Turns out it's harder to rattle Obama than McCain thought.
His supporters begged him to bring the fight to Obama in the third presidential debate Wednesday night, and McCain did it ... but with no great effect. Obama remained cool under fire and potentially disarmed McCain of his favorite weapon of late, William Ayers. What went wrong for McCain in the final debate, and where does he go now?
According to polls by CNN, Obama was the clear winner in the debate by a nearly 2 to 1 margin. 58% of viewers polled thought he won the debate compared to 31% for McCain, despite what might have been McCain's best debate performance of this election. He challenged Obama on every issue possible, fromt taxes to education, putting the Democratic candidate on defense for most of the debate. McCain even brought in William Ayers, showing that he is willing, if not necessarily happy, to get dirty if that what it takes for him to win this election.
But it didn't look as if any of this phased Obama at all. He remained calm throughout the debate, smiling wryly and issuing sighs at McCain's attacks. More importantly, though he was on defense early on in the debate, he managed to combat McCain on every issue that was raised, so that it never seemed as if McCain gained points. He didn't give a fantastic performance ... but then, he didn't have to. The game is McCain's to change these days, and he left no room for McCain to flip the script.
So, where did McCain go wrong and miss his opportunities? Let's start off with the issue of negative campainging. When Bob Schieffer brought up the nasty tone of the campaign, McCain went back to a rather tired line that he's been giving for a while - if Obama had agreed to the townhalls he proposed early this past summer, the campaign would have an entirely different tone. Does anybody believe that? Evidently not, because according to a recent New York Times poll, most voters think that McCain is running the overtly negative campaign, and that he's avoiding the issues.
Also, he allowed Obama to effectively disarm him of a tool that's been central to his campaign, Ayers. By bringing him up in the debate, he allowed Obama to refute the claim and explain to viewers that the charge McCain brings against him is just not true. What's more, the McCain campaign doesn't seem to get the message that nobody cares about Ayers, ACORN, or any of their negative fodder, as pointed out in the NYT poll. He needs to move away from that and his scarily angry campaign, and get to the issue of an economy that is tanking as you read this. But it may be too late for that with only 18 days to go until election day.
Lastly ... McCain just looked old, tired, and angry throughout the debate. He needs to learn how to hide his emotions like Obama, be less awkward (witness this travesty), and not look so angry. This could end up being similar to the Dole-Clinton debate of '96, where Dole just looked generally angry, grumpy, and emotionally volatile. He didn't do too well that year.
This debate probably did little to change the dynamics of the race, but we'll probably have to wait until Monday to see its full effect. My gut feeling is that McCain has got himself stuck in the mud with no way out.
So Obama wins the debate
Good for Obama. McCain has been whining for way too long about how "negative" Obama's ads are. And the thing is, no one cares! I'm with Obama on this one, and I think most voters would agree: we'd rather hear about what'll happen to our economy if we vote for McCain/Obama.
Also, thank you, Senator Obama for giving a clear, firm answer to McCain about Ayers and ACORN. It was about time that Obama shut down the GOP's attempt to package Obama and Ayers together as a terrorist pair. If only those rallies crying out "Terrorist" and "Kill Him" about Obama would understand...
i dont know
mccain was on offense the whole debate. even if he didn't have obama on his knees, the fact that people are saying it was his "best" debate leaves him with some momentum for the end.
In the tank.
Well, I guess someone's in the tank for Obama. This post almost seems like its taken right from the Obama post-debate spin room-- toned down just enough to seem unbiased.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that Obama looked better from the standpoint of appearances in every way, shape, and form. He speaks more eloquently, he seems to have a better command of the issues, and he did, in fact, look "cool" to McCain's attacks. He probably did, in fact, win the debate. But, to say that he looked "old, tired, and angry" and dubbing him "grumpy mcnasty" is just about one step away-- more like a half step away-- from simply dismissing him as a "grumpy, old man."
It's true that most voters might think that McCain is running a more negative campaign, but, in reality, McCain and Obama are spending about equal amounts of money on negative ads. It's just that Obama is outspending McCain overall in ads by about 2.5 to 1. According to an article on CNN.com by Alexander Mooney, Obama is spending about half his money on negative ads forcing McCain to spending an equal amount of money.
Character is an important factor in some voters' minds, as well it should be. I really, truly believe that the main, if not, the only thing that holds McCain in this distancing race is that voters believe so much in the man, his character, and his admirable past that they are sticking with him when any other Republican would be going down the tubes. Bringing up ACORN and William Ayers is nothing more than letting the voters know about the past associations of Obama. The connections may dubious, but they deserve to be explored. It's not like if politician X (ANY politician-- in no way suggesting Obama) was found to be friends with an unrepentant rapist or murder, for instance, that it would not be a factor. Character is a legitimate issue.
I could, in fact, go on and on about the substance of this post, but the bottom line is that it was deeply disappointing in its attempt at being an objective narrative under the guise of Obamamania.
seriously, in the tank?
how can you say this guy is in the tank? he said that obama didn't give a good performance, for godsakes. and you can talk about character mattering all you want, but when the economy is taking a crap ... nobody is gonna care, the guy is right, just like the poll says. and so what if obama and mccain are actually both running mean campaigns? its the ppl's attitudes that matter. you cant ignore that mccain gave a pretty weak performance and just tag anybody who says it as in love with obama, dude.
Economy and Character
That's fine. It's a perfectly fine opinion to have to think that economy trumps all. It's not like its not been said that "we're in the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression." I think it's an important issue. But, I don't think most voters have a litmus test for a single issue. They make decisions based on a collective assessment. The economy might be a large part of that assessment, but it still has other factors. I'm talking as OBJECTIVELY as I can. From an analytical standpoint and NOT my personal opinion about the candidates, I think that McCain is staying relatively close, 6 to 10 points, with Obama because of his longstanding positive character. I think people believe in the man (Gang of 14, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, torture, Iraq surge, McCain-Lieberman). They believe in the things that he has done in the past and his reputation. You can agree or disagree. Perfectly fine.
This year should be a complete landslide for the Dems not only because of the unpopularity of Bush but also because of the October surprise of the financial crisis. Dems traditionally have an advantage on the economy. And yet, you have a Republican who is running 6 to 10 points behind Obama. This should arguably be close to a 20 point spread. You can call it red-neck racism, but I call it McCain's character.
Secondly, did you not read my post? I said, "[Obama] probably did, in fact, win the debate." I admit that now as I admitted that half an hour before you posted your response. But, to refer to McCain as McNasty is just plain ridicule. It's not like I can't turn on Countdown and hear a propagandist have a segment titled "McBush." McNasty. McBush. McNasty. I mean, I guess they're kind of different. I can't really tell anymore though. . .
mcnasty
mcnasty was making fun of his bad mood during the debate :p come on, get over yourself.he gave obama a nickname too.
the lead is smaller than it could be for a lot of reason, racism, ppl unsure about obama, w/e. as the economy gets worse tho,and ppl get more sure about obama's character, we see the lead getting bigger. to say mccains character has something to do with the closeness is wrong, the nyx polls say ppl trust obama's character more. that's objective.
Small Lead.
You're right. The lead could be smaller for a lot of reasons-- some of ones you have pointed out are the main ones. But, a few of the reasons just don't add up. The economy, for instance, has already gotten worse. The only thing worse than having to spend $700 billion on an apparent bail-out of Wall Street is having a complete financial meltdown. It seems to me that the 10 to 14 point spread in the week after the Wall Street bailout is the high-water mark for Obama. Short of the complete financial meltdown I just mentioned or something on the magnitude of a terrorist attack on the economy, I think the Dow dropping almost a thousand points in a day coupled with the bailout should have broken the arms and legs off any traditional Republican. And, by arms and legs, I mean pundits saying, "Why are we even talking about the race because Obama is going to win by 20+ points?"
Also, call me naive, but I think the race factor drops considerably when voters see $700 billion dollars of their tax money going to what they perceive as the Wall Street fat cats who started the whole mess. It also drops, I think, to a small amount considering that an all-time high of 89% of the country thinks that we are headed in the wrong direction according to a recent CBS News/NYT poll. At some point, the people who are perhaps not straight-edge racists but those who perhaps are just uncomfortable-- as opposed to straight-up against-- with a black president shrinks in the face of these hard, cold numbers. There are always going to be people who vote against candidates because of skin color, but those sitting on the fence because of race, I think, can and have been rudely pushed over to Obama's side by the sheer numbers of $700 billion and 89%.
And yet, McCain is only down by 6 to 10 points.
By the way, yes, the nickname that was given to Obama in the post was Iceman, which was continually portrayed in a positive light in contrast to the "grumpy, old man." And, "McNasty" might have been funny for people who watch Countdown or, now apparently, the Rachel Maddows' Show. But, the last time I checked, these are the shows that let right-wingers have the rightful credibility to call NBC and other media outlets liberally biased. Hence, the bias that I felt was thinly veiled in the post.
Baileys Original Grumpy
Baileys Original
Grumpy McNasty is from Countdown?? Wow, I just saw it on the post debate analysis on CNN and thought it was funny. But then again, Paul Begala was the one using it. Sorry about that. I want to make it clear that I am not being biased against McCain. I simply think that he gave a pretty lackluster performance compared with what he needed to do. In the face of this gap, he needed to turn over tables, and he wasn't able to.
In response to you question of character, personally, I think that that issue hardly matters in this financial and political climate. You can call it whatever you want, but what it is is character assassination that has no place in this election. And nevermind that it goes against McCain's own principles and pledges. What happened to the McCain of 2000 that independents and Dems respected? What's more, the tactic is only hurting him, people aren't buying it, so why does his campaign persist in using it? It's ridiculous. He needs to get to the issues in these last few weeks and see if he can turn anything around. I'm not going to wade into the polling issue, but I wanted to set the record straight - in no way am I being biased for or against either of these candidates. I'm looking at the facts of this election, the candidate's statements, and the polls, and McCain's direction just does not make much sense in any of these contexts.
One more thing
Baileys Original
I think you are being painfully naive regarding race - we can't know exactly the extent of its effect on this election, but we know it has to be lurking somewhere. When poll numbers indicate that people respect Obama's character more and have favorable views about him, and now think that McCain is a riskier choice, something about his lead doesn't add up. Of course it should be larger. We can only speculate, but I have to attribute it to race, personally. But, it also depends what poll you look at - the NYT poll gives Obama a 14 point lead as of Wednesday, which I think is about where he should be, while others have him below 10 points.
Post new comment