Quick Takes on McCain-Obama Debate 3 (‘Turn Out the Lights, the Party’s Over’ Edition)
Okay, I admit it: Part of my indifference to tonight’s debate stems from the fact that I voted yesterday. Ohio, like twenty-nine other states, allows for early voting. It began here on October 6. I like voting early. No line. Walk up, show your identification, fill out two forms, vote, and walk home. So, in a way, for me the election campaign ended yesterday afternoon.
But there’s another reason I was indifferent to this evening’s debate. The fact is, this thing is over.
Back in 1972, Jack Newfield and Jeff Greenfield, two former aides to Robert Kennedy, wrote a whistling-in-the-dark tome called The Populist Manifesto. They looked at a Democratic Party torn asunder by civil rights and the war in Vietnam, two issues that destroyed the old coalition of working class whites and the nation’s African-Americans, and argued that people didn’t have to like each other to vote as a bloc. Economic self-interest, they said, should trump race to bring election to populist Democrats. If those groups came together, they argued, the Democratic Party would be unbeatable.
Barack Obama is not a populist. But thirty-six years after Greenfield and Newfield tried to revivify the traditional Democratic coalition, major voter fears about the economy under a Republican president are doing the job. Working class whites appear to be joining antiwar activists, African-Americans, Hispanics, and, in overwhelming numbers, women, in supporting Obama.
Exit polling among early voters indicate that Obama is winning big. With today’s grim reports on major economic indicators and the third quarter statements about to go to those who hold 401Ks and 403Bs, Obama’s victory margin is only going to grow. Although the financial crisis is nowhere nearly as severe as the economic calamity that confronted the country in 1932, Obama is likely to roll up a Rooseveltian Democratic victory this year.
So, tonight’s debate was anticlimactic, bordering on the unnecessary. Naturally enough, being a political junkie, I watched it.
Going into the debate, you knew that unless Obama committed a major misstep, there was no way he was going to “lose” this debate. He didn’t commit a major misstep.
Neither candidate covered any new ground tonight, something they both desperately needed to do. The two of them continue blithely mouthing their talking points, telling us about their respective spending and taxation priorities, each apparently unaware that, as a result of the recent economic rescue package, when they take office on January 20, they will have an additional $750-billion bill to pay. The bailout plan, like the war in Iraq, is apt to soak up any hint of discretionary revenue in a federal budget already awash in oceans of red ink.
The best line of the night, I thought, was McCain’s insistence that he was not President Bush and if Senator Obama wanted to run against the President, he should have done so four years ago. The problem, of course, is that McCain has spent so much of the past four-plus years ingratiating himself to the supporters of President Bush, it becomes difficult for him now to separate himself effectively from the President. John McCain was the only member of this year’s Republican field who had the ability to outperform the Republican brand and redefine the Republican identity in 2008, possibly winning in an election year even when all the conditions pointed to a Democratic victory, but an unknown entity, Obama, was his party’s nominee. Nobody seriously believes that John McCain would be the same sort of president as George W. Bush. But in a year of economic uncertainty and weariness with war, McCain’s shifts toward President Bush’s positions on a number of issues give plausibility to Obama’s claim that a vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of Bush.
[My personal blog is here.]
5 Responses to “Quick Takes on McCain-Obama Debate 3 (‘Turn Out the Lights, the Party’s Over’ Edition)”
Mark-
I agree with you about McCain's line about Bush— only he should have said it in the first debate- it might have helped him more. But ,altho he has been a leader in the Senate and has stood up to his party when he disagreed– he also voted with the president 90% of the time. These days — Bush is radioactive– so 90% is close enough.
I'm not sure any Republican could have won after 8 years of an unpopular and disasterous administration. Its hurting McCain that Palin only connects with conservatives and is turning off every one else. Most Americans have had enough of failed conservative theories and get that they seem to help the top 10% amass and retain wealth at the expense of the average American. The money never really trickles down– does it?
Obama is rich enough in campaign funds that he can afford to sit there calmly while attacked. He knows that he can run negative and positive ads that will cripple the more restricted McCain.
All in all, I have been disappointed in McCain. Disappointed that the maverick turned out just to be another Republican who would smear his opponent just to win.Disappointed that he seemed to kowtow to the conservative wing of his party– even to the point of picking his VP. Obama was extremely charitable in his assessment of her tonight.
Post Debate: Is the Party Over for Joe the Plumber
by Damozel | I thought Joe Gandelman absolutely nailed it:McCain’s problem: for much of the debate he seemed to be still trying to win over the GOP base and Republicans. And in debate III he sounded far more conservative than in any of his previous n…
I'm not so sure that McCain was the Repubs' best shot at it. Given the economic situation I really wonder how an Obama vs Romney election would have gone. Granted, I've got plenty of issues with Romney, but economics are his bread and butter. Plus he wouldn't have picked Palin as a running mate–he'd already have the conservative base. He just came off as a plastic Ken doll. Perhaps we'll see him go for it again in 4 years, especially if the economy is the issue of the day.
As far as McCain goes, he certainly tarnished whatever kind of reputation he had. I'm not sure what his popularity back in AZ is like, but it wouldn't surprise me if a Democratic challenger knocks him out of the senate without much difficulty.
Obama won, clearly. McCain did okay, and scoring would go 60-40 to 70-30, Obama. Obama was on top of his game, while McCain was nervous, not just on the defensive. McCain was clumsy, often repeating sound bite phrases. (e.g., “The American people are angry, and …, and they're angry”) He squirmed, was not fully coherent — whereas Obama was smooth. (I suspect many people actually believe him when he has inconvenient facts put before him and he says “not true,” which nobody intelligent believes.)
Football analogy, McCain was the last guy in the backfield, laid a hand on Obama for a second but missed the tackle, and Obama has nothing but green (an open field) between himself and the goal line now. Just run, run, run as fast as you can.
“Football analogy, McCain was the last guy in the backfield, laid a hand on Obama for a second but missed the tackle, and Obama has nothing but green (an open field) between himself and the goal line now. Just run, run, run as fast as you can.”
When you're in the home stretch, and its 14-0, 4th quarter, with 10 seconds left on the clock , you can just calmly stroll across (just making sure that you dont' fumble the ball on the 5 yard line!