Debating the analysis.

Okay, the first debate is over and both sides are claiming victory.  My experience, however, is first debates are not real deciders for the undecided.  Undecided voters are mostly people who are disinclined to research candidates and looking for reasons to vote for one or the other.  They are not, however, looking equally at both candidates, rather they have already ruled out the one they won’t vote for, but are still dissatisfied with the option remaining open to them.  About a third of these won’t vote in any case.  Normally, most undecideds will fall in the Democrat column unless their guy does something to really blow it (conservative undecideds using non-commitment to extract last-minute policy concessions, liberal undecideds holding out for that "pure" candidate).

This election cycle is unusual in that there are a great many right-leaning independents also waiting to see if McCain will blow it.  There are relatively fewer than usual left-leaning independents (other than the Hillary factor) because, well, Obama is about as pure a socialist as they could hope for.  As for the Hillary factor, most of these who will defect already have and the rest will be decided by the Palin-Biden debate, not the McCain-Obama debates. As you read through this, keep in mind two things: a) the margin of undecided voters at this point is slim (7% of registered voters, usually this is much higher) and b) media polls tend to measure loyal readership opinion that spins the result leftward with a better than 6% margin of error.  Another intangible (unrelated to debates, per se) is the Bradley-Wilder Effect in which black candidates running against whites poll substantially better in pre-election opinion polls than actual vote counts.  Regardless of what this tells us of voters, none of these polls makes any account for the way actual elections operate with the real decision made by proxy electoral colleges (currently favoring Obama).  If broken down by state and county, we’d find the result of these debate polls mostly strengthen Obama’s lead in precincts he already owns, taking nothing away from McCain.  Taken together, all this makes the election (if held today) a toss up.  The other observation I would make about first debates is that both candidates are so hesitant to blow it, neither really commits and both come off rather stiff; and in this I have not been disappointed.   More interesting, then, than first debates, are post-debate analyses and exit-polls.  In case you missed the debate, you can read it here.

Most debate exit polls are made by the media rather than recognized polling agencies; and are, therefore, given to deliberately manipulating results.  Nonetheless, and after compensating for bias, they do give some idea what the audience takes from these debates.  A poll I took of polls gives the debate to Obama (USA Today 53:47, CNN 48:43, CNN Opinion Research Corp. 51:38, CBS News 39:24, Fox News 45:39, CBS News Knowledge Network 40:22).  The major pollsters keep daily tabs, making it possible to see at what point Obama took the lead back from McCain (Rasmussen Monday +0, Saturday +6, Gallup Thursday +0, Friday +3, Saturday +5, GWU Battleground Obama -2, Marist Wednesday +4, Saturday +4).  Zogby on Thursday had McCain at 46:44, but has yet to post since the debate.  If the Fox News running poll is any indication, all this means is the exit polls gave Obama a brief respite.

The real damage to McCain, then, is coming from the financial crisis, which many automatically associate with Republicans without any prompting from debates (though media spin probably makes a McCain effort at correcting the bias impossible).  The McCain decision to go to Washington when he did, then, makes sense as it showcases reality versus the myth in a way McCain could never have gotten across in debates alone.  Don’t think I am suggesting the move was in any way phony; it simply made McCain’s decision to take the risk easier in his mind believing voters would make the right allowance for him bowing out.  He’d have been stupid not to have made some calculation, and stupid is not what we look for in a President.  The question this leaves us is, if McCain’s numbers are still this bad despite doing the right thing, did he make the wrong political choice in going?  After all, his own party opposed him going.  This may be the wrong question, however.  For McCain there was never any question he had to go (duty called), only how to contain the damage it inflicts on his campaign.  Had McCain stuck to his decision to remain in Washington, the media would have had a field day accusing him of dodging the debate.  Had he not gone to Washington at all, they’d be accusing him of indifference to the plight of his constituency (middle-class pensioners) and hypocrisy regarding his claim he’s a middle-class warrior, while carefully avoiding all mention of Obamian indifference.  Had he done the politically expedient thing (given the way the debate and exit polls went; see analyses below) his numbers would be even more in the tank than had he ignored the crisis along with Obama.  Some, though not all voters, appreciate the very real risk McCain took; with or without calculating fallout.

More interesting for me than the polls and media spin, are the analyses of the debate made by various pundits, both right and left.  I will present the way the Left perceives the debate first before giving you the more varied analysis on the Right.  What I would draw attention to is the difference in criteria used by Right and Left in deciding which candidate scored better.  Where the left-media and readers are concerned with polls and who scored more and better hits on his opponent, the right-media and readership are more impressed by delivered substance.  Both are guilty of bias in projecting a winner, but the Left has more actual data (however cooked) to back their claim that the debate boosted Obama’s numbers.  The Right is depending on voters soaking in the substance of these debates as we get closer to the actual election (an assumption of voter behavior that may be unrealistic).

Post debate analyses:

Perhaps the most honest and oddest liberal assessment comes from an old-media reporter, Joel Siegel, who asserts: no winner, no change, and no comment.  Siegel does no more than report the comments of others, yet seems reluctant to make observations of his own.  The thing I find odd is I understood ABC’s Joel Siegel to have been a film critic who died last year.  Have they found another Joel Siegel to take his place or did they prop him up in his coffin for what they felt best handled as an entertainment event?  It would explain the "no comment."

CQ Politics’ Jonathan Allen declares McCain won it on foreign policy, but Obama won it on fiscal policy (debatable, but perception can be everything in an election).  This is a recurring observation made by Obama supporters.

Brookings Institute's Darrell West gives a picture of the debate more fantasy than fact.  He has Obama boldly and decisively outlining a plan for economic recovery (was he listening to the same Obama the rest of us heard), and depicts McCain as timidly deferential to Obama regarding the bailout, recovery, and taxes.  He then gives McCain some points on the foreign policy half of the debate but never quite concedes McCain made any points of substance.  He declares the debate a draw, with Obama winning on substance.

Jim Rutenberg discusses post-debate spin and how to make this an Obama win rather than analyzing the debate.  New York Times writers Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny focus on stylistic differences, the age of candidates, gaffs, and personality traits.  More substantive but far less balanced is the analysis by NYT’s editor (name withheld).  It begins with how the timing (financial crisis) works to Obama’s advantage, but neglects to show us how (maybe because Obama failed to follow up on it?).  Similarly, it alludes to differences between candidates, but then drops this point to avoid drawing attention to an obvious Obama handicap (inexperience).  It draws considerable attention to McCain’s "negativity" in attacking Obama’s inexperience, but then fails to balance it with Obama’s equal negativity pinning McCain to Bush.  Going on, it calls McCain’s experience a "tinney" (passé) echo of the 20th century (suggesting McCain’s references will be lost on young voters), the McCain rush to Washington as ludicrous grandstanding, claims Obama won on the economy part of the debate hands-down (as though McCain had not effectively deflected Obama’s criticisms on this topic and scored some of his own), characterized McCain dismissively as having "stuck to talking points" (as if McCain made no points at least as substantive as Obama), and as having "learned nothing from the disastrous war in Iraq."  This childish and churlish critique by the editor of the largest newspaper in the world is far more instructive of what little the New York Times has learned from Iraq in five years than McCain, who was the first and foremost in urging a Surge that snatched victory out the jaws of a media bent on defeat; and how far they still go in spinning a debate to maintain that illusion.

Somewhere between left and right (in an imaginary plane all its own) are the big-L Libertarians.  Cato Institute makes no mention of the debate, so I am forced to draw from the only credible Libertarian source remaining, Reason Magazine; and the only editor posting an analysis there is Jesse Walker.  Walker clearly preferred Obama even before the debate, so I must lump him in with liberals as to bias.  Otherwise both Reason and LP.org are reporting Bob Barr’s debate with himself in the basement studio at the LP’s DC headquarters held the same night and soon to be distributed over the Internet (stay tuned).  Walker’s analysis (if we can call it that) consists of four sentences: “Both of these guys are full of [expletive deleted] . . . my reaction was Obama is a mixed bag. McCain is a trigger-happy lunatic. I guess I prefer Obama. I'm still trying to figure out how McCain thinks he can reconcile his fiscally conservative rhetoric with the aggressive and expensive foreign policy he prefers.”  The rest of the piece is a critique of McCain and Obama outside the debate, and a critique of the NRO analysis of Amy Holmes.  He then declares a winner – Jim Lehrer.

Further right, the Washington Times also calls the debate a draw with no significant voter shift, though with a bit more commentary.

For greater depth I take you to National Review Online (NRO) where a number of regulars collaborated to give us real analysis of what was and was not said.   The NRO editors believe McCain kept Obama on the ropes most of the evening (barely) and bloodied him regarding the Surge and his approach to rogue states.  Byron York believes Obama conceded point after point and gives McCain a technical win.  Unfortunately, this fails to credit Obama with bringing up root causes, putting McCain momentarily on the defense (recovered).  Though Byron is correct this was a technical win for McCain, it was no knockout and to Obama-leaning voters may still look like he handled the attack well (which may be all they are looking for after earlier mistakes).   More damaging to Obama is his frequent admission, “McCain is absolutely right . . ..”  Though certainly a tactical error, it is an error Obama is unlikely to repeat; which may be more important as we get closer to the election.  Unfortunately, McCain does not control the media choice of when to give him such openings.

NRO’s John Pitney remarks what McCain should and should not have said.  He gives McCain points on demeanor, but says his references to “Miss Congeniality” may have actually backfired (i.e., draws attention to choice of Palin more than McCain the combative maverick).  Pitney further says McCain was remiss in not laying the financial crisis at the feet of Congressional Democrats and the Democrat head of Fannie-Mae (where it belongs), did not point out Obama’s record of broken promises should make taxpayers wary (unlikely to carry through on tax cuts for 95% of us), did not draw attention to Obama’s double flip on the war (against/for/against) in 2002/03, missed a golden opportunity to mention Obama and his running mate differ on coal-fired plants, and did not point out Biden was not the first to support solar (as alleged and having missed that window by some 20-years) when Obama gave him that opening.

Jay Nordlinger points out the debate left an erroneous impression of two moderates (center-right, center-left), whereas the reality is one centrist, one radical (ACORN, Ayers, Wright, Davis, etc).  He further alleges Lehrer took advantage of the financial crisis by tying it to a debate on foreign policy and security as a means of reducing Obama’s foreign-policy/security exposure.  Obama’s deft avoidance of the bipartisanship angle (pinned the crisis on Republicans) was effective even if contrived (now up to McCain to dispel).  He further gives Obama points for style, the masterly baritone and a dignified presentation.  He rates Obama’s use of clichés, however, as bunk even if effective bunk.  He further states that McCain fumbled the point regarding House Republicans, needs to work on his laugh (Obama’s is better), and credits Obama with the better tie.  He credits the McCain message as more positive than Obama’s, which dwells far too much on failures.

Felzenburger and Mona Charen both opined Obama was in awe of McCain.  Felzenburger says this caused Obama to falter making his Bush-McCain comparison.  The rest of his piece makes some wishful assertions of a McCain victory.  Charen thinks Obama’s reserve was due more to something unapparent in the debate, the Obama radical past which, given a suitable opening, would give McCain a devastating opportunity (McCain is still too much the gentleman to bring it up himself).  Felzenburger may be too enamored of McCain and in awe of him himself to see McCain’s mistakes or Obama’s success in dodging this particular bullet.

Michelle Malkin provides us with, perhaps, the most interesting approach to scoring, if not exactly analysis.  Her formula: take a swig of your favorite alcoholic beverage each time Obama utters “uh” or McCain says “bipartisan.”  If you can put a conservative and liberal in the same room, I’d make this more interesting by having the conservative take his swig on the Obamian “uh” and the liberal on the McCain “bipartisan,” then see gets plastered first.  It might still result in a split-decision, but the analysis would be more colorful and honest by the end of the evening.