The Debates
Well folks, the first debate is right around the corner - unfortunately on Thursday night, which kills any hope of watching Survivor or The Apprentice (the best 2 reality shows). The first debate is probably going to be the most important one, as viewership has historically decreased substantially following the first debate. Also, Bush can deliver a knockout punch, which would allow him to play defense in the last two debates. However, if Kerry commands the first debate, the race could tighten up and make the next two more meaningful.
As expected, the Bush team - led by debate coordinator James Baker (btw, doesn't the Bush administration/campaign have more gravitas than any administration in a long time?) - outmaneuvered the Kerry team - led by Clinton buddy Vernon Jordan - in the format of the debates. Because Bush had such a strong August/September, and by all accounts has an "outside the margin of error" lead over Kerry, he was in a commanding negotiating position. Heck there were even rumours that Bush would not agree to any debates.
The key bargaining chip the Bush team had was, I think, the number of debates. Bush's initial position was two debates, not three. Kerry, being the challenger and a very well-respected debater, needs all the debates he can get to try and turn this thing aroung and finally, if at all, introduce himself to the electorate. With this chip in play, Bush was able to get the first debate (likely the most important one) to be about foreign policy. This is of course where Bush has been bitchslapping Kerry for the entire campaign. Also, with Kerry's latest - and probably final - position on Iraq (basically Howard Dean's position) coming to fruition, Bush can put Kerry away if things go well. See the latest piece by Dick Morris for a good analysis. I know he is one of those "for what it's worth" guys, but sometimes he makes some good points and I think he does here.
Basically his analysis is this: the majority of Kerry supporters support him because they are against Bush, not because they're for Kerry. In contrast, 84% of Bush supporters are voting for Bush, as opposed to against Kerry. Additionally, Kerry supporters are split on whether they agree with him on some major issues - including THE major issue, the war in Iraq. Thus, there is a significant portion of the electorate that currently supports Kerry that is ripe for the taking by Bush. Specifically, those people that neither like Kerry nor agree with his positions (so much for that whole "this is the most energized i have seen the dem party in a zillion years" bologna).
Some of these people will see their president, and remember why they liked him and trusted him so much after 9/11. These people agree with Bush's posture regarding Iraq, not Kerry's, and will realize the Bush ain't so bad after all. Or, as the Newt pointed out, they just may not vote at all.
The way I see it, Kerry cannot win this first debate. Whatever he says will turn off part of his base.
- - - - -
In addition to having the first debate on foreign policy, the Bush team also manages other key concessions. First, there is going to be a light that comes on - for all the viewers to see - when each candidate's time is up. The notorious windbag, Kerry, will undoubtedly go over his time repeatedly, which will annoy the viewers. Also, the lecturns will be more than 10 feet apart, which will minimize the height disparity between the 5'11" Bush and the 6'4" Kerry. Additionally, the follow-up questions and rebuttals are sharply restricted, which allows Bush, whose strength is staying on message, to say what he wants to say, and which restricts Kerry, whose debating techniques are superb, from being able to score points based on how he frames the issues. The Bush team even got a concession on the temperature of the auditorium, which Kerry wanted to be less than 70 degrees because he is a sweater.
Kerry's team of course thinks they got the best of the Bush team because there will be three debates. But if Bush plays his cards right, the third debate will be meaningless anyway.
posted by Guindiblog | 2:39 PM
1 Comments:
I wholeheartedly agree with your point about setting expections low. It's funny because the dems always say that Rove and the conniving republicans are so good at setting the expectiations low, when I think that it's the dems that set his expectations so low. If you listen to moore, soros and the rest of bin laden's "useful idiots," you would think that dubya is a complete moron. (btw, bush beat gore on the math portion of the sat. in fact, johns hopkins did a study on his test scores and determines that his I.Q. was in the 95th percentile. also, let's not forget that he's a yalie and holds an mba from hahvahd.)
they have been driving his expections low for the last 4 years. now, when the people that don't follow politics like we do turn on the tv, they will see a solid performance and be pleasently surprised. as denzel said in training day, "the shit's chess, not checkers." once again, the dems are playing checkers and the reps are playing chess.
It should also be mentioned that the format for these debates don't really make them debates at all. it's basically a situation where both candidates get to give their viewpoints in succession so the viewers can compare them. Bush beat Gore in the debates because he is comfortable in his own skin and speaks to the viewers in a trustworthy and down-to-earth way. His skill at this is considerable - let's face it, he is a very, very good politician - no matter what the dems try to say about him. don't they realize that his stumbling may even be an asset?
While we're on the subject, I highly recommend Bill Sammon's book "Misunderestimated." It is a very good book that gave me even more respect for Dubya than I already had. On Bush's inaugeration, a reporter asked him how he had won. He said, famously, "they misunderestimated me." this classic bush syntactical "error" says it all - they underestimate him and they misestimate him. just like they did to reagan. now, everyone calls him the "great communicator" and sings his praises. but in the 80's, he was a unsophisticated ex-actor cowboy.
Post a Comment
<< Home