Expert panel gives Gore narrow debate victory
Wednesday, 4 October 2000 1:27 A.M. (ET)
Expert panel gives Gore narrow debate victory
By PAUL SINGER and SHAUN WATERMAN
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 (UPI) -- A panel of debate experts convened by United
Press International gave Vice President Al Gore a narrow victory over Texas
Gov. George W. Bush in their first presidential debate, but the panelists
all said the victory was narrower than many observers may have expected.
All of the panelists gave Gore points for better command of the facts, but
they said Bush handled himself well in an arena that plays more to Gore's
strengths and expertise.
CNN after Tuesday night's debate issued a poll taken with the Gallup
Organization that seemed to reinforce this impression. In the CNN/Gallup
poll, 48 percent of the respondents who watched the debate said they felt
Gore had done a better job in the debate, while 41percent felt Bush had done
a better job. But asked how the debate had changed their opinions of the
candidates, 27percent said they now have a more favorable view of Gore, but
34 percent said they had a more favorable view of Bush.
Another poll, by ABC, also gave Gore the victor's crown by a whisker -- 42
to 39 percent, with 13 percent of viewers scoring it a tie. A CBS survey
scored the debate as a more substantial win for the vice president. In that
poll 56 percent of those who watched felt that Gore won, while 42 percent
thought Bush did better.
Five high school and college debate coaches contacted by UPI rated the
debate as a narrow victory for Gore. Grading the debate on formal debate
categories of analysis, rebuttal, questioning and presentation, four of five
judges concluded that Gore won the debate by a narrow margin. The fifth
judge declared the debate a draw.
"It was extremely close," said Sherry Hall, Harvard University debate
coach. "There were no knockout punches on either side, but both candidates
got some jabs in."
"Bush probably did what he set out to do which was to stand on the same
stage as Gore without being out-debated," said Chuck Ballinger, Director of
Forensics at Damien High School in Laverne, Calif. "He looked legitimately
presidential," concluded Ballinger.
But Bush showed some weaknesses in his debate technique, Hall said. "Bush
seemed to be more nervous....His attempts at humor fell flat. His timing was
off and he sounded like he was delivering lines written by someone else."
Gore "had a more knowledgeable and clear command of the issues," said
Steve Mancuso, Director of Debate at the University of Michigan at Ann
Arbor. "On the foreign policy question, (Bush) looked a little amateurish."
Mancuso also said Gore succeeded in maintaining his opening message
throughout the debate, that Bush's tax plan would deliver a disproportionate
percentage of the benefits to the wealthiest Americans.
Ballinger seconded this opinion, citing the vice president's repeated
statement that Bush would spend -- as he put it -- "more on a tax cut for
the wealthiest one percent of Americans than on all his proposals for
medicare, education, social security and national defense put together."
"That will definitely get traction," said Ballinger, "especially as Bush's
attempts to rebut it weren't very effective."
"Gore was most effective when criticizing the specifics of Bush's
proposals," Ballinger concluded.
But Mancuso said Bush scored well on "the general theme of trying to
bring bipartisanship to Washington." Gore was more likely to "seem to be in
a debate mode," sounding like he was reciting practiced answers rather than
responding naturally to questions.
Bill Newnam, debate coach at Emory University in Atlanta, scored the
debate a draw. "Bush demonstrated poise and confidence and a willingness to
take the fight to Gore on the issues he's trying to press," Newnam said. "A
very powerful performance."
But Gore "demonstrated expertise in foreign policy far in excess of Gov.
Bush," Newnam said. He also showed "a detailed knowledge of Bush's own
proposals."
Overall, Newnam said the debate was very "substantive," and Mancuso noted
that the debate format gave much more opportunity to explore issues in
detail than previous presidential debates.
Loren Danzis, former debate coach at American University, said "It was a
narrower victory for Vice President Gore than one might have expected."
Danzis said Bush "did quite poorly on evidential support" for his
arguments, while Gore "was able to point directly to government studies" to
support his positions. Ballinger agreed: "When Bush did try and use evidence
it was a problem: for instance the analysis of Gore's budget plan that he
cited, he said had come from the Senate Budget Committee, when in fact it
was produced by the Republican members of that committee." But at the same
time, Danzis pointed out that Gore was unable to shake Bush's charge that
the vice president was using "fuzzy" math. On that point, "I think the
audience will respond favorably" to Bush, Danzis said.
Hall praised Gore's use of concrete examples and individual narratives in
his answers, citing in particular his story about a schoolgirl forced by a
shortage of school equipment to stand in her science class. She contrasted
this with Bush's use of figures, for example to explain his tax cut, which
she described as "distracting and confusing."
Danzis said both candidates' use of such "anecdotal evidence" is a new
feature of presidential debates. There were more personal stories in the
debate "than in a typical night of NBC Olympic coverage," Danzis joked.
-- |
