The media, especially the TV media, need red meat to produce their election coverage stories. Since they are laughably bad at covering policy, the media (again, especially the TV media) usually stick to process stories, or horse-race coverage. Process stories are the ones about strategy, and who's running the campaign, and campaign missteps, etc. Horse-race coverage is all about who's up and who's down. Debates satisfy both of these categories. The media get to talk about who "won" the debate, and they get to talk about how that person managed to win it. Of course, they rarely discuss the actual policy differences between candidates, but that would be too much to ask for.
So last night's debate was important because of how it will contribute to the press narrative.
Clearly, the press are treating this as a "gloves come off" kind of moment. The story is about how the debate got personal, and how there was a tinge of anger and resentment. This probably plays to Senator Clinton's advantage. A lot of Barack Obama's support seems to come from people who are tired of traditional politics, with its personal attacks, and cynical backstabbing, etc. If it seems like Obama is getting drawn into that, then he might lose some appeal. On the other hand, one concern that many Democratic voters have about Obama is that his "post-partisan" rhetoric suggests he won't ever fight the good fight, and right now a lot of Democrats want someone who's willing to get in the trenches. So if Obama wants to prove he's tough enough to fight it out with his opponents. It's a tightrope.
All in all, without having watched the debate, I'd simply point out that one debate rarely has a measurable electoral impact. If, however, the next few weeks prove to be characterized by a much sharper tone, then this debate will be seen as the turning point.
2 comments:
A few questions:
Does Thompson's exit help Huckabee, (Huckabee blamed Thompson for taking votes away from him in SC) or Romney more? Huckabee is not going to be campaigning strongly in FL., so the conservatives there could swing towards Romney. Either way, is it safe to say Thompson's exit will surely hurt McCain?
On the other side, pretend Edwards dropped out today, or even say, after the SC primary. Who would that benefit more? Is he taking away some of Obama's "anti-Hilary" votes, or would his supporters tend to lean toward Clinton?
This comment is more about the press coverage than the debates themselves, following CP's line that this is what counts. Last week Jon Stewart on the Daily Show did a hilarious and dead-on piece about the media's herding mentality (which he has done before and which you, CP, don't know about b/c you don't have cable). He showed cllip after clip, going back more than a year, in which some media commenter or other said, literally "the gloves are off." Of course that is what the media, especially TV would like and, afraid to be out of step, they all say it, and say it, and say it.
The second point is that this all should be kept in perspective. The coverage of this already too long campaign is wall-to-wall. Every detail, every sigh and, yes, every tear, gets microscopic coverage. But what will it mean in the fall--an incredible 8 months from now! All of these candidates could and probably will come together and start the real campaign. It has happened often, when contenders drop out and then come back on as part of the ticket. Where else can they go? McCain could use Thompson (or even Huckabee if they want to give the Dems a present) and Hilary, if she gets the nomination could ask Obama to be VP. What a team!
If that is possible, then Obama is being smart not to pull out the knives now. This not only allows him to take the high road--such as it is--but keeps him avaialble to help the ticket in November. But even if he didn't and if there is real blood on the floor-say, before Super Tuesday--it will all fade away as they gather to try to bury the Republicans.
Ooooops, another prediction. The dangers of blogs.
Keep writing CP.
Yes, but
Post a Comment