If you are looking for a homerun, tune in Thursday for the next round of the MLB playoffs. The hype for tonight's debate paints a cornered McCain needing to go negative. The storyline has more to do with the need to build excitement (ratings) than tonight's debate realities.
There are good reasons to expect a civil, moderately benign debate. (Then again, making predictions in this most unusual election cycle is a risking business.)
Why `Going Ballistic' Won't Happen:
1) The Town Hall Format requires a more hushed presence. The simple reality of standing next to your opponent obliges decorum. Voters do not assess just issues or character, they also judge the way candidates interact, how they treat each other. Politeness and respect matter--every viewer, after all, holds a lifetime of norms they apply.
And the room is not just shared with an opponent; the candidates must also interact with the live questioners. These folks represent the American people, and it's more than a cliché to "feel their pain."
Empathy and flattery are required. Each candidate has spent years trying to connect, why throw it away in a moment of angst.
2) McCain cannot count of Obama responding inelegantly. Obama may be too cool, even aloof, but he makes few mistakes. Why expect one now? Obama's passion is measured, apparent; he is no Michael Dukakis. His temperament seems deeply dispositional, unlikely ruffled.
A solitary irritated person would stand out. And with a narrative of McCain's anger just below the media radar, the risk of going negative seems immense.
3) This next point appears contradictory, yet an attacking McCain would expect pushback. The first McCain/Obama debate illustrated that "mild mannered" Obama responds when pressed.
Attacks about politically ambiguous connections are combustible in a live venue. Who knows where it might go; Ayers beget Keating, Palestinian contributors beget lobbyists, Rev. Wright begets exorcising witchcraft. Stridency is best before friendly crowds and detached political ads.
Yesterday in Albuquerque, McCain asked voters "Who is the real Barack Obama?'' Albeit possible, the question would be odd when he is within touching distance, sharing the "presidential stage."
4) Media storylines constrain debaters. News and editorialist have enjoyed a two days orgy lamenting the negative state of the campaign (a routine ritual every cycle). These stories disadvantage McCain, a homily of how low will he go.
In this environment an antagonistic McCain would serve the post-debate spin on a platter.
Predicting a Winner
Who will win the debate is impossible to predict. They are, after all, live dynamic events. Yet the lesson from the first two debates is that ties "go to the runner." Both candidates' performances are probable respectful and competent. This leaves Obama the victor.
Even a tie is problematic for McCain. The day after the Mississippi and Missouri debates pundits scored a tie, and with amazing consensus. Yet subsequent polling showed an Obama/Biden advantage, sanctioning a media shift to record Democratic wins.
Instant polls mirror, in part, viewer's predispositions and concerns about the greater environment. The Obama campaign, trending with demographic and issue advantage, also enjoys a polling bias. .
Additionally, second debates do not carry the punch of the first and last. Anyone remember the Bush/Kerry debate from Washington University in St. Louis four year's ago?
Stay Tuned
Of course, fireworks are possible. Maybe we watch debate not just to fulfill our civic duty or being part of history, but as the NASCAR fan, waiting for the wreck.
Town Hall debates are typically safe. There have been five in the presidential arena, most remembered for looking at a watch or sauntering up an opponent. Pitfalls can happen.
The Nashville audience are handpicked with questions screened, not allowing substitutions, yet when an errant "real voter" challenges a candidate it can disrupt the proceedings. In 1992 a female audience member asked H. W. Bush how "the national debt affected his personal life" and he never fully recovered. A voter-candidate intersect can cement an existing plot line in ways "more true" than other venues.
Do Spots Preview the debate?
New political ads are appearing at a heretofore unthinkable rate--2-4/day, and are increasingly strident. The media has interpreted this as a turn in the campaign, a "trend" that will surely infect the debate.
In the primary debates Hillary's "3 AM" spot did not signal an unsavory Texas debate. Nonetheless the advertising may foreshadow the themes the debaters may bring to the debate.
In the last two days Obama is hitting harder on economic issues, with health care leading the way. Yesterday he aired "Coin" with buys in "key states."
McCain lead yesterday was an ad co-sponsored by the National Republican Committee and his campaign--"Dangerous." The tone-announcer and music--overwhelm a potentially telling message with an ominous dark edge.
Don't be fooled that only McCain has gone negative. The Obama campaign posted a thirteen minute documentary style film purporting to expose "Keating Economics: John McCain & the Making of a Financial Crisis." The reel is as much a message about a willingness to push back again changes like for Weatherman Bill Ayers.
