- ‹ previous
- 2397 of 2794
- next ›
Debate Miscellany***
DEBATE MISCELLANY....Some miscellaneous notes:
On CNN, John King just said "19 days is a long time." Really? Does anyone else think 19 days is really all that long a time?
Conventional pundit wisdom seems to accept that a vigorous attack shows strength. But that's not true. Think of all the genuinely strong people you've known in your life. What sets them apart is that they stay calm when other people are attacking. McCain doesn't seem to get this, and neither do the conservatives who were insisting that McCain needed to haul out the heavy artillery tonight. Obama does.
From Ezra Klein: "The angry energy showed on McCain's face as clearly as in his answers. CNN, at least, had the split screen, and McCain was grimacing, twitching, blinking, sighing, smirking, eye-rolling. Scores of YouTubers are, as we speak, constructing videos that will be nothing but a three minute collection of McCain's angry tics."
Here's a remarkable thought: John McCain was almost certainly the Republican Party's strongest candidate this year. Any of the others would be doing even worse right now. If Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani had won the nomination we'd be heading toward the biggest landslide in half a century.
Todd Gitlin asks: "If almost all the postgame pundits thought McCain had a good night; but the snap polls show that overwhelming percentages thought Obama "won"...what does the discrepancy tell you? Either (a) the pundits had some extraordinary insight denied to ordinary benighted Americans, or (b) the pundits' snap judgments are worthless — in fact, a negative indicator."
Guess #1: Pundits really like fireworks, and they think sharp attacks show strength and vitality. But the public, outside of the hardcore base on both sides, mostly views them as petty and mean. Guess #2: The pundits gave McCain way too much credit for the quality of his attacks. Sure, he delivered them with a sort of crotchety energy, but most of them were actually pretty lame. Guess #3: They all felt sorry for him and were just trying to think of something good to say about him before they declared the race irrevocably over.
? here's a remarkable thought: john mccain was almost certainly the republican party's strongest candidate this year. any of the others would be doing even worse right now. if mitt romney or rudy giuliani had won the nomination we'd be heading toward the biggest landslide in half a century.
i'm w/anm and brian j on this one.
even more, if mcmuffin had actually had a brain in august and picked romney as his running mate, obama wouldn't have double digit leads, the veep debate may have very well turned out differently, and many, many independents wouldn't be flocking to the dems and would be considering romney, who, deservedly or not, has a patina of economic/business acumen.
? here's a remarkable thought: john mccain was almost certainly the republican party's strongest candidate this year. any of the others would be doing even worse right now. if mitt romney or rudy giuliani had won the nomination we'd be heading toward the biggest landslide in half a century.
i'm w/anm and brian j on this one.
even more, if mcmuffin had actually had a brain in august and picked romney as his running mate, obama wouldn't have double digit leads, the veep debate may have very well turned out differently, and many, many independents wouldn't be flocking to the dems and would be considering romney, who, deservedly or not, has a patina of economic/business acumen.
The only thing that can alter the result of the election now is an Islamist coup in Pakistan.
"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you...."
Kipling
If Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani had won the nomination we'd be heading toward the biggest landslide in half a century.
Does that mean you think we aren't?
Here's a remarkable thought: John McCain was almost certainly the Republican Party's strongest candidate this year. Any of the others would be doing even worse right now. If Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani had won the nomination we'd be heading toward the biggest landslide in half a century.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, Kevin, at least in the case of Mitt Romney. McCain's huge problem is that he can't speak with credibility on economic issues. Romney would have showcased his management and gubernatorial experience in a way that might well have appealed to the same voters who are turned off by McCain's incoherence on the subject.
Between the economic crisis, the timing of the Vicki Iseman story, and the getting beaten by Palin for VP thing. I'd say Mitt Romney is probably feeling like he got hosed.
Senator Government? That's President Government to you little man.
McCain's response on Supreme Court nominees was incoherent. He kept saying elections have consequences, but nominees should be judged only on their qualifications. So which is it, John?
i don't really watch cable news other than while traipsing through airports, so i really don't know: is john king always that stupid? of is he simply a mccain-loving bitter-ender who otherwise is a reasonable man?
because on the face of it, that is an immensely stupid remark.
Here's a remarkable thought: John McCain was almost certainly the Republican Party's strongest candidate this year. Any of the others would be doing even worse right now. If Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani had won the nomination we'd be heading toward the biggest landslide in half a century.
I've wondered about this, too. I've had this small fear of Giuliani because it looked like that a lot of people bought into the America's Mayor Is The Hero of 9/11 bullshit, but as time went on, he looked like someone that could be easily beaten. Giuliani doesn't seem like a stupid guy, but he looked like a fool by campaigning the way he did. With Giuliani, I think we would have gone on to win a record victory, if for no other reason than Giuliani was an embarrassing candidate.
With Romney, it might have been a different story, depending on how he approached the race. I always thought it was funny that Romney never tried to appeal to any part of the Republican party except for the wingnut base. Like Giuliani, he was, for whatever period of time, from the more moderate wing. In a year when people were saying that Giuliani's big strength was his blue state appeal, I found it strange that Romney never tried to capitalize on what appeal he might have had to blue states. With the right sort of strategy, maybe he could have given us a run for our money.
I half-agree, half-disagree with McCain being the best Rep for this cycle. If he had hired a competent team (not that easy to do out of the Republican stables, but I'm thinking along the lines of Mike Murphy, Matthew Dowd, somehow keeping Mark McKinnon on) and had run an issues and character-based campaign WITHOUT the negativity that destroyed the media image he had so scrupulously put together, the race would be very close right now.
I do think that Romney would have possibly been an equally good nominee, if he had run a smart campaign (i.e., like the campaign he started running when he almost turned it around in the primaries).
I TiVo'd the debate tonight. Regarding McCain's anger, I noticed that when the split-screen is on and he's listening to Obama, if you fast-forward you can see McCain's jaw muscles really jumping, like he's clenching his teeth.
I have no opinion on the outcome of the election viz the hypotheticals but, I kinda think Romney would have been better at debating Obama than McCain.
Of course then again my dog could run circles around McCain. At least though McCain's eye poppings would make sense. Ok so maybe they'd draw.
It sure would have been fun to watch Giuliani in the debates, though.
Giuliani's handlers would have insisted that there was a clause in the agreement that said no carpets were allowed in the theater.
At this moment it's hard to imagine anybody being worse than McCain. Romney might've been able to put a professional polish on their message. On the other hand the GOP story really sucks so maybe instead of incoherence we'd be shocked by their candidate's glib dishonesty and the end result would be the same-- crushing defeat.
much as we all despise him, i think picking lieberman might well have kept mccain right in the race: the media would still be awash in reverence for his maverickness and bipartisan desire to put country first.
he got confused (because he's not very bright) about the base: the base is the 13 states of the confederacy, which bush won in 2004 by 5.5M votes (while losing the rest of the country by 2.5M votes).
had bush won those 13 states by 1 vote each (total of 13), he still wins the election. turning out the base in those states doesn't mean much.
but mccain was afraid of selling his choice to the base.
See, I *also* long figured that Romney or Huckabee would be doing far worse than McCain right now. Both always polled dreadfully against either Hillary OR Obama. Only McCain was competitive with them.
And yet... despite Romney's incredible weaknesses, he had some strengths that might have come handy right now. Romney would almost certainly run a less erratic, more competent campaign. Romney would have had more money. Romney wouldn't have picked Palin as a VP. Romney wouldn't look like an ornery old man whose out of his depth. Romney would be able to talk at least semi-intelligently about the economy.
Would all those things have overcome his phoniness, his blatant flip-flopping and all the youtube videos of him campaigning as a liberal? Given the depth of the financial crisis, maybe.
And I think the vast majority of Republicans, including most of the evangelical base, would eventually have held their noses and voted for him.
Huckabee might have been even stronger. The evangelical base would be strongly for him. He'd likely play well with suburban independents in the red states where Obama's winning the election right now. He's likeable and he can just as credibly claim to be an outsider and a change from Washington. He'd probably have opposed the bailout and could ride opposition to that.
So I think the calculation GOP voters made last spring eventually turned out incorrect. The election is being fought on terrain fundamentally hostile to McCain, and McCain is also running a dreadful, baffling campaign.
The Republican party needs to retool. I don't see a place for Limbaugh, Coulter et al in that retooled party.
This is probably the end of the wingnut base. The Reagan Democrats are all coming home, and the racist southern strategy types are all dying out.
Howard, I think the overarching importance of the GOP base flows from more than just the votes they have to cast in the general election; their enthusiasm is essential to mounting a credible GOP fall campaign.
Earlier this evening I was canvassing deep in the heart of the beast, in an affluent and VERY Republican suburb. I can tell you that none of the country-club set would even think about going out and knocking doors for McCain, however much they might like his tax policies. Without the jebus types to do the footwork, no Republican presidential candidate is going to have a field team with any reach.
It is true that the base isn't enough for them to win. But without the base there isn't a prayer of building any solid GOP support, and of reaching the independents who they must have to get to the finish line.
I hear you, JimBOB. I live in a very conservative and somewhat affluent Virginia town. The COUNTRY CLUB FIRST set would think themselves ABOVE door to door canvassing, so I agree that their base depends on the ignorant and low income Republican Christian volunteer to put that bake sale volunteer spirit into the grassroots of their campaign. Like my lovable but oh-so-ignorant mother, who refuses to see that her party doesn't give a s--t about her.
watch the CNN squiggle while McCain talks about Palin... pure flat-line from the women... even autism barely makes it bump... that plus the air quotes around women's "health" exception for late term abortion... don't think McCain won many women over tonight...
Here's a remarkable thought: John McCain was almost certainly the Republican Party's strongest candidate this year. Any of the others would be doing even worse right now. If Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani had won the nomination we'd be heading toward the biggest landslide in half a century.
Actually, no: nobody else would have picked Sarah Palin.
jimBOB, fair enough point and one i hadn't thought about.
still.
i can't help but think that mccain would be more competitive with lieberman in place and the media going all out in his favor: maybe in the long run, the gop is nothin' without the populist right and therefore that's more important than winning the presidency for a term during which many chickens will be coming home to roost, but ultimately, i have to look at the outcomes and say that palin doesn't seem to have added a thing (in fact, she probably took away).
now, i suppose your point then would be that because of base distaste, mccain lieberman would be running worse than mccain palin: i have trouble believing it, but i suppose it's possible.
i'll have to think about this some more.
Guess #4: Pundits in the media have a vested interest in keeping it a close horserace.
McCain once accused Obama of not knowing the difference between tactics and strategy. Tonight McCain was tactical in his answers, while Obama was strategic in his.
The more I think about it, the more I need to revise my feelings on the MSM.
It's not that I hate the MSM. I hate the pundits. Many (from both sides) are this obnoxious combination of arrogant and wrong.
Back when the Brill Content magazine was running, they used to compare the predictions of pundits to the predictions of a chimpanzee.
The chimpanzee wasn't in first place, but he wasn't in last place either.
I wish someone else would do the chimp comparison again. It was illuminating.
I agree with the general point that McCain was the least ridiculous of the clown show that was this year's GOP presidential primaries. And we have no way of knowing how any of them would have performed as a nominee. However I think neither Romney nor Guiliani would have been at all viable with the GOP base - Romney as a mormon and Guiliani as a gay-loving abortion-favoring northeastern ethnic. And if you recall, Huckabee had a set of cringeworthy gaffes that pretty well demonstrated he wasn't up to running as a national candidate (think Palin without the accent).
There was a reason they ended up settling on McCain, craptastic as he has proven to be. The others were even more ridiculous.
19 days may or may not be a "long time".
But in 2004, something like 22% of the electorate voted early. So yesterday, or today, or tomorrow morning is not a "long time" away.
Election *day* is 19 days away. The election is right now.
now, i suppose your point then would be that because of base distaste, mccain lieberman would be running worse than mccain palin: i have trouble believing it, but i suppose it's possible.
Obviously there's no way to know for sure how a hypothetical ticket would run, so maybe a McCain-Lieberman combo would not be embarrassing itself the way the McCain-Palin is. But I can guarantee you that there wouldn't even have been the temporary postconvention bump McCain had if Lieberman were in the VP slot.
Remember that for a time it looked like the Palin gambit might even work, at least before the Couric interviews. The Palin choice was the difference between a guaranteed (albeit respectable) loss with Lieberman vs. having a long shot at actually winning with a dynamic, youthful running mate.
jimBOB, for my money, you win the campaign from a terminological perspective alone. "Craptastic": I f-ing love it!
No one seems to be talking about the fake outrage McCain tried to pass off when Obama talked about some of McCain's supporters shouting death threats for Obama and such. He was pretending like Obama said something insulting about all his supporters.
I think I know why these debates are hurting McCain so bad. He's come out with somewhat centrist policies to tack to the center and try to win independents, but during the debates his true conservative self comes out and everyone can see just how far-right he is.
@Paul Miller
Alas, "craptastic" is not my coinage.
Watching the pundits afterwards, I was amazed as one after another scored the debate for McCain on points.
"What the hell," I screamed at the screen, "Why would anyone think that smirking, eye rolling old goof beat Mr. calm-and-totally-in-control?"
I still don't get it. Maybe a hazard of being a pundit is you get so ensnared in talking points and analysis that you totally miss the stuff people actually use to make their decisions. In the split screen versions, the left hand picture looked like a portrait of a beloved President, already hanging on the wall of barbershops across the land. The guy on the right looked like an old man trying to win a funny-face making contest!
Well, jimBOB, nonetheless, you were my craptastic first, so I'll always cherish the memory.
I agree with Joe, by the way: that attempt by McCain to make it seem like Obama had impugned his overall supporters by revealing the already evidenced fact that there were a few nutjobs at the last Palin event was completely craptastic. [See, jimBOB, I'll never forget...]
At the end of the debate, the teenage pundit at our house had only one comment:
"he's like 'old guy on crack'"
here's a remarkable thought: john mccain was almost certainly the republican party's strongest candidate this year. any of the others would be doing even worse right now. if mitt romney or rudy giuliani had won the nomination we'd be heading toward the biggest landslide in half a century.
i'm w/anm and brian j on this one.
even more, if mcmuffin had actually had a brain in august and picked romney as his running mate, obama wouldn't have double digit leads, the veep debate may have very well turned out differently, and many, many independents wouldn't be flocking to the dems and would be considering romney, who, deservedly or not, has a patina of economic/business acumen.
I think Joe the Plumber will be the GOP's 2012 candidate.
"On CNN, John King just said "19 days is a long time." Really? Does anyone else think 19 days is really all that long a time?"
19 days ago was the weekend after the FIRST debate. Doesn't that seem like a fucking eon ago?
Guess #3: They all felt sorry for him and were just trying to think of something good to say about him before they declared the race irrevocably over.
Watching CNN post debate discussion, this may have been partially true. However, after Ms Brown completed the results of the snap polls, which went heavily in Obama's favor, the look on the pundits faces was one of almost complete discomfort. For a moment nobody on that set could utter a word.
Conventional pundit wisdom seems to accept that a vigorous attack shows strength. But that's not true. Think of all the genuinely strong people you've known in your life. What sets them apart is that they stay calm when other people are attacking.
Before this week, I'd have simply agreed with this statement in the abstract, but Rachel Maddow v. David Frum is an excellent concrete example of just how true this statement is. Though he was on the attack, Maddow's composure and focus ended up completely defanging Frum. Maddow showed strength by having enough confidence in her position that she could let him babble for a whole minute without interruption, knowing that his backpedaling was far more devastating to his case than anything else she could add at that moment. I was extremely impressed with her that night, and as I watched the debates tonight, I found myself having a similar reaction. Obama is seemingly unflappable, and I think that's an essential characteristic to someone seeking the most stressful job in the world.
(Well, OK... Secretary of State is probably a more stressful position than the Presidency, but I suppose that's splitting hairs.)
The pundits don't want to call the debate too much for Obama because then the race might be effectively over (that is of course assuming it already isn't effectively over).
McCain was probably the Republicans' best candidate this year, but given where the party is, there really wasn't a best candidate. The Republicans are the party of Hoover right now but they think that it's still 1980 and anyone they run is Reagan. They are still massively in denial, they don't realize their message not just Bush is toxic in the current climate, and so they would have pushed any candidate to wingnut orthodoxy.
Robert Earle at 1:31 AM is correct. For many voters, it is already to late for the candidates to convince them to switch.
34 states allow some form of early voting.
Experts estimate that up to 1/3 of the total votes cast this year will be cast before election day. In some critical battleground states that could be higher. Estimates are up to 40% in Florida will vote early, up to half in Colorada, Nevada and New Mexico.
Screw the pundits! McCain was just friggin' pathetic in last nights debate - why would anyone vote for an angry, unpleasant old man who doesn't have any command of the facts, during times like this? I thought it was the most disgraceful performance by a candidate in a presidential election I have ever seen in my 40+ years of watching these things!
One thing I noticed - McCain had prayers for Nancy Reagan in hospital, but not Dick Cheney.
And what is this stuff about "Senator, I am not George Bush" being such a zinger? Is someone supposed to be devastated by this revelation?
OK, Blinky, you're not George Bush. You just support all his stupid policies. Thanks for reminding us!
> I'm not sure I entirely agree
> with that, Kevin, at least in
> the case of Mitt Romney.
> McCain's huge problem is that
> he can't speak with
> credibility on economic
> issues.
McCain's problem is that he has some sort of neuromuscular degeneration or illness that is getting worse by the day, and that he is close to the point of being incapable of holding a coherent thought in his head. Either Romney or Huckabee would have at least been able to present their ideas - such as they were - clearly and coherently.
Cranky
I think Romney could probably have kept his cool a little better and run a tighter campaign, but he would have ended up even deeper in the s*** over the subprime meltdown than McCain, who at least didn't run on knowing business and the economy.
To me Huckabee, if he could have schooled up enough (maybe a big ask) is the one who could have given Obama a run for his money. He had the base in his pocket so didn't need to pander, and could have tacked to the center (or pretended to) and given a pretty convincing change performance. He also had a very good caring, decent, sympathetic persona which was probably a good fit for the mood of the electorate and the events that have unfolded. Obama could have come off as an icy, aloof, snobby brainiac in comparison to a Huckabee campaign run right.
Of course, Obama has a stupendous gift for looking like an innocent bystander while his opponents implode loudly and messily, so who knows just how Huckabee could have fared. I just think Huckabee of all the potential GOPers was best positioned to keep the base while discarding the GOP millstone, and to trump Obama's cool, calm and collected in the face of economic turmoil. I doubt he could have won, but he might have been more competitive than McCain.
Regarding the pundits. It financially benefits the media and the pundits themselves if there is a close race. However this race is quickly becoming a foregone conclusion, therefore they have to try to make it closer.
Guess #4: For ratings purposes, TV pundits need a close race, or at least the
perception of one.
Jerry Elsea
By God if it's that they "felt sorry for him" that will piss me off more than I have been for eight years...they think mostly about themselves (pundits) so I'm guessing it's fear that folks will tune out if they don't continue to ratchet things up...Folks out there who want the nasty, twitchy, old man they saw last night (and his airhead VP) running things in this country deserve the destruction they will eventually bring to it!!!
Honestly, if Andrea Mitchell and Cindy & John didn't have a three way last night I'd be surprised. Andrea gushed from the debate wrap until she was dragged off stage kicking and screaming "John McCain is my precious little peachy-poo!!" Andrea, get a room, OK?