Spring Break
The first debate: was there a clear winner?
Jon Dougherty
Issue date: 9/30/08 Section: Opinion
Debates are tricky animals. As a relatively new part of the presidential process, debates are one of the few times the American public gets to see the candidates unfiltered and without a net. With the first held in 1960 and then not again until 1976, the literature supporting the effects of debates is both extensive and yet still has few enough data points that the science surrounding the impact of debates is still improving. However, some points can be made.
The key to a debate is to not lose horribly. By this, I mean either doing something that makes you look bad-like when Richard Nixon didn't shave before the first debate in 1960-or allowing your opponent to make you look really bad, as Gerald Ford did in his second debate with Jimmy Carter in 1976.
These examples have demonstrated-particularly to front-runner candidates-that the key to a presidential debate is not to screw up.
For our candidates Friday, Obama came in as the candidate looking to control the environment. He did OK, if not spectacular. By most accounts, Obama was successful Friday by confronting McCain when challenged; he stayed on domestic issues as much as possible but also showed good knowledge when speaking about foreign policy.
On the flip side of the coin, debates are often an opportunity to either put your opponent out of his misery with clear superiority or a chance to tighten or flip the lead in the race. The most classic example is John F. Kennedy in the first debate of 1960, when voters listening to the radio claimed Nixon won, whereas voters who saw the television broadcast thought Kennedy was the winner.
Another prime example was Ronald Reagan's sound debate win over incumbent Carter in the second 1980 debate. In the second debate, Carter saw Reagan take the offensive on foreign policy and domestic spending and the California governor's whimsical style won over the viewers. While most critics agree that Carter did not necessarily perform badly, he was merely outclassed and gave away huge momentum to the challenger, who was already on the rise.
On Friday, McCain needed to shake things up or force a misstep from Obama. The general mood around the punditry is that a major win was not in evidence. Many agree McCain did a better job of crafting the agenda of the debate as well as highlighting quite clearly his edge on foreign policy.
The question is: was it enough? And the new question is: are there enough opportunities left for McCain to bring something new to voters that they have not seen yet?
Last week's polling showed a strong leaning towards Obama; the last six states to change their status in the Electoral College from strong, leaning or toss-up have all moved in the direction of the democratic nominee as the Republicans' convention bounce has waned.
With only two presidential debates left, we'll see if McCain can pull through to win over undecided voters and take the Oval Office in January.
This writer can be contacted at opinion@theeastcarolinian.com.
The key to a debate is to not lose horribly. By this, I mean either doing something that makes you look bad-like when Richard Nixon didn't shave before the first debate in 1960-or allowing your opponent to make you look really bad, as Gerald Ford did in his second debate with Jimmy Carter in 1976.
These examples have demonstrated-particularly to front-runner candidates-that the key to a presidential debate is not to screw up.
For our candidates Friday, Obama came in as the candidate looking to control the environment. He did OK, if not spectacular. By most accounts, Obama was successful Friday by confronting McCain when challenged; he stayed on domestic issues as much as possible but also showed good knowledge when speaking about foreign policy.
On the flip side of the coin, debates are often an opportunity to either put your opponent out of his misery with clear superiority or a chance to tighten or flip the lead in the race. The most classic example is John F. Kennedy in the first debate of 1960, when voters listening to the radio claimed Nixon won, whereas voters who saw the television broadcast thought Kennedy was the winner.
Another prime example was Ronald Reagan's sound debate win over incumbent Carter in the second 1980 debate. In the second debate, Carter saw Reagan take the offensive on foreign policy and domestic spending and the California governor's whimsical style won over the viewers. While most critics agree that Carter did not necessarily perform badly, he was merely outclassed and gave away huge momentum to the challenger, who was already on the rise.
On Friday, McCain needed to shake things up or force a misstep from Obama. The general mood around the punditry is that a major win was not in evidence. Many agree McCain did a better job of crafting the agenda of the debate as well as highlighting quite clearly his edge on foreign policy.
The question is: was it enough? And the new question is: are there enough opportunities left for McCain to bring something new to voters that they have not seen yet?
Last week's polling showed a strong leaning towards Obama; the last six states to change their status in the Electoral College from strong, leaning or toss-up have all moved in the direction of the democratic nominee as the Republicans' convention bounce has waned.
With only two presidential debates left, we'll see if McCain can pull through to win over undecided voters and take the Oval Office in January.
This writer can be contacted at opinion@theeastcarolinian.com.
Be the first to comment on this story