Folks, the Debates aren't going to "save the day".

[donco6]

I mean, I love them and think it's obvious Obama will do very, very well. But I watched every debate for the past three cycles and know for a fact that it doesn't matter who really wins. Gore wiped the floor with Herr Dumbass the first time around, but he "lost" because he "sighed too much." And Kerry destroyed Bush the second time around, even with obvious audio assistance. But Kerry "lost" because . . . well, I guess because Bush didn't transmogrify into Satan live on stage. I dunno. I'm still shaking my head on that one.

The point is, the debates are good, they often (not always) deal with pretty good issues. But it doesn't matter who truly performs better. If the MSM decides McCain won, that's who won. End of story. Doesn't matter what anyone else says. Doesn't matter what the little CNN web poll numbers say.

I just don't see the debates leading to a huge widening of Obama's lead. The only thing that's going to matter is talking to your friends and neighbors, knowing the issues yourself so that you can be conversant on the things that matter to people, and making sure those in your circle of friends actually vote.

Finally, I do think Obama is headed for a win (even if the above holds true). I think TWWGS hit it when they brought up the fact that "likely voters" probably is really understating the enormity of the new enthusiasm for Obama. I believe I can see it around here.

[Occam Bandage]

1. The media seemed to generally agree that Kerry destroyed Bush in #1,

that Bush and Kerry just about tied in #2, and that Kerry won #3. As it turns out, people don't vote on debates.

[CTyankee]

5. That's true. If ever I doubted it, that doubt was dispelled after the 1st Kerry-Bush debate.

I couldn't understand how ANYONE would vote for that twit after his disgusting performance. It was embarrassing. Yet the media,while grudgingly admitting that Kerry won, didn't point out that the emperor was wearing no clothes. I still can't figure that out...

But yes, if that didn't have an effect on the outcome, nothing would. And it didn't, as we saw.

Having said that, I think Obama will win all three debates, altho the media won't say that. They "might" let him win one just to prove that they're "not biased."

And it won't matter...

[Clintonista2]

33. Bush did too poorly in the first debate for even the MSM to fabricate a win

Remember his grimaces every time Kerry would speak?

[GarbagemanLB]

2. Gore and Kerry lacked something Obama doesn't.

Charisma. The simple image contrast of McCain and Obama will in itself bring votes in, not to mention the debate against the senile guy itself.

[donco6]

4. That's a good point, however . . .

. . . and maybe I'm being way too cynical, but the MSM seems to try to do anything it can to "level the playing field" before the debates start. Watch them start bemoaning how McCain is going to appear up against Obama - implying it's unfair to compare Obama's youthful virility against McCain's decrepit scariness. McCain will earn a handicap 10 points right off the bat. And it goes on and on.

[babylonsister]

7. OK. McCrabby can have the sympathy vote. I don't really think

many Americans are in the mood to vote for him because he's decrepit and they feel sorry for him.

[Quixote1818]

11. The economy is going to decide this election

Unless Obama implodes he has it in the bag. You are right that Obama comes across as hip and charismatic. That alone is very important.

[politicasista]

20. delete n/t

not worth it.

[zanne]

3. I think we'll have to trust the votic public to know better this time around.

I know that's a tall order, but we really can't fight the MSM.

[AndyTiedye]

30. I am Sure We Will Get The Vote of Every Thinking American

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

6. Nixon-Kennedy

When people see Obama and McCain together it may have the same effect. A tall young energetic man against Geritol man.

[donco6]

9. See my post above about leveling the playing field.

The MSM will NEVER willingly broadcast a clip of Obama standing next to McCain.

Hell, they rarely show a clip of McCain next to Cindy.

[RazBerryBeret]

8. I'm not sure the average person watches debates...

I know in 04 I had coworkers who even AFTER the debates said they "didn't know what Kerry stood for"....that was straight from Faux News...they parrot it and believe it. Unfortunately our fates rest in the media's hands unless there is some change this time around. I am hoping that Obama has connected with enough voters that they can see through the MSM BS...or that he will actually take on the MSM at some point--it couldn't be early in the process, cause they would bury him by election time.

[salonghorn70]

10. Not Sure That I Agree

The debates in 1980 enabled Reagan to be seen as presidential. After the debates, undecided voters broke for Reagan. In 1992 the shot of Bush looking at his watch was very damaging. In 1988 the debates just destroyed Dukakis when he couldn't figure out how to respond to the hypothetical of his wife being raped. Gore's sighing is perhaps one of the worst performances that I have ever seen. In 1960 the debates were decisive in getting JFK elected. In 1976 Ford's misspeaking about Poland helped Carter.

[babylonsister]

12. I'm with you. I think many Americans base their opinions solely

on the debates.
But we also need to remember this year is different; there's a lot riding on this election, no incumbent, and people are angry. I've read there's been a whole new level of interest, and the primary debates were popular. Lots of people are paying attention.

[donco6]

15. Really? I rarely run into anyone who has seen ONE.

Or even a part of one. They may say they base their decision on the debates, but what they're really basing it on is the MSM snippets from the debate - the stupid faux pas, the "stair stumble" how their hair looked - along with the MSM interpretation of those peripheral events.

I think the audiences were different back in the Nixon/Kennedy days - I think more people actually watched the news and cared about what was going on. Even in the Reagan days, I doubt the candidates could have been allowed to slide by with these cursory puff pieces they do now.

But now it takes just the slightes provocation to get the MSM to veer off into Stupidland. Suddendly the conversations are about Brittney and Paris. Or whether Obama called McSame a "racist" or not - never mind having an actual conversation about "race" itself. It's all so Lowest Common Denominator, and the LCD is one who watches American Idol and I Survived a Japanese Game Show.

That's why I think the debates - thought necessary and good for America - will not result in anything.

[Drunken Irishman]

23. Ford-Carter.

Carter built a gigantic 30-point lead on Ford during the early part of the 1976 presidential election and looked like he would coast to the presidency. However, the race began to tighten up, as Ford manufactured the White House Press Corps to make him appear more presidential than Carter. This worked, especially with his leading the Bicentennial in July of '76. Soon, Carter's lead had all but evaporated and by the time the debates rolled around, the race was a toss-up in its truest forms, with all the momentum on Ford's side.

Ford did well in the first debate and continued rising in the polls, but his momentum was halted in the 2nd debate when he clumsily refused to say the Soviet Union did not have a dominant hold on Eastern Europe. It was a stupid move and ultimately stopped his momentum right in its tracks. That offered Carter just enough to win the presidency...by two points and only a handful of electoral votes.

Had Ford not blundered that debate, he probably would have won the election.

[scarletwoman]

24. The problem is, those debates all preceded the 24 hour cable infotainment that passes for political

coverage these days. Even in 1992, CNN had not yet devolved into the substance-free Kool Kids propaganda fest that it is now.

The proliferation of 24 hour cable "news" has left the public much more ill-informed than they were in the old days of the "Big Three" network news shows.

sw

[Drunken Irishman]

26. Check this, scarlet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6579738&mesg_id=6580954

[scarletwoman]

27. I'm not saying debates can't have a good effect, I was just pointing out that the earlier examples

in the post I was replying to were from a different time with a different dynamic at work, in regard to the nature of the media.

Yes, the first Kerry/Bush debate pulled Kerry's numbers out of the toilet -- but when the talking heads pronounced the 2nd debate a "tie", it then became a test of how many people were capable of forming their own opinions, and how many would follow the media narrative. The American public, by in large, generally fails such a test -- thinking for oneself is not a strong suit in this country.

sw

[Drunken Irishman]

28. I understand, but had Kerry failed at any of the debates, he would've lost.

And lost big.

Think Clinton 1996 big.

At least the debate afforded him a chance to make it a campaign again.

[BPAW]

13. I Couldn't Agree More...

The debates likely won't be a game changer for Obama unless a.) McCain makes a colossal blunder (which is unlikely, but the media would probably cover for him if he did), and b.) Obama successfully defines McCain as a lying, out-of-touch, empty suit who will send the poor off to war, cut taxes for the wealthy, destroy our environment, and leave our children with the responsibility of cleaning up our mess.

What can Obama do? From my perspective, he needs to get people to start seeing McCain for who he really is: a bumbling old fart who asserts expertise on matters he clearly knows little about (even whilst using the index cards prepared by his staff). If Obama is able to get people to start looking for McCain's screw-ups the same way they look for Obama's elitism and arrogance, then the debates will confirm for the masses what we already see - Obama is the better candidate with superior ideas for the future of this great nation. If he can't, the debates won't matter.

Right now, McCain is keeping Obama on the defensive via a slime campaign, making false claims the media plays on a continuous loop for free. As ridiculous as McCain's claims are, I believe the last week was a good one for the geezer. When is Obama going to take the bull by the horns and respond in a forceful manner? It's not as if he's bereft of material.

Recycling from a previous thread, I believe it would be beneficial if Obama started moving from his defensive crouch to an offensive posture by (perhaps) executing a more aggressive campaign. Something along the following may be helpful:

1. Via commercial, ask the country if it's had enough of leadership that can't be counted on to tell the truth. Call McCain a liar using the myriad examples he provides on an almost daily basis. Nothing will make him lose his temper quicker than having his integrity questioned - and it should be after the last week of crap.
2. Via commercial, ask the country if it's had enough of leadership that revels in war. Play the Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran clip over and over again. Show Americans what they can expect in a McCain administration, and ask whether we can afford another war.
3. Via commercial, ask the country if it's had enough of leadership that doesn't know its head from its ass. Sunni vs. Shiite. Czech Republic vs. Czechoslovakia. When the surge started. etc. etc. etc.
4. Ask the country if it's had enough of leadership that governs by dogma instead of FACTS (condoms & AIDS)
5. Via commercial, ask the country if it's had enough of leadership that can be counted on to operate unethically (Keating 5, oil contributions for off-shore drilling, etc.)
6. Have daily press conferences from a basketball court where the latest crap from McCain is mocked. Taunt McCain as a lightweight in an athletic setting. Express relief that McCain wasn't seriously hurt in the applesauce attack. Let people see Obama banging in the lane with a representative cross-section of American men and women and stars of yesterday and today (Jordan, Magic, Bird, contributors, campaign workers, factory workers, local college & high schoolers, etc.). Show physical toughness. Let people relate to a man who is a "jock" in addition to an "egghead".
7. Crash a McCain rally and challenge him to a town hall meeting right then and there, for as long as there are people to ask questions. Tell McCain to put down his index cards and put him on the spot. Make him match Obama's stamina. I think it was a mistake for Obama to turn these down - our ideas are better, and so is our candidate. Let's get 'em out there, stop cowering, stop apologizing (stop the "I don't think the McCain camp is racist" crap, 'cause it is!), stop compromising, and stop playing not to lose.
8. Ask the country if McCain has the temperament to be President. Get under his skin until he loses it. Use quotes from other Republicans questioning his temperament. McCain is angry and confused, angry and confused. Say it over and over.
9. Via commercial, ask the country how a man who dumped his first wife and married into millions can possibly share their values. Are you wearing $500 loafers? Define McCain as the one out of touch, elite, effete.
10. Highlight flip flops. So many to choose from.

Obama should aggressively define McCain by using the TRUTH, not false attack ads. Introduce America to the real McCain. Americans don't want a wimpy, "egghead" President. They want the "jock". They don't care if their President can spell his/her own name so long as he/she projects toughness (See Bush, George W). Right now, McCain does (he's attacking every day) and Obama doesn't (he's defending every day). I believe in Obama and his advisers, am convinced that we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to improve this nation dramatically, and it's not yet time to panic, but Obama better soon GO ON THE OFFENSIVE AND STOP PLAYING NOT TO LOSE!!!!! Otherwise, the debates will likely confirm that Obama simply isn't tough enough to be President, just like Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Carter, etc., and we can expect 4 more years of pain.

[AndyTiedye]

14. What Other Chance Have We Got for Obama To Reach Uncommitted Voters?

It is a slim chance at best, but it is all we are going to get.

Obama's greatest asset is is speaking ability, but most people will never
get to experience that during this campaign.

The airwaves are saturated with pro-McCain stuff, and it will only get worse.
It doesn't matter how many ads we run, because McCain's people own the
CONTENT of the "news" programs. All we get are 30-second ads, which
don't really give Obama a chance to connect with people.

[donco6]

16. If they're uncommitted, they're not going to watch a debate.

I mean, really. They aren't. They may catch a bit of the news spin on how the debate went the night before: "Obama loses because McCain didn't keel over on stage! News at 11!" But if they're uncommitted by then, they're not going to commit enough to watch a debate.

I believe - back to my original point - that it's going to take talking to your friends. We have to bring this stuff up, in whatever way we can do it - delicately, indelicately, whatever. They're not going to hear it on TV. No one reads papers anymore. But they know us, and if they know where you stand, it just might make a difference.

[Barack_America]

17. You've actually argued why Obama will win the debates...

And why the debates may be significant.

You've pointed out that debates are essentially perception contests, contests to determine who is more personable and likable. Can you imagine McCain winning such a contest over Obama?

[donco6]

18. I couldn't imagine Bush winning over Kerry.

But look what happened.

Look at what the Bushbots are doing. They're taking Obama's positive perception and turning it negative. He's Paris Hilton. He's the Antichrist. "Both popular; Both EVIL." It's not going to stop. That's going to be the theme. "If you follow Obama, you're in a CULT."

All I'm saying is the debates aren't going to help him like some seem to suggest. We just can't put a lot of faith in that. If we want him elected, it's going to take personal effort on our part.

[Midwestern Democrat]

19. Disagree. Kerry didn't win the election, but the debates certainly

resurrected his campaign. Before the debates, Bush had a 15-17% lead over Kerry in the Time and Newsweek polls coming out of the Republican National Convention and the media narrative was "crisis time": Kerry was widely perceived to be having a Dukakis level implosion and a lot of Democrats were starting to weigh whether it was time to write off the election and just go through the motions towards a certain loss. The debates - particularly the first one - single-handedly put John Kerry back in the game.

[AZBlue]

21. It is absolutely UP TO US!

Each and every single one of us on DU.

If everyone's not out there doing their part already (and they have the free time to do it), shame on them - and if McCain should somehow win, they don't ever get to complain, not even one little bit.

[Coexist]

22. no, Kerry lost because he had a manicure.

:evilgrin:

[Drunken Irishman]

25. I disagree.

The debates were the only reason Kerry made it a race, because prior to them, he was getting crushed in most polls.

Prior to the debates, Bush held a near-double digit lead in most polls and a 9-point lead in this http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/17/opinion/polls/main644205.shtml">CBS News Poll. Once they began to debate, Kerry climbed back into it, as CBS' October poll after the first debate showed Bush and Kerry http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/04/opinion/polls/main647342.shtml">tied.

Were it not for the debates, Kerry probably would have lost in a landslide. His campaign was not run very well and was on life support heading into the final two months of the race. This was evident when he gained little traction from the Democratic Convention in July.

[politicasista]

29. Respectfully disagree. Obama can't take anything for granted

The debates do matter. Like some posters have said above that Kerry may not be in the WH, but he decisively won all three debates. It's been posted over and over again that not only did he win all three, but it made the media impossible to spin them. They moved people to support Kerry. Bush looked like a stuttering buffoon (along with lots of softball questions from the moderators).

The left-leaning media pundits did nothing to further Kerry's message. The right-leaning media pundits one that battle, which is why Kerry is helping Obama. Obama did not just win on charisma, and looks. He won because he is a shrewd, smart politician and some good people in his corner. That's why he is and should be the nominee.

[truthisfreedom]

31. Obama may trigger mcDanger's latent anger. It will give him a chance to show how unstable mcSplode

really is.

[JCMach1]

32. Also, Obama is a better 'speaker' than debater... if you watched the primary

debates, you could easily see this.

Also, remember it's about expectations. Most people are going to think Obama will mop the floor with McCain. If McCain holds his own and doesn't have a senior moment, he will basically 'win' in the eyes of most of the MSM.

[depakid]

34. What matters is how McCain's defined in over the next several weeks

If he and his crony's continue to get a pass while his campaign spends its money on ads designed to sow doubts about Obama- the new guy, most people's attitudes will already be ingrained by the time the debates roll around.

That may not bode well in the rust belt, where the election will ultimately be won or lost.

[anonymous171]

35. The MSM will declare McCain the winner at least once on the grounds

that Obama said "uh" or "um" too many times. Mark my words.

[JI7]

36. the 2004 elections were close because of the debates

[McCamy Taylor]

37. The press with feed McCain the questions and wire him for the answers.

Hell, they will let his camp write the questions. Remember, the press is McCain's base. It isn't going to matter what happens. McCain will "win". All he has to do is not pee on the floor and they will call it a victory.