In this article, entitled, “How to win a presidential debate,”Paul Waldman repeats a bit of standard wisdom, which I've long since accepted:
there are a few things a candidate and a campaign must do if they hope to win these debates. The first is to understand that the goal is not so much to win the debate but to convince the press that you won the debate. The first step to doing that is to shape their definition of "winning." In the next week and a half, we'll see an absurd amount of discussion about "expectations," as though an election were a round of golf in which everyone is judged according to his or her handicap.
Waldman acknowledges that managing expectations is not the whole game; among other things, the occurrence of a "single, crystallizing moment" is key in determining a debate's significance.
In any event, here's my question: is it possible that this year the expectations game and opinions of the pundits may – at long last – not turn out to be the most important factor in resolving who "wins" the debates?
I think that there are a couple of reasons to hope that we may, finally, be able to transcend the expectations game, or at least minimize it.
First and foremost, there has been a veritable explosion of news sources recently, mostly through the internet. With so many people getting their news from so many different places, it seems unlikely that a handful of television pundits will be able to dictate public opinion as easily as they have after past debates.
Second, while this may be wishful thinking, I believe it’s at least possible that the public has finally become somewhat more skeptical of the talking heads and even sophisticated about receiving such opinions.
But whether I’m being optimistic or not, I do believe that it behooves us all to consider whether there is anything the netroots can do to transcend the expectations game. Other than discussing this “game” openly, I frankly have no particular suggestions. But I welcome all ideas.
