What tricks does GWB have up his sleeve for the debates.

[RTFirefly]

is here. It’s two months old, but it’s a very worthwhile read, if you have the time between now and 9pm.

Fallows went back and watched all of Bush’s debate performances, going back to his 1994 debate with Ann Richards. And watched most or all of Kerry’s debates from previous election cycles, of which there are a ton.

Fallows’ conclusion: they’re both very good, in very different ways.

“Debates are not about scoring points,” George Lakoff told me, in remarks that were echoed by the Democratic strategist Robert Shrum, the Republican veteran C. Boyden Gray, and everyone else I asked who had experience in presidential campaigns. “They are about emotional identification”—projecting a personality, a bearing, and a world view that voters find appealing.

Bush’s great strength, not surprisingly, is staying on message - IOW, doing exactly the sort of thing Aeschines describes in his hypothetical Q&A.

Bush’s ways of appealing to his electoral base, of demonstrating resolve and strength, of deflecting rather than rebutting criticism, had all worked against Ann Richards. These have been constants in his rhetorical presentation of himself over the years, despite the striking decline in his sentence-by-sentence speaking skills, and they have been consistently and devastatingly effective.

After seeing the Bush-Richards debate from 1994 Lakoff concluded that it should be used to teach successful debate technique. Within the first few words of each reply Bush had figured out how to use the question as an opening not simply for his major campaign themes but also for the personal and emotional messages he wanted to project.

Here’s what Fallows has to say about Kerry:

Kerry under pressure was engrossing in a way that reminded me of a climactic courtroom scene in a Scott Turow novel, in which a skillful prosecutor eventually traps an evasive witness. You could see him maneuvering, thinking, adjusting, attacking, applying both knowledge and logic, and generally coming out ahead. John Kerry’s formal speeches often seem to illustrate the main complaints about his style: that he is pompous-sounding and stiff. But these debates mainly make you think, This man knows a lot, he is fast, and he has an interesting mind. Kerry was usually effective without being ugly or unfair.

William Weld, who was Kerry’s opponent in a long series of debates in 1996, describes Kerry as being tough, in a good way.

I think Kerry can win these things, not simply as debates, but as an essential opportunity to win over undecideds. While likability is important, I think the American people have shown it isn’t everything. (Hell, we elected Nixon twice, and who in the world would have wanted to drink a beer with him?) I think what Kerry has to demonstrate is exactly that good sort of toughness - to show the people what his positions are, and be a strong proponent of them.

I think Kerry will likely have one key opportunity, and that’s if Bush mentions accountability and personal responsibility, which is one of his themes. A lot has gone wrong during this Administration, and to say that heads haven’t exactly rolled is an understatement. If Kerry can find a good way to drive that home (I can think of a few, so I’m sure his team can, too), it will go a long way towards undermining one of Bush’s perceived strengths.

We’ll find out soon enough.

[Liberal]

@DrDeth

Kerry will have to make sure he doesn’t look that much smarter than Bush. Gore looked like a Brainiac, so GWB looked like a regular guy. Oddly, this worked. :smack:

Do you remember the sighs? C-Span replayed those portions (a dozen or so) with an analyst who opined that Gore came across as rude and arrogant. This nonsense about Bush not doing well in unscripted events is hogwash. The less he is prepped, the better he comes across. For every snob who gasps when he says “misunderestimated”, there are ten people who not only don’t know it isn’t a word but who find him to be friendly and intend to vote. Democrats need to stop fighting their election wars from horseback. There’s a reason that medieval knights became relics. Foot soldiers developed weapons that killed the horses.

[rjung]

@Liberal

Do you remember the sighs? C-Span replayed those portions (a dozen or so) with an analyst who opined that Gore came across as rude and arrogant.

That’s the “liberal media” for you – Gore’s sighs got front-page coverage, while Bush’s lies (whatever happened to those two Army divisions that Bush claimed Clinton gutted?) get buried on page 22 or ignored all together.

[Malodorous]

@John Mace

As for the debates, I really think that unless Kerry WINS, it’ll be time to bring out the butter and jam because he’ll be toast.

I disagree.

In 2000, G. Bush was behind Al Gore in the polls by a fair margin. After the debates he gained something like ten points to put him in the lead despite the fact that most viewers felt Gore had won the debate. The reason was apparently because Bush managed to shake the greatly exagerated but very widespread image of being an imbicile.

In the same way, I think Kerry may see a bounce from this just by showing that the increadably exagerated image of him being an incoprehensible flipflopper with no decernable reason for running for president is false. Consider that Kerry’s slide in the polls began as the Repubs ramped up their attacks on him, and that by now he is defined in the public mind almost entirely by these negative characteristics.

Of course both of these public personas were somewhat justified, Kerry is hard to follow and does often choose to point his views in the direction the wind happens to be blowing, and no doubt some of this will show in the debates, just as Bush certainly didn’t come off as any sort of genius in the 2000 debate. But just as the public had much of thier fears about Bush put to rest by his failure to publically urinate himself in 2000, Kerry will gain something just by being able to walk onto stage without freezing with indecision for 30 minutes about which podium to stand behind, even if he doesn’t score a stunning defeat over Bush in the actual debate.

[Dog_Lady_of_OKC]

Although I have been accused of being a born and bred, yellow-dog, Oklahoma democrat, I have been known to step to the other side of the ticket (you know, desperate times require desperate measures). However, after the last 4 years, I am now firmly in the ABB (Anybody But Bush) camp. I have plans to leave the U.S. if he’s re-elected. I may come back if there’s anything to come back to. Here’s my point - we’ve spent the last 4 years with the Wizard of OZ administration. As a lifetime student of the political condition, we can’t wait for GB to get a brain!

[John_Mace]

@Malodorous

I disagree.

In 2000, G. Bush was behind Al Gore in the polls by a fair margin. After the debates he gained something like ten points to put him in the lead despite the fact that most viewers felt Gore had won the debate. The reason was apparently because Bush managed to shake the greatly exagerated but very widespread image of being an imbicile.

It might be (although I don’t remember) that polls after the debate showed most people thinking Gore won. But the news analysts mostly said Bush won, and it could easily be argued that his gain in the polls were due to that. Even Kerry is going around saying Bush won the debates against Gore.

[Airblairxxx]

I think the debates are Kerry’s to lose.

Here’s why: the format for tonight is essentially a pair of parallel interviews. Candidates don’t address each other, they barely shake hands . . . one can ask whether they even need to be in the same room.

So neither guy is going to hit a home run, regardless of his debate skills.

Similarly, unless somebody throws out a “The Poles are not under Soviet control”-type gaffe, neither guy can hurt himself too much.

It boils down to what is being delivered. And Dubya’s is one of steadfast resolve, I’m right in every way, my opponent has a stinky butt . . . in other words, a static, almost dull “meat and potatoes” message meant to appease the partisans who already agree with him. (Karl Rove has admitted as much, that his strategy is more to inflame the faithful than to woo the undecided.) You listen to his campaign appearances, you have to remind yourself that he’s the incumbent, so obsessed he is with his opponent.

Kerry, on the other hand, has had his image and his message distorted by the GOP spin machine. When he can get his unvarnished message out, as he did during the DNC convention, his numbers improve and victory looks feasible. When talk turns to Swift Boat ads and “flip-flopping” (a term which could easily be applied to Dubya), he drops in the polls.

Tonight, when he starts presenting what he has to say, all he needs to do is appear reasonable, trustworthy, smart . . . presidential. He needs to convince the American people that he can do the job he’s applying for. He’s already almost tied in the polls, his base is inspired (granted, so is the other side), and the issue in this election–besides voter turnout–is wooing the independents who haven’t decided. And if those independents haven’t decided this late in the game that they’re happy with the incumbent, they’re basically waiting to be seduced.

Bottom line: expect zero fireworks tonight. But I predict that Kerry’s message, in the coming weeks, will eclipse the incumbent’s campaign that really boils down to “I don’t have much to say except that the other guy would be worse!”

[John_Mace]

I’ve got Harball on in the background, and the mess that the Kerry staff is making of things leading up the debate is just laughable. They’re surprised that time-out lights are going to be visible, even though the agreement clearly stated they would be, and every news report I’ve seen for days talked about it.

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

I’ve got Harball on in the background, and the mess that the Kerry staff is making of things leading up the debate is just laughable. They’re surprised that time-out lights are going to be visible, even though the agreement clearly stated they would be, and every news report I’ve seen for days talked about it.

So: when is Team Bush going to make the trains run on time in some setting besides a political campaign?

[Mehitabel]

Everybody turn to C_SPAN right now, Lehrer’s laying down the law to the audience. Hilarious and strict.

[DrDeth]

Well, according to all the Pundits, polls & experts- Kerry won, but Bush didn’t lose, and didn’t do bad at all. This might mean a point or two to Kerry, which will help a lot, but it certainly still means the election is “too close to call”.

[Zoe]

Well, according to all the Pundits, polls & experts- Kerry won, but Bush didn’t lose, and didn’t do bad at all.

So all of the pundits, polls and experts agree? Give me a break.

[John_Mace]

Good point. It’s not so much about who wins, but if someone loses badly. If someone makes a “big mistake” that will haunt them thru the rest of the campaign. Neither guy did that tonight. There’s no equivalent, as superficial as it might be, to the Gore sighing, the Bush I pledge about no new taxes (which hurt him in the reelection), etc. Maybe if Kerry can keep this position of a slight lead thru the next two debates, it’ll be enough for him to break thru his slump.

[Ms2001]

@John Mace

There’s no equivalent, as superficial as it might be, to the Gore sighing, the Bush I pledge about no new taxes (which hurt him in the reelection), etc.

Bush sure did his share of smirking, eye rolling, and looking like he just ate a lemon. Kerry looked confident and bemused when Bush was speaking, but Bush seemed nervous and annoyed.

[Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew]

@Debaser

Also, Kerry has a history of slipping in the poles the more he speaks in public

That turned out to be one of the few points Bush scored off of Kerry last night: he did slip on the Poles!

[JRDelirious]

@Biffy the Elephant Shrew

That turned out to be one of the few points Bush scored off of Kerry last night: he did slip on the Poles!

(True, but seriusly: “he forgot Poland again” could also be spun as a recognition the number of reailistic active participants in the Coalition is really small)
Overall, a solid performance with no true grand slams or deadly self-inflicted wounds on either side. Contentwise W held on to his script (how many times did he say “it’s a hard job”, or “sending the wrong message”?) while K presented himself for the interview and looked at ease, attentive and communicative. Style points off to the prez for looking fidgety, though (but good for the TV news outfits – they should should just tell any campaign manager for the foreseeable future: “dude, reaction shots stay in or you can go on the radio”). In another thread on the issue, Doper StarvingArtist gives the evaluation as that “Kerry was confident and dignified and that Bush was strong and scrappy”, which is a good evaluation of their performance.

[Yookeroo]

“They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that’s true. We were taken for a ride.” -President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland

[Patty_O_Furniture]

There’s no equivalent, as superficial as it might be, to the Gore sighing

Moveon.org has Bush’s reaction shot as Kerry rips into him for the “thay attacked us” line. To me, that look every bit as bad as Al Gore’s respiratory patterns sounded 4 years ago. I’m not watching tv today so I don’t know what kind of airplay it’s getting, if any.
http://www.moveonpac.org/#