fling93 loves fishies

Quick Thoughts on the First Debate

Just some of my quick thoughts on the debate. I already know I’m voting for Tyler Cowen, but I wanted to watch to see if anything interesting happened. Per Dan Drezner, The Washington Post has a full transcript.

I think it was a clear win for Kerry, both on substance and on style, albeit a bigger edge on style. It’s unfortunate that image and style will probably make the bigger difference, but as that was supposed to be an advantage for Dubya, this is a very surprising turn. But Dubya just took way long to think, seemed to be on the defensive, and did not look poised, once having a complete deer in headlights look after Kerry talked of the President’s plan merely being “more of the same.” He was also very, very repetitive (the wife remarks it’d be a good drinking game to do a shot every time he said “hard work”). He also looked a little too disturbed in the reaction shots to Kerry’s points, and seemed like he was often trying to interrupt Kerry, which gave the impression that he was worried about the damage being done (kinda like in A Few Good Men when Demi Moore idiotically says, “I strenuously object!”).

It was amazing to see the visible “click” as Dubya went from fumbling for words into smoothly reading through his talking points, which were the only times he looked comfortable. And I was surprised at what he chose to repeat. I understand what he was trying to reinforce Kerry’s “flip-flopper” image when he kept bringing up “mixed message,” but it didn’t seem very wise to keep saying, “And if I were to ever say, ‘This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place,’ the troops would wonder, how can I follow this guy?” That’s a defensive point, and the repetition of the word, “wrong” is going to be what sticks. He should have been saying, “It was the right war, at the right time and the right place.” As it was, it instead gave me the impression that he wasn’t really sure whether it was the right war, but that he couldn’t tell the troops that because it’s too late, and the damage has been done. Now, I seriously doubt that’s what he thinks, but suffice to say that it can’t have been the impression he was trying to make. But maybe that was just how it looked to me. But certainly, it’s a complete non-response to the point that maybe it was the wrong war. After all, should we still have kept fighting in Vietnam to save face?

In contrast, Kerry looked composed and in command of the issues. He didn’t take forever to get to the point, as he has in past interviews, but was relatively direct. He got in the best lines of the night, like, “I made a mistake in how I talked about the war. Dubya made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?” and the point about Dubya outsourcing our chase of Bin Laden to the Afghan warlords. He was also repetitive, but much less so (I don’t think he ever said anything more than twice). And he squeezed in a lot of the points that he needed to make, like that Dubya has also changed his mind on issues, that Iraq took resources away from the hunt for Bin Laden, that Saddam Hussein wasn’t the one who attacked us, that there was a lack of post-war planning (and mentioning General Shinseki), that the U.S. has lost credibility in the world, and that certainty can get you into trouble if you are wrong.

Dubya, on the other hand, seemed stuck on the “flip-flop” attack, and then defending the problems in Iraq because it was “hard work.” And he seemed to dodge most of the points that Kerry made. In particular is a point that I’ve made myself in the past on the Motley Fool when discussing the war on Iraq. Namely, that proliferation experts are a lot more concerned about the insecurity of the stocks of the former Soviet Union than about a rogue nation developing nuclear weapons. For a terrorist to get nukes, a lot more things have to go right for them to be able to obtain them from a rogue nation. First of all, the nation has to develop the nukes in the first place (unless you’re talking about North Korea). And then the terrorists need to be able to make it worth the rogue nation’s while to give them the nukes. The nukes themselves are worth a lot, but more importantly, such an exchange risks provoking a U.S. invasion, should it be found out. It’d be much easier for terrorists to merely steal them from the unsecured stores of the former Soviet Union.

But after Kerry named those unsecured stores as the number one security threat, Dubya dodged the issue, talking about tangential topics like Libya. This is not too surprising, since I don’t recall Dubya ever discussing this issue in the last four years, let alone setting it as our highest priority. It also seemed to me that Dubya dodged the point Kerry made about how North Korea developed nukes after Dubya stopped talking to them. Dubya kept harping on the six-nation talks instead of bilateral talks, totally ignoring the point Kerry made about how North Korea happily went off and built nuclear weapons while Dubya was waiting around for China. It’s not clear to me whether bilateral talks would’ve been any better than multi-lateral talks, but it’s pretty obvious that bilateral talks are better than no talks at all for two years while North Korea is off building nukes (especially since you can use the bilateral talks to make the demand for resumption of multi-lateral talks). Which seemed to be the point Kerry was making, and it sure didn’t look good that Dubya evaded it.

Anyway, that’s just my quick thoughts on it. I haven’t had time to do any real research or fact-checking. And I’m not sure how big an effect it’ll have on the race, since I kinda doubt your Average Joe will get the same impressions that I do (or indeed, would have even bothered watching it in the first place). But I’d be very surprised if it doesn’t help Kerry and hurt Dubya.

Update

Updated to elaborate a bit on the above North Korea point. And for those harping on Kerry’s mentioning of providing nuclear fuel to Iran, obelus, a commentor at Winds of Change clarifies:

This is not a new initiative. Iran states they wish to develop nuclear technology for energy production. To do this they will need enriched uranium. Enriched uranium may be used in power reactors. Highly enriched uranium (weapons grade) can be used in bombs with more highly enriched nuclear cores producing greater destructive yields. By controlling and monitoring what nuclear materials a regime such as Iran’s possesses, we stand a greater chance of limiting their aims to produce destructive weapons. A country either has a broad program to enrich uranium, or it doesn’t. It is a very costly and deliberate process. By providing them uranium that is not useful for weapons but is compatible with energy production, it calls their bluff and any further monitoring that turns up evidence of an uranium enrichment process places them in default.

Emphasis mine. The debates were not a good forum to be explaining that, but it’s a valid point, and those who oversimplify the issue to use it as spin probably have a partisan agenda.

In addition, the polling so far seems to confirm my initial impression. Via Matt Yglesias, “Republicans think Bush won, Democrats think Kerry won, and Independents think Kerry won,” according to Democracy Corps. Via Electoral Vote Predictor, the American Research Group poll confirms that (as for myself, although I’m a registered Republican, I’m probably more accurately categorized as an Independent since I vote for Libertarian Party candidates far more often than Republicans).

But the most telling is the reaction of the two most nonpartisan conservative bloggers that I know of, Dan Drezner and Jane Galt, both of whom believe Kerry won the debate.

Both of them also live-blogged the debate, which makes for some interesting reading. Drezner’s conclusion:

After an awful start, I thought Kerry and Bush got stronger as the evening wore on. But Kerry got much stronger — his criticisms of Bush got sharper over time. Bush stuck to the message, stuck to his message, and stuck to his message.

Galt merely says, “Still, I think Kerry won overall. I expect to see some bounce in Kerry’s numbers tomorrow. Of course, it all depends on which clips make the news, doesn’t it?”

There’s another interesting data point from our next President, Tyler Cowen, who notes how the TradeSports market reacted in favor of Bush immediately after the debate, but then strongly towards Kerry after that (perhaps they watched The Daily Show), and then back to the way things were. Although realize that this is determined by bettors who are trying to figure out how the Average Joes will react, and not an actual reading of Average Joes themselves.

Update 10/04/04

Oh. My. Gawd. Fafblog has an absolutely hilarious example of post-debate spin! Do check it out.