When "Expectations Games" Go Wrong
One of the reasons we started this blog was a sense that, when it came to debates, the common wisdom of political pundits was uninformed by actual expertise in argumentation, debating, and political communication. Still, quite often, the common wisdom of mainstream punditry is informative. But when it comes to the lead up to Thursday's VP debate between Biden and Palin, the use of the "expectations" meme by pundits far and wide can most charitably be called confused.
The confusion arises because pundits are lumping every one of Palin's perceived traits into one category. Knowledge, fluency, experience, character and temperament are all being treated as one. But when it comes to the role of the expectations game in debates, the game plays much differently in two cases: 1) low expectations for debate performance; 2) low expectations of qualifications for the office.
Yes, one's debate performance can be sign evidence of qualifications for office. But evidence of lack of qualification for office cannot be overcome by glib debating and poor debating cannot, of itself, constitute definitive evidence that one is unqualified for office.
Voters will forgive someone who does not debate as well as their opponent if those voters believe the performance is "just" a slight debating deficiency. Most people have a fear of speaking in public and empathize with less than perfect debating. Campaigns and pundits can play the expectations game so that people are pleasantly surprised when someone they heard was not a great debater does a serviceable job in a debate. They beat expectations.
But how do you beat expectations when the word on the street and YouTube is that you were a good debater on Alaskan issues but do not have the requisite knowledge of national economic issues, foreign policy, and constitutional (remember that thing in the oath that you swear to uphold and defend?) law?
Past is not prologue here. Past expectations games have involved at least a basic agreement (and certainly not widespread suspicion) on the part of the voters that the candidates meet the minimum qualifications for office. Dan Quayle comes closest, but he was actually conversant on federal issues and was a senator. Pressed three times in his debate on his experience, he finally flubbed it by comparing himself to Jack Kennedy. But Bentsen's, "You're no Jack Kennedy," is a tame charge compared to that being leveled against Sarah Palin.
"You're no Dan Quayle," is not a line Biden need utter. After the embarrassing Couric and Gibson interviews of her, the lack of press conferences, and growing doubts in the minds of all but the most partisan voters about her basic qualifications, Gwen Ifill, the American voter, and the angry media (both left and right) will be looking for evidence that Palin is unqualified. George Stephanopoulos agrees that Palin has next to no margin for error.
Sarah Palin cannot afford an instance like either of her worst Couric answers (on Russia and on the economy, the latter used almost verbatim as a comedy sketch on SNL).
Usually, when expectations are low, low on debating skill, people look for one or two instances that disconfirm that expectation. Bush 43 "exceeded" expectations. But when people suspect fundamental lack of qualifications for the office, just one or two examples will suffice to heighten or confirm suspicions.
We're in new territory. We don't even know that any voter cares about Sarah Palin's ability to debate. We do know that voters and the media question her qualifications to be in the debate at all. The lower the expectation on that score, the tougher it will be for her to win the expectations game.
Update [2008-9-30 1:33:37 by Ross Smith]: This NYT article shares the theme of my post with regard to rising concerns about Palin's readiness, but buys into much of the expectations game meme.
Permalink :: Discuss...
: palin, debate, debates, 2008 vice presidential debate
When "Expectations Games" Go Wrong
One of the reasons we started this blog was a sense that, when it came to debates, the common wisdom of political pundits was uninformed by actual expertise in argumentation, debating, and political communication. Still, quite often, the common wisdom of mainstream punditry is informative. But when it comes to the lead up to Thursday's VP debate between Biden and Palin, the use of the "expectations" meme by pundits far and wide can most charitably be called confused.
The confusion arises because pundits are lumping every one of Palin's perceived traits into one category. Knowledge, fluency, experience, character and temperament are all being treated as one. But when it comes to the role of the expectations game in debates, the game plays much differently in two cases: 1) low expectations for debate performance; 2) low expectations of qualifications for the office.
Yes, one's debate performance can be sign evidence of qualifications for office. But evidence of lack of qualification for office cannot be overcome by glib debating and poor debating cannot, of itself, constitute definitive evidence that one is unqualified for office.
Voters will forgive someone who does not debate as well as their opponent if those voters believe the performance is "just" a slight debating deficiency. Most people have a fear of speaking in public and empathize with less than perfect debating. Campaigns and pundits can play the expectations game so that people are pleasantly surprised when someone they heard was not a great debater does a serviceable job in a debate. They beat expectations.
But how do you beat expectations when the word on the street is that you were a good debater on Alaskan issues but do not have the requisite knowledge of national economic issues, foreign policy, and constitutional (remember that thing in the oath that you swear to uphold and defend?) law.
Past is not prologue here. Past expectations games have involved at least a basic agreement (and certainly not widespread suspicion) on the part of the voters that the candidates meet the minimum qualifications for office. Dan Quayle comes closest, but he was actually conversant on federal issues and was a senator. Pressed three times in his debate on his experience, he finally flubbed it by comparing himself to Jack Kennedy. But Bentsen's, "You're no Jack Kennedy," is a tame charge compared to that being leveled against Sarah Palin.
"You're no Dan Quayle," is not a line Biden need utter. After the embarrassing Couric and Gibson interviews of her, the lack of press conferences, and growing doubts in the minds of voters about her basic qualifications, Gwen Ifill, the American voter, and the angry media (both left and right) will be looking for evidence that Palin is unqualified.
Sarah Palin cannot afford on instance like either of her worst Couric answers (on Russia and on the economy, the latter used almost verbatim as a comedy sketch on SNL).
Usually, when expectations are low, low on debating skill, people look for one or two instances that disconfirm that expectation. Bush 43 "exceeded" expectations. But when people suspect fundamental lack of qualifications for the office, just one or two examples will suffice to heighten or confirm suspicions.
We're in new territory. We don't even know that any voter cares about Sarah Palin's ability to debate. We do know that voters and the media question her qualifications to be in the debate at all. The lower the expectation on that score, the tougher it will be for her to win the expectations game.
Note: I use no links here because everything stated is the universal common wisdom and I cannot link to the entire universe of published stuff to prove the negative: no one has argued low expectations hurt Palin (until this post). If you have facts contrary to anything above, please use the comments and I will engage. I might edit later to add links. Sorry for any perceived lack of blog etiquette, but I assume our readers are well informed.
Permalink :: Discuss...
: Palin, 2008 vice presidential debate, debate, debates
