Saturday Night Live parodies have become so integrated with "understanding" what presidential debates mean that I told a class Thursday morning that the VP debate should be a good warm up for SNL. With the Tina Fey character defining for millions Governor Sarah Palin, one could hardly wait for Saturday.
The SNL live skit has become an instant hit. All the major news organizations files stories, cut were on 24/7s nearly 24/7. NBC.com's SNL site had 1,300,000 views on Sunday night, The skit was the "Most popular" video on Hulu.com, and who know how many viewed YouTube and scores of other sources. Comedy has impact.
Some GOP strategists have complained, but my memory is Democratic strategist were not too fond of Al Gore's "Lockbox" debate in 2000 or John Kerry's sighs in 2004. And Dana Carvey's H.W Bush is a cultural icon. Political humor seeks out opportunity.
This episode is a success largely due to heightened interest in the Palin candidacy and Tina Fey's uncanny parallel performance. The skits humor works, for both Biden and Palin. by mining hypocrisies that abound in the debate and the general election fabric.
Ross Smith (debatescoop.org founder) appeared, from a studio in Lexington Kentucky, on Fox & Friends the morning after the Palin/Biden VP Debate offering his commentary.
Spots and web ads are fast becoming an obligatory aspect of post -debate spin. The McCain and Obama camps produced spots following the Mississippi debate. The practice was refined in the primary debate with both positive,negative, and neutral effects.
It is not clear that given the blizzard of post debate spin and coverage for presidential debates these entries accomplish much.
VP Spot Spin
McCain's entry, again out before sunrise--"Lies and Sighs" frames VP debate- Joe Biden, "Ready to exaggerate, not ready to lead."
Obama's effort is readied for the morning blogs--"Can't Explain"-emphasizes not their opponent, but an issue. Quoting Biden tiered quip - "Taxing your health care benefit, I call that the ultimate bridge to nowhere"
Below the fold: Pre-debate spots and more post-debate video rebuttals
I watch the debate in the company of a dozen informed and animated graduate students, who transformed seamlessly into a lively focus group at the debates end. I asked a simple question, what is tomorrows headline from the Vice Presidential Debate, releasing a dynamic discussion.
Their Headline: Both candidates had a successful performance, skillfully positioning themselves and their sponsors. They got it right, previewing a consensus developing in the media.
Biden's command of issues donated gravitas and passion to his "principle." Palin dignified her standard-bearer's maverick moniker with an energy that humanized his grumpy old man.
Both exceeded expectations, avoided predicted gaffes, and reached vital segments of the American electorate. The contrast of philosophies was often stark, more plainly displayed than in Obama and McCain's debate.
The tone was respectful, yet they did not play bean-bag politics. We witnessed fierce advocates who seemed genuinely pleased to make the others acquaintance.
Sarah Palin Performed
Sarah was Sarah. Sprinkled in homespun Alaska, her staging was primarily sober; most comfortable when discussing her expertise - energy and executive experience.
Party faithful were charmed, not just relieved there were no clueless moments, but because she displayed genuine political acumen, at least four times directly channeling Ronald Reagan's language.
Palin was the consummate outsider, exposing political double-talk, intensifying maverick McCain.
Quick read - late night version: Wow - this was, or at least seemed like, a fast paced, almost frantic debate. Although I initially thought that the words per minute would be substantially greater in this 90 minutes than in the 90 minutes of the first presidential debate, it turns out that we heard only about 600 more words from the VP debate.
Joe Biden was superb, turning in a debate performance for the ages. Given the dangers that lurked for him in this debate, this is no understatement. Sarah Palin prevented calamity or as former Bush administration official, Matthew Dowd put it, she "survived" the "death spiral." So who won?
Welcome to the 2008 Vice Presidential Debate. Join us below the fold for a real time discussion from coaches, students, and guests!
If you do not have an account, register for free. In the top right hand corner of this page, click "Create an Account" and follow the directions. You'll need to verify your account by checking your email.
Once you do, join us in the liveblog of tonight's debate by clicking on "Permalink :: Read More... " at the bottom of this post. Then, just submit a comment or reply to one.
Live from the St. Louis Athletic Complex at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, the one and only vice presidential debate between Sen. Joe Biden from Delaware and Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. The debate tips off at 9:00 pm (EST) and will be moderated by Gwen Ifill of PBS.
This will be the fifth consecutive presidential election cycle that Washington University will play host to the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). With such a commitment to debate, one wonders why they don't have an intercollegiate policy debate team!
Below the fold, join me for a few thoughts on what to look for.
Barack Obama should replace Senator Joe Biden with Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. He would appeal to the West and bring credibility on Energy, one of American top issues.
You may be saying, "Who?" How can someone I've have never heard of be seriously considered. Montana? You got to be kidding.
Of course, I'm not serious, but for months many in the political establishment seriously entertained an Obama/Schweitzer ticket. One liberal blog reported "Brian Schweitzer is among the names mentioned most often as a possibility for the vice presidential slot on an Obama ticket," and he was.
His popularity garnered a prime Denver convention spot and a pending invitation for Democratic Senator Tom Harkin's (Iowa) "steak fry," a sign of arrival in party politics. In 2005 the lead-guest was John Edwards, followed a year later, Barack Obama.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Schweitzer is ready to be President.* But the seriousness of his consideration was seldom questioned in the press. The New York Times ran an extended Schweitzer feature in their Sunday magazine and published his editorial on the future of energy policy.
I raise the Schweitzer comparison not to diminish the serious demands that Palin demonstrate nominal expertise to be president, but expectation may create an unfair playing field. Her experience quotient has been situated so low as to become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Any hint that she has a knowledge deficit will be a big-hit gaffe, satisfying the prevailing narrative.
Expectations for Schweitzer and Palin after the fold
Debate prep is far from glamorous; in fact, it's downright unpleasant much of the time. Stress is intentional, making the candidates deal with questions and opponents often rougher than when cameras roll.
Yet there is also humor, inside jokes, and flashes of "confidence building." Mike Murphy, McCain's 2000 strategist, offers an amusing account of debate prep in his Time Magazinee column.
It is vital that your candidate not hear your opponent's answers for the first time onstage, since that will often lead to panic if a candidate feels the opponent's answer is far better than his or her own. Hmmm. Great answer. I've got nothing like that. I'm a loser. I'm going to lose this debate. In high school, Belinda would have wanted to go to the prom with him, not me. Anger. MUST ... ATTACK ... NOW!!! At that point something very bad usually happens.
After the fold - "The Perfect Line" - stories from the 2002 Dole Campaign- preview of Palin/Biden?
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.
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.
There will be hundreds of previews for Thursday's VP debate, most wondering how to make Joe Biden less effusive and Sarah Palin appear less vacuous. Many reviews will speculate on the prerequisites for being a heartbeat-away.
Newsweek's Howard Fineman, interviews Democrat Bob Shrum (prepped John Kerry in 2004) and Republican Stuart Stevens (adviser for Cheney), providing a more substantive entry into the hype sweepstakes.
My takeaway is that the VP debates need a theme reflecting themselves, and that their primary job is to not talk about themselves, but become the salesman for the top of the ticket. In this sense, Palin and Biden's task is an easier one, celebrating someone else is usually simpler than bragging about yourself.
Variety's comments are just out, not meant as shameless self-promotion - smile.
