Two words: Remarkably unremarkable.
The debate exposed no real new information and produced no memorable moments. Granted, this was only the first of three debates, but looking back at past debate series, there was almost always one line or moment that ended up becoming the story of the debates.
In 2000, the debates were defined by Gore's sighs and intrusion into Bush's personal space, as well as his tendency to exaggerate. Interestingly enough, there were also no memorable moments from the debates in 1996. They were entirely unremarkable as well.
The story of the debates in 1992 was Bush's glance at his watch. In 1988, everybody was talking about Dukakis' miserable response to a question about the death penalty. In 1984, the memorable moment came from Reagan when he stated that he would not exploit for political gain his opponent's youth and inexperience. In 1980, we had "There you go again." And in 1976, Ford's statement that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet control arguably led to his defeat.
Last night's debate was if nothing else, completely unmemorable. There were no real zingers. Bush needed to go into to the debate and not screw-up. Mission accomplished. Kerry had to look presidential. Mission accomplished.
However, Kerry also needed to use the debate to change the dynamics of the race, and I think he failed, partly due to the fact that 1) there were no memorable moments, and 2) he did not present a clear, consistent plan on Iraq. All this talk of style and substance, about who made the best points with the most factoids, misses the point.
I have no doubt that when it comes to debate "points," Kerry came out with the most. Presidential debates, however, are not about scoring points, they are about communication, and there is a huge difference between being a good speaker and being an effective communicator. Kerry is more of the former, whereas Bush is more of the latter. Clinton and Reagan were both.
Bush was relentlessly "on message," avoiding several different chances to take the bait from Kerry and thus move off message (as a Bush supporter, I would've been more emotionally validated if Bush had attacked Kerry on a number of his statements, but that would have been counter-productive), while Kerry seemed to be more focused on scoring points on individual responses. Kerry had more of a "micro" strategy, whereas Bush appeared to have more of a "macro" strategy.
Kerry needed last night to be the equivalent of the GOP convention. The GOP convention fundamentally shifted the campaign from a referendum on Bush to a referendum on Kerry. That convention eviscerated Kerry's polling internals (views of a candidate's characteristics as opposed to who people plan on voting for), and Kerry has to either vastly improve his standings in those internals or significantly bring down Bush's internals before he has any chance of significantly moving voters. Nothing about last evening's debate will move either candidate's internals significantly in either direction.
One of the more annoying things about being a political junky is the need for instant gratification, but we really won't see that in the form of reliable polls until Thursday or Friday of next week. You generally need 3-4 weekdays of post-event polling before you can get an accurate gauge of any event's impact. Anecdotally, Kerry's main accomplishment appears to be the heartening of his base after an unquestionably dismal 2 months. Whether that effect will be both lasting and significant is yet to be seen.
The outcome of this election is incredibly sensitive to external events that are completely out of the control of both candidates and their campaigns. In total, this race is, has been, and will remain incredibly close, and last night's debate did nothing to change that prognosis.
The debate exposed no real new information and produced no memorable moments. Granted, this was only the first of three debates, but looking back at past debate series, there was almost always one line or moment that ended up becoming the story of the debates.
In 2000, the debates were defined by Gore's sighs and intrusion into Bush's personal space, as well as his tendency to exaggerate. Interestingly enough, there were also no memorable moments from the debates in 1996. They were entirely unremarkable as well.
The story of the debates in 1992 was Bush's glance at his watch. In 1988, everybody was talking about Dukakis' miserable response to a question about the death penalty. In 1984, the memorable moment came from Reagan when he stated that he would not exploit for political gain his opponent's youth and inexperience. In 1980, we had "There you go again." And in 1976, Ford's statement that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet control arguably led to his defeat.
Last night's debate was if nothing else, completely unmemorable. There were no real zingers. Bush needed to go into to the debate and not screw-up. Mission accomplished. Kerry had to look presidential. Mission accomplished.
However, Kerry also needed to use the debate to change the dynamics of the race, and I think he failed, partly due to the fact that 1) there were no memorable moments, and 2) he did not present a clear, consistent plan on Iraq. All this talk of style and substance, about who made the best points with the most factoids, misses the point.
I have no doubt that when it comes to debate "points," Kerry came out with the most. Presidential debates, however, are not about scoring points, they are about communication, and there is a huge difference between being a good speaker and being an effective communicator. Kerry is more of the former, whereas Bush is more of the latter. Clinton and Reagan were both.
Bush was relentlessly "on message," avoiding several different chances to take the bait from Kerry and thus move off message (as a Bush supporter, I would've been more emotionally validated if Bush had attacked Kerry on a number of his statements, but that would have been counter-productive), while Kerry seemed to be more focused on scoring points on individual responses. Kerry had more of a "micro" strategy, whereas Bush appeared to have more of a "macro" strategy.
Kerry needed last night to be the equivalent of the GOP convention. The GOP convention fundamentally shifted the campaign from a referendum on Bush to a referendum on Kerry. That convention eviscerated Kerry's polling internals (views of a candidate's characteristics as opposed to who people plan on voting for), and Kerry has to either vastly improve his standings in those internals or significantly bring down Bush's internals before he has any chance of significantly moving voters. Nothing about last evening's debate will move either candidate's internals significantly in either direction.
One of the more annoying things about being a political junky is the need for instant gratification, but we really won't see that in the form of reliable polls until Thursday or Friday of next week. You generally need 3-4 weekdays of post-event polling before you can get an accurate gauge of any event's impact. Anecdotally, Kerry's main accomplishment appears to be the heartening of his base after an unquestionably dismal 2 months. Whether that effect will be both lasting and significant is yet to be seen.
The outcome of this election is incredibly sensitive to external events that are completely out of the control of both candidates and their campaigns. In total, this race is, has been, and will remain incredibly close, and last night's debate did nothing to change that prognosis.
