The Debate Debate
Clinton Clash in Buffalo Causes a Pundit Debate
The debate in Buffalo put the Senate contest back on the map. What seemed
like an election that was petering out is now a race. It is no longer David and
Goliath or Hillary vs. anybody-but-Hillary; it is now a contest between equals.
That's a big score for Lazio; he needed to become Hillary's equal, to show
that he has accomplished things in Congress and deserves a promotion. He also
needed to show that he is capable of waging a substantial campaign against an
international figure, and that there are substantive differences between them.
Most importantly, he had to transform the anybody-but-Clinton voters into Lazio
voters. Arguably, he began to do all of that in this debate.
Men and women are equal, but that doesn't mean they are treated the same in
politics. It's tricky for a male candidate to run against a female candidate.
There are additional dynamics in play. Voters watch carefully how her opponent,
through both words and body language, treats the woman.
Going into the Buffalo debate, this must have been on the minds of Lazio and
his handlers. They had a job to do, but they needed to do it without alienating
women voters who are currently supporting Lazio in unusually high numbers.
But he had an ace in the hole: his Boy Scout image and unthreatening demeanor
allowed him to be more aggressive with Hillary than other male candidates could
with a female opponent.
And Lazio wasn't the only one being tough. Tim Russert opened the debate with
embarrassing television clips of Hillary and tough questions about the
president's indiscretions and their impact on the nation. Many people were
astounded by Russert's boldness, but they were legitimate hardball political
questions for a U. S. Senate candidate. And, though rattled, Hillary weathered
them as best she could and the debate settled down into a solid issue-oriented
battle between her and Lazio.
Overnight polling showed that voters who already supported Hillary were
offended by the congressman's aggressiveness; voters who disliked her before the
debate did not view his actions as a negative. In fact 35% of viewers said the
debate made them feel more or less favorable to Lazio, while only 29% felt that
way about Hillary -- even though those interviewed by pollsters Blum and Weprin
said she won the debate 49-36.
The public wanted to see what these two candidates are about. Eighteen
percent of Upstate households with televisions tuned in and 9.5% of downstaters
watched the debate. However, these numbers are likely to be higher among voters
-- probably many more in the New York City market where out-of-state voters are
in the market. Moreover, the debate actually gained audience each quarter hour,
suggesting that viewers were not only interested enough to turn on their sets,
they liked what they saw and stayed tuned.
Those viewers were rewarded for their time and interest because, towards the
end of the debate, Lazio pulled a memorable debate stunt, which commanded most
of the post-debate coverage. He challenged his opponent, walking boldly across
the stage to her podium with paper and pen in hand, to sign a pledge to ban
"soft money" contributions for the rest of the campaign.
It was a well-executed debate tactic. But it also was a risky gambit against
a female candidate -- he invaded her space. As sexist as it sounds, no one would
have questioned the move against a male candidate. Indeed, Lazio risked his lead
among women voters to dramatically display two substantive distinctions between
him and his opponent -- character and campaign finance reform.
Too bad the stunt was not about a core issue voters care about, like
education, health care, jobs, or crime. That would have been a devastating
punch. Voters aren't interested in "hard" and "soft money."
It is an issue that rarely moves vote. People know it costs money to communicate
with voters and that cash equals political speech, protected by the First
Amendment. Moreover, in a hotly contested election, voters want to hear
from candidates so they can make an informed decision.
If Lazio mounts a major media campaign on issues like education, targeting
women and parents (who he's already doing well with), he could solidify his
support with them and gain the lead.
Will Hillary finally tell women what they want to hear? Will Gore's
numbers
fade leaving Hillary without coattails? More later.
