Debate Recap

Well, everyone's talking about the debate. Who won? Whose debate was it to lose? How much does it matter? Everyone has an opinion. I'm sure you're all just dying to know what I think.

Not surprisingly, I disagree with much of what I've been reading. As usual, my take is a little different (although to be honest I didn't see the entire debate). During the RNC convention, the conventional wisdom was that Zell Miller's speech was the Big Event; I saw Cheney's speech as the more meaningful and substantive. Most of the reaction I saw to Bush's speech was that it was too long and too boring (i.e., not a success), but on balance it wore well with voters and he came out of the convention with a huge bounce.

I think there are always two reactions to televised events like these: the immediate reaction (which is ephemeral and usually unreliable) and the more long-term one, which takes some time to become apparent. I think people need time to synthesize what they see and hear; to compare what they think with what others have to say, and sometimes just to absorb and evaluate. And it's only then that the true picture starts to emerge.

While watching a speech or debate, often we're distracted by surface impressions: hand gestures, nervous tics, a facility with language that glosses over the complete absence of substance. We also inject our own hopes and fears into the event. It's only later that we draw back and analyze more dispassionately; with the surface distractions out of the way, the finer details begin to emerge.

I was pleased to see this morning to see Howard Fineman saying something similar (otherwise I would have had to make something up):

Sometimes you see a candidacy collapse before your eyes on the television monitor in the press room of a presidential debate. At the first one I covered — at UCLA in 1988 — I watched Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts lose what little chance he had of beating Vice President George Bush.

Bernie Shaw of CNN, a gritty guy who could come at you from weird angles, asked the rather nerdy Dukakis what he would do if he learned that his wife had been raped and murdered. Rather than saying that he would exact bloody vengeance, Dukakis plunged into a monologue about the need to convene a hemispheric summit on drug abuse. I was a few seats away from Tom Oliphant, the mordantly witty reporter for Dukakis' hometown paper, The Boston Globe. "Say goodnight, Mike," Oliphant declared, and lay his head on the table.

It isn't usually that simple. Pivotal moments aren't usually apparent at first glance. They are like an old-fashioned photographic print in a chemical bath; they take time to emerge. Often there isn't a pivotal moment, even a hidden one, so it takes even longer for the press to invent one outright, since drama is what we live on. In 2000, at UMass in Boston, I went on MSNBC after the first Gore-Bush debate and said I thought that Bush had "won" it by not losing it. I was right, as it turned out, but I did not get the real news — which, it became clear after a day or two, was all about The Gore Sigh.

The point is: Without a "say goodnight, Mike" moment, we may not know who "won" tonight's debate until a day or two later.

I'm not sure we saw a "say goodnight, Mike" moment last night.

On balance, Kerry was, as expected, more polished as a debater. Was this really a surprise to anyone? As I said in the comments section last night, I'm not sure voters were expecting George Bush to suddenly morph into Stephen Douglas - he was the man they've known for four years: stubborn, resolute, staying on message, sometimes tongue-tied, but ultimately unshakeable in his convictions. If anyone expected soaring flights of rhetoric from him, all I can say is that perhaps they're from one of those states where the medical-grade marijuana is really primo.

In other words, no surprises here.

Kerry, on the other hand, did better than many expected. He was polished. I have to say I found him ultimately very unconvincing, but I expect that's just me. His answers were vague and made very little sense. At times he, too, stumbled. I thought Bush scored major points on him several times in the substance department. Bush's verbal infacility detracted somewhat from his rhetorical points, just as Kerry's smoothness glossed over his lack of substance and logic. At least initially, Kerry helped himself slightly and Bush probably hurt himself slightly.

An oft-overlooked point: many voters are ill-informed and are swayed more by character than by the issues. For them, likeability is the key:

In the weeks and days leading up to tonight’s debate, every pundit has had an opinion on what the candidates needed to do in the debates. For Kerry, the conventional wisdom was that he needed to prove that he was not a flip-flopper and enunciate a clear vision on the important issues of the day.

True enough. But the biggest hump for Kerry to get over tonight is the likeability hump. Kerry needs to prove that he is not the officious, stentorian bore peddling snooze-inducing and confusing bromides, as his Republican opponents have worked so hard to portray him.

This is not to say issues don’t matter. They do. But the Bush attacks on Kerry have been devastatingly effective because even the issues campaign has been based on personality and character issues. Has Bush -- who continues to get sub-50 percent ratings on his handling of Iraq and the economy -- moved ahead of Kerry in the polls because he has articulated better positions on the biggest issues, or because he has convinced people that the flip-flopping Kerry will say whatever’s politically expedient at the moment?

So where does that leave us? Time. How will this wear with time?

Once the gloss of the debate wears off, once people have time to think about Kerry's message and Bush's message, and the impressions left by both candidates, what do you think the result will be?

I believe the bonus points gained by Kerry's smoothness will prove somewhat illusory. That sort of thing wears off quickly once people start to think about what he really said. They begin to recall his past flip-flops. That's the missing piece as you watch the debate - you temporarily forget the candidate's record - but it's only a temporary effect. This helps Kerry initially, since his record brings flip-flops to mind.

I think any initial dismay over Bush's verbal stumblings will likewise prove short-lived. With time, people are reminded that he's been President for four years now. We don't pay the man to talk - we pay him to act. And in that department, I believe he wins hands-down over John Kerry. His record is solid. He's been tested and had shown himself capable.

Tactically, Kerry had a big burden going into the debates: behind in the polls, he needed to score a decisive victory. I didn't see that happen last night. As the challenger to an incumbent President during a war, he needed to make the case that things are so bad voters need to "throw the bum out". Again, I didn't see that happen. Nor did I see him articulate a coherent vision of how he would succeed where he says Bush has failed.

As with the convention speeches, most people went into the debates with their minds already made up: they're rooting for their candidate. I don't think this one night will change many votes, one way or another. And we have two debates yet to come.

UPDATE: Since I rudely went to a party and missed a lot of the debate (I watched a lot of it afterwards on re-plays), the following folks live-blogged it:

John Hawkins' take: Neither candidate really said anything new to people who have been following the campaign closely, no one made any major mistakes, or scored any big points.

Ed Morrissey: (he surprised me!) I don't think either man did badly, although I think that Bush mauled Kerry about the "coerced and bribed" remark and Lockhart's "Allawi is a puppet". Also, his in-debate reversal on whether invading Iraq is a mistake will get some play. I'd give the edge to Bush, but you know I'm biased.

McQ: I thought John Kerry did well in tonight’s debate. He was well rehearsed, relaxed and pretty clear for John Kerry. Bush was Bush. What you saw was what you got ... but then, that’s one of his strengths.
My gut feeling is the race is going to tighten as a result of tonight.

James Joyner has a nice summary where you can pick up pretty much everyone else who ever live-blogged the debate. "Overall, Kerry was more polished than Bush. We never saw the charming, congenial side of Bush that connects so well with people. We never saw that side of Kerry, but then we never have. I'm not sure at this point who will come away "the winner." It was, though, one of the duller of these debates I can recall. "

Dale Franks: Kerry, I think, did very well tonight. He was much clearer and more focused than he usually is. He did a good job of hitting on what he perceives to be the weak points of the Bush Administration’s conduct of foreign policy.Bush, on the other hand, did a good job of pointing out the inconsistencies of Kerry’s stand on Iraq, and the difficulty of building coalitions with people that you’ve insulted. I think picking a clear winner in this one is very difficult if you’re an undecided voter, and you’ll choose based on your basic political leanings.

UPDATE II: Dean Esmay: Gallup's post-debate numbers for Kerry are terrible. Yes, 57% say he "won" the debate. But look more closely at the numbers further below that assessment.....by taking risks, Kerry opened up areas Bush can exploit over the next few days, while Bush took no risks at all and just hammered home two or three messages people will remember.. [Note: this is a thought I had last night too ] I'm moving even now from thinking it's a minor win for Kerry to thinking it's just a question of whether this is a minor win for Bush, or a huge one.

- Cassandra