Much of the country will be watching tonight’s presidential debate in Boca Raton, Florida. Both sides are playing, as they have before each of the previous two encounters between President Obama and Mitt Romney as well as the vice presidential tangle, the expectations game. And on an evening that will be devoted to foreign policy, both the president and his challenger are primed to exploit each other’s weaknesses and will hope to be proclaimed the victor by the spinners and the media. But if the polls are any judge, the odds are not much will be altered by the debate no matter which man comes off better.
Last week’s second debate was scored a clear victory for the president due to his livelier performance and Romney’s mistakes in the town hall format. But unless you believe the one outlier poll (Investors Business Daily/TIPP tracking poll), there doesn’t seem to have been any bounce for the president as a result of his getting the better of Romney. That means that even if Obama can repeat the same trick tonight, with Romney continuing to blunder, it probably won’t make a difference. That leaves us with the question as to why the first debate earlier this month in Denver proved so decisive. Was it that it was really more one-sided for Romney than Obama’s win at Hofstra University? Though it was, that doesn’t seem to be the answer, since if it was just a question of a margin of victory then Obama would have gotten more out of the second debate than he received.
Rather, the answer has to do with the relationship between the way Romney came across and the way Democrats had campaigned against him for the last year. While the president’s sleepwalk through the first debate seemed to betray his contempt for the process as well as for his opponent, the real news there was that by coming across as a reasonable, intelligent and well spoken candidate, Romney effectively undid several months and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Democratic ads that sought to portray him as an extremist, hateful plutocrat who tortured dogs, killed factory workers and destroyed the lives of others more or less for fun.
For all of our intense attention as to who is winning the debates on points and how strong their arguments may be or how many mistakes they make, the real test of these evenings is whether the candidate comes across as a plausible president of the United States. Since so much Democratic effort went into painting Romney as implausible if not completely unsuitable for the presidency, his Denver showing made it clear that the Obama campaign had overspent on hyperbole that was easily disproved if not completely debunked.
As Woody Allen is often quoted as saying, 80 percent of life is just showing up. Romney didn’t just show up in Denver. He showed up and showed the country what he was: an intelligent, fact-driven technocrat with some strong convictions about the economy and limited government as well as an appealing personality.
Having established this, it doesn’t really matter if he screwed up the Libya question last week or even if he does it again tonight–though if he does it will drive his campaign, if not the entire Republican Party, crazy.
As with the first debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter in 1980, the GOP candidate has destroyed the caricature that his opponents so carefully constructed. This hasn’t won him the election outright, since this close race can still go either way. But it does illustrate why the first debate will probably turn out to be the only one that really counts.
That shouldn’t stop Americans from watching the foreign policy tangle since it gives the country the opportunity to hear the candidates expound on the issues that are truly the primary responsibility of the president. But now that the American people know Romney is a reasonable alternative, it isn’t likely that anything he or Obama can say in Boca will change their minds.
"Last week’s second debate was scored a clear victory for the president due to his livelier performance and Romney’s mistakes in the town hall format." n nI would say Obama was given a mild victory in the snap polls, though Romney won on all the issues. Go figure.
I think the "Candy transcript episode" hurt 0bama more than helped. People arent stupid, they know 0bama tried to pull a fast one, lying about Lybia.
Jonathan, blunder? Well, if you mean that Romney's answer on Libya was disappointing and not the homeroom many of us thought it could have been, I guess it's correctly used. But blunder, as in an egregiously misstated policy or inappropriately used phrase or word, I didn't hear it and, I believe, neither did the American public: Obama's number didn't improve at all, but Romney's did. Now, that doesn't mean Romney couldn't blunder tonight. These debates can be perilous, as several of them throughout the last fifty plus years have shown, so I do believe that this one can be of signifigicance. In fact, as I have posted, this debate could be the most difficult one yet for Romney. He has to be strong, determined, and critical without being bellicose, strident or mean. He must not allow Obama to play the role of the poor, grieving, burdened commander in chief, as Obama tried to in the second debate. Given Romney's ability not to blunder in the first two debates, I'm confident he can pull it off.
wow !!! words of encouragement from aroundthetrack…! Romney must really be doing well to see this Cassandra morph into a cheerleader!
Uninstalling…Obama………….. nu2588u2588u2588u2588u2588u2588u2588u2588u2588u2588u2588u2588u2588u2588u2588u2588u2588u2588u2591 99.9% complete.
Good One!
Last night, I watched the debate sponsored by Children of Holocaust Survivors. n nHope Romney has seen it. His surrogate was outstanding, especially on Jerusalem. n nAnd, Sen. Graham was oustanding on Benghazi versus Sen. Durbin. n nInteresting that tonight's debate will have everyone seated, similar to the veep debate.
HillelA, I'm originally from Rhode Island; one of the top three Democratic states. On occasion, a Republican would win election state-wide. I know how far a Republican has to compromise with overwhelming Democratic numbers in the legislature. I know, then, when I can trust their basic political calculus and pragmatism within this context. Yes, Mitt Romney is not a movement conservative. He's no Jim DeMint, Pat Toomey or Marco Rubio. But if your point is to embarrass us who support him on the grounds that he's a RINO, or an opportunistic flip-flopper, in all due respect, you're very unconvincing.
att, I wonder if HillelA is projecting his own motivations onto everyone else. n nMany Democrats in 2012 are voting for a Messiah, as they did in 2008. Everyone else is voting for President. It's just that in this election, Republicans are also voting for someone to relieve us of a failed would-be Messiah, and of the whole delusion that POTUS is, can be or should aspire to be the Messiah. n n"We live for the One, would die for the One" was a catchy phrase for Zathras in Babylon 5, but it's a dumb approach to a presidential election.
We'll need the help even more if your Mashiach Barak Obama is reelected – and you have shown that you will say anything, no matter how irrelevant or even out and out false in order to advance that goal.
troll+tool= trooll.
Trooll ! LOL! I like…will have to "borrow" that one!
Obama purgered himself in Debate 2, when he said he called it terrorism day 2 post Benghazi. n nHe then had the gall to seize upon 'Candy' Crowley's error to cement the lie with the American public, asking her to 'say that a little louder'. This was truly shameless, but left unexplored of course by the media. n nIt was telling that just before that exchange, when Romney cross questioned him and said 'let's get it straight – you say you called it terrorism the next day?', the Obama did not answer, giving only a half non committal semi nod and said 'proceed Governor', as if Romney was falling into a trap set for him by some prior collusion between Obama and Crowley. n nAfterwards, of course, Crowley falls on her sword, as many do for their king.
Purgered himself? Was he under oath?
Perhaps not technically, ahad, but a commander in chief is always "under oath" to the nation to speak the truth.
One would think . . . n nI debated using the word 'lied' but Obama has been swinging that word around and misusing it to score cheap political points so much that 'inflation' has rendered the significance of the word as almost meaningless when applied to presidential politics . . . .
One would think . . . n nI debated using the word 'lie' but Obama has been swinging that word around and misusing it to score cheap political points so much that 'inflation' has rendered the significance of the word as almost meaningless when applied to presidential politics . . . .
'Mr. President, you said, and I quote:"When 4 Americans are killed, that's not optimal." And people say I'm the emotionless one . . . .'
Michael, are you a Brit? The reverse use of quotation marks ( which is more logical, I think) would suggest that.
Originally Canadian. n n
Me too. Still Canadian, and one very concerned about which way the elephant to the south of us will roll.
Regarding "last week’s second debate was scored a clear victory for the president…" The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Romney experienced a bounce, regardless of heavy bias by the moderator and supposed missed opportunities. n nThe reason bookies and bar-flies are more successful at predicting elections is that unlike political analysts they look for personality clues ordinary people act intuitively on. Thus, enumerating debate scores point by point may be interesting in a college seminar, but rarely reflect the real world. Also, polls can be inaccurate, especially in highly emotional contests such as this one is. n nIn spite of assessments based on content of the second debate and rushed analyses, Mitt won because he connected with the audience better than Obama, who came out as artificially up-beat, petty and shrill, while Mitt's emotional responses were logical and natural, showing genuine "presidential" qualities under pressure. Here's my bet: Mitt will win by a lanslide.
While I disagree that O "won" the second debate — one does not win merely by showing up and having a pulse in contrast to an earlier "game" — in no small part because O did not articulate any coherent agenda for his second term, what came together in the first debate was fundamentally deeper than Romney disproving the notion that he was some kind of unqualified nut. n nIt was that, true, but it also was Romney's first and best chance to speak directly to a big chunk of the electorate (relatively few tuned in to the convention) without media filter. And, most importantly, once Romney showed the electorate that he was and is capable of being president, he allowed the voters to refocus their attention on what an election involving an incumbent is first and foremost — a referendum on the incumbent. On this level, it becomes critical that the incumbent articulate both a defense of his record and a vision for the next term. Not only did Obama fail to do either (in both debates, truly), but Romney offered a cogent critique of the last 4 years and a succinct plan for the next.
Hopefully Romney will bring his best effort tonight. Our long-time allies expect and need America to provide real leadership. Obama should be worried about the debate given the litany of failure comprising his record. The vacuous and obsequious approach to foriegn policy has made the world a more dangerous place. The clamor to pawn the leadership role off to the UN, a disfunctional organization with a long history of enabling the dictators and abandoning the helpless, is unacceptable. Those who resent America quickly become silent when asked which country of the world they would like to see take our place. Four more years of leading from behind will likely produce consequences in the long-term we cannot afford.
The Daily Beast is nothing more than a leftwing rag.
nFunny I didn't see any Romney Blunders, I saw a Moderator that couldn't get out of the way to keep bailing out her president.
There was one. Romney should have counterattacked at the suggestion that he was trying to politicize the death of our ambassador and stressed that he was trying to hold the administration accountable not only for the intelligence and security failures that preceded the attack but also for the deliberate lies to the American public after the attack, AND for apologizing for and misrepresenting our free speech rights.
Hmm, I dunno. I watched that little exchange again a while ago, as it nagged at me, and I think Mitt's non-response was even more effective. Barry thundered out a memorized line that was embarrassingly contrived, with his "commander in chief" stuff and all that. I cringed for him, as I do at amateur actors who try to project a persona not in their nature. This was a battle of characters waged with "subliminal" non-verbal clues, not one of content, and Mitt pwned it. Methinks.
What Romney got from the first debate wasn't a bounce and what he did get wasn't generated solely by that debate as such. He smashing first debate performance isn't to be downsized. But it's better seen, due to Romney's outstanding performance, as catalyst or faucet which opened up and gave a channel for the pervasive disquiet affecting the country and looking for a reason to express itself in candidate choice. So more than a bounce, which by definition falls after apex, he got momentum and a movement in his direction that has persisted to this day and shows seemingly no sign of abating.
I like this hypothesis and….
I also think that lots of undecideds watched the first debate, saw what they saw, and then went about their business of ignoring politics until they vote. They are undecided for two reasons. 1) they don't pay attention, and 2) they don't like Obama very much – just hadn't been convinced Romney was a reasonable alternative. Debate #1 convinced them he was. Now they can go back to not paying attention – they've already made up their minds. I think this is what has driven the very big bounce for Rommney post-Debate 1, and why it has remained high, even though Obama arguably won #2…
…and this one too!
I am sorry to disagree with what Jonathan Tobin writes. The election may already have been decided, the moment Paul Ryan–one of the most unappealing vice-presidential candidates in living memory—opened his mouth during the v.p. debate and promised: "…a Romney administration will not be pro-abortion." And then he proceeded to elaborate how marvelous it was, that he and "Mitt" intended stick to their "religious" guns on the issue. R.I.P., Romney/Ryan. n nFunny, I can't recall Ronald Reagan ever, not even once, referring to his "religious reasons" for doing anything! n nRyan's was the mother of all unforced-errors! Why did Paul Ryan think the nation needed to know what a "good Catholic" he is? What business is it of ours? Should Romney also avow his strong Mormon faith and tell us what policies and positions Mormonism would, as president, lead him to adopt? Would that sway America's voters his way? Or, as I am sure we can all agree, would it put the last nail in a coffin that may already have shut? n nFor picking this running mate, we must conclude that something is wrong with Romney's judgment. We saw the same thing re: John McCain when he chose Sarah Palin—she, like Ryan, is a very good human being, but also like him not presidential material! And they're not all that different, oddly. Both are people you'd love to go ice-fishing with! n nIf Romney, like McCain, could not choose a running-mate wisely, what else can he not do wisely? n nWe need a new party. If Romney loses on Nov. 6, the urgency for this will rise exponentially. The GOP is fatally flawed. It has "done business" with too many groups for whom the majority of Americans feels antipathy. Sure, every so often one of our guys slips through. Look at George W. Bush. He "slipped through," alright! He won because of who preceded him as president and because of Al Gore's inability to run an effective campaign. Otherwise, Bush would have lost in a landslide. Then there was the silliness of John Kerry. But imagine if the Democrats had run a superstar! Switch 2004 with 2008, and you'll see what I mean: Bush vs. Obama. No contest. n nBut why? Because Obama is a great American? No, because our side cannot seem to find the gold ring! n nBecause the GOP has become corrupt, the failure of the Bush presidency was predictable. He ran as a "compassionate conservative" and pledged, in effect, to "do nothing." Well, his "compassion" seemed mostly reserved for the Arabs our soldiers were killed and maimed by, and his "conservatism" seemed to be non-existent—he outspent every president in our history, save for FDR during WWII. And, he (brilliantly) lowered taxes while emptying the treasury. A compassionate conservative! n nBut Bush's worst gift to the US was neither the tens of thousands dead and maimed, nor our fiscal bankruptcy; those were his second-tier gifts! Number one among his "gifts" is, hands-down, Barack Obama. We would not have this horrible man as our president today, but for George W. Bush, who so appalled and angered Americans that they were ready to elect any Democrat at all! n nNow, Paul Ryan comes along and swears that he and Mitt will oppose abortions. What's next, opposing Spanish surnames? Or perhaps closing all gay bars and mandating shock treatments for gay teens? I'm sure there are constituencies for those things in Republican "circles." Shall we give it a whirl, see what happens? n nWe must be rid of the GOP. It has grown too corrupt, too involved in our personal lives, too beholden to interests and beliefs that have no place in presidential politics! We need a Conservative Party, perhaps a Conservative Union Party, one that will attract centrist Democrats who are tired of their own party's crazy ideological stands—and who are alarmed by the nation's fiscal trajectory! n nIf we were to do this, to walk away from the GOP and found a Conservative Party, it would win its first presidential contest handily. That is, provided it focused solely on issues related to the presidency and governance. That's the key. Tens of millions of Americans are tired of the way we run this nation today. Let's give them a break, finally! n nLast, let me be clear. I believe Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and most Republicans are marvelous men and women. It is the party, the GOP, that is causing the problems we have today with attracting Americans to the conservative philosophy. Why, most voters are already conservatives! They will not, however, make common cause with the fringe groups who dictate Republican approaches to governance and social policy (most of which is not the business of the federal government in any case!). This is all about "party." We need a new one. Time for a fresh start.