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.
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.
Below, in chronological order is the complete debate about more debates (which has, obviously, turned into something else entirely) as played out on the Wisconsin airwaves.
Obama has responded quickly to each attack and both campaigns have hewed to their respective narratives.
Opening salvo from Hillary:Reply from Obama:
Other ads below fold
So you thought that the primary debates schedule ended in January? MTV/MySpace begs to differ and invites you to join Obama, Clinton, and others in their "Closing Arguments" event tomorrow (Saturday) at 6pm ET:
Three days before Super Tuesday, when 23 states hold their presidential-nomination primaries or caucuses, MTV and MySpace will host some of the remaining Democratic and Republican candidates in a "Super" edition of the ongoing MTV/MySpace Presidential Dialogue series.
At 6 p.m. ET on Saturday, "Closing Arguments: A Presidential Super Dialogue" will be broadcast live from the MTV studios in New York. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two Democratic front-runners, and former Governor Mike Huckabee and Congressman Ron Paul, two of the four remaining Republican candidates, have already been confirmed for the forum, the latest in a collaborative series between MTV and MySpace that has so far hosted events with Senators John McCain and Obama, as well as former Senator John Edwards.
I watched and blogged the event they held with McCain as the candidate and it was quite good. Why not tune in or catch it on line (they have lots of cool stuff on-line including instant polling answer by answer)?
After prefacing the liveblog below with the prediction and challenge to the candidates that tonight was a once in a generation opportunity to really debate as the next president and the first black or women, I owe it to readers to do something I have become somewhat disenchanted with -- pick a winner.
But to explain what a winner is it is important to explain why I have become disenchanted with that. Several reasons. First, the debates have been multi-candidate debate up to now. Second, the format has not always given equal opportunity to contestants. Third, and most importantly, the idea of winning is so dependent on expectations and on contexts outside of the debate that the "winner" was not determined by the debate but by the press coverage and other later, intervening events.
This last factor still has importance, but the context tonight was clear enough and the variables were reduced enough that I can posit a judgment. My judgment is just that. Considered, but not "objective" or definitive. Please help me and yourself by engaging me in dispute about or questioning of this judgment.
With a Democrat favored to win the White House in November and just this one debate between the two remaining Democratic hopefuls, a woman and a black man, there arguably may not be a single debate that has had more historic significance.
Kennedy/Nixon may be your quick reply. Yes, in retrospect, that is true. Interesting, too, since Obama has been anointed Kennedy's successor.
Surely this has sunk in for the candidates. Let's hope Wolf Blitzer and CNN treat the event with the dignity and significance it potentially has.
As for the candidates, join me in the comments to see whether they rise to the occasion. For in the end, it is they, two unique and powerful figures, who can prove me right or wrong on my pre-debate take.
Tonight, the same scene, the Reagan Library in Simi, California, with Air Force One as the dramatic backdrop, has fewer actors and the script now has one of them, John McCain cast as the front-runner.
McCain reminds voters that he was a "foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution" by way of asserting his conservative bona fides.
Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul have one last chance to debate the merits of McCain's claim.
In the comments I will liveblog their efforts and John McCain's debut as the candidate with the right to invoke Reagan's 11th commandment, "Thou shall not speak ill of any Republican."
The debate airs live on CNN the web at 8pm ET, is moderated by Anderson Cooper, and co-sponsored by Politico.com. You can go to politico to submit questions and to vote for questions.
You can prepare yourself for watching the debate by reading David William's excellent compilation of tips for watching.
Join us in the comments for liveblogging of tonight's GOP presidential primary debate from Boca Raton, Florida, held five days before Tuesday's primary there.
The debate starts at 9 pm ET on MSNBC and can also be viewed at MSNBC's website.
The five remaining candidates (Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, and Romney) will be questioned by moderator Brian Williams, NBC's Tim Russert, and St. Petersburg Times editor, Paul Tash.
In the comments we'll be looking for signs of desperation from Rudy (who had told Russert and the world that Florida was his firewall) and for an escalation in the Romney/McCain competition for front runner status.
GOP hopefuls Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson square off in their third debate in six days at 9 pm tonight from Myrtle Beach, SC, on FOX News Network (on cable and streamed by FoxNews.com which has a preview.
We'll use the comments on this thread to record live reactions if my internet connection here in Texas keeps working and if the FOX stream works. I'm at a Radisson which features both balky internet access and a cable package that does not include Fox News.
The debate should be closely watched in not only in South Carolina, but also in Michigan where Romney is trying to hang on to his chances after having pulled ads in South Carolina and Florida. McCain is challenging in both places. Fred Thompson is making his last stand in South Carolina and Mike Huckabee leads there and is still rising in many polls of many states.
Rudy Giuliani is polling just ahead of Ron Paul and needs to remain relevant. Ron Paul might get questions tonight about his racist pamphleteering from the 1990's.
With McCain acting like the new front runner, or at least the "establishment" candidate, it will be interesting to see whether or not Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee triple team McCain much as Romney was ganged up on in New Hampshire.
Join me in comments or just live blog it without me should I lose contact . . .
