Click here for the introduction to the Round and Square topic "Just Do It Over"
 |
| [a] Goal RF |
This is a part of a three-post mini-series on presidential debate "do-overs." Click here for others:
Don't even think that this is going to be a partisan post. Not a chance.
If you read even three lines into it and still think "he's for so-and-so," you just haven't been reading enough on Round and Square. Back to the archives, my friend. There you will learn that this blog is about the little things in life that we barely notice...until they hit us over the head with their significance. Take a look—it's right up there at the top of the screen, in the world cluster right under "Round and Square."
My topic today is timely, but it is political only in the sense that there was a big second presidential debate the other night. If you have been reading other blogs, the emphasis on most of them today has been on "big" and "presidential" and "debate." Only a few of us are interested in political history and culture, it seems. As for moi, history and culture...they're in my wheelhouse.
 |
| [b] Second RF |
My focus is on the word second.
You see, the Hofstra University "town hall" debate was a sort of do-over, and you know (check the introduction to this series) that I am interested in what that concept entails. From the perspective of the Obama campaign, the first debate didn't go very well. The second debate provided another chance, an opportunity to right the ship, if not wipe the slate clean. All through the ranks of campaign staffers in the days leading up to it, certain words like "reset" and "recalibration" popped up in discussions usually loaded with statistics, districts, counties, and just plain ol' numbers (e.g. 7.8, forty-seven, 270, and 18—Ohio).
Clearly, the president's team wanted a do-over.
That is the present-day context for something I wish to examine further. It seems that President Obama is not the first incumbent president to need a mulligan after the first debate, and I want to think about what that means in the context of American political culture. Before I proceed, let me note that a number of newspapers, magazines, and even cable shows have dealt with various aspects of this topic in the last few weeks, so I am not claiming to be the only person thinking about it. Cultural analysis isn't about being the only person to think of something. It's about providing a compelling interpretation with a useful angle or two. Hats off to others who have taken this on. We need more of you (Rachel, Joe, Wolf, and Ari, among others).
 |
| [c] Perks RF |
By definition, an incumbent president gets just one chance at a first presidential debate. This is not a difficult concept, but let's make sure we are all on the same page. When s/he was first running (I am ever the optimist), s/he was a candidate. Running for reelection, the president is the incumbent, and cannot run for a third term anymore. That means that s/he has one chance to take the stage as the incumbent in a first presidential debate. Just one chance to make a first impression...for someone who is known to almost every American the age of Honey Boo Boo or older. Just one first chance to say to the biggest audience of an election cycle "Here is why I am running for reelection."
It appears to be a lot harder than it looks.
Why this is so remains a mystery, but the evidence is growing more and more substantial with each incumbent president's moderately-bad to dreadful first performance. 1976, 1980, 1984...these years started the string, and affected the electorate's view of the incumbent in each case (the final election result is another matter). The 1990s are somewhat ambiguous, so we'll hold back on them for a sentence or two. Now skip to 2004. George W. Bush tanked and John Kerry soared. There were real implications in the poll numbers. Now, we find ourselves in 2012. Barack Obama has skidded badly in the polls since the Denver debate. Five incumbents, five relative failures (in other words, only their relatives said "you did o.k.").
Draw your own conclusions.
As for 1992 and 1996, these are a little harder to read, not the least because there was a fiery little sprite on stage who lit up the cavernous auditoria with tough talk and hard numbers. I put those debates to the side. Although it is possible for reasonable people to disagree, it is pretty clear that George H.W. Bush lost in 1992 and Clinton won in 1996. I find this to be asterisk* territory, and will stick for now to the five head-to-head first encounters we have (in 1976, it was the only debate without a twenty-seven minute sound gap; in 1980, it was the one when Carter and Reagan were both actually on the stage together...what a concept).
But I am really thinking of 1984—the election, not the novel.
As October dawned that year, it was Morning in America, and the Reagan team was buoyant. Walter Mondale's campaign had faltered several times already, and all of the fundamentals (electoral college, base support, money) were in Reagan's favor. He looked like he was on his way to a massive popular vote and electoral college victory. It seemed that Mondale could do nothing quite right, and that was even before he promised that he would raise taxes if elected. Things were not going well for the challenger; the incumbent was soaring.
 |
| [d] Ninety-seven...plus RF |
All of a sudden, Mr. Morning looked like day had turned to evening. Ninety minutes after the audience clapped politely to welcome challenger and incumbent, the incumbent looked recumbent. In walked a muscle man next to a ninety-seven pound weakling. Out walked a triumphant, youthful challenger and a haggard old guy who didn't seem up to four more years. Wow. What a difference ninety minutes can make. It is worth watching the whole debate. I have included several versions.
Did you listen to NBC News? Does any of this sound familiar? I thought so.
If you have been following the 2012 election at all, the NBC News report from twenty-eight years ago (above) sounded just like the last few weeks. These echoes have gotten my attention, and I really think that there is something "bipartisan"—first debate failure—going on. Why has almost every incumbent president (the only clear exception seems to be Clinton-Dole in 1996) done poorly in his first debate? These same incumbents often did quite well as first-time candidates. Carter thumped Ford, Reagan took down Carter, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis, George III topped Al Gore, and Barack Obama did pretty darned well against John McCain in 2008.
That's one of the reasons they became president in the first place, let us not forget.
Why should the first time be so difficult...the second time around?
We'll consider that question in more detail tomorrow.
This is a part of a three-post mini-series on presidential debate "do-overs." Click here for others:
 |
| [e] Debate RF |
No comments:
Post a Comment