PYROTECHNICS are possible at Debate say national debate preparation experts.

[Mira]

More at the SOURCE:
www.debatescoop.org
By Allan Louden - Wake Forest University


The time is NOW! Expect a more lively debate tonight when McCain and Obama meet for their third and final debate at Hofstra University.

The campaign and the economy show signs of chaos. Why would the debate be otherwise? Previewing the first two presidential debates I envisaged practically sedate affairs. And that largely is what we witnessed.

==========================

Two debates later the political world is a different place. And McCain cannot wait any longer. A repeat of the first two debates--competent, courteous, with each candidate speaking the language of their faithful--would be a win for Obama, cementing trends. McCain needs a seismic shift.

There are three basics that, short of a mistake beyond evocation, make McCain's task difficult. They also are the reasons, despite constraints, we cannot rule out real fireworks.

The Narrative is set:

Two debates (and one VP debate) have established the plot line. The candidates did their jobs, resulting in ties, which became within days noteworthy voter preference for Obama/Biden. You can quibble with this account, but it has legs, and by extension dominion over the last debate.

McCain needs to trump this by "changing the rules," advancing a sustained surgical attack. Risky? Sure. But it is time to role the dice.

===============================

Tonight's encounter is only the sixth 3rd presidential debate in history, and the first five were largely forgettable. Typically, third debates are redundant, suffer voter fatigue, and lack interest for a media anxious to predict the election's "end game."

The "next things" beckons. Compared to the first two debates where some intrigue remains, post debate analysis quickly melts away.

To make the debate count, McCain needs to do something that is worth covering the next day and next and the next; something which lasts days out.

How can McCain change the headlines?

Circumstances allow McCain's return to his favored "underdog" role, tapping our fairness sentiment.

He also has considerably more freedom in this debate. There is no time to obsess about stirring up "angry" McCain coverage; the goal is to overpower that story with an encounter that commands the stage.

I'm not sure "terrorist" Ayers is the entree as McCain telegraphed from the campaign trail yesterday. Obama's response is unpredictable, with many potent counters available.

If the spectacle of Ayers is raised, the charge should not be about some vague notion of "paling around with terrorists" but rather laser persistence in calling out Obama's evolving stories. Directness combined with doggedness could provoke or evoke enough to define the next day(s) headlines.

An obvious option is to define the economic crisis but a litany of detail will not write tomorrow's coverage. A promising avenue is making crisp the ideological divide.

It is not my place to suggest what explosives McCain ought to lob, but I feel safe in noting the time-runs-out. There is a tipping point in the final stages of a campaign where the media isn't interested in investigating new charges, exhausting new leads. It takes time for a storyline to develop where it impacts voter decisions. Two weeks is pushing the envelop, making McCain's debate demands all that more pressing.
Politico.com yesterday lamented "even the co-chairman of the Commission on Presidential Debates admits the first two debates have been oddly non-confrontational and lacking a "major screw-up or a major defining event."

They sound disappointed.
I may be mistaken, but look for more pyrotechnics from Long Island tonight.

[featherman]

1. Unlikely, IMO. format is side-by-side, seated at table... hardly the formula for

fireworks. Past debates in this format have been quiet love-fests. I'd pay more attention to this guy if he had mentioned format.

[Mira]

3. He did mention it - it's in the expanded version at the website

[featherman]

5. Thanks for the tip - Here's what he sez about format:

Here's what he sez about format:

"The candidates are scheduled to sit side-by-side occupying shared conversational space, common wisdom holding that good manners are required. Usually deference dominates.

Yet the playing field has shifted, and we're late in the 4th quarter.

If you think candidates cannot trade directed and spontaneous barbs in a sit-down please recall the February Clinton-Obama slugfest in Cleveland, OH.

Al Gore must still wish he'd shown fire in his 2000 love-fest Wake chapel chat."

Not sure I agree that Obama-Clinton was a "slugfest"... not in my memory anyway. As I recall it was one that surprised commentators at it's "civil tone".
Format can make a difference. I believe the legendary Lieberman-Cheney lovefest was in that format.

[Bob D]

2. What is....?

What the eff is a "national debate preparation expert?" How do I get that gig?

[Mira]

4. He is an associate Professor of Communications at Wake Forest U

and I learned about him today because the Winston-Salem Journal writes about him and his credentials for 1/3rd or more of the front page.
www.journalnow.com