meanwhile, must not relent and must continue to attack, and his subordinates need to flood the media with substantive counters to Kerry’s promises. The fact is, Kerry’s offered a panacea that’s just not realistic, and just about everything he brought up tonight–from the petty (Halliburton) to the serious (how to go forward in Iraq)–has been debated endlessly in the media and especially the blogosphere. This is a familiar position for Republicans; Democrats have always been the party of benevolent promisemakers who will deliver all the goodies at a cheap price. Now Bush and his team have to roll out the facts and convince a very alert and focused public that Kerry’s ideas just don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Kerry, of course, must somehow prove his exceptional claims, or at least make them sound as realistic and believable as possible. He did a great job of playing Medicine Man tonight, but he must be convincing consistently through to the election. If he slips up, quite possibly all those gains will be lost. Americans appreciate innovations and great deals, but they know a blowhard peddler when they meet one at their door.
Both men have their work cut out for them.
I still predict a Bush victory in November; I think too many minds are made up for the debates to really make a difference. But I think Kerry acquitted himself well, and if his campaign gets its act together, he may just have a fighting chance after all.
Overall, my impressions are this: In this debate, the candidates moved to the background and the issues and visions to the forefront. The viewer was presented with two different choices, two different opinions of how the last four years have gone, and it’s up to him or her to decide who’s views are mostly right. Instead of debating the obnoxiousness of Al Gore’s sighing, the voters can struggle with the merits of each viewpoint. The candidates have done their job laying out their views and ideas and solutions; now we must do our job and mull it over, weigh the evidence, and deliver a verdict.
UPDATE: I like Andrew Sullivan’s take, except I think he shows his British bias far too much. Memo to Sullivan: This ain’t Parliament or Oxford, and the American people don’t expect that and are certainly not educated and exposed enough to good, proper debate to even relate to your criticisms. I often found myself sighing after Kerry spoke, wishing I was at the podium in Bush’s stead with my own witty, devastating response, but then those of us with any debate background whatsoever are just too overeducated on the matter to truly see a presidential debate through the average person’s eyes.
I remember in 2000 after the first debate thinking, “Gore definitely won the debate, but he also came across as an obnoxious jerk… I wonder if that will affect how people view the debate.” Sure enough, while commentator after commentator blabbed on about how Gore trashed Bush, the overnight poll numbers began coming in and confirmed my suspicion that Gore did more harm than good in his debate “victory”. By the next debate he was a castrated tiger, and the third debate just became irrelevant.
Here, those kinds of weaknesses or mistakes in performance were significantly overshadowed by what the candidates’ actually said, and it’s in response to that where I have real appreciation for Sullivan’s analytical talents. I think he gauges Kerry’s claims pretty effectively (Also, Instapundit’s been following up with useful links to rebuttals of Kerry’s points), as well as pointing out where Bush totally blew it in response. Still, he’s got to get over Bush’s glaring weakness at off-the-cuff oration; that weakness just doesn’t register effectively with American viewers.
UPDATE II: I think Hugh Hewitt is woefully over-optimistic, but he makes a fairly believable case as to why the president won the debate. I think I agree with him here, though:
“[Kerry] executed an excellent retreat to the left side of his party, and secured 45% in the general election.”
The trick is, of course, where he’s going to get the rest needed for victory….
|
Categories: Election 2004
|
September 30th, 2004 at 11:14:34 pm
Excellent post, Andrew. Thanks. / I agree with almost everything you wrote (including especially what a Good debate it was, just on the Merits of both guys — and let us not forget the excellence of the Moderator too); and I admire the objectivity of your analysis.
Y’know, to me the most interesting & illuminating exchange (of many) was the brief one on the nature & meaning(s) & effects of “Certainty.” Both guys were plausible there; and that
essentially-Philosophical issue is actually It, in a Nutshell. “All the rest is Commentary.” - Hillel
September 30th, 2004 at 11:16:32 pm
Hmm, yeah, the Democrats make promises like “we will win the peace in Iraq, and move the country forward.” By contrast, the Republicans bribe the electorate… great point Andrew.
September 30th, 2004 at 11:17:43 pm
Dane, huh?
September 30th, 2004 at 11:21:15 pm
Sorry, I was being flippant. (I was referring to the constant pledge of tax cuts and amounting to no more than efforts to bribe people into voting for them).
As to my opinion of the debate, I thought it was very good, I think Bush did not do himself any favors, he sounded somewhat silly at times… Overall I’d call it a ground rule double for Kerry.
September 30th, 2004 at 11:29:50 pm
I’m going to disagree with you and the person you are quoting Andrew (big surprise). I think Kerry’s positions are not inconsistent, atleast the ones he addressed in this debate.
Bush tried to point out that Kerry things Bush made a mistake by going into Iraq and therefore Kerry would be incapable of finishing what was started there. I think thats just absurd. Who better to fix a mistake than someone who recognizes the mistake.
Thats akin to a Doctor A misdiagnosing a patient and then saying Doctor B can’t possibly cure the patient when Doctor B catches the misdiagnosis.
The doctor analogy is a good one for Bush’s constant cry of staying the course too. It was made by a caller on a radio show tonight here in Seattle.
If a doctor makes a misdiagnosis, but refuses to accept it, he’s not staying the course, he’s making an even bigger mistake. Instead he should admit the mistake and fix it, otherwise the patient will never recover.
As for the idea that Bush seemed to have an air of authority, he was unclear, didn’t back up his statements with many concrete examples and was stuttering and stammering all evening. Sometimes he brought up completely inconsistent responses to the previous statement, such as his rebuttal to Kerry’s statement on North Korea towards the end of the debate where he insisted going into Iraq was the right thing to do. No one had even mentioned Iraq in that question.
I’m going to have to go with what one political analyst I heard said tonight. Bush let Kerry back into this race. Big time. I’d say Kerry got at least a double, perhaps a triple.
September 30th, 2004 at 11:40:46 pm
David, to agree with your analysis, one would have to already agree with Kerry’s position or have been against the war from the beginning. For an undecided voter who isn’t sure where he falls, or for someone who agreed with the war but is dismayed at how things are turning out, Kerry did in fact show a bit of incoherence. And to the average voter–and especially in contrast to 2000–Bush came across as fairly authoritative.
Anyone who thinks Kerry hit a ground-rule double, or that Bush let him back into the game, is missing the point. Yes, Kerry did well, but really, he’s done so crappy the past couple months, he had way more room to gain than he did to lose. The opposite was true with Bush. As I said, Bush holding his ground here was definitely enough if he can keep Kerry from using the debate to make significant gains with voters on his internals. In other words, Kerry may have reached second base, but it’s meaningless if the next debates don’t advance him to third so his campaign can bring him home with a winning hit or a major Bush error.
September 30th, 2004 at 11:41:47 pm
Brendan -
Kerry did better than I thought he would. Meanwhile, Bush did worse than he should have.. his real untimely pauses in some of his rebuttals made him look really unsure of himself.
Advantage - Kerry. Just what this campaign needed.
October 1st, 2004 at 1:52:50 am
“Sorry, I was being flippant.”
Why, Dane, you flippant-floppant.
:)
“…his rebuttal to Kerry’s statement on North Korea towards the end of the debate where he insisted going into Iraq was the right thing to do. No one had even mentioned Iraq in that question.”
Yeah! That almost seemed like the Reagan Moment I remember from 1984, when he got embarrassingly Lost & Confused in one of his memorized set-pieces at the end of a debate with Mondale. / Hm… / Check that. No it didn’t. Not at all. I don’t like the November Implications. :)
“Bush let Kerry back into this race. Big time.”
Yup.
“In other words, Kerry may have reached second base…”
Yes but the real question is, after all that Wonkette-gameplaying debate-watching Beer, how far did Brendan…uh, nyaah, nevermind. ‘T’ain’t fittin’, I’m his Fadduh. :) :>
October 1st, 2004 at 9:09:00 am
I only have one thing to say: I didn’t think Bush was about to say “Mexican midgets.” It sounded to me like it was “mexed missiges.” Now that’s a mixed message. LOL.
October 1st, 2004 at 9:59:01 am
Andrew, you are thinking with your heart. Kerry certainly did not hit a home run, nor did he get to third base, but he got himself in scoring position, which is what he desperately needed to do. In the beginning of the debate Bush looked lost, confused, and slightly incoherent. He hit his stride about 40 minutes in, but I’m not sure how many people watched the whole thing. Kerry came out strong, and confidant. Bush’s statements about inconstancy and not supporting the troops did not make sense because they did not match what Kerry was saying - agreed, most people are stupid enough not to really notice, but that certainly did not score him any points with people still thinking about the candidates. You are right, Bush did not “loose” the debate. But the thing is, you were also right about this, it was Bush’s debate to loose, and he did nothing to shoot himself in the foot. Seriously Andrew, the only way Bush looses the debate, with the way expectations have been set, is if he starts prancing around the stage like a pony and foaming at the mouth followed by a wardrobe malfunction. Kerry, went out and did what he needed to do, and did much better than Bush. But it was Kerry’s debate to loose too, in the sense that he was the one that needed to make up ground. Kerry could have taken a lot more evisceration shots. Saying things like, “the first thing you learn when you become an adult is that you need to take responsibility for your mistakes and find a way to fix them, this president hasn’t taken responsibility for anything, much less bothered to try and fix any of the mistakes of his administration.” Or, “Any football fan knows that the best offense in the world doesn’t amount to a hill of beans without a good defense.” etc. etc. But he didn’t which is why he only got a Double. Bush did not move forward or backward, he is still on third, looking for a chance to steel home in the debates, Kerry did not leave that opening. Advantage Kerry.
October 1st, 2004 at 10:23:40 am
“the only way Bush looses the debate, with the way expectations have been set, is if he starts prancing around the stage like a pony and foaming at the mouth followed by a wardrobe malfunction.”
LOL! (Seriously, you almost made me burst out laughing in the middle of CrimLaw class.)
Good analysis and discussion, people.
October 1st, 2004 at 11:14:32 am
Yes, the election is now the haughty Frenchman’s toulouse. Me, I’m voting for Henri de as a paint-in. These gentlemen may cry “Cheese, Cheese” but they eat no cheese. They both got a screw loose.
October 1st, 2004 at 4:18:52 pm
Anyone who thinks Kerry hit a ground-rule double, or that Bush let him back into the game, is missing the point.
Imagine that, a Bush supporter who ignores reality. The polls and the analysts are conclusively saying that Kerry won this debate. Sounds like a double atleast to me.
October 1st, 2004 at 5:06:16 pm
Congratulations David, you read the first sentence of that paragraph. Now next time, try reading the rest.
Obviously, if you want to score it a double, fine, but my point was that there’s a lot more that’s necessary to get Kerry home, and he’ll be left on base if his campaign continues to perform as pathetically as it has the past couple months.
October 2nd, 2004 at 12:21:43 am
I agree with that assessment, Kerry is back in the game, but cannot rest on this “victory” because winning a debate does not me squat if you don’t capitalize. It’s like not scoring points on a turn over in football. It happens a lot, and it is a major missed opportunity when it does.
October 2nd, 2004 at 9:40:18 pm
I agree dane, turnovers happen alot, unfortunately for the Huskies this season…