The biggest difference between discussing the outcome of a sporting event and a political debate is that the outcome of the former is, or at least ought to be, objectively determined by the score while the latter is, almost by definition, a subjective judgment. Nevertheless, though debates are often muddled affairs with no clear winners or losers, some are fairly clear-cut in their impact. Wednesday night’s set-to between President Obama and Mitt Romney was one such encounter. The left-wing talkers on MSNBC, the establishment types chattering on CNN and the conservatives on Fox News all agreed Romney won hands down. But the post-debate pushback from Democrats has centered not only on disingenuous “fact checking” but on the idea that the debate either didn’t matter much or that the Republican’s superiority was a superficial effect that dissipates on closer inspection. But in this case the liberal spinners have a problem: the audience.
It turns out ratings for this debate went through the roof. The Nielson ratings agency reports that 67.2 million Americans watched the debate on television at home. That’s the second highest audience for such a debate in history (number one was the first debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter in 1980). And that doesn’t count those who either watched it in airports, hotels, bars or other venues or the many millions who watched it on their computers, tablets or phones. In other words, the president picked the wrong night to mail in his performance.
That means those who wish to convince the country that what they saw shouldn’t impact their opinions or vote must deal with the fact that most people will trust the evidence of their own eyes and ears over someone else’s interpretation. As today’s first round of post-debate polls show, the debate had a clear impact on public opinion and no amount of carping from the liberal media is likely to alter that fact.
There seems to be general surprise not only about the size of the audience but also about the idea that people take these things seriously. But anyone who paid close attention to the contest for the Republican presidential nomination won by Romney ought to have remembered how important the innumerable debates conducted over the course of what seemed an interminable race turned out to be.
Indeed, what was so remarkable about the debates was not just the way they seemed to shape the campaign but how large and influential the audience for these confrontations was. For several months, each debate helped build the audience for the one that followed, as they became what the country quickly recognized as a popular and long-running political reality show. The debates will be chiefly remembered for giving Romney the training he needed to prepare for Obama. But they also gave Herman Cain the notoriety he needed to sustain his ill-fated candidacy far longer than his meager qualifications or grasp of the issues should have merited. They gave Newt Gingrich a couple of brief moments on the top of the heap, boosted Rick Santorum for a while and also conclusively sank the hopes of Rick Perry.
Perhaps if President Obama had been paying attention to all of this, he might have taken the Denver event seriously enough to thoroughly prepare for it. But having failed to do so and then flopped, he must now deal with the fact that a considerable portion of the voting population can now compare him to Romney as easily as those who watched the last Super Bowl were able to judge the talents of the New York Giants and New England Patriots.
The Democrats may curse the fates all they like, but they can no more convince most Americans that Romney is the monster they claimed him to be now than can the supporters of the Patriots beguile the public into believing their team won.
The only silver lining for the Democrats is that the hubbub about Romney and Obama will likely help, as was the case with the GOP series, build the audience for the subsequent debates. That will give Obama two more shots at Romney. But having now confounded the Democrats’ attempts to define him, the Republican has already gained a victory that cannot be retroactively rescinded.
FWIW there was only one Reagan/Carter debate, less than a week before the election.
n n LOL! n nWe have been saying for a long time…… nThe Emperor has no clothes….. n nHe is going down in November like a cold beer summit in July….bank on it….. n
No night is a good night as indeed the Emperor has no clothes: No record to defend (except for his subversion work on behalf of our enemies), no intelligence to match, no teleprompter. In a sense, this was unfair to poor 0.
exactly
You have it backwards. He is an empty suite.
True, but it did have a significant impact on that election . If Romney does as well in the next debates as he did this week , Obama will go down on election day.
The media have their marching orders for the second debate, the stories have ALREADY been written: Obama Smashes Romney to Smithereens! and Romney Embarrasses Himself!! and President Gains Decisive Victory!!! n nHow can such stuff be prepared, like canned obituaries, before the second debate? you ask. n nDon't make me laugh! I reply. n nThere are a few "reporters" out there who are already writing up the results of debate number THREE, depend on it. n nNeat isn't it? The hair-raising affect on Obama's fortunes of debate number one having been duly noted, it is now impossible, as a matter of newsroom logic, for Barack Obama to lose any more debates. REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS. n nAll the stops are out for the next three debates. n nMysterious and episodic failures of the audio feed at awkward moments in the debate are likely. n nPuzzling video jerkiness and garish, constantly shifting color saturation, alà the movie "Capricorn One," cannot be ruled out. Will James Brolin and Sam Waterston, both BIG Dems, be called out of retirement to reprise their roles? Stay tuned. n nMore amazin' yet: Joe Biden will mop the floor with Paul Ryan on Thursday! Take it to the bank. And no one is more aware of that than ABC's Martha Raddatz. A stern Idaho lass, she has her work cut out for her if she is to interrupt Paul Ryan each time he is tiresome enough to let the definite article slip through his lips. n nAfter that, it will be up to CNN's Candy Crowley. Candy is up to the job! She has already announced that she "will take control"! n nThen it's Bob Schieffer's turn. . . . Sorry. . . . The mind boggles. . . . He . . . . Sorry, can't stop laughing. . . . [clearing throat] . . . Bob may be pint sized, but he has proven time and again that in half an hour of "Face the Nation" he can lick enough spittle to fill a gallon jug. If he is in TOP form, he might just provoke the first on-stage suicide of a Republican candidate in history. Keep your fingers crossed.
Don't laugh. n nI hope Romney's Secret Service guards are really staying alert. n nBased on how the Left has treated successful Republican public speakers in the past, Romney could get heckled, or hit in the face with a pie–or worse.
Jocon's comment below addresses some of these concerns, I think, in a way. If – and I'll grant it is a big if, if only because it is so darned hard to measure the temper of 310+ million people – voters are seriously trying to understand these guys without the Candy/Schieffer/Lehrer/NYTimes filter,we may be experiencing a 2010 all over again. nAnd if that is the case, the scenarios you paint might actually help Romney…
Jocon is bang on! The sheer size of the audience for what has traditionally been, let's be honest, 90 minutes of tedium is a STRONG indication—and for Axelrod a TERRIFYING one—of just how many prospective voters out there are undecided; and that definitely includes, those "undecided" voters who for many months now have been answering "Obama," when asked, with all the enthusiasm of someone knocking back a tumblerful of luke-warm diet coke left out overnight. n nWhat, do you imagine, might someone undecided have decided once and for all at around, oh, let us say 10:00 PM Wednesday last? Come on, Axe, take a guess.
". . . they can no more convince most Americans that Romney is not the monster they claimed him to be now than . . . " Why would the want to convince them he was not what they claimed him to be? I think you tried to use more negatives than you could handle.
Obama was almost as listless when he spoke at the UN, and later that day, at ClintonGlobalInit. nThe first time Romney not only engaged my attention, but seemed to be a mensch, was at CGI that day. nIt was fascinating to watch those CGI guys debate. nI do not believe Obama really wants this. I confess to being impressed by Romney's genuine enthusiasm since he found his voice in public.
In 1979-80, owing to the terrible Carter economy, the Congressional Black Caucus publicly broke with Carter and endorsed Ted Kennedy’s quixotic attempt to primary Carter.
And Roy Innis of the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE), a more militant black group than the NAACP, actually ended up endorsing Reagan that year.
But it was a lot easier for American blacks to turn on a white Southerner (Carter) than on a black Northerner (Obama).
If our current President were some white liberal named Barry O’Shea or something, blacks would have walked out on him just like they walked out on Carter, due to the extremely high unemployment rate among blacks.
My wife was reading commentary (commentary, not Commentary) to me following the debate the other night while I was doing the dishes. She stumbled across a gem – I wish I had the link. Apparently a focus group of minorities was gathered by one of the networks in Cleveland (I think). One of the guys interviewed afterwards said, "If both candidates were white I wouldn't vote this year." Laugh or cry? Not sure.
The size of the audience along indicates clearly that voters are looking to replace the incumbent. Everything they saw in Denver should convince most of them that Romney deserves a shot at the big job. n n
"The size of the audience along indicates clearly that voters are looking to replace the incumbent." nThis is a really astute comment, I think. I hadn't thought of it this way. Could it be, at least partly, that people are aware they are being lied to by the media and Democrats, and are eager to cut through the filters and decide for themselves. And if that is true, well, adios Harry Reid. I know – I'm getting way ahead of things here. Still…I am convinced that if the American people do see the light,the Democrats are doomed – 2010 all over again.
Shouldn't that be "convince most Americans Romney is the monster"? n nThe Democrats may curse the fates all they like, but they can no more convince most Americans that Romney is not the monster they claimed him to be now than can the supporters of the Patriots beguile the public into believing their team won. n n
It is said over and over again that President Obama is lost without a teleprompter. But I think what's truly missing is his aura. How very ordinary and even unengaged he looks when the filter of adoration through which he's been seen for years is removed. It's far easier to understand some of history's political disasters when you observe the ability of otherwise intelligent people to deceive themselves about the qualifications or good faith of their leaders. Let's hope that in this case, the spell has been broken for good.
Does anyone know the next presidential debate's format and who the moderator will be? Format and moderator for VP debate? Thanks.
See above.
An unrelated topic, but one that I've been thinking about for a couple of days and maybe people will see it here. nTwo days ago (maybe) one of the leftie commenters here, who is generally tedious and childish (but thankfully brief), used profanity. Now I'm no prude – frequently I have to be careful what I type – but that is the point. This is a civil forum. I don't care if someone wants to post silly left-wing rants (silly only because they are immature, meant only to tick people off, not put forward a real argument), but I wonder if Commentary should actually ban someone for profanity. I would hate to see that happening on a more regular basis. I've been reading this blog literally since day one, and that is the first time I have seen language like that. (I realize they haven't always had comments here, but you get the point.) Of course, the fact that I haven't seen profanity before here may suggest my concerns are unnecessary. nIf it's just me, no biggie. I'm just curious what others think.
I'd agree with jocon and wiil add this: maybe they are also looking for a plausible reason to explain to friends, family, co-workers, spouses, their kids, pollsters, whomever why they aren't going to vote for Obama. A reason that is objective and that can't be construed as racially-motivated or overly partisan, or inspired by unpopular pundits. Mitt's performance and Obama's under-performance gave millions–maybe tens of millions–precisely that reason. So long as Mitt holds his own in the next two debates–and I suspect he'll do much better than that–then Obama's first debate performance could become the proxy for his administration's performance that many are seeking.