Bernard Lord a Master Debator
First things first: my deepest apologies for not being around for the past ten days or so. I'm going to have to see a doctor about this atrophied blog.
On to the english debate analysis!
Consider the pool of undecided voters who watched last night's debate and what their reactions would be. Undecideds are the only ones still "in the game". For those of us who have already decided, watching a leader's debate quickly devolves into a sort of dissonant self-congratulatory exercise wherein we each confirm our own beliefs. For an undecided, however, this stuff can actually mean something.
Being a decided voter, I can only speculate as to the perspective of an undecided voter (like when CNN's Anderson Cooper describes the plight of Katrina victims or when Monte Solberg tries to figure out what we humans are feeling). That said, I'll do my best.
I suppose that the important thing is how likely an undecided voter is to vote for a particular party after watching the debate, compared to how likely she was to vote for that same party before having watched the debate. That is: how well did each leader perform relative to the expectations of an undecided voter?
- Bernard Lord "won" the debate. Decided, undecided, young, old, conservative, liberal, social democratic, tall, short... all can agree that Lord won the debate. I woke up this morning and Mrs. Singer looked at me and said "Lord won the debate". I jumped in the shower and thought to myself "Lord won the debate". I started my car and the radio said "Lord won the debate". I got to work and my colleague said "Lord won the debate". In about two hours I'm going to go to the Deli for lunch and the cashier is going to say "seventy three cents your change, Lord won the debate, enjoy your tuna wrap".
- Shawn Graham was okay. He certainly wasn't a disaster. The problem is, from the undecided voter perspective, he didn't look like a Premier. He was the only person on stage who had the task of enabling the audience to envision him as Premier (Brewer clearly won't be Premier and Lord already is). I don't think he did well in that sense, if only because he was out-classed by Lord (who, in excess of what was needed, looked positively Prime Ministerial at times) and, on at least one occasion, Brewer.
- Allison Brewer was okay, too. The thing is: she was working from a different set of expectations than the other two leaders. Nobody is asking her to look like a Premier; her job is to show that her or any of the other NDP candidates can act as a competent moderator who holds the red guys and blue guys to account on their promises. I think she did that job. She was at her best when reminding the audience about the Liberals' petulant childishness in the legislature and dubious job creation history (I believe that at one point early in the debate she referred to Graham's bit about a "can-do attitude" as a "call centre attitude"). She shuffled her papers a bit and had difficulty maintaining eye contact with the camera. Those are rookie mistakes but they don't really reveal anything to an undecided voter because, well, she is a rookie and people expect those sorts of mistakes.
posted by Alvy Singer @ 9:47 AM
17 comments
17 Comments:
I think I would agree with your analysis on Lord. I think that this debate was his best performance of any debate, any language 1999, 2003 or 2006.
I would disagree with your interpretation of Graham and Brewer however.
In my mind a debate is an expectations game, and the winners were as follows through that lens:
Bernard Lord beat my expectations
Shawn Graham met or slightly beat my expectations
Allison Brewer did not meet my expectations.
Before I get accused of being mean to the rookie, I did have a lower bar for her but the fact that she said NOTHING the whole debate that she wasn't reading from a paper was unfortunate and really turned me off.
Alvy, tip of the hat to you for the most humourous blog. The title is obvious but still clever.
Thanks, Spinks.
NBPolitico, you could be correct. It is entirely possible that Brewer's inability to maintain eye contact with the camera is a larger factor than I had originally considered. You must admit, though, that the content of her speech exceeded expectations - if not, I suspect that the expectations were poorly calibrated.
She did say some stuff without reference to notes, but yes, mostly she read.
I don't work in communications, marketing, politics or public relations, so I really don't know if reading notes is a big deal or not.
If people will base their vote on Graham's ability to memorize what his handlers tell him to say (and Brewer's lack of same), then this whole enterprise is significantly more shallow than I had originally thought. I am not saying that that is not the case, just I have yet to attain that level of discouragement with the ability of the electore to analyze critically.
electore
I may have to "recalibrate my expectations" of my own ability to spell and type. That's "electorate", of course.
Well said, enjoyable, and witty as always. Keep up the good work FPT.
www.progressfornewbrunswick.blogspot.com
Alvy your comment on Shawn Graham: "The problem is, from the undecided voter perspective, he didn't look like a Premier." is dead on. This is one of my biggest issues with the man, at no point have I gotten the feeling he can hold his own around the table of other premiers. There is just something about him that doesn't ring right with me when I picture a premier.
Without even picturing Mr. Graham in your minds, say "Premier Shawn" does it sound right to you? I don't know what it is but it doesn't work for me. Has there ever been a Premier Shawn?
"Bernard Lord "won" the debate. Decided, undecided, young, old, conservative, liberal, social democratic, tall, short... all can agree that Lord won the debate." Alvy Singer I enjoy your blog but I have to disagree on this one .I believe Lord was totally pathetic. He was busy defending his blunders and then of course he refuses to apologize for the biggest foul ups of them all, Orimulsion.
I give Shawn Graham the edge. Brewer did put Lord in his place few times although on Orimulsion issue she spared him by interjecting at the wrong time.
I am still waiting for Lordslation as you promised. I hope your promise is not like one of Bernie Lord's which he says a politician does not have to keep. Please keep your word.
If people will base their vote on Graham's ability to memorize what his handlers tell him to say (and Brewer's lack of same), then this whole enterprise is significantly more shallow than I had originally thought
I am uncynical enough to think that all of the leaders were saying, by and large, what they believe. Graham (and Lord as well) may have rehersed some one-liners and factoids, but they were spouting their message. Brewer could not do that. That is a bad sign in my view
I choose to believe that the only difference is their relative abilities to memorize and speak in front of a camera.
I know that the "experts" said Lord won the debate, but that's not the way I saw it. As a seasoned politician, he constantly avoided answering any questions directly. He has an uncanny habit of squinting his right eye to try to make one feel he is being genuine. Please!! Trust my words--watch for it in the next debate.
Shawn is the man to watch--the man of the people.
1:22 AM you are quite right. Lord’s performance was lack lustre and his stance was very defensive. His eyes were half closed and it looked as if he was fighting back dozing off.
So-called experts have no idea of the real stuff and how people perceive. Bernie's half-awake demeanour cost him some votes and he was the loser. I rate Shawn Graham 1, Brewer 2 and Lord 3rd. Brewer did throw some strong punches both on Lord and Graham but Lord got the most bruises when she repeatedly said that Lord's overall obsession has been to hang on to power.
Everyone I talked to say Lord lost and these people have no political affiliation.
Alvy,
It is very nice to read your blog again. You make it enjoyable to read. I don't know if it's because you're gifted or that I agree with what you're writing. Perhaps we'll find out some day.
I may not be adding anything new to this debate, but here were my observations.
Lord: He looked distinguished and confident. Some people mistake confidence with arrogance, and even though there is often a fine line between the two, I do not think Lord crossed it. He did look older than he actually is, but not tired. And, he had a very nice tie.
Graham: His suit was too big, but his suits are all too big for him so this was nothing new. He actually looked like he believed in what he was saying, which is good to see. However, he was too negative. He's been nagative throughout the campaign, and I was expecting more from him.
Brewer: I didn't expect much from Brewer and I was not disappointed nor was I impressed. She peaked when chastising the other two for the spring session. However, when she said she watched it unfold from the gallery, I immediately thought that's where she'll be watching the next session. Though I do hope an NDPer does get elected to the Legislature. It would be of benefit to this province.
Monctonite, "He did look older". He not only looked older but also half asleep. He was on the defensive all the time. He lost the debate.
His suit was too big, but his suits are all too big for him so this was nothing new.
It's like he's playing dress-up in daddy's clothes.
Alvy Singer: Are you a tailor? LOL. You are getting comments from fellow tailors who are so busy looking at the size of the suits. To bad it does not suit them.
I didn't really find any of them to be overly impressive. Kind of reminded me of my early days of high school debate: Rattle off as many facts as you can in the time given, while highlighting the "dumb" things the opponent said and avoiding answering the "intelligent" questions they posed.
Lord looked the "prettiest". Shawn needs to wear darker colors to make himself look more intimidating ;)
As for the "debate" itself....meh. I guess Lord's delivery was best. No one said anything overly groundbreaking, and nothing that would change my vote (not that I can change it now, considering I voted on Monday).
Hopefully the next generation of NB politicians will be a tad more palatable.
Woops, forgot to post my name. The above comment is mine, BTW ;)
As for the potential of Graham being premier, I have a difficult time picturing him at a table with heavyweights like Ralph Klein, Jean Charest, Danny Williams and Gordon Campbell, and even relative newbies like McGuinty. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but you have to admit, the image is...chuckle-worthy ;)
Granted, I don't want to prejudge Mr. Graham; he could very well be a good premier. I'm just not sure what image of NB he will be able to project, especially if the rest of the country views us as dumping someone seen as "federal" material in favor of....well, Shawn Graham.
But maybe he'll win 40 seats and be the greatest premier in decades...who knows.
Post a Comment
<< Home