Tonight is the first presidential debate of 2012. I am starting this thread for people who want to speculate ahead of time, comment as the debate happens, and analyse it afterwards.
Both camps are trying to downplay expectations for their candidate. The Obama camp says Romney will do better since he has more recent experience debating, plus he has more time to prepare (since he isn’t busy running a country). The Romney camp says Obama will do better since he is a well-known orator and is famous for having a way with words.
Who do you think will be tonight’s debate winner?
The way the Romney campaign has been going, they will claim victory as long as he doesn’t spontaneously combust.
The way the Romney campaign has been going, would anybody be surprised if he did?
I think they’d still declare victory in this case, noting that Romney single-handedly demonstrated how to solve our energy problem and how to rid us of leeching freeloaders who exist on government handouts.
I think the best summary of what’s in store for debate was given by this op-ed in the Washington Post:
The media.
Both sides will claim victory. Romney will attempt to deliver a canned zinger that will sound like a canned zinger. Both men will largely ignore the questions asked and instead deliver the sound bites they want delivered.
Is it just me or are the debates unusually late this time? It feels like we should have done this months ago …
Both sides will claim victory and the media will kiss Obama’s ass as usual.
I’ll be watching last night’s SoA.
I watched quite a bit of the primary debates and Romney definitely experienced some awkward moments. Newt Gingrich was a pretty cool player and he was able to rattle Mitt a few times. I expect to see more of the same from Obama. I think his coolness can get under Mitt’s skin. Obama’s campaign has been pretty smooth so far, putting Mitt on the defensive even though Obama is the incumbent. Basically, I’ll be surprised if Mitt can gain much traction in the debates.
It’s just you. Presidential debates, which started with the television era in 1960, have all begun with a debate in either the last two weeks of September or the first two weeks of October. Maybe you’re thinking of the presidential primary debates, which take place during primary season, much earlier in the year.
Here’s my prediction about the first debate I made a while ago:
Neither of them are particularly great at debating. I suspect Obama will come off a little better simply because he’s a little less awkward talking on his feet then Mitt. Romney also has the disadvantage of having a really vague platform, which is going to make his canned answers seem, well, extra canned.
Do we have a drinking game yet?
There are two ways a candidate can “win” a debate like this. They can create an impression of themselves as intuitively more likeable and capable than their opponent. Or they can demonstrate a mastery of the issues that allows them to score factual policy points. Ideally, of course, candidates hope to do both. However, of the two ways to “win”, the first trumps the second. A charming, friendly candidate who is vague on specifics will always beat the dry wonk who gets his facts right.
Obama is pretty dry and wonky. He tries hard, but he’s not a particularly gifted speaker and his speeches come off as plodding and earnest. If he was going up against an opponent like Reagan or Clinton, a natural-born politician who really knows how to work the crowd, I would say that I was worried about tonight.
However, he’s not going up against someone like that. He’s going up against Mitt Romney who has consistently struggled to avoid putting his foot in his mouth since he became the Republican nominee. So the chances that Romney will beat Obama through charm and wit are virtually nil. I doubt that the zinger strategy we’ve heard so much about will work, simply because I’m not convinced that Romney has the speaking skill to deliver an effective zinger.
Without either candidate having an edge in charm, its going to come down to their ability to articulate position and policy – what they want to do if elected and how they are going to do it. This is a problem for Romney because he’s spent the entire campaign *avoiding *saying what he’ll do that’s different from what either Obama or Bush have done.
My prediction of how it will play out: Obama will doggedly explain his plans for the next four years while Romney awkwardly riffs on how Obama doesn’t believe in America. Neither one will gain any significant advantage from this exercise which, given where the race stands right now, will count as a victory for Obama.
I can’t wait for the Mitt zingers. I hope he ends each one like this.
How weird is it that his campaign advertises his “zingers” ahead of time? I mean, I don’t think many people would be under the illusions that they weren’t pre-perpared in anycase, but bragging about the fact is just going to make it seem even more artificial.
Plus, the guys not exactly great at comedic delivery. Now everyone’s going to be waiting for him to get a line off, and if it falls flat, he’s going to look all the more foolish for the fact that his campaign was bragging about how much work they were putting into prepared zingers ahead of time.
I imagine Romney’s zingers playing out like It’s Spagett!.
This is just another indication of how clueless the Romney campaign is. The benefit of a zinger is that it makes it look like you can think on your feet. Good comic actors can do this with scripted material - Romney ain’t that. Advertising your zingers ahead of time just defeats the purpose. It goes from “Good one, Mitt” to “he read that well” at best - and most likely it will be that he flopped.
Everything thought that Reagan read his zingers really well - except that he delivered good zingers even after he got shot.
Are you sure you’re talking about Barack Obama? You really think he’s “not a particularly gifted speaker”? Seriously? 
I guess we’ll just have to agree that we disagree on that.
I would pay good money to see that.