McCain, Obama Debate Analysis

By Mike Myatt, Chief Strategy Officer, N2growth

Today’s post is a response to numerous e-mails asking me if I would provide an analysis of the McCain, Obama Presidential Debate.  While the spin and hype leading up to the debate, and the ads released immediately after the debate, may have been more interesting than the debate itself, I found the outcome of tonight’s mental chess game to be fairly predictable. Not surprisingly both campaigns are claiming sweeping victories, and the media is portraying the debate as a draw. In the text that follows I’ll provide not only my analysis on the candidate’s individual performances, but also on the realities of Presidential debates themselves…

While there have been certain “gotcha” moments in previous Presidential debates, it is important to realize that those moments have been the exception and not the rule. The first thing that needs to be understood about debates is that absent a major gaff on the part of one of the candidates, a single debate is not likely to change the mind of committed voters. While each campaign always hopes their candidate will hit it out of the park and walk away with a decisive victory, the reality is that Republicans will feel that their candidate was a clear winner, and the Democrats will feel the same way about their candidate. The real battle being waged is always for the uncommitted voter. The prize being sought is that moment in time where a particular theme or sound bite can be leveraged that will allow a candidate to pull the fringe voter over to their side. Elections are rarely won by winning the extreme left of right, but in controlling the centrists.

Again, absent a major mistake, Presidential debates are actually won in the days following the debate as the media and the pundits begin to sway public opinion with their commentary. What’s unique about this election is the compressed time frame between the first Presidential debate and the actual election itself. Because the candidates simply don’t have much time to win the hearts and minds of the uncommitted voters, the debates in this election are more critical. This time frame compression will make it impossible to overcome mistakes, but it will also make it more difficult for the political handlers and the media to create a wide separation in a tight race.

The last point I want to make before I assess the individual performances of tonight’s debate is the impact of the nation’s financial crisis on the debate. The truth is that the debate over the Bailout simply overshadowed the so called “Foreign Policy” debate. More people are likely to shift their thinking in the days ahead as some resolution is adopted on the Bailout. My point is that the public reaction to the Bailout leading up to the Vice Presidential debate on Thursday is likely to be more of a game changer. than tonight’s debate. The Vice Presidential debate will probably attract a larger viewing audience than tonight’s debate, and both the emotions and expectations surrounding Thursday night’s debate will be very high. My prediction is that this election will be won or lost over the voter’s perception of the Bailout and how the Vice Presidents address this matter in their debate.

Enough hyperbole for now…the following items reflect my assessment of how Senator’s McCain and Obama performed tonight:

• Obama Debate Objectives: The Obama campaign hoped to alleviate concerns over the inexperience factor and assuage concerns that he may be a risky vote. The campaign wanted to frame their candidate as a forward thinker. The goal was to link McCain to the past, and to inextricably paint McCain as being synonymous with the policies and positions of the Bush administration.  
• Obama Positives: Senator Obama is clearly a better orator than Senator McCain. He is more articulate and to the point than Senator McCain. In general he is also more reserved and composed behind the podium than is his counterpart. He was well coached and well prepared.
• Obama Position Analysis: Put simply…poor execution and flawed positions. Form over substance. 
  • Poor Execution: Even given his oratory gifts, Senator Obama seemed to display a lack of passion, and just seemed not to be completely engaged. There is a hint of arrogance that is ever present with Senator Obama, and tonight’s debate was no exception. Constantly agreeing with Senator McCain’s positions on one hand (”I agree John”), while calling Senator McCain a liar on the other hand (”That’s simply not true John”) was just not believable.  
  • The Economy: Anyone who believes we can navigate a fragile economy by increasing government spending by nearly 1 Trillion dollars, while simultaneously increasing taxes is simply not thinking clearly. Lobbying for interests of the middle class is a great thing assuming your positions don’t eviscerate them in the process. You cannot protect the middle class by increasing the taxes on the companies who provide their employment. His liberal voting record, history of accepting earmarks, and not being able to mention a single thing he would do to ease the burden of the Bailout was very telling as well.
  • Foreign Policy: Obama was called on the carpet and soundly thrashed for his lack of judgment and flawed positions on foreign policy. His inexperience, willingness to negotiate with state sponsors of terrorism without precondition, his inability to admit his wrong position on the surge, his misunderstanding of Afghanistan and Pakistan, his complete misrepresentation on his stance on the Georgian conflict, and his desire to withdraw from Iraq based upon a time period certain as opposed to a outcome certain, were all indicative of his non-preparedness to lead.       
• McCain Debate Objectives: The McCain campaign’s objectives were to show Senator McCain as a maverick, a reformer, and a proven leader. It was important for them to frame their candidate as not being too closely tied to the current Republican administration, as well as to show him to be in touch, forward thinking, and not stuck in the past.
• McCain Positives: While clearly not the orator than Senator Obama is, and despite some awkward delivery at times, Senator McCain did a better job of staying on point. He was not only more passionate than his counterpart, but he drove home is points much more aggressively. His experience and leadership clearly came through in his command of the subject matter. He was adept at rebutting coached lines with experiential anecdotes.
• McCain Position Analysis: Put simply…better execution and better positions. Substance over form.
  • Great Execution: McCain accomplished virtually all of the campaign’s debate objectives. He clearly drove home that he works across party lines, is not “Miss Congeniality,” is a reformer, and has a long track record of making the right decisions in times of crisis. He took great and bold exception with Senator Obama’s positions, and left the more polished and refined Senator from Illinois sneering and stammering.
  • The Economy: When asked what he would do about the bailout, he offered up a concrete example (something Obama could not do) of implementing a spending freeze. He displayed a better understanding of macro economics recognizing the need for tax cuts and a smaller government to offset the burden of a Bailout. Senator McCain understands that business must thrive for the middle class to prosper. He advocated for strong government reform with a track record to back it up.
  • Foreign Policy: McCain demonstrated clear foreign policy superiority. His long track record of experience as a soldier and leader were clearly evident. From his opposition of previous ill-conceived military conflicts, his support on the surge, his already established worldwide reputation with current world leaders, his firm stance on state sponsors of terror, his support of our allies, and his desire to bring our troops home for the right reasons, were all indicative of Senator McCain’s perparedness to lead. 

When all is said and done, and while I believe my analysis to be accurate, it also clearly affirms the position espoused in the second paragraph of this post…Republicans are likely to support their party’s candidate and positions as being correct, as are the Democrats.