Of course, the national doesn’t count as much as the state by states, but one could argue that the states do and will follow the lead of the electorate in general when it comes to polling, especially if one tweeter’s characterization of this poll as the “most pro-Dem of the cycle” is accurate.
Could this be the year where one debate actually (as opposed to UL, in the Reagan/Carter example) completely and irrevocably alters the political landscape? We’ll see what happens, I guess.
I don’t dispute that Romney was the better debater that night if we’re going by presentation and demeanor. It was clearly a good night for Romney and a bad night for the President.
But to hear what people are saying about it at this point, you’d think that Obama was practically preverbal and stopped just short of visibly pissing himself. The sense you’d get from the punditry is that it was the most epic collapse in the history of epic collapses. Really? I mean, it was a clear victory for Romney, but it wasn’t the sort of ass-beating that it’s been turned into in the retelling.
I’d be curious for someone who has followed the post-debate talk but who didn’t actually see it to go back and watch it. I think they’d be surprised to find that Obama was not bent over taking it like Romney’s bitch, but was actually just Obama on an off night. It reminds me of a friend who had heard all about the “Dean Scream” but hadn’t actually heard it; we were watching the news at one point when they replayed it and she said, “Wait a minute–that was it? That’s what they’re talking about?”
True. The media was primed for a comeback narrative, and this was just the ticket.
The other thing to note is that some of the political science research says that the bump is determined not by the debate itself but by the media reaction.
Don’t forget there’s a vice-presidential debate and two more presidential debates, not to mention 4 more weeks for Romney to put his foot in it.
And we’re likely going to start seeing more and more of this kind of stuff as reasonable Republicans start to fear a Romney presidency as much as any Democrat:
Republican Senator, Vietnam Veteran Endorses President Obama
"As a combat veteran of two tours in Vietnam with twenty-two years of service as a Republican member of the U.S. House and Senate, I endorse President Barack Obama for a second term as our Commander-in-Chief. Candidates publicly praise our service members, veterans and their families, but President Obama supports them in word and deed, anywhere and every time. …
"This decision is not easy for any lifelong Republican. In 2008 I voted for Barack Obama, the first time I ever voted for a Democrat, because the Republican Party was drifting toward a dangerous path that put extreme party ideology above national interest. Mitt Romney heads a party remaining on that dangerous path, proving the emptiness of their praise as they abandon our service members, veterans and military families along the way.
“What really set me off was Romney’s reference to 47% of Americans to be written off – including any veteran collecting disability like myself, as a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) veteran. …” Romney’s Foreign-Policy Speech: More War, Bigger Budgets (at The American Conservative)
"Mitt Romney’s speech at VMI today confirmed every realist’s and non-interventionist’s worst fears about him: not only is his foreign-policy vision indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush — except that it may be more utopian and Wilsonian — but there’s no indication that any realist has the slightest influence on his strategic thinking.
“That includes political realists: anyone who might convey to Mitt what a price the GOP paid for Bush’s wars in 2006 and 2008 — the price it will pay again in 2012, the way Mitt is going. Romney promised military Kenyesianism and was as demagogic as the best-paid Pentagon lobbyist in claiming ‘our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut.’” …
“This was not a speech he had to make — a speech distracting from the ground Romney had recently made up by refocusing his attention on the plight of America’s middle class. And if he had to make a foreign-policy speech, it did not have to cater to the neoconservatives and pork hawks already on his team. Nothing in this speech appeals to a war-weary and economically troubled people. It’s politically damaging. But he gave this speech anyway, and the only reasonable explanation is either that Mitt really believes — zealously — what he says, or else he’s entirely compliant to the ideological demands of right-wing Wilsonians. I suspect the latter is the case, and that portends a Romney presidency that would repeat all the errors of his Republican predecessor. The issue here is not even a reckless foreign policy versus a domestic policy that may give Republicans grounds for hope: a foreign policy like this will not permit much of a domestic policy at all. It will consume a presidency, just as it consumed George W. Bush’s. …”
Obama let him land punch after punch. Romney rebutted every attack Obama made on him. Obama only responded to some of Romney’s attacks and almost never to his rebuttals of Obama’s rebuttals.
The impression Bill Maher got was correct, mostly: Obama may not need a teleprompter, but he does need coaching on what to say. If his handlers weren’t prepared for a particular line of attack from Romney, Obama wasn’t prepared. And while he’s a smart guy, he’s not smart enough to respond to attacks he’s not prepared for, at least not in a way that doesn’t involve risk. Obama went in wanting most of all not to have a game-changing gaffe and he did that, by simply not being drawn into any interactions he wasn’t previously prepared for by his team. The problem was that so many of those instances came up that it made Obama seem like he wasn’t even there. He just let attack after attack go without a response.
I am sure that Obama prepared diligently for Romney - just not the one who actually took the podium that night.
I do think he could have handled it better. I still don’t think Obama’s response here got enough ink, but had the rest of his responses been along these lines, I think he would have had a better showing.
Um, I saw a video clip of that. It was Obama being funny with supporters and campaign workers. I realize to a Romney supporter, actual humanity might be a bit hard to detect. Or even comprehend.
Haven’t read every post in this long thread, but it just occurred to me (probably to a lot of folks by now) that all Obama had to do to engage Romney but not appear as an angry black neophyte would be to remember only one word: SMILE. He has a killer smile (literally, or as literally as one can intend a metaphor). That grin says to his opponent: “Governor, you crack me up with this weak shit.” It makes him likeable, but when he’s smiling he can say all sorts of mean (and accurate) shit, and get away with it.
Funny. From what I read, this ad wasn’t released with a list of states it’d run in so it seems to be the sort of ad a campaign puts out just to get media cycles. They won’t spend money broadcasting it but all the news shows will talk about it and/or play it as part of their talk.
Liberals have plenty of hacks, but the trick to being a hack is to not be widely recognized as a hack. When you call a debate where the public says 70-30 that one guy won, to say the other guy won exposes you.
