Nate Silver points out, correctly, that pundits watch these debates differently than the rest of the country. So, as a follow-up to last night's post, which focused more on the substance of what they said, here are some random thoughts about the surface stuff:
John McCain looks much worse in person than he does on analog television, and I was wondering if that would show up if 2008 would lead to an HD/analog split in reaction to the debate that 1960 had for radio/television. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the answer was no. [Pleasantly?--ed. Yes, this is a really stupid reason to prefer one candidate over the other.] McCain looked better than expected, while Obama looked more sallow. Curiously, the more whiskey I drank, the better both of them looked. UPDATE: Wow, Ann Althouse and I agree!
Ah, the perceived slights. Josh Marshall highlights McCain's unwillingness to make eye contact with Obama. I would say that McCain evinced some disregard for Obama -- but I'm not buying the "low-ranking monkey" hypothesis (seriously, I can't believe Josh posted this). McCain was not afraid of Obama -- he just doesn't like him.
Meanwhile, Amy Holmes at NRO is miffed that Obama kept calling John McCain "John" rather than Senator McCain. Holmes suggests that Obama picked this up from Joe Biden. I've found, in talking with Obama staffers, that this is just how that campaign talks. They all call Obama "Barack". The fuddy-duddy in me finds this absurd -- if you're worried about a stature/experience gap with your opponent, the last thing you do is call everyone by their first name. But it's not something directed at McCain specifically.
The most grating moment came when John McCain called himself a maverick. As Megan McArdle observes, "no one should ever, ever refer to themselves as a maverick unless they are currently James Garner."
Amid all the debate over who won the debate, the answer seems clear to me -- the candidate who left themselves more vulnerable to the cold-open Saturday Night Liveskit tonight loses. I think McCain's performance is more ripe for satire -- but we'll know in about 14 hours.
Like, that's all.
UPDATE: OK, this is, like, pretty fascinating:
I don't know, Dan. Johnny Walker Blue is some fairly elitist whiskey. More of a Mitt Romney drink than a John "I call me maverick" McCain drink. If you were really on board with the McCain campaign, you wouldn't be drinkin' no sippin' whiskey. I hear Old Grandad is "in" this cycle.
seriously - you're shocked Josh posted something that bad? C'mon, if Obama doesn't win this thing Marshall and his ilk are gonna throw the hissy fit to end all hissy fits - not to mention set back race relations a generation or two with unending bewailing of racist America shooting down another dream. Hell, I wanna see Obama lose if for no other reason than to witness the cascade of neural infarctions that will be let loose among the aggrieved enlightened ones.
Dan, you may not want to agree, but: One of the false impressions IMHO McCain gave demonstrates a fundamental confusion conservatives have about the economy: they think that for the government to spend $x is a zero-sum game, the money is just "lost". Ergo, to not spend that money is perforce a net savings for all time. But that's idiotic, since intelligent (by definition) spending, such as on infrastructure, quality education, preventive health care, renewable energy, etc. saves or creates more utility and capability later.
BTW I love this post-comment editing capability, I wish more blogs had it to enable toning of impulsive splatter.
It's interesting -- I just went back to your liveblog. I had a similar reaction on the Iran question. Obama's take on why a League of Democracies approach would not work was one of the most inciteful things said all night from an IR perspective. Then McCain scored what I thought was a good rhetorical point on Iran, but not a good basis for policy.
I do wonder what Pakistan's leaders think of being called a "failed state" before '99, but that's just me.
To finish the rambling comment, I am more interested each day in the need for cognitive consistency and perceptual bias. According to one of the polls referenced by Nate Silver, about 90% of Republicans thought McCain won, and about 90% of Democrats that Obama won. We hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see. Evidence to the contrary be damned (or explained away). I may have to brush up on my Jervis.
If I had to guess SNL, I would have to say it would be something about earmarks and parodying Obama's lack of experience.
Ok, I wasn't finished above. What is McCain's obsession with earmarks? Some (not all) are wasteful, but they really aren't a significant enough part of the budget to lead to real savings compared to many other areas. As for Obama, does he get credit for not being suckered into the meaningless debate by not going after Palin on the issue, or will he be attacked by more bloodthirsty dems for not going for the jugular?
INTERESTING/USEFUL INSIGHTS ON THE DEBATE « LATER ON
[...] Dan Drezner, who notes this comment by Megan McArdle: The most grating moment came when John McCain called himself a maverick. As Megan McArdle observes, “no one should ever, ever refer to themselves as a maverick unless they are currently James Garner.” [...]
If you watch the Democratic debates, Barack always uses first names when talking to/about his opponents: Hillary, Joe (Biden), etc. His opponents mostly stuck to "Senator Obama". Or, at least, that's how I remember things. IIRC, it wasn't until the South Carolina debate that Hillary started saying "Barack". I only remember this because I thought it was kind of nice that he was (or pretended to be) on a first name basis with his colleagues, while they stuck to titles and more formal names.
Obama was better both in thinking and speaking. McCain was at his weakest when attacking, he doesn't understand, he is stubborn, which were really his own projections. Obama was at his best when complementary to McCain's positions when they coincided with his own. The debate largely felt like a very extended campaign commercial with a lot of quips and hits but lacking much significant exchange.
Meanwhile, Amy Holmes at NRO is miffed that Obama kept calling John McCain “John” rather than Senator McCain. Holmes suggests that Obama picked this up from Joe Biden. I’ve found, in talking with Obama staffers, that this is just how that campaign talks. They all call Obama “Barack”. The fuddy-duddy in me finds this absurd — if you’re worried about a stature/experience gap with your opponent, the last thing you do is call everyone by their first name. But it’s not something directed at McCain specifically.
maybe he lets her daughters call him "Barack" too, lol.
[...] to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for reading!If the presidential debate Friday night told us anything, it was that whichever of these candidates is elected, we can expect more wars, or at least more [...]
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
(10)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE