The worst Presidential Debate Performance EVER
Last edited Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:32 PM - Edit history (10)
Ronald Reagan in 1984 was going to win a landslide. Everyone knew it.
Walter Mondale entered the first debate with no shot and really did nothing to change that. But Ronald Reagan was stricken by senile dementia... for real. That's not just something nasty to say. It was some sort of neurological incident. He had no short term memory. He didn't always understand what was going on. With each passing minute he became weaker. And he appeared defeated and confused.
His closing statement was astonishing. He started rambling about some car trip he had taken once until the moderator, with apologetic sadness, had to step in and call time mid-sentence.
It was the worst presidential debate performance EVER. And, unbelievably, Mondale pulled even in the race—even polling ahead of Reagan a few times.
Then, in the second debate, Reagan delivered a scripted joke about age that was genuinely funny and charming, and everyone said that he had set to rest concerns about his age. He hadn't, but everyone pretended he had because he looked a lot better that night, and more confident.
This is what some have missed about the Obama-Romney debate. It wasn't that Obama gave the wrong answers. It was that he did not seem confident. Non-ideological voters don't care about your answers. If they knew the right answers they wouldn't be non-idealogical. They want to believe that you have the right answers. And it wasn't that Romney got away with all his lies... that didn't help, but it wasn't the key problem.
It was a lack of a sense of confidence and conviction.
As William Butler Yeats famously wrote (in 1919) about the Obama-Romney debate:
Are full of passionate intensity.
Life is complex and thoughtful people know that bumper sticker slogans don't get it done, but thoughtful people are only one demographic. A woman once told Adlai Stevenson that she was sure he had the vote of every thinking American, and he said, "That might not be enough."
People aren't all that complicated. We are suckers for self-assurance.
A job interview is the same, even at the highest possible level. Eye contact, smile, energy, positive attitude, and don't be afraid to toot your own horn. And act like you want the job!
If someone had never seen Obama or Romney before and the building was on fire, most average-Joes would have followed Romney that night. To most people, "I will save you from the fire. Follow me!" is more persuasive than, "God knows I've made my share of mistakes."
(I would follow Obama, the thoughtful guy who seemed to have a sense of how the building was laid out. I would distrust the manic guy who couldn't specify where the exits are, but promised to figure something out after we started following him. But I, and probably you, are not like the fickle 5-10% of people who decide presidential elections.)
Now, the bright side is that Ronald Reagan was given a second chance, even after the worst imaginable showing. Obama will not get the same level of slack people gave Ronald Reagan but he shouldn't need it. (He didn't have an Alzheimer's incident, just an uninspiring debate.) And Obama is, like Reagan, well liked. Most Americans want him to succeed.
If Obama is confident and loose and assertive Tuesday the media (despite their inclinations) will trot out the well-worn comeback kid narrative because it's a story people like.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Many here were not active politically in 84. Many who were active, myself included, forgot the facts of those debates.
