Strategy & Tactics in First USA Presidential Debate

Allan Louden is a highly experienced college debate coach in the USA as well as a scholarly analyst of political communication.

From http://www.debatescoop.org/story/2008/9/27/10954/9980

Strategy and Tactics - Mississippi Showdown
By Allan Louden 09/27/2008 10:09:54 AM EST

If I were to offer that one candidate in the Oxford Mississippi debate displayed the following characteristics, competent, capable, knowledgeable, adept, personable, comfortable, and unperturbed, which candidate would you think I was describing?

My guess is that hardcore Democrats would say Obama, hardcore Republicans McCain, and the small center, both. My take on the 1st presidential debate is all three opinions are accurate.

Certainly there were better and worse moments for each candidate but on the whole there was a standoff.

Some will be disappointed that there were no non-factual gaffes. Inventing blunders is left to the campaigns and bloggers because it did not happen in the debate.

I had the opportunity to watch the debate with an auditorium of students and community members. This audience had no audible sighs or burst of laughter; they remained as measured and serious as McCain and Obama. Not to disappoint, but a debate without a noticeable false move suggests both aspirants did their job, and with skill.

Many will find fault, and surely there were factual errors and lost opportunities, but each debater, in my opinion was solid, fulfilling their intended purpose.

I search my memory for another first-debate that was as competent for both candidates as Friday's debate and it may be as far back as 1976, when Jimmy Carter faced off with Gerald Ford on domestic policy.

Strategy and Tactics

At one dramatic point in the debate, discussing the Iraqi "Surge," McCain charged "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. A little later, after saying "That's not true," Obama with a touch of disdain said "We had a legitimate difference, and I absolutely understand the difference between tactics and strategy."
Tags: Obama, McCain, Presidential debate, Univ of Mississippi, debate strategy, winners

Formally a strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal (winning) while a (military) tactic is the use of weapons or military units in for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle.
Apart from the deployment of US forces, the debate illustrated strategy and tactics that were the debate's essence. These narratives will continue to be debated for the next thirty-eight days.

McCain's strategy was to paint Obama as inexperienced and not ready to lead. Obama's strategy was to go toe-to-toe, not backing down, be presidential.

At a tactical level the rhetorical choices could not have been clearer. McCain thrice called Obama naive and fourteen times said in some form that Obama did not understand. Case in point: "What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand. . ." and "This is dangerous. It isn't just naive; it's dangerous."

Obama refused to take the role of youngster to McCain's father figure, and nine times said "not true"; when responding to nuclear reprocessing "That's just not true, John. John, I'm sorry, but that's not true." Eight additional times he suggested McCain intentionally misled. During the contentious exchange on sitting down with foreign leaders Obama retorted, "Nobody's been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position."

McCain strongly extended his general campaign theme of an ill-equipped Obama, yet is also the case that Obama was up to the challenge. McCain was aggressive, Obama reasoned, each within the bounds of credibility.

Both contestants enjoyed the upper hand in portions of the debate, Obama winning that economic security is more than ear-marks and McCain demonstrating depth via his bona fide travel itinerary. I found the debate, albeit often replays of the earlier campaign, surprisingly substantive.

Winners & Losers

Who won and lost the debate will not be known for a few days. Their competing strategies (narratives) will continue to play out. Neither lost in the debate proper and I suspect that polls will not show a "debate effect."

Absent unforeseen spin, a case can be made this leaves Obama the "victor." Why? McCain had no homerun to stop an economically driven Obama drift, Obama was "presidential enough", and ties go to the "challenger."

After sleeping on the debate I'll stick by what I told the Christian Science Monitor's Alexandra Marks last night:

It was one of the more competent debates we've seen in a long time. There were no major gaffes. It was data-driven, and both spoke clearly to their constituencies, as they should have," says Allan Louden, a debate expert at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C. "I would rate it as a draw, but if it's a draw, the draw goes to the challenger and that would be Obama.