Made in the shade?
My prediction of Barack Obama explicitly pushing the steady versus unsteady theme in last night’s debate didn’t pan out, but this part of my post still rings true:
… in the past, nationally televised debates (most notably for Ronald Reagan in 1980) have been a forum where a candidate seen as risky or inexperienced could cross the “credibility threshold” by coming across as composed and knowledgeable enough to be a plausible President. Already ahead in most polls, Obama could close the proverbial deal tonight with many wavering voters with a calm, confident presentation.
The instant polls following the debate are prodding conventional wisdom to conclude that this may, in fact, have happened. James Fallows (via TPM) concurs and adds further historical parallels:
When the details of this encounter fade, as they soon will, I think the debate as a whole will be seen as of a piece with Kennedy-Nixon in 1960, Reagan-Carter in 1980, and Clinton-Bush in 1992.
In each of those cases, a fresh, new candidate (although chronologically older in Reagan’s case) had been gathering momentum at a time of general dissatisfaction with the “four more years” option of sticking with the incumbent party. The question was whether the challenger could stand as an equal with the more experienced, tested, and familiar figure. In each of those cases, the challenger passed the test — not necessarily by “winning” the debate, either on logical points or in immediate audience or polling reactions, but by subtly reassuring doubters on the basic issue of whether he was a plausible occupant of the White House and commander in chief.
That was Obama’s goal — not kicking McCain’s ass (as many liberal diehards like myself wanted) but presenting himself as composed and knowledgeable to all those low-information voters who haven’t been following the campaign.
Stumble it!