NPR: Discussions: Yahoo! Chats

Transcript from 10/19/00
Robert Salisbury & John Zogby: The Last Debate

npr_host: Welcome to NPR's weekly chat Tonight we're talking about the last presidential debate and the race to date. Our guests are Robert Salisbury, Professor Emeritus at Washington University in St. Louis the site of Tuesday's debate. We also have pollster John Zogby, with Zogby International send in your questions now. Welcome to NPR Online, Tonight's chat is on the presidential debate and the race. Our first guest is Robert Salisbury, Professor Emeritus at Washington University in St Louis. Welcome to the chat.

npr_guest: Hello.

npr_host: First, can you give us your take on the third and last debate.

npr_guest: I though it was pretty much a draw. I think neither Bush nor gore came away with any decisive advantage, neither made any great mistake--

npr_host: One thing they said they did was carve out their big differences

npr_guest: nor did either have any important advantage in the argument back and forth.

npr_host: do you agree with that?

npr_guest: I thought they managed to state their positions whether they did so in a way that sharply distinguished them from each other I'm not sure.

npr_host: Are there big differences between the two?

npr_guest: Yes there are -- both in the positions they take and the way they come at them in their style but I don't know that these differences were as sharply etched as they might have been in their performance.

npr_host: Comparatively speaking, are there more differences betweeen these candidates than in past elections?

npr_guest: I don't think so, they are representatives of their respective parties and the parties are as sharply different as they have been in most elections in the past I think if anything they have muted their differences particularly in foreign policy compared with some elections in recent history.

npr_host: Education, something you've written a lot about, do you see their...

npr_guest: No they are both in favor of using the authority and resources of the federal government to improve the quality of K-12 education and their differences are in detail rather than in basic positions that's not true in the differences of the parties in recent history I think the differences are really quite small ... the republicans -- at least Bush -- has embraced the power of the federal government in education... his differences with Gore are really in details rather than the fundamental position. question: are vouchers the crux of the matter? answer: No, vouchers are not the crux. the real issue is whether the federal governemnt is going to be the instrument for bringing about an improvement in the quality of elementary and secondary education. question: standardized tests and teacher accountability sound like great ideas but do you see any lurking problems behind that? answer: I think the problem is whether those ideas translated into instruments of actual regulation would have much impact on performance beyond the very marginal improvement without becoming matters of real intrusion and irritation on the actual day to day performance of the schools and the teachers this would be a really quite substantial intrusion of the federal govt on the ways in which the schools do their business while it might be a good thing, it would be a real difference. a real intrusion into the ways the schools do their business ... it would be a substantial departure from what has been true in the past, in which the federal governement has primarily been a source of additional funding.

npr_host: Do both candidates come down on the same policy on testing

npr_guest: the emphasis is more strongly expressed with Gov Bush he wants to test more, more often and more rigorously and that seems to me to be a greater impostiion on the federl govt on the way the schools are to be run than the Republicans have traditionally talked about and a greater role than has been a fact in the past.

npr_host: much religion would figure into the race has that dwindled?

npr_guest: I think it was always an exaggeration of the extent to which some kind of religious dimension was going to be part of the campaign the candidates simply have not talked about explicitly religious considerations more ...

npr_host: Likewise, the Religious right was expected to make a big push this year what have we seen from them?

npr_guest: not very much -- I don't know who expected them to be more active but their recent history ... has been to alienate a good many voters

npr_host: Back to the debate,

npr_guest: I think it was a matter of good judgment on their part to play a more subdued role in this campaign to embrace Gov Bush, a candidate who did not share all of their positions but to embrace him early and stay out of the limelight

npr_host: But are they playing a behind-the-scenes role none the less?

npr_guest: they are not playing an up-front role. It was very moderate.

npr_host: Jim Lehrer got a lot of criticism about his moderating

npr_host: what did you think?

npr_guest: I didn't see any basis for criticism one way or another -- bu tI think that kind of reaction tends to come from people who are strongly committed to one side or another and don't feel their side got everything it should have. I think the race is certainly close. I don't know that's why the moderator should be criticized. I'm a little surprised... the one thing you don't hear is great passion for either candidate. I would think the passion would give rise to the criticism - so I wouldn't think there would be a lot of criticism.

mamap49 asks: Please clarify the difference in the debates on providing medical coverage for all people. I got confused with the stats of texas being 49th and 50th.

npr_guest: There's no question that Texas is at or very near the bottom. Bush has argued that they are better than they were and have been spending a lot of money and are improving and that's right too. They have improved, but they are still very very very far back so it depends whether you're looking at comparisons across states or across the decades. if they had been improving every year as much as Bush thinks they have been, they ought to be in a better position than they are.

mamap49 asks: Do we really know where each candidate stands on religious right in govt and schools?

npr_guest: I think we know that both candidates believe that a generally position attitude toward matters of the spirit and religion ought to be spread and respected throughout the culture I don't know how that would translate into very specific practices in the schools and I don't think either candidates have taken the position that prayer in school for example is a matter that candidates ought to decide. the law is the matter here and I don't either candidate has said very much about how or whether the law should be reinterpreted to permit practices in the schools that are now regarded as in violation of the First Amendment.

npr_host: Is Gore's support for giving faith-based institutions federal funds for charitable acts. Is that a departure from the Democrats stand?

npr_guest: I think it is, yes. Although I'm sure it could be doctrines found somewhere in the past that would show some Democrats had taken that position. But I do think it has taken a general departure in that there is more turning to private organizations to provide varius kinds of programs, including education, but others as well I think some of these organizations are faith-based, and there has been constitutional objection to that and that has to be done with great care if it's going to work, and they're going to accept it.

npr_host: Thanks for joining us

npr_guest: Okay, thank you for having me.

npr_host: We're talking about the presidential debate and the race so far tonight. Please submit your questions Please send in your questions right now. Joining us now is John Zogby He's a pollster with Zogby International he does polls for Reuters and MSNBC Welcome.

npr_guest: Thank you!

npr_host: Tell us about some of your most recent polls.

npr_guest: We are doing daily tracking nationally in the presidential race and my latest poll as of this morning has Bush at 44, Gore at 43, and Nader at 5 Prior to the first debate, Gore was leading by 6 and since the first debate, Bush has held slight leads, or it's been a dead heat This has been amazingly close

npr_host: When's the last time we saw a race this close?

npr_guest: 1960, in the sense that the race was close throughout the campaign There have been presidential races that have ended up close... 1968 and 1976, but that's because there was a slow and steady erosion of the front runner's support.

npr_host: What are the biggest factors in making this race so close?

npr_guest: Well there are two centerist candidates, and while they have policy differences, they both appeal to the vital center of American politics, and to the key swing groups like independent voters, parents, suburbanites, and voters 18-24 years old and so what we're seeing here are two candidates who hold on to their traditional party base but are engaged in a slugfest over these swing voters. Each has appeal on some key issues.

npr_host: What's your last job approval rating on Clinton?

npr_guest: The last one that I had was 50-50 nationwide.

npr_host: So it's down?

npr_guest: It's down. Now, it's been a few months since I've tracked, but the President's approval goes down when he's out of sight and it goes up when he's under siege. But if the question is can Bill Clinton be a factor in this race, then I believe the answer is yes, and positively for Gore But I say that with some caution, because for some swing groups morality is a key factor and the President's behavior becomes a key factor. Nonetheless, he still has considerable political capital, especially with the core base of the Democratic party. African Americans, union voters, and working women I believe that he could play a positive role in generating support for Gore.

npr_host: We're talking with John Zogby with Zogby International polling

mamap49 asks: Do the polls show what questions people feel did not get answered during the debates satisfactorily

npr_guest: That's a very good question... by and large the answer is yes, simply because virtually everyone who watched the debates was a supporter of one candidate or another. Those who are undecided, which are aobut 6-7 percent, plus those who have listed a choice but tell us they could still change their mind tend to be marginally interested at this time and not apt to be paying much attention as yet

npr_host: Has this race been more or less negative than those in the than those in the recent past?

npr_guest: Let me begin by saying, as a historian before a pollster, that Jefferson used to call Hamilton a whoremaster, and the Federalists used to call Jefferson an athiest, so we we're not starting with a great tradition. But no, if you go to the recent past, some television commercials were horrible and in some ways I honestly believe this campaign is not yet as negative as some recent ones

npr_host: Is that in response to voters decrying the negativity?

npr_guest: I think partially some may, but its also the fact that we have two and a half weeks to go. But as Bachman Turner Overdrive said, You ain't seen nothin' yet! It's Gore's line, but it's become everybody's line (and they were the one's to say b-b-b-babee)

npr_host: So you do expect it to get dirty?

npr_guest: Oh yeah. That's a given/ The stakes are incredibly high and this is so close. Barring any unforseen calamity, it stays very close

npr_host: What kind of attacks can we expect?

npr_guest: Well, I think you'll begin to see more attacks on Gore's character and you will probably -- no, you WILL see more attacks on Bush's record in Texas And of course, that's just how it's done. Neither will be called an athiest. etcetera, though

npr_host: How do rate Gore's performance in all three debates? Do you agree first to hard, then to soft then just right?

npr_guest: I feel his pain. It's hard being the smartest kid in the class knowing the answers and not being able to answer all of them all of the time without appearing to be obnoxious In some ways, Gore reminds me of the famous story about the greatest scientists, Nobel prize winners, to create the perfect dog food... and they put in the perfect ingrediants but the dogs hated it! He clearly has the resume, the experience, the level of knowledge on a variety of issues, but there's just something that bothers some people.

npr_host: How important is smart in a presidential campaign?

npr_guest: One can make the argument that we have not always elected the smartest kid in the class By all accounts, Clinton was one of the smartest men to sit in the White house... and his intelligence often served him well. But there were demons.

npr_host: We're talking with pollster John Zogby what's your party affiliation?

npr_guest: Personally, I'm a Democrat... over the last 7 or 8 years, the Republicans have adopted me because they liked my numbers In '96, that was among many races that I got right, and I had better Republican numbers This year, I have the race closer on Democratic numbers But I remain independent.

npr_host: so that must mean you're pretty careful about how you ask the questions so it doesn't sway it one way or the other?

npr_guest: Absolutely! That is part of the essential art of being a good pollster. Questions have to be unbiased, fair, balanced, symmetrical, and the question order has to be such that you're not skewing the results.

npr_host: What about the human factor, isn't it natural for question s to be bent without intention?

npr_guest: No, our interiewers are very good, they undergo rigerous training and they sign a number of affidavids first of all, everything they see and hear is confidential... and in no way will they skew results I believe our track record speaks for itself.

npr_host: Thanks for joining us.

npr_guest: I enjoyed this and hope to be back! Thanks a lot.

npr_host: That's our chat for tonight. Join us next week when we talk with a psychic and an astrologer for a different sort of take on Election 2000.