Rav Casley Gera

Think of any sci-fi film you’ve ever seen with a scene where a character uses the TVs of the future. There’s always about seven mini-screens, isn’t there? Ever since the introduction of computers with multiple applications in moveable window, split-screen has been used as lazy shorthand for an information-overloaded future. It’s a lesson CNN have learned well. Its daily politics show, the absurdly-named Situation Room - hosted by the equally surreally-named Wolf Blitzer - is like a transmission from the starship Enterprise, with a vast screen showing footage from the day’s press conferences and campaign stops, along with a bizarre array of polling data and micro-analysis.

Of course, amidst the noise, all actual thought is in danger of being drowned out. Viewers of Thursday’s vice-presidential debate who watched in high-definition gained the added bonus of a bank of mini-screens at the side showing the running totals of the network’s political analysts as they recorded each candidates’ good and bad “moments” throughout the debate. Seen in aggregate at the end of the debate, the figures were almost breathtakingly meaningless. When one commentator thinks Palin had over 50 good moments, and Biden around 30, and another gives the score at 15-20, nothing is proven except that to break down complicated arguments in such way is entirely subjective.

But one of CNN’s high-tech tools of “real-time analysis” really does add something. Running under the footage were live feedback from its panel of undecided voters. Rather than voting Palin-Biden, they specified (I’m not sure how, but presumably using some sort of electronic slider or dial) they said how positively or negatively they felt about whatever was happening on screen at the time. For the first presidential debate, CNN divided the sample into three lines, for Democrats, Republicans and Independents. The results gave an interesting insight into what Independents do respond to (getting out of Iraq) and don’t (appeals to patriotism). But the real fun came with Thursday’s vice-presidential debate, where CNN divided the sample into men and women. The results are seriously fascinating. When Palin was first picked, it was seen by many as a transparent bid for female votes; but Palin’s winking on Thursday has been likened by some to a “cocktail waitress act”, calculated to turn on male voters (with, it seems, some success). So what’s the real story?

Annoyingly, CNN’s web video doesn’t show the lines, dashing my hopes for post-match analysis. But this post points up some interesting moments:

Anytime either candidate mentioned the word “nuclear” (or, in Palin’s case, “nukular”), the line for men shot upwards — literally at the very moment the word was uttered, like some kind of magic button was pressed in their brains…

Whenever Sarah Palin spoke about her track record and accomplishments in Alaska, both of the plot lines were flat. Apparently nobody gives a shit about her accomplishments in Alaska…

When Palin spoke of representing “regular Joe Six Pack” Americans, the meters did go up…

When the critical question was asked (one of Ifil’s only really good questions, I think) about how the candidates would handle ascending to the Oval Office if the President were to die, Palin’s chart was nearly flatline…

When Biden went on the offensive against Palin, the numbers did not respond. Fortunately for him he rarely attacked Palin in the debate. Pundits on both sides criticized him for being too gentle, but the numbers, both on the graph and in the post-debate polls, speak for themselves.

Palin’s winking and cute you betchas and goshdarnits didn’t work, either. When she said she wasn’t going to answer the moderator’s questions, and when she joked that she was new to this campaign and hadn’t made many promises, both meter lines dropped. People may like her and may even strongly agree with some of her positions, but they don’t like Palin not taking things deadly seriously.

Graphing the Debates - graphpaper.com