Last night's presidential debate in Hofstra had the same format unveiled for the first Obama-McCain matchup in Oxford, Mississippi on September 26. This format, which the debate organizers touted as a "historic breakthrough" features the standard moderator Q & A segment (where each candidate gives initial answers), followed by a "free-flow conversation/ discussion between the candidates." This latter element is the shiny new object that got CPD co-chairs Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk so keyed up, and after seeing it in action three times this debate cycle, we are now in position to reflect a bit on its dynamics.
As I collect my thoughts for this first impression of the 3rd and final presidential debate of 2008, I am invigorated. In many ways this was the closest we've come to an actual debate. It was intense, compelling, and should offer voters a clear choice between the candidates on the issues that matter the most to them. I haven't listened to the spin room or the punditry, so I have little idea what will actually play in the morning. However, if this was a "win or go home" moment for McCain, he didn't win. In fact, he lost and lost badly. When he needed to persuade us to vote for him, he left us with a feeling that we might not even like him.
Substantively, Obama evinced a seriousness of thought as well as a tenor and tone that should "seal the deal" for many undecided voters. As I said after the second debate, McCain appeared that night to be in the middle of a strategy shift. This debate offered further evidence that the fluctuations in strategy have taken their toll on candidate McCain. In this debate, more than any other, he seemed...surly and unlikable. He had one shining moment where we could feel a genuineness start to percolate when he looked at Obama and said, "I am not George Bush." Unfortunately, that moment of authentic emotion was lost in the haughtiness, condescension, and disagreeableness that followed.
...although not likely to gain traction. I don't know that this fixes the problems that many of us here at DebateScoop have had with both current and previous rounds of debates, but it is certainly worthy of discussion.
In short: follow-up questions are GOOD, footage in the public domain is GOOD, post-election reform is GOOD.
Welcome to the 2008 Vice Presidential Debate. Join us below the fold for a real time discussion from coaches, students, and guests!
If you do not have an account, register for free. In the top right hand corner of this page, click "Create an Account" and follow the directions. You'll need to verify your account by checking your email.
Once you do, join us in the liveblog of tonight's debate by clicking on "Permalink :: Read More... " at the bottom of this post. Then, just submit a comment or reply to one.
Live from the St. Louis Athletic Complex at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, the one and only vice presidential debate between Sen. Joe Biden from Delaware and Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. The debate tips off at 9:00 pm (EST) and will be moderated by Gwen Ifill of PBS.
This will be the fifth consecutive presidential election cycle that Washington University will play host to the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). With such a commitment to debate, one wonders why they don't have an intercollegiate policy debate team!
Below the fold, join me for a few thoughts on what to look for.
One of the reasons we started this blog was a sense that, when it came to debates, the common wisdom of political pundits was uninformed by actual expertise in argumentation, debating, and political communication. Still, quite often, the common wisdom of mainstream punditry is informative. But when it comes to the lead up to Thursday's VP debate between Biden and Palin, the use of the "expectations" meme by pundits far and wide can most charitably be called confused.
The confusion arises because pundits are lumping every one of Palin's perceived traits into one category. Knowledge, fluency, experience, character and temperament are all being treated as one. But when it comes to the role of the expectations game in debates, the game plays much differently in two cases: 1) low expectations for debate performance; 2) low expectations of qualifications for the office.
Yes, one's debate performance can be sign evidence of qualifications for office. But evidence of lack of qualification for office cannot be overcome by glib debating and poor debating cannot, of itself, constitute definitive evidence that one is unqualified for office.
Voters will forgive someone who does not debate as well as their opponent if those voters believe the performance is "just" a slight debating deficiency. Most people have a fear of speaking in public and empathize with less than perfect debating. Campaigns and pundits can play the expectations game so that people are pleasantly surprised when someone they heard was not a great debater does a serviceable job in a debate. They beat expectations.
But how do you beat expectations when the word on the street and YouTube is that you were a good debater on Alaskan issues but do not have the requisite knowledge of national economic issues, foreign policy, and constitutional (remember that thing in the oath that you swear to uphold and defend?) law?
Past is not prologue here. Past expectations games have involved at least a basic agreement (and certainly not widespread suspicion) on the part of the voters that the candidates meet the minimum qualifications for office. Dan Quayle comes closest, but he was actually conversant on federal issues and was a senator. Pressed three times in his debate on his experience, he finally flubbed it by comparing himself to Jack Kennedy. But Bentsen's, "You're no Jack Kennedy," is a tame charge compared to that being leveled against Sarah Palin.
"You're no Dan Quayle," is not a line Biden need utter. After the embarrassing Couric and Gibson interviews of her, the lack of press conferences, and growing doubts in the minds of all but the most partisan voters about her basic qualifications, Gwen Ifill, the American voter, and the angry media (both left and right) will be looking for evidence that Palin is unqualified. George Stephanopoulos agrees that Palin has next to no margin for error.
Sarah Palin cannot afford an instance like either of her worst Couric answers (on Russia and on the economy, the latter used almost verbatim as a comedy sketch on SNL).
Usually, when expectations are low, low on debating skill, people look for one or two instances that disconfirm that expectation. Bush 43 "exceeded" expectations. But when people suspect fundamental lack of qualifications for the office, just one or two examples will suffice to heighten or confirm suspicions.
We're in new territory. We don't even know that any voter cares about Sarah Palin's ability to debate. We do know that voters and the media question her qualifications to be in the debate at all. The lower the expectation on that score, the tougher it will be for her to win the expectations game.
Update [2008-9-30 1:33:37 by Ross Smith]:This NYT article shares the theme of my post with regard to rising concerns about Palin's readiness, but buys into much of the expectations game meme.
One of the reasons we started this blog was a sense that, when it came to debates, the common wisdom of political pundits was uninformed by actual expertise in argumentation, debating, and political communication. Still, quite often, the common wisdom of mainstream punditry is informative. But when it comes to the lead up to Thursday's VP debate between Biden and Palin, the use of the "expectations" meme by pundits far and wide can most charitably be called confused.
The confusion arises because pundits are lumping every one of Palin's perceived traits into one category. Knowledge, fluency, experience, character and temperament are all being treated as one. But when it comes to the role of the expectations game in debates, the game plays much differently in two cases: 1) low expectations for debate performance; 2) low expectations of qualifications for the office.
Yes, one's debate performance can be sign evidence of qualifications for office. But evidence of lack of qualification for office cannot be overcome by glib debating and poor debating cannot, of itself, constitute definitive evidence that one is unqualified for office.
Voters will forgive someone who does not debate as well as their opponent if those voters believe the performance is "just" a slight debating deficiency. Most people have a fear of speaking in public and empathize with less than perfect debating. Campaigns and pundits can play the expectations game so that people are pleasantly surprised when someone they heard was not a great debater does a serviceable job in a debate. They beat expectations.
But how do you beat expectations when the word on the street is that you were a good debater on Alaskan issues but do not have the requisite knowledge of national economic issues, foreign policy, and constitutional (remember that thing in the oath that you swear to uphold and defend?) law.
Past is not prologue here. Past expectations games have involved at least a basic agreement (and certainly not widespread suspicion) on the part of the voters that the candidates meet the minimum qualifications for office. Dan Quayle comes closest, but he was actually conversant on federal issues and was a senator. Pressed three times in his debate on his experience, he finally flubbed it by comparing himself to Jack Kennedy. But Bentsen's, "You're no Jack Kennedy," is a tame charge compared to that being leveled against Sarah Palin.
"You're no Dan Quayle," is not a line Biden need utter. After the embarrassing Couric and Gibson interviews of her, the lack of press conferences, and growing doubts in the minds of voters about her basic qualifications, Gwen Ifill, the American voter, and the angry media (both left and right) will be looking for evidence that Palin is unqualified.
Sarah Palin cannot afford on instance like either of her worst Couric answers (on Russia and on the economy, the latter used almost verbatim as a comedy sketch on SNL).
Usually, when expectations are low, low on debating skill, people look for one or two instances that disconfirm that expectation. Bush 43 "exceeded" expectations. But when people suspect fundamental lack of qualifications for the office, just one or two examples will suffice to heighten or confirm suspicions.
We're in new territory. We don't even know that any voter cares about Sarah Palin's ability to debate. We do know that voters and the media question her qualifications to be in the debate at all. The lower the expectation on that score, the tougher it will be for her to win the expectations game.
Note: I use no links here because everything stated is the universal common wisdom and I cannot link to the entire universe of published stuff to prove the negative: no one has argued low expectations hurt Palin (until this post). If you have facts contrary to anything above, please use the comments and I will engage. I might edit later to add links. Sorry for any perceived lack of blog etiquette, but I assume our readers are well informed.
Tune in by 9:00 p.m. Eastern on your TV, participate via many means on the internet, and/or the liveblog with me and other debate geeks at debateScoop and elsewhere for tonight's opening salvo in the debate series leading up to the November general election. The University of Mississippi is the host site, all networks will carry the debate, and Jim Lehrer of PBS is the moderator.
Below the fold we will dive into a number of weeds for people who, like me, study and care about debates.
But even if you are not into the details, several items are worth noting.
First, McCain's Ploy (no debate unless bailout deal) has been exposed for what it is, most damningly by the internet ad declaring him the debate victor that he was running well before he announced he would debate at all.
Second, the economy and the "bailout" is likely to be the first topic tonight even though this was originally billed as a foreign policy and national security debate.
Third, the CW ("common wisdom") while often close enough to accurate on debates (it's circular -- since the media both defines CW and has the biggest influence on perceptions it's hard to throw CW off track), is way off base in one important respect: without exception I have read, even from people who should know better, that Obama needs to be concise and pithy and that nuance will get him in trouble. Sound familiar? The problem with that analysis is that it ignores the very first item every debate coach and debater considers: format. Tonight's format allows extended discussion and does not confine the debaters to ninety, sixty, or thirty second fragmented answers. The CW is based on the early primary debates when up to ten candidates at a time were vying for time and the formats were devised to account for the multiple candidates and multiple questions. Tonight's format has nine segments of ten minutes each and the candidate who best uses that format boosts their chances to "win" (more about what that means below).
Below the fold, let's delve more deeply into all of the variables that might influence tonight's debating and its effect.
What does it mean to say that "candidate X" did the better debating? For those of us in the business of judging debates, there is no simple or easy answer to this question which applies to all debates, in all formats, at all times.
Instead, there are many criteria by which debates can be judged and professional debate judges bring a wide variety of perspectives to the art and science of judging debates. In an effort to prepare students to watch and judge this year's presidential debates, and as a means of preparing for in-class debates later in the semester, my argumentation class at the University of Mary Washington designed the following debate ballot to judge this year's debates. For those interested in numerical metrics, a five-point Likert can be adopted to generate a comparative numerical score.
Feel free to add your feedback on our ballot, as well as your own criteria, ballots, and insights for how to judge debates in the comments section.
John McCain said that getting an economic plan accomplished was so important that he needed to suspend his campaign. While that may or may not be reasonable, whether or not tomorrow night's debate should be put on hold is a separate question. McCain has made no explicit arguments (claims supported by reasons) for postponing the debate. At best he argues by enthymeme. Obama has argued, without refutation from McCain, that holding the debate is important so the American people can hear from their candidates, that presidents must be able to multitask, and that their airplanes and other means of staying in contact allow the candidates to stay sufficiently in contact with Congress. The "threat" not to debate is a ploy.
Nothing wrong with ploys. This one is ironic in that the ploy is a tactic of the campaign that McCain has nominally "suspended." For now, the ploy is working in that McCain has garnered a great deal of attention for his refrain that he is a maverick man of action. As long as the debate happens Friday night, McCain will not be hurt.
The debate most likely will happen. As I write, and hours before McCain makes it to Washington (along with Obama) to meet at the White House, the folks actually responsible for reaching an agreement in Congress are meeting to hammer out the details. McCain and Obama will most likely give political cover to members of their parties by simply showing up today. Sufficient progress will then be declared so that the debate can go forward. Disagree? Intrade has a new market up today, currently trading (on very low volume) at 70% chance the debate happens.
But there is still a chance McCain's bet (ploy), and those of the Intraders, is a loss. If the debate does not happen as scheduled, it's hard to see how that's a plus for McCain. There really are no decent arguments for canceling or postponing the debate. And remember this: the only way the debate is canceled is if McCain's return to Washington (where he has not darkened the door of the Senate since April) fails to cement a deal that appears to be all but concluded. The charges, already being levied by Democrats and Republicans alike, that he is politicizing the deal would then have more traction.
Below the fold I will review the potential arguments for postponement in more detail.
One upcoming debate is set: Obama/Clinton, April 16, Philadelphia, ABC as network host.
Another debate is possible/likely. Barack Obama agreed to an April 19 debate in North Carolina hosted by CBS. Nothing yet from the Clinton camp. No host site in North Carolina has been confirmed, either.
The latest news is that the North Carolina debate date is also uncertain. Since two weeks separate the Pennsylvania (4/22) and North Carolina (5/6) primaries, there is room for maneuver.
Wake Forest University, host to two general election presidential debates (1988 and 2000) and an alternate site for the fall 2008 general election debates, is well prepared to host a potential Clinton/Obama debate.
It is interesting to note that the Clinton campaign clamored for more debates after a string of electoral setbacks in February, but has not called for any after the March 4 primaries. This time, it's the Obama campaign agreeing to an extra debate.
Cleveland State University, a college of working class and middle class students, had to raise $300,000 to help put on the Democratic debate last week at the Wolstein Center.
Why?
Debate sponsors NBC-TV, its affiliate here WKYC, and its cable network MSNBC are all profit making entities. They all enjoy government-anointed, semi-monopolies using the public air waves. They are being fed by millions and millions of dollars of election advertising. Yet CSU had to go take $300,000 out of this community to host the event. I don't understand why the profit-makers didn't pay their own way.
The Cleveland debate drew 7.78 million voters, a historic best for MSNBC, according to Nielsen Media Research.
So shouldn't NBC pay CSU, rather than the other way around?
Not much of a debate at all here. Cleveland State might muster the argument that they benefit from the prestige of having hosted. They had better be able to prove that $300,000 could not have earned a better return had it been spent on other forms of recruiting or fundraising.
We know MSNBC got a huge return on their investment.
A small part of the debate last week has now become Hillary Clinton's strongest argument against Barack Obama's national security credentials.
Obama's explanation that he had not held a subcommittee hearing because he only became chair after the campaign began, has now become he's too busy campaigning "to protect our national security," something Hillary Clinton claims she will never be.
The latest in the "3 a.m." ad war uses a tiny excerpt from a debate that most observers "scored" for Obama into a potentially powerful closing argument for Clinton.
I've often thought that Barack Obama may be a better debate coach than a debater. In this space I even questioned his debate preparation.
I turned out to be wrong. He is both a great coach and a great debater.
If you've watched the 20 democratic debates, you've seen the maturation of Barack Obama from a relative novice to a "great debater." He's figured out what few ever do - and that is the best strategic and tactical position is to speak in the language of the judge and judge the debate as you go along. In a 2005 article in the Debater's Research Guide, I argued that debaters should learn to speak in the language of the judge. Obama did that tonight and more. Over the past two month's he's been framing himself as the best debater and that's worked well for him.
