Debate Wrap-Up

I'm trying to think of something interesting to say about the debate that doesn't involve going meta or just doing amateur theater criticism, but I've really got nothing. Instead, a question: Did anyone out there in blog-land find this to be a helpful exercise? Like is there someone out there who wasn't sure who they were going to vote for pre-debate who's now more firmly in someone's corner? Someone out there who was strongly leaning in one direction and is now back to undecided status? Not me.

My read of what I see in these debates is so heavily colored by ex ante beliefs and information that it's hard for the debate to change anything. During the first 100 days question, for example, John Edwards gave his spiel about "restoring American leadership" which Hillary Clinton followed up by straightforwardly saying that bringing the troops home from Iraq would be Priority Number 1 in a Clinton administration. In a vacuum, that from Clinton would have impressed me a great deal. But in the real world it didn't -- it's impossible to say for sure in June 2007 what the different contenders would do in January 2009, but most signs indicate that Clinton would be the most reluctant of the big three to move toward rapid and total withdrawal.

Comments

Debates are, in my estimation, always moderately useful. It is another format to see the candidates, and a big part of the modern Presidency is amateur theater.

I am partisan to Edwards so I thought he did the best, another ex ante reaction no doubt. But even so I learned more about both the campaign strategies and their theater skills.

Posted by AJ | June 4, 2007 9:13 AM

I thought Richardson could be a dark horse, until I saw the first debate.

Posted by ogged | June 4, 2007 9:17 AM

It is another format to see the candidates, and a big part of the modern Presidency is amateur theater.

Yes, but actual presidents (even major party presidential nominees) never need to perform in that sort of format. If I felt that there was a strong correlation between performance in that sort of setting and performance in the much more formal mano-a-mano settings of a general election debate, I might at least draw strong political conclusions, but I don't really see it.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | June 4, 2007 9:21 AM

"Debates are, in my estimation, always moderately useful. It is another format to see the candidates, and a big part of the modern Presidency is amateur theater."

Exactamundo.

This isn't about whether or not you got converted from one candidate to another. It's just about learning more about the different candidates.

If, as Matthew seems to be doing, you are watching the debates to divine future administration policy actions on a few specific topics, then, sure, the debates are worthless.

But since that's a crazy way to approach Presidential selection in the first place, what'cha gonna do?

I learned more about Edwards, Clinton, and Obama as political performers last night. Plus I learned that Joe Biden has trouble judging when to use his indoor voice and that Bill Richardson's troubles so far go much deeper than just not knowing the intricacies of Whizzer White.

Posted by Petey | June 4, 2007 9:25 AM

A couple of interesting things: while most of the candidates were being nice to each other, especially Sen. Clinton, not so for Edwards and Gravel. I thought Edwards took a couple of gratuitous shots, and in general his performance dimmed my view of him. But then I wasn't so fond of him in the first place. Gravel, of whom I'd never heard, I liked (not that I would vote for him in a primary or anything). He was very straight up and had the best answer to the question of 'what would you do in the short term to reduce gas prices': not a damn thing.
I continue to favor Sen. Clinton. I liked her responses, including her explanation of why she voted to authorize the war.

Posted by AG | June 4, 2007 9:31 AM

"Yes, but actual presidents (even major party presidential nominees) never need to perform in that sort of format."

There is a high level of correlation between performance in a setting like last night's and performance in other Presidential political settings.

The correlation between performance in last night's setting and performance in Presidential debate settings is almost 1. Lectern speeches are somewhat different, but not dramatically so.

The type of political instincts on display in last night's setting are crucial in manifold other Presidential political settings.

You can really set your watch by this kind of stuff, once you figure which is the relatively small percentage of stuff which is important only to multi-candidate intra-party debates. Everything else will recur.

Swing voters really get to know the televised personas of the two Presidential candidates in a general election. If you watch stuff like last night closely, you can figure out what they're going to be seeing.

Posted by Petey | June 4, 2007 9:32 AM

Fwd:

Were the JFK terrorists East Indian?

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=715

.

Posted by David | June 4, 2007 9:34 AM

"I thought Edwards took a couple of gratuitous shots, and in general his performance dimmed my view of him. But then I wasn't so fond of him in the first place."

Edwards was demagoging like crazy last night, which will tend to annoy folks who know something about politics and already favor another candidate.

But considering his objectives, I think he played his cards close to perfectly. He got perfect headlines and soundbites.

"I continue to favor Sen. Clinton. I liked her responses, including her explanation of why she voted to authorize the war."

My favorite moment of the debate came when Edwards and Obama were sparring over healthcare. Hillary, in the middle of the two of them, had an incredibly wide evil grin on her face. You could imagine exactly what she was thinking: "Fight, my pretties. Fight."

Posted by Petey | June 4, 2007 9:38 AM

"My read of what I see in these debates is so heavily colored by ex ante beliefs and information that it's hard for the debate to change anything"

"I continue to favor Sen. Clinton. I liked her responses, including her explanation of why she voted to authorize the war."

Exactly. I could never support Hillary because of this reason. No matter how knowledgeable or great a candidate she is, her presidency would quickly unite the GOP against her, undercutting any power she could have. The debates don't change this.

Posted by yep | June 4, 2007 9:40 AM

But since that's a crazy way to approach Presidential selection in the first place, what'cha gonna do?

Indeed. No one can tell what challenges a President will face or what the political situation will be when they carry their campaign promises into the Oval Office. You are left judging demeanor, temperament and the c-word, character.

I read the Fareed Zakaria piece you linked and was impressed by the account of Obama's initial reaction when asked about his reaction to another attack on US soil. He was the only one who did not mistake lashing out for strength. Shame he felt compelled to equivocate on his good instincts. There is usually of time to find the culprits. Hell, if you wait a minute, they will probably make a mistake that will play to your advantage. Surprising that none of the other candidates have mentioned Chechnya as proof of the effectiveness of the macho approach to terrorism. It has worked so well for the Russians.

Posted by Scott Ferguson | June 4, 2007 9:40 AM

"You are left judging demeanor, temperament and the c-word, character."

You should also be judging based on politics. Which constituencies the various candidates find important to appeal to in such a setting is a very good guide to how they'd govern.

Posted by Petey | June 4, 2007 9:46 AM

> There is a high level of correlation between
> performance in a setting like last night's and
> performance in other Presidential political
> settings.
>
> The correlation between performance in last
> night's setting and performance in Presidential
> debate settings is almost 1.

I think you left out a negative sign. As in "the correlation is almost -1".

Allowing yourself to be humiliated by so-called "neutral" traditional media personalities who speak in Radical Right frames is not exactly a path to success either in a general election or a Presidency. I despise Bush and Rove, but their success at setting their own agenda and ignoring the traditional media cannot be denied. Democratic candidates who are seen as being whipped by the traditional media are going to continue to be whipped by the media when they run against Guiliani or Thompson.

The big winner last night? Al Gore, for staying out of it.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 4, 2007 10:00 AM

I think the best analogy isn't amateur theater but stock-car racing. You watch for the crashes, in other words.

There won't be many people swayed to a candidate, but they can be turned against one if he or she crashes and burns.

Posted by pastordan | June 4, 2007 10:13 AM

You guys who think Al Gore is going to enter the race sometime later this year might be in for a big shock. Gore is a mediocre campaigner and a technocrat in the tradition of Bill Clinton. The idea that Gore is going to get on the debate stage and start smacking down Wolf Blitzer and Radical Right frames while simultaneously turning in a virtuoso performance is just loony.

Candidates always look better before they actually smart campaigning.

Posted by Korha | June 4, 2007 10:14 AM

"You guys who think Al Gore is going to enter the race sometime later this year might be in for a big shock. Gore is a mediocre campaigner and a technocrat in the tradition of Bill Clinton."

Folks who think that Al Gore is going to enter the race are in for a big shock because they can't tell a book tour apart from a campaign event.

Godot will show up first.

Posted by Petey | June 4, 2007 10:18 AM

"I think the best analogy isn't amateur theater but stock-car racing. You watch for the crashes, in other words."

Meh. The gaffe-watch is indeed an integral part of these events, but most of the action takes places gaffe-free.

Or to put it another way, in a stock-car race, few crash, but someone still wins.

Posted by Petey | June 4, 2007 10:20 AM

I have no idea if Gore is going to enter the race or not, but the idea that continuing to take "raise your hand" spankings from traditional media figures talking in Radical Right frames is good for any Democratic candidate is, well, naive.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 4, 2007 10:23 AM

"I have no idea if Gore is going to enter the race or not, but the idea that continuing to take "raise your hand" spankings from traditional media figures talking in Radical Right frames is good for any Democratic candidate is, well, naive."

Then you ought to vote for Hillary. She put a stop to that.

Posted by Petey | June 4, 2007 10:25 AM

Yeah, Petey, but they win on points, which is pretty dull, and goes to Matthew's point.

Posted by pastordan | June 4, 2007 10:30 AM

How many standard deviations away are we from the median information level of the American primary voter? At least three, and maybe four or five. So, yes, blogospheric opinions are probably heavily covered by ex-ante information about candidates.

I thought the Clinton claim was particularly mendacious since it seemed to imply that the troops would be home within 100 days. Which is, you know, probably not true.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 4, 2007 10:35 AM

"Yeah, Petey, but they win on points, which is pretty dull, and goes to Matthew's point."

I guess my template point on this thread is that debates like this have tremendous predictive value in how the candidate will perform during the rest of the primaries, during the general election, and in office.

So I'm willing to deal with the dull in order to receive the knowledge.

Posted by Petey | June 4, 2007 10:36 AM

"How many standard deviations away are we from the median information level of the American primary voter? At least three, and maybe four or five."

That sounds a little extreme, no?

Posted by Fred | June 4, 2007 10:42 AM

"No matter how knowledgeable or great a candidate she is, her presidency would quickly unite the GOP against her, undercutting any power she could have."

With luck and hard work, the GOP should be down a couple more Senators and some House seats, and some legislation can get passed. HRC will have the bully pulpit, appointment and staffing power, some ability to control the agenda and perhaps some small successes overseas, including some withdrawals from Iraq.

The Republicans will not be in the positions they were in during the early Truman or late Clinton administrations. Under current conditions, I think a rabid attack on HRC and increased polarization would favor the Democrats. Late Truman is a good example, McCarthy & MacArthur helped build the 40 year Democratic majority.

Presuming some presumptions about the economy, terrorists attacks, etc.

Posted by bob mcmanus | June 4, 2007 11:00 AM

"That sounds a little extreme, no?"

Oh most definitely not. Most people really don't care about politics except on the margins. They can afford not to--one of the luxuries of living in the United States.

Posted by Korha | June 4, 2007 11:02 AM

"Most people really don't care about politics except on the margins."

Exactly. And that's precisely why events like last evening are useful. They're predictors for what kind of TV personas the candidates will transmit to very low-information voters in the summer and fall of next year.

Posted by Petey | June 4, 2007 11:05 AM

Allowing yourself to be humiliated by so-called "neutral" traditional media personalities who speak in Radical Right frames is not exactly a path to success either in a general election or a Presidency.

At the risk of indulging in "amateur theater criticism", I thought HRC did a superb job of yanking the rug out from the many idiotic questions that Blitzer spewed. She's my least favorite choice in the Dem field, but the way she handled that made me dislike her a little less. Guess this puts me in agreement with petey, which is new....

Posted by sglover | June 4, 2007 11:16 AM

"Guess this puts me in agreement with petey, which is new...."

Don't worry. I'd rather pull my fingernails out one by one than support Hillary for the nomination.

But it definitely was her positive highlight from the debate.

Posted by Petey | June 4, 2007 11:19 AM

Oh most definitely not. Most people really don't care about politics except on the margins. They can afford not to--one of the luxuries of living in the United States.

Well, the original statement was about the "median information level of the American primary voter". Those people are at least likely to know what offices are going to be on the ballot, who's in office in one's own district, maybe even in neighboring districts. Not exactly encyclopedic, but even those folks are probably two SD's beyond the average voter, who might know the name of his Congressperson, and that he works in a thing called the House of Representatives.

Posted by sglover | June 4, 2007 11:30 AM

Allowing yourself to be humiliated by so-called "neutral" traditional media personalities who speak in Radical Right frames is not exactly a path to success either in a general election or a Presidency.

I think this here is one of two disconnects in the Somerby Unified Theory.

If the media in Washington is so cowed by conservatives, and if Democrats are constantly being "framed" in negative ways by the media, and if the vast majority of voters get their news only through these "frames," then the most important thing in the world is how Democrats perform within such structures. The structures suck and it's good that people are trying to change them in different ways, but the corporate media isn't going to collapse in the next 14 months, so one of the most important characteristics of Democratic candidates is how they handle precisely that corporate media. I thought that all three of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards did very well last night on that front - it'll take a frontal lobotomy to get me out of the Edwards camp at this point, but I came away from the debate feeling good about supporting in the general whichever of those three wins the primary.

(The second disconnect in the Somerby theory is the belief that these structures will change if we get a media devoted to "truth", which we once had. The non-coverage of lynchings, to me, wholly puts the lie to the theory that the media was ever in the Truth game. The question for politically involved folks is how to rearrange and live within the structures of power of late capitalism, of which the media is only one.)

Posted by DivGuy | June 4, 2007 11:41 AM

> then the most important thing in the world
> is how Democrats perform within such structures.

I would say that the most important thing is to smash them whenever the media tries to fit you inside one. NOT to play along - the frames and narratives are such that if you even start to discuss them you are lost.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 4, 2007 11:46 AM

Well, I'll certainly be paying more attention to Biden, at any rate (possible veep choice?), and a lot less to Bill Richardson. I'm more convinced than ever though that Clinton would be disastrous (refusing to deny the WoT frame, suggesting that security has improved). I think my internal preference re: Edwards v. Obama shifted a notch to Obama due to Edwards' relatively ineffective attacks, which is a pity because it leaves me more undecided than before.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | June 4, 2007 11:59 AM

"In a vacuum, that from Clinton would have impressed me a great deal."

And that is the help Clinton gets from this exercise, she planted a seed of doubt that will grow and overturn your ex ante beliefs. Just her stage presence dispels many blogospheric myths, but her trickier task is to dispel the myths about her substantive positions.

Posted by tib | June 4, 2007 12:51 PM

Is there a transcript of the debate available anywhere?

Posted by Steve | June 4, 2007 1:04 PM

"I came away from the debate feeling good about supporting in the general whichever of those three wins the primary."

Hillary's strategic goal last night was to reassure those on the left that they shouldn't utterly despise her, and she did good work on that front.

Posted by Petey | June 4, 2007 1:29 PM

Final Petey Ratings:

Clinton - Exceeded expectation in multiple ways.
Obama - Didn't hurt himself.
Edwards - If you don't understand why he won this one, you don't understand the rules of the game we're currently playing.

-----

Richardson - Hurt himself.
Dodd - Didn't hurt himself.
Biden - Interesting. Is it a fluke, or is he really going to run in the Joe Lieberman '04 slot? If not, hurt himself.

Posted by Petey | June 4, 2007 1:30 PM

Ahem. So, it looks like I'm abusing sigma a bit. But only a bit. I thought each sigma took you about a tenth of the way there, so one sigma as 90th percentile, two is 99th, three is 99.9th, etc. But at three sigmas you're at one in three hundred, four is one in ten thousand, and five is one in a million. Obviously five is implausible even for the general. Four would mean you're in something like the top 0.05% of blog readers, which is still not true. But 3 sigmas seems perfectly reasonable. Even if primary turnout is 20% and split evenly between the two parties, three sigmas is still 750,000 people. Do you think there are 750,000 people in America who follow Democratic politics is as closely as Matt?

I mean, once you get past the top five or ten ... Kos, FDL, Atrios, Huffpo, C&L, Americablog, TPm, etc ... you're talking hundreds of thousands of readers per month tops.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 4, 2007 5:15 PM

"I continue to favor Sen. Clinton. I liked her responses, including her explanation of why she voted to authorize the war."

Really? She honestly believed that W would exhaust all diplomatic options before going to war with Iraq, that he would give the inspectors time to work? Was she living on the same planet as the rest of us back then?

I don't know how that impresses you. It insults my intelligence. The best way to handle the Iraq war vote was the Edwards admission that he was wrong and Obama was right. That having been said, I'm still voting for the guy who was right.

Posted by Shochu John | June 4, 2007 9:23 PM

Biden really impressed me. Im sure his "shouting" was "calculated," but it struck me. I really liked his bit about stop talking about Darfur and start doing something about Darfur.

Posted by Brek | June 5, 2007 2:19 PM

yzkmf kurs gqdfzlij cbldout auzh cmxdw ihafgvru

Posted by puhq oytvufgl | June 7, 2007 11:42 AM

mclrjpfvz sdwvcil izyedvo xejn vgcbzyhaw vwfb kpefso http://www.yhcu.stplh.com

Posted by kfoqzrwn gfdtcpq | June 7, 2007 11:42 AM

Nice site. Thanks!!!
http://clotrimazole.pillpriceline.info clotrimazole

Posted by clotrimazole | July 24, 2007 8:23 PM