As I sat there watching the debate last night I kept thinking to myself, "Obama's killing this guy." To me, the president looked cool, calm and collected, seemed to know his facts, kept Romney on the ropes the whole time by labeling him an agent of corporations and the rich, etc. On the other hand the president spoke about investing in education, health care, basic science and research, clean and renewable energy. All great stuff, I thought.
Then there was Romney. He seemed agitated; he was squinting and blinking throughout the debate, he seemed defensive and most importantly, I thought his proposals basically boiled down to getting rid of what Obama has done with little information as to what he was going to do except when it came to his five point economic plan, which was:
1. Energy independence. (Drill, drill, drill and burn coal.)
2. Increase exports. (Keep American workers' wages low.)
3. Improve education. (By cutting $115 bln in education funding.)
4. $5 trillion in tax cuts. (For corporations and the wealthy.)
5. Balance the budget. (That's working well in Europe.)
Then to my surprise when the debate was over, from the left (including ardent Obama supporters) all the way to the right, up and down and in-between, everyone said Romney won by a huge margin.
I am depressed. How did I see things so differently?
35 comments:
Obama acted consistently with what polls indicated the undecided swing voters wanted, a person who was not agressive, confrontational and argumentative but willing to work with the other side to get to a workable compromise. This was Obama's strategic goal and he accomplished it quite well.
Both candidates know that what is important now is two things, winning over the swing voters who are stil undecided, and getting the base to vote with a strong ground game. The latter is irrelevant in the debates, which focus on the former.
The challenger almost always wins the first debate since this is the major exposure to the electorate along side the president. The challenger has to come across as equal to or strong than the president, and Romney performed well on that score. It never benefits a president to be seen as acting beneath his dignity, i.e., "stooping." The challenger, on the other hand, will try to bring him down. Obama resisted that challenge.
The argument is not as important as the comparative impression of strength, and Romney exceeded expectations. If he had not, the election would have been over now.
What Romney has a problem with now is character. He is coming across as a "flip-flopper" who has neither strong principle nor a consistent positon. The Dems will hammer him on this going forward, and Romney has provided ample ammunition.
It wasn't what he said, it was how he said it. Obama was not as prepared as he could have been and it showed. He hasn't been spoken to in such a way in a very long time. I imagine he'll be much better prepared next time or else he'll seem like Bush 41 who clearly did not care if he won or lost and it showed.
"I am depressed. How did I see things so differently?"
Because you aren't invested in the horse race?
I wouldn't be depressed that you see things differently than the BS narrative the mainstream spits out.
Unfortunately, this narrative will likely make the race closer.
But, Tom, that's the thing...I didn't think Romney acted strong. To me he seemed defensive, agitated, he was squinting and blinking non-stop. His lips were taut. He looked like a small dog barking and growling at a big dog.
I don't know, it's just me. That's how I saw it and I'm not a big Obama fan. Apparently I'm the only one who saw it that way.
Romney destroyed him this time.
This from his normally over the top fan club at MSNBC:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329381/chris-matthews-well-wasnt-msnbc-debate-was-it-eliana-johnson
@ Mike Norman
Beside the fact that both candidates were explaining how they will better cut the deficit (disgusting!), I had the same feeling like you.
Because Mike Norman is an intelligent man who focuses on issues and facts.
The general population is more atune to a candidate's values. Republicans "get" it, Democrats generally don't.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=420832631308691&set=a.328401243885164.71911.328325910559364&type=1
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/02
"http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329381/chris-matthews-well-wasnt-msnbc-debate-was-it-eliana-johnson"
Chris Matthews is not a good indicator of anything meaningful in the real world. Not saying whether or not either Obamney or Rombama won, there just isn't any reliable evidence one way or another.
One thing we can probably bank on…we will lose.
Paul,
Chris Mathews is an indicator of something:
"On February 12, 2008, during MSNBC's coverage of the Potomac primary, Matthews had this to say about then presidential candidate Barack Obama:
“I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often.”"
He got whatever the reverse of that is last night.
"He got whatever the reverse of that is last night."
No teleprompter... Looks like he can deliver a good speech that resonates with the left via the prompter but he doesnt come across the same way to the left when he speaks contemporaneously perhaps...
Mike was impressed but Mike imo is not of the hard left...
rsp,
PS I'm so depressed with these 2 that was I watching the Yankee game instead...
I thought it was a more even performance than the general consensus, but Romney did manage to shed a little bit of his negative image. Frankly, I was surprised at how aggressively Romney went after Obama on the weak economy, TBTF, cuts to Medicare, etc. I didn't think he had it in him. He etch-a-sketched his way to something approaching moderate.
The worst part was the 20(?) minutes the candidates wasted talking about the deficit. This is probably how Copernicans would have felt listening to a debate about the sun's rate of revolution. I don't know if these men believe the things they were saying during this segment. If they do, we are going to be in this depression for a long time.
The worst part was the 20(?) minutes the candidates wasted talking about the deficit. This is probably how Copernicans would have felt listening to a debate about the sun's rate of revolution. I don't know if these men believe the things they were saying during this segment. If they do, we are going to be in this depression for a long time.
Pete Peterson, David Walker, etc. have ginned up deficit and debt hysteria among voters, and it seems that both candidates felt they had to address it. We are headed over the fiscal cliff because the public is demanding it, and the only way to avoid it now is for business to tell the politicians to back off or they are cut off.
Tom, the public is not demanding deficit reduction. Poll after poll show that the public is far more concerned about jobs. The deficit hysteria is coming from the 1%, not from the 99%.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/09/01/rel14h.pdf
Polling on the deficit has changed very little over the years. Yes, the general public think the deficit is too big, but there's never been a consensus on doing something about it.
One of Krugman's better blogs, on deficit polling, worth the 2 minutes to read it:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/political-malpractice-deficit-edition/
The most recent Gallup poll I could find on national priorities, shows jobs and corruption more important than deficit reduction.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156347/americans-next-president-prioritize-jobs-corruption.aspx
"Pete Peterson, David Walker, etc. have ginned up deficit and debt hysteria among voters, and it seems that both candidates felt they had to address it..."
I still think its a pity Donald Trump didn't run, he had the golden ticket. Any time someone mentions the budget deficit, tax increases or spending cuts-- change the subject to China, the trade deficit and unemployment.
Damn, if this isn't what a politician should sound like:
“When this country becomes profitable again, we can take care of our sick; we can take care of our needy,” he told Human Events. “We don’t have to cut Social Security; we don’t have to cut Medicare and Medicaid. We can take care of people that need to be taken care of. And I’ll be able to do that."
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2011/04/beowulf-on-donald.html
A significant portion of the public wants deficit reduction by raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations instead of cutting benefits, especially the Big Three. The public doesn't believe that it's possible to significantly reduce the deficit without raising taxes and they think that those who have been doing exceptionally well, the wealthy and corporations, while everyone else has been hammered should be willing to step up to the plate for the good of the country.
Most of the public is also not buying the "cut taxes on job creators to increase jobs" narrative. The public thinks that jobs are hemorrhaging abroad with China the major culprit, as well as the companies that are outsourcing jobs to China and India.
The Democrats have an edge here that they are not using to advantage because the wealthy donors are not on board with that at all.
True, Dan, that deficit and debt are not the top factors, and haven't been, but they are significant ones that both candidates feel they must address publicly.
Mike,
It was awful.
Obama acted disinterested and then does his "i'm not perfect" spiel in his closing argument.
There's a time and place for that modesty. Not when a prick like Romney is coming at your throat.
I have no idea why Obama goes in these funks at times.
Yes, Obama is dreadful on things like the deficit but a Romney win would set this country back.
Hope Obama wakes up for the next two debates.
Looked to me that we were the looser last night. Both came across as deficit hawks.
I thought President Obama was at a loss for words and seemed unprepared but he did seem calm and presidential most of the time. Governor Romney seemed competent, human and approachable, all probably a main goal but at times he seemed as if he were a maniac by his body gestures. Maybe I imagined it but I could have sworn that one time he was bobbing his head up and down, as if his whole body was hopping, with both hands outstretched with palms down jutting his hands up and down to each syllable he said, like a proverbial mad scientist. Did anyone else noticed that?
@Tom Hickey,
What you wrote sounds possible but is the following an assumption or are there poll/focus group studies indicating: " consistently with what polls indicated the undecided swing voters wanted, a person who was not agressive, confrontational and argumentative but willing to work with the other side to get to a workable compromise."?
As I recall, I read that in a post about planning Obama's strategy for the debate. May have been based on private Democratic polling, I don't recall. However, the campaigns are much more directed by their private polling than by public polling because it is carefully crafted, controlled, and targeted. Public polling is much more general and no targeted, so it is not terribly useful in strategic planning, e.g., ad campaigns, or crafting tactics like the style of the president debate presentation. I think that there is little doubt that this is the style the president wanted to deliver for strategic and tactical reasons.
BTW, the president started slipping from a high of about 78% on Intrade a couple of days before the debate, and although I only watched five minutes of the debate to catch the flavor, I did monitor Intrade during the debate and the president was losing more ground. He stabilized somewhat today, but now is losing a bit more ground, down to below 66%. So far Nate Silver doesn't see much substantial change, although Romney has slightly improved his chances.
No big deal. Everyone expected the race to narrow after the president's post convention bounce — unless Romney blew the debate, which he did not.
Remember that most minds are already made up and we talking about moving only a few undecided votes in swing counties. The rest of it is rather immaterial. The thing to watch is Nate Silver on the electoral college votes, which the only thing that matters in the end.
Thanks, I check Nate Silver's report every morning.
"The deficit hysteria is coming from the 1%, not from the 99%."
Dan imo this is 100% funded by that MFing moron Peterson and administered by his moron Walker...
I got around to watching last night.
The President answered every point the Governor made with facts and specifics. Romney had non as usual.
Obama didn't start his circus performance yet. It is no coincidence the incumbents always downplay the first debate. They have all the advantage and now the script is going in one direction - a scripted "wow where was that guy before!" just in time to have peak excitement right before you pull the lever. Gee how did that happen?
Obama was destroyed in that debate and to think otherwise is to not face reality. CNN has been doing a poll on every Presidential debate since 1984. The recent one had a 37% DEM sampling and a 33% GOP sampling. The result was that 67% felt that Romney won the debate. To put that in perspective, in no other debate since 84 has a candidate cleared 60%.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/03/cnn-poll-romney-wins-debate-by-big-margin/comment-page-3/
Matt,
But the interesting part is how he was "destroyed".
It had nothing to do with what was actually said. It was all about how it was said. Romney still refused to give any details even for the positions he reversed himself on and Obama very plainly, too plainly, stated the facts.
He lost just based on not being a dancing bear. Once he starts tap dancing and singing a tune or two to go with the performance everyone will suddenly act like he is saying wonderful stuff. All that will change is how it's being said then everyone will act like something changed when it hasn't.
Nice spin Dave. If you say so. :-)
This "fact" spin is tired.
O rebounding on Intrade, up to 69% from below 66% yesterday.
Nate Silver this AM:
This might be bad for business — but you probably ought not to pay too much attention to the numbers you see in the right-hand column of this blog over the next day or two.
It’s just too soon answer the question of what impact Wednesday night’s debate in Denver, which instant-reaction polls judged to be a clear win for Mitt Romney, will have on the head-to-head polls.
"It’s just too soon answer the question of what impact Wednesday night’s debate…"
Exactly. too many folks reacting to the ticks and not the trend.
We see this re inflation also.
BTW, the most-often searched for term post-debate has been "Big-Bird" by a staggering margin.
Does that seem like something that is good for Romney?
My seat-of-the-pants reaction to that little factoid is that it means more than all of the mainstream punditry combined, then squared.
It's not too soon anymore. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Having said that, no reason Obama can't still win but this is going to the wire for him to win and I do think there is a shot of Romney having a comfortable victory.
Post a Comment