Insider's Notes From The Democratic Dial Panels

A Democratic strategist passes along some contemporaneous notes from an instant-response dial group conducted for a major Democratic entity last night.

According to this strategist: whenever Sen. McCain leaned on Obama for being naive and repeated the phrase "Sen. Obama doesn't understand," the tracking lines nosedived. 

I suppose that part of the problem was that McCain looked if he had a sharp spur in his shoe, and Obama's performance, whatever you made of it, did not sound naive.   So McCain's charges were inconsistent with what viewers were seeing.

Whenever a candidate said "subcommittee," it was a net loser who whomever was saying it, so when McCain attacked, Obama answered and McCain counterpunched, the lines all went down. The lesson: don't use Senate jagon in these debates.

Attention: Republican strategists with access to your side's dial groups, feel free to e-mail me your notes...

Comments

I think that this debate WAS a game-changer for Obama. The general electorate, many for the first time, were able to see, hear, and evaluate Sen. Obama. He came across as calm, knowledgeable, articulate, human, and YES.....Presidential. I think that the instant-response dial ups bear this out.

McCain erred by continuously stating that Sen. Obama "didn't understand", because millions of viewers could plainly observe for themselves that he DID understand. They might not agree with him, but it was clear that he knew of what he spoke.

Posted by renegademom3 | September 27, 2008 12:38 PM

Obama accomplished exactly what he needed to do: make viewers comfortable with the idea of him as president (a la Kennedy in '60 and Reagan in '80).

As for McCain... well, he did okay, but that's not enough at this point. McCain needed a decisive win, and he didn't get it last night.

Posted by Darius | September 27, 2008 12:56 PM

If I had my eyes closed I would have thought it was a tie. With my eyes open I was surprised by McCain's stern look and inability to ever look in Obama's direction.

I love reading the Corner this morning. They obviously saw a different debate.

Posted by Steve K | September 27, 2008 1:10 PM

McCain implies that only HE understands, and only he must be trusted to continually save the day.

In a similar way, Carly Fiorina implied that only SHE is fit to run a major corporation -- and we all know how that corporation turned out.

PS: Seems that McCain usually speaks of "I, me, my, mine", and Obama usually speaks of "we" or "it".

Posted by wnw | September 27, 2008 1:15 PM

I thought McCain was truly disrespectful, and that lowered him in my eyes. His chuckling, constant smirk, and glaring inability to even glance in Obama's direction for more than a second say a great deal about his political and negotiating style.

I also find it striking that Republicans seem elated at McCain's performance, even calling his skittishness "strength" and "a sign of being the alpha male".

That says something about the GOP - and I dont' think it's a positive.

Posted by John | September 27, 2008 1:16 PM

mccain looked petulant and angry, the kind of man who would start a war on impulse. at 2 ongoing wars, we don't have enough already for mr. mccain.

Posted by abdul rahim | September 27, 2008 1:18 PM

I had a one person focus group last night - my 8 year old son. Here were his comments..

Last night Andrew asked me what a debate was and I told him it was like a boxing match with words. He thought that sounded pretty cool so we watched the debate.

I explained the scoring boxes on CNN and I asked him to simply give me his reactions so we would watch a segment, pause the DVR, talk for a minute and go back to the "Thrilla at Ole Miss".

He enjoyed the "fight" and I must say out of the mouths of babes come some pretty good analysis. As you might expect much of his reactions were visceral which is a huge part of how many people will react:

* "Why is McCain so mad?"
* "Why is he so old like Grammy?
* "Daddy, when McCain smiles like that ( ie-the smirk) I think he is really mad at Obama".
* "I don't like it when he acts like that."
* "Why isn't he looking at Obama? Barack looks at him. I think he is trying to be mean."
* "Obama looks better"
* "When McCain talks it bores me and when Obama talks it excites me."

I think that Andrew's observations are pretty astute and sum up how a lot of people will remember last night. In fact looking at Frank Luntz' NV focus group of independent voters looks like my son was spot on how they felt and 17/27 of them - 62% - thought Obama won....just the group we need to convince.

Posted by John Nail | September 27, 2008 1:19 PM

Each had a bar to get over. Obama cleared his with more distance.

Posted by Kurt Becker | September 27, 2008 1:21 PM

Never trust a man who can't look you in the eye. What was with McCain? He wouldn't even look at Obama for the length of the opening handshake (which Obama initiated), cheating out towards the audience. He wouldn't look at him, let alone make eye contact, throughout the debate.

At the end, Obama had to go to McCain (who was again focusing downstage) for the closing handshake. That was simply dumb of McCain -- he'd have looked much more statesmanlike if he'd initiated it. A closing handshake doesn't even seem to have occurred to him.

It was also rude of McCain to refuse to use Obama's first name once Obama called him "John." They are both Senators, and they are indeed on a first name basis. McCain's refusal to acknowledge that, his cold formality, his sneer, his refusal to look at his opponent at all, let alone look him in the eye, was not merely disrespectful -- it was anti-respectful. It was an elaborate statement that Obama is a person undeserving of respect ... an insect.

In fact, Obama was winning the debate, which makes the whole thing all the more churlish. It's one thing to show disrespect for an unworthy opponent. It's quite another thing to show disrespect for the guy who is outshining you and leading in all the polls, and who didn't blink when you dared him to show up in Oxford without you.

Obama was in a position to be generous, and he was. McCain can run an ad if he wants to itemizing all the times Obama politely agreed with him, but an Obama ad showing nothing but McCain's many sneers and his out-to-sea body language would be at least as effective. McCain looked small, literally and figuratively.

Posted by ducdebrabant | September 27, 2008 1:38 PM

After all the drama the McCain camp put everyone through, he needed to bring his A game last night. The whole thing became a farce for McCain as soon as he compared Obama's temperament to Bush's.

Posted by Natascha | September 27, 2008 1:38 PM

Marc,

The President of Pakistan is neither named Gadari nor Zadari as you posted, his name is Zardari.

Posted by Adam | September 27, 2008 1:43 PM

McCain's odd grimaces and clear physical discomfort made me wonder if he was suffering from an intestinal cramp. Or perhaps he was just turtling because of a failure to fully evacuate before the debate. Poor old guy needs to get more fluids.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 27, 2008 1:45 PM

Marc has no such information. He is making stuff up off the top of his head. He is a lying devil.

Posted by Greg | September 27, 2008 1:56 PM

Greg, please don't insult me by implying there are some Devils who don't lie. That just isn't true and I won't stand for you suggesting it. We all lie.

Posted by A Devil | September 27, 2008 2:08 PM

Dial groups are useful for assessing positive messages. They always nosedive, especially among independents, when any attacks occur. But it doesn't mean they don't agree with the attack message. It means they don't like the attack message. Two different things.

Don't use dial groups to make campaign strategy decisions. McCain's attacks on Obama as naive may not stick, but they are not unwise based on the dial groups not liking to hear it. Dial groups hate negativity, period. Dial groups on the Willie Horton attacks against Dukakis would have shown that independents didn't like the attacks. But we all know that the attacks work on election day. The vote choice, not the dial 'feel-goodness' matters as the ultimate decider.

Posted by Chris | September 27, 2008 2:14 PM

Either CNN or MSNBC last night (I kept switching) had a focus group which did exactly the same thing. Every time McCain patronized Obama the participants were turning those dials down. They even showed the lines on TV.

Posted by ducdebrabant | September 27, 2008 2:20 PM

McCain's "greatest" moment last night was his belief in the surge, in the importance of victory in Iraq. It was almost evangelical. For me (admittedly toeing far to the left with no indecision) this was sickening. His best was my political anathema. His best was based on one of the greatest lies perpetuated on the American people. The discordance made me feel ill at the time, and I remember wondering how we could view one of our nation's greatest errors so differently. It left me feeling like he was out of touch and disconnected from reality when he was at his most eloquent and convincing. His anger and insults reinforced the weeks images of him as a drama queen.

Obama, on the other hand, didn't wow me with the oratory that I expected. He didn't come across as the guy who "talks, talks, talks," (picture Palin's birdlike hands here). He seemed Presidential without seeming messianic. He avoided the racial pitfalls -- he was a bit aggressive without invoking the angry-black-man and he connected with me over the economy with out invoking the welfare queen.

I give it to Obama.

And I'm expecting more from Palin then most people; I think she'll pull it back to tied.

Posted by zic | September 27, 2008 2:28 PM

Obama today addresses my observation (above) that McCain does not speak about "us" or "we" or of others in American society...

Obama: "... through ninety minutes of debating, John McCain had a lot to say about me, but he had nothing to say about you."

http://www.news-record.com/content/2008/09/27/article/text_of_obamas_speech

Posted by wnw | September 27, 2008 2:33 PM

Alpha males don't ignore their inferiors, they stare them down. Refusal to make eye contact is weakness, not strength.

In this case, it signals either fear or contempt. I don't want either attitude from the Commander in Chief.

Posted by Katherine | September 27, 2008 3:05 PM

At the party I was at, everyone turned to look at each other when McCain said "DoD". I think everyone (or almost everyone) in the room knew what he was talking about, but I don't think there was anyone in the room without a college degree at the minimum (and numerous people with graduate degrees). It literally sounded so inside baseball, for lack of a better phrase, that we all thought he had to have lost at least half of the audience.

The only Obama line that drew similar complaints from us was his reference to "the Ukraine" instead of "Ukraine", but it is highly unlikely more than 5% of the audience would have caught it, let alone understood why it was a mistake.

Posted by Charles | September 27, 2008 3:16 PM

zic,

It was striking how passionate McCain was about the need for victory in Iraq. When Lehrer asked about the lessons from Iraq, McCain seemed to be repeating his version of the lessons of Vietman. I think McCain is trying to use the Iraq war to atone for what he sees as the failure of US resolve in the Vietnam war.

I believe McCain's barely suppressed anger about Vietnam and his apparent contempt for Obama will not increase his standing in the election.

Posted by Mark | September 27, 2008 3:22 PM

Charles writes: "The only Obama line that drew similar complaints from us was his reference to "the Ukraine" instead of "Ukraine", but it is highly unlikely more than 5% of the audience would have caught it, let alone understood why it was a mistake."

It's a pretty minor mistake. I'm almost exactly Obama's age, and for most of my life "the Ukraine" was the common usage. If I'm writing I never make that mistake now, but in speaking it's quite easy to revert to form.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 27, 2008 3:33 PM

Is McCain the first presidential candidate to use a swear word ('horse shit' twice) during a presidential debate? I can't recall any other instances but others might.

Posted by Maria | September 27, 2008 3:37 PM

Marc,

I think you're right about McCain trying to resolve Vietnam in Iraq. Maybe he should get some treatment for PTSD instead? One of my biggest fears of a McCain presidency comes from my former stepfather, who spent a nasty time in a POW camp during WWII. At just a couple years older then McCain is now, it came back to haunt him big time; and my poor mother took the brunt of it. She finally had to leave. I don't want our nation standing in for the role my Mom filled. I don't even want Cindy McCain there, either.

Ironically, we're looking at a current president and two would-be presidents shaped by their fathers: W. trying to prove he's not the fuck-up his father thinks he is; McCain trying to prove that he has the kind of honor his father talked about at the dinner table, and Obama, trying to be the kind of man he imagined a good father to be. Sure would be nice if we could get over all this male angst and just have some real, honest, caring men who love and honor their wives and children and don't think banging each other over the heads is the solution to problems. Guess I take door # 3, and trying to live up to the imagined role model.

Posted by zic | September 27, 2008 4:50 PM

"Never trust a man who can't look you in the eye."

My grandfather told me that as well. I'll bet my life savings that McCain was told that from both his dad and grandfather too.

If SNL picks up on it tonight, that'll be the running joke until election day - it'll be his 'lock box'.

Posted by Martin | September 27, 2008 5:21 PM

A growing number of progressive Republicans are expressing concern about Sarah Palin’s uneven or downright awkward performances in her limited media appearances. A Republican/ Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside. Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing for the conservative National Review, says Palin dropping off the race at this time is not a crazy suggestion and that something need to be done immediately. Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says Palin’s recent CBS appearance isn’t disqualifying but is certainly alarming. You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.” “I have not been blown away by her interviews, but at the same time, I haven’t come away from them thinking that there is too much out there,” said Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. She is not Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Jack Kemp and definitely not Hillary Clinton. FOX News analyst Bernard Goldberg said interviews of Palin do not instill people confidence and Parker “may be right” in saying that Palin is out of her league.

Posted by jane | September 27, 2008 9:10 PM

I watched the debate. I perceived McCain as being
an emotionally unstable man who still has anger

about his torture as a prisoner of war. I understand
the scars of torture for 5 years will not go out the
window. Consequently, how will this affect decisions
that he would make once he is president. Remember McCain gets full disability from the Government. How do we know the disability was not mental from torture. We went into Iraq based upon lies. Plus, we are still
bombing. We lost the lives of American soldiers based upon these lies. Last week, my best girlfriend
lost her nephrew in Iraq. He was not killed by the
enemy. He was killed by an American soldier deliberately.

Posted by cali | September 28, 2008 6:30 AM