From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Subject: Debate thoughs
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:20:22 GMT

Now that the debates are almost upon us, I feel I can make a few predictions/
comments.

1.  Bush's supporters will hear their man say what they want to hear and
believe that he won.

2.  Clinton's supporters will hear their man say what they want to hear and
believe that he won.

3.  Perot's supports ... (you get the idea).

4.  Undecided and swing voters are more interesting.  I'm assuming that 
nobody says anything exciting or stupid.  The result will be a preception 
of a close debate.  I expect that Clinton will gain (even if not seen as
winning) because a) he will have been up their as a equal to the president 
(and he looks like he's in a lot better physical condition for the job),
b) he will get a chance to answer many of the sillier charges made against
him, and c) Bush can't run away from the preceived failure of the economy.
He also has the advantage that Perot is very effective at Bush bashing, but
isn't likely to pick up the profit from that himself.  Especially interesting
will be to see if Perot attacks Bush for sleazy campaigning, which would
help Clinton even more than if Clinton launched the attack himself.

Strategy.

Clinton's strategy is easy to see, harder to carry off.  He wants to
shift most of the attention to the economy, without appearing to be
dodging character questions.  He has to show some passion, without
loss of control or dignity.  His general problem is get the proper
balance both in content and in presentation.  Personally, I think he
should show a little more emotion.  His cool comments about a
desperate Bush, while accurate, come across as too controlled.  If
somebody is spreading vicious lies about you, the public would accept,
and expects, some anger.  If you don't get angry, people are going to
wonder if there's any truth in the charges.

Bush has a much more basic problem.  He can go one of two ways.  One is the
attack-dog politics of 1988 and recently of this campaign.  This has several
problems.  It's degrading to the office of the President.  It makes him 
appear mean and vicious and, in general, an unlikable guy.  Where it involves
blaming Congress for past failures, it risks sounding like an attempt to
pass the buck and dodge responsibility.  It raises questions about why another
four years would be any different.  And his whining voice irritates the hell
out of a lot of people I know.

The other approach is the noble, "it's really not that bad, and it's going to
get better" strategy.  The problem here is that this is going to be very
hard to sell to the people.  It's safe, and pobably the best for the 
country, but not likely to move the polls.

Bush's first strategy will probably backfire and lose him votes, but it could
work.  The second strategy results in a sure, dignified lost. Given Bush's
past record and statements, I expect him to take the first path and ignore
what it may do to the country or the office of the President.


One final comment.  I think that the best place for Clinton to respond
to the draft/vietnam protest attacks would actually be during the VP
debate.  This let's Gore to the real dirty work and Quayle provides a
excellent openning. If the issue comes up I can see Gore saying
something like, "Clinton opposed the war and protested in a effort to
stop other Americans from having to fight and die in Vietnam.  My
opponent supported sending young Americans to die in Southeast Asia, then
joined the Indiana national guard so that somebody else would have to
fight in his place."  It's nasty, but it's accurate.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush