So I get up this morning and make the coffee and surf around to get reactions to last night’s debate.
The first reactions from pundits and bloggers last night was that [fill in name of preferred candidate] won on points, but [the other guy] held his own, and neither emerged a clear winner. Dana Milbank and other professional commenters complained that the debate was “tepid” and boring. Politics is just entertainment, after all.
However, there is evidence the television audience saw a different debate. Polls by CBS and CNN say that independents watching the debate came away more impressed by Obama. The Frank Luntz and Stanley Greenberg focus groups went overwhelmingly for Obama.
Why the difference?
One, I think most of the television audience was getting an unfiltered look at these guys for the first time, Obama in particular. And the meme Obama’s opponents have spread is that Obama is an empty suit, unsubstantial, a good orator but otherwise clueless. But the Obama who debated last night clearly was intelligent and knowledgeable as well as articulate. He may have pleasantly surprised people who haven’t been paying close attention to the campaigns until now.
Peter S. Canellos, Boston Globe:
McCain tried repeatedly to portray Obama as a neophyte, prefacing many answers with variants of the statement, “What Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand,” and later insisting that Obama “showed a little bit of naiveté.”
But Obama didn’t seem either uncomprehending or naive, and McCain seemed so frustrated at times that he almost lost his cool.
After Obama followed a McCain jab about Obama’s failure to hold a hearing of his Senate subcommittee with a return punch that McCain had once claimed the United States could “muddle through” in Afghanistan, the Arizona senator clenched his teeth, flared his eyes, and seemed on the verge of losing composure.
Finally, he came out and said what he couldn’t demonstrate.
“I honestly don’t believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas,” McCain insisted.
But the claim wasn’t backed up by what viewers had seen for the past hour.
McCain repeatedly asserted that on foreign-policy issues Obama “didn’t understand.” But Obama didn’t look like a man who didn’t understand. McCain was essentially calling Obama a Sarah Palin—but Obama didn’t look like one.
Second, I think way too much of McCain’s arguments for himself were grounded many years in the past, which to me made him seem stuck there. One of the focus group people in the video above said McCain was “sentimental,” and a young woman said she wanted to hear more from McCain about what’s going on right now.
Third is the “gumpy old man” factor. Richard Adams:
McCain refused to look in Obama’s direction – even as he was delivering his own attacks against the Democratic candidate, and so allowed his body language to undercut his spoken language, suggesting that he was uncomfortable or even embarrassed.
And that seemingly minor detail seems likely to have hurt McCain. CNN’s coverage of the debate carried an interesting feature: a real-time reaction graph from a focus group running along the bottom of the screen. Most of the time the graph was flat-lining – when McCain spoke the Republican audience members generally gave him higher marks and the Democrats gave him lower ones, with independent voters in the middle. But when McCain stridently attacked Obama his approval lines turned down, sometimes very sharply. So while grizzled journalists may have liked McCain’s fighting talk, it turned off the independent voters watching. Similarly, McCain’s aggression isn’t likely to have played well with female voters but better with male voters (according to the stereotype).
And, according to CNN, male viewers were evenly split on who won, but women overwhelmingly preferred Obama. I think women are less inclined than men to associated a hot temper with leadership ability.
I wish I’d organized a drinking game around the number of times John McCain said, “Sen. Obama doesn’t understand,” or found some other way to sneer at Obama as naive and inexperienced. For the most part he refused to even look at Barack Obama over 90 minutes. What an ass. It was hackneyed and condescending and, to me, repellent. But did it work? …
…I think Obama more than held his own in this first debate, but if you’re looking for a grumpy, sarcastic put-down artist as president, your choice is quite clear.
Throughout the 90-minute debate, McCain seemed contemptuous of Obama. He wouldn’t look at him. He tried to belittle him whenever possible — how many times did he work “Senator Obama just doesn’t understand†into his answers? His body language was closed, defensive, tense. McCain certainly succeeded in proving that he can be aggressive, but the aggression came with a smirk and a sneer.
Fourth, several commenters said that after McCain’s erratic behavior for the past couple of weeks, he needed a big win tonight to “change the game” (and can I say I’m really growing tired of that phrase?). A tie might have been good enough for Obama, but not for McCain.
Fifth, as Nate at Five Thirty-Eight points out, Obama looked at the television camera and spoke to the televison audience; McCain did not.
Obama’s eye contact was directly with the camera, i.e. the voters at home. McCain seemed to be speaking literally to the people in the room in Mississippi, but figuratively to the punditry. It is no surprise that a small majority of pundits seemed to have thought that McCain won, even when the polls indicated otherwise; the pundits were his target audience.
Further, Nate says Obama is opening up a gap in “connectedness.” By a big margin, viewers thought Obama was “more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you.†This was supposed to be Obama’s big weakness — he couldn’t connect with those “ordinary” folks.
Last night, the pundits all criticized Obama for allowing McCain to hijack the first half hour or so of the debate by talking about earmarks and taxes. Nate disagrees, saying that earmarks are not an issue voters care much about right now. I don’t know how much people understand that earmarks, however egregious, did not cause the Wall Street financial crisis. However, I do think McCain might have come across as an ass by continuing to talk about Obama raising taxes even as Obama was standing there saying no, I’m going to raise taxes only on the wealthy, and close loopholes so corporations pay their fair share.
Finally — last night several of you expressed frustration that Obama wasn’t punching McCain hard enough. Given the way the post-debate memes are shaping up, I’m beginning to think Obama’s “gentlemanly” strategy may have been smart.
See also: Mark Halperin gives Obama the better grade.
Senator McCain is proposing — and this is a fundamental difference between us — $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion. Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important. And in his tax plan, you would have CEOs of Fortune 500 companies getting an average of $700,000 in reduced taxes, while leaving 100 million Americans out. [Bolding mine.]
I think that this was the most important statement in the debate. McCain harped on earmarks too much, and with that one little sentance there, Obama demolished the entire argument, at least in terms of the average American. (IMO.) That’s the sort of thing that gets your worried-about-the-economy voter off the other person’s side and on to yours.
Technocracygirl — yes, could be. I don’t trust my own judgment regarding how independent and uncommitted voters will react to things. But it struck me that McCain’s chiding of Obama about raising taxes while Obama was standing right there saying, very clearly and firmly, I won’t raise taxes (except on wealthy, etc.) didn’t help McCain. McCain ignored what Obama was saying, which again made McCain look like a jerk.
Great video, even though it was from Mr. Luntz.
Something to bear in mind, the people that attended the debate are like the people at this blog, they are politically engaged, and are paying attention. The general population, not so much.
Here’s an example; of the 10 people in my work sector, none will admit liking Obama. The reasons: he’s a liberal, he’s a closet Muslim, he’s black, and here’s the real stunner…..
one guy can’t stomach Michelle Obama as our first lady, actually sleeping in the WH.
The people mentioned above did not attend college, although they all have some form of higher education.All but one describe themselves as Christians. Three are fringe fundies, one of the three is a certified rapture ready extremist.These people earn between $40,000-$75,000 per year. the age spread is between 27 yrs and 56 years old, but most are between 35and 50. The 27 year old lives with his parents, shaves his head and is covered with tatoos.
I suppose that is mainstream for his age nowdays.
Most of these people say they support the troops, although only one had any military service, and that was in the Coast Guard when they were part of the DOT.
They get their news from FOX, when they watch the news, and generally care more about sports and riding motorcycles.
Most of them have come to the realization that Bush is a disaster but they will vote for McCain rather than vote for a black closet Muslim liberal…..or else they are not telling the truth to avoid rocking the boat, which I rock the hell out of constantly.
I was insulted and actually threatened at first, but that has changed.
I always said that when Americans get hit in the wallet, we would get their attention. Jesus and the flag won’t put food on our families.
I can’t believe we’ve arrived at this point. What happened to evolution?
McCain’s going to get the idiot vote, no question.
last night several of you expressed frustration that Obama wasn’t punching McCain hard enough
I still feel that way, but I’m just projecting. I couldn’t stand there at let the toad lie like that. I’m too delicate for politics.
Oh, if only McCain had sighed a few times…
That undermined Gore in the traditional media.
Obama clearly won, in my eyes. This was a debate on McCain’s home turf – foreign policy. And, while he didn’t have a knock-out punch, Obama was like a great boxer who won on points. He jabbed and dodged, while McSame seemed like George Forman lunging forward, expending every bit of energy on his opponent . The “rope-a-dope” worked.
Jay Rosen twitters:
Why didn’t McCain look at Obama and speak directly to him? Because he was trying to keep his Irish from getting up. He couldn’t do both.
I think that’s right; I also got the sense that McCain really hates Obama. It wouldn’t take too much to make the old man really lose it. A subtle knock on his honor – maybe some inside Senate thing that’s not in general circulation.
erinyes – very interesting. I wonder, is your ‘crowd’ a group that voted for Bush, the crowd that never met a smirk they didn’t like?
I’m thinking and hoping that we’ve gotten over voting for the aggresive, take-no-prisoners, smirking, unaccomplished, bottom-of-his-class, undistinguished failure guy to have a beer with. (Read Bush’s resume and our impending economic bankruptcy should come as no surprise.)
So many comments out here indicate that Obama’s gentlemanly demeanor may have won him more points than anything else. Now if he turns out to be a statesman too boot, we can look back at the last 8 years as some not-to-be-repeated ugly abberation.
Pingback: THE GUN TOTING LIBERALâ„¢
I’d like to tell you about my little brush with Americans recently.
I was trying on outfits in a store located in a small, tourist town about 2 hours outside of Toronto (Canada’s largest city). This is what I heard:
American lady #1 (speaking to the man at the cash–who happened to be from France):
“I’m from Florida. If you were American, who would you vote for?”
Man at cash: mumbles something non-committal
AL #1: “I don’t like Obama.”
American Lady #2: “I don’t like him either.”
AL #1: “That Sarah Palin–she’s the best thing that’s ever happened to America.”
I apologize profusely to all of Maha’s readers, but I didn’t say anything. I almost ripped off the curtain in the dressing room, but I decided to keep my mouth shut and not cause a diplomatic incident. I was also half-dressed, which kept me from running up to her and smashing her in her smug face.
I really did want to know why exactly they didn’t like Obama. I felt their curt “I don’t like him/I don’t like him either” were short-hand for everything erinyes mentioned–black, closet Muslim, etc., etc.
And then there’s my GP–a wonderful American woman who’s married to a Canadian (also a doctor). Yesterday, I asked her if she was going to vote. She shook her head but didn’t answer. She seemed sad and confused. I told her to vote for the one who wasn’t crazy. Two other ladies in the waiting room piped up: “Obama!”. The two secretaries (one black, one Indian) looked like Obama supporters too. I suspect my GP doesn’t trust Obama because she thinks he’s going to harm Israel. Well, I’m Jewish too and I think that’s a load of rubbish. The good news is that three close friends of mine in the States, who also happen to be Jewish, are strong Obama supporters.
Just had to share with you. Thanks.
I’m quivering with anticipation of next week’s debate. If Palin answers a substantive question beyond “where did you go to high school” the game is up. If she drops off the ticket for some reason, McCain = McGovern. Seems their only option is to make some excuse for her inability to attend… I know! She call call Katie Couric on the phone and tell her “I can’t attend – I have laryngitis! I can’t talk at all! Yup yup!” That would be the capper.
Watching this campaign in operation is like watching a bad disaster movie – we’ve seen so much carnage, but the worst is yet to come…
felicity, they WERE all Bush voters, but the tide has turned. All those guys liked Bush because he was a Christian who would restore honor to the WH after Clinton tainted it with his extra marital wingding.
All of those guys are feeling quite worked over at this time, myself included.
BTW, when I mentioned the Coast Guard in my previous comment, I ment no disrespect, those guys are true heroes in my book, rescue is their business, and they are the pros.
Given the way the post-debate memes are shaping up, I’m beginning to think Obama’s “gentlemanly†strategy may have been smart.
I contemplated this throughout the day, and have come to the same conclusion. We know the McCain campaign will certainly mock “I agree with John” in TV ads, but the flip side of that is Obama, unlike the Republicans, will acknowledge areas of agreement with the other party, rather than reviling them and questioning their patriotism and essential humanity. The general reactions to the debate indicate a lot of “undecided” viewers figured this out long before I did.
Canadian Reader — you didn’t happen to be in Stratford, did you? I’ve been there a couple of times and I try very hard not to come off like an ugly American. With my luck, though, if I were to engage the locals in a political discussion, they’d be ones who love Stephen Harper. I tend to stick to, “Is it always this humid?” and “Your money is so much prettier than ours!”
Let’s look at the math again. Only 27% of viewers were Republican (see CNN website) and 41% were Democrats plus so called Independents were 30% (which we all know is another name for Democrats in hiding). If we give CNN the benefit of the doubt and only count half of the Independents, then CLEARLY JOHN MCCAIN WON THE DEBATE. CNN is simply trying to disseminate their propaganda to brainwash the sheeple of the country. CNN is corrupt.
CNN is corrupt.
Wow, that means CBS, Frank Luntz and Stanley Greenberg are corrupt, too. Who knew?
Wonder what #15 thinks of faux news. If all of the independents are going to vote for Obama, that makes the day a bit brighter.
#3 I often wonder what they will say, if the Christians get to heaven and God says “I sent you hope for tomorrow. I sent a human to lead you by example and with faith into the 21st century.
I sent you someone who loves America and would work for a better future for all, someone who would care for the poor and for the children. I sent you someone that would carefully consider all aspects before making any decision, and you didn’t vote for him because YOU DIDN’T LIKE THE COLOR OF THE SKIN I GAVE HIM?!”
Joanr16,
Actually, it was on the road to Stratford (more or less). I was in St. Jacobs. And you’re right, rural southern Ontario is Stephen Harper country. Yech.
BTW, to the rest of Maha’s readers. Anyone realize (besides Joan) that we’re having an election here too? The bad news is that our version of Bush-lite is set to win a majority government (the parliamentary system allows for minority governments, which we have right now). It’s very depressing.
#18, I never wonder about such things because I’m agnostic, and a secular humanist.What I wonder about on occasion, is how a loving God who knows everything would allow suffering, misery, and warfare, and mostly how people can believe in the possibilities of salvation without acts, but a great many do…..
#20 There’s a lot to be learned in suffering and misery. I suppose there’s some to be learned from warfare too… like we need a pres. that can change minds by talking, not fighting. As for salvation without acts, I do not know. It seems to me people convince themselves that they are doing “right”, or they do “right” in one area and feel like it is okay to slip in another. A religious person I know says “people don’t go to church because they don’t sin, they go because they know they sin and want to be forgiven.” Another religious person I knew gave 10% of everything he got to the church, but he was as mean as a snake much of the time. I can’t say why someone is one way and others are other ways I guess everyone has their own take on what is what.
.