Jay Cost on Last Night's Debate: Did It Really Mean Anything?
The always astute Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics has an interesting post this afternoon whose headline speaks for itself:
“A Junkie's Debate...And Nothing More.” And Jay is right in a way – though to paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of junkie is.
As we wrote before the debate,
the real importance of this debate was the effect it would have on Iowa voters choosing who should carry the banner of the anti-Hillary forces -- a decision that would have a key spillover effect elsewhere. And, at this point in the campaign – with only two months to go until the caucuses – just about every Democrat who plans to participate in Iowa (remember this is a caucus state – not a primary state) is something of a junkie. They may not have tuned in directly last night but the buzz of that debate lingers there today.
It’s also true that the media is now swooning with “Hillary Has Fallen” talk when all she’s done is descend from the pedestal they put her on in the first place. But she does have a problem today she didn't have yesterday: Once you’re tagged as a “panderer” and a “waffler,” it’s very difficult to shake the perception because – let’s face it – all politicians are in the profession of pandering. It’s just some get caught – or at least don’t do it as skillfully as others.
Cost has been warning us all along that the media has its own scenarios and what counts is when people actually start voting. He’s right, of course. But in Iowa, the voting does start soon and voters are beginning to pay closer attention. As we said earlier today, in the next debate in two weeks, we'll begin to see whether and how developments from last night have taken hold.
