Electoral Math
Reality-Based^TM Political Numbers from Nicholas Beaudrot

Behold, a new talking point! | Home | A Response: Breaking the Campaign Cost Bottleneck

Clock management 101, or, how Bush won the 2000 Presidental debates

In 2000, Gore was leading Bush by 5 to 8 points leading up to the October debates. After the debates, most polls showed a draw. How did this happen? I decided to troll through the transcripts, and I found a very disturbing pattern.

Let's take this exchange from the first debate as an example:

MR. LEHRER:  All right.  On the Supreme Court question, should a
voter assume -- you're pro-life; you just stated your position.

     GOV. BUSH:  I am pro-life.

     MR. LEHRER:  Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the Supreme Court, or any other court, federal court, will also be pro-life?

     GOV. BUSH:  Voters should assume that I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue.  But the voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy.  And that's going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. 

     I believe that -- I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government; that they're appointed for life, and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench.  I don't believe in liberal, activist judges; I believe in strict constructionists, and those are the kind of judges I will appoint. 

     I've named four Supreme Court judges in the State of Texas, and I would ask the people to check out their qualifications, their deliberations.  They're good solid men and women who have made good sound judgments on behalf of the people of Texas.

     MR. LEHRER:  What kind of appointments should they expect from you, VICE PRESIDENT GORE?

     VICE PRESIDENT GORE:  Both of us use similar language to reach an exactly opposite outcome.  I don't favor litmus tests.  But I know that there are ways to assess how a potential justice interprets the Constitution.  And in my view, the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with the -- with our country and our history. 

And I believe, for example, that there is a right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment.  And when the phrase "strict constructionist" is used, and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying that the governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade.  I mean, it's very clear to me.  And I would appoint people who have a philosophy that I think would make it quite likely that they would uphold Roe v. Wade.

     MR. LEHRER:  Is the vice president right?  Is that a code word for overturning Roe v. Wade?

     GOV. BUSH:  Sounds like the vice president is not very right many times tonight.  I just told you the criterion on which I'll appoint judges.  I've had a record of appointing judges in the state of Texas. That's what a governors gets to do.  A governor gets to name supreme court judges.  And I've given my answer.

     MR. LEHRER:  All right.

     GOV. BUSH:  He also reads all kinds of things into my tax plan and in my Medicare plan.  And I just want the viewers out there to listen to what I have to say about that.

     VICE PRESIDENT GORE:  That's a yes.  It is a code.

     MR. LEHRER:  Reverse the question.  Reverse the question. (Laughter.)  What code phrases should we read by what you said about what kind of people you will appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court?

     VICE PRESIDENT GORE:  It would be very likely that they'd uphold Roe v. Wade.  But I do believe it's wrong to use a litmus test.  But -- (laughs) -- if you look at the history of a lower court judge's rulings, you can get a pretty good idea of how they're going to interpret questions.  Now, a lot of questions are a first impression, and these questions that have been seen many times come up in a new context.  And so -- but, you know, this is a very important issue because a lot of young women in this country take this right for granted, and it could be lost.

It is on the ballot in this election, make no mistake about it.

     GOV. BUSH:  I'll tell you what kind of judges he'll put on there. He'll put liberal, activist judges who will use their bench to subvert the legislature, that's what he'll do.

     VICE PRESIDENT GORE:  That's not right.

     MR. LEHRER:  New subject, new question.

Look closely. Notice anything? Besides Gore trying to wrangle a straight answer out of Bush and failing.

This is all one exchange; there are no intervening new questions, only follow-ups. But Bush managed to go into the "hurry up offense" and reach the end zone just before the buzzer. He succeeded in repeating his talking point right before the discussion moved to a new topic. In the first debate, there were fifteen questions. How many times did Gore get the last word in?

Once.

Taxes. Education. Medicare. Oil development. Judicial appointments. You go down the line, and every time Bush gets one last zinger in, whether it's an attack on Gore or the shortened (and often vague or sugarcoated) version of his position. In fact, Gore even noticed what was going on [emphasis added]:

     VICE PRESIDENT GORE:  If I -- just briefly, Jim, I know.  I found a couple of other things that we agree on, and we may not find that many this evening -- (laughs) -- so I wanted to emphasize them.  I strongly support new investments in clean coal technology.  I made a proposal three months ago on this.  And also domestic exploration, yes.  But not in the environmental treasures of our country.  We don't have to do that.  That's the wrong choice.  I know the oil companies have been itching to do that, but it is not the right thing for the future.

     GOV. BUSH:  No, it's the right thing for the consumers.  Less dependency upon foreign sources of crude is good for consumers, and we can do so in an environmentally friendly way.

     VICE PRESIDENT GORE:  Well, can I have the last word on this?

     MR. LEHRER:  New question.

     GOV. BUSH:  Of course.  (Laughter.)

This is part of the reason Gore kept getting pissed off and sighing. How about the second debate, did it go any better? This debate was more free wheeling, so it's hard to figure out where the questions begin and end. But I count nine or ten final answers for Bush, and two for Gore. And one last time, in the third debate, where Lehrer clearly tried to keep a tighter lid on things, Gore got the last word in 4 times. And one of those was just to repeat that he agreed with Bush on the death penalty, though using a 10-cent phrase when Bush used a 5-cent one. Bush, meanwhile, got the last word in 10 times.

The bottom line: If John Kerry knows what's good for him, he will write both the Bush campaign and the Commission on Presidential Debates today and demand that each candidate receive an equal number of opportunities to have the "final answer" in an exchange.

| | technorati

Home | Mail  | RSS

Last updated by Nicholas Beaudrot on 05:28 16 February 2005