Listen Now: Morning News

Debates: Who wins?

The first question everyone asks after a debate is, “who won?”   It fits with our obsession for applying sports metaphors while discussing politics.

After Tuesday’s U.S. Senate debate between Rep. Shelley Moore Capito and Secretary of State Natalie Tennant, reporters’ mailboxes were overflowing with spin.   Each campaign claimed victory while pointing out the failures of the other.

No problem.  That’s their job.

Most of the folks I heard from through emails, phone calls and tweets assigned victory to the candidate they were already supporting.  That’s natural.  You want your candidate to do well, so you inherently acknowledge their positives, while pointing out the negatives of the opponent.

Tennant needs to make up ground, so she spent more time on the attack.   Capito, who is up in the polls by anywhere from 13 to 23 points, was more reserved.  I hope that voters who watched benefited from seeing and hearing the candidates together.  That will probably be the only head-to-head meeting, and that’s unfortunate.

Tennant has improved as a candidate in recent months, and is clearly comfortable in front of a camera (thanks to her experience as a TV news person).  However her challenge is, as it has been from the beginning, making the race about her and not her party or the President.

Fox News Digital Politics Editor Chris Stirewalt said on Metronews Talkline yesterday that the nature of campaigns have flipped.  The late House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s truism that “all politics is local” has been supplanted by the nationalization of races.

“Voting against her (Tennant) is no offense toward her,” Stirewalt said.  “It’s just a way to send a message to President Obama that says ‘I want you to know that we do not like what you are doing.’”

That’s why in her opening statement Tuesday night Tennant reminded the audience that Barack Obama is not on the ballot. It’s also why if you played a game where every time Capito said “Tennant” and “Obama” in the same sentence you took a drink, you would have passed out before 7:30.

Capito had the same problem a few elections back as the Iraq war bogged down and George Bush’s numbers fell.  However she benefited from weaker and less-well financed opposition, as well as her own political acumen.

Certainly Tennant is keeping hope alive, and she’s likely buoyed after her Tuesday night performance, but it’s hard to find a political observer—novice or professional, in-state or national—who sees any scenario other than a Capito victory.

So discussion of winning or losing a debate is made somewhat irrelevant.  Capito didn’t gaffe and Tennant didn’t soar.  The arc of the race, which continues to favor Capito, won’t change significantly based on what happened at the Clay Center.

Still it was—please excuse the romanticism—a pretty good exercise of Democracy.  If candidates (and moderators) had more practice, we would be better at it.   Who knows, some of the rhetoric could be downright inspiring.

Then the people the politicians promise to represent would be the winners of debates.

 

 

 

 





More Hoppy's Commentary

Commentary
Some notes on Easter and religion as we begin the holiday
March 29, 2024 - 12:48 am
Commentary
Third party and independent presidential candidates rarely get traction in West Virginia
March 28, 2024 - 12:10 am
Commentary
Let's talk about the officiating in the WVU-Iowa game
March 27, 2024 - 12:47 am
Commentary
WVU basketball looks to the future
March 26, 2024 - 12:15 am


Your Comments