« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Why Obama Won the Debate: It's Not About Style Points
Most of the pundits and bloggers are concentrating on style/tactical stuff: Was Obama too professorial? Did he give pithy responses or use too many big words? Was he aggressive enough? Etc.
Not the point. Look at the poll numbers: In the CNN post-debate poll, Obama's biggest numbers were on "more in touch with needs and problems of people like you" (Obama 62%, McCain 32%) and "stronger on the economy" (Obama 58%, McCain 37%).
Same thing with CBS's poll: On "Would make the right decisions about the economy," Obama trounced McCain66% to 42%.
And the Fox post-debate focus group with "absolutely uncommitted" voters showed exactly the same responses:
--A middle-aged woman: "[Obama] seemed to know what he was doing, he cared about the average person, and he got to me."
--Another woman: "Yes, Obama moved me. He seemed to care about everyone in America, he was very articulate..."
These numbers and responses show that Obama won the debate on substance, not style. I think Obama won by emphasizing his middle-class tax cuts and hitting McCain for his big corporate give-aways. Especially effective may have been Obama's chiding McCain for over-emphasizing earmark reform, when McCain's own $300b corporate tax cuts would dwarf any savings on earmarks. Obama: We're not going to build a future for the middle-class on earmark reform. Obama emphasized job creation, health care reform, getting us off expensive foreign oil.
As a boxing match, the contest may have been a draw, as many well-paid on-air pundits and comfortable bloggers have said. But it seems most average viewers wanted to know who was on their side, especially on pocketbook issues. There, on the core national concerns, Obama won in a walk.
So, a very big night for Obama.








Comments (8)
Great points here, JCD. I think voters are not only more tuned in to this year's election, they might actually be listening. If that's true, it's spectacular news for Obama. Rec'd.
September 27, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on...
September 27, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a way of looking at Obama's win without appealing to sports metaphors and analogies.
Why Obama and Paul Newman won the Debate"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/
September 27, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on about the earmark/tax cuts comparison. I remember thinking the same thing while the debate was going on: McCain's $18 billion earmarks are dwarfed by the $300 billion tax cuts. Obama's rational argument made good sense, and it came across.
I had the impression that McCain's earmark and bear DNA remarks were meant to goad Obama into veering into a distracting attack on Palin. Obama is obviously too smart to bite. If Obama had mentioned Palin, today's buzz would have been all "Obama attacks Palin". No?
September 27, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have mixed feelings about this. He has a major economic debate coming up: now because of all this feedback McCain wills pend that entire debate talking about the middle class and emoting with them. sigh
September 27, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain can commiserate about the middle class if he wants, but there is no way he will be able connect with many of us. It isn't that hard to recognize the "real deal" as opposed to a guy who owns 7 houses and 13 automobiles and a millionairess trophy wife. Let McCain try, although I don't believe he would dare. He cannot be that stupid surely!
September 28, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. I agree, I didn't think it was style; but I certainly thought he won that debate. I'm feeling great that so many people are feeling the same.
September 28, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he clearly laid out his more intelligent points in a more intelligent way than McCain. So did Kerry against W IN EVERY DEBATE.
The cumulative disaster of the last 8 years has certainly made people more interested in substance, but I think Obama's style put the substance over: he maintained a congenial demeanor even when he hit hard or was unfairly characterized, he looked straight into the camera to discuss middle class problems--actually tried to create a connection with the audience.
McCain's backwards-looking historical focus and distant behavior worked as a perfect foil--made Obama look even more engaged and sincere.
September 28, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment