Venturing slightly off-topic, but:
1a. I agree with Andrew Sullivan that Obama's demeanor was a problem. If you read a transcript of this debate -- you would probably call it a draw. If you were watching the TV with the sound off -- it would look like Obama was losing. Reality being somewhere in between those two things, the edge goes to Clinton.
1b. However, I sensed that Obama's mood was more one of exasperation than exhaustion. Obama had pivoted rather deftly from the bittergate controversy in recent days -- see for example his speech in front of the American Association of Manufacturers -- precisely because it reminded him of one of the original rationales for his campaign, which was running against the Washington establishment. e.g. "It's the career politicians in Washington who are out of touch, not me", or some variant thereof. However, it was impossible to strike that tone given the nature of the questions, which were more designed for superdelegates than ordinary voters. Obama faced a frontrunner's scrutiny, even though he's behind in Pennsylvania, an inherently difficult position for him not made better by the moderation. But Obama can be faulted, I think, for not gaming out a tonal strategy for this type of debate.
2. With that said, debates are won and lost in the 24-96 hour time period, rather than on the evening of. There weren't really any YouTube moments in this debate, and while the media is likely to focus on things like the Ayers issue --this is the same media that has consistently misread the pulse of the American public over the course of this campaign. The media badly misread where bittergate registered on the Richter Scale; they also badly underestimated how the "pile-on" narrative -- and their own slobbering praise for Obama -- would play out for Hillary Clinton before the New Hampshire primary. There are elements of the media -- see a good example here -- that are still focused on the 1998 model of winning elections. But this is a 2008 universe, and the public is both more battle-weary and far more sophisticated in the way that they consume information. This is arguably the same problem that the Clinton campaign has had for much of the primaries.
3. In terms of Pennsylvania, I think this can most safely be regarded as a missed opportunity for Obama. One thing we haven't mentioned is how few undecideds there are in Pennsylvania -- as few as 5-7 percent in many polls -- and those that have selected candidates are pretty dug in. I would assume that an undecided voter who had doubts about Obama would not have those doubts erased by tonight's performance -- but there are also not a lot of undecideds. It's become a very stubborn electorate.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Three Thoughts on Tonight's Debate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments
From my sample size of one undecided voter, Obama picked up 100% of the undecided vote in PA in the debate.
She said he won his vote based on what he said about the media. I missed the beginning so I don't think I saw the precise part she was referring to.
D'oh. Brain fart - should be "She said he won *her* vote". The sentence doesn't make much sense as originally written.
I only read the post mortem of this debate, and didn't see it, but from this vantage point it seems unlikely that it was interesting enough for many voters that are still undecided to stick with the debate long enough for it to be decisive.
ABC chose a former Clinton advisor, George Stephanopoulos, to moderate the debate. If pundits pick up on that, the "piling on" narative will work.
It's normal for the frontrunner to get tougher questions, and Obama DID get tougher questions - but the fact that Stephanopoulos was chosen to moderate the debate is so glaringly ridiculous that pointing it out will neutralize Obama's poor performance. If you're going to hit a candidate with tough personal questions, you don't choose a person who you would expect to be biased to do so.
If a few superdelegates who lean towards Obama get really antsy about how the debate went, they can endorse him tomorrow and balance the headlines. Whenever Obama hurts himself with a gaffe, he has to ride it out unassisted, but if he's hurt by something that hurts him doesn't seem to be his own fault, he gets sympathy from those who like him or are neutral between Obama and Clinton.
I don't think the media badly underestimated anything -- I think they know exactly what they're doing, they don't care, and they have no shame. They've been doing this inane routine at least since the OJ trial, and it has only gotten worse. Our media is a train wreck, because they've found that people will still pull over to look at a train wreck.
Well, there's no doubt that the tone of the questioning made Obama's job more difficult. So you can grade him on a curve if you like -- and the public very well might end up grading him on a curve, since one of the big, under-explored themes in this election has been media backlash. At the same time, a politician needs to play the hand dealt to him, and my sense was that Obama didn't necessarily play the hand badly, but betrayed his frustration that he wasn't playing a different hand. Although criticizing the media in the midst of a debate it always dicey -- it would have been nice, for instance, if he used the phrase "out of touch" in describing the questions -- I think he could could have pulled that off and gotten a nice soundbyte out of everything.
His campaign could also have potentially done more to pushback on Stephanopoulos being one of the moderators.
I did not see the debate, the BBC present as one with an emphasis on both candidates' gaffes - bittergate & Bosnia. Getting Hillary to admit publicly that Obama could beat McCain (whatever she thinks or says privately) was a big plus for him; bigger than him saying she could beat him is for Hilary.
Given that Obama is the front-runner, it was his to lose. That he did not screw up in a major way makes it a strategic victory for him, if possibly a technical points victory for his opponent.
Mark Halperin scored the debate for Obama because of that tactical judgment (error?) Clinton made on his electability. I haven't chosen to focus on that because I don't think this was an argument that was resonating with the voters in the first place.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15234.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/clinton-on-work.html
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/04/16/what-did-hillary-say.aspx
Hillary has been caught saying similarly negative things about small town voters. Shouldn't that have also been brought up during the debate?
David Brooks' grades:
ABC News: A
Clinton: B
Obama: D+
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/no-whining-about-the-media/index.html
One of the minor storylines coming out of that debate that could blow up is the performance of ABC and the moderators. There has been quite an outcry about the tone and subject matter pursued by Gibson and Stephanopolous. There are over 15,000 comments on abcnews.com's recap, mostly very critical of ABC. There have also been a few critical pieces written by other journalists. If the cable news personalities latch on to this then it could very well drown out any coverage of the candidates themselves. At the very least it muddies the waters.
Post a Comment