President Obama didn’t repeat his mistakes in the first presidential debate in Denver two weeks ago. He looked interested in the proceedings on Long Island and responded strongly to attacks and got in plenty of stingers as well as making some clever tactical strokes at Romney’s expense. Romney had his moments, especially when speaking about the president’s economic failures. The Republican also missed some wide-open opportunities to nail the president on issues like the Libya terrorist attack. But that won’t necessarily translate into a complete reversal of the losses Obama experienced after their previous encounter. The question that pollsters will be wondering most about won’t be which of the two candidates scored the most points but whether the bruising and nasty tone of the confrontation turned off more voters than it engaged.
The president’s palpable anger at Romney was barely contained. He fulfilled the Democratic base’s desire to bash the GOP candidate relentlessly but he did so at times by taking the cheapest of shots such as a hypocritical swipe about Romney’s investments and by filibustering and taking up more than three minutes more of airtime than his opponent. Though he stopped short of repeating Vice President Biden’s bullying act last week, it’s far from clear that the most of the public — especially undecided voters — will regard the evening as anything but a muddled slugfest.
Whenever he spoke about the economy and jobs, Romney did well. He did much worse when forced to respond to questions like the one about equal pay for women when he responded with a lengthy off-the-point reminiscence about hiring staff in which he got “binders full of women.” He also made some mistakes in terms of debating strategy by asking the president questions and then letting him out talk him.
Most memorable was his meandering response to President Obama’s non-response to a very clear question about whether he knew the Libya incident was a terrorist attack. Instead of hammering Obama with all the times he talked about the video, he harped on the one moment when something the president said could have been interpreted as a saying it was a terrorist attack when his comments were actually, as Commentary pointed out at the time, was a general comment rather than a reference to Benghazi. That allowed moderator Candy Crowley to chide Romney with an instant less than accurate fact check that helped Obama wiggle out of the trap.
Romney also failed to adequately answer Obama’s claim that he opposed contraception coverage when his disagreement is about the ObamaCare mandate that would compel religious institutions and believers to violate their faith and beliefs.
Though he closed with a moving testimony to this faith and his record of caring about and helping people, he also set up Obama to finally mention his “47 percent” gaffe in his concluding statement when the Republican had not opportunity to respond.
Nevertheless, on the key issues of the economy, taxes, fuel prices and health care, Romney clearly bested the president who once again failed to explain his record or to say what he would do in the future. His energy and focus remained very much at the same level as the first debate meaning the inroads he made with a public that has begun to understand the Democrats’ mischaracterization of him was false. For all of the punches landed by Obama, as many Americans are turned off by the nastiness displayed at Hofstra than enjoyed or admired it.
The president’s base will be energized by the fact that he scored more points in this encounter than Romney. But whatever advantage he may gained they won’t bring the race back to where it was before Denver. That’s better than another loss for Obama but not enough to really alter the current direction of the election.
Good assessment. Re Libya – whether or not Romney missed an opportunity is debatable, but what isn't debatable is that it should not be up to the Republican presidential candidate to pull answers out of the President on this issue. If Candy and her colleagues were doing their job Obama would not have been able to weasel his way out of this. It is unfair for us to expect our candidate to carry the press's water, too. nBut, Ms. Crowley has already walked back a bit her comments re Libya. So now that will be the story, eh? What did Obama say, when did he say it, why did she help him, blah blah blah. But as long as we're talking about Libya, I think we've got to be pleased.
It's up to the actual candidate tho to take the attack to the President and not refer it to a lib moderator who can't be expected to act as a fair referee.
I understand and agree – but… nA Republican presidential candidate operates in a very harsh environment, one that doesn't allow many mistakes. My point is simply that that is an unfair set-up, and I think conservatives should give him some slack for not being perfect. It wasn't up to John Kerry alone to make his party's case against Iraq in 2004 – as I recall the media was right there with him hammering home the point, asking the President the tough questions, treating every potential negative as front page news. Makes a candidate's job a little easier.
Arguably Candy gave Obama a mixed favor when she uncritically accepted the WH narrative (which Obama practically endorsed, either only by his seemed pleasure, or perhaps also vocally–I've yet to read the transcript on this point), making one wonder why the contentious Youtube video rhetoric and narrative would continue so long after he acknowledged that the incident in Benghazi was a terrorist attack immediately. (Which, of course, he did not even do.) n nHmm, as to the rest of the debate, this only I have to say, that Romney is a great offensive candidate, but he's not the greatest defender of all things virtuous or conservative. Largely because it's sensible and smart strategy, given his tax prescriptions and all, I want him most of all to defend the Bush tax cuts and properly narrate the crises of 2008 (I think that would remove a rug from under Obama's feet); but this, I'll largely admit, is also because I want Bush's vindication, which is also properly necessary, I think, after this current administration has simply thrown blame for every situation on him. n nThere were also, as Tobin on Twitter stated, far too many "uncommitted liberals" getting questions in–I weakly protest, very weakly, eh.
First of all, I can't believe I'm awake at this hour! Secondly, although I think Romney's failure on the Libyan question which almost all, friendly to him or not, agree was as missed opportunity, he was very good on most economic question. Even those questions on immigration and women in the workforce, contrary to what some conservatives have said, were handled, or I should say finessed, well by him. I've been very critical of Romney for the last several months. He wasn't my candidate throughout the primary season,but I have to say that he has improved considerably and I'm proud to say that he's my party's standard bearer.
on the equal pay for women question? Impressive revelation that Romney insisted on finding qualified women for his cabinet, but too bad he did not connect the dots on that by trying to say that society changes when leaders lead by example. Women, especially over 50, know all the laws are meaningless. n nSuch watered down questions from people from the New York Area. nBut, they all deserved to be answered, which Romney did slightly more than Obama.
I respectfully disagree. Only Romney scored points that will resonate with voters beyond the immediacy and heat of the debate. Substance and gravitas are visible and audible virtues. "It doesn't have to be this way" is compelling phrasing that will stick. n nIn America today as yesterday, substance talks, bullshit walks.
The final question of the evening was on the level of Jerry Springer’s “How did that make you feel”, and degraded the level of an a supposed debate that was on the level of The View or Jersey Shore.
You quote Nate Silver 'that in the final weeks typically involves a reversion towards the mean". If there is a statement that is asinine ,this is it. Carter should have won if this is true. G. H. Bush could have won if this is true. As a matter of fact, just the opposite happens. Undecided break overwhelmingly for the challenger. And "the fundamentals favor Obama". HUH? Which fundamentals? the unmeployment rate? The economy growth rate? The price e of gas? I don't know who will lin but to accept Nage Silver's analysis on anything is to assert that the New York Times is impartial.
Clearly, Romney doesn't have the fluency in foreign policy that he does in domestic. Perhaps this is why he has been somewhat muted in his responses to the Libyan fiasco and was weak last night when asked about it. But, remember, Obama obviously has no strength in foreign affairs either as his administration has demonstrated to the detriment of our county, Israel and the world. One more point. I've gained a great deal of confidence and respect for Romney's ability to process information and to use that skill in debating. That's what makes his weak answer so frustrating. However, hopefull, next Monday we are unlikely to see a repeat of that.