Pundits: Debate Even. Viewers: Obama Clearly Won. Why the Disparity?

[DeepModem Mom]

Editor&Publisher: Pundits: Debate Even. Viewers: Obama Clearly Won. Why the Disparity?
By Greg Mitchell

(September 27, 2008) -- It often happens that the pundit "scoring" of a presidential debate ends up quite at odds from the polls of viewers that soon follow.

We've seen it again with (Friday's) debate, which most pundits (on TV and in print) scored very or fairly even, with perhaps some recognition that Obama made some small gains because he pretty much held his own on McCain's turf. Of course, as we now know, virtually every poll taken by the networks and outside sources gave Obama an edge -- and not a small one. He easily swept surveys of undecideds, even carried a Fox focus group. At least in the polls, it was no contest....

Of course, there is always the striving for "balance," the effects of pre-spinning, and in some cases their favoring of McCain from the outset. And, to be frank, McCain gave a pretty good account of himself. But many pundits threw out the window what they, and others, had said beforehand, about Obama needing to appear presidential and seem expert on international matters. When he did just that in the debate, they suddenly forgot the importance they had placed on it beforehand.

But here's the key to the viewer/pundit disparity. It took awhile for McCain to build up to it but then he hammered it home near the end: Obama, he charged, lacked the "knowledge and experience" to be president. Pundits highlighted that and said it was the key to McCain gaining at least a tie. But I didn't hear a single person on TV point out: McCain just picked Palin for vice president! How, then, could he make such a charge against Obama?

My feeling is that the Couric interview might have done for McCain what the first Nixon-Kennedy did for Nixon in 1960 -- a true watershed moment. The American voters finally "got it" about Palin and so McCain's "best moment" against Obama either fell flat with many of them, or proved laughable. This was made all the more stark with Palin AWOL during the post-debate analysis -- and Joe Biden all over the place. And with reports of McCain team alarm about her performance during the mock debate preps.

But the pundits barely recognized that the "experience" charge was a non-starter -- and that's why they scored the debate fairly even even as viewers seem to have rated it a landslide for Obama.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003855844

[tridim]

1. The viewers aren't responsible for selling laundry detergent and military hardware.

[ErinBerin84]

2. did anyone see the Chris Matthews show today?

They were talking about how the McCain camp was genuinely surprised about how "well" they thought he did...they really must have been expecting a disaster! What little faith in their candidate they must have...isn't foreign policy supposed to be his strong suit? People also must have REALLY been expecting McCain to blow the hell up, because I keep seeing people like Chris Matthews and Norah O'Donnell (make of that what you will) say that McCain was cool and did not have a temperment problem in the debate.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Every time Obama gets over the bar that the pundits and journalists set

for a particular performance, they shrug, give him grudging credit, and then set the bar ever higher for the next performance. He will never get full credit and accolades--he will always have to meet a higher standard. Look at how people are praising McCain for not blowing it--he gets simultaneous advantage from being old and experienced, and yet lower expectations.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

10. Something ain't it? No Drama Obama just keeps movin' on.

[ErinBerin84]

12. As Jason Linkins from the Huffington Post put it today

(on pundit reaction to McCain not blowing up): " I guess for John McCain, getting through a day without murdering Obama and his surrogates is a successful day."

And as for analysis, even pukes like David Brooks and Pat Buchanan seem to concede that Obama looked presidential and passed the "commander in chief" test, so I guess I'll take that. I really do think that there must be beltway buzz on McCain having a possible senile problem or something though, for some talking heads who always chirp about McCain's foreign policy expertise, to be so delighted with a perceived tie. Also, I'm sure the Repub talking point this week, in reaction to the viewer polls, will be as Brooks said "They are way oversampling Democrats!" Sucks to be you, Brooks. I guess he can only do that when citing ONE CNN poll, while ALL other focus groups of undecided agreed (if I'm correct) that Obama came out better.

[Curtland1015]

4. There's always the "horse race" theory to consider.

Also, partly what you said. Most of them want to appear balanced.

[fed_up_mother]

5. Pundit scoring debates tactics and strategies (ha)

And in all fairness, I would say it was pretty even. They both presented their cases pretty well.

Obama is winning with the viewers because they side with him ON THE ISSUES! They like what HE has to say. They agree with him. His met the bar of presidential, so now they can score him a win. They like his policies.

[book_worm]

6. the funny thing is that most pundits I saw did think Obama won.

[leeman67]

7. Here's my opinion:

First of all, I think Obama won on substance anyway, or at least tied. But on style, he won hands down. For better or worse (and in 2000 and 2004, it was for the worse), most Americans judge these debates in terms of style. Who "looked better", that sort of thing. McCain looked terrible. If you just watched the debate in a crowded bar without being able to hear the sound (and let's face it, this debate was on a Friday night, so many people were in such a setting - including McCain's running mate, which still blows my mind), you saw Obama looking presidential, and McCain looking angry, petulant, smarmy, and just plain sick. That's the impression most people are left with.

[earthlover]

19. The flip side is that the pundits did not recognize this....for all their supposed expertise....

The classic was the Nixon-Kennedy debate where Nixon did not come across well on tv because of his 5 oclock shadow and didn't wear makeup so he looked sweaty. People who listened on the radio (back then, a lot of folks did!) thought Nixon won. Those on TV thought Kennedy won.

It should have been apparent that McCain was NOT coming off well visually, what with his angry looks, rapid-fire blinking, etc and that Obama was coming off looking confident, cool, engaging, and presidential. I was pleasantly surprised that Obama did not do his pauses and "uh" so much, and as a result he came across much improved.

I really don't think the pundits are as perceptive as they are drummed up to be.

And...since when is a candidate who is reduced to saying horse shit during a debate viewed upon as even on the same stage with Obama?

[Aviation Pro]

8. Because....

...WE SHALL HAVE A HORSERACE! Cried the Queen.

Thank God for the Internet.

[Nancy Waterman]

11. Because the content side was even

McCain defended his positions pretty well. But McCain is so unlikable and Obama is so appealing, that people naturally prefer him. The one thing Obama needed to accomplish he did: Obama was strong and focused and looked presidential and commander in chiefy. As long as he could do that, the winner was the one who was most likable, clearly Obama.

[Aviation Pro]

13. I watched the whole interview....

...and all McCain did was put out a laundry list of names and places. For the record, I used to work for the DoD and I could've done the same job at the interview as McCain (if I dumbed down my knowledge).

[hvn_nbr_2]

9. Viewers don't depend on pleasing Reichwing corpo billionaires for their $million salaries. nt

[PA Democrat]

14. It as though the MSM is out to convince the people who didn't actually watch the debate that

the outcome was different than the outcome based upon opinions of regular Americans who DID watch the debate. It's so frustrating.

In the end it is the opinions of regular Americans who cast their votes at the polls that will determine the election, but the MSM seems heel bent on swaying those who for whatever reason, didn't reach their own conclusion.

[amborin]

15. because O

did not blast rethug on national security issues....

see this article from The Nation:

"Verdict on Obama: Mealymouthed, PatheticBy Robert Dreyfuss
If, God forbid, foreign policy had to be the deciding factor in choosing between Barack Obama and John McCain, then last night's terrible showing by Obama would make me a Ralph Nader voter in a heartbeat. Obama's performance was nothing short of pathetic, and only a Democratic-leaning analysts and voters with blinders on could suggest that Obama won the debate. More important, he utterly blew a chance to draw a stark contrast with John McCain on America's approach to the world.

He checked all the boxes. Barack ("Senator McCain is right") Obama couldn't find anything to disagree with the militarist Arizonan about. Support for NATO expansion? Check. Absurd anti-Russian diatribes? Check. Dramatic escalation of the war in Afghanistan? Check. I'm ready to attack Pakistan? Check. (Actually, on this one, McCain was the moderate!) Painful sanctions against Iran, backed up by the threat of force? Check. Blathering about the great threat from Al Qaeda? Check. It went on and on. "

<http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss>


sorry, but take it from folks who are working furiously for O:

O should NOT have kept saying "I agree"

and O should have strongly blasted McCain more on national security and the US role in the world and repairing the mighty ethical leadership of hte US internationally

[BumRushDaShow]

18. However his doing that persuaded the indies that he needs, to move his way.

It frustrated alot of his supporters as well as myself, but the unanimity of the independent polls with their data from uncommitteds and independents, was telling. I.e., he hit the target group that he was aiming for.

[deadparrot]

16. Because pundits are more about content and viewers are more about style.

I honestly thought both candidates presented their own views sufficiently well--I came out of it thinking it was a draw (and thus good for Obama, as this was his perceived weak spot). Both the pundits and I immediately thought about WHAT was said rather than HOW it was said. The latter is what really matters to the people making a decision off this debate.

[progressivebydesign]

17. Because the majority of "pundits" are paid GOP hacks.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone -- when any scumbag like Dick Morris can call himself a "pundit", or vile people like Glenn Beck can get a tv show on mainstream news stations, then it should be no question why the VIEWERS see it differently.

The Pundits are viewing it through their own biases (many of which are economic), and their tax bracket. There are far too many "pundits" and they are destroying our democracy. Perhaps the networks should thin the herd and send them back to game shows or selling cars.