After Tuesday night all talk will be about the Cheney-Edwards showdown, so this is getting late in the game for analysis of the debate last Thursday.
The debate, and more particularly, the bandwagon reaction to calling it a Kerry victory, underscore how the challenger can really struggle to get their message out and appear presidential until the debates. Think of Reagan-Carter in 1980, which was close until the [only] debate, and then became a Reagan landslide.
There's been some chatter about how if Kerry can take on Bush on foreign affairs and security, then Kerry will surely do better again on domestic policy.
Not so fast! First off, it's likely that the perceived gap between their performances will narrow, since Kerry appeared to have a good night, and Bush a bad one.
Second, Kerry may well know the subject matter of foreign affairs and security better than he knows domestic issues. (Though what really matters is the issue gap vis a vis Bush) Kerry has concentrated on foreign affairs in the Senate -- it's hardly surprising he appears in control of the subject.
Third, Bush will now have seen Kerry's speaking and debating style, and will have a chance to incorporate that into his own preparation. Forewarned is forearmed.
So, as an objective matter, I'd expect Bush to do better in the next debate. If Bush shows the same signs of impatience and arrogance in the townhall style meeting, and Kerry shows not only that he knows the issues, but that he can connect with voters ("feel their pain"), only then will Kerry be able to pull away.
Bush needs to win both the last two debates; Kerry needs to win just one.
Posted by robe0419 at October 4, 2004 3:19 PM