Is It Possible For Democrats To Lose Debates Anymore?

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 14:52


This morning, I think Mike Lux had an excellent series of points why Palin is well positioned for tonight's debate:

I actually think this debate is set up extremely well for her:
  • Incredibly low expectations
  • Short answers on broad predictable topics
  • Lots of prep time with smart GOP operatives giving her zingy one-liners that will play well on news clips in the days following the debates
  • Biden feeling a need to walk on tiptoes because he doesn't want to seem condescending
  • Pre-written Republican talking points attacking Biden's condescension and Palin's strong, expectation-beating performance

That all makes sense, and I think Mike is really onto something. However, I would like to propose an alternative possibility that has repeatedly led to Democratic debate victories, and could continue to do so indefinitely. Here goes:

  • Because of higher Democratic enthusiasm, more Democrats are watching the debates.
  • Because more Democrats are watching debates, more Democrats end up in post-debate "snap" polls asking viewers who won and who lost.
  • As such, Democrats always win post-debate snap polls, as they have for the past five debates (at least).
  • Because the Democratic candidates win the post-debate snap polls, it is virtually impossible for Republicans to push a "we won" post-debate meme. Media outlets give surprising deference to poll numbers these days.

Anyway, that is my theory. Now, there are ways that Republicans can still get the better of Democrats, with the prime example being last year's VP debate. While post-debate polls all showed Edwards "defeating" Cheney in the debate, Republicans turned on the whambulance about Edwards mentioning that Cheney's daughter was gay. That became the news cycle for a couple of days, thereby putting Democrats on the defensive and allowing Republicans to get the better of the VP debate.

Much the same could happen tonight. The path to victory for Palin and Republicans is to find something to whine about afterwards. I don't mean Gwen Iffel, either--I mean some way that they claim Biden was a jerk to Palin. That is the real danger here. As long as we--and Biden--can prevent a convincing post-debate whambulance, we should be in the clear. This makes Mike's fourth and fifth points absolutely key. Don't condescend toward Palin. In fact, do well to ignore her altogether. For reasons I outlined above, the rest should take care of itself.

Update: I guess my memory is fuzzy, but yes, the whambulance came out after the third Kerry-Bush debate, not the Edwards-Cheney debate.

Chris Bowers :: Is It Possible For Democrats To Lose Debates Anymore?

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Is It Possible For Democrats To Lose Debates Anymore? | 26 comments
Good insights (4.00 / 1)
About the partisan breakdown driving the debate polls.

I thought they launched the hissy fit when Kerry mentioned the gay daughter, not when Edwards did it.  I seem to remember that was actually one of the prime facts that made the whole fainting couch episode so ridiculous that Edwards had mentioned it and no one said boo, but when Kerry brings it up it was a major catastrophe.

Your timeline is correct... (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure what the snap polls said after the VP debate, but I do remember most of the media talking about how Cheney "crushed" Edwards.  I didn't see it when I watched, but, of course, I'm biased.

Still, if the media claimed that Cheney "crushed" Edwards, even if people didn't originally think so perhaps their opinions reformed to accept that possibility.  I seem to remember even a lot of democrats this year talking about how Edwards flubbed his debate.  

[ Parent ]
I remember (0.00 / 0)
Earlier this year (or last) Ifill, in a discussion of the Edwards VP debate, condemning Edwards for mentioning Cheney's daughter, so there can't be any question the idea really sunk in. It's an incredible example of effective conservative spin, because it was Ifill who raised the daughter!



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Cheney let a black radical from PBS raise his daughter? (4.00 / 1)
No wonder she became a lesbian!
[ Parent ]
they actually (0.00 / 0)
did try to say boo about Edwards, but it reached critical mass when Kerry said it.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.
[ Parent ]
I kind of go back and forth.. (4.00 / 1)
Originally I though Biden's best strategy would be to ignore her, but after seeing what's happening with her polling, I'm not so sure any more.

Unless we get lucky, I don't think Palin is going to turn in a Couric-like performance.  This, without any help from Biden, will help her immensely as it'll go against the currently created "meme" that she's an idiot and totally out of her league.

I think Biden needs to figure out a way to apply pressure on her and also to find a way to continue making her look bad.  The pressure will, perhaps, increase the probability that she'll give us a great gaffe that we can hammer away at.  

At the same time, I think that Palin is going to be majorly on the attack tonight, because, seemingly, that's what people like about her (see, convention speech).  It's also just sort of the rule of thumb in politics.  So, Biden can't really just ignore her.  He needs to respond to her attacks and counter-attack at the same time.  He needs to make sure that her favorables stay in the mud, as she's one of the two anchors holding the McCain campaign down right now.  This is a tricky path for Biden, but I think it can be done.

I'm also tired, in general, of asking Biden to treat her like a delicate flower. She's a VP candidate, damnit.

The "Lesbian" remark was Kerry's (0.00 / 0)
Also, the insta-polls concentrate on the goofball 'independents' and 'undecideds.'  That said ... you can't polish a turd, and Palin can do no better than a tie tonight because she is incapable of serious discourse. If this was a less-serious time, maybe.  But not in 2008.  
[ Parent ]
Let her attack (4.00 / 1)
Biden knows how to hit back.  And he knows how to cite specific, direct fracts that refute points.  Let's see Palin counter-counter-punch with her own facts.  If she goes all pit bull in the debate, Biden wins.  
[ Parent ]
Format for rebuttals? (0.00 / 0)
What's the format for the rebuttals?  My understanding is that the format limits them?
[ Parent ]
Palin on the attack... (0.00 / 0)
Looks like I was right:

http://www.politico.com/news/s...

If Biden ignores her and essentially just responds to attacks rather than counter-attacking and landing his own punches, he loses.

[ Parent ]
And Biden's strategy is to attack McCain? (4.00 / 1)
This is wrong wrong wrong... If he is under attack, he needs to counter-attack HER.  Her favorables are in the dumps... and they need to stay there.

If he lets her get away with just attacking him and he responds by attacking McCain, not only will it look like he's trying to avoid debating Palin, but it will let her get away with landing punches.

When Palin attacks his foreign policy, he should make fun of her remarks about "Putin rearing his head" and/or several other Palin blunders.

If she attacks taxes, he should mention that she leaves massive debt wherever she goes, at the same time as she chooses to defund things like rape kits.

This is not the time to just let her make attacks without giving a good counter-punch.  He needs to knock her out of the ring.

[ Parent ]
I Agree (4.00 / 1)
This "ignore her" advice is ridiculous. People are acting like Obama will lose the election if Biden commits a gaffe. Put pressure on her, and she'll crack.  Don't take it easy on her.
[ Parent ]
Also (4.00 / 1)
While if Palin just avoids fucking up badly, it will be spun as a positive, the flip side is that she is so far down the Quayle road that if she says anything that is the least bit stupid, then she will get railroaded for it.  

Biden just needs to ignore her, and stay as detailed as the format allows--if he just keeps on mentioning things by name, and making specific proposals, and forces her to respond to even a few of these points, he will win.

My gut instinct is that Biden should attack aggressively (4.00 / 1)
I feel like this thing is all set up for Biden to receive a whopping criticism about being a bully. No matter what Biden does, this is going to be the story after the debate - how bullying and mean he was and how that's not going to play well. Then they'll talk about Clinton's resurgence after she cried.

Even if Biden is the most delicate sweetie-pie in the history of the debates, this analysis is already in the cards for him. So he might as well own it and attack, and attack those who make the analysis afterwards.

I just hope that Biden has a line ready (4.00 / 2)
something like "If she thinks I was bullying her, wait till she meets Vladimir Putin!"  
[ Parent ]
Its very possible for Biden to lose (4.00 / 4)
If Biden shows up and treats Palin with contempt and denigrates her, then Palin can play the victim.  Actually, that's what the spin will be regardless.

On the other hand, I did see a report on MSNBC (I think) that says that Palin's game plan is to attack Biden.  If she goes on the attack, and Biden counters, then its over.  If Biden ducks out, she can win.

Basically, Biden can't have a gameplan going into the debate - he has to react to what Palin is doing.

Yes, exactly... (0.00 / 0)
She will be majorly on the attack.  If he just parries and then counter-attacks against McCain that is a HUGE error.

If she attack on foreign policy, he needs to point out any number of her dumbass flubs... not just say that McCain was wrong on Iraq or whatever.

If she attacks on taxes and spending, he needs to counter that she leaves everywhere she goes with massive debt, and defunded important things like rape kits.

He can't just say "well, McCain is just wrong on all this stuff".  He needs to respond and counter-attack against her.  Focusing on McCain is stupid when she's at least one of the biggest reason McCain is being dragged down right now.

[ Parent ]
That's what I thought (0.00 / 0)
If she goes on the attack, that's a huge mistake because Biden can destroy her on the facts and not look like an ass doing it.
[ Parent ]
Biden's Low Expectations (4.00 / 1)
Forget about the press narrative, I just hope Biden meets the low expectations needed by the Obama campaign:

*First, do no harm. No gaffes. Don't say something stupid or untrue. Biden bringing the 'dumb/stupid' as a dominant sound bite would be manna from heaven for the McCain campaign.

* Be charming, folksy. Be the blue collar kid from Scranton, not a pompous 30-year Senator windbag.

* On Troopergate (Ifill better ask about this or the fix is in) -- Just say 'You know, Gwen, I don't know the details about this and it's really an Alaskan matter, but here's what concerns me. The McCain campaign has sent a team of lawyers up there to stop people from cooperating. Witnesses are now refusing investigation interviews, saying they won't honor subpoenas etc. They're acting like Bush and Cheney -- they're acting like they have something to hide. After eight years of Bush/Cheney people are tired of their leaders acting like they're above the law. I just don't understand why they won't cooperate if they've done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide.'

* Make the case that Palin/(McCain) is Not A Maverick. Be direct and specific about Palin's record on earmarks, taxes, cronyism and fiscal responsibility etc.

* Let Sarah be Sarah. Don't be baited. She doesn't need you to make her look bad -- she capable/likely to do it on her own. If/when she does, don't comment, just let it stand on its own.

Don't f*ck this up Joe. Just meet my low expectations.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

One more Palin advantage (4.00 / 1)
Everyone watching will be drunk, complete trashed; so Palin might just sound like she makes sense.

ALASKA!

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

They'll be drunk 5 minutes in ... (0.00 / 0)
not at the start
[ Parent ]
No chance of stopping the horserace. (0.00 / 0)
I know it's a vain hope, but I can't stand the media talking about debates as if they were boxing matches.  

No one "wins" a debate.  There are seldom smackdowns.  At best, one argument sounds more convincing than another to certain groups of people, either because it is the better argument, or it is more skillfully presented.  Generally, where there are multiple topics, each side will make more or less persuasiave presentations on various topics.

The only horserace question is whether undecideds are persuaded by the debate.  If there were legitimate analysis focused on that narrow and important question, I could understand talking about winners and losers.  But, instead, the coverage entirely focused on some real or imagined blunder that the village found revealing.

I'm boycotting this debate.  Nothing Palin says could improve my opinion of her.  It isn't going to change my vote.  Debates change very few votes.  They aren't a very good forum to discuss policy.  I can't stand the inanity of setting different standards for different candidates or worrying about whether someone was too mean, too sensitive, or too insensitive.  

Palin as Wild Joker? (0.00 / 0)
Palin doesn't seem to be helping McCain - she's viewed by many as a gimmick - you might even say as a bit of a joke.

What if she decided to play Joker, and the Joker was wild?

What I mean is, what if she came out during the debate as strongly against any bailout that is not paid for, ultimately, by taxes on Wall Street? Even though McCain is supporting the crappy bailout bill?

VP candidates are not supposed to diverge from their respective presidential candidates' positions, but Palin was certainly a roll of the dice, by a guy who claims to be a maverick. Why can't Palin be a maverick relative to a maverick?

Americans are used to politicians speaking out of both sides of their mouths. So, what's the big deal about a team where the top of the ticket is for the bailout, but the bottom of the ticket is strongly against any bailout where the which isn't ultimately payed for by Wall Street?

How much downside is there, in the debate, for her to come out and say "I know John McCain voted for the bailout, but I think it's a big mistake in it's present form. I'll be pushing John, hard, to support legislation which doesn't tax the Middle Class, at all. And if the current crappy bill becomes law, then I'll push John, hard, to change it once we're in office. We mavericks don't march in lockstep.

Barack Obama is making a noises about cutting some people's taxes, while pushing for a bailout bill that represents about $10,000 worth of debt - plus interest - per household. So, where's the tax cut in that? Where's the change you can believe in, in that?"

With mail running 100 - 1 or so against the bailout in it's original form, and with this issue pre-eminent in the public's mind, and likely to remain so on election day*, such a move by Palin could capture the hopes, fears, and anger of the public that is getting betrayed, once again, by 'their' government.

Considering how old McCain is, and with reports of strange tics and forgetfulness, it may not be necessary for Palin to have to push John McCain at all, as he may be out of the picture.  All the more reason for single issue voters, who are tired of getting screwed by their own government, to cast a vote for Palin/McCain, in the scenario I outline, above.

* especially if the economy blows up before election day, at which point the public will be even more furious at whoever voted for this monstrosity

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

Biden beats Palin...Period. (0.00 / 0)
I think you all are way over thinking what needs to happen tonight for this to turn out in favor of Biden or for it to turn out as some pity party for the Poor Sarah element.

Biden will win the debate and he won't need to pull punches, or to attack viciously, or really to pay much attention to much of any of the suggestions that I've read.

Sarah Palin can't beat Joe Biden in a Vice Presidential debate. But there is no way that the Pity Partyers for Palin will admit that Palin lost the debate, no matter how the debate actually came off. There's no point playing into the hands of a bunch of hopelessly lost souls who think that Sarah Pain is qualified to be VP or President of the U. S. They haven't cashed in their Palin chips after haven seen and heard her interviews. Why would there be little if any hope that reality would sink in to them after the debate tonight? For the few left on in the U.S. who haven't given Palin and this campaign a lot of thought, they'll watch Biden beat Palin tonight. It couldn't turn out any other way.  

Theory (0.00 / 0)
Because more Democrats are watching debates, more Democrats end up in post-debate "snap" polls asking viewers who won and who lost.

Although the theory sounds good, it doesn't explain the various focus groups with independent and undecided voters that also all went for Obama.  I think there is something else (or additional) going on.

Normally I hate media insta-polling, poll driven stories and such, but I've been very happy to have these polls and focus groups drive the media story.  The alternative is to have the talking heads just make shit up.

The wingnuts may watch this one (4.00 / 1)
I think this will be the only debate that the wingnuts watch, as a lof of them can't stand McCain.

Therefore, the viewership numbers for this debate, and the consequent polls, will lean less D.

Is It Possible For Democrats To Lose Debates Anymore? | 26 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox