Feeds:
Inlägg
Kommentarer

Posts Tagged ‘Presidentdebatt’

DEBATT | Två presidentvalsdebatter avklarade. En återstår. Under tre veckors tid under valrörelsen handlar allt om just dessa debatter.

Att Barack Obama är en skicklig och disciplinerad kommunikatör är något han bevisade redan valrörelsen 2008.

Mitt Romneys å andra sidan är som bäst när han får tala ekonomi och statistik. Han personifierar affärsmannen som vill till Vita huset för att kunna reda ut vad politikerna i Washington har ställt till med.

Men det finns också likheter.

Båda är intelligenta, analytiska och faktaorienterade. Man får lätt känslan av att de mycket väl – om inte deras partier och kärntrupper tryckte på i bakgrunden – skulle kunna sätta sig ner tillsammans och hamra fram överenskommelser till gagn för landet.

En annan likhet är att ingen av dem är speciellt skickliga debattörer. Inte konstigt om presidentdebatterna då blir nervpirrande tillställningar för alla involverade.

Och för väljarna är debatterna dessutom enda gången under hela valrörelsen som man har möjlighet att granska kandidaterna under former och spelregler som – åtminstone på papperet – inte ger den ena fördelar över den andre.

Robert Draper, korrespondent för tidskriften GQ skriver, att dessa debatter paradoxalt nog är både ”absolut avgörande och fullständigt meningslösa”.

Vad kandidaterna säger under debatterna speglar ofta inte de realiteter som möter segraren efter valet. Å andra sidan avslöjar debatterna någon om kandidaternas karaktär.

Draper skriver vidare:

”The reality of what determines a presidential campaign, among the small percentage of voters who move back and forth,” says former John McCain strategist Steve Schmidt, ”are the debates, where 50 million people watch what these guys have to say. In the aftermath of a presidential campaign, the importance of the debate is so understated, almost an afterthought—when in reality it is absolutely, exponentially the most important thing that happens, times 100,000.”

So consider the stakes, the pressure. And then consider something that might strike you as odd, given how long Obama and Romney have dwelled on the public stage—which is that neither man is skilled at this sort of thing. ”Barack Obama, I would submit, is not a very good debater,” says David Birdsell, the dean of Baruch College’s School of Public Affairs and a renowned debate expert. ”He’s very cautious, he ramps down the arch of ambition that we otherwise see in his prepared spoken material—and it’s distancing. He has that vocal tic where he says, ‘Look,’ and then pauses. The ‘Look’ is a gesture of impatience—saying that at best we don’t fully understand the situation, or at worst ‘I’m tired of dealing with these idiotic inquiries.’ It’s deeply condescending. Then he chooses his words very carefully, but they don’t sound like they’re coming from the human heart.”

Wait—could that last sentence be describing someone else? Here is Birdsell’s even less charitable view of Mitt Romney as a debater: ”He shows an excess of caution in declaring his interests and perspectives. And he shows a degree of deftness at avoiding commitment—and consistently a failure to provide a compelling narrative of what drives him, either personally or in the policy arena. Now, he remembers figures well, and he looks great in doing what he does. But it’s possible to rattle him. Remember when Rick Perry got under his skin? He replied with, ‘I’ll bet you 10,000 bucks.’ When rattled, he runs to his inner Eddie Haskell.”

So why do we put them through it? Probably because debates force these starchy, overrehearsed, vainglorious pontificators to be human, more or less. We need to see them fidget and fume and (maybe) flash some greatness; and (maybe) we enjoy making them suffer.

But why do we put America through it? Why permit the fate of our country to hinge on three ninety-minute performances that are unlike anything the winner will be expected to do as president?

If you look at history and talk to the experts of the art and science of presidential debates, you find that, during these ninety-minute proto-reality shows, some vital information we can’t seem to get anywhere else is exchanged—even if the candidates screw up or if we take the wrong message from their screwups. You’ll also find, if you talk to people who have directly advised Obama and Romney, either currently or in the past, that this year’s verbal cage fight is anybody’s game.

Political consultants, historians, and debate gurus are united in their opinion that debates are at once absolutely crucial and utterly meaningless. ”Obviously on a substantive level debates don’t mean much,” says former Al Gore strategist Carter Eskew, ”because nothing discussed is really relevant to what happens when you’re president. But then you go to this other level: Do they reveal character and personality? And I think that in some ways they do.”

Övrigt: Inlägget publicerat parallellt på Makthavare.se.

Read Full Post »

DEBATT | Inför deras första debatt har Barack Obama och Mitt Romney gått inför att skapa låga förväntningar kring deras egen debattskicklighet.

Strategin går naturligtvis ut på att överraska väljarnas med att de gjorde bättre ifrån sig än väntat när det väl är över.

“Governor Romney he’s a good debater, I’m just okey”, poängterade t.ex. Obama under ett kampanjevent i Las Vegas under förra söndagen.

Och Romney spelade samma spel i en intervju med Fox News i vecka som gick.

”I don’t know how to raise or lower expectations,” sade Romney. ”The president is a very eloquent, gifted speaker. He’ll do just fine. I’ve never been in a presidential debate like this and it will be a new experience.”

James Fallows, nationell korrespondent på tidskriften The Atlantic, har tittat närmare på debatternas betydelse för utgången av ett presidentval och de två kombattanternas olika styrkor och svagheter.

Mitt Romney is far less effective as a big-speech orator than Barack Obama, and in many other aspects of campaigning he displays what appear to be laboriously studied moves rather than anything that comes naturally. But debates are and have been his strength. He grew up enjoying “big, boisterous arguments about everything around the dinner table,” according to his campaign strategist and main debate-prep specialist, Stuart Stevens. “He loves the dialectic of arguing the different sides, and he’s most uncomfortable when no one is disagreeing with him.” He will enter this fall’s encounters with very recent, successful experience in a very wide range of formats and challenges.

In none of the Republican-primary debates was Romney judged the big loser; in many he was the clear winner, and as the campaign wore on, the dominant image from the debates was of a confident Romney, standing with a slight smile on his face and his hands resting easily in his pockets, looking on with calm amusement as the lesser figures squabbled among themselves and sometimes lashed out at him.

Civics teachers won’t want to hear this, but the easiest way to judge “victory” in many debates is to watch with the sound turned off, so you can assess the candidates’ ease, tenseness, humor, and other traits signaled by their body language. By this standard, Ron Paul, with his chronically ill-fitting suits, often looked cranky; Rick Santorum often looked angry; Rick Perry initially looked pole­axed and confused; Jon Huntsman looked nervous; Newt Ging­rich looked overexcited—and so on through the list until we reach Mitt Romney, who almost always looked at ease. (As did Herman Cain, illustrating that body language is not everything.) Romney looked like the grown-up—the winner, the obvious candidate—with or without sound. “He is as good as it gets in debating,” former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who was the first major contender to drop out of the Republican race, told me. “He is poised, prepared, smart, strategic—tactical, too.”

[…]

Romney is very strong as a debater but has also shown two repeated weaknesses: a thin command of policy details, and an awkwardness when taken by surprise.

When the subject is one he’s prepared for, he rarely falters. When it’s not, or when an exchange goes on longer or in a different direction than expected, many of his ad-libbed responses turn out to be mistakes (“I’ll bet you $10,000!”). Thus the Romney team has the impossible challenge of trying to imagine every question or attack line that might come up in debates with Obama, while the Obama team tries to imagine what Romney’s might have missed. This kind of chess game is always part of debate preparation, but it is unusually important this year, because the gap between Romney at his best and at his worst is so wide.

[…]

“The history is that challengers tend to profit, particularly in the first debate,” David Axelrod, Obama’s chief campaign strategist, told me in June. “Just the act of being on the stage with a president is an elevating thing.” This sounds like a small matter, but through the years, analysis of debate reactions has shown that the public takes a candidate more seriously after seeing him, for the first time, on equal footing with an incumbent president.

[…]

In this year’s debates, Barack Obama’s most inspiring and powerful message as a candidate will no longer be available to him. Four years ago, “Change we can believe in” suggested that things could be different and much better with him in charge. Now even his most fervent backers doubt how much better things are likely to get in a second Obama term. His critics put the same point more harshly. “This time, the president won’t have the luxury of making stuff up and speaking aspirationally,” Tim Pawlenty told me on a campaign swing through Pennsylvania with Romney in June. “He actually has to defend his record and attach facts to it.”

One more factor is working against Obama in the debates. When the economy is bad and an incumbent is beset, the challenger’s task is simplified. He doesn’t need to belabor the case against the incumbent. Reality has already done that; everyone knows what’s wrong with the president they have now. All the challenger has to do is say: “Look me over. I’ll be okay in this job. You can feel comfortable with me.” This is what Ronald Reagan did in 1980, and Bill Clinton in 1992. Meanwhile, the incumbent has to work twice as hard, in order to make two arguments at once. He must prove something about himself: that, while battered, he’s still energetic, visionary, and up to the job. He must also prove something about his opponent: that he is bad for the country, unready, and overall worse.

And he must do all this without seeming defensive or tense; while appearing easily in command to those who see images without hearing words; and, in Obama’s uniquely straitjacketed case, while avoiding the slightest hint of being an “angry black man.”

[…]

If economic trends are bad enough—or, improbably, good enough—to turn the election into a runaway, we might look back and say that the debates didn’t matter. But in what gives every sign of being a close, bitter, expensive, and mostly negative contest, the way these men interact onstage could make a major difference.

Övrigt: Se även Fallows video “Romney the Debater: His Strengths and Weaknesses”. Inför valet 2008 gjorde Fallows en liknande analys som ovan i essayen ”Rhetorical Questions”. (Tidskriftsomslaget ovan är The Atlantic, september 2012.)

Read Full Post »