AP Photo by Alex Brandon
|
It often happens that the pundit “scoring” of a presidential debate ends up quite at odds from the polls of viewers that soon follow.
We’ve seen it again with Friday night’s debate, which most pundits (on TV and in print) scored very or fairly even, with perhaps some recognition that Obama made some small gains because he pretty much held his own on McCain’s turf. Of course, as we now know, virtually every poll taken by the networks and outside sources gave Obama an edge — and not a small one. He easily swept surveys of undecideds, even carried a Fox focus group. At least in the polls, it was no contest.
We’ll see if and how it affects the head-to-head matchup surveys in days ahead but for now we have to ask: Why did so many mainstream pundits blow it?
Of course, there is always the striving for “balance,” the effects of pre-spinning, and in some cases their favoring of McCain from the outset. And, to be frank, McCain gave a pretty good account of himself.But many pundits threw out the window what they, and others, had said beforehand, about Obama needing to appear presidential and seem expert on international matters. When he did just that in the debate, they suddenly forgot the importance they had placed on it beforehand.
But here’s the key to the viewer/pundit disparity. It took awhile for McCain to build up to it but then he hammered it home near the end: Obama, he charged, lacked the “knowledge and experience” to be president…
But the pundits barely recognized that the “experience” charge was a non-starter — and that’s why they scored the debate fairly even even as viewers seem to have rated it a landslide for Obama.
I didn’t watch the so-called debate. But, I am a news junkie and, spending the time I do wandering the minority of newspaper sites truly concerned with news, I agree with Greg Mitchell – that the “undecided” are simply starting to make up their minds.
Obviously, that doesn’t include the pundits.
The disconect is that the pundits working for CNN, MSNBC,FOX ect. are all paid millions of dollars for their opinions, and nearly all of them have forgot or never knew how “normal people” think.
The average person is a lot more scared of losing their house, or not being able to buy gas, or food than they are of Russia or terrorists….just a real fact.
Two reasons –
First, the average Joe doesn’t look at it the same way as the pundits. Pundits looked out how they expressed their opinions, plans and policies. By now everyone knows how there policies and plans differ. When we watch a debate we are looking for how they behave. McCain was smirking and never looked at Obama. Obama was a gentleman. McCain spouted talking points and Obama showed an ability to think on his feet.
Secondly pundits (excepting those on Fox, and Keith Oberman) strive to look somewhat fair.
I still think it was a draw. No knock out blow was thrown and I doubt if many minds were changed
There wasn’t a “knock out” punch which the pundits like. For the most it was boring and substantial and I have a feeling most viewers liked and wanted that.
The pundits are going to have to grow up and realize that this election isn’t about them.
Let me see..McCain:
> Seemed angry, uncomfortable
> Did not follow the format stipulated by the moderator (did not look at Obama)
> Had twitch in his eye as if lying (he was)
> Was overly condescending
Never mind Obama scored points on the issues, the above was enough to put people off.
It doesn’t matter who “wins” the debate; Kerry beat Bush in the debates.
Wow. Newspaper editors say Obama won. I am shocked! Next you’ll have a post about Clay Aiken telling the world he is gay.
Define “winning the debate” and you’ll have your answer.
Why? Because, largely, the mass populous is uneducated. That’s why. Obama has great appeal to the uneducated who are easily swayed.
I agree with Bobbo, ‘define “winning the debate”‘. Gee I’m sounding like Obama. 🙂 But really perhaps the most fair headline I saw was ‘Tie goes to Obama’.
My Wife and I watched the whole debate on BBC America, and though both candidates did a good showing we felt McCain was more susbtantive and qualified. So we gave it to McCain.
I was hoping Obama would say something to get me to reconsider…I’ll be watching next time.
This being the first debate, and neither candidate scored a knock out. I think a draw would be the best conclusion. I doubt any of the party faithful, or the undecided were swayed one way or the other. We’re waiting for the next rounds.
Who won the debate? Well considering the purpose of the debate is to raise ones poll numbers, I would have to say that according to polling this weekend I would have to give it to Obama.
That doesn’t mean I think Obama won on issues (McCain beat him up on domestic issues in my opinion), but in the end if Obama just sat their and drooled at the camera while McCain became the reincarnation of George Washington, it wouldn’t matter if at the end of the day Obama’s poll numbers go up
So point Obama in this case. Though I am still voting for McCain 🙂
Why the disparity? Because the viewers are constantly looking for more handouts.
Example: What spending programs they cut in light of the $700 billion bailout?
John McCain suggested a partial budget freeze.
Jim Lehrer had to ask Barack Obama 3 times before he responded with this gem: “The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel. There are some programs that are very important that are under-funded. I want to increase early childhood education….”
Typical Political Hack Response: We’re in a major financial crisis, and Obama wants to increase spending in an area where there’s notoriously little evidence that spending has paid off. An area that isn’t a primary responsibility of the federal government (or perhaps any level of government). Obama’s ritualistic invocation of early childhood education as deserving ever more funding is a reminder, of the immaturity of contemporary liberalism. (gimme more, gimme more!)
None of it really matters. We’re all screwed and gonna die.
Hmm…Let’s see. Who won the debate? The Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich?
Its not Obama’s words that concern me, its what his actions and his lack of beyond-Illinois experience would reveal if he became President.
Seriously, A WHOLE LOT OF STEENKING SCHITT is about to hit the fan in the next very few years…like, China looking to flex its American Dollar Store $$$ muscles to destroy/take Taiwan, Russia looking to be a world bad ass again (this time with oil $$$ for its military)…not to mention Israel looking to castrate Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear ambitions.
Obama will want to endlessly talk and negotiate and plead and beg all of the maniac perps involved in the above situations…won’t work. HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ORGANIZE THIS WORLD COMMUNITY.
#13. Yep, what we need to fix all the above republican disaster areas is a soccer mom with a backyard view Russia.
Interesting. Most comments – so far – are from those who are either congenitally incapable of sticking to the topic or those who are afraid to address the topic.
The polls following the debate, from conservative liberal or uncommitted sources all agreed Obama easily surpassed McCain. The folks at Editor and Publisher – a reasonably stodgy journal – suggested a discussion of why the pundits weren’t in touch with the civilian population might be in order.
Our nutballs respond: “runaway, runaway!”
#15m moss,
Agreed. The difference is that the two groups, pundits v people is because of the way they heard what the candidates had to say.
The pundits were swayed by McCain’s bullshit recitation of Eisenhower’s two letters. People weren’t as that is ancient history.
If McCain had mentioned Truman’s more famous sign “The Buck Stops Here” it would have been more relevant and understandable. That would have also fit into why people are so disenchanted with Bush and the Republicans in general.
The news pundits called the debate even for one simple reason: they want to keep their jobs. If they called it for Obama then the radical right would be fuming about “liberal media” and the networks would get a pundit even further to the right to placate them.
This reminds me of the JFK/Nixon debate. Those who watched the debate on TV thought JFK won and those who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won.
I watched bits and pieces of the debate, but spent most of the time working on my computer. I think Obama looked more presidential than McCain, but listening to them I don’t think Obama came off as good as he should have.
I give them a tie vote myself.
Who won?
McCain. Why? Because the EXPECTATION was that Obama would wipe the floor with McCain and he didn’t.
Yesterday’s Drudge report had an informal poll with over 350,000 votes which put McCain over Obama by a margin of 2 to 1.
This is easy.
The poll was taken after the debate, which was past the bed time of McCain’s base. Assuming they didn’t fall asleep half way through, that is.
(Of course, this also means Obama’s base has no life, since they’re supposed to be young, but the sample that posts around here has already proven that.)
Our media makes a big show of equanimity in these situations because they make money off of close races; people watch more news. Thus, the closer they can manipulate the political races into being, the more profit they make. Always follow the money, and everything becomes clear.
In the initial Dvorak blog post-debate thread, many mentioned that McCain kept Obama on the defensive. The pundits may have scored this as a plus for McCain or at worst as a draw, depending upon how much they saw McCain’s attacking points as BS. But I think that the average guy or gal saw this as a win for Obama, because the average guy or gal is an underdog, and roots for underdogs.
In chess, if you attack and don’t make a knockout blow, frequently you’ve overextended yourself and will lose the game, as your opponent will exploit the fact that attacking moves are often one-dimensional and unretractable. So perhaps the American public is a better chess player than anybody imagined!
Take a look at moveon.org. They have links to online polls as well as links to write letters to the editor of various newspapers complete with talking points.
Number 3 has it right.
Exactly..
“You don’t understand”
But he” can’t remember”
I thought McCain was going to start drooling and going to the bathroom in his pants.
I thought McCain’s performance was consistent (and not stunning) and Obama was up and down (ranging from a great opening with his direct answer to the first question to stinkers like saying “John is right” 50 times -a soothing technique he probably learned in debate school, which doesn’t work in a Presidential shoot-out).
I agree with the pund-its. Nearly even with Obama winning, but not by a lot. Basically it is a push to the VP debate, which is bad news for McCain, because, unless Biden implodes (always possible) Palin is in deep sh-t.
I agree with everyone above who said McCain looked uncomfortable, which is wild because, traditionally McCain is an excellent debater (if you disagree, check out footage of his past debates). Obama is also excellent, but horrible when you get him off the intellectual arguments where he shines (the guy is super smart after all) and on to emotional arguments where he disconnects with people (note how he lost the points on Israel to McCain).
21 had it right. The older types had gone to bed, already.
I thought Obama looked intelligent but McCain kept him away from soaring rhetoric. I can see how people would have a favorable perception of him.
I’m a have never voted for a Republican, and I have never missed an election. I will not vote for Obama under any circumstances, though.
He is the same smiley face and dirty tactics as Dubya. The big money has decided the GOP is a sinking brand and jumped ship. More O the same.
Pundits, like the one whose pages we visit with our opinionations, are professional opinionators.
Everybody’s got one. And an opinion, too.
It starts with a twenty five nucleotide sequence in an individual’s fuck-you gene and is repeated copiously throughout development. By the time a baby is born it is rapidly generating the protein, broadwasevnavglobin, a substance keenly involved in making its host believe they are the center of the universe.
Pundits and most commenters to blogs never diminish their production of this substance until well after their nineties, if they live that long.
But some rare individuals suffer apundititium and stop producing that protein at relatively early ages, due to the hyperactivity of a h2U gene (sometimes written hUh) that produces the protein wussupinine.
These rare individuals are marked by an extreme tendency toward the nearly fatal attributes of truth testing, investigative scrutiny and terminal open mindedness. Frequently they harbor messenger rna for which they are killed.
Fortunately for posters here, the give-away signs of chronic apunditium have not been detected, so as a group, we are insurable.
I would like to announce my decision to suspend Sarah Palin from my campaign effective immediately due to the fact that she has a colicky baby.
In her place I appoint Rudi Giuliani, who has been colicky his whole life.