A guest dispatch by Atlantic Media Political Director Ronald Brownstein.
DENVER -- I watched the debate with a group of
undecided or loosely committed voters in Denver, one of the key battlegrounds
in the election. They were mostly young, white and college educated,
which inclined them toward Obama, but most of them were also involved
in finance, which made them very sensitive to taxes and tilted them
toward McCain. As a group, they were under-whelmed by the performances.
They thought Obama seemed a little nervous and circled around his points too much; several described McCain as "grumpy," or too programmed -especially when he argued that Obama didn't "understand" one problem or another. On balance, it didn't seem like the debate moved them much; several of them (including some former George W. Bush voters) came in tilting at least slightly toward Obama and left that way. Those who were the most truly on the fence said it didn't really provide them any help in climbing off in one direction or the other.
I agreed with the group that the debate failed to produce a clear story line that would lastingly change voters' opinions. But I did think it benefited McCain in one respect. The fundamental tug of war in this election is the competition between Obama and McCain to frame the choice in the minds of swing voters. McCain wants them to view their choice largely in personal terms-to ask themselves: which of these two men has the experience, background and instincts I want in a president? Obama wants voters to view the choice less in personal than generic terms-he wants voters to ask which of these two men offers a direction for the country that I support. McCain Friday night was more successful than Obama at steering the discussion back to the terrain that favored him.
The larger point is that nothing that happened last night is likely to be much remembered in November-or probably even in October. Mostly, the debate showed that these are both plausible presidents-though with very different priorities, styles and strengths which appeal to very different groups of voters. Neither stumbled; neither soared. I've been wrong about the public reaction to debates too many times before to predict what (if any) near-term movement in the polls this will produce. But I will make one prediction: whatever short-term movement this debate provokes will be superseded by the reaction to the remaining debates-and to other events within and outside of the campaigns' control that have yet to occur.
Although some in the group that I was with thought McCain was too repetitious and overly locked into talking points, he did highlight the personal comparison he wants to stress-effectively weaving in the depth of his personal experience in foreign policy and forcefully (if at times condescendingly) insisting that Obama lacks the experience to serve as commander-in-chief. Obama, by contrast, had more difficulty shifting the conversation to his strongest ground-the argument that Bush's course has failed the country and McCain offers more continuity than change from it. Part of that was the specific nature of Jim Lehrer's questions, but Obama contributed to his difficulties as well. He had some strong moments-especially in portraying the Wall Street crisis as a verdict on Bush's economic record and insisting that the real test of judgment in Iraq was whether to invade at all-but just as in some of the primary debates with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama had trouble crystallizing his many beliefs into a memorable single argument for change. And while Obama seemed fluent and comfortable discussing the full range of foreign policy issues, he couldn't match McCain's personal experience in those trenches. He couldn't say, as McCain did, "I've been to Waziristan." Moreover, somehow Obama (and Lehrer) allowed McCain to escape an entire debate about foreign policy without expressing a clear opinion about whether America's position in the world is stronger today than it was when Bush took office. To repeat: the more swing voters see this election primarily as a choice between two individuals, the better for McCain; the more they see it as a choice between two directions (at a time when about 80% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track), the better for Obama. Once the debate turned to foreign policy, it revolved more around the two men's personal qualifications and judgment than whether the country was better off (either at home or abroad) after eight years of President Bush and whether McCain really offers a shift in direction. In that sense, the encounter probably tilted toward McCain, even if the instant polls generally bent toward Obama. I'm guessing that despite those polls Obama's camp is thinking that he needs to more aggressively try to steer the discussion toward his strongest ground in the next debate-and maybe not deferentially agree with John McCain quite so often.
| 
