Thursday,
October 14 2004
GET YOUR DEBATE ANALYSIS HERE: Let's be honest:
scoring a debate is a very subjective exercise. Those who
favor a given candidate will almost always tend to view
their candidate's performance in the best possible light
and to find flaws or faults in the opposing candidate's
performance. Last night is a perfect example.
On
one hand, liberals are convinced that Kerry looked "more
presidential than the president" last night and
that Bush was "on
the defensive from the outset."
On
the other hand, conservatives think President Bush delivered
a " sensational
performance" last night and that Kerry seemed "haggard,
tired" and "lifeless."
In
other words, both sides think their guy won - which would
naturally lead most people to conclude the debate was a
draw. But was it really?
Earlier
this week Dana
Milbank reported on the different tactics of the two
campaigns: the Bush campaign believes "the election
will be determined more by the turnout of each party's faithful"
while the Kerry campaign feels "the election will be
determined as much by centrist 'swing voters.'"
We
saw these tactics on display last night. Kerry went out
of his way to speak to middle-class voters in Wisconsin
and Ohio about jobs and healthcare. He also did his best
to counter President Bush's strongest appeal to the middle
class (the tax cuts) by arguing that any tax relief the
middle class has gotten under president Bush has been offset
by the rising prices of tuition, healthcare, and gasoline.
President
Bush spoke to the issues in the language of conservatives:
low taxes, fiscal sanity, a culture of life, the sanctity
of marriage, standards and accountability in education.
I thought
both Kerry and Bush did a good job of making their respective
cases to their target audiences. Overall, however, I think
President Bush did a better job of improving his position
in the race.
The
inherent problem with John Kerry's strategy is that the
middle-class "swing voter" he needs to win in
critical states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and
Iowa is decidedly more conservative than he is - especially
on cultural issues.
It's
just a very tough sell for a lanky, ultra rich liberal from
Massachusetts to show up in Ames, Akron or Appleton with
a shotgun and convince people he's one of them. On abortion,
gay marriage, and gun control (just to name a few) these
voters are more in tune with President Bush than John Kerry.
In
less than three weeks when voters close the curtain on the
booth and make a choice for president they'll ask themselves
four basic questions (not necessarily in this order):
1)
Who do I like?
2) Who do I trust?
3) Who is going to keep the country safe?
4)Who is going to help me find a job to provide for my
family?
The
order and importance of these questions will be different
for each voter, of course, but my hunch is that right now
President Bush wins three out of four of them with middle-class
voters in Wisconsin and Ohio.
To
the extent this election turns on the Carville Doctrine
(it's the economy, stupid), John Kerry has a chance to win
the votes of people who may not like him or trust him as
much as they do President Bush.
But
I still firmly believe this is a national security election
at its core and that in order for the average middle-class
voter to even get to the question of jobs and healthcare
they first have to be satisfied that John Kerry will keep
the country safe. I'm not convinced he's fully passed that
test yet with the American people as a whole, let alone
middle-class voters in Ohio and Wisconsin.
Maybe
I'm wrong. Maybe John Kerry has made the sale on the War
on Terror and national security - even though the internals
of the polls don't show it. But if, over the course of nine
months, a convention, three debates and tens of millions
of dollars in advertising, John Kerry still truly hasn't
convinced the American public he'll fight the war on terror
and keep them safe, there is little reason to believe he'll
be able to do it over the course of the next 18 days. -
T. Bevan 11:45 am Link
| Email |
Send
to a Friend
