Culver vs. Nussle Iowa Governor Debate
Update [2006-10-3 18:9:51 by Ross Smith]: Video is now available online.
Update [2006-10-3 0:27:2 by Ross Smith]: I am plunking follow up on blog takes and some of the early press commentary into the comments instead of adding separate threads.
This is a quick take on the debate tonight in what is a close race. MyDD's Governor Forecast has the background:
Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack, who is not running for a third term, has a passable approval rating, but that hasn't abated the anti-incumbent party feeling from hitting Iowa this year as Democratic Secretary of State Chet Culver takes on Republican Congressman Jim Nussle. For a state as closely watched as Iowa, there is a surprising dearth of polling on the gubernatorial race, but the data currently available indicates rather clearly that this race could go either way at this point -- though Culver appears to have some momentum on his side.
Latest polling: Selzer & Co., Culver 44 - Nussle 44, September 17; Research 2000, Culver 48 - Nussle 43, September 13; Rasmussen Reports, Culver 42 - Nussle 40, September 1.
Not being from Iowa and knowing not having followed the politics there, my take is that from a tabula rasa perspective, Culver had the better of it. He did the better debating.
Click "there's more" to see why and to add your comments.
: IA-Gov, Jim Nussell, Chet Culver
The opening.
First, Nussle's opening ploy backfired in my opinion. The debate started without opening statements, diving right in with the first question, asking why so many attack ads. Nussle never answered the question, talking about how "freedom is not free" (where is he going with this?) then winding up asking for a moment of silence for fallen troops in Iraq.
It was awkward and looked like he was trying to benefit from the deaths of the soldiers.
Culver almost played it right, asking to make a statement and doing so. But then he finished by answering the original question, saying, in effect "Nussle started it with the attack ads." I think he could have stopped before he got to the
The questioner then said Nussle did not answer the question. Nussle then claims he focuses on issues and distorts Culver's answer, mischaracterizing it by saying "my opponent claims he does not run negative ads" when Culver only said he did not go first, not that he made no attacks.
Culver then says he was just responding to attacks and will not let attacks go unanswered. Opening goes to Culver.
On the substance, both are for lots of ethanol. And ethanol. Did I mention ethanol?
The overall narrative of the policy issues and qualifications debate favor Culver for three reasons:
- Culver had more specific answers to questions that asked for details of policies. His eight years in state executive office showed. Nussle's answers were frequently vague or generic, saying we need a business "climate" that is better or simply talking vaguely about lower taxes.
- Culver repeated several times that he was a "fifth generation Iowan" and that he has experience with Iowa. His theme was that Nussle had been in D.C. for 16 years and was tied to Bush. Every time Nussle tried to argue Culver would overspend, Culver responded with the fact that Nussle was chair of the budget committee in Congress that turned a surpus into a deficit. Given the national mood, the portrayal of Iowa against D.C. seems to be a smart one.
- Culver followed up and rebutted Nussle. This is important. As in many debates, the format was simply a series of questions with each candidate getting one shot at an answer. They alternated who answered first. When you are the candidate that goes first, you are at a disadvantage unless you use time on subsequent questions to go back and rebut statements your opponent made on the previous question. Culver did that. Nussle did not. Culver also referred directly to Nussle's "hold onto your wallet" response to Culver's prison building proposal, tying Nussle back to the federal deficit and his record in congress.
The closing statements, two minutes each can be summed up this way:
Culver: It boils down to one question: do you want to run Iowa like Bush and Nussle have run things from Washington? Build on strengths of Iowa.
Nussle: I'm ready to "lead Iowa" and we need "new leadership" (and, by the way, we reduced the federal deficit).
Nussle also tossed the debate's first reference to scandals in state government in Iowa into his closing. To me, that resonated with the accusation at the beginning, which he never refuted, that he was the one to start the attack ads.
But, as I said, I am not into the Iowa race. This was my first exposure to either candidate. Perhaps commenters can help.
