Widely unreported 4th and 5th presidential debates

Now in cardboard and HBO versions!

Johnny McCangry and the Last Debate

On points it was a tie, or at best a small Obama win. Certainly less of a win for him than previous debates.

But that's entirely understandable. Obama let some of McCain's points slide and focused on style and defense.

As usual, Obama won on style. He was cool, calm in control of himself -- everything we've come to expect. He was also boring apart from a small flare in the middle of the debate. But boring is a positive thing at this point: he's well ahead, and his goal is to get people used to him and unafraid.

On that note, he succeeded. Not spectacularly, but safely. No risks. The contrast with McCain's erratic kitchen-sink approach was pretty noticeable. If anyone was still wondering who they'd rather have answering a 3am phone call, this could have decided it.

I imagine that, once again, the polls about who "won" the debate will be more disparate among the public than among pundits. Part of this is that pundits have a financial interest in fomenting the horse-race narative. But they're also more impressed by formalized debate points since it's rude to acknowledge that most of the remaining "undecideds" will choose based on stylistic whims.

So, the style factor is what's going to end up mattering. I don't see many of the few truly undecided voters that are left going towards McCain based on his performance tonight. And that's the key. McCain needed to knock this one out of the park if he was to have any chance. I don't think his spluttering created any waves. In fact, the momentum of the race is almost entirely unaffected -- people are still left disliking McCain's negative attitude:


Since there was no momentum shift, going forward independents are going to keep trickling towards Obama at the same rate. If this keeps up till November, we're in landslide territory. I put Obama's lowball EVs at 320. The chances of a landslide (375+ EVs) stay 50-50.

From now on the McCain campaign will be acting like a cornered animal and is capable of anything.

Pre-debate warmup

Take Ya' Jacket Off

I laughed. Original here.

Seriously, no man can remove a jacket that quickly. That was like Waco Kid-level jacket removal. If a man can remove a jacket that quickly he is more than qualified to step in and serve in this nation's highest office, in TPMtv's humble estimation.

Unfair criticism

Because, perversely, they have sadly become so rare, I feel it worth pointing out a criticism of McCain that is actually unfair.

Here's the post, which I'll quote in full:

McCain: If I Bring Up Ayers At Debate, It Will Be Obama's Fault

In an interview that John McCain gave to local radio in St. Louis, McCain says that he was "astonished" to hear Barack Obama say recently that he was reluctant to bring up Ayers to Obama's face, and promises that he'll raise the subject at tomorrow's debate.

The key news in the interview -- which was flagged by Mark Halperin and which you can listen to here -- is that McCain is already laying the groundwork to blame Obama for his apparent decision to confront Obama over Ayers tomorrow.

Asked by his radio host if he'll bring up the former Weatherman, McCain says:

"Oh, yeah. Y'know, I was astonished to hear him say that he was surprised for me to have the guts to do that, because the fact is that the question didn't come up in that fashion. So, y'know, and I think he's probably ensured that it will come up this time. And, look Mark, it's not that I give a damn about some old washed-up terrorist..."

It's Obama who has "probably ensured" that McCain will bring up Ayers. What's so lovely about this is that McCain is now portraying his apparent decision to hit on the Ayers association as driven by a need to defend his honor.

You see, McCain wouldn't have brought it up, but Obama questioned his manhood, so he's now forced to overcome his reluctance to talk about Ayers in order to defend himself. It's the old warrior's code that's making him do it.

The headline and the conclusions here are unfair. It's indisputable that in accusing McCain of not speaking criticism to Obama's face, the Obama campaign has invited that it happen. So, yes, as McCain says, the question is likely to come up. Whether McCain raises it himself or whether the moderator will pose the question about Ayers to them directly, I don't know. But the Obama campaign's response has made it pretty likely that we're going to hear them speak about Ayers at tomorrow's debate, and there's nothing wrong McCain pointing out this reality.

Bottom line: don't accuse someone of being unwilling to say something to your face if it's going to bother you when they address the point the next time you see them.

I imagine the Obama campaign understands this and has a good rejoinder.

No comedy

Me a few days ago, responding to Ambers:

BTW: A helluva week for Sarah Palin to debate, huh?

Omigosh! Not just Sarah, but Biden! This debate and its aftermath will be comedy gold.

I was dead wrong about that; no comedy whatsoever -- unless you count chirpy ramblings, but I was not amused.

UPDATE: Wilkinson has the comedy. Great stuff!


Rich Lowry:

I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.

Actual quote.

Veep reax

Ambers:

To practiced ears, Palin memorized and repeated talking points and Biden responded to the questions and argued. Palin dodged questions and seemed vague; but then again, for those whose only impression of Palin has been the one Tina Fay performed on Saturday Night Live, she cleared the bar. Biden seemed a little unsure how tough to be at the beginning of the debate; by the beginning of the final third, he hit his stride. As the debate wound on, Palin seemed less agile when it came to constructing sentences and answers. Lots of key phrases, weird placement of conjunctions, so the gist of what she was saying was there, but it wasn't terribly clear.

Sullivan reader:

The closing statements are about to wrap. I have been watching your comments and have reached the same conclusion. Palin caught Biden off guard by coming off as a pretty competent debater (facts aside). Once Biden realized that he was facing a real opponent and became less afraid to fight back, he cleaned her clock. They sent Biden in with a muzzle. Thank goodness he was smart enough to know when to take it off.

Another such reader:

Two things immediately jump out as memorable. Biden ruled on the VP question, absolutely ruled, and she was clueless. And his breakdown in talking about his son almost dying was even more poignant because of her immediate, insensitive, complete disregard for what had been a genuine moment.

Ben Smith:

My quick take is that Palin passed a pass-fail test, though she flagged as the debate went on. Though she was chosen for her emotion connection, she was the drier of the two candidates. But if the central worry was that she'd be a drag on the ticket, she likely returned herself to the same status as Biden and every other running mate in memory: Not, ultimately, a major factor at the polls.

Crowley:

I think Palin is giving a cosmetically strong performance so far, but on the substance it's a horrorshow.

Meanwhile, note her extremely heavy reliance on notes--up to three or more glances per answer. At moments during her Afghanistan exchange she seemed to be reading directly from them.

Josh Marshall:

We were just talking about why Palin did better tonight than she did in her interviews. I think it's actually very simple. No follow ups. It's not a criticism of Gwen Ifill. It wasn't the format she was supposed to work with. But if you look at Palin's interview trainwrecks things always got bad on the follow up -- when the interviewer (Gibson or Couric) pressed her on the nebulous answer for some specifics, which she couldn't provide. That's the difference.

Ramesh Ponnuru:

The big loser tonight was Tina Fey.

Philip Primeau:

Let's be honest: Palin only held her ground tonight because Biden let her do so. He was afraid a hard charge might backfire, so he kept his engines at 50%, max. Even so, on every substantive issue he champed her, and rhetorically there was no comparison. They should've invoked the mercy rule half-way through.

Ross Douthat:

He didn't need to wipe the floor with her in order to win, and he wisely didn't try; he just needed to sound more authoritative, nuanced, and experienced than her, to hammer away at John McCain, and to generally play defense for a ticket that's on its way to victory at the moment. And I think he succeeded. The Democrats have a lot of built-in advantages in this election cycle, and judging by the public's reaction to the first debate, the key to victory for Obama-Biden is to do no harm - don't squander your advantages, don't freak out when the Republicans score their points on the surge and offshore drilling, and just be sure to always nudge the conversation back to the economy, to middle-class tax cuts versus tax cuts for the rich, to health care, and to George W. Bush's record. So while Sarah Palin did an awful lot for Sarah Palin tonight, there was only so much she could do for her running mate - given her own limits, but especially given the state of the country, and the gulf between the issues the McCain campaign wants to fight on and the issues voters care about. She's saved herself from Quayle-dom, but Obama-Biden is one debate closer to victory.

Greg Sargent:

a better way to decide who "won" tonight is this: Which Veep candidate most forcefully made the case against the opposing presidential candidate?

By that standard, the winner by that measure was unquestionably Joe Biden. He made a far stronger case against John McCain than Sarah Palin did against Barack Obama. It wasn't even close.

Nate Silver:

Palin's largest problem, to my eyes, is that she was tangibly nervous for most of the debate, rushing through talking points and canned jokes alike with unsually little inflection. I doubt that this will impact her favorables much -- in fact, it seems likely that her favroables will improve.

The McCain campaign did not opt, in the end, for Sarah Barracuda. They wanted
Palin scripted, and in some cases she seemed to have her lines literally memorized. This was the more risk-averse choice, but provided for few genuine moments of spontaneity.

...It also allowed Joe Biden to get a lot of free shots in at John McCain, several of which were quite effective.

...I suspect that the Sarah Palin chapter of the campaign is largely over. She may draw large crowds in her next couple of public appearances; it's also not out of the question that the media will sour on her performance in the forthcoming days, once it's been removed somewhat from her safety net of low expectations. But after that, she may largely fade into the background, and if she is making news, it may not be for reasons the McCain campaign likes.

At the end of the day, this is another missed opportunity for the McCain campaign, a fact which is only betrayed by conservative commentators' hyperbolic attempts to spin to the contrary But McCain may well have been willing to take that settlement ahead of time, figuring they had more to lose tonight than to gain.

M.J. Rosenberg

I always liked Joe Biden but, I'll admit it, I worried about how he would do in the debate with Palin.

It was a difficult situation. It was imperative that he give the Republicans no openings at all to portray him as condescending, arrogant, sexist or a bloviator.

He gave them none.

In a way, Obama's task is easier. McCain is simply not likable. Palin is. And she's a woman. And she's a mom. And she is "one of the people" while Joe has been a senator since he was 30.

It would have been easy for Biden to blow it. He didn't. After two suck-up Vice-Presidential nominees in a row, we, at long last, had a real fighting Democrat. What a change after '00 and '04.

Joe Biden made me proud. Of him and of Barack Obama (not that I wasn't proud already).

angelslay:

I have to give credit to Palin and her advisers of being able to come up with a way to completely dodge questions and avoid discussing topics she has no idea about. Just use "Let's get back to (previous topic)" and just avoid the question altogether. Never did I believe she understood what she was even talking about. Don't understand a topic, insert "John McCain is a maverick that went against his own party," "Obama wants to increase taxes," or wink at the camera to distract the viewers from what is actually being said. Here we have candidate for the second highest position in the country, coming off as folksy and talking to us like we are a child. Can she be any less presidential? We don't need someone who could ad-lib their way through a debate and call it a success. This country deserves better than this.

Meh debate

==First half==

Palin wins on early style, I think she seemed much more appealing than in those interviews in which she couldn't anticipate the questions.

But Biden wins on substance, i.e. if you just read the debate transcripts of the first half and don't watch the video.

However, the threshold for both these "wins" really wasn't good: the other person just did even worse, some cases much worse.

So overall, a pretty unimpressive first half.

==Second half==

Biden established his footing and clearly won several rounds in the third quarter. However, it wore off towards the fourth and they both became "meh" for a bit again.

LOL, she wants to preside over the Senate? Goodness gracious, no one wants to do that, all you get to do is listen unless there is a 50-50 tie.

I loved Biden's answer on Cheney. As I've said from the start, he is the anti-Cheney and one who will restore honor to the office.

I think Palin is coming off way too folksy now. She lost the severity that she had in the first half, which was much more appealing to me.

Biden's "I understand, I understand" speech about being a single parent worrying about his kids was very, very moving...Palin's chirpy follow-up about McCain's accomplishment was incredibly tone-deaf, it was if she hadn't listened to a word he was saying.



Indeed, throughout the night it was clear from watching CNN's ticker that the more Palin spoke about McCain, the less people liked what she was saying. It bodes pretty bad for the election when you are incapable of building up enthusiasm for your own running mate.

Joe Biden, basically: "Everyone is sent here for a reason, don't question their motive, question their actions." Well-delivered.

Palin: Rambling chirpiness about clear choices, I couldn't make heads or tails of it.

Palin's closing: Invocation of Reagan, but of course, that went over well. I'm not sure what she said mattered substantively, but it sounded good, and must have been effective for some.

Biden's closing: Started dull, invoked change which of course plays well, but delivery was underwhelming. He could have done much better and been more enthusiastic and rousing for change in his closing. A lost opportunity, I think, but it was probably Sarah's presence that kept him low-key. He didn't want to appear unstable.

==Conclusion==

How this will play in the polls I'm not sure. Palin's folksy appeal may put some life back into her ticket, but I'm skeptical. I know it doesn't move me given what I know about her off-script incompetence. (did you notice how many of her answers were just being read off notecards, especially the foreign policy?)

Biden I can't help being somewhat excited for. He's uneven as a debater, but I think he'll be great in too many ways to list as the anti-Cheney who repairs foreign relations for the better instead of destroying them as Cheney did.

even yet another debate prediction

Sullivan cites Anonymous Liberal:

What made the Couric interviews so devastating was Couric's tendency (which is actually rare among reporters) to ask follow up questions when she got a non-responsive answer. When Palin would filibuster, Couric would repeat the question or press her for specifics. That's what elicited her most embarrassing responses. But the format of the debate won't allow for those kind of follow up questions.

Palin can be as non-responsive as she pleases. Moreover, on at least half the questions, Biden will have to answer first, which will give Palin time to think about her answer and allow her to build off whatever Biden says. And finally, the questions aren't likely to be out of left field. There's a lot of ground to cover and not much time to do it, so it's very likely that all of the questions she'll be asked will have been anticipated by her coaches and she'll have set answers ready.

I think that's about right. I also think Couric's "gentle mauling" of Palin may go down in history as the highlight of her career.

Debates aren't a good way to get a sense of the candidates on their own merit. What they are decent for is seeing them side-by side for comparison & contrast.

But you don't audition for a presidential-level job by giving a good debate performance or indeed a good convention speech. You audition by demonstrating to voters that you have a clear enough grasp of the issues and how to perform the job. The rest is just a popularity & ideology contest.

Do you want ice with that elixir?

Andy McCarthy:

A few examples. Obviously the current flap of Gwen Ifill, Tom Brokaw, Jim Lehrer as moderators for presidential debates but never an O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh or Brit Hume. Why not?

Hume might have enough credibiity. But O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh? Partisan hacks all, just like MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Hugh Hewitt of talk radio. Look what Hewitt said today:

"[Palin's] interview with me was elixir for the base."

An elixir? I guess that's what we're calling the Kool-Aid now.

To suggest that Ifill is in that category seems unlikely to me, but I don't know her well enough to be certain. We'll see tonight, won't we?

Expectations game

Ambers makes a list:

There is no single expectation level for Palin to meet tonight. There are, quite obviously, a half dozen different levels corresponding to the difference audiences.

The American public wants to know whether Gov. Palin has the stature to stand on the world stage with Biden, Obama and McCain, that she is not manifestly different; that she is exceptional.

Unengaged liberal Democrats are waiting for her to drag her knuckles across the stage.

Engaged liberal Democrats expect her to emote and preen, to be folksy and rural, to avoid substance.

In the McCain campaign: frankly, expectations are high -- perhaps nowhere higher. The weight of the world is on Gov. Palin; she needs to avoid mistakes, challenge Sen. Biden, help to turn the narrative of the race back to Barack Obama, and to recapture her public image.

The media -- well, various different elements are watching for different things. Some, let's be honest, expect a knuckle-dragger too, but others will give her the win if she avoids major errors and finds a way to rise above her talking points.

The Obama campaign believes that the expectations game is absurd. Joe Biden cannot be mean, but he can't be nice, because that would be sexist too. He can't be too senatorial, but he can't be too regular, etc. Aides expect Joe Biden to do just fine.

Professional conservatives hope that Palin comes off as minimally competent.

Most of us fall in the first camp as well as others. I am "engaged" and almost certainly voting Democrat this year, so it's fitting that for her to "emote and preen, be folksy and rural, avoid substance" suits my own expectations exactly right.

That said, I also think the Obama campaign is correct to view the "expectations game" for Biden as absurd, and that the McCain people's high hopes won't pan out.

Of course that doesn't mean they'll admit they were dashed: I fully expect to hear things like "She performed strong, she connected with the American people, she showed that she is a reform leader who will bring change to Washington", etc. etc, even if it's bullcrap.

No distractions

Politico previews Biden’s likely strategy when he faces Palin at the debate:

If Sarah Palin goofs, flounders, stumbles or blunders during her debate against Joe Biden on Thursday night, Biden is going to let it slide.

“If she makes a gaffe, he underplays it,” one of the people prepping Biden for his vice presidential debate told me. “At most, he says, ‘I am not sure what Gov. Palin meant there.’”

...

“Joe Biden’s No. 1 job during the vice presidential debate is to keep the focus on the top of the ticket,” the Biden debate prepper told me. “He is going to keep the focus on John McCain.”

I now think the veep debate is going to matter squat given the economic climate we find ourselves in and what Palin, McCain, and Republicans have done to discredit themselves elsewhere.

But naturally there's no cause to take things for granted. And as I was saying earlier, attacking McCain while courteously ignoring Palin is the proper thing to do.

The next debate II

Fallows sees a looming problem for Biden. I have a prescription.

Fair and Balanced watch II

Sean Hannity: book knowledge is bad. Four more years!

And arguing with Morris about who won? Pfft. He's wrong:

Forget the top-line numbers -- note that the poll "indicated that the younger, less-experienced Obama has made strides since last week in convincing Americans that he can handle the toughest challenges facing the country, including the economy and international affairs. Obama was seen as more "presidential" by 46% of the debate watchers, compared with 33% for McCain. The difference is even more pronounced among debate watchers who were not firmly committed to a candidate: 44% said they believed Obama looked more presidential, whereas 16% gave McCain the advantage."

Not a single post-debate poll gave the advantage to Sen. McCain.

Even the Fox News poll and Fox News focus group gave it to Obama by a good margin. My take was here and here.

Strategy v. tactics

I posted a clip of Biden spinning Friday night and commented on Palin's absence.

One of the things Biden hit McCain on is his lack of understanding that the surge was not a strategy, and his misguided lecture to Obama.

Fallows posts an email from a career Army colonel who explains the issue.

Mid-sunday roundup

FactCheck.org: Facts muddled in Mississippi McCain-Obama meeting

CNN: McCain vs. Palin on Pakistan

CBS: Obama on Palin

Fareed Zakaria: Please put Palin out of her agony

I too want Palin to go "spend more time with her family". Or indeed do anything besides frightening us with the possibility of being president.

In other news, on Kos' net favorability trend Obama reaches another new high of +27 (!!) and Palin is at a new low of -10.

The whole debate

More debate axing

Wilkinson and IOZ are scared of both:

Obama terrifies me: an intelligent, thoughtful, well-prepared, capably extemporaneous man ascribing a future holocaust to some sort of non-existent, fantastical, steroidal Iran; talking about unsanctioned cross-border incursions into Pakistan because we found bin Laden, or some such, and must "take him out"; warbling around about "main street" while, in a lawerly, circumlocutory way signaling that he’s ultimately going to get behind hundred-billion-dollar cash bailouts to institutions that ought to be dismantled, destroyed, scattered to the wind. He wants GM to make electric cars. He wants the American people to know that he will appear before them to make extravagant xenophobic declarations in order to assuage their insecurity about the rise of other competing economies. He does this all in a calm, perfectly reasonable manner, with a convincing boardroom demeanor, and judging by the reactions of my liberal friends, with whom I listened, this was basically pleasing to them.

McCain is of course out of his mind: forgetful, vicious, reactionary. And his ideas are even crazier than BO’s, but there’s a certain comfort in the fact that their insanity is laid so plainly and mercilessly bare by the grinning psychopath’s delivery. He provides no quarter for those who want to convince themselves that by Killing People for Their Own Good we are not actually killing them, or that by suborning corporate malfeasance we are combating it, or that by desperately seeking to maintain the geography of radial sprawl and the automobile we are seeking "energy independence."

Shorter version:

Barack Obama: warmonger and xenophobe who pleased liberals with such talk (!!)

John McCain: psychopathic, vicious, reactionary.

If you analyze the debate literally, you can come to some of those conclusions, but they are not very telling.

To the degree to which Obama may be characterized as a xeonophobic hawk, liberals are pleased because that's what you have to do to get elected in this country. Kerry was more hawkish than Obama, but he tried to hide it. He dissembled. People didn't feel safe voting for him. They didn't feel like he would "protect" them enough from those evil terrorists, and it cost Kerry the election even though he was obviously much more intelligent than Bush and "won" their debates handily on the substance.

McCain I'm not so sure what to say about because we can no longer be sure who the real McCain is. He does strike me as a hysterical reactionary, but psychopathic? Nah. He's just very sure he's right, even when he's wrong, just like George W. Bush and all the neocons.

Remember in this debate McCain jested about Obama that it is "hard to reach across the aisle when you're so far to the left". Obama is said to have one of the most "liberal" voting records in the Senate. If you read NRO's corner, neocons are desperately trying to paint him as an extreme liberal in order to scare centrists away from voting for him.

So Obama is an extreme leftist warmonger? Come on. That doesn't make any sense in U.S. politics.

Here's what's really going on: Obama is a student of Kerry and Gore's defeats and has learned from them. He realizes the American people need a touch of xenophobia and hawkishness in order to feel safe. So he's talking the talk in these debates, and doing an excellent job if flash polls are any indicator.

About the voting record: Obama is the junior democratic Senator from Illinois. He did not come to the Senate to make legislative waves in his first term. Not yet. If he loses this election and gets some seniority, he'll make a few waves. But as the newcomer that he was, it was not his place to vote against the rest of the democratic party. Had he done so, HRC would have destroyed him in the primaries.

If you put this together, you'll see that the "real" Obama lies somewhere in between. Combine that with his intelligence and pragmatism, and you can be reasonably confident that he's not going to blow up Pakistan, bog us down in a new Afghanistan quagmire, or create vast new socialist programs. Give the man some credit, he's obviously way smarter then that.

McCain I don't know what to say about other than he is hysterical, unpredictable, and capable of going off in many different directions except for a few core issues that define him. This is the essence of being a maverick. With the way he has conducted his campaign -- back to and including the selection of Mrs. Nonsense -- I would not feel at all comfortable with him in the White House, but we'll see what voters think...

The highlights

The next debate

Jen:

The VP debate is worrisome as expectations are so low for Palin and there is an assumption after the Couric interview that Biden will wipe the floor with her. Anything other than Biden being really nice while annihilating her will be seen as a Palin "win" or holding the line.

DTM:

Watching Biden tonight it dawned on me that this is what we are going to see in the VP debate: Biden hammering McCain. But in that instance, Palin is going to have no choice but to do something in response. Should be interesting.

I think DTM is right, that's exactly what Biden should do. He should be courteous to Palin but hammer home all the problems with McCain.

Palin can say whatever the hell she wants. Maybe she'll look a fool, or maybe she'll say some coherent things, or maybe not, but it really doesn't matter what she says.

It's beneath Biden to address her. He's a statesman who should focus on McCain, as that's the proper role of a veep in these debates. Palin's role in this campaign is to be a distraction. Sean Quinn had a great post back on 6 September.

Sarah can dis Obama by disparaging community organizing and so on, as during the republican convention. But it won't matter at this point, people have seen Obama and are past those shenanigans.

And remember, he has 2 debates with McCain to go. Palin is no threat to him, nothing she says can possibly stick unless Biden screws something up.

From the Department of Absolutism

McCain attacks his opponent for agreeing about points during a debate:



This defies understanding. What was Obama supposed to do, disagree with every single point McCain made?

McCain never said Obama was right about anything, even though he surely thought so at times. Apparently in order to be "Ready To Lead" you must never, ever admit your opponent is ever right about anything. This is the neocon philosophy of conflict...be it in campaigns, debates, or international diplomacy.

UPDATE, Sullivan chimes in:

This ad, released during the debate, gets razzed by Ezra Klein, Hilzoy, and Jonathan Cohn. Its premise is one of the saddest aspects of our current politics. According to McCain, a man able to concede in an argument where the other guy has a point is thereby proving he cannot lead. Do we really need more politicians unable to be graceful to their opponents at times? Is that really what leadership is? Haven't we already had eight years of that?