Thoughts on the Second Debate

Well, I managed to stay up and watch the whole thing. Here are my thoughts on it:

First, it needs to be said that the only thing that matters is how the undecided voters viewed it. The polls are showing a consistent dead heat 3 weeks before the election, with about 10% undecided. Those are the people who will decide the election and the debates will be a big part of making up their minds, for better or worse. In most cases, it won't be the answers given that sways them, it will more likely be just a vague feeling they have about the two candidates that makes them feel more comfortable having them as President. I automatically tend to notice the kinds of things that will sway people who aren't really tuned in on the issues - superficial performance issues, body language, tone of voice, things they were coached on by their handlers, who also know that those little things are what will sway those undecided voters. So how did the two do in that regard last night?

Two things jumped out at me. First, Bush's approach was to be hyper aggressive. At times he literally leapt out of his seat to respond to something Kerry had said, before the moderator had even said that he would allow a follow up 30 seconds for each candidate (and that was up to him, not to the candidates), at one point just talking right over Gibson and snapping at him. For those who were turned off by Bush's smirking in the first debate, they were likely even more turned off by his body language. Not only was he smirking and scowling, he was bobbing his head and waving his arms. It looked like what he really wanted to say was, "Come on! Don't tell me you don't know Kerry is full of crap!". That's what his body language certainly said. Now the partisans will spin that to benefit their side. Bush fans will say he was being passionate and showing his strong and resolute views; Kerry fans will say that it shows that Bush has a nasty temper and doesn't like to be challenged or questioned (for the record, I think the Kerry camp is much closer to the truth on that count). But the key question is how the undecided voters see it. Will they see it as feisty and hard-nosed, or will they see it as short-tempered and childish?

The one thing that jumped out at me about Kerry, and he was obviously coached to do this, was that he remembered the names of the people who asked the questions, even referring back to previous questions and those who asked them by names, and drew connections between questions. This is a page right out of the Clinton playbook, he was a master at that. And it's very, very effective. It makes the candidate look more like he's listening, even if after using the person's name, he gives an answer that has nothing to do with the question. Those are the little things that really can convince people and make them feel like this candidate is more in tune with them and interested in their problems. But it also probably plays better to the people in the audience at the debate than it does to the people watching on TV.

Neither of them made any really boneheaded mistakes, though both of them had their fair share of exaggerations and lies (see this article at factcheck.org that points out the disonesty of both candidates). Surprisingly, Bush did better on the domestic issues than on foreign policy issues. He was absolutely right when he pointed out that Kerry's proposals don't add up, that there's no way he can keep all his campaign promises of new spending and keep the tax cuts in place for all but those who earn over $200,000 and cut the deficit in half as he says he will. Bush's promises are even worse, actually, as he has promised even more spending than Kerry has, he won't roll back the tax cuts at all, and he also promises to cut the deficit in half. But Kerry didn't bother to say any of that, so the only one to score on that one was Bush.

The most bizarre answer of the night went to Bush's answer on who he might nominate for the Supreme Court. To anyone who knows anything about constitutional law, his answer was little more than incoherent babbling. First he said he would appoint someone who would uphold the pledge of allegiance with "under God" in it, then at the end he said he would have no litmus test. Uh, isn't that a litmus test? And he said that he would nominate "strict constructionists", while also saying he wouldn't nominate a judge who would have handed down the Dred Scott decision. All in all, it was just a bizarre answer that had to leave legal scholars scratching their heads. But I doubt that any impact on more than a miniscule percentage of the population, who wouldn't know Dred Scott from dreadlocks.

Overall, I suspect that Kerry's performance played a little better than Bush's with the undecided voters. I think he likely seemed more presidential. Regardless of how his handlers and supporters spin it, I just don't think that the head bobbing and smirking in exasperation that Bush has displayed in both debates looks dignified and presidential, and those are visual images that really do stick with people. Remember, those undecided voters are likely to be swayed by a gut feeling of who they feel more comfortable with having as president, so those things can really matter a lot. Which brings me to this question...

Why do the networks bother interviewing the campaign managers or other people who work for the candidates or have an obviously partisan interest in one of them? It doesn't matter what happened during the debate, they're going to say their guy won. If Bush had punched Charles Gibson in the face, his campaign manager would have said that he was demonstrating the kind of toughness that America wants in a Commander in Chief. If Kerry had started humping a woman in the audience, his handlers would have spun it as appealing to a populace that likes a virile leader. It's a waste of airtime.