: Make no mistakes…
I offered my pre-debate criticism here and here. Now let’s consider what the rules mean for candidates and citizens.
I think it’s clear (i.e. you sure don’t need no Ph.D. to figger it out) that the rules were established to ensure that we hear little more than the spin of campaign sound bites.
But this creates a danger for both candidates. These rules will magnify any error or any aggressive attack that fails to stick. Any off-message (i.e. unscripted) slip will be glaringly highlighted compared to the balance of the discourse. The candidate who makes a mistake will be forced to retreat to well-worn spin to cover it up. But this simply make him look like a weasel.
So it appears to me that the key to “winning” is to stay on message, introduce new messages or attacks carefully, and don’t make even a single mistake as you lob one sound bite after another. These debates will look like a tennis match between two pushers.
What do I mean by “winning”? Since these are not debates except by connotation, there is no way to assess a win outside of subjective judgement based on pathetic appeal, i.e. who we like after watching a dramatic performance rather than who we believe after considering a rational discussion. This is not necessarily a bad thing as long as nothing interrupts your emotional experience with partisan interpretation.
The debates will not be won during the event. The debates will be won or lost in the pre- and post-debate commentary and the spin that drives it. A real debate can be judged by any number of criteria. A platform for the joint dissemination of spin points can hardly be called a competition at all except against one’s self–sort of like those two pushers simply trying not to make a mistake while waiting out the opponent.
This situation leaves citizens open to spin about who “won” and why. The debate will be pure pathos, but the post-debate spin will attempt to sell a winner (falsely) on a balance of appeals (ethos, pathos, and logos). The only way to mitigate the influence of the spin is for citizens not to watch it. Watch the debates, then turn off the spin.
Notice also, please, that as with the conventions, ‘winning’ is aimed at the elections, not at the next week. In a way, Senator Kerry’s best result is to enrage Bush supporters, slightly annoy hard-core Dems, and impress wavering Ohioans. Which is what he did at the convention.
The whole idea that there will be a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’ the next morning is preposterous: the two candidates have different goals, only slightly in conflict. However, if the wavering Ohioan (played by John Barrymore) somehow becomes convinced, after the fact, that one or the other ‘won’ the debate, that will color his memory of the event itself, which is already pretty iffy since he didn’t watch it, and was drunk besides.
,
-V.
If the key to winning is staying “on message,” then you could probably predict a win for Bush, who is well versed in that aspect of these televised pony shows. Kerry has his work cut out for him.
John Barrymore was infamous for his problem with alchohol.
V- I agree that the concpet of “win” is complex in this situation.
And spin is where the Bush machine is at their best. It works because of the generalist assertions devoid of details. To Bush any convoluted sylogism can and has worked.