McCain wins debate; Obama increases likelihood of winning in November
We know what the partisan hacks will say about this. But since I don't have a dog in this race, perhaps some objectivity will be helpful and more interesting.
One advantage for Obama is that the debate only spent 55-60% of the time on foreign policy-- presumably his weakest area. (Will one of the other debates substitute some foreign affairs back into the menu?) Overall, I thought McCain was stronger. But Obama generally had more gravitas than I expected-- and certainly seemed to have enough in terms of looking and sounding (relatively) presidential.
In a word, McCain was more credible, but Obama held his own. Remember that in today's context, Obama doesn't have to be better than McCain. He only needs to beat a McCain weakened by his pseudo-connections to Bush.
Observations by topic:
1.) Bailout: both were blah-blah-blah (and disappointing)
2.) Spending: edge to McCain
-On what will you change given the financial crisis, Obama was eager to get in and said a lot, but had little to say. When McCain noted that and proposed a spending freeze in many areas, Obama's (weak) defense was saying that a scalpel was needed.
-I thought it was interesting that Obama owned the "most liberal" label, but tried to transform that into being the most anti-Bush. I'm not sure if that works, but maybe it's the best available strategy (vs. mere denial).
3.) Taxes: Obama came off better (although he's wrong on the topic)
4.) Energy: a lot of blah-blah from both, but especially Obama-- and with an edge to McCain given his great line: "You can't get there from here" with alternative energy, but without substantial drilling and nuclear.
5.) Iraq: both were compelling, but talked past each other-- McCain on the surge and the future vs. Obama on the original decision. In fact, one could argue that they're both correct!
-I thought McCain scored some nice little jabs with tactic vs. strategy.
6.) Afghanistan/Pakistan: McCain strengthened here
-Aside from that, both want far more activity, with McCain more aggressive.
-But Obama lacks some credibility here in his opposition to the surge in Iraq as a strategy.
-McCain's litany of votes on U.S. military involvement, his travels, and his barb about Obama's inactive sub-committee seemed quite effective.
-It was funny that they had competing military bracelets: a nice move by Obama to have that angle covered!
7.) Iran: slight edge to McCain
-Obama was good on connecting Iraq's fall to Iran's rise.
-But McCain messed with Obama pretty hard on "pre-conditions". Obama sounded too technical in parsing "participation" and "pre-conditions".
8.) Russia/Georgia: should have been about even, but Obama's worst "round"
-McCain scored points with Obama's original position on the conflict.
-Obama again sounded wienie/technical in describing Russia's action as "illegal, objectionable".
-Obama devolved into a weird set of tangents on energy and eventually climate change. It wasn't this bad, but perhaps he was trying to make Palin's response to Couric sound more intelligible.
-McCain worked really hard in this section to name-drop and place-drop. Does that work? Probably.
9.) 9/11's going forward: could have been a draw, but McCain scored again
-An interesting question that seems really good, but then you realize that both parties have to give the same, safe answer.
-Obama could have played this safe-- and played it to a draw. But again, he took it to Iraq and Al-Queda, leading to the previous argument but also McCain's broadsides on their relative levels of experience.
So, to repeat my overall assessment: McCain won the debate, but Obama increased the likelihood that he would win in November.
Your thoughts?
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 10:38 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
I think your assessment is correct, although I would have scored the debate as a rough tie—by holding his own, Obama reassured voters that he's ready for the presidency.
By the way, the exchange on energy puzzled me a bit. McCain is right that we need more nuclear (and he showed his strength by advocating something that many people would have trouble supporting: 45 new nuclear plants). But Obama is not anti-nuclear (his stated campaign position is that he supports a new generation of nuclear electric technologies that address cost, safety, waste disposal, and proliferation risks; see McCain and Obama Respond to Science Questionnaire), and he's received significant campaign funding from Exelon, the Illinois-based nuclear plant operator. I was surprised that Obama didn't correct McCain's implication that he was anti-nuclear.
How one scores the debate depends (beyond partisan and ideological biases) on the goal. So, I think we might be saying the same thing. In one sense, I think Obama "won" last night, because he became more likely to win the ultimate prize. But just scoring the debate outside of that consideration, I think McCain won.
Comparing it to a variety of potential sports and military analogies, McCain won the quarter or the round. But because Obama was strong enough, McCain's relatively narrow victory in the battle makes it more likely that Obama will win the war.
As to nukes, I don't know. When someone says they support X with a bunch of caveats, it sounds like they really don't support X. (See also: until-recent Democratic "support" for expanded drilling.) The caveats McCain listed sounded both "reasonable" (as a potential Obama stance) and restrictive (in practice). Since Obama left them alone, it sounds like he accepts McCain's characterization. But perhaps he was busy trying to make other points.
Finally, I wouldn't make much of the campaign contribution. He might receive money hoping for his future support, because Obama is less likely to allow drilling and more likely to subsidize alternative energy, because he has another (Illinois) connection, or just because they like him.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home