After watching the debates family members will usually ask me "Who won?". I for one don't think it can be measured that way.
The reason why I prefer the wrestling analogy (instead of sports let's say) applied to politics is because there's never really a winner in the conventional sense. It isn't like a foot race where the better athlete crosses the finishes line first. It's more like a popularity contest where a contestant is crowned for being the most likable. It's a different set of intangibles all together with any victory provisional. Gaffes and knockout punches might play a factor but that is contingent on the viewer being knowledgeable on the issues. Remember a speaker can stretch the truth with little consequence if the viewer doesn't examine it critically.
What is an easier question and far more visceral is "Who did you like more?". So instead of the question being "Who has more depth?" or "Who was being disingenuous?". The question then becomes "who was more likable in showing their depth?"
As it relates to wrestling and punditry I've called this 'Managing aura'.
Read the original post - Aura: How pundits and politicians preserve their image Part 1 and Part 2
I touched on the subject of projecting strength regardless of outcome in a post on the Democratic Primary - The Democratic Primary: How should Barack and Hillary finish it?
For what its worth, the record will show Sarah Palin won the same way Obama won. Expect the polls to be even at least until the next Presidential debate. As has been the case the last few weeks, Sarah Palin was again the headline act and she has lived up to her top billing.
Update:
Fact checking the VP debate
The reason why I prefer the wrestling analogy (instead of sports let's say) applied to politics is because there's never really a winner in the conventional sense. It isn't like a foot race where the better athlete crosses the finishes line first. It's more like a popularity contest where a contestant is crowned for being the most likable. It's a different set of intangibles all together with any victory provisional. Gaffes and knockout punches might play a factor but that is contingent on the viewer being knowledgeable on the issues. Remember a speaker can stretch the truth with little consequence if the viewer doesn't examine it critically.
What is an easier question and far more visceral is "Who did you like more?". So instead of the question being "Who has more depth?" or "Who was being disingenuous?". The question then becomes "who was more likable in showing their depth?"
As it relates to wrestling and punditry I've called this 'Managing aura'.
Read the original post - Aura: How pundits and politicians preserve their image Part 1 and Part 2
I touched on the subject of projecting strength regardless of outcome in a post on the Democratic Primary - The Democratic Primary: How should Barack and Hillary finish it?
In wrestling, a wrestler's value hinges on how they gain and preserve their Aura. As there can only be one winner, the trick is in managing defeat in a way that allows a wrestler to preserve their aura. In this way both contenders regardless of how they fared can come out of the match strong.
For what its worth, the record will show Sarah Palin won the same way Obama won. Expect the polls to be even at least until the next Presidential debate. As has been the case the last few weeks, Sarah Palin was again the headline act and she has lived up to her top billing.Update:
Fact checking the VP debate
No comments:
Post a Comment