I left my home in Redmond at 6:00 pm yesterday for a trip to a destination a little outside of the little town of Carbonado, WA. The timing was pretty good for debate listening, as the traffic on I-405 meant I would hear most of the debate without a whole lot of interference from 60 MPH road noises. I caught just over an hour of the debate, as my aural sense was required for other tasks shortly after 7:00 pm.
Listening to the debate didn’t give me opportunity to see Obama’s “big crash”. Aurally, things simply did not come off all that negative for Obama. What stuck out for me was Mitt Romney doing two things:
- Back-peddling, flip-flopping, and pivoting away from the “severe conservative” positions he held during the G.O.P. debates. For the six or so years Romney has been running for President, he has given Americans a portrait of his positions that, oddly, differ greatly from his positions while running for Senate and while running for and being Governor of Massachusetts. Last night, the Etch-A-Sketch moment happened—Romney shook up the slate. He erased that mix of conservative, ALEC, and teabag-inspired positions that got him through the primary. Obama was dumbfounded—he probably was thinking what I was saying: “What the fuck, Mitt?!?”
- Lying. Romney repeatedly said things that are factually false—and did so with conviction and, well…swagger! Although Obama sometimes pointed out Romney’s “erroneous” statements, I think he was caught off guard by it a bit. He was probably thinking what I was saying, “What a FUCK, Mitt!”
When I turned off the radio shortly after 7:00 pm, my impression was that Obama came off as too timid, and should have been nailing Romney MUCH harder on his Etch-A-Sketching and untruthful statements. Timidity in a debate isn’t good unless your opponent is self destructing. And Romney wasn’t acutely self destructing.
But he was undergoing a chronic self-destruction. I mean, the media isn’t going to let him get away with lying and wholesale abandonment of the positions and policies he used to get through the primary, are they? In other words, after hearing the words each candidate was saying, I was pretty convinced that Romney had created some self-inflicted damage.
I didn’t get home until about Midnight, when I did a quick scan of the news feeds, only to learn that Obama got clobbered. Devastated. Destroyed.
Alas, I had a busy morning, so I didn’t look into it too much. Later, an Obama-supporting friend of mine on the East Coast emailed me a scathing critique of Obama, starting with an, apparently, disingenuous tribute to his and Michelle’s anniversary.
Huh! That opening bit sounded warm and genuine from the right lane of SR-520.
While eating lunch today, I spent a few minutes exploring the media reaction. I think David Frum helps me understand things:
Romney, the multimillionaire, arrived in a suit, shirt and tie that looked like they’d been purchased at Macy’s. I doubt he’ll ever wear them again, but for one night, he looked the way most non-zillionaires look when they dress for business. His manner was warm, engaged, and respectful. He looked at the president when the president spoke, and his expression revealed no asperity or disdain.
Oh shit! No wonder I couldn’t clearly see Mitt’s victory…I just couldn’t see his cheap suit, and where his eyes and Obama’s eyes were pointing. (I’ve mentioned during the G.O.P. debates about Mitt’s habit of staring attentively—almost artificially so—at his speaking opponent, so I can picture that.) Apparently, if I had watched the debate with the sound turned down, Mitt would be the hands-down winner.
The only problem: there were words spoken, as well. And while I agree that Obama didn’t attack Mitt nearly as effectively as he could have, that hardly compares to lying at Americans, right in their own living rooms—or cars. Or “disappearing” his long-held controversial positions, as if they’d never “happened.”
The problem for Romney is that a victory on style is ephemeral. The debate has left behind a record in the form of words. Going forward, he can lose the cheap suit, but will still be left with all those words…and they cheapen the whole package.
I would not be concerned: Obama will win in November.
Yep.
Gekko/Galt is the anvil
We are the HAMMER!
Hammer it home
And the last 3.75 years have left Obummer a record.
We got trickle down government from the Obummer sadministration! Right now the hammer has lost it’s head!
To the Person Playing Puddybud,
Ooooohhhhh, our little pretend person has learned the “zinger du jour“. I’m impressed.
After 3.75 years, I am pretty damn happy with the accomplishments of this President. Especially considering the alternative—the cluster fuck that would have been a McCain administration.
To Da Perfessa who mysteriously forgets to post real news in the Friday Night Funnies…
Clint Eastwood was right! Romney was debating an empty chair!
Ummm…person playing Puddybud, this is not an open thread.
Da Perfessa, Everyone of those posts were debate thoughts. Those facial expressions you chose to delete were Obummer in his own environment!
I guess your “man” sucked so bad you have to erase those reviews!
Democracy is good.
Republicanism is stupid.
Give up.
Person Playing Puddybud @ 7,
Normally I would delete comments on deleted comments [per comment policy], but I’ll let this one stand simply to point out that a plain English reading of the two deleted comments revealed no evidence to me that they were discussing the debate.
Perhaps if you refrained from the baby talk your character typically engages in, you would reduce the risk of such “misunderstandings.”
Otherwise, stick to Open Threads for your baby talk.
Thanks…appreciate it.
Here’s another post debate thought.
Think of all those wasted Obummer advertising $$$ Tens of Millions $$$ that just went down the drain in the battleground states with Romney’s trouncing of Obummer last night!
Here’s another post debate thought…
What happens if Joe BiteME outshines Obummer in the BiteME/Ryan debate next week?
When the League of Women Voters drop their sponsorship of the debates in 1988 they issued this statement, “The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the
presidential debates…because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates
to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention
of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”
Nothing has changed.
So Da Perfessa, are you going to repost Stenk Urgur’s post debate analysis in the Friday Night Comics? It was truly brutal!
Darryl,
I also read Frum’s analysis.
I liked his final thoughts “Will it hurt him? Maybe not. But it sure didn’t help.”
(http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....-lost.html)
Going by intrade, Obama’s still winning but by a lot less (around 65% down from the high 70’s). Most of the bookies at oddschecker seem to think he’ll maintain the lead as well.
Oddly, polls generally don’t change much from these debates, even when one person wins by a wide margin; at least according to Nate Silver’s post today.
For your monte carlo analysis, I guess we’ll have to wait until next week to see what the numbers meant.
Like your opinions here though.
Person Playing Puddybud @ 13,
Beats me. I haven’t seen it yet.
Meme1,
I agree that the debates tend to not change the dynamics of the race much.
And, empirically, a bad first debate doesn’t seem to “stick”—remember GW Bush’s disastrous debate with Kerry…
I have a friend who postulates that Obama “threw” the debate on purpose so that superPACs and other donors would become excited about Romney again and spend their money on that race instead of congressional races. Interesting idea, although it seems a bit risky to me.
Yes, the M.C. results will only start showing any changes as post-first-debate polls start coming in.
Darryl @16,
I heard a similar theory on the intrade forum yesterday, most people (myself included) didn’t find it credible; I agree it’s way too risky.
Ezra Klein gives a few other wonks opinions on how it will effect the national debate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....the-polls/); the answer seems to be not too much.
Look forward to reading the M.C. results next week to see whether they were right.
If 47 percent of Americans don’t pay taxes why do they need a 20% tax cut that Robme is offering? First the 47 percent grow to more than 47% then?
Should say does the 47 percent grow to greater than 47%?
That’s too bad. Puddy posted it. You erased it. I’ll be watching tomorrow, not holding my breath!
I listened to part of the debate on the radio. I thought Romney and Obama were fairly close on the winning issue from the part I heard, with a slight edge to Romney, and a significantly greater than expectations (i.e. creaming the point spread) for Romney.
But you watch the televised debate, and Romney defeated cleaned Obama’s chronometer. Or to paraphrase the elder Bush from his 1984 debate with Ferraro, Romney kicked his ass. And everyone who looks at the debate from neutral debate judging guidelines think Romney decisively won.
Debates can be major game changers. The October 1980 debate took Reagan from being 9 points behind Carter in the polls to winning the election a week later by a 10 point landslide.
If Obama doesn’t improve his debate performance soon, he will have the freedom next year to take his wife anywhere in the world for their 21st anniversary, and without a great deal of media scrutiny … And Goldy will have the next four years to continue with his Book of Mormon study series every Sunday …
Note to Mitt: don’t fuck with Big Bird.
Sad news for trolls addled by post-debate Romney lie fest after-glow:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ix-charts/
Improving employment trends..