The Presidential Debate Blog

See you in Summer 2012!

2011-10-27T06:47:00.000-07:00

We're taking a hiatus for now, but we plan to be back in full force on August 1, 2012 to cover the Presidential Debates.

Whitman and Brown Agree to Three Debates

2010-07-29T10:14:00.000-07:00

The Whitman and Brown campaigns have agreed to hold three gubernatorial debates in the Golden State. Brown had originally asked for ten. The San Francisco Chronicle has a piece out on the decision, quoting me (Aaron) and PDB guest blogger Alan Schroeder.

California Gubernatorial Primary Debate

2010-05-01T07:09:00.000-07:00

The San Francisco Chronicle has a piece up today which cites our blog about Sunday's debate between Republican candidates for governor Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner. You can read the full piece here.

Summing Up the British PM Debates: A Guest Post by Professor Alan Schroeder

2010-04-30T09:19:00.000-07:00

The following guest post is by Alan Schroeder, an associate professor in the School of Journalism at Northeastern University and the author of Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High Risk TV. To read more on his lessons for America from the British debates, see his recent piece in the Huffington Post.

With Britain’s first-ever prime ministerial debate series now at an end, the obvious question is: what took so long? Like its two predecessors, last night’s third and final joint appearance among the three major party leaders played out as a substantive and illuminating exchange of ideas. Voters who watched the debate gained a good deal of insight, not only into the policies of the various parties but also into the personalities of the men who aspire to lead the British government.

Coming into the final debate, incumbent prime minister Gordon Brown (Labour) found himself in an awkward position, thanks to a well publicized gaffe the day before in which he unwittingly got caught referring to a Labour voter as a “bigoted woman.” Brown wisely defused this tempest-in-a-teapot in his opening statement, saying, “There’s a lot to this job, and as you saw yesterday, I don’t always get it right.” The reference, oblique yet crystal-clear, managed to push the unpleasantness into the shadows, at least for the duration of the broadcast.

Brown gave his best performance in the third debate, but this was not enough to overtake his more telegenic rivals in the snap polls. David Cameron (Conservative) also turned in his best debate of the series, and Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) extended his impressive track record as a gifted television debater. Most of the instant surveys and many of the pundits gave Cameron the win, with Clegg trailing slightly behind.

For my money, the third debate was more of a three-way stand-off. Gordon Brown faced the greatest challenge, not only because of the “bigoted woman” flap but also because the topic of the debate was the economy. As the incumbent prime minister, Brown had no choice but to play defense, while his competitors were able to present alternative scenarios. Brown did about as well as anyone could under these circumstances, especially in view of his monotonous style of delivery.

Nick Clegg has been a consistently strong performer in these debates, but in this final installment of the miniseries, he seemed to be repackaging his greatest hits rather than broadening his message. Clegg’s attempt to invoke Ronald Reagan against his rivals—“there they go again”—fell flat, and the Liberal Democrat leader came off as less commanding than in his previous appearances.

To this observer, David Cameron has been the most difficult of the three candidates to read in these debates. He is obviously a bright and articulate man, full of ideas and talented at arguing his case, but an invisible barrier between him and the audience seems to prevent him from fully connecting. Interestingly, before the debates began Cameron was thought to possess the most gilded media personality of the trio. Although he improved considerably as the series progressed, the Tory leader never quite came into sharp focus, at least from my perspective.

Finally, a mea culpa: Before the debates I predicted that the restrictive format would make for dull viewing. It didn’t. While it is true that the town hall questioners felt more like scenery than participants, the net effect was to keep the focus on the candidates, where it properly belonged. Brown, Cameron, and Clegg appeared more interested in interacting with each other than scoring points with the studio audience; this resulted in a higher degree of candidate give-and-take than we find in American debates. And fluent camera work by the British networks successfully circumvented the proscriptions imposed in the campaigns’ heavily negotiated production guidelines, making the programs visually compelling.

With its five decades of history, the institution of presidential debates in the U.S. proved highly influential in the design and execution of Britain’s first prime ministerial match-ups. In the final analysis, however, America may have lessons to learn from its pupil.

The British Debates, Round Two – A Guest Post by Professor Alan Schroeder

2010-04-25T16:05:00.000-07:00

The following guest post is by Alan Schroeder, an associate professor in the School of Journalism at Northeastern University and the author of Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High Risk TV.

The second U.K. prime ministers’ debate proved to be a more spirited affair than its predecessor, with the candidates displaying fewer nerves and more aggression. After Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg’s surprise win in round one, rivals Gordon Brown (Labour) and David Cameron (Conservative) were determined to prevent a repeat of the previous week’s outcome, and in large measure they succeeded. Post-debate polls split the victory between Clegg and Cameron, with Brown also making gains.

The format for all three British debates is the same. However, each program has a different TV network as its sponsor, which means a new look and new packaging from one week to the next. Sky News, the Rupert Murdoch-owned news channel that produced the second debate, opted for a glitzier set, but as in the previous outing, the town hall audience of questioners appeared detached from the proceedings, both visually and spiritually. These debates are very much candidate-centric, with minimal input from the moderator and studio audience.

Perhaps because of this format, the first two debates have been remarkably substantive, with a broad range of subject matter under discussion. In the second debate, which focused on international issues, one of the more interesting topics was a “wild card” question about Pope Benedict and the Vatican sexual abuse scandal. During his response Nick Clegg uttered words that to American ears were nothing short of shocking: “I am not a man of faith.” In the U.S. this would have torpedoed his candidacy; in Britain it barely merited comment.

Ratings dropped from 9.4 million viewers for the first debate to 4.4 million for the second, not because of lessened interest but due to the quirky sponsorship arrangement, which strictly limits which channels are allowed to broadcast the debates. This week’s final debate, sponsored by the BBC, is expected to be more widely available. And as the concluding installment of the miniseries, interest is likely to run particularly high.

In the final analysis, Britain’s first-ever prime ministerial debates may not affect the result of the election; nonetheless, they have captured the nation’s attention and dominated the campaign. After the 2010 debates, it seems safe to say that British elections will never be the same.

Who Won Britain's Prime Minister Debate -- A Guest Post by Professor Alan Schroeder

2010-04-16T12:31:00.000-07:00

The following guest post is by Alan Schroeder, an associate professor in the School of Journalism at Northeastern University and the author of Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High Risk TV.

Nick Clegg’s decisive win in last night’s first-ever U.K. prime ministerial debate is one of two topics dominating the news in Britain today. The other is the plume of volcanic ash from Iceland that has closed air traffic in and out of the country, wreaking havoc on the travel industry. This morning the tabloid Daily Mail managed to acknowledge both events with a memorable page-one headline: “We’re All Paralysed by Hot Air.”

According to the ratings, some 10 million viewers watched the first of the three scheduled debates among the three British party leaders, a respectable if not spectacular figure in a country of 61 million people. That number probably would have gone even higher if not for the peculiar sponsorship arrangement of these debates, which allows each of the three sponsoring TV networks to air its program on an exclusive basis within the United Kingdom. Unlike presidential debates in the U.S., which are simulcast by all the major networks, viewers here could watch the first Brown-Cameron-Clegg matchup only on ITV (though it was also available on the internet and on BBC Radio.) For next week’s Sky News debate and the final BBC debate on April 29, similar restrictions will apply.

Another key difference between the US and British debates could be seen in the media coverage. In the hours before the debate began, ITV offered no special programming leading up to the event. Instead, the schedule went directly from “Coronation Street” to the debate, a juxtaposition reminiscent of how the U.S. broadcast networks handled the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960. The all-news BBC and Sky channels did present a fair bit of pre-debate discussion during the afternoon and early evening hours, but nowhere near what we find in the U.S.–no countdown clocks, no glitzy graphics, no endless discussions by talking heads of which candidate has to accomplish what.

Post-debate coverage more closely followed American norms, with party spinners and instant polls and focus groups of voters reacting to what they had seen. But again, by U.S. standards the intensity of the effort seemed quite subdued.

Although the tightly negotiated British format did not look promising on paper, in practice it worked reasonably well. An audience of 200 demographically representative voters, selected by an independent recruiting agency, submitted written questions in advance. These questions were reviewed by an editorial board, which then decided on the topics for the debate. Only eight audience members actually got to ask their questions on the air, meaning that the town hall “participants” played a very limited role in the proceedings. The candidates addressed each theme for one minute, followed by a four-minute period of “free debate”—by far, the most interesting part of the program. The moderator, who asked no questions of his own, served primarily as a traffic cop.

Why did Nick Clegg, the third-party “odd man out,” win the debate? In addition to a technically proficient performance, Clegg approached the evening with a clear strategy: to portray his major-party opponents as two peas in the same old pod and himself as the breath of fresh air British voters have been waiting for. Clegg was handed an unexpected gift by Tory leader David Cameron, whose usual camera savvy seemed to fail him at this crucial point in the campaign. Pundits here weren’t expecting much from incumbent Prime Minister Gordon Brown, an ursine man with an inexpressive face, and he lived up to those low expectations.

From an American perspective, the interesting thing about Clegg’s victory is that it ultimately may not matter, since voters in the U.K. elect a government, not an individual leader. Given the realities of British politics, it will be virtually impossible for Clegg’s Liberal Democrats to pick up a majority of seats. Still, this should not diminish Nick Clegg’s accomplishment. Most debates do not produce a clear winner—this one did.

Prime Minister Debate: The View from England -- Guest Post by Alan Schroeder

2010-04-15T14:02:00.000-07:00

The following guest post is by Alan Schroeder, an associate professor in the School of Journalism at Northeastern University and the author of Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High Risk TV.

The anticipation is mounting as Britain prepares for its first-ever prime ministerial TV debates on Thursday night. As a scholar of the U.S. presidential debates, I’ve come over to London to see how this influential American institution manifests itself across the Atlantic. This preview that I wrote for the Huffington Post provides a basic introduction to the players, the format, and the media coverage, but a few additional points also bear mention.

Critics of the British debates question whether these events are appropriate in a country with a parliamentary system. After all, voters are electing a government, not an individual leader. This means that the three contenders – Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Nick Clegg – will appear on the ballot only in their home constituencies, not nationally. Those arguing against debates in Britain make the point that the exercise is too presidentially oriented and therefore not reflective of local political realities. It’s an interesting assertion, and not without validity, but a strong counterargument can be offered as well: numerous other countries with parliamentary systems regularly feature televised debates during national elections, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

For the British, this seems to be an appropriate election in which to inaugurate candidate debates, because the polling indicates a murky outcome. There is little enthusiasm for incumbent Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labour party, yet plenty of trepidation about his chief rival, Tory leader David Cameron. This heightens the importance of the third party candidate, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats, who may be called upon to form a coalition government – or, as the Brits call it, a “hung Parliament.”

I am struck by the degree to which American debate history is coloring the British debates. American political consultants are advising the candidates on debate prep, and clips from past American debates fill the airwaves. The local media are promising American-style instant post-debate polls and analysis, though the rules of engagement prohibit the superimposition of any poll results before the live events have gone off the air. I will be especially interested to see whether this opening round of prime ministerial face-offs ratifies debates as a permanent fixture of British campaigns, or whether the U.K. will see a repeat of what happened after Kennedy and Nixon, when debates vanished from American politics for the next sixteen years. Much will depend on what happens these next three Thursdays.

UK Debate Tomorrow

2010-04-13T13:46:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow will be the first-ever televised prime minister debate.

Gordon Brown Preps for the Prime Minister's Debates

2010-03-16T19:19:00.001-07:00

U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has started actively prepping for three expected debate against opponents David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

The dates for the U.K.'s first-ever Prime Minister Debate have not been yet been set. However, the debates will take place in the three full weeks prior to the election, which is expected to be called for May 6th.

Obama's State of the Union Inspiration: Ronald Reagan

2010-01-28T07:17:00.000-08:00

I've written a short piece over at the Huffington Post analyzing last night's State of the Union. I argue that Obama's central rhetorical inspiration was Ronald Reagan.

Texas Gubernatorial Debates

2010-01-18T09:23:00.000-08:00

There is a very interesting campaign going on in Texas: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (KBH) is facing off against two-term incumbent governor Rick Perry. Perry is currently the longest-serving governor in Texas; it is doubtful that anyone short of the Senator could give him a serious challenge. KBH shook up Texas politics with her candidacy; she may open a senate seat and cause movement among other elected offices.

The Texas Gubernatorial Debates are underway. Last Thursday, the three Republican candidates squared off against each other. Video is here: http://texasdebates.org/video.php. A Hutchison-Perry debate takes place on Jan. 29 and will be broadcast live on the web. More info here: http://www.kvue.com/news/KVUE-to-co-host-GOP-debate-Perry-Hutchison-face-off-Jan-29-81268267.html.

I'm listening to the first debate now.

The upside of a Texas debate: A candidate (Hutchison) was just asked whether she carries her handgun everywhere in violation of the law (Hutchison has previously told folks that she keeps a gun in her car, which is legal even without a permit). She answered no (the question was a waste of time), but at least it was amusing.

That question came from the same moderator who mispronounced tyranny "tie-ranny". But lest I further the stereotypes, that was unrepresentative: the overall quality has been good.

Now the candidates are getting to ask each other questions. Perry is hammering KBH for voting for the bailouts, especially the auto bailout. Perry has already given a sketchy answer on unemployment (which Medina called him on), so I expect KBH is about to hit him with an unemployment question, or a tax question. But first, Medina gets her question, and she's hammering the governor for broken promises (and switching to the Republican party years ago).

For the rest, you'll have to listen to the debates yourself; I will report back later.

Mike McCurry Replaces Paul Kirk on the Commission on Presidential Debate

2010-01-14T11:42:00.000-08:00

Mike McCurry, former secretary for Bill Clinton, is replacing Paul Kirk (currently senator from Massachusetts) as the Democratic Representative on the Commission for Presidential Debates.

McCurry is particularly focused on using the internet for future debates. He wants to "encourage people to actually participate, give us ideas and talk about how could the web make the presidential debates in 2012 more accessible to you."

Botswana Presidential Debate

2009-10-14T11:43:00.000-07:00

Ian Khama, the President of Botswana has announced that he will not participate in tonight's presidential debate. Instead, his Vice-President will represent the governing party. Khama is notoriously adverse to impromptu speaking. Unlike his predecessors, he has never participated in a public debate, and has avoided free-wheeling press conferences.

New York's Mayoral Debate Tonight

2009-10-13T07:32:00.000-07:00

New York's Mayoral candidates will debate tonight. As the New York Times notes, Hizzoner has some Gore-ish debating problems, "Sighing audibly, which he does when he is attacked. Gazing toward the heavens, which he does when annoyed by a question. Reciting endless statistical information, which he does almost reflexively."

However, the challenger, City Comptroller William C. Thompson, is no rhetorical steamroller either: "[Thompson] can sound sarcastic, especially when rebutting a point. He wags his finger and rolls his eyes. And, oddly, he answers questions by issuing his own long-winded self-referential questions."

The debate will be at 7pm, live on NY1 and WNYC.

Britain's Prime Minister Debate

2009-10-03T15:53:00.000-07:00

Gordon Brown expressed support today for televised debates between party leaders ahead of the upcoming elections in Great Britain, which must take place before June 2010. There have long been discussions of such debates across the pond, but they've never occurred for a variety of reasons.

Chile's Presidential Debate

2009-09-22T13:19:00.000-07:00

Chile will hold its first presidential debate of this election cycle on Wednesday, September 22nd. All five candidates will participate in the event, which will be televised live on Television Nacional de Chile (TVN).

Breathless in Berlin: Germany's “Chancellor Debate” Is Facing an Insecure Future -- A Guest Post by Professor Christoph Bieber

2009-09-18T12:12:00.000-07:00

Christoph Bieber is an Assistant Professor at the Institute for Political Science at the University of Giessen, Germany. His research is focusing on political communication, Internet and Politics, and Media Democracy.

Last Sunday, Germany conducted its third TV debate since installing “duel-style” discussions in 2002. Incumbent Angela Merkel and challenger Frank-Walter Steinmeier (who is also serving as Vice Chancellor in Mrs. Merkels cabinet) faced off in Berlin-Adlershof. Despite an audience of about 14 million viewers, this might have been the last of its kind. Although four leading television networks (two public, two commercial) televised the debate, ratings have dropped sharply from an astounding 21 million in 2005.

Each of the networks sent one of its anchors to the debate, leading to a “press panel”-format, considered outdated elsewhere in the world, and now appears outdated in Germany as well. The four-headed team of so-called “moderators” immediately started firing questions at the candidates, and the resulting high-speed Q&A-Session did all but benefit the debate. Even worse, the tone set by especially bold and biting questions let both politicians lower their shields – sometimes they seemed to prefer a private discussion without being interrupted or inappropriately addressed. Steinmeier managed to be more sovereign in expressing his dislike, while Merkel too often was caught haggling with the journalists for her right to debate.

The selection of issues discussed and their placement on the debate schedule were disputable at best. Following the over-paced opening sequence, the discussion of the economic crisis unsurprisingly dominated the first 35 minutes, including a detailed section on the future of “New Opel” and the regulation of manager’s earnings. The debate only glanced at energy policy, focusing on the discussion about the shutdown of nuclear power plants. Foreign policy came up next; in Germany that means military operations in Afghanistan. Between those issues, lengthy passages wasted time with political trivia (“What is the worst voter turnout for the Social Democrats after WWII, Mr. Steinmeier?”; “What was the average increase of the German economy during the last 10 years, Mrs. Merkel?”) or horserace-related questions on potential coalitions after a non-decisive vote. Of course, none of the candidates responded openly.

Yes, all of this may well fit into a debate, but Germany’s “Chancellor Duel” is legitimized because of extra-large viewership – and its dignity. This year, the format suffered from breathless browsing through the agenda and an irreverent struggle for questions and answers. Looking back, the debate class of 2009 might be remembered as a critical juncture in debate history: to save the format into the future, Germany has to switch to a series of debates led by a single moderator. Another lesson learned from this year’s damage might be the installation of an independent committee governing the debates – the role of the television networks as the sole sponsors of the debate has to be considered not as a mixed blessing, but as a curse.

Final point: television as the dominant factor within the German media landscape had secluded itself in the studio city at Berlin-Adlershof. Ridiculously, television networks had interdicted livestreaming the debate. If the reactions of the lively online scene would have been on the radar of German television gentry, starting points for an old media critique were obvious. The biggest portion of online coverage in blogs, livechats or on Twitter did not deal with statements or performance of Merkel and Steinmeier – the net bashed the four moderators.

Afghanistan's First Presidential Debate

2009-08-16T12:59:00.000-07:00

President Hamid Karzai participated in Afghanistan's first live presidential debate today. Karzai had earlier refused to attend the first presidential debate, citing too many candidates in attendance and negative bias by the radio station. This time, Karzai's main rival, Abdullah Abdullah, declined to attend.

Karzai and Abdullah are out-McCaining McCain on the debate front.

Video of the earlier (Karzai-less) debate can be found here.

Peggy Lamp, 78, Presidential Debate Format Designer

2009-08-10T13:31:00.000-07:00

Peggy Lamp, former executive director of the League of Women Voter's passed away today at 78. Lamp helped to design the modern presidential debates, which began with Carter-Ford in 1976.

From the Washington Post:

"[Lamp] persuaded the FCC to allow the league to sponsor the event with a two-party format in order to bypass the 'equal-time law,' which would have required several minor party candidates to participate. The league considered multiple participants to be unwieldy."

Lamp is also credited with inventing the vice-presidential debate.

The full article from the Washington Post can be found here.

"Five Friends" In German

2009-07-19T20:36:00.001-07:00

Although not technically presidential debating, there's an interesting video here (even better for those who speak German-- it doesn't have subtitles) which is a takeoff of the "Five Friends" voting video from 2008.

This video features a variety of German TV and movie actors "urging" people not to vote in upcoming elections. The upcoming elections will feature public debates between the candidates.

Face-off to Facebook: From the Nixon-Khrushchev Kitchen Debate to Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century

2009-07-13T08:02:00.000-07:00

George Washington University if putting on an interesting, free, and public conference, "From the Nixon-Khrushchev Kitchen Debate to Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century" this Thursday in Washington, D.C. from 9am-5pm.

The conference marks the 50th anniversary of the American National Exhibition in Moscow—site of the famous Nixon-Khrushchev “Kitchen Debate”—and explores the opportunities for U.S. public diplomacy in a Web 2.0 world.

They've got a great lineup, including historian Sergei Khrushchev, the son of Nikita Khrushchev and William Safire, New York Times columnist and former speech writer for Nixon. Information and registration can be found here.

Jack Kemp Understood the Difference Between Enemies and Opponents: A Guest Post by Professor Joel Goldstein

2009-05-04T10:57:00.000-07:00

The following is a guest post by Professor Joel Goldstein of the Saint Louis University School of Law. It originally appeared in the St. Louis Beacon.

The example of Jack Kemp stands in sharp contrast to much political discourse today, which tends to demonize opponents rather than fairly consider their views. During his prime moment in the national spotlight -- the 1996 vice-presidential debate -- Kemp demonstrated that politics need not be a contact sport in which the ends justify the means but can provide an opportunity to discuss important issues in a civil manner.

Kemp vigorously embraced the task of celebrating Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole’s impressive career of public service, but he refused to assume the traditional vice-presidential role as campaign hatchet man as some suggested he should. Kemp was interested in ideas, not vilifying opponents, and the political low road was not a path he traveled even when it might have seemed the most expedient route to the desired destination.

The 1996 vice-presidential debate between Kemp and Al Gore stands as one of the most substantively rich and civilized of the 34 presidential and vice-presidential debates since 1960. Kemp helped set the tone when he responded to Jim Lehrer’s first question regarding Republican criticisms of Dole’s failure “to draw personal and ethical differences between him and President Clinton.”

“Bob Dole and myself do not see Al Gore and Bill Clinton as our enemy,” Kemp replied. “We see them as our opponents. This is the greatest democracy in the world. People are watching not only throughout this country, but all over the world as to how this democracy can function with civility and respect, and decency and integrity. … These issues will be aired, but they'll be aired with dignity and respect, and, ultimately, leave it to the American people to make up their minds about who should be the leader of this country into the 21st century.”

Kemp and Gore proceeded to air their competing substantive political visions for the 90 minutes in a civil exchange of ideas. Gore celebrated the accomplishments of the Clinton-Gore first term and discussed specific programs to which they were committed. Kemp argued that the economy was operating well below capacity because Americans were overtaxed and over-regulated, a refrain he sounded again and again. He called for flattening tax rates and relying on economic incentives, not federal regulation, to address societal problems.

Kemp referred to Gore as “my friend”; Gore spoke of his “enormous respect” for Kemp and Dole whom he described as “good men.”

Kemp did not elevate political discourse that evening simply by discussing ideas in a civil fashion, although that in itself was a substantial contribution. He also spoke eloquently of the values of a pluralistic society and the need to make the American Dream accessible to all Americans.

“I'm trying to make a bigger point. That civility cannot return to our country unless every person feels that they have an equal shot at the American dream,” he said. “That if you're born in this country to be a mezzo-soprano or a master carpenter or a school teacher, like my daughter, or a professional football quarterback, nothing should be in your way.”

Kemp’s theme was quite different from that of some prior Republican national candidates who used racial code words and blamed the poor for their plight. “It is not the values of the poor that should be called into question, it is the values of the welfare system from Washington … that prevent people from climbing out of poverty, “ he said.

America needed to reject “exclusionary policies,” he said. “It is so very important for Americans, white and black, Jew and Christian, immigrant and native-born, to sit down and talk and listen and begin to understand what it's like to come from that different perspective.”

Kemp understood that America could only hope to export its ideals if it made them work at home.

“Civility, responsibility, racial reconciliation, healing the wounds of our country has to be one of the greatest, most singularly important goals for this country here on the edge of the 21st Century,” he said. “How in the name of American democracy can we say to eastern Europe that democratic capitalism will work there if we can't make it work in East L.A. or East Harlem or East Palo Alto, California? How can we tell South Africa and the new Mandela government that democracy and private property and limited government and the rule of law and civility will work there if it's not working in our own backyard here at home or the South Bronx? How can America go into the next century and leave so many people behind?”

Gore said it well that night. “[T]hroughout most of his career, Jack Kemp has been a powerful and needed voice against the kind of coarseness and incivility that [moderator Jim Lehrer had referred to in a question]. I think it's an extremely valuable service to have a voice within the Republican Party who says we ought to be one nation. We ought to cross all of the racial and ethnic and cultural barriers. I think that is a very important message to deliver. … I compliment Mr. Kemp for the leadership he has shown in moving us away from that kind of attitude.”

It’s an example many could follow today.

James Stockdale's Debate Performance, Continued

2009-04-24T11:08:00.000-07:00

The L.A. Times has a letter out today from me on Admiral Stockdale's performance, reiterating that his opening line was strong, regardless of the remainder of his performance.

Upcoming Debate Event

2009-04-23T07:18:00.000-07:00

ThinkProgress is reporting that former President Bush (43) and Clinton will be meeting in Toronto next month for a debate.

Without knowing anything beyond this brief blurb, the only real comment I can make is that the choice of format sounds unfortunate, and like a format that will not allow for any meaningful exchange or comparison of ideas.

I'm reminded of the story arc in the 4th season of the West Wing (which I'm watching for the first time), when the Bartlett White House trades down the number of Presidential debates in exchange for a change to a format that allows for an actual exchange of ideas. It's just irritating that we don't have the opportunity to watch these two really lock horns.

Still, it's better than nothing.

The U.S.S. Stockdale and Vice Presidential Debates

2009-04-19T12:14:00.000-07:00

The L.A. Times has an article out today about the recent commissioning of the Navy's newest ship, the U.S.S. Stockdale. The article notes that Ross Perot, Stockdale's 1992 running mate, spoke at the ship's commissioning.

While Perot discussed Admiral Stockdale's heroism as a Vietnam POW, the L.A. Times also discusses Stockdale's famous 1992 presidential debate moment: "At the vice presidential debate, [Stockdale] appeared unprepared and confused, an impression that deepened when he asked: 'Who am I? Why am I here?'"

As I've articulated earlier, this storyline is wrong. Stockdale's line was the highpoint of his performance and was regarded as such at the time (you can watch the clip for yourself here (at minute 7) -- we rated it the fourth presidential debate line best of all time). Moreover, there's no way Stockdale could have "deepened" the impression that he was "unprepared," given that those lines were the first he spoke all night.

In fact, Stockdale's opener was good enough that Fred Thompson reprised it in 2007. Jim Lehrer, in a 1999 interview with Stockdale, recalled, "That line, 'Who am I?' and 'Why am I here?' of course, got great publicity." That's not bad, considering Stockdale only learned about his participation in the debates a week beforehand.

Analyzing Obama's Speech to Congress

2009-02-24T23:02:00.000-08:00

I've got a piece up at the Huffington Post analyzing the rhetorical inspirations for Obama's speech to Congress, including Presidents, playwrights, and hobbits.

Presidential Debates: The End of an Era

2009-02-18T14:43:00.000-08:00

Demolition is underway for 630 North McClurg Court, Chicago, Illinois. The building was home to CBS 2 from 1956-2008, and it's downstairs production room, Studio 2, was home to the first Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960.

Who Won the 2008 Presidential Debates?

2009-01-24T12:41:00.000-08:00

The 2008 Presidential Election has passed from current events into recent history. From a broader historical perspective, the 2008 presidential debates had little impact on the two major party nominees. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain committed a slip-up on par with Gerald Ford’s supposed gaffe that Poland was “independent.” Neither scored the knockout blow of Ronald Reagan’s now legendary put down of Jimmy Carter: “There you go again.” Neither Sarah Palin nor Joe Biden came close to Lloyd Bentsen’s famous “You’re no Jack Kennedy” body-slam on Dan Quayle.

Yet, the 2008 presidential debates were historically unique in their impact on persons who were not the major party nominees. Although the debates changed neither McCain nor Obama’s fortunes, there were still major winners in the 2008 debates.

Here are the awards for the top five finishes in the 2008 presidential debate cycle:

First Place: Joe Biden. During the 2008 campaign, Biden delivered the strongest primary debate performance of any candidate. In a line worthy of The Gipper himself, Biden skewered a question about his verbosity, answering with a simple, resounding “yes.” This moment carries the possibility of future immortality. Biden also won great acclaim for declaring that Giuliani’s sentences consist of “a noun, a verb, and 9-11.” At the same time, Biden came off as a knowledgeable elder statesman, paving the way for his Vice Presidential selection. If not for the primary debates, Biden would likely not be Barack Obama’s Vice President.

Second Place: Mike Huckabee. The silver-tongued former Arkansas governor gathered steam during the early Republican primary debates, leading to the “Huckaboom” when he swept the Iowa primary. Huckabee’s folksy demeanor and easy delivery sold well with voters who got to know him in a series of oratorical contests where he bested Mitt Romney and John McCain. The debates surely weren’t everything: Chuck Norris delivered an Oprah-like punch for the former Razorback governor. However, Huckabee’s rhetorical debate skill established him as a formidable player in the Republican Party in 2008 and beyond.

Third Place: Rick Warren. Warren did the best job of any debate moderator. Although his Saddleback Civil Forum was not a formal debate, Warren managed to steal the show, getting both candidates together (albeit not on stage simultaneously) to answer questions for the first time in the election cycle. Moreover, the Saddleback event cemented Warren’s status as America’s pastor, allowing him to step beyond the conventional Republican affiliation of other evangelicals. No American religious figure since Billy Graham has so adeptly straddled the partisan divide. Obama’s choice of Warren for the inaugural prayer reflects Reverend Rick’s continuing role in American politics. Like Huckabee, there’s a good chance we’ll be seeing more of Rick Warren in the future.

Fourth Place: Sarah Palin. It’s tough to remember how on-the-ropes Palin was after her disastrous interviews with Katie Couric. The October 2nd Vice Presidential Debate gave Palin the chance to redeem herself, and she did. In the words of Queen Latifah on Saturday Night Live, Palin entered the vice-presidential debate with “historically low expectations.” Palin didn’t knock Biden out. In fact, most debate polls showed Biden pulling ahead. But Palin’s debate performance effectively staunched the bleeding from the wounds caused by the Couric interviews. Her decent debate performance strengthened her claim as a national public figure both in the 2008 campaign and for the future.

Fifth Place: Joe the Plumber. Samuel J. Wurzelbacher awoke on the morning of Wednesday, October 15th a mere mortal. By nightfall, he was an international celebrity. Since then, Wurzelbacher has become an author, reporter, and potential candidate for Congress. Joe the Plumber was the “Lockbox” of the 2008 debate season, the line everyone will remember long after the specifics have faded into the distant memory.

The 2008 debate season may be over, but the impacts of the debates will be felt far into the future. Victory, they say, has a thousand fathers (and mothers). However, Biden, Huckabee, Palin, Warren, and Joe the Plumber all owe a special moment of thanks to the 2008 presidential debates.

Barack Obama's Inaugural Address

2009-01-20T14:25:00.000-08:00

I've written a piece at the Huffington Post about the memorable lines from Obama's inaugural address. I hope you'll have chance to check it out.

The Technology Debate

2008-11-17T11:07:00.000-08:00

Technology was integral to the Presidential debates this year; from CNN's squiggly line approval tracking to internet-submitted questions, the Commission and the campaigns clearly understood the need to begin to incorporate new and improved equipment and techniques into the debate landscape.

But a piece on MediaPost suggests that while the debates may well have been tech-savvy, that new fluency was only shared by one campaign.

There's not much new here: we all knew that Obama was far more tech-savvy than his significantly older opponent--but what we may not have realized was the impact of the disparity in expertise on results. The causal chains here are not fully explored, though, and they may have some important implications for future elections--and future candidate selection during the primaries.

I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption that younger, tech-savvy voters are more likely to participate in and value tech-heavy elements of the debates. Which means that if one candidate tracks more favorably among such voters, their supporters will probably be the ones submitting internet questions or engaging in whatever tech-saturated methods of participation emerge in future years... and those questions and that participation will likely be slanted in favor of that candidate.

So by the incorporation of technological bars to voter participation in debates and other elements of campaign discourse, we seem to be (inadvertently) favoring a certain class of candidates: the article suggests, at least implicitly, that younger candidates who are themselves technically competent will have greater appeal than their older, IT-inept counterparts.

I'm not really sure that this is a problem, or if it is, that it's one worth solving. But I do think it's something that should be kept in mind as individuals consider running in future elections and as primary voters cast their early ballots.

Hopkins Speech Clips

2008-11-12T14:27:00.000-08:00

This post contains video clips for a talk Mark and I gave at Hopkins School on Friday morning. Video of the talk is available here. Please scroll down for the regular blog posts.

Seeing is Believing: The Viewer-Listener Dichotomy in the Vice-Presidential Debate

2008-11-11T13:16:00.000-08:00

The results of an interesting study by Mike Dorsher, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire, are out today. Dorsher surveyed debate viewers at the University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire and Mcgill University about their reactions to the presidential debates. His survey indicated that, "23 percent of those who watched the debate thought Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) won the debate over Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) while zero percent of those who listened to the debate thought Palin won over Biden." These findings echo the famous viewer-listener dichotomy in the first Kennedy-Nixon debate.

Dorsher's study also indicated that "only two percent of the 324 respondents changed their minds about a candidate choice after watching the debates," a result Dorsher described as "discourag[ing]."

One caveat: Since Dorsher's population was undergraduates at the University of Wisconsin and McGill University in Toronto, the sample is likely not totally representative of the American public.

News Roundup: Sarah Palin Strikes Back

2008-11-07T17:08:00.001-08:00

* Sarah Palin responded to the anonymous sources within the McCain campaign who claimed that her debate prep showed her to be incredibly uniformed, including not knowing that Africa was a continent, and not being able to name the countries in North America. Palin declared "If there are allegations based on questions or comments that I made in debate prep about NAFTA, and about the continent vs. the country when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context . . . . That's cruel, It's mean-spirited. It's immature. It's unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came away with it."

* I've got a piece out today on Huffington Post examining the forgotten figure who invented two of the key lines in Obama's victory speech, Theodore Parker.

The Post-Election Wrap-Up

2008-11-05T08:37:00.000-08:00

Two pieces of Presidential Debate Blog news:

* ABC reports that Obama has offered the Chief of Staff position to Rahm Emmanuel, who oversaw the debate negotiations on behalf of the Obama campaign. Emmanuel has not yet responded.

* I have a piece up today on the Huffington Post about the memorable lines form last night's speeches. It's not quite the top-ten debate lines of all time, but I hope you'll take a read.

Edit: Emmanuel has now accepted the position.

Post-Mortem on the Post-Debate Polls: A Guest Post by Professor George Bishop

2008-10-31T13:13:00.000-07:00

George Bishop is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Graduate Certificate Program in Public Opinion and Survey Research, at the University of Cincinnati. He is the senior editor (with Robert Meadow and Marilyn Jackson-Beeck) of a classic volume on the presidential debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election campaign (The Presidential Debates: Media, Electoral, and Policy Perspectives, Praeger, 1978) and the author most recently of The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005). Following the polling debacle earlier this year in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary, he was invited to contribute a guest column to the Sunday Outlook section of the Washington Post: George Bishop “Why We Keep Getting Snowed by the Polls.” Washington Post, Sunday Outlook, February 3, 2008; B03.

Though I’d dearly love to perform an autopsy here on all the post-debate polls, I’m not likely to get the chance for months and months……and miles to go before I sleep……. As I’ve mentioned in my previous postings, the datasets and documentation from the various polling organizations are not likely to be fully available for awhile. By then most all of us will have moved on to figuring out why the election turned out the way it did (see TPM Café post on the polls last week). It was about the economy, or was it? Would the punditry still tell the same tale about the meaning of the election if McCain ends up winning? Ad hocery rules! Let a thousand unfalsifiable explanations bloom.

But I digress. The collective impact of the 2008 presidential debates on the electoral fortunes of McCain-Palin and Obama-Biden will be difficult, if not impossible, to detect because none of the pollsters will bother to ask just a few, simple questions about (1) whether the “likely voters” in their final pre-election samples watched any of the debates (and if so, how much?) and (2) about whether those “likely voters” now have a better or worse opinion of the various candidates as a consequence of watching the debates. Getting the horserace right will rule the day. As a notable exception, Gary Langer, ABC's Director and Poobah of Polling, has written an excellent summary of the overall impact of the debates among a sample of “likely voters” conducted about a week after the final debate between McCain and Obama. According to Langer’s crunching of the numbers, Obama appears to have gained the most from the series of presidential debates, with opinions of him improving significantly among a variety of swing voter groups, such as Independents, white Catholics, married women, and working-class whites in general. Whereas McCain seems to have benefited little, if at all, among the same swing groups, based on his overall performance in the presidential debates. Might all this have been decisive for many of the swing voters needing to be reassured about Barack Obama’s suitability to be President of the United States?

But alas, this valuable analysis by Langer of the ABC/Washington Post poll in mid-October is likely to be the last we will see of such inquiries by the established pollsters. They will all have moved on to various and sundry speculations about the “reasons” for the outcome of the election, almost none of which is likely to include so much as a mention of the debates as a possible contributing factor. And so the pollsters, the politicians, and the pundits will go on perpetuating the conventional wisdom by saying after the election—and months and years from now—that those presidential debates did not have any lasting impact on the outcome of the 2008 election. Or did they? How will we ever know if that was the case if we didn’t even bother to include debate-linked indicators in our final pre-election polls or in the exit polls on Election Day? Such are the effects of the self-fulfilling prophecies of the pollsters and the orthodoxies of the pundits. Buyer beware!

Some Unavoidable Debate Humor

2008-10-29T08:12:00.000-07:00

Thought some of the debates sounded like a repeat? So did I. And that's no mistake: see the synchronized footage (warning: humorous or saddening, depending upon your mood).

In Defense of Bear DNA

2008-10-28T06:34:00.000-07:00

Past guest poster Professor Lawrence Krauss has an interesting piece out in today's LA Times entitled "McCain's Science Earmark Error." Krauss defends the bear DNA research funding which McCain attacked in the first debate and the overhead project funding McCain ballyhooed in the third go-around.

Krauss defends funding for science research and education, declaring, "It is one of the most remarkable aspects of science that we often don't know where the next practical breakthrough -- the one that might dramatically affect our everyday lives -- will come from." It's an interesting piece and worth a read.

Cicero, Palin, and Character: A Guest Post by Professor Joy Connolly

2008-10-26T12:44:00.000-07:00

The following guest post is by Joy Connolly, Associate Professor of Classics at New York University. She is the author of The State of Speech: Rhetoric and Political Thought in Ancient Rome.

The advent of Sarah Palin in the electoral landscape presents an interesting case for scholars of classical rhetoric. Palin’s appeal, as the candidate herself has described it in speeches and interviews, lies largely in her persona. At her acceptance of the VP nomination at the GOP convention, she self-identified as a “hockey mom,” a regular gal from a small town whom voters could trust to clean up corruption and big spending in Washington. In the vice-presidential debate, after she had seriously under-performed the previous week in interviews with Katie Couric, Palin’s task was to present herself as a character voters could take seriously. What she could not risk was mistakes, even slips of the tongue. (After the “macaca” gaffe on the Virginia stump, which helped ruin his candidacy, Republican candidate George Allen pleaded that he was a victim of malicious misinterpretation -- the Romans called this “prava interpretatio.") Given her experience and talents, Palin made the right choice: instead of wading too deeply into the treacherous waters of policy and platform, she and her advisers put her character front and center.

I don’t mean to echo the complaints from critics that Palin simply replaces “issues” with “character” or “substance” with “style.” One, there’s nothing simple about it, and two, the complaint doesn’t have much traction when votes are at stake. Character and style are crucially important to voters -- and classical rhetoricians argue that there are excellent reason for this. Aristotle, who referred to the representation of character in speech with the word “ethos,” says that it’s one of three ways to make a speech effective, along with logos (argument) and pathos (appeals to emotion). As I noted in an earlier post, the performance of character in political speech can open a window into the individual’s internal world--their views on the issues and “best practices” of governance, their perspectives, priorities, and ideal audience. Appearance is crucial to voters’ judgment of character; this is the aesthetics of politics, a fascinating topic.

The undisputed master of ethos in classical oratory is Cicero, and Palin used a number of his favorite ethos tactics in the debate. Early on, Gwen Ifill asked Palin what she and McCain would do about the subprime lending meltdown (“Who do you think was at fault?...Was it the greedy lenders? Was it the risky home-buyers who shouldn't have been buying a home in the first place? And what should you be doing about it?”). Palin answered, aligning herself with the suffering citizenry with folksy phrases and the first person plural: “Darn right it was the predator lenders, who tried to talk Americans into thinking that it was smart to buy a $300,000 house if we could only afford a $100,000 house.” She then turned the policy question into character testimony, juxtaposing the first person plural with the marked words “Americans” and “Joe Six Pack” and “hockey moms”: “One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day American people, Joe Six Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again.” Palin then answered Ifill’s question by mingling a call for “strict oversight” from the federal government with the citizenry’s need to take “personal responsibility” for the crisis. Her canny choice to end her answer with the theme of personal responsibility completed the circle of references to personality that she had set up with her initial nod to “we” and “us”.

As a rhetorician, Cicero would have applauded Palin’s effort both to identify with the populace at large and her all-embracing if vague approach to policy (federal regulation plus self-regulation). He would also have liked her comment to Joe Biden: “And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.” In several lawcourt speeches, more or less explicitly dismissing the significance of the evidence and even the nature of the charges, Cicero instead describes his client’s honest upbringing, his virtues, his contribution to the glory of Rome, his personal friendship with Cicero, and so on--not the topics the jury initially “wanted to hear”, perhaps, but they made a successful speech nonetheless.

Biden, too, pursued the tactics of ethos -- most effectively when he referred self-deprecatingly to his history of lack of self-discipline and when he emotionally recalled the experience of losing people dear to him.

One interesting difference between the two candidates emerged in the ways they talked about “Main Street.” For Palin, Main Street functioned symbolically: “I think we need a little bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street there, brought to Washington, D.C.” Palin didn’t explain her reasoning here or anywhere else she appealed to the “common man” theme: her phrasing and deportment as she spoke made it clear that “Wasilla Main Street” was intended to stand as a symbol of her simplicity, decency, and pragmatism. Biden’s use of “Main Street” was different: “Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years.” Biden presented Main Street not only as a symbol (though the folksy details pushed that button too) but as a real place where he interacts with the people he represents and where he hears citizens voicing opinions.

In the weeks since the debate, Palin’s performance of character has taken a different turn. “Main Street” has emerged as her primary symbol--a problematic one in the context of her increasingly divisive appeals to a “real America.” But she has stayed far away from real-time interaction with citizens on Main Street. Here, Cicero would find serious fault with her. According to the first century BCE “Handbook of Electioneering” (said to be written by Cicero’s brother), unscripted contact with voters may be tedious and exhausting, but it is absolutely necessary -- not only in order to win, but to create genuine connections between politician and citizenry.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear and Agenda Setting

2008-10-24T11:48:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama referenced a lesser known case in the the final presidential debate, Ledbetter v. Goodyear, 550 U.S. ___ (2007). The reference has gotten a fair amount of recent press, and it showcases the ability of the presidential debates to agenda-set by emphasizing certain topics. First, a summary of Ledbetter:

Lily Ledbetter was an employee of Goodyear from 1979 to 1998. In Novembers 1998, Ledbetter sued Goodyear for gender-based pay discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Ledbetter claimed she did not know of the pay disparity until late in her career, and that the effects of the pay disparity were ongoing. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, held that Ledbetter's suit was barred by the 180 day statute of limitations on such claims. The facts and procedural law are fairly complicated, so I recommend reading the opinion above, or at least SCOTUS blog's summary.

Obama referenced Ledbetter in the third debate, declaring, "I'll just give you one quick example. Senator McCain and I disagreed recently when the Supreme Court made it more difficult for a woman named Lilly Ledbetter to press her claim for pay discrimination . . . I think that it's important for judges to understand that if a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will. And that's the kind of judge that I want." McCain responded that the law Obama had supported in the Senate, "waved the statute of limitations, which you could have gone back 20 or 30 years. It was a trial lawyer's dream."

Obama's discussion of Ledbetter has drawn attention in the media. Kia Franklin, wrote in a recent Op-Ed in Newsday that, "The critical question is: Which result would have best promoted the interests of average Americans? The answer favors Obama's point of view." In contrast, Robert Bovarnick, writing at Forbes.com declared, "[I]t goes to the mindset of whether the government should take care of the Lily Ledbetters of the world, or whether they have a responsibility to take care of themselves. It appears Obama isn't afraid of letting the U.S. morph into a 'nanny state.'"

The ongoing discussion over Ledbetter illustrates the power of the presidential debates to agenda set. Ledbetter is hardly a new issue; there was an Obama campaign ad about the case earlier this year, and Ledbetter spoke at the Democratic National Convention.

Sarah Palin on the Vice President's Job

2008-10-22T09:10:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin has drawn fire for her response to a question a third-grader posed to her on Colorado TV station KUSA. The exchange bears a striking similarity to an exchange between Palin and Ifill in the October 2nd vice presidential debate.

The question from the Colorado third grader was, "What does the Vice President do?” Palin's response: "[T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." Palin's response has been criticized because it overstates the role of the Vice President. The Constitution declares that "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided." In the words of Senate historian Donald Ritchie "The vice president is the ceremonial officer of the Senate . . . It's a relatively limited role."

Palin's answer resembles an exchange from the vice presidential debate. Gwen Ifill asked "[W]hat [do] you think the vice presidency is worth now?" Palin responded, in part, "I'm thankful that the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate." I noted in the live blog that I was "not quite sure what she means."

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella declared that Palin's answer to the Colorado TV question was structured "in terms a third-grader could understand that the vice-president is also president of the U.S. Senate." That seems a bit disingenuous, as Palin's answer expresses the same notion of strong vice presidential oversight that she described in the October 2nd debate.

Personally, I've always been fond of Calvin Coolidge's apocryphal description of being second in command. John Nance Garner provided an even blunter summary of the Vice Presidency.

An Empirical Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Debates: A Guest Post by Professor William Benoit

2008-10-21T08:45:00.000-07:00

William Benoit is a professor of communication at the University of Missouri. He has written several books on political campaigns, including Communication in Political Campaigns (2007). He has a webpage devoted to political campaigns.

Now that the general election debates are over, the University of Missouri Department of Communication research team has analyzed the content of the three encounters between Senators McCain and Obama. Overall, these presidential debates looked much like earlier debates. During the presidential debates, 56 percent of the candidate statements were positive (57 percent in past campaigns’ debates), 35 percent were attacks (same as in the past), and 7 percent were defenses or refutations of attacks (8 percent historically).

Overall, the two candidates were very close. Senator Obama had 34 percent attacking statements; Senator McCain had 36 percent. But there were great variations across the debates: McCain attacked in 34 percent of statements in debates one and two, but his attack output increased to 40 percent in the final debate. In contrast, Obama’s percentage of attacks declined steadily: 42 percent in debate one, 35 percent in debate two, and only 24 percent in debate three. These contrasts may well reflect the candidates’ relative positions in the polls and projected Electoral College votes: Obama led during the debates; McCain was unable to catch up during the debates.

The three debates had more consistency in overall topic (policy versus character). In every debate, both candidates discussed policy more than character, but Obama emphasized policy more, and character less, than McCain in every debate. Overall, 74 percent of Obama’s statements concerned policy and 26 percent concerned character (about the level of past debates: 75 percent policy, 25 percent character). McCain, on the other hand, addressed policy in 67 percent of his remarks and character in 33 percent. This is consistent with past research showing that, in general, Democrats tend to discuss policy more, and character less, than Republicans.

Differences in the topics of their attacks also emerged during the debates. Overall – for both candidates in all three debates – attacks were more about policy (65 percent) than character (35 percent). However, Obama attacked even more on policy (73 percent to 56 percent) and less on character (24 percent to 44 percent) than McCain. Furthermore, Obama’s percentages of attacks on character remained at almost the same level in each debate (26 percent, 23 percent, 23 percent), but McCain’s attacks on character increased sharply in the third debate (39 percent, 33 percent, 54 percent). Throughout these debates, only McCain, and only in the third debate, ever made more attacks on character than policy. When McCain decided to go (more) negative, he did so mainly by attacking Obama’s character.

It is not clear whether the content of the 2008 debates tend to favor one candidate over the other. Historically, there has been some advantage at the polls to those who attacked more than opponents in debates (McCain attacked more in 2008). On the other hand, election winners tend to discuss policy more, and character less, than losers (Obama stressed policy more, and character less, than McCain). Similarly, winners are likely to focus their attacks more on policy, and less on character, than losers (Obama made more attacks on policy, and less on character, than McCain). Of course, debates are only one medium for campaign messages to reach voters, but they are without question an important medium.

Presidential Debate News Roundup 10-21

2008-10-21T07:09:00.000-07:00

• Joe the Plumber’s given first name: Samuel.

• Today Marks the 48^th anniversary of the fourth Kennedy-Nixon debate, the only time the presidential debates have gone to a fourth round.

• CBS/NY Times poll data indicates that Obama’s lead grew during the presidential debates.

• McCain has rolled out the “I’m not George Bush” line from the presidential debates in his newest stump speech. I thought that was the best line either candidate said during the final debate.

Presidential Debate News Roundup 10-20

2008-10-20T08:39:00.000-07:00

• The latest Zogby poll shows Obama widening his lead to over five percent, beginning to answer Cleve’s question: Colin Powell might be trumping Joe the Plumber.

• A recent CNN poll shows a similar spread, and notes "a drop in the number of people who think McCain, if elected, will mostly carry out President Bush's policies," squaring with the "I am not President Bush" line McCain drove home in the most recent debate.

• For a strong critical look at the use of tracking-poll analysis, see 2008Central.net, which has a good post deconstructing this one.

• Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com has a great piece out on why CNN should scrap the real-time feedback lines on the screen in future debates.

• Dr. Liam Fox, MP, and shadow secretary of state for defence, wonders to British voters why they can't have debates as well: ”Is there any chance that next time we will be granted the courtesy given to American voters by their candidate?"

• The third party candidate debate at Columbia University has been canceled because no candidate agreed to attend.

• McCain continues to reference Joe the Plumber, and agrees with me that Joe was the true winner of the of third debate (although McCain has different reasons for believing so).

Edit: Inserted the third bullet point which includes a response to this post.

Joe the Plumber Does His Part?

2008-10-19T16:12:00.000-07:00

The most recent poll numbers (as always, be cautious of reading too much into a single poll) indicate that Obama's lead is slipping. In a Zogby poll comprised entirely of post-debate surveys, the pollster reports that Obama's lead has dropped to a mere three points. Reuters reports that Zogby credits the bump to McCain's appearance in the final presidential debate. Perhaps Professor Bishop will lend his insights to this development, although the Colin Powell endorsement may now start having an impact as well.

Though I did not fault Obama for it during the live blog, it was definitely a mistake to take McCain's point of reference (Joe the Plumber) and use it himself, unless Obama had something extraordinarily powerful to make out of it. It reminded me of McCain's use of the "Wall Street versus Main Street" rhetoric Obama brought into the first debate.

At any rate, perhaps the "I am not President Bush" line worked better than anticipated. Or perhaps Joe, who has become a media sensation since the debate (appearing most recently on Fox), may be making an impression.

Boiling Down the Final Presidential Debate Polls: A Guest Post by Professor George Bishop

2008-10-17T13:19:00.000-07:00

George Bishop is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Graduate Certificate Program in Public Opinion and Survey Research, at the University of Cincinnati. He is the senior editor (with Robert Meadow and Marilyn Jackson-Beeck) of a classic volume on the presidential debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election campaign (The Presidential Debates: Media, Electoral, and Policy Perspectives, Praeger, 1978) and the author most recently of The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005). Following the polling debacle earlier this year in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary, he was invited to contribute a guest column to the Sunday Outlook section of the Washington Post: George Bishop “Why We Keep Getting Snowed by the Polls.” Washington Post, Sunday Outlook, February 3, 2008; B03.

All the polls—the good, the bad, and the ugly—are telling us that Obama won the last and perhaps the most critical of the debates, which was held just nineteen days before the presidential election. Setting aside the unscientific junk-polls (e.g., AOL, MSNBC), it looks like Obama had his best outing yet. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) poll of debate watchers done right after the debate on Wednesday night showed Obama doing “the best job” by a margin of 58% to 31% for McCain, the largest gap to date in their series of post-debate surveys. Even better, the CBS News/Knowledge Networks survey of “uncommitted voters” on the same night gave Obama a lopsided “win” over McCain by a count of 53% to 22%, which was about twice the size of his margin in the two previous presidential debates.

Nearly all the other indicators from these two national media polls came out equally well for Obama. His ratings on such indicators as likeability, expressing his views clearly, understanding people’s needs, sharing their values, making the right decisions about the economy and health care, and trusting him to handle a crisis—everyone of these barometers went up for Obama after the debate. McCain’s image improved on many of these measures too, but not quite as much. His long suit remains being trusted “to handle a crisis”. And perhaps most critical of all, among uncommitted voters in the CBS/Knowledge Networks poll—the majority of whom (56%) are still undecided—preferences for Obama have doubled since the second presidential debate, jumping from 15% to 30%, while commitments to McCain have remained relatively flat: 12% to 14%. The same pattern of winning over independent voters turned up in the CNN/ORC poll: Obama winning by a landslide: 57% to 31%.

So, one more time for the broken record, setting unknown sampling and self-selection biases in these polls to the side for future number-crunching, most of the indicators in the surveys following the three presidential debates have pointed in one direction: a clear victory for Barack Obama, especially among the so-called swing voters. And one more monotonous time for the record, not for months and probably years of number-crunching, will we know for sure, if at all, whether McCain and Obama’s performances in the 2008 presidential debates (not to forget Biden and Palin) made a significant difference in the ultimate outcome of the 2008 American presidential election. In the meantime, lots of plausible tales will be told by experts and pundits alike…buyer beware! We have a lot of hard work to do yet.

Hofstra Presidential Debate Viewership

2008-10-16T17:08:00.000-07:00

Nielsen reports that the Hofstra presidential debate drew more viewers than the first presidential debate but fewer than the town hall forum.

The Hofstra debate garnered 56.5 million viewers, 4.1 million more than watched the first debate at Ole Miss, but substantially fewer than the 63.2 million that tuned in for the town hall forum at Belmont.

The vice presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis, with almost 70 million viewers, is still the undefeated heavyweight of this election cycle.

Hofstra Presidential Debate Recap 10-16

2008-10-16T04:56:00.001-07:00

* Early polling points to an Obama win (if there can even really be a true winner).

* Cleve, Mark, and my takes on who won, and on the debates in general.

* Live blogs from Chicago, Harvard, and Yale law schools.

* The top ten lines of the Hofstra presidential debate.

* Transcripts and video of the debate are here.

* Professor Gil Troy's retrospective on the debates.

* Bonnie Goodman's roundup at History News Network.

* Joe The Plumber is in high demand.

The Final Draw (or, Presidential Debate #3): Who Won?

2008-10-15T21:32:00.000-07:00

Tonight's debate featured a clear victor: Joe the Plumber. But following Joe, moderator Bob Schieffer took the show. Tonight's debate featured better questions, better follow-ups, and more attempts than any before it to force the candidates to address each other. Schieffer nailed the hard-nosed question-asker, at times interrupting the candidates, but without being overbearing.

The downside, of course, is that the candidates were, once again, the losers. Rhetorically, this debate could have been a sweep for Obama. Like last time, Obama used rhetoric effecitvely. He began questions with broad, positive assertions about his policy and what he wanted to do, or by emphasizing the problem and then moving into his policy proposals. His attacks of McCain took plaec within that context, save an occassional retort. Even McCain acknowledged Obama's "eloquence," for reasons that still escape me.

But this time the rhetoric worked against him: McCain, while still on the attack, did not come across negative. McCain mustered a smile (a feat considering his performance in the first debate), and even managed to hold it throughout the debate. And while McCain made dumb moves, such as invoking Ayers and ACORN (and worse, following up on it), he also did a better job on substance, even relative to Obama.

Obama's strategy, on the other hand, took the safe route: Obama avoided many of the questions and kept going back to the same broad rhetoric about "helping the American people" by "fixing energy, education and health care." This technique worked much better for Obama when he did not manage to get to the same broad points in almost every answer. His performance did not inspire.

But Obama did not need to. McCain came into this debate behind, and his only hope lay in Obama's foul-ups. McCain could have--and should have--forced some, perhaps with direct questions or clever retorts. McCain's strong, clear statement "I am not President Bush..." came across perfectly. Yet McCain got it together too late. If he had performed in the first debate as he did tonight, we might be looking at a different race, but even that is doubtful.

Tonight's debate rounded out the least inspiring round of debates in recent memory. Tomorrow I shall join my colleagues in contemplating reforms to the debate system: the one thing that is clear from these debates is that in order for our democracy to thrive, we must find a better system for vetting candidates.

Closing Thoughts

2008-10-15T20:48:00.000-07:00

This debate was awful.

And yet, it was probably the best of the three. There was some, albeit minimal, interaction between the candidates, with actual substantive clash and contradiction on issues.

Of course, those exchanges must be held against the eight or nine minutes of petty squabbling where both candidates espoused their wish that the campaign had never gone negative... all while using their moral high horses to go negative on their opponents.

Is it a sad statement on my own pessimism that such hypocrisy and immaturity doesn't surprise me? Or is it a sad statement on the sorry condition of the political discourse and options in this country? Either way, one thing is certain: as terrible as the debate was tonight, it was certainly no worse than I expected.

The truth is that it's impossible for us to gain any meaningful insight into our candidates from these 90 minute productions. How many times tonight, and over the past few weeks, have we heard one candidate make an assertion, only to be met with a "that's not true" from his (or her) opponent? A lot. And in this format, we have no way to know who is telling us the truth, who is twisting past events, and whose proposals will actually produce something that looks like their promises.

We need that substance--but the candidates don't give it to us. And that's a politically savvy choice on their parts. The more information one candidate gives us, the more the other will slip into the background, refusing to engage with substance of their own, opting instead to simply "go negative".

I entered this campaign season unsure whether I'd vote for one of the major candidates--as I told a commenter who accused me of bias in favor of one of them, I hadn't decided whether I would vote for either major candidate because neither one had persuaded me, not because I was torn between two options that appealed to me. With (if I'm counting correctly,) 19 days to the election, I remain unsure on whether I'll vote for either major candidate--again, not because I've been impressed by both candidates across these three contests, but because I have been consistently underwhelmed and disappointed with both of them.

In my opinion, Obama walks away tonight the winner--largely because he did a few key things: he had some memorable and clever lines that will receive favorable media coverage in the next few days, he remained far more composed than his opponent, and, insofar as he entered the debate with a lead in the polls, he "won" simply by not doing anything to surrender his lead.

But that doesn't mean that John McCain was the only loser. As pessimistic as it sounds, I think the biggest loser in this thing was us, the American electorate. We've allowed ourselves to be reduced to this; we've accepted this low level of political discourse and immaturity as appropriate for the two men vying to become our highest elected official.

After the second debate, I proposed some specific modifications to the Presidential debates that I (naively) thought would help improve the level of discourse and insight provided through these debates. And on some level, this debate gave me those changes--not all of them, and not exactly, but it did deliver the thing that I argued was most important. Tonight, we saw the candidates have an opportunity (and we even saw a moderator encourage them) to engage with one another substantively. And, with few exceptions, they failed to deliver.

So we're left to vote in under three weeks. In my case, we're left to vote with little more to go on than a series of uninformative, biased attack ads; vague policy proposals that haven't had to withstand meaningful opposing scrutiny; and my own personal impressions of which of the two men appeared "more presidential", "more composed", or "more trustworthy."

I realize we've been choosing Presidents based (at least in part) on things that are this petty for a long time. But it would be nice if that could change. Every politician in my memory has promised to reform the political discourse. More times than I can count, I've heard that "partisan hackery" will not play a role in an election. Yet it always does, and this election has been no exception. It's clear that politicians are not going to be the ones to reform our political process and dialogue. So long as immaturity and pettiness are politically expedient, they will continue to define our electoral processes.

But the debates could give us more. They are one of very few venues, if not the only venue, where our political process and discourse could rise above itself, becoming at least somewhat meaningful and substantive in the process. At the end of four debates, however, this campaign hasn't been elevated to a clash between beliefs, hopes, and ideals. To the contrary, these four debates have only dragged this contest lower and lower.

What We Did and Didn't Hear at Hofstra

2008-10-15T20:37:00.000-07:00

Going off of the unofficial transcript, I've done a bit of word counting (we'll verify later on once C-Span's software has loaded up the entire debate). The clear winner of this debate in terms of coverage was Joe The Plumber.

Joe was referenced (by my count) twenty-four times, more than any other person, and nine times more than the economy.

Below are the top three phrases we heard, and the top three we didn't:

Heard in Hofstra
1. Economy (16)
2. Joe The Plumber (9)
3. Joe (15)*

Lost on Long Island
1. My friend[s] (3)
2. Maverick (0)
3. Change (3)**

* "Joe" count excludes references to Joe Biden.
** "Change" count excludes references to climate change.

MIA in the Debates: Obama the dreamer, McCain the Hero -- A Guest Post by Professor Gil Troy

2008-10-15T20:33:00.000-07:00

The following guest post is by Gil Troy, Professor of History at McGill University and a Visiting Scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, D.C. He is the author of five books on U.S. history, including, “See How They Ran: The Changing Role of the Presidential Candidate” and, most recently, “Leading from the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents.” He blogs regularly on the History News Network about the election.

Americans want to believe that debates elevate our candidates. As we anticipate each presidential debate, we resurrect the legend of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas nobly debating the great issues of the day in pre-Civil War Illinois. Television, that great modern mythmaking machine, feeds the grandiose expectations, even if the names of Lincoln and Douglas are rarely evoked. And the sets, drenched as they are in patriotic imagery, festooned as they are with eagles and banners, quite literally set the stage for the candidates to achieve political immortality. Of course, there is a counter “Gotcha” tradition of seeking the knockout blow, the cutting remark, the effective counter-jab. Modern debates have been defined more by quick thrusts of a sharp elbow than by sweeping visions of statesmen.

What seems so memorable about these three presidential debates in 2008 is that they were simply not memorable, neither grandiose nor cutting. It is hard to conceive of one central idea, one dramatic moment, one defining soundbite that will be replayed repeatedly – or even remembered. Moreover – and more disturbing for both candidates – the debates seemed to banish both candidates’ better selves. In four-and-a-half hours of debates, it was hard to detect many traces of Barack Obama the dreamer or John McCain the war hero.

By contrast, the national conventions – although often dismissed as anachronistic – allowed the two candidates to present themselves as they hope to be known, and remembered. John McCain ended his rather pedestrian Republican National Convention address with a moving memoir about how his years as a prisoner-of-war helped him discover community, nationalism, the reliance of one individual on another. It was hard to walk away from watching the speech without appreciating McCain’s heroism, humility, and humanity, whether or not you agreed with his policies.

Alas, during the debates, the heroism has been on hold. McCain has been – as he was most notably in this third debate – more prickly than patriotic, more choppy than smooth, more of a worried candidate in search of a persona and a strategy than a centered demigod who knows who he is and what he represents. In his opening remarks tonight, he chose yet again to bash Wall Street and Washington – without at all suggesting that Main Street Americans had also joined in the profligacy. Again and again, his remarks seemed more calculated for political advantage than motivated by a constructive patriotism.

Similarly, despite encouragement to be more down-to-earth and less lofty, Barack Obama delivered an acceptance address at the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver that was dramatic enough to remind supporters of his extraordinary 2004 Democratic National Convention debut. The grand stadium setting, and the historic nature of his ascension as the first black major party nominee, created another “Yes We Can” moment in a near-miraculous and quite meteoric rise to the top of American society.

Unfortunately, the Barack Obama on display in the debates frequently seemed too sober to dream, too cool to be a poet, too programmed to inspire. To Obama’s good fortune, his calm served his cause – it made him look unruffled, reliable, presidential. But it suggested that if Obama wins, it will feel more like a victory by default than a clear, personal triumph or a mandate for much of anything. He has kept his more electrifying, inspirational self carefully bottled, preferring to let McCain – and the Republicans – stumble. His great achievement in the fall campaign has been his buoyancy, his professionalism, his steadiness. Americans are yearning, however, for some inspiration, some encouragement, some ebullience.

While the first debate did reassure, demonstrating that both these candidates were competent and idealistic men of character, the overall effect after three debates diminished them both. Like weary boxers in the fifteenth round, the two candidates fought each other to a draw – and at this point, the tie helps Obama the front-runner in most polls. But after weeks now of devastating economic news, with foreign policy challenges in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and elsewhere still looming, it is legitimate to miss Obama the dreamer and McCain the hero. This campaign, more than most, requires candidates offering vision and reassurance. Still, with any luck – and in keeping with the rhythms of American politics – the buildup from Election Day to Inauguration Day will allow whoever wins to resurrect his better self as Americans rally around their new leader and turn to him to fulfill their dreams ever so heroically.

The Top Ten Lines of the Hofstra Presidential Debate

2008-10-15T20:05:00.000-07:00

This is our fifth top-ten installment. Previously we did the top ten lines from the Belmont Debate, the Ole Miss presidential debate, the vice presidential debate, and the top ten presidential debate lines of all time.

1. "Are each of you tonight willing to sit at this table and say, to each other's face, what your campaigns and the people in your campaigns have said about each other?” -Schieffer

2. “Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.” -McCain

3. “Even Fox News disputes it, and that doesn't happen very often when it comes to accusations about me.” –Obama

4. “I'll encourage them to ask follow-up questions of each other. If they do not, I will.” –Schieffer

5. “He's been watching some ads of Senator McCain's.” –Obama

6. “It’s the civil rights issue of the 21st century.” -McCain

7. “Mr. Ayers is not involved in my campaign. He has never been involved in this campaign. And he will not advise me in the White House. So that's Mr. Ayers.” -Obama

8. “Mr. Ayers, I don't care about an old, washed-up terrorist.” –McCain

9. “We're going to take Joe's money, give it to Senator Obama and let him spread the wealth around.” –McCain

10. "Senator McCain talks a lot about earmarks. That's one of the centerpieces of his campaign. Earmarks account for one-half of 1 percent of the total federal budget.” –Obama

Video and and Transcripts of the Hofstra Presidential Debate

2008-10-15T19:45:00.000-07:00

Transcripts of the debate are available here.

Video of the Hofstra Presidential Debate is below.

Who Won the Hofstra Presidential Debate

2008-10-15T19:37:00.000-07:00

Initial thoughts:

* This was a very well moderated debate by Schieffer. Good questions, and he kept the candidates engaged and moving along without being overbearing. A welcome relief after Tom Brokaw.

* A stronger McCain performance than in the past. He finally delivered on "taking off the gloves." And went after Obama. He seemed relatively calm, although there were a few times he looked a bit angry (and he certainly said "angry" a lot at the beginning). McCain needed a big win to change the momentum of the race, and this wasn't it. My guess: He'll look better in the transcript than he did in person on television. He ditched "Maverick" and barely used "my friends."

* Obama: He kept his cool and had solid responses, especially on the Ayers issue. He presented himself well and didn't fumble. He maintained the lead.

* My Overall take: McCain did better than he has in the last two debates, but not enough to really break the debate wide open. He seemed angry at times to me, while Obama appeared cool and presidential. Edge: Obama.

* Ultimate winner: Joe the Plumber. That man is going to be famous.

The Top Ten Lines of the Debate Are on the Their Way.

Live Blog of the Final Presidential Debate from the University of Chicago Law School

2008-10-15T19:04:00.000-07:00

This post is live from the University of Chicago Law School. Please refresh for updates.

Awesome. The news has a picture of Joe the Plumber! OK, cutting it off: I won't listen to the commentary until I have written my own. Joe looks surprisingly like Michael Chiklis on The Shield; I would not want to fight him.

Bob implores us to vote and it ends.

10:26 Bob sends people to mydebates.org where the debates are posted. Final statements: McCain goes first on the final statement. Apparently closing statements are part of the undisclosed format. Watching this debate is like playing a new board game without a copy of the rules: you just do not know what is and is not going to happen, what is and is not within bounds.

"My friends, ..." McCain brings it down to trust. He is looking directly at the camera now. A nice, friendly finish. Obama: "the biggest risk we could take right now is to adopt the same failed policies of the last eight years..." (that line may make the news). Due to the direct camera angle, both of these closings may form part of the nightly coverage.

10:16 The final question: education. The U.S. spends more than everyone, but we trail other countries. Obama begins: "this has more to do with our economic [situation] than anything," which means that it is also a national security issue. Yes, folks: bad math education + the economic implications thereof = a national security problem. I'm glad I did not learn math at the same place he did, because that one befuddles me. Obama proposes a $4,000 credit for public service (military, peace corps, etc.) each year. McCain is now saying we should not force people into failed schools: choice and competition has been proven. [a substantial part of this post was just lost.] In short, I do not have confidence in the solutions either candidate offers here.

10:12 [if anyone has noticed: yes, I just reordered the post to make it consistent.] McCain: you voted to prevent life-saving treatment for babies (baby-killer!). Obama: If it sounds incredible that I voted against that, it is because I did not vote against care for babies (I do not support killing babies!). Obama says he would not support it because it had no Roe-supporting caveat. Obama does a good job of mentioning things where abortion folks agree, e.g. avoiding unintended pregnancies. McCain: again attacks Obama; this time it's the "health of the mother" caveat, which he cites as an example of Obama's eloquence.

10:06 [note: for some reason I am using EST even though I'm in central time] Roe v. Wade: could either of you nominate someone who disagrees with you on this issue? Good question (and not just because I am a lawyer-to-be). McCain: I do not impose a litmus test. He and Bob go back and forth. McCain says the states should decide. McCain invokes his experience in the "Gang of 14," then says he voted for Ginsburg and Breyer, while Obama voted against Breyer and Roberts because Obama disagreed with them ideologically. This is a good answer by McCain: he sums up his position, then hits his attack, then moves on. Obama is laughing in the background. Obama: no litmus test. Most important thing is "their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people." Is it possible to say less by saying more? Obama proves that it is. He says the question is important. Obama believes Roe v. Wade was correct (McCain had state his disagreement). Obama is rehashing arguments for Roe and saying privacy is a constitutional right. Obama wants: "an outstanding judicial record, intellect, and a sense..." of what average people are going through. Now it's Storytime With Obama (as opposed to the more typical Storytime With McCain).

9:56 What would you do to control health care costs? Obama: "we have to do both." He immediately moves to the broadest possible answer. He is explaining his plan. "We estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year." He mentions a couple of things that might cut costs: drug negotiation, using technology, etc. McCain tries to emphasize the depth of the problem, then mentions some preventitive care and tech use ideas. And here comes "Joe the plumber and small businessman" again. McCain says Joe gets fined. Obama says he is not fining Joe: small businesses are exempted, but large businesses are not. Obama now attacks McCain's plan. I'm guessing he will go through it the same way he did last time: McCain's credit won't cover the cost of insurance. "For the first time in history, you will be taxing peoples' employer health care benefits." Rhetorically clever, but then again, employer-provided health care is a historical accident more than anything.

9:55 Again, McCain (stupidly!) begins by attacking Obama. Sad. McCain: Obama restricts trade and increases taxes. Herbert Hoover was the last to do that, McCain says, and he lead us into depression.

9:45 Dependence on foreign oil question. How much (a specific number) do you believe we can reduce our dependence in your first term? Obama: "I think that in ten years..." I thought the question said "in your first term." Silly me. And Obama is back to the broader policy. He is really good at transitioning. And really bad at direct answers. Oh, wait: he is getting to McCain's point about renegotiating trade agreements. Obama says he supports free trade but wants to tinker with the treaties and make them equal.

McCain: "I admire Senator Obama's eloquence." He goes to Obama's statement: "We will look at foreign oil." McCain says that is meaningless. McCain is talking about Obama at length. He started by attacking Obama, as I advised him not to do earlier. He is coming off as defensive again. At least he is smiling this time. Obama responds again saying that he likes well-structured agreements (e.g. Peru's).

9:40 Question: why would the country be better off if your running-mate became president than if his running-mate became president? Obama is asked to attack Palin, so this might be interesting. Obama starts off by talking about the positives of Biden, mainly his past. Now Obama is contrasting the candidates' tax plans. Once again, he goes back to the broad stuff. Maybe I missed something (I was momentarily distracted), but I do not believe he mentioned Palin, even implicitly (he only referred to the McCain-Palin policies).

McCain talks up Palin. Casts Palin as a reformer. McCain too avoids mentioning Biden, even implicitly.

Bob: Do you think Palin is qualified to be president (to Obama)? Answer: "that's up to the American people." He won't attack her. Not even close. He is saying that if we have a spending freeze we cannot fund special needs (after McCain mentioned Palin's special personal expertise there). Is Biden qualified (to McCain)?: Yes, in many respects. But he has made many mistakes. He could have attacked Biden, but like Obama, he does not. But McCain is now attacking Obama. McCain: Obama always says "we need to spend more." A valid point. But McCain should have framed this as a McCain positive and dropped the attack in between.

9:36 Obama responds by saying McCain is making Ayers a centerpoint of the campaign. And now to the answer that we all know he has rehearsed. Indeed, he has a short, clear answer ready, and cites to facts (ties people around Ayers to Reagan). Obama says he was not involved with ACORN. Now Obama says he associates with Buffett and Vogel. He has anticipated this; it was a waste of all of our time. McCain now (dumbly) keeps going in depth. Bad move. It's naked fearmongering, and it makes McCain look negative. Fortunately, he recovers by going back to his broad points and what he hopes to do.

9:30 This has been a long discussion. McCain brings up the statements by Lewis again. Obama tries to recast Lewis's point. Obama does not believe the comparison was appropriate; Lewis said he probably went over the line, Obama says. And back to the broad talking points. Obama is doing a good job by taking it back to the broad points, but he does it almost too much now. Now McCain is talking about the people at the rallies. McCain says fringe people come to rallies; McCain doesn't like some of the t-shirts at the rallies. But, McCain says, he repudiates it. Sharp ending note. Obama (Bob asks: do you agree?): back to the talking points, taking the broad picture again. This worked well for him in the last debate, I thought, but here, he seems to be ignoring the questions. But at least sometimes (often) his strategy and he goes back to some tie-in to the question. McCain cuts in and says we need to know about Obama's relationship with Ayers and ACORN. Not good.

9:25 Bob brings up the negative campaigning. Will you say it to his face? McCain is up first. McCain regrets that the two didn't get together and have town halls. My colleagues here think that would not have impacted the negativity in the campaigning, and I agree. McCain says he repudiates out-of-bounds remarks by people in his party, but Obama has not. Haha: McCain says Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any campaign in history. Then McCain says Obama agreed to forego (I believe) public financing but then went back on his word. An easy retort, though: Obama has probably spent more money than any campaign ever. Obama sounds like he is about to leverage polls. Yep. "People don't think I'm doing it, so I'm not." (a paraphrase). Obama says to McCain: "100% of your ads have been negative." Fortunately, I do not watch much TV, so I do not have to suffer the ads. Obama goes back to economic policy and the talking points. McCain talks about the ads he watched during the Dallas-Arizona game. Minus points for McCain: never mention a Cowboys loss if you want my vote.

9:23 Obama comes back and links Bush to McCain on economic policy. McCain then tries to rebut that by listing things he opposed Republicans or Bush on. McCain is smiling more tonight and seems more confident (and less angry). A definite improvement.

9:20 Can either of you balance the budget? McCain says emphatically he is not Bush. "Senator Obama, if you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." He even gets a little laugh (without pausing for one). And he's smiling. Nicely done.

9:17 McCain leads with energy; takes a jab at Obama for opposing alternative energy. McCain mentions cutting foreign aid. He brings back the spending freeze idea, and surprisingly, invokes the hatchet/scalpel line by Obama last time. McCain is going back to Obama's pork spending, and he invoked the projector again! Unbelievable. Earmarks are 1/2 of 1% of the total federal budget, says Obama. Obama links McCain to Bush.

9:13 Non-profit says the cost of each candidate's proposals will add more than $200 billion each to the deficit. You must trim and eliminate, says Bob. What will you do? Obama begins: the bailout, if structured properly, means that taxpayers will get their money back. That's questionable--this is not the depression-era purchase of common stocks, it's a purchase of worthless assets. He then goes on to all of these broad-based things he wants to "invest" in, such as secondary education. As much as I might like that personally, I cannot see how that will result in 1:1 gains in the federal budget.

9:12 They are still on tax policy. McCain keeps going on with this pro-business "we need to not tax businesses" argument. Obama makes a classic redistribution argument: Exxon can afford to pay more so that middle-class citizens can get a break.

9:07 McCain is offered the chance of asking Obama a question, and he turns it down! Opportunity missed. I wonder if Obama will have such a chance. McCain again goes off on a narrative about someone he met, but he at least reeled it in quickly. McCain is impacting what Obama's plan will do for small business owners. Obama jokes that McCain has been watching McCain's TV ads (and gets a small laugh). Obama shifts here, cleverly: "we both want to cut taxes," but we have differences and who do we want to cut taxes for? (he asks). A nice setup. This allows him to hit the advantages of his own plan, ignore (after downplaying) McCain's point about small business owners getting hit with Obama taxes. Now he says he wants to give small businesses "additional tax breaks." A good rhetorical ploy; not sure if it is actually part of any plan he has announced. But a good debate maneuver.

9:04 The debate begins. After a lengthy summary from the moderator, he asks: why is your (economic) plan better than his? McCain's eyes are more animated, wider this time. He is not looking at the camera; instead it looks like he is answering the moderator. Did he answer the comparative? I don't think so. He did immediately say Freddie and Fannie were in part responsible (without invoking any connection to Obama or the Democrats).

Interesting tie choice by McCain: is that dark navy? This time Obama goes for the red. Obama: "fundamentals of the economy were weak even before this crisis." Then he goes into broader economic policy goals, and yep, there he goes: we need to fix education, health care, etc. Back to the talking points.

Presidential Debate Live Blog From the Yale Law School

2008-10-15T18:54:00.001-07:00

I'm live blogging the debates from Yale Law School at an event co-hosted by the Yale Law Democrats and Yale Law Republicans. Please refresh the page for updates and scroll down for the Harvard live blog.

10:31: Schieffer: "Go vote not. It will make you feel big and strong."

10:30: Obama: "it's not going to be easy. It's not going to be quick." "I'm absolutely convinced we can do it. I woudl ask for your vote. "I will work every single day tireless on your behalf and on the future of your children."

10:29: Obama: "we need fundamental change." "I'm sure our brighter days are still ahead." "We're going to need to invest in the American people again." "In policies that will lift wages and grow our middle class."

10:28: McCain: "I've spend my entire life in the service of this nation and putting my country first. There's a long line of McCains that have served our country." "I hope you'll give me the opportunity to serve again. I'd be honored and humbled."

10:27: McCain: "America needs a new direction. . . I have a record of reform." "I've been a careful steward of your tax dollars." "We have to stop the spending." "Whether you can trust us or not."

10:27 Final statements.

10:26: Schieffer with a plug for mydebates.org.

10:26: McCain: "I got it." That's not a great laugh.

10:25: Obama: "The data doesn't show it actually solves the problem." "The centerpiece of Sen. McCain's education program is to increase the vouchers in DC by 2000 slots. That leaves you in the other 50 states"

10:25: Obama "The D.C. school system is in terrible shape."

10:24: Word that hasn't appeared yet: Maverick.

10:24: McCain: "It's not doing what it should do."

10:23: McCain: "No child left behind was a great beginning." "Spending more money isn't always the answer."

10:23: McCain: "That was vouchers, and I'm frnakly surprised you didn't pay more attention to that example."

10:22: Obama "I don't think America's youth are an interest group. I think they're our future."

10:21: Obama: McCain and I agree on two things: 1) Charter schools 2) Making sure that if we have bad teachers they are swiftly, after being given an opportunity to prove themselves, they have to move on. Where we disagree is vouchers." I also have to disagree on Sen. McCain's record on college affordability and accessability."

10:20: Obama "We have a tradition of local control of the schools." "Unfortunately they left the money behind for no child left behind"- similar to the "No child left behind got left behind because the money got left behind" from the first debate."

10:19: McCain : "We find bad teachers another line of work." You'll find that some of the worst school systems get the most money per student.

10:18: McCain "What is the advantage of sending a child to a failed school. Choice and competition is a key element."

10:18: McCain: "It's the civil rights issue of the 21st century."

10:18: Obama on his tuition credit. "Parents are going to have to show more responsibility."

10:16: Obama: "There has never been a nation on earth that saw its economy decline and continued to maintain its primacy as a military leader."

10:15: Schieffer: Lets stop there because I want to get a question in on education. "The U.S. spends more per capita than any country on education. Yet on every measurement, we've trailed most countries in the world. . . What do you intend to do about it?

10:15: McCain: "Health of the mother has been stretched to include everything."

10:15: Obama "no one is pro-abortion."

10:13: Obama "I am completely supportive of a ban of late term abortions as long as there is an exceptions for the mother's life."

10:12 Obama: "If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold life saving treatment that's because it's not true. Here are the facts." "The fact is there already was a law on the books that required providing life saving treatment." Strong line.

10:12 McCain: "I don't know how you vote 'present.'" "I don't know how you align yourself with the extreme pro-abortion segment."

10:09: Obama "The Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn't be subject to state referendum"

10:08: Obama: "This is going to be one of the most consequential decisions of the next President. Roe v. Wade probably hangs in the balance." "I think that abortion is a very difficult issue, and it is a moral issue that good people on both sides can disagree on."

10:08: McCain: "I don't believe someone who supported Roe v. Wade would have those qualifications. But I would not provide a litmus test."

10:07: McCain "I voted for Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg because I thought . . . they were qualified." "Senator Obama voted against Justice Breyer and Justice Roberts." He means Alito. "I will find the best people in the world; the United States." A few slip ups on this one.

10:06: McCain: "I would never impose a litmus test on any nominee to the Supreme Court." "We should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications, not on a litmus test."

10:06: Schieffer: "Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court" who disagrees with you on Roe?

10:05: Obama: "You just heard my plan. If you've got an employer based plan, you keep it." "That includes you, Joe."

10:05: McCain: "In all of his proposals, Senator Government . . Senator Obama wants government to do the job." "Another ref to Joe. Obama gestures to Schieffer for a response.

10:04: McCain: "Gold plated Caddillac insurance plans that have cosmetic surgery and transplants."- The "transplants" line is a bit odd.

10:03: McCain: "Joe. You're rich. Congratulations." "Take Joe's money and decide what to do with it." "Joe. You're rich. Congratulations." "That's big government at its best." "95% of the people in America will receive more money under my plan, because they will receive their present benefits, and you add $5000 onto that."

10:01: Obama: "Here's the problem. For about 20 million people, you may find yourself no longer having employer-based health insurance.

10:01: Obama "Joe, if you want to do the right thing, we'll give you a 50% credit."

10:00: Obama: I just described my plan. "Joe if you're out there, you'll pay zero."

9:59: McCain: Another appearance by "Joe the plumber." This will likely become the memorable trope of the debate.

9:58: McCain: "It is the escalating costs of healthcare that is inflicting such pain on working families and people across this country." "Put healthcare records on line." "More walk in clinics." No response to the question yet- it will be interesting to see if Schieffer pushes him on it

9:56: My thoughts so far: A strong showing by Obama, particularly on the Ayers question. A good job by Schieffer- he's show some guts. McCain seems angry at times- he says it a lot- and hasn't landed any big blows.

9:56: Obama: "We have to do both."

9:56: Schieffer: "Would either of you support lowering healthcare costs over lowering healthcare coverage."

9:56: McCain with another Herbert Hoover reference.

9:55: McCain: Obama wants to sit down "without preconditions" with Chavez, who supports FARC. A memory of Iran. "Free trade before ourselves and Columbia, I just resighted the benefits."

9:53: Obama: "We've got to have a President who understands the benefits of free trade . . . but will stand up to other countries."

9:53: Obama "actually I understand it pretty well. Labor leaders have been targeted for assassinations and there have not been prosecutions." A strong response.

9:52: McCain "Maybe you want to travel down there."

9:52: McCain: "Senator Obama, who has never traveled south of the border..." A dig.

9:51: McCain: "I admire so much Senator McCain's eloquence, but you've got to listen to his words."

9:49: Obama: "We only have 3-4% of the worlds oil reserves and we use 25% of the world's oil."

9:48: Obama: "in ten years we can reduce our dependence so we not longer have to import oil from Venezuela." "Nothing is more important than us borrowing . . . from China and sending it to Saudia Arabia." Obama is trying to take the mantle of energy independence, a successful wedge issue for McCain.

9:47: McCain: Get rid of middle east oil, Venezuelan oil "Canadian oil is fine." The "Wind, tide, solar, natural gas" line again from earlier in the debate. "Clean coal technology is key." "I think we can easily, within 7,8, 10 years . . . eliminate our dependence."

9:47: Schieffer: "Can you give me a solid number on how much we can reduce oil consumption in your oil."

9:45: McCain "Biden had a cockamammy idea to divide Iraq into three sectors." "Why do we always have to spend more?

9:44: Obama: "That's up to the american people." "Autism will require some additional funding if we're going to get serious in terms of research."

9:44: Schieffer: "Do you think she is qualified to be President."

9:43: McCain: "She's a reformer through and through. It's time for a breath of fresh air." A bit of a gaffe on the line. "She also understands special needs families." "She has united our party and people all over America."

9:42: McCain: "Americans have gotten to know Sarah Palin. She's a reformer." Staying off the "maverick" line.

9:40: Obama: Biden is good on foreign policy, but more importantly "his consistent pattern is to fight for the little guy." "We see eye to eye."

9:40: Schieffer: "Why would the country be better off if your running mate became President than if your opponents." A question clearly over the bow of the McCain campaign.

9:39: McCain: "My campaign is about getting this campaign back on track" a bit belated here.

9:39: McCain: "You launched your political career in Ayers' living room." "You and Ayers gave millions to Acorn."

9:38: Obama: "Let me tell you who I associate with." "Warren Buffet. Dick Lugar. Jim Jones." "Democrats and Republicans." "The fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign says more about you than it says about me."

9:36 Obama: "Mr. Ayers has become the centerpiece of Mr. McCain's campaign." "Lets get the record straight... 40 years ago when I was eight years old he engaged in a despicable terrorist acts." "We served on a board" financed by "Ronald Reagan's friend." "Mr. Ayers has not been involved in this campaign. He will not be involved in this campaign. He will not advise me in the Whitehouse." This is the line we thought Obama would have prepared and ready to go.

9:35: McCain: ACORN may be on the verge of "destroying the fabric of American democracy."

9:35: McCain: "Mr. Ayers. I don't care about an old washed up terrorist." Obama has a response for this- we called it a "telegraphed pitch."

9:35: Obama: "We can have tough, vigorous debates around issues. What we can't do is characterize ourselves as bad people."

9:35: McCain "I stand by the people at my rallies."

9:33 Obama: "When people say I pall around with terrorists" that doesn't help the discourse.

9:31: When people were shouting "terrorist" and "kill him" your running mate didn't say anything. Obama: "We immediately put out a statement saying 'we don't think that statement was appropriate." "the important point here is that the american people have become cynical about our politics because all the see if a tit-for-tat.

9:30: McCain: "Unprecedented amounts of money on negative attacks on me." "Joe the plumber" makes another appearance.

9:30 McCain: "I watched the cardinals win" Obama: Congratulations.

9:30: Obama: "Politics as usual has got to change."

9:28: Obama: 2/3 of America thinks you are running a negative campaign. 1/3 think mine is. The American people are more interested in vigorous issues "that's the stuff campaigns should be made of." "The notion that we're not doing town hall meetings . . . justifies the ads . . . I don't mind being attacked for the next four weeks." "What the American people don't deserve is four more years of failed economic policy." This is what we speculated he would do.

9:27: McCain on the remarks by Lewis "associating" the campaign with "the worst chapter in our nations history." No word of Ayers. "You didn't keep your word." "I will sit down and negotiate with John McCain. You didn't tell the American people the truth." "The highest spendding on negative ads in history." Missing: Ayers.

9:25: McCain: "The tone of this campaign could have been different" if the Obama campaign had consented to town hall forums. As I discussed earlier, this isn't really proven out by the data- the primary debates increased markedly in Feb/June and saw the first negative campaigning of the race.

9:25 Schieffer: With a good question "Are each of you willing to say to each others face what the campaigns have said to each other." A great question by Schieffer.

9:24: McCain: "I have a long record of reform." "Senator Obama, your argument of standing up to the leaders of your party isn't very good."

9:24: Schieffer: "Thirty seconds." This is a moment where there is finally some back and forth- Schieffer should let it go.

9:23: Obama: "you've shown independence on some key issues, like torture. But when it comes to economic policies what you are proposing is essentially eight more years of the same thing."

9:23: Obama with a good line: The claim that I have voted to raise taxes has been disputed by everyone who's looked at it "even Fox News disputes it."

9:22: Obama: "The first major bill I voted on was for tort reform" "I support charter schools and paid for performance" "I support clean coal technology." This is Obama's response to McCain's "I'm not going to win Miss Congeniality line of the earlier debates."

9:21: McCain "he voted for the energy bill that was full of goodies" "Lets look at our record." Obama with a quick grin to Schieffer. "Tell me one time when you have stood up to the leaders of your parties on one major issue."

9:21: McCain with another "angry" reference- American's are "angry."

9:20: McCain "Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you want to run against president bush, you should have run eight years ago." Could play as angry.

9:20: Schieffer: "Do any of think you can balance a budget."

9:20: Obama: "Senator McCain voted for four out of five of President Bush's budgets."

9:20: Obama: "The national debt has doubled over the last eight years."

9:19: Obama "Senator McCain talks a lot about earmarks. Earmarks account for one half of one percent of the total federal budget. . . it's not gonna solve the problem" A strong response to McCain's earmark line.

9:19: McCain with the $3 million planetarium line, a line from the earlier debates.

9:18 McCain "I know how to save billions." Naming a few programs- ethanol subsidies. "I would fight for a line item veto"- it's unclear how this would be accomplished.

9:17: McCain: "Spending Freeze" "That's a hatchet, then I would get out a scalpel."

9:16: McCain: "I want to go across to home values." McCain is also talking about "Energy independence" and used the line "We have to stop spending $700 billion overseas to countries that hate us."

9:16: Obama: "We're going to have to embrace a culture of responsibility." Light on specifics; only one program named by Obama eliminating $15 billion.

9:15: Obama "$15 Billion a year to health care." Meanwhile, McCain seems to be using his pen a lot more (I'm watching the splitscreen on C-SPAN).

9:14: Obama: "I have proposed a net spending cut." Schieffer: "aren't you going to have to cut some of these programs."

9:14: Schieffer: "Give us some specifics on what you are going to cut back" This is a retread of the first question asked by Lehrer at the first debate, which did not get any specifics.

9:12: McCain appears angry on that one. "Our business are paying the second highest taxes of any country in the world."

9:12: Obama with the second Warren Buffet reference of the debates. And another Joe the plumber reference.

9:11: McCain "Why would you want to increase anyone's taxes." Joe the plumber will certainly be making an appearance on the SNL rehash of the debate. I also suspect news agencies are out looking for him now. Joe- feel free to email us if you're reading this.

9:10: Obama "What I want to do is make the plumber, the nurse, the firefighter... I want to give them a tax break now."

9:09: Obama with a good line: "he's been watching some ads of Senator McCain. I'll tell you what I actually want to do.

9:08: McCain with a good anecdote that drives home his small business emphasis. "Joe the plumber."

9:07: Schieffer: Would you like to ask him a question? McCain: "No." Look for this to resurge later on.

9:06: Obama "What we haven't seen is a rescue package for the middle class." Four stage plan: 1) Jobs 2) Help families "right away" by providing "a middle class tax cut."

9:05: McCain "It doesn't help that person if the next door neighbors house is abandoned." A clear response to the problem of people who have payed their mortgages not wanting to support a bailout.

9:03: McCain: "Americans are hurting and they're angry." McCain has now used the word "angry" four times. That's a key word he is targeting. McCain "Fannie and Freddie Mae" are the root of the problem.

9:03: Schieffer summarizes both of their plans: "Why is your plan better than his?"

9:02: Schieffer "Lets get to it."

9:02: The one sartorial note of the night- they flipped tie colors- Obama in red, McCain in blue"

9:01: Schieffer has laid down the gauntlet "I will encourage them to ask followup questions. If they do not, I will"

HLS LiveBlog of the Hofstra Presidential Debate

2008-10-15T18:47:00.001-07:00

Sorry I'm late, everyone... here we go! Please refresh for updates.

10:33- Did McCain just say "Good job" fifteen times?

10:32- And with that, the Presidential Debates are done... on to the election.

10:29- Didn't I just hear this speech? Apparently both candidates are now simply asking "which one of us is least like Bush"? It would've been good if one of them had given us something different from the other. Oh well.

10:27- We haven't heard "my friends" much from McCain until now. Given Obama's success in linking McCain to Bush, I'm not sure that I would have explicitly called out the administration as failing and referred to a need for change.

10:26- A really awkward moment from McCain, trying to humorously cast Obama's answer on education.

10:25- McCain couldn't resist (semi-irrelevantly) exploiting the Palin baby in his discussion of autism.

10:23- There's the word!

10:20- Are we going to hear the word "vouchers", or is McCain just going to talk around them?

10:19- Ohio loved Obama's suggestion that parents need to "turn off the television set and shut off the video game."

10:18- Obama: "It's important that we make college affordable." Though, in fairness, I'm not sure that $4k a year will make a huge impact, given the size of tuitions at most schools.

10:14- Ohio is notably unimpressed by anyone's answer on abortion.

10:11- Obama's position on Ledbetter is troubling. He seems to really be supporting the idea of the Court looking at situations and "what's right", not laws.

10:10- Obama: Appointing SCOTUS Justices "will be one of the most consequential decisions of the next President." He's doing a nice job staying away from an overly legalistic answer, which is probably his natural inclination, given his background.

10:08- McCain: SCOTUS Justices should be selected by judicial qualifications... a clear reference to an answer he gave at Saddleback. Unfortunately, he just said that he considered Justices Ginsburg and Breyer to be "qualified." DIRECT contradiction of his statement at Saddleback.

10:06- Obama uses the last word well: "All I want to do, is if you have healthcare, is lower your costs."

10:03- McCain: "hey Joe, you're rich. Congratulations." (Repeated twice.) Again, not a good choice for McCain to make comments on Obama's standards for what makes someone wealthy/middle class/poor.

10:01- This entire discussion of healthcare has now turned into a direct chat with the mythical "Joe the plumber." I hope this guy starts his own talk show.

10:00- McCain: "if you like that [Obama's plan], you'll love Canada and England." Vague references to socialized medicine? Really?

9:59- "Joe the plumber" returns. That's 7. And we're hearing from McCain again that Obama's healthcare plan includes "fines".

9:58- Obama: "we've got to put more money into preventive care."

9:57- McCain invokes Herbert Hoover for the first time of the night.

9:56- And McCain just turned the question to his advantage as well, though again into a negative attack on Obama, rather than a constructive description of his proposals... not sure if that was the right decision.

9:55- Obama just turned the question on reducing foreign oil independence into a nice platform for job creation. It's a nice move.

9:51- McCain: "I admire so much Senator Obama's eloquence." That was just weird--I'm not sure it's a good choice to remind everyone that your opponent is more eloquent than you are, unless you're trying to make him sound aloof.

9:49- Obama: "we can't drill our way out of the problem." That's a good one-liner--look for the campaign to get more use out of it in the next few weeks.

9:48- Schieffer calls them both out, mentioning that everyone has promised to reduce foreign oil dependence, but nobody has actually managed to do it.

9:47- Halfway point--Aaron, Cleve, who do you think is winning? I've got Obama by a decent chunk.

9:46- McCain: "an agreement for status of forces." Or, as most people call them, a "status of forces agreement." Weird, coming from the candidate with military expertise and familiarity.

9:45- I think both candidates are laughing FAR too much at each other when they disagree with the answers--that visual cue can easily be something much more subtle.

9:44- After listening to McCain's answer, I can't help but wonder who his running mate is... I thought he was supposed to be describing Sarah Palin, but I just heard a description of a strong and competent leader. Did he switch running mates?

9:42- A decent answer from Obama, but it could've been a whole lot better... the question was literally "why is the only decent candidate involved in this race better than Sarah Palin?" We got a good recounting of Biden's resume, but this answer could've been truly inspiring.

9:40- Oh man, here's a question that Obama had better knock out of the park: "why would the country be better if your running mate became President than if your opponent's became President."

9:40- Schieffer: "we may want to get back into some of this." Please, no.

9:39- Obama was directing the discussion back towards the issues, and then chose to turn his whole answer into a personal attack on McCain--now McCain is picking up right where he left off. I don't remember ever seeing this much mutual, non-issue related, mudslinging in a debate before.

9:36- This conversation is a waste of time for all viewers... it is completely and utterly irrelevant and unhelpful for voters. Further discussion of the Weather Underground is a perfect example of what is wrong with this campaign and these debates. Sorry, but I find this intensely frustrating--I'd love to hear some discourse on issues that actually impact the lives of Americans.

9:35- Obama just managed to list his talking points in a smooth answer, calling for the debate to move back to issues. Impressive.

9:33- Apparently, Obama agrees with my prior comment, also calling for the debate to move back to some sort of relevant substance.

9:32- I think we have now spent far too long discussing Congressman Lewis and the nature of the campaign to this point... this is almost exactly what we've opposed here on the blog, and I'd love to see a discussion of issues.

9:31- McCain's left-handed? He's writing way too much.

9:30- Why on Earth is McCain talking about football from this weekend? That was uncomfortably forced, and Obama capitalized on it nicely, with a smirky "congratulations" in reference to a Cardinals win.

9:28- Obama just referred to this as a "vigorous debate." I sincerely hope that neither of these candidates considers this to be a vigorous debate.

9:27- McCain is now trying to grab the high ground, claiming that he has repudiated any "out-of-bounds" remarks from Republicans. Of course, now he's going negative in the course of his answer about why going negative was a bad thing... yikes.

9:26- McCain's shifting the blame for the negativity on to Obama. We should probably expect the reverse from Obama in a moment.

9:25- Schieffer's given one heck of a question here, calling out both candidates for going inappropriately negative.

9:24- Now we're getting into the meat of the Bush=McCain approach of the Obama campaign--this is the most explicit it's been, and the back-and-forth is actually fairly illuminating.

9:23- Obama: "Even Fox News disputes him, and that doesn't happen too often when it comes to me." ZING.

9:21- McCain: "Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should've run four years ago." That's a great line on a couple of levels--look for it to get a lot of play. McCain may be looking too angry, but he keeps reining it in just before he loses it.

9:21- Obama: "frankly, Senator McCain voted for out of five of President Bush's budgets." That's a good one.

9:20- Obama just called McCain out for over-emphasizing the importance of earmarks... that's huge, and something he needed to do.

9:19- "OVERHEAD PROJECTOR"! There it is... now where's my bear DNA comment, McCain?

9:18- McCain: "I know how to eliminate programs." Schieffer: "Which ones?" Nice... he's actually making them answer the questions, at least so far.

9:17- McCain: "that's a hatchet, and then I'll get out a scalpel." The Ohio undecideds love it.

9:15- Obama: "spend as you go." Anyone want to bet we're about to hear about either "bear DNA" or an overhead projector from McCain?

9:14- I retract my previous comment--apparently, at least judging from Schieffer's "if you have other things you want to talk about, you can get to them," we're just going to let them dance from talking point to talking point.

9:13- "Joe the plumber" count: 6. Not sure how closely restricted this format is, but we're getting much more interplay and comparative discussion. This is a heck of a lot closer to a debate than its predecessors.

9:12- McCain, in response to Obama mentioning Warren Buffett-- "I'm talking about Joe the plumber." It fell flat.

9:11- "Joe the plumber" count: 4.

9:10- Obama got the tie memo again, and McCain missed it again. He's certainly winning the looking Presidential battle. Also, a nice subtle McCain-Bush link in his comment that he told "Joe the plumber" that he needed the tax breaks five years ago.

9:08- McCain's relating an anecdote of Obama meeting with a plumber; I'm amazed that these guys are willing to refer to average Americans by name during the debates after Gore '00. Though nice work by the McCain campaign finding a plumber named "Joe the plumber." Not quite Joe six-pack, but it's close.

9:06- Obama: "the fundamentals of the economy were weak even before this latest crisis." Probably scripted, but an excellent reminder of a recent McCain gaffe.

HLS LiveBlog of the Hofstra Presidential Debate

2008-10-15T18:22:00.000-07:00

Technical difficulties--this post is now further up the blog.

Please refresh to read our up-to-the-minute LiveBlogs.

Presidential Debate Live Blog from the Yale Law School

2008-10-15T18:07:00.000-07:00

The archived live blog can be found here.

Presidential Debate Live Blog

2008-10-15T16:56:00.000-07:00

The Presidential Debate Live Blog will launch at 9PM EST, when the final presidential debate kicks off at Hofstra University. We'll be live from Chicago, Harvard, and Yale law schools. All three threads will appear on the home page. Please refresh for updates and feel free to post comments. We'll try to respond during the debate, and we apologize if we don't get through them all in real time.

Advice for the Candidates

2008-10-15T12:28:00.000-07:00

As the final debate approaches, I will offer my own advice for the candidates:

Senator Obama:

Senator Obama is coming in with a significant lead, so he needs only avoid serious mistakes.
Both Senators did not make enough direct eye contact with the cameras in the first debate. Last debate's town hall format, complete with cameras all around, gave the candidates less of an opportunity to address the cameras directly. But tonight's debate should be different. Both candidates, not just Obama, should speak directly to the camera. It looked as though they both attempted to do that more at the town hall, but whoever was selecting video feeds would often select a camera to the side of where the candidates were staring. This time there will be less chance for that.
Senator Obama also needs to make a strong showing on economic issues. As the leader on ecomonic issues (according to polls), he has more to lose this time. Perhaps the market itself will determine Obama's losses: see this interesting blog post linking McCain's poll numbers to the state of the economy (Note: I have not verified the validity of the methodology employed there). But either way, anything less than a strong performance by Obama tonight could hurt him, recalling the adage in our original post: presidential debates are more often lost than won.

Senator McCain:

First, Senator McCain needs to tone down the negativity. Both candidates came across as attacking in the last debate, but Senator McCain looked more defensive. The Senator should back off the direct attacks, instead couching any attacks he might have within an explication of his own policies and discussions of how they will impact peoples' lives positively. He should avoid, at all costs, leading off with attacks of Obama. In fact, he should drop the attacks altogether (unless Obama opens himself up), and instead focus on his own policy proposals.
As noted above, Senator McCain needs to get as much direct eye contact with the camera as possible: the American public will judge this debate, not Bob Schieffer.
McCain should come prepared to speak about the practical impact of his policies. Both he and Obama did this in the last debate when talking about health care and tax policy; they should both be prepared to do that again.
Avoid mentioning Ayers, especially as a point of attack or a lead-in to a response. If McCain mentions Ayers at all, it should be only in passing. Obama will have rehearsed an answer to this; all that could be gained is if Obama wastes time addressing something McCain only mentioned briefly. McCain could better spend his time on issues Obama is less prepared for, issues that would avoid the appearance of a candidate on the attack. It might be more interesting if McCain attempted to bring in Obama's ties to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but Obama has responses to that, including ties between McCain's people and those institutions, so perhaps he will leave it alone. Such attacks are not likely to win McCain any points.
McCain should come prepared with better answers to the economic points and rhetoric that Obama brought in the last debate. Both candidates should know by now that they are each using the same rhetoric, rhetoric we have now seen through the course of three debates. Both have had additional time to prepare, and both ought to have been able to come up with more powerful responses than they had last time, and new rhetorical strategies that would make this debate more interesting.

Presidential Debate News Roundup 10-15

2008-10-15T07:29:00.000-07:00

* The San Francisco Chronicle provides advice to the candidates on how to win. The Chronicle notes that the "while there deservedly will be a heavy focus on the worldwide economic meltdown, the theme of the night's subplot is 'Say it to my face.'" For the record, I believe that the Obama campaign is prepared for Ayers comments, and that McCain will be throwing a telegraphed pitch if he goes there.

We have a preview of the likely response from Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "while McCain has promised to attack Obama in the debate, every minute that he ignores the economy and the middle class is not just a minute wasted but time spent on attacks that even some of those closest to him have said don’t work."

* The Boston Globe notes that the Obama campaign is playing the expectation game, with a new memo entitled "John McCain’s plan to 'whip' 'That One’s' 'you-know-what.'"

* The New York Times reports that 3100 media personnel are expected at Hofstra tonight. For those who are set-junkies, they also report that there is a "traveling debate stage" being brought to Hofstra.

* Fox News reports, "The onus is on John McCain, analysts say, to ratchet up pressure on Barack Obama." The conventional wisdom is that McCain must deliver a strong performance tonight. That's hard, given that presidential debates are easier lost than won.

* Moderator Bob Schieffer is talking tough, declaring, "It will not embarrass me, if they go off in a different direction, to say, 'excuse me, could you focus on the question that I just asked?'"

* The Wall Steet Journal relates that McCain faces tough polls in four key swing states, but support for him remains strong amongst the Republican base.

* We'll have the presidential debate live blog up and running tonight at 9PM EST.

Hofstra Presidential Debate Live Blog Tonight at 9PM EST

2008-10-14T21:01:00.001-07:00

FOR THE LIVE BLOG OF THE HOFSTRA PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, PLEASE GO TO OUR HOME PAGE.

We'll have the presidential debate live blog fired up one last time at 9PM EST for the final presidential debate of the election cycle, to be held at Hofstra University. We'll be live blogging the presidential debate from Chicago, Harvard, and Yale law schools.

We'll have all three threads open for live comments as well.

For archived live blogs, please click the links below (please note: some links below lead to recap pages that provide links to the live blogs themselves):

* Town-hall style presidential debate at Belmont University, October 7, 2008.

* Vice presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis, October 2, 2008.

* Presidential debate at Ole Miss, September 26, 2008.

Presidential Debate News Roundup 10-14

2008-10-14T05:27:00.000-07:00

* I’ve got a piece out in today’s San Francisco Chronicle calling for the release of the memorandum of understanding.

* McCain adviser Tucker Bounds announced yesterday that, “I expect John McCain will ask Barack Obama to speak truthfully about his relationship with friend and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers” at the presidential debate tomorrow night. I’m guessing the Obama campaign has spent a good deal of time prepping out a response to this question, if it does happen.

* McCain confirmed that Ayers will make an appearance at the debates, telling a St. Louis radio station that McCain was "“was astonished to hear [Obama] say that he was surprised that I didn’t have the guts . . . . I think he is probably ensured that it will come up this time.”

* Joe Biden has a suggestion for debate viewers: “For part of this next debate, do what I did for part of the last two debates. Literally turn the sound off. Watch the body language of both men. You can sense it folks, you know it when there’s a command presence. You know it when someone has the confidence and the certitude about himself and what he believes in.” Professor Collier decries this kind of advice as the epitome of the debates' television-driven slide. We speculated that it might be rational and efficient for viewers to rely on such snap judgments.

* For those hoping for a dramatic finish, tomorrow’s debate comes 150 years to the day after the final Lincoln-Douglas debate held in Alton, Illinois. Professor Gillian Silverman has a great retrospective out on the Lincoln-Douglas debates in today’s LA Times, and she discusses the lessons those debates provide for the present contest.

* We'll have the presidential debate live blog fired up tomorrow at 9PM EST.

Presidential Debate News Roundup 10-13

2008-10-13T05:40:00.000-07:00

* McCain pledged to campaign volunteers that he would “whip” Obama’s “you-know-what in this debate." McCain’s remark reflects the high levels of attention focusing on the final face to face meeting of the candidates.

* McCain has also rolled out a new speech in advance of the debate.

* A new ABC poll shows Obama up ten points on McCain, raising the pressure on McCain to pull off a big win in the upcoming debate.

* Obama arrived in Toledo yesterday for the beginning of his three day debate preparation there.

* Newsday has a piece out about Hofstra's most recent debate preparation, which includes providing the candidates with the exact water glass they will be using in the debate.

* The Presidential Debate Live Blog will be up and running at 9PM EST on Wednesday.

Presidential Debate News Roundup 10-12

2008-10-12T07:29:00.000-07:00

* Wednesday night’s debate will cost Hofstra over $3.5 Million and “not all the bills are in.”

* There is an interesting New York Times piece out on set design for debates, which quotes guest poster Alan Schroeder.

* Moderator Bob Scheiffer declared that he wants more engagement between the candidates, “not a joint news conference as we’ve been seeing."

* We’ll roll out the Presidential Debate Live Blog one more time on Wednesday night at 9PM.

Fixing the Presidential Debate

2008-10-11T10:04:00.000-07:00

The latest call for modifying the debate format comes from the Open Debate Coalition. The group spans the political spectrum, including founders and members of MoveOn, The Next Right, and The Huffington Post, as well as a variety of nonpolitical internet sites, including the founders of Wikipedia and Craigslist.

The Open Debate Coalition calls for four changes to the 10/15 presidential debate at Hofstra (full letter here):

1. Broad moderator discretion for followup questions.

2. Some questions taken from the internet and voted on by the public.

3. The release of all 2008 debate footage into the public domain.

4. The candidates must work with the Open Debate Coalition after the election to reform or create an alternative to the Commission on Presidential Debates.

The first three are fair and legitimate concerns. I worry about the fourth item; I'm all for re-working the debates, but I'm not sure the self-appointed Open Debate Coalition is the best way to go.

Distilling the Results of the Second Presidential Debate: A Guest Post by Professor George Bishop

2008-10-10T12:40:00.000-07:00

George Bishop is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Graduate Certificate Program in Public Opinion and Survey Research, at the University of Cincinnati. He is the senior editor (with Robert Meadow and Marilyn Jackson-Beeck) of a classic volume on the presidential debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election campaign (The Presidential Debates: Media, Electoral, and Policy Perspectives, Praeger, 1978) and the author most recently of The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005). Following the polling debacle earlier this year in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary, he was invited to contribute a guest column to the Sunday Outlook section of the Washington Post: George Bishop “Why We Keep Getting Snowed by the Polls.” Washington Post, Sunday Outlook, February 3, 2008; B03.

Obama beats McCain! Or so it seems. All the quick-reaction polls indicate that the second presidential debate has given Obama another “win”, a boost in popularity, and perhaps a bounce in the daily tracking polls as well. Whatever the defects of these instant polls from a self-selection/sampling bias perspective (see my previous posts)—biases that should be about the same each time—they now offer us some useful comparisons with the results of the first presidential debate. The USA Today/Gallup poll of a national sample of debate-watchers (done in one night), for example, found Obama doing a “better job” than McCain by a margin of 56%-23%, a gap of 33%, as compared to a gap of just 12% in Obama’s favor after the first debate. CNN/Opinion Research Corporation’s survey of a similar national sample on the exact same night of the debate produced much the same picture: a gap of 24% in Obama’s favor on who “did the best job”, which was about twice the size of his edge in the first debate (13%). Rasmussen’s automated, instant poll of a national sample of adults turned out just as well for Obama, indicating he “won” the debate by 45% to 28%.

The results from the CBS News/Knowledge Network (one-night) poll of uncommitted voters who watched the debate appeared a little less impressive, but showed a “win” for Obama nonetheless. Uncommitted voters thought Obama “won” the second debate by a margin of 40% to 26%, which was nearly identical to the CBS/KN results on the first debate: 39% to 24%. An online Ipsos/McClatchy poll of “undecided voters” on Tuesday and Wednesday, using a somewhat different methodology, however, had Obama moving up from 45% to 57% in voting preferences after the debate, while McCain dropped from 55% to 43%. So there’s lots of convergent evidence in these polls—despite variations in methodology— that Obama did very well with the electorate in his debate with John McCain.

Not only that, a perusing of other questions asked in the various polls tells us that his ratings on favorability, likeability, intelligence, being able to think on his feet & express his views more clearly, handling the economy, the current financial crisis, and the like—all of it turned out to Obama’s decisive advantage. In contrast, while McCain scored well on such things as being prepared to be President of the United States, demonstrating that he’s “tough enough for the job”, and defending the United States against foreign aggression, he came through as more disrespectful, mean spirited, and having “spent more time attacking his opponent.” It look’s like Obama had a pretty good night.

But will any of these victories for Obama in the debates make a difference in the ultimate outcome of the presidential election? The conventional wisdom among many scholars and pundits alike seems to be that debates don’t matter that much in the end and that polls about who won or lost the debates are not at all predictive of the final result. How do we know that? Other than pointing out, anecdotally, how well losing candidates such as debate winner, John Kerry, did in the 2004 contest, what hard, empirical evidence is there for this claim? I know of no rigorous experimental, or non-experimental, demonstration that supports the conventional folklore. Besides, all it would take is for either Obama’s or McCain’s debate performance to make a small, lasting difference among truly undecided voters in a battleground state such as Ohio, to swing the outcome of a close election in the electoral college. And not for a good while will we know the answer to this question. Until then…Caveat emptor!

Presidential Debate News Recap 10-10

2008-10-10T08:17:00.000-07:00

* Saturday Night Live’s Thursday installment hit the debate hard. Brokaw and the format got special attention, and McCain was faulted for moving too close to Obama, something we warned against. Obama's connection to William Ayers was also lampooned. This skit is much better than the first debate spoof.

* The San Jose Mercury News calls for modifying the format of Wednesday’s debate in light of the economic situation by removing moderator questions and allowing the candidates to lay out their economic plans and engage each other directly. This is an interesting idea, although unlikely to succeed, given the (still secret) memorandum of understanding.

* More polls point to an Obama victory in the last debate (to the extent you can define “victory” in this context).

* Putting the economic debate last now seems to be the correct move, as that’s on voters’ minds.

* Obama will prepare for the Hofstra debate in Toledo, Ohio. No word yet on where McCain will prep.

What the Debates Are Not

2008-10-09T20:24:00.000-07:00

One of our commenters brings up an important point that we at the Presidential Debate Blog have noted in passing (and Professor McGee in a post), but that bears additional consideration: the presidential debates are not debates.

Some of our readers have seen better high school debates; the three of us have. Moreover, I have witnessed Aaron give far better speeches than these two politicians have mustered and are likely to muster during the remainder of their campaigns. But both candidates aim to convince the general public: the candidates play to a different audience than we who are writing the blog (and many of our readers) are used to. Neither candidate will say certain things because they do not play well in the polls. Regardless of the facts, some arguments are rhetorical losers. For instance, neither candidate will say that Wall Street is not to blame for the current financial crisis. Regardless of whether they Wall Street is or is not to blame, the public thinks Wall Street is the enemy right now.

Likewise, both candidates do a song and dance on protectionist labor laws. Both men likely realize that in reality, "shipping American jobs abroad" allows American businesses to compete better in a global market; it benefits the economy as a whole. GDP increases (or GNP, if you like), and when American consumers buy an Indian-made-but-U.S.-branded computer, it costs a fraction less. But those benefits are dispersed, whereas the downside of free trade is concentrated and severe: people lose jobs when their factory (or more likely, call center) moves to India. Thus, neither candidate will come out as a pure supporter of free trade; both have used protectionist rhetoric at times. Looking at the candidates' voting records is the only way to tell what they think on an issue like that. And where those and similar issues are concerned, the debates will only reveal so much.

As a presidential debate viewer, one must deal with the fact that we watch political theater and a study in rhetoric as much as a debate.

Presidential Debate News Recap 10-9

2008-10-09T06:57:00.000-07:00

* The final question of the night: "What don't you know and how will you learn it?" was credited to "Peggy from Amherst, New Hampshire." It turns out that's not the first time Peggy Silva has asked that question. She also inquired that of Bill Clinton in 1991 and John McCain in 2000.

* Time Magazine has bucked the trend of disparaging the Belmont debate, and awarded McCain a "B" and Obama a "B+." No word yet on possible grade inflation.

* The Omaha World Herald notes that Warren Buffet, mentioned by both McCain and Obama as a potential Secretary of the Treasury, has demurred from the job in the past. However, pretty much every candidate for President has demurred from saying they will run at some point in the past as well.

* Newsday reports that Hofstra will get only 150 tickets for the upcoming debate. The other 850 will go to the campaigns and the media. That's a similar ratio to the one Belmont University received.

* The Adler Planetarium fired back to McCain's earmark slam from the second debate, declaring in a press release that its request for a new projector was never approved.

The Worst Presidential Debate Ever?

2008-10-08T17:38:00.000-07:00

An interesting and provocative piece out on Politico.com discussing last night's debate: "Place the gravity of the moment next to the blah-blah-blah artifice of the rhetoric and overall insubstantiality of the evening, and this is what you get: The worst presidential debate ever."

This is a stronger version of our overall lack of satisfaction with the debate performance by both candidates. It's worth a read.

There's an ongoing discussion of worst-debate-ever topic over at Politico.com's Arena.

Presidential Debate Recap: The Morning After

2008-10-08T07:20:00.000-07:00

* Nielsen overnight data indicates that 63.2 million watched the second presidential debate, 10 million more than watched the first, but almost 7 million fewer than the vice presidential debate drew.

* There's a good review roundup of this morning's editorials from around the country at Fox News.

* A nice summary of news and analysis at the History News Network.

* The New York Times analysis of the debate: "They were not striving for passionate. Somber and steady seemed to be the goals."

* The Wall Street Journal notes that McCain didn't "accomplish [his] goal" of a game-changing debate.

*Michael Preston at CNN declares "Neither candidate had a stellar performance. Each failed to effectively use the town hall format to express compassion for the problems voters are facing." We were similarly unimpressed by the debate.

* While there aren't real substantive polls out yet, early returns indicated a win for Obama (with all the necessary caveats). Stay tuned for Professor Bishop's deconstruction of the polls.

* In a possible preview of next week's final debate, moderator Bob Schieffer declared that "I would have loved to have seen a little more followup than we saw tonight." That's not the first time someone's expressed problems with the format.

Belmont Presidential Debate Re-Cap

2008-10-07T21:18:00.000-07:00

It's been a busy two and a half hours on The Presidential Debate Blog. Thanks to the 14,000+ viewers who signed in for the live blog tonight and a special thanks to those who carried on the conversation in the comments thread.

Here's a summary of the recent Belmont Presidential Debate related blog posts.

* Video and transcripts of the Belmont Presidential Debate.

* The presidential debate live blogs from Chicago Law, Harvard Law, and Yale Law.

* Mark and I both thought Obama won. Cleve saw it as tie. We all agreed it was not a great debate.

* The top ten best lines of the debate.

* The top ten worst lines of the debate.

* How to fix the debates.

The Top Ten One-Liners From the Belmont Presidential Debate

2008-10-07T20:58:00.000-07:00

This is our fourth top-ten installment. Previously we did the top ten lines from the Ole Miss presidential debate, the top ten lines from the vice presidential debate, and the top ten presidential debate lines of all time.

Here are the top ten lines from the Belmont Presidential Debate, which are the least impressive on any of our top ten lists. Mark's ten worst lines are below (and he has some from my list on there).

1. “My wife, Michelle, is there and she could give you a much longer list than I do.” -Obama

2. “[T]he last president to raise taxes during tough economic times was Herbert Hoover” –McCain

3. "Over the last eight years, we've seen that dream diminish.” —Obama

4. “I believe in this country. I believe in its future. I believe in its greatness.” -McCain

5. "The Straight Talk Express lost a wheel on that one" -Obama

6. “Everything I ever learned about leadership I learned from a chief petty officer.” -McCain

7. “[T]his is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Senator McCain.” –Obama

8. "[T]here were some of us that stood up against it. There were others who took a hike.” –McCain

9. “He said, ‘Go out and shop.’ That wasn't the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for.” –Obama

10. “Nailing down Sen. Obama's various tax proposals is like nailing Jell-O to the wall” –McCain

Edit: I added lines #5 and # 10, which I accidentally left off the first iteration of this post.

The 10 Worst Lines of the Debate

2008-10-07T20:50:00.000-07:00

Since Aaron’s been doing a great job of the ten best lines of each debate, I thought it might be interesting to try to create a list of the ten worst. It probably says a lot about this debate that my lines just aren’t that bad, and Aaron’s just aren’t that great. Here’s hoping that we see something impressive (one way or the other) from these guys in round 3… but I’m not holding my breath.

10. “You know, like hair transplants, I might need one of those myself.” -McCain
9. “So what one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.” -Obama
8. “He voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois.” -McCain
7. “That’s how it works in banking. Everyone goes to Delaware.” -Obama
6. “Nuclear power. Senator Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that. Look, I – I was on navy ships that had nuclear power plants.” -McCain
5. “If less money is coming in, you end up making cuts. Maybe you don't go out to dinner as much.” -Obama
4. “My friends, the last president to raise taxes during tough economic times was Herbert Hoover, and he practiced protectionism as well, which I'm sure we'll get to at some point.” -McCain
3. “My wife, Michelle, is there and she could give you a much longer list than I do. And most of the time, I learn it by asking her.” –Obama (In response to the question: “What don’t you know, and how will you learn it?”)
2. “I want to just remind you one more time about time. We're going to have a larger deficit than the federal government does if we don't get this under control here before too long.” -Brokaw
1. “You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me.” –McCain

This is also a useful thing for realizing just how subjective this all is: my #3 and #4 worst lines of the night are Aaron's #1 and #2 best of the night.

Belmont Presidential Debate Video and Transcript

2008-10-07T20:09:00.000-07:00

The transcript of the Belmont Presidential Debate is available here.

Video of the Belmont Presidential Debate is available here.

C-Span has a very nifty application on their Debate Hub Website that allows for playback on a time line, as well as embeddable links. It's worth a look.

Who Won? The Status Quo.

2008-10-07T19:58:00.000-07:00

Too close to call.

Some observations:

On appearing presidential, I give it to Obama. McCain looked short, hunched over, withering, and old. That may be harsh, but that is how he looked and voters will notice (even if subconsciously). The town-hall format flattered Obama more than McCain. Moreover, McCain looked anxious when seated while Obama looked relaxed, as though he had never been so at ease.
The quality of questions varied, but was bad overall. The Secretary of the Treasury question was good, but would have been better had Brokaw pinned them both to answers. The Israel-Iran question was good. But the rest were mainly boilerplate, allowing the candidates to go on about the issues of the campaign (energy, the economy, health care, and foriegn policy) that we are all familiar with. That limited opportunity for clash.
I will not attemp to give the best lines tonight. Not because I agree with the other posters here, but because there were at most a handful, almost all of them belonging to Brokaw. The nightly news will not have much fodder from this debate.
Obama and McCain both did better than before. McCain cleaned up his attacks some and interacted directly with the cameras, or tried. McCain also avoided the lengthy personal narratives and toned down the asides about his time in Congress and his interactions with other Congressmen (who I am sure are beloved by their fellow Americans...or maybe not).
McCain came off as more defensive. Yet again, McCain attacked Obama. Obama fought back, and even plowed ahead against Brokaw in attempting to respond to McCain. But McCain's repeated attacks on Obama made him look like he was defensive and petty. So even while Obama lacked solid responses to those attacks at time, he still came off more presidential. Moreover, Obama managed to attack McCain in subtle ways, e.g. when he spoke of not continuining the policies of the last eight years. That line did not attack McCain directly, yet the line linked McCain to Bush, criticizing both. Thus, the rhetorical victory likewise goes to Obama.
But McCain did show a strong inclination towards facts and invoked independent authorities for support. Moreover, McCain's moment with the vet came across powerfully. And he also had some genuine moments, especially when talking about war and foreign policy. So I cannot give the entire win to Obama.
If Obama were to have a narrow victory from this debate, which is possible, it was for stylistic, rhetorical, and shallow reasons rather than substnative ones. Both candidates dodged most of the questions and gave strong answers at times, but neither took the debate away on substance. A few good jabs and rejoinders were made by each.

This debate focused, if anything, on squabbles about the facts. That is where the candidates spent the most time. As a result, the debate lacked clash.

Both had some good moments (McCain with the vet, Obama's personal story at the end). But on the whole, an uninspiring debate. This probably will not have a great impact on the election either way; it was not the pick-me-up that people insist McCain needs. Nor was it a boost for Obama. The status quo prevails.

Who Won the Belmont Presidential Debate: McCain's Buildup Folly

2008-10-07T19:55:00.000-07:00

As I've stated below (and Mark also believes) this was an Obama victory on the whole. He had a strong performance compared to McCain, and although there were no major sparks, Obama came across much better.

I think this performance is particularly troubling for McCain, as his campaign has been playing up the town hall format since their call for ten of them earlier this year (McCain even referenced the proposal obliquely at the beginning of the debate, saying it was "good to see" Obama in a town hall format).

Can We Fix the Debates?

2008-10-07T19:53:00.000-07:00

Not "we" the Presidential Debate Blog, but "we" the debate-viewing public.

Here are some things that need to change, if these debates are ever going to become more valuable and constructive.

1.) Let's see a moderator who's willing to keep the candidates on the questions that they're asked. Seriously--there's nothing wrong with a moderator looking at a candidate, channeling Ronald Reagan, and delivering a "there you go again" and demanding that they actually answer the question.

Why will this help? A few things. First, there's an obvious benefit to having the questions about which people care answered. Second, the ability of a candidate to answer a question directly is probably indicative of some relevant abilities in selecting a leader. But third, and most important, forcing candidates to actually answer the questions they are asked would, paradoxically, widen the scope of what would be discussed during these forums. In the status quo, where candidates can use the subtle dodges we saw from Obama and McCain over their past two meetings, or even the explicit "that's important, but I want to talk about this" dodge that we saw from Palin, candidates are able to keep the debate limited to the points that they want. As a result, we've heard the same points from both candidates on the same 10 or 11 points--and that's comprised the vast majority of the debates to this point. We've now heard the exact same language from both candidates on a number of issues in both debates to date.

That is not productive. That is not informative. That is not, at its purest, debate. Let's get a moderator or a format that will actually compel answers to the questions which are asked.

2.) Let's allow greater interaction between the candidates. The whole idea of a debate is the conflict and clash of ideas, not two people talking past each other. Both candidates got in some nice jabs, but that's not a debate--on the rare occasion that they actually had some substantive engagement, it was far too detail-oriented, and was mainly quibbling about facts not disagreement about ideas, proposals, or policies. That's not helpful for an undecided voter trying to choose between two competing ideas and proposals.

Look: here's the bottom line (to my mind)... the idea that these spectacles are still called "debates" is somewhat farcical. These aren't debates so much as they're beauty pageants--there's almost no meaningful ground for a comparative analysis between the two candidates, and we're simply left evaluating them in a vacuum. At that point, let's just have more stump speeches--it'll save all the logistical hassles of organizing these debates. Or, in the alternative (and this is what I (and I suspect many others) would prefer,) let's make these debates meaningful again.

Who Won the Presidential Debate

2008-10-07T19:40:00.000-07:00

* On the whole this debate was notable for the relative lack of spark. Unlike the vice presidential debate (which I am guessing will have been more widely watched), there wasn't as much interesting clash.

* From a debate perspective, there was a lot fighting about facts here. That's not a great way to conduct a debate; when the foundation is unclear, it's difficult to have meaningful clash.

* The town hall format was tough on McCain. He appeared old walking around the stage, and a bit stiff.

* Many of McCain's jokes fell flat "That one." will replay poorly. McCain's strongest moment was when he talked with the Navy Chief Petty Officer.

* Obama managed to retain a smile throughout, which was good. He had a bit of flub on the Delaware banking point, but I think that will only play with the lawyers. He responded well to the priority order question and looked at ease.

* A terrible job by Brokaw. I watched Jim Lehrer; I've live blogged Jim Lehrer. You sir are no Jim Lehrer.

* Brokaw had little control over the candidates in terms of time and message. He interjected himself into the questions without providing meaningful direction, and he sounded petulant at times about the candidates lack of adherence to the script. He couldn't even ad-lib his last few lines when the telemprompter was blocked.

*Final verdict: although I've written about the difficulty of easily naming a winner, I think this went to Obama. He had more energy, took more issues on directly, and did a good job remaining upbeat during attacks. McCain dodged a few too many questions for his "straight talk" reputation and had some humor that did not play well at many times.

* I'm working on the top ten lines of the debate- it will be up shortly.

So, Who Won?

2008-10-07T19:36:00.001-07:00

Not quite a runaway victory, but I think this one was pretty clearly Obama's.

Why?

As some of our commenters mentioned after the past debate, there is a good argument to be made that absolute performance should dictate the winner. I think Obama certainly was superior to McCain in absolute terms--he looked significantly more presidential, and significantly more at ease. He also did an excellent job of criticizing McCain, connecting him to Bush, and keeping him consistently on the ropes in his answers. McCain, on the other hand, looked uncomfortable at times, and had a few awkward moments in his answers--none of which really stood out.

The only great lines of the night came from Brokaw, but with both candidates giving performances miles above their performances in the first debate, I'm reluctant to give the debate to the moderator again.

But, as we at the Presidential Debate Blog have controversially maintained, the best way to evaluate the winner of a debate in this format is to consider their performance as compared to what we expected from their performance. Coming in, this should have been McCain's breakout performance: he's the one who wanted the town hall format, and he's the one who considers town halls to be his strength... and yet, whether you agree with my assessment of Obama being better overall, McCain was certainly not better by a blowout. At that point, McCain actually fell short of the expectations he created for himself, while Obama certainly met or exceeded his own.

Presidential Debate LiveBlog from Harvard Law School

2008-10-07T18:04:00.001-07:00

Please refresh the page for updates from all three of us.

10:34- Brokaw is unable to read his script past the shoulders of both candidates... just to end the night on as much a note of utter ridiculousness as possible.

10:32- And McCain also dodges the question, giving substantively the same answer as Obama, and using his non-answer as a jumpoff to discuss the same tired personal narrative.

10:31- Note to Aaron: your candidate just referred to HLS as "the best school on Earth." Take that.

10:30- A joke from Obama that his wife knows "what he doesn't know". Falls flat. A wholly vague answer from him, and a dodge of the question to return to his intensely familiar personal narrative.

10:30- A question from New Hampshire.

10:29- One more jab at Bush with the suggestion that McCain and Bush are indistinguishable.

10:28- And as Obama also fails to answer Shirey, he does respond to McCain's criticisms from his answer... further suggesting that this would be better if they just shouted their respective talking points at each other.

10:27- Do we count McCain saying "my friend" towards the "my friends" count?

10:26- And, as McCain doesn't answer Shirey's question, we hear several of the exact same talking points we heard in the first debate.

10:25- Maybe Terry Shirey has just won the debate with the first hard-hitting question we've seen from anyone in the first three debates. I wonder how many times McCain will thank him before answering his question.

10:24- Brokaw: "this question only requires a yes or a no." Candidates: long and overdrawn answers.

10:23- But Obama did effectively parlay the answer into a nice comment on energy.

10:21- A missed opportunity for an Obama zinger... if he's talking about Russia, he has a wonderful chance to take a free potshot at Sarah Palin's inane "foreign policy" comment.

10:20- I'm getting a little tired of McCain looking into Putin's eyes and seeing three letters.

10:18- Obama continuing with the "shake head while smiling condescendingly" approach when he disagrees with McCain. It's worked so far--and as David Mamet would tell us, you don't change horses in midstream.

10:16- "I'll get him" comes out in McCain's comment on Bin Laden approximately 8 times. Now rivaling "my friends" count.

10:15- And the debate is a disaster. McCain just demanded "equal time."

10:14- Note to Senator Obama: if you're going to seek deviations from the rules to allow yourself the opportunity to deliver a follow-up, it had better be a far sight better than this one. This is a tactical error on your part.

10:13- Both candidates have agreed to break away from the rules for follow-ups. LINE OF THE NIGHT, and it comes from Brokaw: "I'm just the hired help here."

10:12- McCain reminding us of his world travel agenda. This is no longer as impressive to Ohio as it once was. It's also sounding a little tired to me.

10:11- McCain has just made another strained and painful allusion to "the other Roosevelt". Apparently, T.R. is his hero--I'm not sure that's the line you want in this debate.

10:10- Obama's answer on Pakistan--proof that, at least in Ohio, the idea of "spreading democracy" still plays well. So does calling for the death of Bin Laden. I don't understand how Obama co-opted the kill Bin Laden/crush Al Qaeda line from the Republicans, but it was a stroke of political genius.

10:06- "My friends" twice in one answer. I think we're at 30?

10:05- Obama with a relatively detailed/in-depth answer regarding Darfur. This might be a very deliberate attempt to respond to accusations that he is unprepared to serve as commander in chief, etc.

10:02- In some debate circles, we call what Obama just did "a turn". That's the really nice move we just saw where he said, "Senator McCain is right--there are some things I just don't understand," and used it as an effective segue to attack several McCain/Bush decisions/policies.

10:01- McCain on Obama: "in his short career". The inexperience line didn't play well with Ohio, but it's probably still critical that he keep hitting it. I think "my friends" is now at about 20?

9:57- We're now getting into a very technical debate over the precise nature/content of the Obama plan. There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure it's what the average viewer is looking for.

9:56- Again, a question that both candidates actually answer! (Should health care be a right, a responsibility, or a privilege?)

9:54- A hair transplant joke from McCain? Really? That one fell a bit flat... plus, does he not remember what happened when his wife made a joke about his hair?

9:52- With McCain's answer to the healthcare question, I think we're seeing our first attempt by both candidates to genuinely answer a question, rather than simply supplanting "answers" with "pre-written talking points." In fairness, this is a question that feeds directly to their talking points.

9:51- Obama is giving a highly detailed answer describing his healthcare plan--but not necessarily selling it in any meaningful way... though a nice attack on the McCain plan.

9:48- They're both arguing too much about nitpicky points that voters are unlikely to value. They need more discipline in addressing the rationale for their respective votes. Also, I think "my friends" has now come out 12 times.

9:47- Now we have explicit argument about the rules.

9:46- Halfway point. Aaron, Cleve, and readers, what do you think? I think Obama's ahead by a bit more than a nose.

9:46- Democratic candidates talking about the invention of the computer and other technical innovations has not worked out well in the past. Just saying.

9:45- McCain: "I was on Navy ships that had nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is safe." Does this remind anyone else of Sarah Palin's claim of foreign policy expertise based on proximity to Russia?

9:44- "My friends" count around 7.

9:42- "My friends" count- I think 6? Another encouragement to look at record, not rhetoric.

9:41- McCain: "Sure, I'll answer the question, Tom." An acknowledgment that nobody's answering anything they're asked!

9:39- As fascinating as the debate is to this point, I think it's worth mentioning that McCain's tie troubles are continuing... he's remembered the wisdom (which Obama is ignoring,) that red sends subliminal messages of victory... but then again, Obama accepted the nomination in a red tie, while McCain opted for gold. But more importantly than the color, the glare on McCain's tie is awful... is nobody prescreening this stuff?

9:37- "The rules were established by the two campaigns. We worked very hard on this." Not only do the rules exist, but Brokaw just refused to let Obama violate them.

9:35- Did we just hear a reference to Herbert Hoover? I mean, I know McCain's old, but really? Ohio is not impressed.

9:34- Brokaw calls for a specific proposal of conduct to break negative spending habits. Obama sort of answers it. Exciting! Shocking that the first piece of something resembling specificity would come from the incredibly vague Junior Senator from Illinois.

9:32- It seems to me that we could save a fair chunk of headache and time by just having both candidates recite the talking points of their choice, rather than bothering to have people ask questions that they will both ignore in their entirety.

9:30- Obama: "noun, verb, 9/11." I think this is the first time we've heard it mentioned in one of the post-nomination debates... is that correct?

9:26- Obama simply says that prioritizing is important, without an indication of his priorities. Brokaw: "I'm trying to play by the rules that you all created." Created in some form of memorandum, perchance? One which conveyed understanding, even?

9:25- As a Connecticut citizen, and on a side-note, I want to express my complete disgust with the idea that McCain working with Joe Lieberman constitutes "reaching across the aisle" or the idea that Lieberman would ever be placed on the same list as Ted Kennedy.

9:24- Brokaw asks for a clear prioritized/ordered list. McCain refuses to list anything. Also, why do we have a handheld microphone and a clip-on mic on each candidate?

9:22- And no answer to the question from McCain either... it would be really cool if either candidate would answer a single question tonight.

9:18- A question calling out both candidates. A bad start to Obama's answer--sounded too much like a candidate who didn't know the price of a gallon of milk. Then a bunch of criticism of Bush, with almost no mention or implication of McCain... not playing well in Ohio.

9:16- Obama, after two minutes of finger-pointing: "you're not interested in politicians pointing fingers."

9:15- Macroeconomics 101 with Barack. Also, the first clear attack by either candidate-- "I have to correct Senator McCain's history, not surprisingly."

9:11- Brokaw references the "rules" of the debate. Imagine, if there were some sort of document that governed and described those rules.

9:10- Question 2--and still, neither candidate is answering it.

9:09- McCain "drops" the EBay name... an effort to overcome "the google"?

9:07- First McCain answer, and neither candidate has tried to answer the first question... at all.

9:06- Things people like: I like the CNN insta-response poll, and Ohio likes Obama's promise to crack down on CEOs.

9:04- Obama's up first, calling this "the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression," and immediately going for a McCain/Bush link.

Presidential Debate Live Blog From University of Chicago Law School

2008-10-07T18:03:00.000-07:00

I am live blogging from Chicago. Please refresh for updates.

9:34 The end.

9:29 Question: What don't you know and how will you learn it? The bad questions continue. Why don't we ask about their tie selection? We might get as much substance out of it. Obama jokes that his wife could answer; they pan to her. He gets a laugh. Obama goes into story mode, but like McCain, does not linger there. Good use of rhetoric, tying in his personal experience narrative. Again emphasizes that McCain is a continuation of the last eight years. He cleverly avoids invoking/attacking McCain, but instead says we do not want a continuation of the last eight years. McCain should take notes on how to attack the other candidate while maintaining neutrality from Obama's answer. McCain "I know what it's like...I know what it's like...I know what it's like..." And that ends it.

9:24 Military vet asks what would you do if Iran attacks Israel? Would you send troops or wait on U.N. approval? McCain shakes the guy's hand and thanks him for his military service. I wonder if there is anything in the MOU about handshakes with the audience.

9:23 Is Russia an Evil Empire? Really, Tom? Give us real questions. Obama says they have done evil things. McCain gives a lawyer's answer: maybe. But he analyzes why. A responsible answer. Both candidates wisely avoid saying yes or no.

9:19 Russia question. McCain stays under time. Obama agrees with McCain on most of it. They probably will not waste time on this question. Look for the redirect. Yep. Here it comes: "we have to anticipate these problems." Cross-links energy to Russia at the end; good.

9:16 Afghanistan question. The British say we are failing: what should we do? Obama: work on Iraq, then send more troops to Afghanistan. McCain again on the attack. Again, not a good idea.

9:13 Brokaw tries to prevent an Obama follow-up. McCain says "it's fine with me." Obama pushes on despite Brokaw's joke that he is just hired help. Obama once again invokes McCain singing and statements McCain made against North Korea. McCain stands up and wants to get in. Will McCain get a follow-up to the non-sanctioned follow-up? Brokaw blesses a McCain follow-up. McCain takes us back to storytime. That did not go well for him last time, and perhaps he knows that; he came back.

9:10 Interesting question: would you enter Pakistan without telling them in order to pursue terrorists? Obama eventually says yes. McCain invokes Teddy Roosevelt's quote "walk softly and carry a big stick." Both candidates give effective answers; they both grasp the policy and rhetoric here. McCain attacks Obama. McCain does seem to be on the attack a little more (as he was last time), but McCain seems like relatively less attacking than last time.

9:05 What will you do when we do not have national security issues at stake? Obama: we have moral obligations. We should have intervened in the Holocaust, he says. Obama is painting himself as an interventionist, but in a limited way. Nothing new here, but the answer is clear. The camera is focusing on his face more now (and as I hit period they switch to a shot of Obama's back...). McCain sounds reluctant to go to war. He says he would go to Rwanda and also fix the Holocaust. Unsurprising: Congress members who are veterans traditionally reluctant to go to war.

9:00 Question: how will the economic problems affect our ability to make peace worldwide? McCain answers well enough, then a sharp finish: "No time for on-the-job training." Obama makes a nice rhetorical transition that defangs the critique: "That's right, there are things I don't understand...[such as Bush's foreign policy]." Obama critiques Bush's foreign policy and how the Iraq war has been run. Obama argues that now we cannot do other things because we are using our resources in Iraq. A very good argument; not sure how much the public will buy it (it does not seem as rhetorically effective, but Obama is right).

8:56 McCain goes through the impact of Obama's tax policy on individuals. Makes it more personal; McCain characterizes Obama's plan as a penalty on certain categories of individuals. Obama is now doing something similar. Obama likens health insurance as a race to the bottom (without calling it that); makes an analogy to Delaware corporations. Brokaw cuts in, Obama wraps it up.

8:52 Obama does a good job on going through the policy. McCain likewise doing a nice job answering about the policy.

8:51 Nice move by McCain: he comes back to Obama by saying that he voted against a Bush-Cheney bill loaded with pork-barrel spending while McCain voted against it. McCain ends early and jokes with Brokaw; Brokaw before this question admonished both candidates for ignoring time signals. Obama pointed at McCain and said he was just trying to keep up with John. Point definitely went to McCain on that answer.

8:50 I really wanted Obama to say the computer was invented by Al Gore. Instead, he backed off. But he does claim they will make something as revolutionary as a computer, except for cars. Now Obama invokes McCain's record: voted 23 times against alternative fuels.

8:45 Question for McCain: what will you do on environmental policy? Nuclear energy, says McCain (and other things). Clever reference to other countries that do the same (Japan, France): i.e. this is what other liberal nations are doing.

8:40 McCain: "my friends." We all have to sit down. We have done this before. Again talks about his experience. Again nails Obama for not taking on his party leaders. Making play out of being unpopular as a Republican. I don't think this strategy is working well for McCain nor did it last time. He's arguing he will come up with a plan by getting experts together. Obama voted 94 times against tax cuts or for higher taxes says McCain. "I have fought...I have fought...I hvae fought...." (good; probably scripted; Biden used a similar rhetorical approach).

8:38 Medicare is a time-bomb. What would you do? Obama now jokes about McCain (McCain had just joked about Obama). No laughter. Come on, guys: it's much easier to get laughs by making fun of yourself: "I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." (Reagan; neither of these guys has been clever enough to say something like that.)

8:35 "Don't vote me a tax cut." (not a direct quote, but he makes the old point) Brokaw enforces time and stops Obama's answer. Good job. Did the same to McCain earlier.

8:30 Obama invokes 9/11.

8:28 What sacrifices will you ask every American to make? Interestingly, McCain comes back to the spending freeze idea. Last time it seemed like he made that up on the fly.

8:22 Question: Health, energy, entitlement reform: which is your highest priority? Unsurprisingly, first answer (McCain) is "let's do all three at once!" Multiple camera angles are making it hard for the candidates to get face time with the cameras; feeds are coming from the cameras the candidates are not looking at. That does make sure it is more of a town hall feel. Obama's order (if I got it right): energy, health care, education. Now on to answer McCain's record comments. "I want to go line-by-line through the budget," says Obama.

8:21 McCain: look at records, not rhetoric. McCain says Obama has never taken on his party on anything. He refers voters to Citizens Against Government Waste and National Taxpayers' Union. Both candidates are staying more composed than last time. McCain emphasizing the record, noting things that Obama has voted on. Good argumentative move here: try to get support by relying on outside sources.

8:20 Questioner barely gets the question out. How can we trust you with our money since both parties caused this mess? Obama: when Bush came into office we had a surplus. Now we have a huge deficit. I don't like that argument, but then again there's a lot of truth to the deficit portion of the picture.

8:16 Question: is the economy going to get worse before better? Obama says no. McCain keeps looking at his notes. McCain answer: depends on what we do. Cronyism count: 2.

8:13 Obama says the mortgage problem is deregulation. Not as much opportunity for camera face-time in this forum. McCain is pacing in the back...strange. "I never promoted Fannie Mae." Obama names McCain's fundraising chairman's firm as lobbying for Fannie Mae. Wonder which firm that is (Patton?)? Obama clearly anticipated this.

8:12 McCain just attacked Obama and "his cronies" for the mortgage situation. Thought he might do that; it's an easy attack. Obama looks smug. Either anticipated this one or is creating that impression. Again McCain portrays himself as a fighter in the Senate.

8:08 Who do you have in mind to appoint to Secretary of the Treasury? Great question. McCain jokes with Brokaw; goes over OK. McCain is saying Meg Whitman. Note that however the candidates respond, this will put them out in the open for the remainder of the campaign. The extra two minutes to think for Obama on this question is huge: it's a big second-mover advantage. Obama says "maybe Buffett but not Buffett" then moves on to attack trickle-down econ again. Trickle-down attack count: 2. Question dodged, and Obama moves on to policy.

8:04 Intro from Brokaw. Obama attacks trickle-down economics. Obama got up and walked over; I guess that's how this will work. McCain is having some verbal ticks, it seems.

Presidential Debate Live Blog From Yale Law School

2008-10-07T17:59:00.000-07:00

FOR THE LIVE BLOG OF THE HOFSTRA PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, PLEASE GO TO OUR HOME PAGE.

I'm live blogging the debates from Yale Law School at an event co-hosted by the Yale Law Democrats and Yale Law Republicans. Please refresh the page for updates..

10:34: McCain and Obama both head for the corwd, now joined by Cindy. Michelle is now going through the crowd as well.

10:34: Brokaw: "You're in the way of my script." A weak finish if there ever was one.

10:32: McCain: "What I don't know is what all of us don't know. What is going to happen here at home and abroad. . . . There will be challenges around the world that are new and different. What I don't know is what the unexpected will be. I have spent my whole life serving my country." "I know what it's like in dark times, I know what it's like to have to fight to keep ones hope going through difficult times. I know what it's like to have to rely on others . . . " A strong close here with an implicit comparison to his Vietnam captivity. "I am asking the American people to give me another opportunity." "Times are tough, we need a steady hand at the tiller, and the great honor of my life was to always put my country first."

10:32: Obama: "We're going to have to have the courage, the sacrifice, and the nerve."

10:30: Obama: "Here's what I do know: I wouldn't be standing her if it weren't for the fact that this country gave me opportunity." "Despite all that, I was able to go to the best schools on earth. I was able to succeed." "Are we going to pass on that same Aerican dream to the next generation. A strong move by Obama here at the end. "We can't expect that if we do the smae things we've been doing over the last eight years we are going to have a different outcome."

10:30: Obama "My wife Michelle is there, and she could give you a much longer list than I do"- a good humanizing touch- the first real laugh from the audience of the night.

10:29 Brokaw: The last question from Amherst, New Hampshire: "What don't you know and how will you learn it."

10:29: The last question.

10:29: Obama "We've got to try to have talks."

10:28 Obama: "A tough, direct messgae to Iran- if you don't change your behavior, there will be dire consequences."

10:28: Obama: "If we can prevent Iran from importing the gasoline they need, . . . that starts putting the squeeze on them."

10:27: Obama: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Not only would it threaten Israel, it would also create the possiblity of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. We will never take military options off the table." "It is important for us to use all the tools at our disposal to prevent the scenario where we have to make those kidsn of choices." He's not near the questioner though- not as personal as McCain was.

10:26: McCain: "What would you do if you were the Israelies and the President . . . calls your country a stinking corpse." McCain on his "League of Democracies" which he discussed in the first debate. This is a strong answer. "You know what it's like to serve. You know what's like to sacrifice. We can never allow a second holocaust to take place."

10:25 McCain "Thank you my friends, thanks for serving" A strong line emphasizing his service- he actually went over, shook hands, and patted the man on the shoulder. It will be interesting to watch how Obama starts his answer.

10:24; Question: "Would you be willing to commit troops in support of Israel or would you wait for approval from the U.N. Security counsel."

10:24: McCain: "I think we can deal with it. They've got to understand they're facing a firm United States of America."

10:24: McCain: "Maybe. If I say yes, we're reigniting the old cold war."

10:23 Obama: "I think they engaged in evil behavior."

10:22: Brokaw: "This requires a yes or no . . . . Do you think Russia is an evil empire?"

10:20: Obama "We can't just provide moral support. . . We've also got to provide them with financial and concrete assistance to rebuild their economies." "We've got to see around the corners. We've got to anticipate some of these problems ahead of time"- an analogy used by Biden in the previous debate.

10:19: McCain: "I looked into his eyes and I saw three letters, a K, a G, and a B"- a line used in the last debate and beforehand. "Putin has Ukraine in his sites." "We've got to make the Russian's understand there are penalties for this behavior."

10:19: To answer an earlier question from a viewer in Marks' comments: I'm watching this on C-Span (I think it provides the best straight coverage to watch without interference."

10:17: McCain: "General Patreus has just taken a position of repsonsiblity" "It is the same overall strategy, of course we have to do some things tactically. We

10:17: Interestingly, not that much on the economy - lots of foreigh policy.

10:16: Obama "We are going to have to put some additional troops in Afghanistan. . . . The commander in Afghanistan is depserate for more help."

10:16: Brokaw: "Can I get a quick response form the two of you on dvelopments in Afghanistan." "How do you reorganize Afghanistan's strategy."

10:15: McCain: My friends: 13. "I know how to do it. I know how to get him, but I'm not going to telegraph my intentions."

10:14: McCain: "Not true. Not Ture. I have obviously supported those efforts where the United States had to go in militarily. I understand what's it like to send veterans into harms way. I was joking with an old veteran friend."

10:13: Obama: "Senator McCain suggests that I'm green behind the ears, and just spouting off, and he's somber and responsible."McCain: "Thank you very much." that didn't come off very well. Obama: "He said 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

10:13: Brokaw: "I'm just hired help here."

10:13: McCain : "If we're gonna have followups, I want followups"

10:12 McCain: Interesting that he's advocating that he is more peaceful and Obama is more beliccose.

10:11: McCain: "General Patreus had a strategy, the same fundamental strategy that succeeded in Iraq. That is to get the support of people."

10:11: McCain: "Talk softly and carry a big stick. Senator Obama likes to talk loudly."

10:10: Obama "If we have Osama Bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistanit Government is unwilling to take him out, we will act."

10:09 Obama quoting Gates on Afghanistan "That's where the war on terrorism started, that's where it will end"- the response to McCain's "Patreus and Bin Laden agree on one thing- the war is in Iraq" line.

10:09: Obama: "That's the central front on terrorism."

10:09: Obama: "We have a bad situation because . . . we got distracted, diverted resources, Bin Laden escaped, and set up a base in the mountains of Afghanistan."

10:08: Question: "Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and pursue Al Qaeda there or ignore their borders and pursue our enemy like we did in Cambodia?

10:07: McCain "The security of fine young men and women serving in the military are my first priority after the security of the nation."

10:06: McCain: "It has to be tempered with our ability to affect the situation. That requires a cool hand at the tiller." "We ended up trying to be peacemakers, and we ended up having to withdraw." McCain playing an interesting line given Iraq, "You need to temper your decisions." "I know those situations, I've been in them all my life."

10:06: McCain : "Senator Obama would have brough our troops home in defeat. I will bring them home with honor."

10:06: McCain: If we had set a date of withdrawal "we would have had a wider war."

10:05 Obama: We can only stop Darfur if we set up internaitonal cooperation.

10:04: When ethnic cleansing is going on and we stand idly by we have to intervene.

10:04: Obama If we could have stopped the holocaust, "Who among us would say we did not have a moral obligation to go in?

10:04: Brokaw is doing his best to ask his own questions and geld the town hall format.

10:03: Brokaw: "Can we establish the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine."

10:02: Obama now unloading on Iraq (as we thought he would on this question two minutes ago." "It's put an enormous strain on our troops, and we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude."

10:01 McCain: "We don't have time for on the job training, my friend." My Friend: 12.

10:00 Expect Obama to unload on Iraq in the followup.

10:00: McCain: "The Challenge is to know when to go in and when not. When American military is worth the expenditure of our most precious treasure." That can be done "only by someone with judgement."

9:59: McCain: " The fact is America is the greatest force for good in the history of the world." My Friends: 11.

9:59: Question for McCain: "How will the recent economic stress affect our ability to act as a peacemaker in the world?"

9:58: Obama: A race to the bottom argument. "That's how it works in banking. Everyone goes to Delaware." A gaffe. In fact, everyone locates in Delaware for corporation, not for banking setups, which have other stricter rules and cannot switch by locating in other states.

9:58: You can see cards in the hnads of those in the audience who have pre approved questions, ready to go.

9:57: Obama: "It is absolutely true that I think that governemnt should crack down on insurnace companies that are cheating their customers."

9:56: Obama:" If you've got a healthcare plan you like, you can keep it."

9:56: Obama: "for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life arguing with insurance companies, that's fundamentally wrong."

9:55: Obama "It should be a right."

9:55: Brokaw: Is health care a privilege, a right, or a responsibility? McCain: "I think it's a responsibility in that we should have affordable healthcare to every citizen."

9:54: McCain "Like hair transplants. I might need one of those myself." that's a dud.

9:53: McCain "Of course it's okay to go across state lines." "If you do the math, those people who have employer-based health benefits, if you put the tax onit, and you add $5000, do the math, 95% of the American people will have increased funds to buy the insurance of their choice."

9:52: McCain "Put health reacords online. Lets have community health center,s lets have walk in clinics. Lets do a lot of things to impose efficincies." Interestingly, you can see the lines around the chairs they are supposed to stay in- maybe that's only on when the other person is getting asked question.

9:52: McCain: He seems to be limping a bit on his way across the room.

9:52: Obama "just today, business organziations like the Untied States chamber of commerce said this would lead to the unraveling of the employer based health care system."

9:51: "What one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away."

9:51: Obama "If you don't have health insurance, you're going to be bale to buy the same insurance Senator McCain and I enjoy."

9:50: Obama "We have a moral imperative"

9:49: Question: "Should health care be treated as a commodity?"

9:49: McCain "And I'll stop and you didn't even waive."

9:48: McCain: "You know who voted for it? That one. You know who voted against it? Me." that was not a good line by McCain. "That one." Seems impersonal and mean spirited, particularly after the no-looking issues in the first debate.

9:48: McCain: My friends: 11.

9:48: Brokaw: Manhattan project or garage funding?

9:47: McCain "Waive like that and I'll listen to you."

9:47: Brokaw holding up his hands trying to silence them. "You may not have noticed but we have lights around here."-

9:46 Obama: "We have 3 percent of the words oil and we use 25 percent of the worlds oil. We can't simply drill our way out of the problem."

9:46: Obama: "He voted 23 times against alternative fuels"- a comeback to the 94 times tax cuts.

9:45 Obama- comparing the computer to energy future because it was discovered by a bunch of government scientists trying to communicate. I think he means the internet (a DARPA project)

9:45: Obama: "If we create a new energy economy we can create 5 million new jobs" "It can be an engine that drives us into the computer drove us into growth."

9:44: McCain "I was on navy ships with nuclear power."

9:44: McCain: "Senator Obama says it has to be safe, or it has to be disposable, or something like that." Not a good line. We'll see that on SNL.

9:43: McCain: My Friends: 10.

9:43: McCain "I disagreed strongly with the Bush administration on this issue."

9:43: Question: "What would you do to make sure Congress moves fast" to deal with environment, economic issues.

9:42: Brokaw "I'll stick by my part of the pact." Lots of reference to the MOU.

9:42: McCain: "Lets look at our record. I have foot higher taxes, I have fought excess spending. " "Our best days are ahead of us."

9:41: My Friends: 9. McCain proposing a commission.

9:40: McCain "I'll answer the questions." "We know what the problems are my friends, and we know what the fixes are." My Friends: 8. McCain "I'm not to popular sometimes with my own party, much less his." -a new version of the earlier Miss Congeniality line.

9:40 Obama: "We will have a health care plan that works for you, reduces spending and costs in the long term, social security that is stable and solvent for all Americans, not just some."

9:39: Obama: "Senator McCain wants to give a $300 Billion tax cut, 200 of it to the largest corporations, $100 Billion to the CEOs on wall street. . . That is not fair and it doesn't work."

9:38: Obama: "The straight talk express lost a wheel on that one."

9:38 Brokaw adds a "coda" to the internet quesiton, essentially changintthe quesiton to be about social security. I'm unimpressed with his moderating job. Also, if the Memorandum of Understanding had been released, Brokaw might have a leg to stand on. It's difficult to assail the candidates for not following a document that is non-public.

9:37: Brokaw: "Guys. The rules were established by the campaigns." Obama tries to continue. Brokaw speaks over him.

9:36: McCain: Laying out the specifics of his tax plain- credits for chilren; refundanble tax credit.

9:36: McCain: "Small business across Aemrica will have to cut jobs. Small business will have to cut jobs . . . because of Senator Obama's tax increases." My Friends: 7.

9:35: McCain "The last American to raise taxes in a time of recession was Herbert Hoover."

9:35: McCain "Nailing down Obama's proposal is like nailing Jello to the wall."- a good McCain prepared line.

9:34: Obama: "It's tough to ask a teach to tigten her belt when people making a lot less than her are living pretty high on the hog.

9:33: Obama "It starts with Washington." "It means looking at the spending side but also at the revenue side." "Earmarks account for about $18 Billion of the budget." "McCain's tax cuts give the average Fortune 500 CEO $700,000 in tax cuts."

9:33: Brokaw "How as President would you look to break those bad habits . . . specifically across the board."

9:33: Echoes of the Service Nation forum we liveblogged earlier.

9:32: "I think the young people of America are especially interested in how they can serve. That's why I'm interested in doubling the peace core ."

9:31: Obama on energy: "We're gonna have to explore new ways to get more oil, that includes offshore drilling. That includes telling the oil companies 'use em or you lose em.'"

9:30: Obama "A lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 . . . and how all the country was ready to come together. President Bush did some smart things at the outset. One of the opportunities that was missed, he said 'go out and shop' that wasn't the call to service the American people were looking for."

9:30: McCain: "Across the board freeze." by McCain. Significant.

9:30: A dig at Obama's $3 million projector- there's the ready line. McCain: "We're not rifle shots, we're Americans."

9:28: McCain "We're going to have to eliminate those that aren't working. One is defense spending"- this is a prepped response in response to the bad answers by both from the first debate. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a line coming up.

9:28: An internet question. What sacrifices would have to be made?

9:27: Brokaw: "I want to remind you again about time. We'll have a larger deficit than the federal government."- He's very into preserving time.

9:27: "When Senator McCain proposes an additional tax cut, a contiuation not only of the Bush tax cut . . . that's money out of the system" A strong link of McCain to Bush.

9:27: Obama: Energy independence 1; Health care 2; Education 3. A nice answer by Obama- seems to be a straighter answer than McCain.

9:26: Obama "you're paying $3.80 for a gallon of gasoline." A good touch to make him look less elitist. Obama "If the American people make a decision to do something it gets done. "

9:25: Brokaw getting a bit testy. "I'm trying to play by the rules you all established." He's not coming off as good as Lehrer.

9:25: McCain "We can do them all at once. And we have to do them all at once."

9:25: McCain My friends: 6.

9:24: McCain: My friends: 5. "We are not going to be able to provide the same benefits to future retirees as we provide today." -that's a big move because it's an implicit attack on entitlements.

9:24: McCain asing for the three priorities again. makes him seem a little old.

9:23: Brokaw: "Health policies, energy policies, and entitlement reform. What are you priorities and in what order?"

9:23: McCain "Energy independence is a way to do that. Drilling offshore and nuclear energy are vital." "I know how to fix this economy."

9:22: McCain: My Friends: 4 "Including an overhead projector in Chicago, Illinois"- that's a replacement for the bear DNA line.

9;22: Obama keeping a good smile. That's the right move.

9:21: McCain: "You'll find this is the most liberal big spending recording in the U.S Senate" While gesturing to Obamaa.

9:21: McCain, highlighting his campaign finance reform (Feingold); environment (Lieberman). "Lets look at our records as well as our rhetoric."

9:20 Obama: "Actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending. it will be a net spending cut." "that's mostly lobbyist and special interests. We've got to put an end to that" Taking McCain's angle of attacking special interest and emphasizing independence.

9:20: Obama: "We are mortgaging our childrens future."

9:19: McCain up and standing beside his chair while Obama speaks

9:19: Obama: "Maybe you don't go out to dinner as much. Maybe you put off buying a new car. But I think it's important to remember a little bit of history. When George Bush Came into office we had surplus, now we have a 1/2 trillion debate annually."

9:19: Question: Theresa Lynch: How can we trust either of year when both parties got us into this global economic crisis. She seemed very nervous reading the question.

9:18: McCain: "We're the best exporters and the best importers"- a bit of a gaffe not clear what importing well is.

9:17 My friends count: 3.

9:17 Brokaw with a machine gun speed delivery- "In all candor do you think it will get worse before it gets better."

9:16: Brokaw: "Are you saying . . . that the American economy will get much worse before it gets much better?"

9:15 The lines appear drawn: Obama will argue McCain opposed regulation and let the markets run rampant. McCain will focus on Obama's support.

9:15 Obama: "I never promoted Fannie Mae, in fact Senator McCain's finance chairman's firm was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae."

9:15 Obama: "A year ago I went to Wall street and said we had to re-regulate and nothing happened."

9:15 Obama: "Two years ago I siad we've got a sub prime lending crisis that has to be dealt with."

9:15 Obama: "Here's what's in the bailout for you." "I've gotta correct a little bit of Senator McCain's history, not surprisingly." A little bit of fire from Obama here.

9:14: McCain: "There were some of us who stood up against it. There were others who took a hike."

9:12: McCain: Linking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to Obama, and saying that he stood up two years ago to "enact legislation to fix this." That's the attack strategy I speculated he would take. "Senator Obama was the second highest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money in history." A strong shot.

9:11: McCain: The first time he's discussed suspending his campaign. You can also see the bracelet on his right hand that drew attention in the first debate.

9:11: McCain: "Bailout, when I believe it's rescue."

9:11: Brokaw: "We're operating under rules you signed off on." However, we've been unable to to read the contents of this memo, so it's hard to see how it's enforcable.

9:10: Obama: It is getting harder and harder to save."

9:09: Obama: Warren would be a good choice. A big support for Buffer, unsurprising given Berskshire's rise over the last week amid market failure.

9:09: McCain names Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway) and Meg Whitman (Ebay) as possible Secretary of Treasury. "The Problem with America today, to a large extent, Tom is that we don't have confidence in our institutions."

9:08:McCain: "Not you, Tom" - an interesting joke. I'm not sure it went over so well.

9:08: Brokay: Who would you appoint as Sec of the Treasury?

9:08: My Friends Count: 2.

9:07: McCain: "I would order the secretary of the treasury to buy up those homes and renogtiate."

9:07: McCain is pacing a lot around the room.

9:05: A slight dig from McCain "It's good to be with you at a town hall meeting." McCain is also walking toward to the audience. McCain heading into a discussion of energy independence, pork barrel spending. "This problem has become so severe that we're going to have to do something about home values."

9:04:Obama: "We are in the worst financial crisis since the great depression." Walking effectively toward the crowd and audience. "This is the results or the economic plan . . . of President Bush and John McCain." An early linking of Bush to McCain. That's an effective rhetorical device as we speculated earlier.

9:03: Question: What is the fastest way to help people in these economic conditions?

9:03: Questioners are reading off of cards, just as they did in the 2004 debate. There is also a light system on at the base of the stage.

9:03: McCain doesn't look that comfortable on his seat.

9:03: A joke from Brokaw; perhaps lightening the mood.

Presidential Debate News Round Up 10-7

2008-10-07T05:21:00.000-07:00

For a recap of the 10/7 debate, please see the Presidential Debate Blog home page. This post deals with news from the morning before the debate.

* A new CBS poll shows that, "the race for president has returned to about where it was before the first presidential debate[.] [T]he Obama-Biden ticket leads the McCain-Palin ticket 47 percent to 43 percent among registered voters."

* The New York Times reports that over 6 million people submitted questions for tonight's Town Hall debate via the internet.

* AP Provides a preview of the debate, predicting that, "Both the candidates are likely to go after each other on character issues."

* The San Francisco Chronicle provides advice for the candidates, quoting guest posters Alan Schroeder, Mitchell McKinney, and the PDB.

* Tom Brune at Newsday has a piece out entitled "Five Things Obama, McCain Must Do to Win Tuesday's Debate."

* A recent Wall Street Journal / NBC poll found that "By a 21 point margin, 50%-29%, voters said the Democrats [Barack Obama and Joe Biden] had the debate edge over rival Republican running mates John McCain and Sarah Palin."

* Nielsen Media reports that "Sixty-one percent of all U.S. households watched at least one of the two 2008 election debates aired so far."

* We'll have the Presidential Debate Live Blog up and running at 9PM EST tonight.

Presidential Debate Live Blog 9PM EST

2008-10-06T21:44:00.001-07:00

We'll be firing up the presidential debate live blog at 9PM EST tomorrow night. We should have all three editors online and all three threads will be open for comments. Archived live blogs from the vice presidential debate are here. Archived live blogs from the Ole Miss presidential debate are here.

Digesting the Biden-Palin Debate Polls: A Guest Post by Professor George Bishop

2008-10-06T10:55:00.000-07:00

George Bishop is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Graduate Certificate Program in Public Opinion and Survey Research, at the University of Cincinnati. He is the senior editor (with Robert Meadow and Marilyn Jackson-Beeck) of a classic volume on the presidential debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election campaign (The Presidential Debates: Media, Electoral, and Policy Perspectives, Praeger, 1978) and the author most recently of The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005). Following the polling debacle earlier this year in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary, he was invited to contribute a guest column to the Sunday Outlook section of the Washington Post: George Bishop “Why We Keep Getting Snowed by the Polls.” Washington Post, Sunday Outlook, February 3, 2008; B03.

The post-debate instant polls have all told us that Senator Joe Biden “won” the vice-presidential debate with Governor Sarah Palin, but that she exceeded both the press and the public’s low expectations. Maybe! Respondents to CNN/Opinion Research Corporation’s quick-reaction poll of debate watchers on Thursday night said Biden “did the best job” by a margin of 51% to 36%. CBS/Knowledge Networks’ Thursday night survey of “uncommitted voters” who watched the debate had Biden winning by an even larger margin: 46% to 21%. As with its poll on the first presidential debate between Obama and McCain, Zogby International’s online poll of likely voters on Thursday and Friday showed it to be a closer contest, but with Biden still winning by a clear margin of 50% to 41%. Rasmussen’s automated, digitally-recorded voice poll of likely voters on Friday produced a similar outcome, with Biden being seen as the winner by 45% to 37%. In addition to focusing on likely voters, subsamples of which tend to be more Republican than samples of just registered voters or nationwide random samples, both Zogby and Rasmussen weight their results for political party identification—a controversial matter in the polling world—which may account for some of the discrepancy between their results and those of other pollsters. So caution in accepting any one of these poll results is always in order.

All that said, and the issue of self-selection/sampling biases to the side, Senator Biden may have gained the most in the post-debate polls. Palin came across as more likeable; she exceeded low expectations and “held her own”. But the critical group of uncommitted voters, by wide margins, viewed Biden as more “knowledgeable about important issues facing the country”, better “prepared for the job of Vice President” and as having greater “ability to be an effective President, if necessary.” So Biden “won” on perceptions of competence; Palin, on perceptions of personality and likeability. But what effect, if any, will this have on the daily tracking polls and on the outcome of the election itself? The honest answer is we just don’t know, not without a lot of number crunching many months from now when the data become fully available for all that multivariate stuff. In the meantime my speculative hypothesis, du Jour, is that Palin’s better- than-expected performance may have temporarily slowed down the erosion of McCain’s numbers in the daily tracking polls. But the 800,000 pound, economic gorilla is very much in the room, driving Biden, Palin, Tina Fey, and all the rest off the front page as we head into tomorrow night’s second presidential debate between the true contenders. It’s still the economy stupid!

The 2008 Memorandum of Understanding

2008-10-06T04:59:00.000-07:00

As the candidates prepare for Tuesday night's debate, we are finally getting a glimpse of the rules that will govern the Town Hall meeting via news leaks regarding the memorandum of understanding between the two campaigns.

The memorandum governs many of the specifics of the debate, from the temperature of the studio (1960) to the ability to ask followup questions. The 2004 memorandum was made public prior to the campaign, and we called for the same in 2008. However, the memorandum has remained confidential.

The Chicago Sun-Times is carrying a piece today that claims to reveal some elements of the memorandum. Some fast facts from the article:

* The MOU runs 31 pages.

* It governs "everything from how the candidates are addressed to the permissible camera shots."

* Gallup is in charge of making sure "the questioners reflect the demographic makeup of the nation."

* "Brokaw selects the questions to ask from written queries submitted prior to the debate."

* "An audience member will not be allowed to switch questions."

* "The moderator may not ask followups or make comments."

* The camera will show only the question asked, not the reaction of the questioner.

* "While there will be director's chairs (with backs and foot rests), McCain and Obama will be allowed to stand -- but they can't roam past their 'designated area' to be marked on the stage."

* "McCain and Obama are not supposed to ask each other direct questions."

It's a shame that the rules of the debate come out in dribs and drabs via campaign leaks. As we've said before, keeping this agreement confidential does little to further government transparency or attachment to the common person.

Presidential Debates' Virtues: A Guest Post by Professor Joy Connolly

2008-10-05T15:42:00.000-07:00

The following guest post is by Joy Connolly, Associate Professor of Classics at New York University. She is the author of The State of Speech: Rhetoric and Political Thought in Ancient Rome.

Obviously contemporary political discourse is deeply imperfect. Debates are too highly structured. Their strict time limits encourage soundbites. The habit of post-game commentators of pouncing on mistakes, big or small, clouds the difference between candidates and their familiarity with the issues—not to mention the difference between a candidate’s slip of the tongue and an outright lie. And so on, and on. But this is the public discourse we have, and while we work to improve it, it’s worth reflecting on what virtues it has.

I’m a classicist, and I believe that the tradition of thought about persuasive communication in Athens and Rome can enrich our understanding of how political speech works today. I’ll stick to two points for now. First, the ancient tag “as a man speaks, so he is,” sometimes paraphrased as “speech is the mirror of the soul.” Debates illuminate the candidates’ style of thought and style of leadership. Thinking may be seen as an internal conversation, the self with the self, and the way candidates construct sentences sheds light on the workings of that internal chat. In their words and body language, under the intense time pressure of most debate formats, we should watch for how candidates instantly, automatically link issues together—what is connected to what in their thoughts—and with whom they identify, from what position they speak, what ideal listener they seem to have in mind. Are they seeking to address the whole room or to “energize the base”? Through what thought processes and experiences have they reached the positions they hold? How confident are they of their knowledge and ideas when the debate moves into unfamiliar territory? Do they acknowledge without being prompted (as Gwen Ifill did during the VP debate in her early question about the impact of the financial crisis) real-time conditions that might limit the application of their ideas and programs? How do the candidates cope with their opponents’ expressions of deep difference in perspective or beliefs?

The last question leads to my second point. Some scholars (including some associated with “deliberative democracy” theory, a popular topic in Communications and Political Science departments these days) have looked to public communication as one forum where we may fortify our habits of rational deliberation and civic friendship. In his book Strong Democracy, to take one prominent example, Benjamin Barber identifies nine functions of “strong democratic talk,” from the articulation of interests to exploring mutuality, the reformulation of ideas to community-building. His emphasis is on the power of communication to build trust and forge consensus.

Fine work like Barber’s is less helpful when we consider situations where trust-building is fatally hindered by very strong prejudice, or where citizens conceive of politics as a game where the proper job of citizens to root for the home team. Prejudice and unseriousness is part of the human political scene, as any classical writer will tell you (especially Thucydides and Plato). Here the Roman tradition of thought about oratory provides an interesting corrective to the view of communication as primarily devoted to the building of trust and consensus.

To Cicero, rhetoric is an educational discipline that cultivates bonds among men, but it is not primarily a trust-building, meliorative discourse; rhetoricians do not seek exclusively to teach men how to create consensus and generate civic friendship. Above all else, Cicero and his fellow Roman elites value competition. Cicero views oratory as a contest, and he understands the political action proper to a citizen, especially a politician, as a contest that never ends.

Debates are the pinnacle of civic contestation, the perfect stage for showcasing the fight between politicians. And here it matters very much how each candidate uses the weapon of speech: as a weapon against their opponent or as a weapon against difference of opinion itself. When watching the debates, we should evaluate the candidates on how they handle what Hannah Arendt saw as the irreducible condition of politics: plurality of opinion, plurality of belief, plurality of values. When a candidate consistently adopts the rhetorical strategy of appealing consistently to a narrow field of opinion, belief, and values, characterizing difference of opinion as unpatriotic or evil, he or she chops away at the glue binding the citizenry of the republic: our capacity to disagree with one another and yet remain “good citizens.” Acknowledging difference is a basic skill of politics; it is necessary if political speech is to function as Cicero believed, as the chain of reason binding the citizens rather than dividing them. When I watch the candidates, focusing on body language as much as spoken words, I will ask: do they seek to hinder or promote good-faith disagreement? Do they acknowledge the reality of diversity of opinion or do they seek to shut down difference by stoking up prejudice? How do they fight for what they believe without suggesting that the contest should never happen in the first place?

Let The People Speak: Town Hall Presidential Debates Educate and Energize the Public A Guest Post by Professor Mitchell S. McKinney

2008-10-05T13:14:00.000-07:00

The following guest post is by Mitchell S. McKinney, Associate Professor in the Department of Communications at the University of Missouri. He is the co-author of Communicating Politics: Engaging the Public in Democratic Life

On Tuesday night Senators John McCain and Barack Obama will take to the debate stage for their second presidential debate. But when the two presidential hopefuls meet face-to-face in Nashville, they’ll not be alone. Joining them will be dozens of “undecided” citizens eager to interrogate the two presidential hopefuls.

Since the inception of the presidential Town Hall debate in 1992, media pundits have often derided these citizen-lead forums as too chatty, full of “softball” questions asked by “uninformed” citizens, or nothing more than a staged “walk-about” emphasizing style over substance. The Town Hall debate, some have argued, is a waste of 90 minutes that could be devoted to a more serious examination of the issues.

I disagree. In studying recent presidential debates, research shows that the questions asked by citizens are different than those put to the candidates by journalists. In fact, analysis of presidential Town Hall debates since 1992 reveals that the undecided citizens’ questions actually correspond more closely to the public’s most important concerns – even more so than questions asked in journalist-led debates.

Since the Commission on Presidential Debates first proposed different debate formats in 1992, we’ve learned that different debate structures lead to different candidate communication and viewer learning outcomes. From the more formal podium debates, viewers report learning more about the candidates’ issue positions; yet, in a Town Hall debate, viewers report learning more about the candidates’ personalities and demeanor.

In a more formal presidential debate, we judge candidates’ performance on their ability to demonstrate a command of factual information. We may “score” a traditional presidential debate on the degree to which candidates are able to respond with detailed answers, or their ability to refute attacks made by an opponent. In a Town Hall debate, however, we watch and listen to determine if candidates understand the concerns of “ordinary” citizens and judge their ability to empathize and relate to the citizens they wish to lead.

Both types of debates – the more formal and the more conversational Town Hall exchanges – are valuable to voters. We need to know if our would-be-leader commands the requisite intellect to lead; but it’s also important for us to know if this person has an adequate understanding of our concerns.

Another rather interesting and important finding from analysis of viewer reactions to Town Hall debates reveals that the Town Hall forum is effective in reducing citizens’ feelings of political cynicism (and citizens who feel less cynical toward candidates and the political process are more likely to vote). In a national political communication study that involved nearly 1000 participants, citizens responded to a series of questions that measured their levels of political cynicism both before and after watching various campaign messages – such as candidates’ ads and also presidential debates. These citizens registered their greatest reduction and lowest levels of political cynicism following their viewing of a Town Hall presidential debate. Not surprisingly, cynicism increased significantly after exposure to candidate ads. Viewers of the Town Hall debate reported they felt “proud” of their fellow citizens’ ability to question the candidates, and often suggested the undecided Town Hall questionnaires “asked just what I would have asked if I could have been there.”

In the din of communication that surrounds our presidential election, it’s often difficult to hear the public’s voice. Candidates have their ads, their staged-for-TV conventions and rallies, and now their vast array of Internet and digital resources; our news media and political pundits have their full arsenal of nonstop cable and broadcast news programs, talk radio, political blogs, and numerous print publications. Where, then, do we hear the citizen’s voice? For 90 minutes in prime time before tens of millions of their fellow citizens, it seems fitting that we “Let the people speak!” These voices are not only beneficial – but indeed necessary – for our democracy.

Research Results Taken From:

McKinney, M. S., Kaid, L. L., Bystrom, D. G., & Carlin, D. B. (Eds.). (2005). Communicating politics: Engaging the public in democratic life. New York: Peter Lang.

Presidential Debate News Roundup 10-5

2008-10-05T08:10:00.000-07:00

* Saturday Night Live did a great parody last night of the VP debates, much more on target than the flop that was the first presidential debate spoof.

* The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania has an interesting fact check analysis out on the vice presidential debates.

* Gwen Ifill did an interview on Meet the Press this morning and addressed the issue of her book head on, declaring: “I hadn’t even written the Obama chapter yet, because I don’t know how it ends.”

* John McCain is preparing for Tuesday’s debate at a resort in Sedona, Arizona; Obama is prepping in Asheville, North Carolina.

* Twenty years ago today Lloyd Bentsen delivered what we ranked as the best line of all time in the presidential debates.

Winning Presidential Debates: Can It Happen?

2008-10-04T12:58:00.000-07:00

Over the last few days, there's been a lot of focus on who "won" the debates. We've had spirited discussion on our posts and in the comments threads. We've covered pundits' perceptions and post-debate polls.

Now that we're halfway through the debates, particularly after Biden/Palin, I've been thinking about the process of choosing a "winner." When I coached and participated in debate, this was a relatively easily task: the judge decided, and that was the final say.

When I judged debate, determining a winner was more difficult. Many factors went into my decision, including presentation, evidence, and structure. Nevertheless, there was a final, authoritative determination: I chose one team over the other. It's tempting to apply the competitive metric to the presidential debates (and we have), but I think it's ultimately a misleading oversimplification.

The key difference between classic competitive debate and presidential debate is one of goals. In a competitive debate, both debaters are seeking to convince a single judge that their position on a single issue is superior to their opponent's. There is a clearly stated resolution at the beginning of each round, and the judge considers only arguments related to that resolution.

In a presidential debate, candidates are clashing on a variety of personal and political levels. They often do not share the same goal. They're not playing on the same field, and they have different criteria for success. There is no single resolution debated. One might argue that the resolution is, "I should be President," but such a resolution is too broad to engender real 'clash' between the candidates.

For instance, examine the recent vice presidential debate. Palin tried to convince the American people she could be a credible Vice President. Biden sought to show that John McCain would be a continuation of Bush's legacy. Both succeeded at their tasks fairly well. Who then "won" the debate? Indeed, the question becomes increasingly difficult as levels of detail are added: no doubt Biden sought to show he wasn't gaffe-prone, and Palin wanted to paint the McCain campaign as "mavericks." How much should those considerations be weighted against the others at play?

Then there are the levels of abstraction of the debate. Take Biden/Palin again: By academic debate standards, I think Biden was more successful. In terms of political tactics, it was likely a tie. Both did what they had to do and avoided what they needed to avoid. In terms of political strategy, Palin gained substantial ground by proving that she may have her bad patch behind her.

The lack of a single judge or resolution also creates a multiplicity of indices. CNN commentators tallied points during the debate, scoring the debate like a boxing match. Behavioral scientists analyzed the body movement and emotion of the candidates. Language services analyzed the grade level of responses. Post debate polls ask a variety of questions to determine a "winner." Others watch the movement on political prediction markets. Sometimes all of these move in the same direction; sometimes they don't.

The simplest answer is to watch the poll movement by likely voters following the debate, but even that metric has problems: First, there could be other factors beside the debate driving the poll. Second, there may be long term gains from the debate that don't manifest immediately (for instance, it took at least twenty-four hours for the Ford gaffe to kick in). Third, the debate may serve tactical purposes in the campaign (such as removing credibility questions for Palin) that do not manifest themselves in the polls.

This isn't to say we won't keep writing about who won. But take our conclusions (and everyone else's) with a lot of salt.

Whither the Election?

2008-10-04T06:36:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about what Aaron found from Nielsen a fair bit over the past few hours.

It ties back to something we've talked about here before--people are really viewing the race between Palin and Biden as more important than the one between their principals. And after Thursday night's debate, especially Palin's surprisingly competent and lucid performance, that race may not be as clear as we once thought it would be.

The election stood to be lost on Thursday--if one of them had given us a gaffe for the ages, it would have been over, over, over. But they didn't, and now they're both abandoning the spotlight for the remainder of the campaign--a campaign, which thanks to their own performances, remains contested. So suddenly, this election may be about Obama/McCain again.

Vice Presidential Debate: Viewership and Analysis

2008-10-03T13:39:00.000-07:00

* Last night's vice presidential debate was the most watched vice presidential debate of all time, according to Nielsen, and the most watched presidential debate since 1992. Veiwership was 42% higher than for last week's presidential debate. The all-time record holder is still Reagan-Carter in 1980.

* Over at Politco.com's Arena PDB guest poster Alan Schroeder declares: "Although Sarah Palin acquitted herself favorably, especially on matters of style, I have to call Joe Biden the winner of this match."

* Professor Schroeder and PDB guest poster Joel Goldstein also both appeared on this morning's NPR broadcast, Tell Me More.

* Professor Mitchell McKinney declares that "the advantage goes to Palin" because she had "the most to lose going in" and "delivered a performance that exceeded the low expectations that had been set."

Good Format, Bad Format: A Guest Post by Professor Alan Schroeder

2008-10-03T10:42:00.000-07:00

The following guest post is by Alan Schroeder, an associate professor in the School of Journalism at Northeastern University and the author of Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High Risk TV.

What a difference a format makes.

In the first Obama-McCain debate the candidates had two minutes for opening responses, followed by a five-minute discussion period on each topic. In practice, thanks to two verbally confident candidates, these periods ran even longer. Biden and Palin had only ninety seconds for their initial responses and two minutes for discussion, in a debate that ran like clockwork. The outcome: a reasonably substantive level of discourse between the presidential contenders and a superficial lightning round for the v-ps.

Four extra minutes per topic may seem a trifle, but on live television it’s a healthy chunk of time – time enough for smart debaters to flesh out their points and critique their opponents. We saw this with the two presidential candidates, who took full advantage of their opportunity to compare and contrast. Voters benefited from hearing the top-of-the-ticket debaters explain their positions, at least to the degree that live television permits.

By contrast, the Biden-Palin debate whipsawed from topic to topic with the velocity of a game show. On the one hand, this tighter format may have had a salutary effect on Biden by forcing him to whittle down his characteristically expansive answers. But the key result of the bite-sized response times was to keep Palin safely tethered to her talking points.

Operating at the mercy of the format, moderator Gwen Ifill did what she could to add depth to the candidates’ views, yet the structure of the program made follow-ups nearly impossible. Ifill’s job was further complicated by this extraordinary declaration by Palin: “I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you (Biden) want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people.” In other words, silly debate rules don’t apply to me, even though the McCain-Palin campaign negotiated and signed off on those rules.

Debate formats will always be subject to tinkering by campaigns, but for the future let us seek structures for presidential debates that (a) provide greater insight into the candidates' thinking processes and (b) encourage dialogue and interaction between the participants. And in order to hold debaters’ feet to the fire, let’s give the moderator some powers of enforcement.

Formats ought to serve the interests of the citizens first, and those of the candidates secondarily. The 2008 vice presidential debate got this exactly backwards – and the first presidential debate got it right.

Vice Presidential Debate Analysis: The Morning After

2008-10-03T06:34:00.001-07:00

The New York Times: “It was not a tipping point for the embattled Republican presidential ticket, the bad night that many Republicans had feared. But neither did it constitute the turning point the McCain campaign was looking for.”

The Wall Street Journal: "A confident, folksy Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin attacked the Democratic presidential ticket Thursday over tax hikes and partisanship, holding her own against her vice-presidential rival, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden."

USA Today: “The guess here, though, is that people's views of this debate will vary widely. If Palin didn't show the same smoothness and depth of knowledge as Biden, she did display the sort of folksy grit that many voters initially found so endearing. She exceeded the low expectations created by her halting responses to CBS' Katie Couric and might have done well enough to help stem the Republicans' hemorrhaging in the polls.”

Early poll returns indicate a Biden victory. More on those polls later from Professor Bishop.

Bonnie Goodman over at History New Network has a nice summary of the vice presidential news and highlights.

Our take: a solid enough performance by Palin to stop the bleeding in the McCain campaign. In a real debate, this would have gone to Biden, but given the oddities of presidential politics, we’d go with Palin. She accomplished what she needed to: she is a much more viable candidate than she was 48 hours ago.

Palin’s performance is unsurprising. That’s what we predicted back in August when we watched Palin’s debate footage for the first time. She also stuck with our advice: “'Don't answer the question you were asked, answer the question you wish you were asked, with generalities.”

The Vice Presidential Debates: A Recap

2008-10-02T23:54:00.000-07:00

All three of us agree that Palin came away with a (slight) victory, but Biden would have won the round were this a real debate.

But one clear loser emerged tonight: Gwen Ifill. While The Case for Sacking Gwen Ifill (which I agreed with; I am not sure about Mark) did not prevail in time, this debate should ensure she is never selected to moderate again. Watching the first two debates back-to-back, as I did this evening, only made the distinction clearer.

Yet the Presidential Debate Blog is not an echo chamber. I am not aware of what my colleagues did during the debates, but I avoided reading or viewing anypost-debate commentary until my thoughts were clear. I also disagreed with Aaron and Mark about the first debate: I thought Obama came out with a slight victory. Obama did a better job of paying attention to the audience and addressed the larger issues rather than getting bogged down in tangents about his time in the Senate. As Paul Begala pointed out (and as seasoned debaters know), a debater should always frame their own positive agenda. The candidates should (as Clinton did) address objections to the opponent within that framework rather than starting with or focusing upon minutiae, even if the debater is correct about those minutiae. Obama did a superior job on that count, addressed McCain directly, and assumed an authoritative air. McCain, by adopting Obama's rhetoric of "main street" and repeatedly attacking Obama, seemed to be taking the defensive. Taking the defensive indicates that you think you are losing, which persuades the audience of the same. So I would give round one to Obama, perhaps more than round two went to Palin.

The one thing none of us have commented upon so far that I still wonder about: was Palin's folksiness too much? Palin came across as genuine, but if people (and I am thinking especially Midwesterners, Southerners, and women) perceived Palin as too folksy, it might backfire on her. Her strong overall performance may have prevented that, but even for a small-town Southern guy this is a hard effect to predict.

Another question I have is: do my two co-bloggers think that the overall performance here (by both candidates) surpassed that of McCain and Obama?

I think it did; the overall performance here was stronger. Notably, Palin spent almost the entire debate looking directly at the camera, smiling, and using energetic tones. McCain failed at two of the three of those things (and I doubt I would call his tone energetic throughout the debate, either, so perhaps he failed at all three). Palin had some coaching especially about the camera. I was surprised by how badly both Obama and McCain were about addressing the audience in the first debate. Some simple practice rounds could have eliminated that issue.

It is hard to understate the importance of focusing on the audience, whether in a debate, a courtroom, or a public speech of any kind. We, the public, are the audience; whether Jim Lehrer or Gwen Ifill is persuaded one way or another is not going to decide the election. This may be easy for actual debaters to overlook: in our rounds the judge often doubles as the moderator. But in these rounds, the public, not the moderator, should be addressed directly. That would have been my strongest advice to the two candidates coming into tonight's debate, but apparently neither of them needed it.

Both candidates learned from the first debate. Like Palin, Biden made good use of the camera. Aside from some oddities (looking directly down and giving us a view of his sweaty, balding head; fidgeting with his head and neck; etc.), Biden also came across more polished than the first two candidates.

Now we wait to see what lessons Obama and McCain have learned throughout this series of debates.

The 10 Most Important Lines (In No Particular Order)

2008-10-02T21:11:00.000-07:00

I've got 4 in common with Aaron, but here are the 10 lines of the night I think will prove the most important for the race going forward.

1. "He has been a maverick on some things, but he has not been no maverick on the things that matter to people's lives." -Biden

2. "Yours was a lame attempt at a joke too, I guess, because nobody got it." -Palin

3. "I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right?" -Palin, apparently forgetting that Biden's first wife passed away.

4. " The notion that somehow, because I'm a man, I don't know what it's like to raise two kids alone, I don't know what it's like to have a child you're not sure is going to -- is going to make it -- I understand. I understand, as well as, with all due respect, the governor or anybody else, what it's like for those people sitting around that kitchen table. And guess what? They're looking for help. They're looking for help. They're not looking for more of the same." -Biden

5. "Here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate." -Palin

6. "How long have I been at this? Like five weeks?" -Palin

7. "Government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem." -Palin

8. "For a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future, there's just too much finger-pointing backwards to ever make us believe that that's where you're going." -Palin

9. "I haven't heard how his policy is going to be different on Iran than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy is going to be different with Israel than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy in Afghanistan is going to be different than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy in Pakistan is going to be different than George Bush's. It may be. But so far, it is the same as George Bush's. And you know where that policy has taken us." -Biden

10. "“I call that the 'Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere.'" -Biden

The Best Lines of the Vice Presidential Debate

2008-10-02T21:03:00.000-07:00

Following up on the top ten lines of the Ole Miss presidential debate, and the top ten presidential debate lines of all time, here are tonight's top ten:

1. “I call that the 'Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere.'" –Biden

2. “Say it ain't so, Joe.” –Palin

3. "[Y]ours was a lame attempt at a joke, too, I guess, because nobody got it.” -Palin

4. “The reason No Child Left Behind was left behind was because the money was left behind. -Biden

5. “Nine o'clock, the economy was strong. Eleven o'clock that same day, two Mondays ago, John McCain said that we have an economic crisis.” –Biden

6. “Can I call you Joe?” –Palin.

7. “[G]overnment, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem.” –Palin

8. “Everybody gets extra credit tonight” -Ifill.

9. “[W]e have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we're going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children's children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free.” –Palin

10. “I haven't heard how his policy is going to be different on Iran than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy is going to be different with Israel than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy in Afghanistan is going to be different than George Bush's. I haven't heard how his policy in Pakistan is going to be different than George Bush's. It may be. But so far, it is the same as George Bush's. And you know where that policy has taken us.” -Biden