Ignore The Pundits: How To Figure Out Who Won The Debate

Click here to read reactions to the first presidential debate between Obama and McCain from HuffPost bloggers, including Nora Ephron, Bob Shrum, Madeleine Albright, Paul Reiser, Arianna Huffington, Sean Penn, and more.

There were 23 debates during the Democratic primary and part of my job on the Hillary campaign was to monitor the post-debate reaction in the media. I watched hundreds of self-described political experts instantly declare who won and who lost.

Here's what I learned: the pundits are full of it. They don't know any more than you do and many of them have a vested interest in tilting the scales one way or another. After the debate ends, if you want to know who won, turn off the TV. You can figure it out for yourself.

The first thing to understand is that the winner of the debate isn't the person who makes the best arguments. If it was, Al Gore would be finishing up his second term. The winner of the debate is the person who moves votes to their side. You can figure out who that will be by focusing on these three factors:

1. 30 seconds are more important than 90 minutes. Although tens of millions of people will watch the debate, most everyone will forget the bulk of it immediately. The lasting impression of the debate for most voters will be the two or three exchanges -- usually less than 15 seconds long -- that are replayed, discussed, and analyzed over and over again. More often than not, whoever gets the best of these moments wins the debate.

For example, in the Des Moines Register debate in mid-December, Obama was asked a pretty tough question: How he could rely on so many former Clinton advisers and still represent a break from the past? Hillary laughed and said, "I want to hear that!" Obama flashed a smile and shot back: "Hillary, I'm looking forward to you advising me as well." It was a pitch-perfect response and catnip for the media, which played the exchange repeatedly for days. Overall, Hillary turned in a very solid performance and demonstrated an impressive command of the issues. But it didn't matter. Obama had won the key 15 seconds and it gave him a critical boost just days before the Iowa caucus.

John Edwards was generally regarded as an excellent debater. So why was it that the debates never seemed to help him much in the polls? He never really did anything memorable. (Quick: name one line Edwards said in a primary debate.) His answers were always smooth, coherent and on message. It didn't do him any good.

Identify who got the better of two or three most memorable exchanges between Obama and McCain and you'll be a long way toward identifying the winner.

2. Mistakes matter, but only some of them. Probably the worst mistake in the Democratic primary debates was Hillary's famous non-answer to a question about drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants. But it wasn't a big mistake because people care deeply about the issue. (When is the last time you've heard driver's licenses mentioned on the campaign trail?) It was important because it fit into a pre-exisiting narrative about Hillary that had been developed by her opponents for some time. Namely, that Hillary is politically calculating and dishonest. Since it reinforced a pre-exisiting narrative it caused Hillary immense damage and sent the campaign into a tailspin from which it never fully recovered.

During the next debate in Nevada, Obama was asked a similar question about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants and gave a similarly meandering answer. Yet, he paid no political price. The reason is simple: no one believed at the time that Obama was dishonest or politically calculating. So a mistake that was debilitating for Hillary was a non-issue for Obama.

In this debate, a mistake on an economic issue will be more damaging to McCain because there is a pre-existing narrative that he isn't knowledgeable or engaged on the economy. Similarly, a mistake on foreign policy would be more damaging to Obama because there is a pre-existing narrative that he may not have the experience to be commander-in-chief.

3. It is a popularity contest. At the end of the day these candidates are trying to get voters to like them. As a result, in many instances, what the candidates say is far less important than how they say it.

During the spring and summer, Obama struggled to gain traction in debates because the delivery of his answers were perceived as detached and professorial. In other words, the things he was saying were smart but he wasn't making friends. In an August debate, Hillary won a lot of admirers when she said with a smile: "For fifteen years, I have stood up against the right-wing machine and I've come out stronger. So if you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your girl!"

The person who is the most relaxed and getting some laughs is usually the winner.

The reason why much of the punditry that follows the debate is inaccurate or irrelevant is that many of the people involved are far more interested in shaping the outcome of the debate than reflecting it. It usually doesn't work, but most give it a shot anyway.

You can do a lot better by thinking for yourself.

Email me your thoughts at [e-mail].

Click here to read reactions to the first presidential debate between Obama and McCain from HuffPost bloggers, including Nora Ephron, Bob Shrum, Madeleine Albright, Paul Reiser, Arianna Huffington, Sean Penn, and more.

Comments

[Sumocat]

"The person who is the most relaxed and getting some laughs is usually the winner. " -- That's what makes this debate so hard to judge. Both candidates were relaxed, but due to the gag order on the audience, the few laughs were stifled. That said, the inability to gauge audience reaction was a hindrance to Obama, while the topic was solidly in McCain's comfort zone. McCain had clear advantages, but failed to come out on top.

[ilcapo]

What I got out of the debate other than Obama being clearly the more intelligent and nuanced candidate is how old tired and arrogant McCain came across by not even being able to look at Obama.I know that did not go well with most people the way McCain sneered and looked like he was seething when Obama attacked his positions,Obama won and post debate polls show that.

[boing007]

I was apprehensive about this debate. I thought that McCain might give Obama a really tough time. I don't think McCain succeeded. I was surprised and pleased with Obama's performance and I think he should be even sharper in the second debate. He should study his first debate just like a boxer studies videos of his opponent.

[Liberty 21]

What I found most amusing was McCain's attempt to find his "sound bite" or his memorable Reagan line. He kept trying to bait Obama with "he doesn't seem to understand" but McCain couldn't deliver the line the way a great communicator would, so it come off as weak and condescending.

McCain grew more and more frustrated that Obama wouldn't step into his right hook; wouldn't take the bait. Each time McCain would throw the line, Obama would use a judo move of intelligence and judgment to deflect it off. McCain repeatedly attempted to score points with "the surge". But Obama wisely used that ploy to point out all the opportunities that the United States has missed out on. Missed opportunities to make progress both domestically and internationally as a result of Bush's blunder in Baghdad. The war that never should have been.

McCain tried to earn patriot points by displaying his bracelet honoring a fallen soldier; Obama said "I've got a bracelet too, from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopeck". She doesn't want any more mothers to have to go through what she has with the loss of a child from this stupid war. Obama scored more patriot points than McCain by honoring the brave sacrifice of U.S. soldiers and their families; and reminding us that McCain was willing to "muddle through" Afghanistan. A mistake which has allowed the real terrorists to reform and once again become a threat in Afghanistan and throughout the world.

[Irisdavenport]

I thnk the Obama camp is very pleased with Barrack's performance. According the snap polls and focus groups, OBAMA won. Even the news coverage is now starting to reflect that point of view. Obama was smart not to go for McCain's jugular. According to James Carvell, Obama is at his best when he sticks to his issues and responds to McCains attacks with the facts. These are serious times, and the poeple want to hear a serious debate on the issues. Being nasty to McCain would not have gained any ground for Obama because the people he was trying to move to his column were people who like and respect McCain. They have not committed to McCain because of their democratic leanings. You get dems in your collumn on the issues, not by attacking.

[CostaDelBarto]

According to James Carvell..? well then I guess it must be true.

I really want to see Obama destroy McCain's arguments, not McCain personally... I want him to absolutely annihilate him on foreign issues and the economy but he didn't. He came across as lukewarm.

McCain came across as a kind of stupid bullying old grouch but Obama seemed weak because he was a bit too timid.

[greglondon]

Let's all remember something here. This is not about winning debates. It's about winning the election. Obama needs to reach out to and bleed off swing voters and moderate repubs, while at the same time keeping his base intact.

I believe this to be his strategy. Acknowledging points where he agrees with McCain on what the problem is will make repubs feel that he's thinking along the same lines they are. Then lay out a plan to deal with the problem that will make the base happy.

The strategy of a truly brilliant negotiator.

[lennix]

obama won

[itschuck2c]

What a well written unbiased article. I hope it does get the voters to actually think about the issues facing this country. Unfortunatley most americans can't think for themselves. If they could there would be no sub-prime mess. They would have realized they couldn't afford the house, car etc, etc.

[Oldchef]

It did seem curious to me that McCain never once looked at Obama, even when Lehrer kept telling him to "say it to Obama" he never looked at Obama, looked at Lehrer, looked at the camera, never looked Obama in the eye. Beyond that, Obama's answers seemed reasoned and thoughtful, McCain's vague and based on talking points. He seems totally obsessed about "the surge" and "victory" in Iraq. Obama should have pressed more on McCain's speeches after 9/11 concentrating on Iraq and urging intervention there. He got in a few points about "greeting us as liberators" etc.,but he should have really hammered on the way we were tricked into Iraq, partially by McCain's urging on the matter, also should have tied McCain tighter to Bush. Overall I thought Obama did well, but don't knopw if he was able to impress enough undecided voters.

[omop]

Winning, shmmining. What counts are the cumulative numbers after election day in November.

Speaking of numbers and things statistical one can only be impressed with McCain's comments that, after several visits to the Korean Peninsula as a member of a Select committe dealing with foreign affairs he has determined that the SOUTH KOREANS ARE ON AVERAGE 3" TALLER THAN THE NORTH KOREANS.

Hinting that that is either due to bad food or being in close proximity to nuclear fusion. If its the latter, and only he can vouch whether it is or is not, then based on his observations the UN nuclear advisory board now has another standard of measuring who is or is not involved in the development of nuclear bombs.

[MalamuteMan]

I agree with your hypothesis:

This is how it boils down for me:
1. I don’t recall any “gotcha” moments for either candidate. (draw)
2. I don’t recall any serious mistakes for either candidate. (draw)
3. The only laugh I remember was when John McCain said, “Were you afraid I couldn’t hear him?” But Barack was with out a doubt the most relaxed... smiling, chuckling, and looking around the room. McCain was stiff as a board. (edge to Barack)

There may be one other factor you didn’t consider... When the first three factors are a draw or nearly a draw, listeners may actually be forced to THINK about what the candidates said. (Win for Barack)

I was somewhat disappointed that Barack didn’t hit McCain on any of his hypocrisies. The one that leapt out at me from McCain’s ending summary was his assertion that Barack didn’t have enough experience. I know Barack chose to take the high road as he always does, but how can McCain knock Barack on experience after picking Palin as his running mate?

[scrutiny1]

You thought that. I thought that. Probably many other people were left with the same thought. If that is the case then score another one for Obama.

[MarciaJ720]

It bothered me that McCain literally would not acknowledge that Obama was there. I even picked up an "air" of "I'm better than this guy, what am I doing wasting my time here" from McCain.

I thought in the end, there were no gaffes so nobody won or lost.

Obama sounded more intelligent and on subject, but remember how easy McCain has it with his own base that he has brought out with his VP pick - he doesn't need to appeal to the more intelligent or informed.

[reasonshouldrule]

Well, MCain stumbled over the Iran's pm's name and called Pakistan a "failed state," which would surprise the Pakistanis. I think he missed on the name of the Pakistani president too.

[onenvrnos]

I wanted Obama to go for the jugular more, as I saw the opportunities to do so kinda muddled. I really believe Obama has to make McCain lose his cool, so that people can see he is really a lose cannon ball. It unnerved me how often he tried to make Obama naive---but a lot of people will listen to that and vote McCain because of his "experience." I think Obama needs to tweak that experience to show that "if you keep doing the same thing over and over again, you can not expect a different result." Here is one analogy: A teacher who has spent 20 years in the classroom is automatically a better teacher than one who has spent 5 years in the classroom. We all know this simply is not true--experience can sometimes be a detriment when that experience has been based on a false or unsound foundation. I think Obama needs to make that point repeatedly to really sink in his philosophy of change.

[WilburM]

"The person who is the most relaxed and getting some laughs is usually the winner."

I used to, you know, actually like McCain's persona... but there hasn't been a guy so totally incapable of making a joke since at least NIxon. McCain's attempts at humor are strikingly bad.

[ToonMoene]

> You can do a lot better by thinking for yourself.

Admirer to Adlai Stevenson: You will get the vote of every thinking American !

Adlai Stevenson: Unfortunately, madam, what I need is a majority.

[DofG]

Now that's funny!
It shouldn't be a question of who won the debate, but rather who is the more credible candidate. And it's obvious that McCain, by a different name, would be Faust!

[Justsaynodeal]

And Adlai Stevenson went on to lose............his response would seem elitist and demeaning to the average voter.