Polls are one thing, enthusiasm is something else. Supporters don’t necessarily go out and vote, even “likely” ones. However, an enthusiastic base is much easier to GOTV than a ho-hum one. Winning the fight for the undecideds/middle is moot-- or at least an uphill battle-- if your base isn’t pumped.
I’m not saying polls don’t matter, but if Obama’s base feels unexcited, it won’t really matter what polling looks like. But an excited base makes things much more challenging for Romney, even if he’s gotten a bump in the polls.
They could, yes. At this point people have gotten worked up into such a tizzy about Obama’s performance in the first debate that as long as he does reasonably well in the others, it’ll be seen as a significant win.
It’s an interesting perspective, though. If I hadn’t already started so many threads on this forum, I’d start another, asking whether it’s more important to convince undecided voters or to rally your current supporters. I frankly don’t know which candidate, if either, has an advantage if it’s the latter. Probably Romney, since Republicans have been said to be more reliable voters in general, but who knows.
I don’t know which is more important, but obviously they are both significant and I think you can make a good case that increased enthusiasm among Democrats had a lot to do with Obama’s strong standing in the polls after the convention.
I think the OP is following the same logic as the polling company that’s declared Romney is ahead in some close states so it’s cancelling any future polling.
It’s a sign of desperation not confidence when you seize upon any piece of good news and refuse to look at the overall picture. Did Romney win the first debate? Yes, clearly. But will that debate be the single event which will decide the entire campaign? That’s extremely doubtful.
At the moment, all the first debate victory has done for Romney is narrow the margin of his Election Day defeat. If he wants to actually win the election, he needs to get out there and work some more - not sit back and decide he’s already won.
And Marley’s made a good point - Obama now has the advantage of lowered expectations in the next two debates. All he has to do now is give a credible performance in order to “win” them. Romney has to knock them out of the ballpark to meet the current expectations. I’m pretty sure Obama knows this and will be putting a lot more work into getting ready for the final debates - and foreign policy is an area where Obama can claim some big wins.
Not quite; he’s AHEAD in some close states, so they’re cancelling future polling. I’m not quite THAT bad yet.
And that’s what I’m trying to ask: does it matter if Obama “wins” the future debates?
Now that I think of it, it certainly does to his base, which is a key factor in his reelection efforts, so I suppose that answers my question. Now what about undecideds and former squishy supporters who he lost to Romney in the debates (whether it was because of him or Romney)?
If debate performance didn’t change anything, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. A good debate performance pumped up Romney’s chances. Why can’t a good debate performance pump up Obama’s chances?
Your argument seems to be that the first debate established the public image of the candidates and the follow-up debates won’t be able to change that. I find that doubtful. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were not unknowns before the first debate - it wasn’t a first impression for either man. The first debate was just a step along the trail. And what one event can do, another event can undo.
And if Obama does “win” the second and third debates, that will probably have the effect of burying the loss of the first debate. People are more likely to remember their most recent impression rather than their first impression.
Yeah, but the status quo of this race is for it to be nearly tied. The only way for Obama to get back to where he was post-DNC is to win a debate in dominating fashion.
There’s almost no chance that Obama wins the next two debates by such a wide margin that his loss at the first debate his buried. From a single debate, the race went from an almost guaranteed win for Obama to what’s rapidly approaching a toss-up. And the votes that Romney gained aren’t likely to swing back toward Obama.
The best-case scenario for the Obama campaign, barring an unlikely gaffe from Romney during the debate, will have him winning the next two debates by a thin margin, thereby blunting the last of Romney’s momentum and perhaps moving one or two points back toward Obama in the swing states. If he can shift the narrative back to Romney being an out-of-touch millionaire robot-man, instead of a competent candidate, he can hold steady where he’s at now or maybe move in a positive direction in the polls. The Obama campaign has to be praying that Romney offers to bet Obama a million dollars or something. It’s looking that dire.
My prediction is that Obama’s performance is competent, but not outstanding. He’s going to be more aggressive about challenging Romney’s assertions, and his opponent’s campaign will have already prepared for that. If Obama’s debate coaches are smart, they’ll avoid the most obvious and direct avenues for attacking Romney and focus on something he’s unlikely to have prepared for, but I’m not holding my breath. Romney has been easily provoked in past debates, and has gotten flustered on more than one occasion. Maybe that will happen again, but I think Romney is feeling his oats and won’t be unnerved so easily.
So the debate will be a tie, more or less, with the media narrative being that Obama won because he didn’t embarrass himself again. One or two news organizations will seize on something small and insignificant that happened and try to spin it into a story. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t. It could very well be that Romney uses a colloquial expression, and so a dozen articles will be written about that, and why it’s important and so on and so forth. Google searches will be analyzed, undecided viewers will be polled, and pundits will be asked to explain why exactly their candidate should get an A+ in the style category on the debate report card. CNN will point out that something is trending on Twitter, as if that’s important. The night will draw to a close with each campaign declaring victory. Every cable news network will have anchors standing in front of a green screen, pointing at pie charts. Dozens of talking heads will sit at tables, yammering. Both parties will be equally represented. The noise will rise to a crescendo, and with the realization that we still have three more weeks to go before sanity is restored, the viewing audience will sob quietly into their decorative couch pillows.
The foreign policy debate is made to order for Romney. He doesn’t have to say what he would do differently other than not mess up the way this admin has over Benghazi.
Biden’s lies about it in his debate teed the issue up quite nicely.
I think it’s important to understand that the first debate didn’t hurt Obama directly. It’s not the kind of thing he can make up by doing well in the next two. What that first debate did was prove that Romney was credible as a President. Obama can’t undo that no matter how well he does going forward.
he wanted this to be a choice election instead of a referendum on his performance. Well, he got his wish.
All Obama has to do is point out that despite their blather, Ryan voted to cut expenditures for embassy protection and Romney made it a political issue before the bodies were even cold. He’s already been told off for politicizing the event, as recently as yesterday by the mother of one of the deceased. Obama looks into the camera, speaks with total conviction, and asks the American people if that kind of shameless and indefensible politicking is good foreign policy. He looks reserved and funereal. He asks if that’s the kind of support and leadership America’s brave fighting men and women need. Then he pivots and promises that like he did with bin Laden, he’s created a taskforce to pursue justice to the gates of hell, or whatever.
This is a point I was thinking about asking in (yet) another thread: whether Romney more won or Obama more lost. Of course, Obama didn’t do himself any favors with contrast, and partisans are going to have an opinion either way, but I did wonder. I guess it partly depends where the majority of the Romney poll surge came from, and to what extent Obama could truly have blunted it, especially if it came from dispirited Republicans.
One thing that I’m not sure that anybody has hit on yet is that there was probably an urge within the media (prior to the first debate) of casting a light on a Romney comeback story. Now, Obama certainly didn’t do himself any favors by basically phoning it in in Denver, but he delivered two things during that evening which have hurt him since then: (1) most obviously, he handed Romney a decisive debate victory, and (2) the wildcard, he gave the media an opening to paint Romney’s win as far more lopsided than it initially appeared to be.
I mean, I don’t even think that I’m in the minority on this one. I admitted in the other thread up front that Obama lost the debate in Denver, but I didn’t get the impression that it was this huge BLOWOUT loss that the media characterized it as throughout the following days. The fact that the loss was retroactively painted as this huge crushing defeat served to fuel the media’s narrative of Romney’s revitalized campaign that also probably fueled the GOP nominee’s surge in the polls.
Also, given how quickly Obama’s national poll cushion was able to recede post-debate, I think we can all say that his lead had always been (at least somewhat) tenuous. Still, I have my doubts that Romney’s current gains are truly reflective of independents breaking for him as opposed to Pubbies just becoming more enthusiastic about their candidate.
With all that said, Obama’s lousy performance did serve to deliver him one advantage going into next week: the expectations for him are really, REALLY low, and his opponent’s are just as equally as high. Consequently, all he has to really do is fight the debate to a draw (if not narrowly scoring a victory) and the media will probably declare him as having regained his footing in the campaign. Perhaps that will reverse Romney’s surge, or at the very least markedly increase Democrats’ enthusiasm.
I disagree, as an Obama supporter. I felt like by 10 or 20 minutes in, Romney was DECISIVELY winning. By the end, I was practically fuming and laughing about how badly Obama did. And how WELL Romney did. It was a very clear, decisive victory. Not quite on the level of the Kerry/Bush first debate, but close. Obama only did marginally better than Bush did back then.
It was obvious how badly Obama lost by how MSNBC reacted directly after the debate. Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz were practically about to have a coronary. They were literally yelling, that’s how mad they were. There is no debating that it was not a blowout, judging the way liberal commentators were reacting right afterwards.
And you also can see how the right reacted, best embodied by Colbert’s celebratory dance down to the bottom of the stage the day after the debate. Unlike the vice presidential debate, they didn’t go on the attack against Obama, or get defensive about Romney’s “gaffes”; they didn’t have to. It was so clear that he had won that they essentially dropped the balloons and confetti right after the debate ended.
I am confident that it will go down in history as one of the most lopsided debate performances in history; and if Romney wins the presidency, it will be entirely accurate to say that it was single-handedly because of this debate performance. It really was a blow-out.
Now, I agree with you that the media is always looking for a dogfight, for an interesting story, and an electoral crushing victory is just not that interesting. But the media keeps going along with calling it a blow-out because the polls kept on sliding further and further into Romney territory as a direct result of the debate.
The truth is Americans WANT O to be likable, when things happen to expand his likability he wins. Ergo, if he comes across in such a way that supports his empathtic positions, particularly in issues such as saving Detroit, or social issues such as abortion that was clearly uncomfortable for Ryan to articulate, then Tuesday it’s a clear win for the President.
Problem is, his personality is like Romney and Ryan’s. He’s not an empathy sort of guy. Liberals like him because he has the right positions, but he doesn’t articulate personal compassion the way that someone like Bill Clinton did. He’s done townhall debates before, as well as ordinary town halls. He’s never been able to really relate to ordinary folks the way some gifted politicians can.
Voting to cut expenditures is not the same as screwing up with the money that you have and then hiding behind a movie, lieing about what you “weren’t told”, and then crawling under Hillary’s State Department skirt.
Hopefully Romney can deflect criticism of his early statement. Perhaps he can focus on the movie excuse and ask Obama if he still thinks that it’s excusable to kill people because your religion has been dissed. If it isn’t excusable what are you going to do with these crazies… just play nice?
Then there’s Israel and Iran’s nuclear capabilities… did Biden really blame intelligence for Benghazi in the same breath as he praised it for knowing all there is to know about Iran?
Well I’ll just agree to disagree, because when Obama talked of his Mother on her death bed fighting with the insurance companies for coverage that was something that hit home .. . Or when Obama spoke of Teshawn Williams, the young boy killed in Florida and said he looked “like me” I could understand what he meant in a very tangible and moving way. Talking heads want people to think BO is aloof and professorial, except it just doesn’t work when he can talk about Basketball over a beer like a real follower of the game, or when he can be lifted up in a Pizzeria, or he can sing a little Al Green or a little Sweet Home Chicago.
On the other hand nothing that Romney says about his personal life resonates with me at all.
