Debates: Who Was Tuned In?

Political debates are a fascinating phenomena. In the abstract we say we want to hear issues discussed. In reality, our determination of who won is usually more visceral.

I think that if more time were given for a detailed discussion we might actually benefit and be able to make decisions based on the substantive matter of a debate. But only if fact-checkers were on hand to dial back the misrepresentations. As this doesn't happen, we're left with our gut feelings about who the candidates are and what they would represent for our country.

Given this, it is vital for the candidates to tune into the general mood of the electorate and what they are looking for in their leaders. In 2000, we were in some fairly good economic times and were feeling fairly comfortable with ourselves. As relaxed voters, we relaxed our concerns about whether the candidates were well-versed on the issues. How often have we heard it said that Bush was elected (well, that is disputable, of course, but he garnered nearly 1/2 of the votes, so we'll go on) because people thought that he'd be more fun to have a beer with? Personally, I was baffled. Regardless of the relative peace and prosperity, the job of President is a very serious one, requiring very serious diplomacy skills, wise jugment, integrity and the intellectual ability to process a lot of complex information. Still, we got W.

Things are different today. We're in two wars, neither of which is going well. Our prosecution of said wars and our treatment of detainees has really lowered our moral standing in the world. Our economy is in shambles with no end of the crash in site.

If you're a candidate, what do you think the electorate is looking for? This is what I saw with Obama and McCain:

Obama seemed to have determined that voters are worried and looking for a leader who will provide them direct assistance. I would say his goal was to appear concerned, but calm and to offer a sense that he was here to advocate for us.

McCain seemed to have determined that voters are angry. He even said so at one point. I would say that his goal was to express that anger for voters and convicne us that anger motivates him to fight. He was offering himself as our warrior.

Who was more tuned in to what the voters want to see from their leaders?