[TonyInOhio]

FReepers were all giddy and bubbly and wriggly-jiggly that Bush was going to clobber Kerry in the debates. Guess what? Bush lost.

And yet, no President Kerry. Could it be that debates and daily tracking polls aren't quite as important as conventional wisdom assumes?

I recall that Bush did poorly in the first debate, well in the second, and that the third was a draw; only the media said "Bush lost".

I feel very confident that McCain will get an edge from the debates. He is clearly comfortable speaking off-the-cuff, and he knows what he believes. That self-knowledge imparts confidence. Barry, too, knows what he believes, but he can't say any of it if he wants to be elected. That imparts uncertainty.

[Owen]

Rasmussen’s % moves tend to be tiny because of his party mix lockdown, and when you see a 2% move it is a tidal wave.

The Bailout Needs To Be Defined, Passed and Signed Within The Next 48 Hours Or The Election Is Over And We Get Obama.

The really bad news is the Democrats are about to read those tea leaves and delay it until after the election, to win.

Winning matters. Always.

[CatOwner]

Could it be that debates and daily tracking polls aren't quite as important as conventional wisdom assumes?

Take a look at RealClear Politics from 2004, although in all fairness those were LV polls, something we don't seem to get in this election cycle. Bush was clearly ahead in those polls as early as the beginning of September 2004. McCain has not shown the same tendency in the 2008 polls.

[GoSarah]

Don’t forget about Obama cancelling his subsequent debates in the primary after Hillary cleaned his clock.

Obama isn’t Kerry, and McCain isn’t Bush. It’s not wishful thinking to predict McCain will make worse mincemeat out of him than at the Rick Warren forum (anyone remember the complaining that McCain must’ve cheated since he did better than Obama?)

The debate format favors Obama even less than the church forum.

[chimera]

And yet, no President Kerry. Could it be that debates and daily tracking polls aren't quite as important as conventional wisdom assumes?

Or maybe as important as FReepers seem to put faith in? Bush won in '04 for a couple of reasons, but the debates were not one of them. I'm just saying that we're wrong to put our faith in how well McCain will do in the debates. He may do well, he may not. A safer bet would be to take a cue from what got us the win in '04: a gut-busting effort in key states (like OH) to GOTV in what was shaping up as a close election. That and constant hammering by the candidates and the national party in battleground states. We're going to win or lose this election in places like OH and CO and VA, not in lost causes like NJ or CA, or on rolls of the dice like debates.

[kesg]

I feel very confident that McCain will get an edge from the debates. He is clearly comfortable speaking off-the-cuff, and he knows what he believes. That self-knowledge imparts confidence. Barry, too, knows what he believes, but he can't say any of it if he wants to be elected.

I agree. McCain has performed well in debates and during comparative one-on-one settings such as Saddleback. Obama did not perform well in his debates against Hillary and he really does tend to struggle without his teleprompter.