IMO there's a general consensus that when determining who "won" a debate you must first consider expectations. With the current economic meltdown, all polls reflect a moderate Obama lead of between 3-7 points. The Palin bounce is gone, the Iraq war is no longer front page news, and all trends are pointing in Obama's direction.
Given this, the two candidates' goals for the debate were:
A. Obama: to make no major gaffes, to convince voters he's sober and competent at foreign affairs, and to appear presidential.
B. McCain: to convince voters Obama is too risky both on economics and as Commander in Chief during time of war. McCain needed a knock-down (if not a knock-out) punch in this debate.
Given these preconditions, I can only believe that Obama "won" this debate. Here's a breakdown of how I saw each candidate's strengths/weaknesses:
Obama strengths:
-Best debate yet in terms of eliminating stammering, avoiding "you know", and making his answers more decisive and concise.
-Hammered home his tax cut proposals and displayed understanding of middle class woes.
-Excellent command of foreign policy issues. His positions are debatable, but he had the detail.
Obama weaknesses:
- His economic promises are absurd in view of the current economic meltdown. He wouldn't back off on a single major program and still promised tax cuts to 95% of Americans.
-Explanation of previous gaffes (invading Pakistan to get Bin Laden, and sitting down with Korea/Iran/Cuba without preconditions) was unconvincing.
McCain strengths:
-Decent job of linking explaining how previous Obama foreign policy gaffes make Obama unduly risky in time of war.
-Had one of his better debates in terms of displaying passion and making clear, concise statements.
McCain weaknesses:
-Looked twitchy and agitated. Couldn't stand still while Obama was talking. Failure to look at, and talk directly to Obama made him seem petulant.
-Incomprehensibly he did not drive home the pandering and unrealistic nature of Obama's tax cut promises, and the devastating effect Obama's tax hike proposals will have on an already reeling economy.
-Surprisingly, he said he'd vote for the economic bailout plan. Missed a major opportunity in not rejecting the plan and tagging Obama with supporting "welfare" of $700B for Wall Street incompetents/hucksters.
So, if things stay the same, I predict Obama will win a fairly easy victory in November. McCain must hope for some fundamental change in the equation, must hope that young voters and all the newly registered Dems stay home, hope his Base remains energized and turns out in record numbers, and hope for the "black tax" (those white voters who, at the last minute, simply won't vote for a black).
And Obama? All he needs to do is avoid major gaffes, continue to provide specifics on policy, and continue to present himself as a pleasant, intelligent, safe choice.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Excellent review, John. I differ with you on only one point: as much as I would like to see Wall Street eat their mistakes - and as much as I admired McCain's initial stance against the bailout, I'm not sure that it can happen. Michael Hudson, an economist who works for Rep. Dennis Kucinich, has insisted that there be no bailout. He said that the bailout will prevent the banks who "cooked the books" and wrecked the economy from having to renegotiate the sub-prime loans so that they can actually be paid. The fear, of course, is that if there is no bailout the economy will collapse. Who is right?
I don't know, but a bailout seems to make sense. I think McCain was right to change his mind.
Post a Comment