|
A candidate can win every issue on substance, and still lose big. This is what happened during 2000 and 2004.
By and large, any given member of the audience won't understand all the issues, let alone the ramifications of each candidate's positions, or the variations from past positions those candidates have held. Even those that do pay attention to issues are probably not going to commit the debate's content to memory; all that will remain two weeks later is a sort of vague positive or negative impression with few specifics. Two things come out of this.
First, people are more likely to turn to things like "body language" to make decisions about wins. If a candidate looks like s/he won, then it's easy to believe s/he did. If a candidate keeps cool under pressure, then that's a bonus. Poise is very important. And these are things that, like a candidate's apparel, are very easy for a news media trying to attain some semblance of issue-neutrality to latch on to. These shallow images will become the building blocks of the summary that gets picked up and spread around like sticky peanut butter on white bread America.
Second, it's like a campaign stop. Candidates are reaching out to millions of voters, including those precious "undecideds" upon whom elections so conveniently hinge of late. Focusing on one's opponent and rebutting their issues substantively is a good way to lose. The important thing is to get one's message out early and often, in delicious bite-size morsels. Taking occasional cheap shots against the opp is okay, but pumping your own agenda is usually much better, image-wise. Connecting with any live audiences is very nice, getting laugh lines out and generating applause (it's even better if you can get the moderator to silence the audience afterwards) shows that you're a winner.
Much of the national audience is already decided their vote, one way or another, by the time the second debate rolls around. The ones who remain undecided are especially unlikely to be swayed by issue-oriented arguments.
So let's look at the caricature you used for W's debate performance, I think it's sufficiently accurate: > All chimp had to do was not wet his pants and peeps said he held his own, > when all he did was say ...."It's hard work" fifty times
He did remain calm and unflustered, which is extremely important. He's used to zoning out while people who know things talk over his head, so that's a natural advantage for W. And don't underestimate the power of the "hard work" mantra! When he says, "it's hard work," that is a concise way of backhandedly acknowledging the gravity of the presidency, while turning the most difficult job in the world into something that a mediocrity like W can accomplish through hard work. And by implication, he's playing himself up as a hard worker.
Bush is not a smart man, his grasp of the issues is marginal at best, but he took on far more intelligent people and came out looking like a champ just by keeping his cool and getting out his message on a level the audience could appreciate and understand. It was easy to construct a narrative around him as a "down-to-earth guy doing a tough job", and that lined up well with everything the media whores were selling. On the occasions where he provoked physically visible reactions from Gore or Kerry, he scored big. The media is not going to explain why the opponent reacts to some obnoxious, slanderous lie, but rather emphasize that he got a rise out of them.
The best possible thing Obama or Biden can do in the debates is get McCain or Palin to "lose it", get them twitching, maybe even lose their tempers a bit. McCain especially has a rep for a short fuse, but Palin looks like she too might be susceptible. Biden almost has to hit a trigger on Palin, due to the "experienced insider vs. maverick governor" narrative the RNC/MSM will be spinning throughout the VP debate. It doesn't matter how much he understates his abilities, it's predetermined because it sells. Bottom line: if he doesn't successfully bait her into doing something obnoxious, she wins. Period.
|