Reading
The Note today I found several attempts at pro-Bush spin that were contradicted by the evidence.
The first is just an observation (seemingly correct) about what they have seen elsewhere in the media:
A review of the major and minor newspapers in battleground states suggests that both candidates got their message across. Kerry's "'colossal error of judgment' " line is oft-repeated. And nearly every article we read mentions somewhat prominently President Bush's apparent peevishness at times. Still, most of the coverage suggests this was a tie, which, in the battlegrounds, might go to the runner.
A tie? We were all afraid it would be spun into a win for Bush but the best the media can do is call it "a tie." But all the evidence indicates it was not a tie. All the polls show a Kerry win:
The polls: ABC, CBS, CNN/Gallup all show more voters thought Kerry "won"
Even the pundits, mostly, called it a Kerry win:
ABC's George Stephanopoulos said Kerry was substantive, cooler and more in command. He noted that Bush scowled at various times and that he hunched over the podium, emphasizing the height difference between the two men.
NBC's Tim Russert said Bush probably solidified his base and that Kerry was "the John Kerry Democrats thought they were nominating back in Iowa."
CBS' Bob Schieffer said he thought "Kerry made some gains last night" and that the president was "a little defensive at the beginning" though he "got better with time."
Campbell Brown of NBC, for example, said "The president seemed frustrated as Kerry made his case." CNN's "American Morning" reported that "stylistically, Kerry seemed more at ease." CNN's Jeff Greenfield said Kerry was "the more composed figure."
The Wall Street Journal Schlesigner/Harwood/Robbins team gave the advantage to Kerry, with his "punchy, short declarative sentences" and "steady" performance.
New York Post headlines:
--"Foes Pound Each Other"
--"Kerry Comes Out 'Swinging'"
--"'Bad Night' for W."
Lynn Sweet's headline in the Chicago Sun-Times: "Kerry helped himself, Bush didn't hurt himself."
Thomas Oliphant: "In the middle of a disjointed, subpar performance on an evening when he could have locked away a second term, President Bush made an unusually silly attempt to link the terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11 with the dictator who used to rule Iraq."
Kerry brought it, and voters needed to hear a little substance -- and got it, writes the New York Times ' ed board.
The Washington Post 's editorial board calls it a draw, as does a Washington Times analysis.
Los Angeles Times editorial headline: "Kerry won. However ... "
Bob Novak (get well soon, sir) says "the debate was a significant boost for Democratic morale, which had been slipping badly. Republicans could have been happier, but they were not dismayed."
The Philadelphia Daily News ed board, which acknowledges its endorsement of Senator Kerry, scores one for the Senator from Massachusetts, Noting "OK, GIVEN that we've already endorsed John Kerry, it would be fair to think we would view the senator's performance during last night's presidential debate with some positive bias." "But the man smoked President Bush."
An Arizona Republic editorial claims Senator Kerry scored big.
The liberal DailyKos revels in conservative blogger anxiety.
The Morning Show Wrap:
Senator John Kerry emerged as the winner on the morning shows in terms of body language assessments, polls that all showed him ahead, pundits who thought he helped himself, and voter groups on ABC and NBC that both went heavily for Kerry.
Also, at least some of Bush's spinmeisters are distracted and fighting with Drudge:
White House communications director Dan Bartlett called "ridiculous" a Drudge Report item attributed to Bush's "inner circle" which suggested that Bush's visit earlier in the day with Hurricane victims was "emotionally draining" and that it contributed to Bush's "tired" appearance during debate.
On "Fox and Friends," Bartlett said the Drudge Report item about Bush's closer circle of advisers blaming his poor debate performance on his being tired from visiting with hurricane victims was "ridiculous. "He wasn't tired," Bartlett said. "He was very much engaged in this debate."
All these things indicate that the "It was a tie" spin is pure fantasy. Realizing that Kerry so obviously won that calling the debate a tie strained credulity, the media had to search for an alternate spin. The best they could come up with is "Yes, Kerry won but he still didn't help himself with voters." Jeff Greenfield, evidently among others, seems to have started this last night:
CNN's Jeff Greenfield said I think John Kerry did better in terms of debate terms. But that's a different question than saying that he helped himself in the debate. He said the undecided universe might be so small that it does not matter. He also asserted that Gore led in polls immediately after the first 2000 debate but when more attention was paid to his sighs and embellishments, the polls turned.
The Note's Morning Show Wrap had this caveat:
The assessments cautioned however that the same polls that showed Kerry "winning" the debate did not immediately change the preference of voters.
Elsewhere The Note wrote:
The pundits were more restrained than they otherwise would be in granting a Kerry "win" because of polls that suggest voter preferences were not immediately changed by the debate.
That statement that "polls that suggest voter preferences were not immediately changed by the debate" is only partially true. It is true that voters often don't change their minds immediately after a debate and there is some evidence that was the case last night:
Some analysis from ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer, after reviewing last night's poll:
" "John Kerry won the first debate and with it a shot at reinvigorating his campaign for the presidency. But in the first blush, vote preferences among viewers were unmoved. Among a random sample of 531 registered voters who watched the debate, 45 percent called Kerry the winner, 36 percent said it was Bush, and 17 percent called it a tie. It was a clean win for Kerry: Independents by a 20-point margin said he prevailed. Moreover, while 70 percent of Bush's supporters said Bush was the winner, considerably more Kerry supporters -- 89 percent -- said their man won."
As is customary, the debate did not immediately change many minds. Bush's support was 50 percent among viewers before the debate, and 51 percent after it; Kerry's, 46 percent before, 47 percent after. Ralph Nader had 1 percent before and a tad less than that after. This kind of immediate reaction is typical in presidential debates, which tend to reinforce viewers' preferences rather than change them. But the debates -- an essential window on the candidates' style as well as their substance -- can affect the race more subtly as voters move toward their final judgments."
The New York Times ' James Dao looks at how some undecided voters in battleground states saw the debate -- few minds changed, but some leaners came away strengthened in their positions.
USA Today 's headline for Kathy Kiely's report on their focus group reads: "No minds made up just yet in this room: Undecided voters wait to hear more."
But some polls and surveys did find immediate change. Certainly the CBS poll did:
In reporting CBS' numbers which showed Kerry with a big 43 to 28 lead over Bush in terms of who won the debate, CBS' Bill Plante added: "Even better news for Kerry: his likeability score rose. It is now even with Bush and he is ahead among women."
Both ABC and NBC reporters also seemed to find evidence that Kerry had helped himself:
ABC's Kate Snow spoke to six voters in Columbus, Ohio. Five of six voters thought Kerry did better. One man said: "I saw a different John Kerry last night. He was composed. He was eloquent." That same man said Bush looked nervous and that he didn't address the issues. Another man said Kerry showed Bush had flip flopped on reason for Iraq War. Another man was taken by Kerry's Tora Bora argument. He was dismayed that Bush never dismissed that and he wants to know: did the US let Bin Laden to slip out?
NBC's Norah O'Donnell sat down with a small group of undecided voters -- all of whom agreed Senator Kerry was better in the debate. It moved some people toward Kerry though some remained on the fence.
Although many undecided voters did not respond by immediately choosing Kerry after the debate, it's pretty clear he did help himself and appeared presidential standing next to President Bush. The diehard Bush spinmeisters tried to counter that by claiming that "Kerry failed to close the credibility gap." Maybe they were not watching the same debate the rest of us saw. Their prepared responses certainly rang hollow and sounded uncharacteristically humble:
Sobering talking points from Ken Mehlman's e-mail to supporters: "President Bush spoke clearly and from the heart last night about the path forward -- toward victory and security -- in the War on Terror. The president spoke candidly about the difficulties facing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as these countries prepare for their first free elections. The terrorists will continue to fight these steps toward freedom because they fear the optimism and hope of democracy. They fear the prospects for their ideology of hate in a free and democratic Middle East."
"John Kerry failed the one test he had to pass last night: he failed to close the credibility gap he has with the American people as his record of troubling contradiction and vacillation spiraled down to incoherence."
ABC News' Karen Travers asked Nicolle Devenish what she thought the headlines this morning would say: "Kerry failed to close the credibilty gap," is how she responded.
As an aside, I found this quote from Langer interesting in that it confirmed the current split nationally among democrats, republicans and independents. We should use this to hammer Gallup:
"Political party allegiance of debate viewers also was quite similar to its division among all likely voters nationally. Among debate viewers, 35 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 35 percent as Republicans and 24 percent as independents. It was a 36-35-23 percent division among all likely voters in the last ABC/Post survey."