Obama might lose if McCain can somehow paint Obama’s position as an “attack” against McCain, Republicans, small town folks, the troops, God, and maybe even apple pie.
Another thing to consider is that these are televised. McCain looks like the living dead on his own. Put him in the same shot with a gifted orator decades younger than him and he will come across as an extra from a George Romero movie. I think he will suffer from a Kennedy/Nixon effect, espcially in the first debate when it will most shocking to see the difference in vitality between them.
It will be less of an issue in the VP debate as Biden is much more vital and animated and will not come across as bad even compared to Palin.
McCain has a great sense of humor, an almost infinite supply of anecdotes, and a real knack for a snappy line.
Obama has a great sense of humor, but it’s far more deadpan and subtle. I haven’t seen him much in the way of anecdotes, and I’m not sure how good he is at coming up with snappy lines at the moment.
Obama has two things going for him. One is that McCain will always try to cram the question into one of his pre-packaged mini-speeches, and the viewer may actually be able to figure that out after being hit on the head with a hammer long enough. He also, as noted above, has a quick tempe. Obama actually thinks about the question and then answers it. He’ll undoubtedly have talking points lined up, but he won’t be mangling the question to fit it in his box. The second thing, which may also be a liability, is that although McCain is both smart and fairly well-informed, Obama is highly unusually smart and well-informed. For fact-based, issues oriented voters who don’t think a small rise in taxes is the worst thing in the world, he’ll come out smelling like a rose. But low-info voters nay be put off because they don’t understand what he’s saying, and they may resent him for that.
Obama will crush McCain.
McCain will win the debates. Likely it will be a technical draw with each side saying they did better but a draw is more a win for McCain than it is for Obama. Obama needs to knock one out of the park, McCain just needs to maintain and run the clock out. Barring some overt meltdown (highly unlikely…the candidates are doubtless being coached to the hilt and are very unlikely to make an overt misstep) McCain will do passably well.
To those who are critical listeners Obama will almost certainly do far better than McCain who, as noted, will likely barely answer the questions as he fits them into prepared talking points. Obama will do something similar but has shown he will try to address questions more directly to what was asked. If this were conducted as a collegiate debate contest Obama would coast to a win without trouble. But it is not conducted in that manner.
Americans prefer style over substance. Sad but definitely seems to be the case. Famously Nixon was deemed the debate “winner” to those who listened to it on the radio. Kennedy won among those who watched it on TV as Nixon looked like death warmed over. More recently I think Bush was trounced in his debates with Gore and Kerry…didn’t matter. Nuanced and intelligent answers lose to pithy remarks. Bush was “folksy” and McCain easily trumps Obama in the “folksy” department. Obama comes across more as an intellectual and Americans, broadly, seem to revile intellectuals.
Snappy soundbites, guy next door wins the day and McCain is better at that than Obama. If you think otherwise explain away GWB.
Absolutely right.
This is what elections are about these days.
Sadly most voters don’t understand the issues and just like a soundbite like “Senator -you’re no Jack Kennedy!”.
THe winner will probably be the candidate who comes out of the debate having plausibly told the people that they won’t have to suffer from having bailed out AIG. Now we all know that’s a lie, and it’s quite possible the American people will know it too. Certainly the candidates will know it. So it will come down to which candidate is willing and able to lie more convincingly.
Guess which one it will be?
In elegance, ideas and past policy, but voters on both sides will walk away feeling victorious anyway and it’ll be a draw.
Unless one of them makes a serious enough gaffe. But I agree, there will not be a “crushing” of sorts like some people talk about.
Can you please explain more why you believe this to be the case? It goes against most analyses I’ve read. Most seem to think that Obama’s narrow lead right now, coupled with an electoral map that is favorable to him, makes McCain the candidate more in need of a home run. A few days ago Nate Silvers of 538 put some numbers to that structural advantage. (With numbers current of 9/19 but more robust since then.)
In any case, it seems that a debate, or even a series of debates, is unlikely to give anyone a home run ball.
So, rarely does even the whole series of debates allow for anything that can count as even a solid double, let alone count as knocking it out of the park.
I think that the debates are an opportunity for the people who put off all this crap that I find so fascinating to finally look at the candidates and get comfortable with both of them. Unless one of them makes a big blunder, it is likely to be not much change.
What I really worry about is some asinine “there you go again” crap from McCain that plays into people’s preconceived notions. There was nothing Carter could have done in 1980 to have pulled that race out, but Reagan’s arrogance in the debates was sickening. And I didn’t like Carter back then.
Obama’s strength in a debate is that he has a calmness about him. He can stand there and look presidential no matter what’s being thrown at him.
McCain’s strength in a debate is that he is willing to sacrifice subtlety for a zinger. That can be a huge plus or a huge minus, depending on if the zinger lands.
I think Obama has an advantage in that he has to do less than McCain does to keep pace, but that doesn’t mean that McCain can’t score big. He is (or at least has been) capable of it in the past.
In 2004 Kerry was widely seen as winning all the debates. Bush coined the term “the Internets” and he made his famous “hard work” whine and he was photographed with that mysterious bulge under his jacket. None of it mattered in the end.
These debates likely won’t swing things much either.
Based on Obama’s comments in the past week, he’s not even going to try to tell the people that. Quite the reverse, he’s going to tell them the truth: They are going to suffer and it’s the fault of the Pubs and deregulators.
McCain will accidentally poop his pants and start crying, Palin will flash the American people during halftime of Monday Night Football, and the Republicans will narrowly win.
My opinion of it is Obama needs to “prove” himself as presidential material to deflate worries that he is too inexperienced. To do that Obama has the harder job. McCain just needs to show up and not screw up and he maintains his Maverick and more experienced title.
Also, while the polls show leads for Obama we have seen them swing back and forth in recent weeks (including the electoral poll) and in essence the candidates are in a statistical tie. I think Obama needs a bump since his base are not traditionally reliable voters (in the sense of actually going to the polls). Conservatives tend to be more reliable in getting out the vote. As such a poll is all well and good but meaningless unless that translates to someone pulling the lever for their guy. Again this hands Obama the tougher task in my view.
I think three things might give Obama an edge (in terms of electorate response, not just debating points).
First, the media seem to be really upset with McCain, and the debate itself and the coverage afterward might have just a smidgen of conscious or unconscious bias in Obama’s favor.
Second, I think the first debate on foreign policy puts McCain at risk of being caught in one or two “senior moments” like not knowing that Spain is a NATO ally nor that the topic of discussion is Europe, not Latin America. If McCain tries to cover a lack of knowledge by rehashing generic talking points (as he apparently did in that interview), he’s not going to just look like an ordinary politician, he’s going to look like he’s going senile.
Third, Obama’s physical presence should look much more impressive than McCain’s, and Obama apparently isn’t shy about using the advantage of physical presence on the Senate floor. Of course, he can’t come across as a bully about it–e.g., he shouldn’t take McCain’s hand and wrench his arm upward in an overhead hand clasp. But he could do subtle things like quickly striding across the floor in greeting while McCain stands there like an invalid, and have a quick moment where he’s towering over McCain in a friendly half-hug at the end of the debate.
I blame this on the dubious “debate” nature of the debates. Mostly the candidates (of whichever party) use it as a chance to make their stump points regardless of the questions asked. They never really get down and dirty exploring a given question and are likewise not held accountable by the moderator.
I’d love to see the scroll at the bottom of the screen on the debates run by FactCheck pointing out bullshit when it occurs and have a panel judging the debate ala a collegiate debate.
Alas I know this will never happen as no candidate wants to be held that accountable but a guy can dream. It’d be a whole other ball game if Obama could hold McCain’s feet to the fire nailing him on debating points of order. 