That said, I was hoping to hear predictions about the debate tomorrow night. I think McCain may attempt to continue the negative streak, but will hit a stone wall (perhaps a Stonewall is more appropriate, as many of us went to NYU) because of both Obama's ability to counter gracefully and also the town-hall style of the debate. Also because of the format, I feel it will be easier for Obama to do well; McCain is a zombie, after all. I don't really have anything else to add on this topic, so I will move on.
Question: why is there no debate closer to the election? Is this simply an effort to prevent a post-debate bump from deciding the election? Or, is it a vast, liberal media plot to prevent John McCain's sparkling personality and graceful way with words from winning over the undecideds and the weak liberals? Thoughts?
Posts
As a general rule of thumb, Obama is not as strong in the town hall style and McCain, being the shoot-from-the-hip maverick he is, is more comfortable in such a setting.
ReplyDeleteThat's the conventional wisdom. It's based on Obama's surprising primary differential between his skill in speeches and his skill in debate. But he's had a lot of campaigning practice, and he'll do fine.
McCain is a zombie, you are correct. However, he is least zombie-esque in the town hall format (I guess the questions keep him awake).
Because the candidates can't address each other directly, McCain may be able to work in some attacks, but he's in such a tough bind.
At the end of the day, the debate will be essentially a draw, except the economy will be the focus and that always helps Obama (short post on that coming up).
Next topic: timing. I can't tell you anything about how or why. The schedules are determined way before the candidates are, I can tell you that, though the formats are generally decided between the two candidates and, in Bill Clinton's case, as is the decision to even show up.
I would look at this from more of a historical perspective. Keep in mind that it wasn't long ago that the norm was to select the VP at the convention. I think it's the exception not the rule (historically - but looking to the future it's probably flipped) that there is such intense interest so early. So I wouldn't think of the debates being scheduled at the end of the campaign season as much as closer to the beginning, at least from that perspective. I, too, though, can only speculate.
I think the "town hall" format is absurd. Part of this stems from my disbelief that undecided voters even exist in this election (see my previous post about this). Even if they did, though, I don't know that that makes them qualified to ask the questions. Issues coming "straight from the American people" sounds nice, but the moderator's job is to aggregate questions over a variety of topics and in a cohesive order, to encourage the candidates to actually answer the question (as I thought Lehrer did an excellent job of), and keeping order. I think we'll be more focused on the candidates' reactions to the voters than the policy content of their answers...then again, policy content doesn't really seem to be what debates are about these days, anyway.
ReplyDeleteMy hope is that McCain won't be able to hide his obvious contempt for Obama, and that his cheap shots will make him look like a child. Obama, by contrast, if he stays above the fray, will look cool-headed in a (financial) crisis.
Then again, this would make ME happy. I know that others would rather just bask in hatred of the other guy - whichever one that is.
Do you guys think Obama needs to go the offensive?
I'm busy so I can't really write now, but I just wanted to say NO Obama should not go on the offensive. His job is to play it safe and, to keep my metaphor going, let the clock run out.
ReplyDeleteThe one exception is the Keating scandal, because that is actually related to the issues (though a bit of a stretch). But McCain's attacks are just that - attacks.