The HD Election

Thus far, I believe televised debates in the presidential campaign have all been happening on cable news channels and, thus, in low definition. General election debates will, by contrast, be shown on the networks and thus in high definition in those households with HDTVs. Given the age disparity between the candidates and McCain's history of skin cancer, I think one has to believe that more pixels-per-inch isn't going to serve McCain's cause very well. We'll be living in an era when only a minority of households have HD, but it's plausible to imagine that those who do and those who don't will come away with different impressions of the event, like the radio/TV contrast in the Nixon/Kennedy matchup of 1960.

UPDATE: It seems there's a CNNHD which had broadcast high-def debates. I just haven't seen it because Comcast doesn't carry it.

Comments

CNN debates have been in HD lately. However I'm not sure which carriers beyond direcTV provide CNNHD.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 2, 2008 10:34 AM

McCain in HD? I think I'll put off my upgrade until after the election.

Posted by fostert | March 2, 2008 10:40 AM

wow, this is even scarier than the idea of high def pron.

Posted by Soullite | March 2, 2008 10:54 AM

Did you ever see that Treehouse of Horror from a couple of years ago where Krusty goes hi-def? That's what McCain looks like. It's not pretty.

Posted by some dude | March 2, 2008 10:57 AM

I've seen all the CNN debates in HD (Cox Cable carries CNNHD) and I have to say, seeing Fred Thompson in all his high definition glory was just about as disgusting as it gets on cable television.

Posted by Felix | March 2, 2008 11:14 AM

Jeebus, what the hell Matt? Are you applying for a job as Maureen Dowd's ghost writer?

Posted by Chuck | March 2, 2008 11:20 AM

Comcast carries CNNHD in my area (Minneapolis). Half the time it's just like CNN but with a nice high-res crawl, and red bars on the sides of the screen that say "CNN HD".

Posted by fp | March 2, 2008 11:35 AM

There are camera filters that are used routinely on TV (they're often used on older TV news anchors) that can help smooth out McCain's skin tones, even in HD.

Posted by Bat of Moon | March 2, 2008 11:47 AM

Granted, Thompson is an old guy, McCain certainly has seen better days, but to judge candidates based on how they will look on HD isn't going to work, even for the Obamaniacs. Every spot, freckle, line, pore is magnified.
Only those with the skin of a newborn baby's butt are going to look good.

Posted by CParis | March 2, 2008 11:48 AM

A more significant consequence of the primary debates' having all been on cable news channels, is that a nontrivial chunk of the electorate hasn't had the opportunity to see any of them.

Last time I checked, about 1/8 of the American population didn't have cable at all.

In addition to them, there are people who only buy the 'broadcast basic' package, which consists of the local broadcast channels, minus the reception problems; C-SPAN; usually a superstation or two; and occasionally another freebie or two. But no CNN, no MSNBC.

I have no idea whether the number of households that subscribe to broadcast basic is even available. But just as a WAG, maybe 20% of the electorate hasn't been able to watch the debates.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | March 2, 2008 12:07 PM

It's difficult to overstate just how much comcast sucks.

Posted by pittanylion | March 2, 2008 12:24 PM

How many people have HD? Enough to turn an election?

Posted by southpaw | March 2, 2008 1:14 PM

Comcast in Chicago carries CNNHD. I watched one of the debates in a bar and people were genuinely shocked at how grotesque McCain and Giuliani look.

It's not McCain's fault, but he's very carefully packaged to hide the fact that he's a frail, crippled, elderly cancer survivor, and anything that really exposes that is going to work against him. Being as old as he is polls as well as being gay; I think the reason he's doing as well as he is in horserace polls is simply that people don't realize just how old he is.

Posted by some dude | March 2, 2008 2:10 PM

Like this stuff:

http://blogs.lasvegassun.com/politics/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/mccainlav021.jpg

Posted by David | March 2, 2008 2:34 PM

Jeebus, what the hell Matt? Are you applying for a job as Maureen Dowd's ghost writer?

I sort of agree with the quoted commenter--it's something of a low blow to criticize someone based on their physical appearance.

It's not entirely about age here, though. In the case of McCain (and, as Some Dude noted, Giuliani), though, there's a tangible physical unpleasantness-- in the form of vocal style and body language--that, to me, mirrors their constipated policy thinking. If McCain went on camera without the makeup and made his case without the "now-listen-here-sonny" delivery he always uses, I might at least have some respect for the guy.

Posted by James Gary | March 2, 2008 2:45 PM

Couple debates ago I was watching on a small TV while my roommate was in another room watching on large HD. I was commenting that Hillary looks much better than she used to, probably had plenty of work done, and he was just saying "what are you talking about, she looks OLD". Couple minutes later I went into that room and saw her face blown up about 10x and whoa, whole different story.

Posted by Dan | March 2, 2008 3:21 PM

Starting in September, they can have a chryron with "McCain is 72" displayed during the debates.

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | March 2, 2008 6:47 PM

In that ad she ran before New Hampshire, Clinton was using Gaussian blur to make her look significantly younger. It was widely commented on.

She isn't that bad looking for her age. McCain is.

Obama has them both beat. Nothing like being black for covering up imperfections (well, except for PhotoShop).

But I think Matt is way off base in thinking that some high def is going to change the election outcome. The perception of age may play a factor against McCain and for Obama, but it's not likely to be decisive - and it's not likely that HD TV is going to be the deciding factor even in that perception. The jokes on Leno and Letterman are likely to be more decisive than high def.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 2, 2008 7:10 PM

actually comcast does carry CNNHD. At least here in Atlanta they do (they better, we created CNN). Its channel 834 for HDCNN and 34 for regular CNN where I live.

Posted by wiretapp | March 2, 2008 7:28 PM

Chiming in with wiretapp: here in the Twin Cities as well, Comcast does carry CNNHD.

I don't think much of CNN's election-night analysts, but the visual stuff they have (such as John King's spiffy maps) are cool, and it all looks great in HD.

Give me Olbermann, Maddow, Robinson, and Todd for analysis (and Buchanan for dark-comic relief) any day, but CNN wins in the visual aid category.

Posted by Rieux | March 2, 2008 7:59 PM

Given how notoriously poorly white skin ages, I see this as a clever ploy (which I approve of entirely) to boost minority representation among elected officials.

Posted by aleks | March 3, 2008 8:53 AM