At the Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona (Bush country - the President won the state handily in 2000, and currently enjoys a sizeable lead in statewide polls), the third and final debate of the 2004 Presidential cycle ended in what pollsters will probably find, a day or so down the line, was a tie -- or a marginal win for Kerry.
Not the sort of tie where both contenders hammer each other to a standstill, though - this was more the sort of tie where two contenders shadow box, each in his own corner, without really venturing out to engage his opponent in some real blood-letting.
A tie suits John Kerry. Here is why: A CNN/USA Today Gallup poll dated 10/12 had Americans putting Kerry ahead of Bush on pretty much every single domestic issue.
The readings: Kerry over Bush, 29 per cent difference, in protecting the environment; Kerry with a 19 point advantage in improving healthcare; 15 point advantage in preserving Medicare; 13 point advantage in eliminating deficits; a 9 point advantage in keeping Social Security alive; a four point advantage in preserving the right to chose. The only area where Americans polled put Bush ahead of Kerry was when it came to taxes - obviously, Bush's charge that Kerry was a tax and spend liberal is having some impact.
With those leads, what Kerry needed to do was guard against erosion, ensure that Bush did not knock him off his feet on any of those issues. Thus, Kerry was essentially fighting a holding operation whereas Bush, with his pre-debate lead evaporating, needed to knock his opponent down, and out, to regain the upper hand.
Overall the debate, devoted to domestic - or, as the phrase goes, kitchen-table - issues framed the choice before the American people. Bush promised four more years of the same government the country has gotten during his first term; Kerry promised fiscal discipline, a concerted effort to cut the deficit, tougher immigration and gun control policies.
Kerry played to win the undecideds and to try and wean away the more moderate of Republican supporters (vide his constant invocations, for instance, of John McCain); Bush, today, played the far riskier game of appealing directly to the core Republican base, in an attempt to consolidate his constituency even at the risk of alienating the undecideds with his hardline stances on issues such as minimum wage, abortion, et al.
Both candidates had their moments. Bush's typically came in the sincerity with which he handled a softball question on his faith; and it came in his closing speech - an attention getting opening when he talked of his favorite painting, quietly sincere, and occasionally moving.
| |||||||||||
Both candidates missed possible kills - Kerry, more than Bush. Early on, when the President was asked why there was a shortage of flu vaccines, he said a British firm, which was tasked with supplying 50 per cent of the requirement, had failed, and that a Canadian firm had now been given the job.
Though Kerry in his response spoke of how the President had blocked a bill permitting Americans to import cheaper drugs from Canada, he forgot - or failed to mention - that the President, who today spoke of having asked a Canadian firm to supply the deficit of flu shots, had in the second debate suggested that he had banned import of drugs from Canadian firms because he had issues with quality. The question begged asking - how, in the course of a week, had Canadian drug firms suddenly become reliable?
In a couple of areas, the President clearly looked on less than solid ground. Thus, when Kerry was asked how he would provide relief to the National Guard, now overstretched and doing continuous rotations, Kerry outlined his plan to raise the strength of the regular army, and of the special forces, and thus relieve pressure on the Guard.
Bush's response was a classic non sequitur: "The best way to take the pressure off the National Guard is to win in Iraq," he said - which patently did not address the concern implicit in the question.
Again, moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News asked Kerry about the growing gap between rich and poor, and asked if he was in favor of an increase in minimum wage.
It is essential, Kerry said, adding that his goal was to raise it to $7, from its current level of $5.15. In true policy wonk fashion, Kerry reeled off figures of the number of women this would positively impact, the amount of extra money they would earn, and such.
In response, Bush sidestepped any commitment to raising the minimum wage. What he did was reframe the question - "What is really important," he told Schieffer, "is to improve the quality of education", and then launched into a talking-point rendition of his education plan, which was simply not what the question was about.
The real take on the debate will come over the next 48 hours, when bloggers and newspapers begin analyzing the claims and counterclaims made by both candidates, and pick out factual errors or deliberate distortions. A classic example of such fact-checking comes from the Washington Post, which broke down the second debate with "a neat Debate Referee gimmick".
(Off hand, I can think of two assertions that are likely to be given the lie, both by Bush - firstly, in course of today's debate, Kerry pointed out that Bush had said he was not particularly concerned about Osama Bin Laden, and Bush in his turn flat out said he had never made such a statement. He had. Again, Bush repeatedly brought up the '98 votes' Kerry cast in favor of increasing taxes - a refrain of his campaign, that has been comprehensively debunked).
With this, the race runs into its last phase - and the fireworks are due to begin. The debates gave both candidates a chance to bring up allegations made by the other side, and rebut them. That opportunity has ended - which means, effectively, that is open season from now on, for both candidates to go on the stump and say whatever they chose, about the other - throw lots of mud, in the hope that some sticks.
And this is where ferociously hard-hitting ads will come into play - for instance, check out this one, just one among a series that is likely to go on stream by the end of the month.
| |||||||||||
Some papers have been content to editorialize in support of one or the other - others are going further, however. Chris Satullo, oped page editor of The Philadelphia Enquirer, has for instance launched a 21-part series, each part to be devoted to one of what Satullo calls "the many flaws of President Bush's record" and the "better ideas of John Kerry."
The story of the final debate is the story of two men - both seemingly exhausted towards the end - who fought each other to a standstill. The real story, however, will unfold over the next couple of days, as the opinion polls begin to come in.
A good resource to keep track of what various papers are saying - and more importantly, to keep track of polls both national and state-wise, is this site. Keep track of them here). And here is another one.
External links:
Talking Points Memo
The Daily Kos
Andrew Sullivan
Sites to check: