Hunting The Muse

Post-Debate Thoughts

I was hanging out on the dailykos discussion boards tonight while watching the debates. People were pretty pumped about the first presidential debate, and so I thought that overall there was a bit of circular reinforcement going on. Lots of talk about Kerry wiping the ground with Bush, etc. I think it's not quite that extreme.

Now, for those who are clear on their political beliefs, as I am, these debates are irrelevant other than hoping and praying that your guy makes a compelling enough case to convince other voters. So, in that sense, Kerry completely won the debate, because in my view, his politics are superior to Bush's. But frankly, this is really part of the battle underneath. There are still a lot of voters that don't really know the politics of these two candidates. Bush won in 2000 by convincing voters he was more moderate than he really was. He doesn't have that luxury anymore. So, completely aside from questions of performance, if these debates can actually expose each candidate's politics honestly, I think it's a losing battle for Bush. He has a political record now. On a strict policy level, more people prefer Kerry's policies. They just need to see who each of these candidates really are - and each time you get Bush defending tax cuts for the rich, anti-abortion bills that don't have health exceptions, and silly environmental policies, it exposes Bush that much further. So, in that sense, if Kerry is able to continue doing that as he did tonight, then it means he wins the debate on that level, even if the stylistic performance is poor.

But, what's left is that actual performance. That's the surface, and it's what the press is reporting on when they talk about who won. And there it's a bit harder to determine who won. Basically, the debate was more closely matched than previous debates. On a strictly impressional level, Bush made more of an impact. Right now, more of my memories involve Bush swaggering and being animated - which, in a way, forgives some of his bluster and strident tones. Kerry had less presence than his first debate, seemed a tiny bit more hunched over, and was a bit more long-winded, which weirdly seems to translate to a leakage of substance. He's like an old warship that often needs to be patched up before it can really blow something out of the water.

Neither candidate did very well in answering the citizens' questions, which annoyed me. I think there's potential to score major political points by QUICKLY diverting an opponent's attacks in this kind of debate, in favor of spending the rest of the time responding to the voters. That's part of what Clinton was so good at.

Finally, Kerry chose to hit back with a couple of snarky comments rather than with reason, which I think is the wrong choice. There are better responses to Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time. He had a cute one for that, but it didn't actually put it to bed. There are better responses to what flip-flopping is about. There are better responses to the medical lawsuit issue.

But, I think that Kerry parried very well on three or four occasions, and I think that Bush just basically doesn't parry. He just pretends a rebuttal doesn't happen, and repeats his first attack. A skilled debater could make much better use of that trait by responding to the attack on the merits, and showing his opponents' inability to modify the attack. Kerry did that a couple of times, but not enough.

The other big story about the performances, though, was that Bush didn't really improve his manners at all. He was rude and overbearing, practically unhinged in places. It was not a presidential temperament whatsoever. Kerry was better in this regard, although he looked slightly sleepy. Bush came across stridently even towards his questioners. Overall, he seemed like a bit of a baby - very unprofessional.

Bush's horrible performance in the first debate gave him a gift in a way, in that the low expectations gives him a good story if he improves. Same old story with him - this is the guy who claimed victory in improving Texas' education record in going from what, 50th by a huge margin to 50th by a slightly less huge margin? But I have a theory about this. I think that part of Bush's "horrible performance" in the first debate was just the pinprick of having Bush's actual personality exposed. The sight of the contrast between his genuine self, and the Bush image that had been painfully constructed over the previous months. Same with Kerry - his competent self contrasted with the picture that had been painted of him. In other words, I think that if these two debates had swapped places, then this debate would have been seen as a similarly catastrophic performance by Bush. It's less dramatic now in the second debate because it's less of a shock, which makes the spinners feel emboldened to say that Bush has his momentum back.

I think the spinners will get their own surprise in the next few days as they see Bush's support continue to sink like a rock. I don't know what can help Bush now. I'd like to see Kerry refine his approach a little bit for number three, but I think a performance like tonight will still be an effective performance. There are no more job reports before the election. The only remotely positive surprise that is left out there is capturing Osama or Zarqawi, but I don't think that even those will be enough - at best, it will be Bush cleaning up his mess before he leaves.

Posted by Curt at October 9, 2004 12:25 AM