Repartay

One of my predictions prior to the debate was that the media would score it for Obama this time. I based my prediction on the fact that in the previous two debates the media had generally called it a draw or giving McCain a slight nod, and when proclaiming Obama the victor, never coming close to scoring the debate as dramatically as polls have consistently shows. As such, I assumed that the media would have learned from the past two debates, and not wanting to be embarrassingly wrong yet again, would after seeing the same general trends unfold, call the debate for Obama. Needless to say, I was wrong.  Matt Yglesias has a good theory.

To me, the crux of the matter is that McCain can’t get out of the habits that served him very well when he was a Senator building a glowing national reputation largely by talking directly to elite members of the political press.[...]

[...]For example, he alluded at one point to a desire to allow more imports of sugar ethanol. Now if you’re familiar with the details of the ethanol debate, you’ll know that McCain’s stance on this is correct on the merits. And you’ll also know that Obama is a big support of corn ethanol both because they grow corn in downstate Illinois and because they made a big push for the Iowa Caucuses. McCain, by contrast, has a long and principled record on corn ethanol that’s hurt him in Iowa. This isn’t the biggest deal in the world, but it is a nice illustration of some of McCain’s key campaign themes. And yet he didn’t try to explain it at all. Similarly, he’s had a knack for besting Obama on national security issues nobody cares about, like the relationship of US-Colombia trade deals to the US-Venezuela proxy conflict playing out in the Colombian jungle.[...]

I actually pointed out the corn ethanol point to my roommate last night, who as a “swing voter”, had no previous conception of the issue, or even what the ramifications might mean or say about the candidates. Meanwhile, I thought — and I imagine many of the well informed pundits thought –  “wow, that’s a great point.” Similarly, I tend to grow frustrated when Obama can’t perfectly encapsulate the concept of adverse selection, but Obama probably had most people at “I believe health care is a right.”

It’s hard at this point — Thursday morning — to really call any reactions with the benefit of the snap polls “initial”, but I’ll do my best.

I think it’s true that this was McCain’s best debate from a technical standpoint. He did force Obama to spend more time defending himself than he had in the past, but I think this was ultimately undermined by his general curmudgeonly countenance. As I stated before the debate, I think the aesthetics of the race have begun to crystallize, and McCain’s visible bitterness did nothing to change the momentum. This, I think, is supported not only by the snap polls (Obama wins by roughly 25% margin), but also by this interesting tidbit from a focus group where Republicans and Independents outnumbered Dems 4-1:

In politics it is generally not considered a good sign when voters are laughing at you, not with you. And by the end of the third and last presidential debate, the undecided voters who had gathered in Denver for Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg’s focus group were “audibly snickering” at John McCain’s grimaces, eye-bulging, and repeated references to “Joe the Plumber.”

As far as policy is concerned, it’s exceptionally difficult to gauge how each candidate was able to convey their ideas, or how those were interpreted by the sort of voters who clamor for “more specifics”, but apparently don’t have internet connections. For example, when John McCain says he wants to “lower taxes on seniors tapping their savings accounts,” it sounds perfectly anodyne until you realize it’s primarily an enormous de facto tax cut for the wealthy. But I doubt most low information voters read this blog, and quite to the contrary, probably think, “that sounds like a great idea, but I really have no idea what that means.”

(I’ll also add that while many voters may not understand the complexities of fiscal policy, one issue many voters do understand is health care. When John McCain waxes poetic about the competitive choice offered in the individual insurance market, many people understand that this competition makes good care in many cases prohibitively expensive or simply impossible to get. You’ll notice that whenever Obama talked about health care, the CNN tracker virtually went off the charts.)

Anyway, this is all a long way of saying that the state of the economy and foreign affairs predispose most voters to agreeing with the sound of Obama’s proposals. Voters know the Republicans (despite John McCain’s “I am not George Bush!” line) royally screwed the pooch these last 8 years, and that handing the government to the same party probably isn’t the best solution. So in summation, McCain performed better than he had from a technical standpoint, but ultimately lost by virtue of being a Republican and by ossifying perceptions of his contemptuousness. Talk about bitter.

Making predicitions is always dangerous…but here are mine:

• This debate will the lowest rated of all four — Obama’s lead is ossifying; despite the darndest effort of the media (who has no incentive to create a compelling storyline and attract viewers) to make the race appear closer than it is, people are beginning to resign themselves to take Obama’s lead for granted. (Anti-jinxing measure: I’m not guaranteeing Obama wins the election, just that the strength of his lead looms).
• McCain will half-heartedly raise the Ayers issue; it will fall flat.
• The media will give the debate to Obama — even the media has to admit that merely showing up isn’t good enough down by 8 with 3 weeks to go.

McCain’s campaing released an last during the debate mocking Obama for agreeing with McCain.

There are a lot of stupid things about this ad, but how about it being moronic simply from a logical perspective? 

As you can see, the ad shows three instances of comity…and then ends by asking if Barack Obama is ready to lead? So agreeing with John McCain’s policies makes one unfit for leadership? I have to say, I agree.