The proof that the president had a bad first debate came in the immediate deterioration of his lead in the polls. I can’t dispute that he did a bad job in the first debate because the evidence in incontrovertible. But understanding what he did wrong is harder to pinpoint. My guess is that it was a combination of things that mostly came down to two. He didn’t have enough energy and he let Mitt Romney be the Alpha Dog. As a matter of substance, Obama did fine. He didn’t commit any gaffes or factual errors or even say anything he had cause to regret. He just didn’t stand up for himself and his record or take on his opponent with sufficient rigor.
Last night’s debate was different for a lot or reasons. The president let himself get pushed around a little bit early on, but not without some resistance. And he eventually found the perfect moment to rope-a-dope Romney into the threshing blades with his comments on terrorism in Benghazi. Thereafter, Obama was the undisputed Alpha Dog of the debate, which was capped by his good fortune in having the final say of the night. If it were a boxing match, Romney was knocked down at least two times and the fight ended with Mitt on the ropes taking a pummeling from the champion. The judges’ cards were not close.
Romney came into the debate with two purposes. First, he wanted to repeat his performance as the stronger male on the stage, which involved bullying the moderator and stealing extra time for himself to speak. This didn’t work as well the second time around for at least three reasons. The town hall format meant that he was stealing time from audience members. The moderator being a woman, his pushiness was more alienating. And the president wasn’t going to let him go unchallenged again.
Second, Romney was less concerned with creating ‘zingers’ than with repeating certain poll-tested themes. He wanted to let people know that he “knows what it takes to turn the economy around” and that he “knows what it takes to create good jobs again.” Through repetition, Romney wanted to burn an impression of economic competence into the viewers’ minds. And he probably was modestly successful in that task. In my personal opinion, his repetition began to have diminishing returns later in the debate because it started to seem non-repsonsive to some of the questions.
The bigger problem with his strategy is being seen this morning on the television. While he was occasionally effective during the debate, no one wants to show him repeating himself five times to demonstrate how he hammered home some theme. All of the debate highlights are either of Mitt Romney making mistakes or of the president blasting him with effective rejoinders. Last night, all the ‘zingers’ belonged to the president.
And, so, it is not hard to know why the president won the debate last night. It wasn’t anything subtle like a lack of energy or apparent desire. It was because Romney committed gaffes and the president delivered big body blows.
Winning the second debate is certainly preferable to losing it, but we shouldn’t expect the polls to snap back to the way they looked before the first debate. Some of the damage caused by the first debate is permanent, and we’ll pay a price for that for the next two years, at a minimum, with smaller margins in Congress. Romney reversed a trajectory that had us easily winning a second term for the White House, picking up seats in the Senate, and probably winning back the House. All of those things are still in doubt because the first debate did not go well.
The president did a fine job of righting the ship last night, but we all still have a lot of work to do to get us back to where things should have been. So, find your local folks and volunteer to help them out in whatever capacity you can. We need all hands on board.
The words that sealed the election:
“Please proceed, Governor.”
Imagine the Roadrunner standing on the edge of a cliff, Wile E. Coyote barreling toward him.
Exactly. And the precise moment when Wile E. Coyote has run off the edge of the cliff into the air, realizes that something has changed about the ground underneath him, but doesn’t yet know what it is.
That was the look on Romney’s face when Obama said “Please proceed, governor.” Mitt knew the ground underneath him wasn’t as solid as he thought it was, but he didn’t yet know what had happened or why.
I think in the first debate that he just couldn’t take Romney lying and so just kept looked down out of embarassment for Romney. Like an honest person would in polite society.
Excellent debate analysis, and I agree completely with your concluding paragraph.
While the first debate hurt, I think it may be an overstatement to say Dems had “a trajectory that had us easily winning a second term for the White House, picking up seats in the Senate, and probably winning the House.”
The president’s poll numbers were already dropping somewhat in the week or so before the first debate. And as Kevin Drum pointed out the other day, “the fundamentals have always suggested that this would be a close election. The consensus of the political science models is an Obama win by maybe 2 points or so.”http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/reading-obamas-poll-drop-movie-weve-seen
Anyway, this is minor stuff. The important stuff is what you write in the closing, “We need all hands on board.”
Biggest regrets after the debate were that no attempt was made (in either debate) to tie ever-lower tax rates for the rich to ever-rising income inequality.
Second was Rmoney’s unrebutted slogans about “knowing how to create jobs” without his ever tying this baseless slogan to ANY proposed policy. What exactly is supposed to create the jobs? The huge tax cuts? Didn’t work under Bush. Where were all the jobs in MA, Guv’nor? And WaPo had just undercut this Rmoney “12 million new jobs!” crapola. Also missed by Obama.
Oh well. Can’t have everything.
This came close…
He finally tied him directly to Bush. Good. Very good.
That’s pretty much a given when your debate opponent employs the “Gish Gallop”. It takes more time to properly rebut his bullshit statements than it took him to make them.
You know what’s funny? a Willard/Zombie-eyed Granny-starver ad appeared on the left side of this page promising that Willard would repeal “ObamaCare” … funny since Willard is the father of “ObamaCare
If you follow the link, the ad costs them more.
Obama managed my dearest; to twice get the audience to join him in humor at Romney’s expense. Just devastating to see an audience respond with the Pres.
The Pres and Joe both demonstrated how to counter lies from an opponent. Fact checks without delivery will now seem bland. The ‘here kitty kitty’ will become the best punishing blows for those who try and continue spinning lies.
what were the two instances (missed part of the debate)? was one about the pension?
Yes, the pension. Can’t remember the other one but Jed Lewison at Kos posted that there were 2 jokes about 7:08 PST so somewhere in there. Sorry to be a putz.
“He wanted to let people know that he “knows what it takes to turn the economy around” and that he “knows what it takes to create good jobs again.”
It is a total mystery to me why Obama gives credit to Romney for being a successful businessman, which just plays into Romney’s experience.
Rather, he should say “Romney knows how to make money, that’s for sure. He’d buy up companies with other people’s money, load them with debt, pay himself handsome management fees and dividends, and drive the companies into bankruptcy or to China. It’s happening again, right now, in Freeport, Illinois. America doesn’t need that. His dismal ranking of job creation when he was governor shows he’s a failure at job creation.”
He did say that:
Excellent, thanks!!!
That compliant is a little too generic against Republican philosophy. I hope in the third debate he will demolish “Romney, the job creator”. We have seen that the announced debate topics don’t matter. Both candidates quickly get to their favorite talking points.
Oh but it will be so much more fun to watch Mitt try and bullshit his way through a foreign policy debate and get called out for not knowing what he’s talking about.
Oui caught an interesting bit in the transcript. Mitt couldn’t name the dead Ambassador he was so concerned about during the debate last night.
Also, too. Job creation in foreign countries, “Free Trade Agreements,” maintaining foreign bank accounts and “Repatriating” foreign profits are foreign policy issues.
I saw that bit from Oui! It was good work.
Yes, foreign policy is Obama’s strong suit, but jobs and mortgages (which neither candidate is talking about, that’s ominous) are what the voters are concerned about.
I wish we could have mentioned the Sensata thing. That one is very tangible to working class.
Pass this one around ~ live from
FreeBainport.For months the polls have usually indicated that Romney’s approval rating on the economy is higher than Obama’s. Why they haven’t been forcefully challenging his “I know how the economy works and how to create jobs” mantra is a mystery to me. Has this country completely forgotten what happened when the GOP MBA POTUS and his CEO sidekick took over the WH? So many ways to dismantle his self-proclaimed economic and business expertise, but they have to be used and hammered as frequently as Mitt repeats his mantra.
Yes, very nicely done. Whew!!!! He stood up for his policies, called Romney out for lying numerous times, and at all times appeared exactly the calm, in-charge, respectful-of-others-but-sure-of-himself President that the voters liked. I think his debate loss two weeks ago was because he did not appear like that kind of person but instead closer to the unsure Gore of his second debate.
I suspect the polls will shift significantly, though probably not back up to the pre-debate 1 levels. While a lot of pundits are saying Romney was also on his ‘A’ game I am hearing from a lot of people that his demeanor was aristocratic and arrogant, thus off-putting to the middle voters. AND, he’s getting crucified in the social media on women’s issues. The Binder thing is bad enough, but his whole attitude was completely patronizing.
My only complaint is that the issue of the election – medicare and health insurance in general – is still so muddled in the minds of so many voters. I wish that some how the Democrats could set this up as a referendum on the Ryan budget, because we all know that is what will be law if the GOP gains control. If this were a Ryan budget referendum it would be an LBJ-esque landslide. Yes, Obama hit those points, but it’s not standing out.
The third debate is about foreign policy. They tried in 2008 to make the first debate about foreign policy but the economic crash forced Lehrer to spend most of the debate on that topic, so the apparent idea here is to tee up foreign policy after the domestic issues have been hashed out.
Foreign policy debates tend to have lower viewer ratings and the topics are of less interest. While the GOP has historically been viewed as stronger here because of the macho-tough daddy-save-me-from-the-evil-commie-muslims myths, in recent years that has faded as the GOP under Bush appeared reckless, echoing the fears of Goldwater starting a nuke war. In short, while the GOP still benefits some from the Dirty Harry John Wayne tough guy reputation, on actual policies the Democrat’s views have been much more popular.
Obama, if he brings his A game again, should be able to trounce Romney even more thoroughly. The fact is that on Domestic issues he has weaknesses that Romney hit – the poor economic performance. Yes, it would have been worse under Romney, but it’s still a weakness. On foreign policy Obama’s weaknesses have all be critiques from the left – the use of drones and targeted assassinations. No way Romney can criticize those (and even if he did those are popular positions – a point which saddens me but is true). If Romney tries to play the hard-right Israel card he won’t win over voters, nor will he win over voters by proposing new wars in Syria and Iran. But moreover it’s likely Romney will run with Fox News memes about “apology tour” and the Libya attack. Those will be so easily defeated – “Gov Romney, on 9/11/2001 the US was attacked and everyone rallied around the president – no one used that moment for political gain [well, except Bush, but you get the point]. On 9/11/12 we were attacked again and you chose to use that as a moment for political gain, making attacks before even the basic facts were known. That is not how a president acts. A president must be measured, take into account that tens of thousands of lives are at stake, and that any public response has the potential of either calming the situation or making it worse.” Yes, the third debate could be the clincher.
“Last night’s debate was different for a lot or reasons.
“The president let himself get pushed around a little bit early on, but not without some resistance.
“And he eventually found the perfect moment to rope-a-dope Romney into the threshing blades with his comments on terrorism in Benghazi.”
More proof, that, that being right doesn’t matter.
And sometimes that works for the guy you’d rather see win.
“Romney reversed a trajectory that had us easily winning a second term for the White House, picking up seats in the Senate, and probably winning back the House.”
Ah. So you have revised your expectations. Very sensible. Obama could still lose this, actually. Best not to count chickens too soon.
I’m hoping that we see a lot of ads called “The one-point plan”. I think that this is a winning motto. However, Obama needs a “47 point plan” or a “plan for the 99%” to go with it.
Where is the BT troll patrol today? Funny, thought they’d be on crowing about the famous Mittens victory.
“Some of the damage caused by the first debate is permanent, and we’ll pay a price for that for the next two years, at a minimum, with smaller margins in Congress. “
FWIW, I checked the Pollster/Huffpost poll, which crunches hundreds of polls, and Romney began trending up sharply TWO WEEKS BEFORE the first debate and continued on the same trajectory after the debate. I don’t know the reason for that. Obviously the debate didn’t help, but there seems to have been something else going on there.
I think simply attention has a lot to do with it. People began thinking actively about the election at the middle of September. That’s what I am finding in my own door knocking.
I read around the same time that as the election drew nearer, the pollsters would begin switching from a registered voter screen to a likely voter screen, and that by itself would give Romney something around a 5-point bump due to various factors like enthusiasm and previous turnout.
That said, there was a definite effect following the first debate, but with less than a month to go before Super Tuesday, we’re probably going to see a lot more volatility.
For today at least, things are looking better.
During the GOP primaries Romney did his best to stay away from the issues, let the other nut cases fight it out in the back of the clown car. He would then latch onto any seemingly popular conservative issue of the day to attempt to paint himself, as he put it, a severe conservative. While of course this meant a complete reversal on almost all of his previously stated positions, no matter, the idea was to survive the primaries as the GOP nominee. It worked, sort of. He did get the nomination but his very conservative base didn’t buy it. They knew he was a phony and never liked him.
Romney biggest problem is that he is Romney. On the issue of character, the man is a heartless monster vividly on display during the scissor attack on his blond classmate then later unable to recall that horrible act. He is a caricature of the most loathsome politician possible, no beliefs of his own, just out to say anything and I do mean anything he thinks people want to hear, often reversing himself depending on his audience. Lastly is the politics, a perfect storm of toxic issues especially with his VP choice. This was reflected in the polls with a landside type Obama lead. This was not working, drawing nasty complaints from within his own party. Where was the pivot to the traditional center, if that even still exists? Why wait so long?
One thing for sure, the GOP has gained a lot of experience with the crazy. They turned to Duane Gish, the creationist shill for a debate tactic known as the Gish Gallop. The idea was to shovel as many lies as possible into a small a space that would overwhelm his opponent and bamboozle his audience. Romney had two advantages for this to work, complete surprise plus a potted plant for a moderator. A sucker punch, if you will.
True to form for Romney, it was to tell a lie for short term gain. In this case it was a barrage of lies told in a setting that would be almost impossible to refute. Brilliant. If Romney could get a spark of momentum out this, his base would forgive him for it. Maybe he could win after all.
This might work if there was only one debate and it was done right before the election. Problem was this was only this first debate of three, still a month out. My thoughts during the first debate was that Romney had finally made that pivot, finally revealing his ever changing positions. The Gish Gallop certainly did reveal his positions plus it also took away the element of surprise for the next debate. The real flaw here is that the bucket of possible lies is rather small, something your opponent can prepare for in the next debate. Change the debate format with a moderator intent on getting to all the planned town hall audience questions and the Gish Gallop is stalled.
Obama was ready to call him on each lie he attempted, in real time. When the moderator helped to debunk the Benghazi lie, the gallop was finally over. Romney helped Obama as he tried to fight back only showing himself as the despicable sociopath he really is. Obama was there to finish the job to paint Romney as the bloodless plutocrat, same as before. Obama left nothing on the table. If this doesn’t do it, nothing will.