Last night was a classic example of American Democracy: Two very powerful men going head-to-head in a battle of wits, answering directly to voters and inconsistently tweaked by the 4th Estate http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/10/16/video-recap-moderator-candy-crowleys-many-attempts-to-rein-in-candidates-during-hofstra-debate/.

THE FORMAT WORKS

Brit Hume and others suggested the Commission on Presidential Debates may want to re-think this format http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/16/dear-debate-commission-if-wont-kill-off-this-silly-town-hall-format/ but I think it worked. We got a good view of each man – what facts and logic they think make a good argument for something, how they communicate their proposed policies, and how they multi-task ( swinging from a face-to-face argument with a competitor to a caring engagement with a citizen on a new topic). Neither candidate seemed to fall apart, and there were not a lot of “gotchas” and “zingers” (despite my earlier claim that the debates had been reduced to producing sound bites).

NEED BALANCED QUESTIONS AND MODERATOR

There are adjustments that will probably help. I like the idea of going to a swing state (or at least a swing county) in an attempt to get more balance in the questions – this might be addressed by including more balance in the process of question selection in addition to submission. It seems there was a misstep by the moderator as well, stepping into the argument on Libya to act as a fact checker. That shouldn’t happen, and to tell the truth that seemed a little “pre-arranged” to me. It was a likely question so I would expect the candidate’s to be prepared, but I think it was odd that the moderator seemed to have the exact right quote available to support the President’s claim  Look, we all know the President’s campaign staff sends material to reporters, including the moderator, to support their claims, but she seemed just a little too ready to support the President’s statement – I wonder how much specific contact on that item there was before the debate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/candy-crowley-libya-fact-check-backtrack_n_1973431.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics). In the end the President’s claim reminds me a bit of a story about Mark Twain. Once, after attending a church service, he told the minister how much he liked the sermon. He said, “I enjoyed it as an old friend. I have a book at home containing every word of it.” The minister was offended and said, “I am sure you have not.” And Twain said, “Indeed I have.” The minister asked him to send the book over. And the next day Twain sent him a dictionary. President Obama did indeed says the word “terror” in the same speech where referred to the attack in Benghazi – but the relationship between the two is not clear.

STILL A HORSE RACE

The clear winner in this debate is the voter. We got to see our potential future Presidents at work in a situation we can reasonable expect them to be in – arguing for their policy with Congress, their staff, and other world leaders. Pundits and polls claim success for both candidates – Obama certainly didn’t lose like he did the first debate, but it isn’t clear who influenced the key voting groups (undecided voters in swing states, a good portion of which are women) the most, but there is some evidence Romney won on the economy (http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-debates/2012/10/17/cbs-post-debate-poll-romney-wallops-obama-economy) a key issue with those voters.

Romney 50%, Obama 46% Among Likely Voters.

Nice headline for Romney going into tonights debate. It suggests Obama’s task (making Romney unacceptable to voters) might be a little harder than Axelrod thought. Maybe its time for the President to put forward a clear second term agenda (other than raising taxes on the 1%).

What did you think of the VP Debate?

I was reminded of the SNL skit with the Chicago Bears Mike Ditka Superfans sitting around the table drinking beer, smoking cigars, eating ribs, and shouting “da BEARS!” in self-congratulations.

At least that’s what I thought of when I watched Joe Biden (whose predictions were likewise exaggerated and mannerisms equally ludicrous).

That isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

THE ROLE OF DEBATES

The roles of Presidential and VP candidate debates has morphed over the years, just as the role of the national party conventions, they have become more political theater and less working session. But they haven’t changed as much as we might think.

One hundred and fifty four years ago Lincoln debated Douglas. They certainly had a different format – one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the second candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and the first candidate re-joinered for 30 minutes. Talk about an opportunity for speechifying instead of addressing the issues on the minds of the people (as represented by the press). In a time when there wasn’t a national mass media, those debates served to get the word out in general, in addition to seeing the candidates in action as individuals. Today newspaper, magazines, TV, and the Internet help candidates get the word out on candidate positions, and the televised debates have become more of a “disqualifying” event loaded with gotchas and zingers.

A few notes on history though. Debates, and even the tradition of presidential candidate campaigning in person, are a relatively new practice. Garfield, Harrison, and McKinley campaigned from their front porches, doing sit-down discussion and short speeches to whoever showed up at their house. Afterall, the Lincoln-Douglas debates happened before Lincoln was the party’s nominee. Once Lincoln was in the process of running for the nomination though, his backers turned many of Lincoln’s event into pure political theater, following Lincoln around with troops of men carrying pieces of fence rail they claimed that the self-made man Lincoln had split himself, with a banner reading ‘Abe Lincoln the Rail Splitter.’ By all reports Lincoln practiced a little more humility and dignity than Biden, but made the same claim to being an “Average Joe.” Debates have always been one part explanation of positions, and many parts political theater.

WHAT ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL AND VP DEBATES

The candidates are going into the debates with very simply objectives.

For the first Presidential debate, Romney wanted to turn the race by demonstrating he is a knowledgeable, caring, Presidential man. Obama just didn’t want to blow his lead by giving the press (earned media) a meme to obsesses on and drive the public dialogue.

My personal theory on the campaigns is that Romney’s campaign believes there are fewer people that want to vote for Obama than there was four years ago, and all they need to do is prove Romney a viable alternative. The Obama campaign’s theory seems to be similar when it comes to voters, but their plan for winning is to get the base out to vote and make Romney an unacceptable alternative to the undecided. On those grounds, Romney won the first debate.

In the post debate, Obama-Biden used the claim that Romney lied as a way to confuse the undecided and keep their votes uncommitted. Romney tried to drive home his “Acceptability,” in large measure by winning in the polls and pushing that story. The polls are a large factor in proving competence and acceptability. If Obama can’t get the lead back in the polls (which include the opinions of a bunch of people who won’t vote) before the election, he will lose – the voting will follow the polls.

In the VP debate then, Joe wanted to rile up the Hard Support, the diehard voters Scott Miller has always said would go out in a snow storm to vote for their party’s candidate. He also wanted to keep up the “Romney Lies” meme. Research has shown that for the Undecided, thinking a candidate lies is confusing and stops them from committing. Obama-Biden wants to keep “Romney Lies”  in the dialogue until they can show that Obama wants to win, can win, and is a competent President. Ryan’s goal in the debate was to reinforce that Romney is a “knowledgeable, caring, Presidential man,” and that Ryan is competent enough to be VP (and potential President). This time both candidates seemed to achieve their goal, although Biden’s antics seemed to have turned off some women voters and Ryan meekness left some voters wondering.

THE NEXT TWO DEBATES

The charactertures will continue in the next two debates with Romney hammering Obama’s competence and Obama hammering Romney on his “acceptability.” I’m not sure the debates are where the action will be. It looks like the battle is moving to earned media and will be centered on the death of America’s Ambassador to Libya, and Romney’s tax returns and behavior as Bain Capital’s founder. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Obama campaign had two or three more October surprises out there – these surprises don’t have to be 100% true to be effective. As we have learned over the years, some things can be “emotionally” true even if they are mostly or entirely factually false.

As every other pundit has noted, we have a horse race.