Book of the Month

Articleman's picture

Romney-Obama I: It’s Worth Two Points. But Don’t Freak Out. (Unless You're the President.)

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 1:24 am   |

I knew Barack Obama was in trouble when he took time off from debate preparation to visit Hoover Dam.  Don’t get me wrong, I love Hoover Dam.  I read a whole book about its history, and have written about it myself.  But I had a big professional event the other day in Nevada, and I stayed up until 2 a.m. getting ready to perform.  I got four hours sleep.  And I didn’t visit Hoover Dam.  That debate wasn’t quite Bush-Kerry I in 2004 – the worst performance by an incumbent President in a Presidential debate in my lifetime.  It wasn’t even quite Reagan-Mondale I in 1984, when President Reagan looked tired and out of command of facts, briefly raising questions as to his fitness to serve a second term.  But it was bad.  Here’s why it was bad, what it means, and what it doesn’t.

The debate was bad.  The President, assuming a sort of Rose Garden strategy of seeming above the fray that Romney successfully launched toward him much of the night, declined to mention the 47% comment, Bain Capital, Romneycare, the Ryan budget – pretty much anything that could be construed as offense.  It wasn’t so much that President Obama seemed like President Bush in his awful debate with Senator Kerry in 2004 – that President had poor command of facts, and was more disengaged.  Combined with his innate lack of speaking skill, W. seemed incompetent that night.  President Obama was more channeling the first Gore-Bush debate, when Vice-President Gore was tired and subdued.  This was the debate equivalent of taking a knee up by a field goal with seven minutes to go.  And with Romney lying and reinventing himself with a crazed energy (In this campaign because people are hurting!  Not going to lower taxes for the rich!  Going to protect Medicare!  After I repeal Obamacare, going to unleash the energy of the states in health care like he did in Massachusetts!  Don’t think about what I meant by that, it’s horribly self-contradictory!) President Obama’s lack of punching was a truly awful failing.  He was smart enough, and stuffed full of talking points, but passive, disengaged.  He didn’t want it.  Romney did.

President Obama only performs well, it seems, when his back is to the wall.  After the Jeremiah Wright tape-looping started in March 2008, Obama went on MSNBC Friday afternoon to tepidly suggest that the video didn’t mirror his values.  Several feeding-frenzy days later, when the polls in Pennsylvania showed Hillary Clinton up by over 20 points, we got the More Perfect Union speech.  The ship was righted, but only after considerable damage.  And candidate Obama lost Pennsylvania by a mere 8, cruising to the nomination.  The rest was history.

Fast-forward ahead to 2009.  With the economy dissipating the new President’s public standing more quickly than otherwise would have been, he waited for the Gang of Six in the Senate to devise a health care compromise that never happened.  After Scott Brown happened, he regrouped, pushed hard with his team, and Obamacare was born.  That victory took eight months longer than it should have, and left less time and political capital for accomplishing other things in the critical two-year window for Democratic change.

So it is now.  The President will realize, as he admitted to his staff in 2007 at times, that this debate performance stunk.  His modest national lead of 4-5 points, exaggerated in our collective view by his incumbency, the lack of motion in the polls all year, and the solidity of certain key states like Ohio, will now shrink.  The President will have two weeks to think about this, and to hear lectures about counterpunching.  He will practice counterpunching.  In the next debate, with his lead reduced, he will counterpunch.  He will have to suffer through two weeks during which the right will be invigorated, and the persuadable low-information voters will hear how Romney won.  He will perform better, but as Barack Obama works, he will perform better because he will wait until it is the eleventh hour and the pressure is really on, like a smart kid in college who starts writing his term paper at midnight the night before it’s due.  This, for those of us who have parented the candidacy that is our kid, is pretty exasperating.

Speaking of college, when we apply the lessons of history to tonight, we can see that Romney will get a bounce from this performance.  Debate bounces are not made from the debate, historically, but rather, from the media amplification of conventional wisdom about the debate.  This was true when the media made a big loser of sweaty Nixon, when immediate reactions showed the cooler Kennedy perhaps only edging him in the electorate’s eyes.  President Ford’s free Poland gaffe didn’t manifest in bad polling immediately, but only after several days of media pounding on its incorrectness.  The Bernie Shaw-Kitty Dukakis moment grew in power as the media amplified it as a narrative of Governor Dukakis’ failure to connect.  And tonight’s narrative is Romney winning, because he won.  That spin cycle will bounce forward through the weekend, and the polls will shift, the question being how much.

Romney’s advantage feels to me like a two point shift in the making, from a 51-46 result to a 50-48 world.  Nate Silver chronicled how vote-shares break toward a challenger modestly after debates (though Nate didn’t trust himself enough to state the deeper truth that most of those incumbents lost the debates in any objective view of things), more by the challenger picking up undecideds than by the incumbent losing pre-existing vote share.  This will invigorate the Romney team, and the Obama team is either lucky (or three-dimensional chess skilled if they caused this) that the change comes so late on the calendar, with 33 days before Election Day.

There are some structural realities that should constrain the freakout starting on MSNBC afterward, as Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews took turns hyperventilating.  It is still worth remembering that no challenger has overcome a deficit of this size that existed before a first Presidential debate.  And it is more worth remembering that Mitt Romney trails decisively in the Kerry states and New Mexico.  Together they comprise 251 electoral votes (270 being a win).  Romney is getting slaughtered in Ohio, where polls have showed undecided voters breaking hard against him, as Obama rides on a tide of Democratic enthusiasm for the repeal of Ohio’s antiunion law, for the auto bailout, and an Obama ad blitz of negative definition of Romney.  If the Kerry states, New Mexico, and Ohio hold, Romney has to flip polls in Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, and Florida.  I just don’t see it.  Nevada and Virginia in particular seem like heavy lifts, as Romney basically never leads in polls there.  Iowa will also be tough.  A two point shift, roughly the size of Kerry’s inroads against W. after their first debate, likely could cost Obama Florida and Colorado.  That would make the election hinge on Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, and Nevada, with Romney being able to cede Ohio alone.

First debates have a way of not mattering so much in history.  Ask President Kerry.  President Reagan looked awful in 1984’s first debate, and cruised to re-election with a vastly larger lead.  President George W. Bush looked unPresidential in his first debate, and turned a five point lead into a one-and-a-half point lead he would not relinquish en route to a two-and-one-half point victory.  On the other hand, President Ford’s unsteady performance against Jimmy Carter may have been just enough to make the difference in that razor-close election.

Tonight was Mitt Romney’s best night in years, but mostly because an incumbent President channeled the first ineffective Gore performance.  Remember how soporific Gore gave way to angry, patronizing eye-rolling Gore?  I don’t think Barack Obama has that in him, so hopefully a more combative and assertive President will show up – the one who fenced so adroitly with the House Republican caucus that Prime Minister’s questions was permanently canceled.  This electorate is so polarized, motion so slow, that it may not matter.  But President Obama has left a path for victory before Mitt Romney.  What direction the nation will follow now hinges on whether, back closer to the wall, the President shows he wants it badly, and closes the deal.  The low point of his Presidency was the debt deal.  The American people, and the 47% who are with him at all times, want more fight.  I predict with some confidence that we’ll see that.  So please don’t freak out, Obama supporters.  But President Obama?  It’s ok if you freak out a little.  In fact, we’d kind of like that.

I'm not sure it would have paid for Obama to win the debate.

The press wants a story - better an early loss and a comeback kid, without any huge gaffes.

Gore won the famous "sigh" debate - most viewers barely noticed, and saw a lot more Bush mistakes. But the press spun it day after day.

So Obama made no groaners. The press will talk about Romney, how he's fired up - and then they might talk about his lies, his policies, etc. It doesn't end that well for him.

And then the next debate, the press is cheering on a resurrected Obama.

Just one cynical take on the whole biz.

by PeraclesPlease 10/4/2012 - 2:31 am

Except for the fact that Obama would have scored a knockout if he'd won decisively, I agree.  These events were timed so that lots of early voting will be done before Round Two.  Romney needed this desperately.  Now there is a story, and since the days after the Ryan choice, Romney had slowly failed.  No mas.

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 2:35 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

A knockout would be unlikely without a huge gaffe - there's too much money in keeping the contest going.

I do agree that early voting complicates the calculation, and that the temporary buzz isn't bad for Romney. 

But Obama likes rope-a-dope. The tail of his 2008 primary was all about running out the clock without any mistakes. Actually most of his primary was driven that way, with some damage control along the way.

That doesn't mean I take my theory too seriously, but Obama's not a jugular kind of guy.

Anyway, I expect a stronger Obama debate #2.

by PeraclesPlease 10/4/2012 - 2:44 am (re: Articleman)

Romney had no more time to turn the narrative.  As Nate Silver's probability assessment indicates, every later day on which he trailed by 4.5 enhanced the predictive value of that lead.  Any upward trend even more so obviously.  

I agree that the President is not a go for the jugular guy.  But like HCR, he left the details and the dirty work (here, taking the heat to Romney) entirely to others in the first place.  And like there, it was an error.

He will improve.  He won't be flatfooted again. And he's a very smart dude.  This is a serious wakeup call in preparation and will empower those close to him to push him harder and help him do it right, or right enough.

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 9:56 am (re: PeraclesPlease)

So why on earth did he choose Kerry as his debate coach?  Why not Clinton, the obvious choice?  Obama actually sounded like Kerry, which is never good.

by Ramona 10/4/2012 - 10:38 am (re: Articleman)

Kerry wasn't the debate coach, but the stand-in for Romney.

by Doctor Cleveland 10/4/2012 - 10:52 am (re: Ramona)

Oh, that's right.  But he was in the same room with Kerry.  Maybe some of Kerry rubbed off?  sad

by Ramona 10/4/2012 - 11:06 am (re: Doctor Cleveland)

Kerry 04 was the equal to last night's Romney.  Kerry would have ripped him at times.  Obama needed precisely Kerry's 04 style, nothing more or less.

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 11:32 am (re: Ramona)

Though a shot of adrenalin might not have gone amiss.

by quinn esq 10/4/2012 - 12:49 pm (re: Articleman)

Kerry was a bit more amped up in the way you are suggesting.  The parallels with 2004 are eerie at this point, with Romney taking a page from what worked for Kerry against Bush.  Funny.

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 4:13 pm (re: quinn esq)

I do not fully understand what all this hoopla is about really.

The single dumbest debater in history has to be w bush. And 'we' re-elected him to a second term for chrissakes.

Why are we in Iraq Mr. President?

So we can fight 'them' over there instead of over here.

Hell the same argument could have been made by dropping a nuke on Venezuela for chrissakes!

 

by Richard Day 10/4/2012 - 3:36 pm (re: PeraclesPlease)

I am not freaked out.  I am not even so sure that this will Give Romney 2 points... maybe one.  The reason is that I listened to callers call in on Cspan(of course no telling how many of those are 'staged' callers, but I think I can tell) and hopped around a little and it seems that some women in particular may have had a different perspective on the debate. 

The first thing that got my attention in the debate was Romney being angry,edgy, and pushy.  As a women I viewed this very negatively and even more so as he was being ultra dominant with the moderator.  Romney left me with the impression that he is a liar that can't be trusted and he 'really' wants to be president.

I did wish the president was a little more forceful and I felt better when he was insistent on taking some time with some of his answers after Romney had been so dominant. 

In the end I knew Romney would be considered the winner but I felt more like he had just vomited on everyone and smiled, looked good, and said the some of the 'right' words while doing it.

I found that other women had similar reactions and it seemed men were more upset by the president's performance as you mentioned Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz. 

I didn't think the president should have brought up the 47% thing because Romney would have just used it as an opportunity to lie and say I care about 100% of Americans etc.

I know the pundits mentioned things they wish the president would have tagged Romney with but I am not sure that they thought through what Romney would have done with it.

I feel confident that the president will do better in the next debate as he now has a more direct feel for what to expect.  I don't think Kerry was the right debate prepper... necessarily.

 

by synchronicity 10/4/2012 - 2:37 am

Romney's act with respect to Lehrer will offend lots of folks, and I suspect more women than men.  It was unPresidential alpha male jerkiness.  Hope you're right, but I think Romney did many things to help himself, if you don't know facts coming in.  It was like Ryan's convention speech on steroids.  Fabulism, cheerfully and a bit arrogantly dispensed.  

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 2:39 am (re: synchronicity)

You do make a good point - it's good to evaluate these events from perceptions by both genders, such as the one New York debate a few years back with the male candidate scolding or confronting the female - didn't go over well.

The gender gap in perceptions & preferences seems to be increasing, especially with a number of highly charged "soft" issues in this year's campaign. What's an important possibility is that Obama would pull away large numbers of GOP women to vote for him, and it would be interesting if the decision were made just for Obama to be non-combative for that reason and let Romney dig his own hyperactive grave (yes, I got 2 minutes of his overtweaked performance).

Two tweaked out gearheads might not have attracted much female support either way.

More important: Romney loves Big Bird but will kill him anyway. I suppose that's compassionate conservatism - "this hurts me more than it hurts you"

by PeraclesPlease 10/4/2012 - 2:57 am (re: synchronicity)

I so agree with that synch, well said.

by tmccarthy0 10/4/2012 - 8:38 am (re: synchronicity)

You make another great point - Romney had spent a week working on "Zingers" - you can bet he had 1 or 5 prepared for 47%. Instead he got to use none. And probably "first do no harm" was the best motto for Obama..

by PeraclesPlease 10/4/2012 - 10:55 am (re: synchronicity)

It’s ok if you freak out a little.

Okay, define a little.  I NEED A VALIUM!  I've never taken one, but I swear if I knew where to get one, I would definitely beg.  I think it's nuts to be at this level of angst over a stupid debate.....but OMG after reading some of the sites, I actually started hyperventilating.   And I didn't even think he was that bad, just not his best by far.

And I want to smash a pie in Romney's supercillious face, then grab Lehrer and slap the snot out of him.  I mean really, we're talking moderator malpractice here - stupid, open ended, broad questions and namby pamby who let Romney just steamroll. 

That smug, arrogant sack of excrement wants to kill Big Bird!  But oh, perish the thought that him and his 1% buddies should lose their Cayman and other foreign tax dodging accounts.  That a man who is willfully evading paying taxes here and so obviously is a boil upon the arse of Anerica - is even this close to being POTUS is an abomination.

But, it's all good, you said it's ok to freak a little - but perhaps you need to put forth some guidelines about what constitutes a little ......because I'm thinkin' just maybe I'm real close to crossing that line.

by Aunt Sam 10/4/2012 - 3:06 am

Aunt Sam, you have such a way with words!  What scares me is that the low-interest voters will ignore Romney's words and only see him as the leader.  But it is only the first debate and I'm hoping O will step up and take charge.  But the reason I'm not especially confident about that, either, is that I spent the first and second years of Obama's presidency waiting for him to step up and take charge.  (In many ways, I'm still waiting)

He has a history of giving in to the bullies.  Hate to say that, but he does.  Romney was bullying his way all across that stage last night, sending out clear signals that he's ready for a good fight and Obama caved.  Not good.

But it's only the first debate and if Obama does better in the next two it'll be forgotten.  if he doesn't, I fear for us all.

by Ramona 10/4/2012 - 7:05 am (re: Aunt Sam)

Bullying is what many Americans, especially men, take as "leadership."

by AnonymousPS (not verified) 10/4/2012 - 8:05 am (re: Ramona)

You're right. All real leaders have a bullying instinct, I think.  They have to push their way to the top and believe in what they're doing, whether the rest of the world believes it or not.  I don't see that trait in Obama, and that's okay with me, but when he's up against bullies he's got to find a way to best them. 

Wonks hardly ever win against bullies, unless the bullies get so brazen, so mean, it's a real turn-off.  In Romney's case, it's his lies that are going to be his undoing.  I hope.

by Ramona 10/4/2012 - 8:33 am (re: AnonymousPS)

You wrote:

All real leaders have a bullying instinct, I think.

That's wrong on so many levels. That is what Romney and those gaggle of men "analyzing" the debate think, but that's wrong. A real leaders instinct is one where he or she doesn't have to bully to get people to listen. In this statement what I hear "it's a man's world and we just live in it". The world has changed, if you have to bully, you've lost the battle.

by tmccarthy0 10/4/2012 - 10:00 am (re: Ramona)

I disagree with the clarity of that.  Some folks eat up tough alpha males while others hate it.  Romney's issue is that he needs to reach white working class women who are more socially conservative than Obama, per an excellent Salon piece I can't paste from an elliptical machine.  

So his base liked what you hated, and there will be some women he needed to reach who liked him better.  But Obama's weaker, slower manner hurts him with them somewhat, I think.  He needs a bit more of what Romney took, T, just not the amount Romney dosed with.

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 10:09 am (re: tmccarthy0)

I was repulsed by the entire thing, and I didn't watch the debate. Mitt Romney came off like Tom Cruise when he called Matt Lauer glib... seriously, a pompous, know-it-all, and every woman I talked too felt like I did. And while some women are more socially conservative than I am, okay tons are, they don't like lying sacks with a snotty smirk on his face, who says he is going to end planned parenthood, and leave Medicaid to the states.

by tmccarthy0 10/4/2012 - 11:40 am (re: Articleman)

I found Romney's manner sometimes winning and sometimes rude.  If 67% thought he won (per CNN), one suspects that many women thought so too. 

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 4:16 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

Bullying may be the wrong word, but leadership skills do require a certain amount of pushing to get people to see you as a leader.  Passion, confidence, a refusal to move away from your convictions, right or wrong--there's an aspect of bullying persuasion in there.  Even MLK had it to a degree.  It's not always a bad thing when you're trying to rally the troops to do the right thing.

I don't know how you're reading "it's a man's world and we just have to live in it" in what I said.  That's not what I said or what I meant.

by Ramona 10/4/2012 - 10:59 am (re: tmccarthy0)

I am not implying you said that Mona, I am saying that was the entire discussion last night, the mano-a-mano BS, that seems to drive election/debate analysis. I prefer a leader who is comfortable enough in his own skin to have shed that stereotypical view that "leadership" is about forcing your opinion on everyone else, and stepping on other people. I really do like nice guys, who aren't assholes, and who shrug off that macho BS, which is what last night seemed to be about how macho and tough are they and I heard the same stuff last election too.

I have to go to a meeting and was preparing for it while typing to you the first time. So I am sorry I was misunderstood! I'll be back later. To argue endlessly that I truly did hear something that very few others seemed to hear. :D

Okay back to techie world...

t.

by tmccarthy0 10/4/2012 - 11:46 am (re: Ramona)

I don't think I've ever met a woman who survived high school with the belief that men are bigger bullies than women. But I agree that the way women tend to bully differs from the way men tend to bully. More to the point, men and women sometimes react differently to social cues like tone and body language, particularly during personal confrontations.

I watched the debate with a group of friends. Most of us, male and female, reacted the same way. But one woman, who spent much of the debate playing Bejeweled on her iPhone, said that she thought Mitt sounded like an arrogant ass. I bet she's not the only person in America to come to that conclusion, and I bet that most of them are women.

by Michael Wolraich 10/4/2012 - 12:20 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

I think the low-information voters have, generally, been Romney's from the beginning and they aren't budging -- or only those who are taking umbrage to Romney's 47% soliloquy.  There are some of those. 

But I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "low-interest" voters, or even if you mean a terribly different thing by the term, but assuming you do, I'd say Romney could easily have done himself harm with them.  I've been checking out women's comments all over the web and my best guess is that Romney's made himself even less popular with my kind.  Aunt Sam's wonderful comment above isn't the only one like it that I've come across by far.  Every woman I know and the majority of those whose comments I've read appears to believe Romney behaved terribly, downright offensively.  And that he's a pretty ghastly sort of guy.  Which I have to say, he is. 

So that's a big fail.  Romney needed to woo women, not make us want to throw a spiked heel shoe at his face on the screen. 

When it comes to the ever puzzling white male voter, I'm not sure.  But I wouldn't assume that a smirking, smarmy and way too well coiffed Romney in a shark skin suit is all that appealing to your average guy -- no matter that he was throwing his self-perceived weight all over and acting like he owned the place.  Yeah, yeah a lot of guys on line and of course the self-important talking heads are all disappointed Obama didn't bring a knife to the fight, but does that mean an obviously privileged peacock panty-waist of a bully is going to score with guys who punch the clock every day? 

Could happen.  But the man really has a severe personality problem, and I wouldn't assume, just because he talked fast and furious and lied straight into the camera, that white working class men who haven't paid attention to him before are going to swoon with this particular sighting. 

Again, I really can't say for sure -- but I would argue that even if I were the sex that I'm not, I'd still look at that wacko smile Romney pastes on his face every time he finishes speaking -- that combination Nightmare on Elm Street/Granny really has lost it smile -- and I'd think I dunno about this dude.  I think there's definitely something wrong here. 

I mean, who could take someone who smiles like that for a straight-up kind of guy, or even a marginally sane one.  Would you buy a used car from a guy who smiles like that?  Would you want to have a beer with him?  

If he were thirty years younger, would you want your daughter dating him?

by anna am 10/4/2012 - 4:42 pm (re: Ramona)

It is somewhat telling that this was the most likeable night in the recent political history of this man, and you describe him thus.

We will let the RNC know to take you off their persuadable voter list.

Seriously, the seemingly somewhat different perceptions by gender of Romney's interrupting, and disrespecting Lehrer are interesting.  But the real question is persuadable people, and there are few of those on political blogs. 

The tell will be in polling three days or a week hence.  Did Romney's problems with modestly conservative white working class women (the place Salon identified in a great piece as the source of Obama's surge in Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, etc) get any better?

Elmo says no.

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 4:50 pm (re: anna am)

Definitely not persuadable.  But I have to say, persuadable and not persuadable, we are all human and share the same instincts, and my stream of consciousness above is not about  rational or objectively reasoned arguments against Romney.  It's purely about visceral reactions, and I could be wrong, I often am, but I do not think Romney's performance last night addressed his deep and abiding likability problem.  Again, I think there may have been quite a bit in his belabored posturing and heavy breathing that could easily add to this problem. 

by anna am 10/4/2012 - 5:15 pm (re: Articleman)

I agree with you that he was not likeable, but I agreed with one critic who said last night he was, to paraphrase Obama, "likeable enough."  CNN showed Obama and Romney equally likeable in their snap poll.  The general question of likeability tilts against Romney and always will, but that's a dangerous night for Obama, were he to repeat it.

Then again, your comment is also correct more broadly because it may be impossible for anything that realistically could happen to move a 51-43 Ohio into 49-48 Romney in Ohio.  And little else matters, unless you think Romney can sweep NV, CO, IA, VA, NC, FL and win the thing in the House, which he'd still have to do.

Obama is still in the driver's seat.  But Axelrod had better be right that he's eager for the second debate.  Obama needs motivation to perform well, as I argued in the blog.

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 5:44 pm (re: anna am)

Agree.  Obama can't be as low key next time around.  Not a good idea to skate even further out on such thin ice.  

by anna am 10/4/2012 - 9:24 pm (re: Articleman)

What I meant by "low interest" voters are the ones who might tune in to watch this first debate because they're curious, but are not necessarily political.  They're not political junkies so they don't go into this debate understanding the issues.  They might not know that Romney lies through his teeth, and they won't take the time to look up the fact-checkers (if they even know there are such things).

What they'll see is what they'll take away, and nothing more.  They are not us.  But they do vote.  And they might buy a car from him, have a beer with him, and even be thrilled that their daughter was dating someone like him. 

The bottom line is that they're not savvy about men like Romney--they can't see through him--but they might vote for him based on what they saw last night.  If Obama had challenged any one of Romney's lies they would have seen that, too.  But it didn't happen and so they took away a vision of a strong man who had a vision and wanted to fix things.

(How do I know this?  Because one of them happened to be visiting and was sitting in my living room with me last night.  He is still undecided but he says he was leaning toward Obama until the debate.  I had to explain to him that what he was hearing from Romney were outrageous lies.  He had a hard time believing me because--guess what?-- he didn't believe the president would just stand there and let him get away with lies.)

 

by Ramona 10/4/2012 - 5:10 pm (re: anna am)

What generation was this man? 

by anna am 10/4/2012 - 5:18 pm (re: Ramona)

He was born in 1949, so he's a Boomer.  He thinks it's cool to wait until he's in the voting booth to decide who he's going to vote for because you never know what could happen right up until the last minute that might make him change his mind.

I'm not kidding. 

by Ramona 10/4/2012 - 7:03 pm (re: anna am)

God save us from boomers who still think they're cool.  

by anna am 10/4/2012 - 9:28 pm (re: Ramona)

Never forget, Anna, the low-interests and low-informations have the right to vote. And they do.  Terrifying thought.

by Ramona 10/4/2012 - 9:34 pm (re: anna am)

.....the low-interests and low-informations have the right to vote.

And I'm a thinkin' perhaps this needs to be changed since it's obviously these people who are responsible for voting in those people who are screwing 'it' up big time. wink

by Aunt Sam 10/4/2012 - 9:45 pm (re: Ramona)

One look at some of the Tea Party regulars who have made it to the House should be enough to tell us all we need to know about those voters.

But now that we know, what to do, what to do? 

Can't do nothin' 'cept weep.

by Ramona 10/4/2012 - 10:12 pm (re: Aunt Sam)

Oh Ramona Don't You Weep No More

by Another Trope 10/4/2012 - 11:05 pm (re: Ramona)

I support changing the voting requirements - I'm sure we could come up with something that provides a better 'democratic' system and results.  cheeky

by Aunt Sam 10/4/2012 - 11:18 pm (re: Ramona)

Well there's nothing to do about that, save keep trying to change the narrative that fosters the way these people think.  Or don't think.  And I'm not totally without hope in that regard.  When the current generation of old crap heads die off, that will help.  The millenials seem to have a bit more generosity of spirit, even if they didn't get taught any manners.  And then if we drive old Dixie down again, well maybe...

by anna am 10/4/2012 - 10:26 pm (re: Ramona)

Romney : I won't raise taxes with so many people out of work

Obama: Well then how'll you  reduce the deficit?

Romney: By reducing exemptions

Obama  ( no response)

Obama (should have said) :If you're worried about those people who are out of work they'll be affected the same way whether you take money out of the economy by raising taxes or reducing exemptions. 

by Flavius 10/4/2012 - 8:27 am

Obama tried, I thought with some success, to work the tension and vacuity in these positions of Romney's.  

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 10:00 am (re: Flavius)

I'm no economist, but I don't think they are affected the same way. Reducing exemptions is all about shrinking the 47% (not by giving them more money, though). I.e., it helps the upper middle class at the expense of the lower middle class.

Most of me is against this idea. Part of me, however, has always had a little bit of a problem with supporting increased reproductive rates. I don't like the idea that someone with 10 children gets more deductions than someone with 2. That said, most of me is against the idea of reducing these exemptions, because I do understand the flip-side of that — that without these deductions those 10 children would have a harsher life. At the risk of making tax code even more complicated, I suppose I'd consider reducing the exemptions as people made more and more money. If you're making $100k, I don't want the government to help support their decision to have 10 children. (OTOH, if you're making $20k and you have 10 children… argh! I'm just so conflicted!)

by Verified Atheist 10/5/2012 - 6:39 am (re: Flavius)

I worked way too late last night and missed the two sporting events I was looking forward to watching: (1) the Yankee game; and (2) the presidential debate.  I watched neither but I know, from the media, who won both games.  That's the way it works.  In baseball you have scores that cannot be contested;  in politics you have instant media reaction coalescing into a decision that is binding on the electorate.  And so it goes.

Still, even though I didn't watch the debate, I'm pissed that Obama wasn't on his game.  I know that to be true because that's what I've read.  I guess there's more to believing than seeing.

 

by bslev 10/4/2012 - 9:06 am

At least he's already up two games in the World Series and not just starting the ALDS.  His attacks on Romney in post debate commercials were razor sharp and full of chin music.  Time for Uncle Joe to come in and stop the rally while Obama works on his fastball.

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 10:04 am (re: bslev)

Amen brother!

by bslev 10/4/2012 - 12:19 pm (re: Articleman)

It's only strike one!  Obama gets two more swings.  And it's not like Romney was born with a name like, say, Mariano Rivera, or it might be easier for him to strike out the Pres.

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 4:18 pm (re: bslev)

If the president was elected by popular vote, I'd be a little more freaked out than I am.  But at least for this one, we still use the electoral college. 

So the question becomes - did Romney address the concerns of voters in Ohio that have led Obama to a 8 or 9 point lead.  The answer is no.  In fact, if one saw Romney as the out-sourcing CEO who would bust unions and allowed the auto industry to go bankruptcy before the debate, nothing Romney did during debate really would change that.

Iowa is already voting and Obama went in with a 4 point lead.  Is Romney now suddenly going to be in the lead? I doubt it. 

Romney did nothing to turn Wisconsin into a red state in the presidential race. 

Bill Clinton will give New Hampshire to Obama.

Are Hispanics suddenly going to fall in love with Romney?  No.

Is a woman concerned about her ability to make health care decisions for herself suddenly now thinking Romney is a neat guy? No.

If we give Obama Iowa, Wisconsin, NH, Ohio, and New Mexico - he wins with 275.  Romney has to decide where he will fight.  Does he pull out of Ohio and put those resources in places that are more likely to go his way like Florida and VA.  But he can't lose both Wisconsin and Ohio - both big states that suck up a lot of resources and rally time.  Time spent in Iowa is time not spent in Virginia.  There is only so much time left.

Romney's decision to go on the record during the debate and say he won't lower taxes for the rich is actually going to be the one thing I believe that will linger 5 days after the event.  How he responds to this when pressed by the media, how the Obama campaign pushes it in their rallies as the latest flip flop will be more impactful than how much eye contact Obama made or Chris Matthews melting down.

Romney's decision to go the center and "I'm for any entitlement or government program that is popular" will end up taking a percentage point of hard core conservatives away from him (they'll just stay home and vote for neither of the moderates running for the WH) for every percentage point of undecideds gathered.

by Another Trope 10/4/2012 - 9:09 am

Matthews had a meltdown????? Oy.

by bslev 10/4/2012 - 9:23 am (re: Another Trope)

I would watch to see if Ryan's re-emergence helps in Wisconsin at all.  I would tend to assume not.

I strongly agree that the Etch-a-Sketch that creates a pleasant momentary impression by lying is not a very smart strategy if your opponent has research tools like the Internet and You Tube in particular to showcase your lurchy position changes.

This is why it was a laugh line when Senator Kerry said Romney had every position about Afghanistan, and likewise when Ted Kennedy said Romney wasn't pro-choice, he was multiple choice.  It's kind of artless and inept, like Ryan's horribly failed Medicare pander in his acceptance speech.

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 6:51 pm (re: Another Trope)

I think the major achievement for Obama was establishing with complete certainty that Ryan/Romney are the party of Medicare vouchers. If Romney's "Obamacare and Medicare cuts" logic hasn't thus far worked, I don't see it suddenly becoming effective. Thus I doubt if Romney changed any Senior minds on this issue .Instead he set himself for a barrage of additional attacks on the whole voucher plan. When Ryan and Romney try to parse this, they are going to lose any cred gained in the debate.

Romney made the most inane statement in political history. "If I say my tax cut for the rich doesn't raise the deficit, it can't be attacked---because I said it"---something like that. When that statement appears in clear print in an ad it is going to look monumentally stupid. When the arithmetic is done---which Obama should have done in the debate---Romney will be confirmed to be the snake oil salesmen he is.  I predict that that statement will become the new 47% gaffe. Biden will use it to good advantage.

Obamacare. Romney trapped himself, left himself wide open to the charge of peddling more snake oil. By this time, even the low information voter knows that getting rid of pre-existing conditions equals a mandate. Otherwise there is no way to pay for the coverage.

So from a military point of view, Romney may have broken through a weak front line but he left his reserve forces divided into three clear open fields in the rear and they can be relentlessly attacked. Vouchers, Disingenuous Tax Cut, and Obamacare by another name with no way to pay for it. Not to mention that he put Ryan in a completely vulnerable position.

Romney flipped the bird at mothers who count on PBS to do part of the baby sitting. This program cut exemplifies the lack of balance in the Ryan budget. Eliminate a program which costs practically nothing in order to give tax cuts to the rich. I think that example has legs.

This is the best I can do to get my gut to settle down. That and make another Obama contribution a few minutes ago.

by Oxy Mora 10/4/2012 - 11:04 am

So from a military point of view, Romney may have broken through a weak front line but he left his reserve forces divided into three clear open fields in the rear and they can be relentlessly attacked. Vouchers, Disingenuous Tax Cut, and Obamacare by another name with no way to pay for it. Not to mention that he put Ryan in a completely vulnerable position.

I agree.  And by the way Plouffe was talking last night, that is how Obama's team sees it.  "Yes, we'll have to talk about Romney breaking through a weak front line for 48 hours, and we're not thrilled about that, but in a few days we'll be able to counter-attack in a very decisive way."

by Another Trope 10/4/2012 - 11:45 am (re: Oxy Mora)

Maybe that's where I got it. I was thinking more of Henry V at Agincourt  but of course that cuts both ways. I do think the election will be won or lost on Medicare and Women's rights. A great deal is going to depend upon the next two jobs reports.

by Oxy Mora 10/4/2012 - 12:07 pm (re: Another Trope)

You nailed it exactly. Great post.

by Michael Wolraich 10/4/2012 - 12:00 pm

Thanks very much.

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 4:45 pm (re: Genghis)

We watched the debate on a computer feed in order to hear the talking heads on MSNBC.  During the debate we lost sound for a few minutes until my son fixed it.  I could tell when Romney was lying with his body language and his facial expressions.  I didn't have to hear it.  I think that comes from raising 3 generations of kids. I also thought he sounded like a desperate jerk trying to show how tough he was.  Did he win over many votes from women? I don't think so. Politics isn't a football game.  It really has an effect on my life.  I don't care how much Romney struts around pounding his chest,  I don't like what he is selling. 

by trkingmomoe 10/4/2012 - 2:35 pm

The debate simply got me thinking about the passion factor as far as influencing GOTV in bad economic times. The classic # 1 way incumbents have always been thrown out of office..

For example I thought of all the young people wondering if things will ever get better, thinking they will be stuck in Mom & Dad's basement forever, thinking Obama a big disappointment, some even feel betrayed by him.. They were thinking "none of the above, both jerks, I'm not bothering to vote anymore.." And that while they didn't watch the debates, they catch some after-buzz that Romney really does care about jobs and is very passionate about creating jobs, while Obama just continues to say "things are more complicated than that, it's hard to fix these things." And they decide to get off their swing state couch and vote for him.

I was shocked, really truly shocked that plenty of my recently-college-educated peers switched from being Democrats (or even left-of-Democrats and not into participating in "the corrupt political system with both parties the same") to voting for a Republican B-movie actor in 1980.  That they bought what he said, because part of what he said was sunshine and a new day, that they were convinced by simplistic optimistic positivism to think "what the heck, we should participate in giving this a try."

At this point in a presidential election, seems like it's usually not about fighting the other side or blaming the other side, or complaining about the state of politics, or nuanced facts about how hard it is fixing these problems, it's about getting people to want to get up and out and vote for you and not the other guy, just about those two people. (And this time, maybe it's about Paul Ryan, too.) Obama has to find some sunshine to sell.

by artappraiser 10/4/2012 - 2:45 pm

Yup. In my books, this one has always been about who gets their people out. And if the Right smells blood, they'll turn out just to get the kill. Obama's still done nothing that I can see to jumpstart the slightest bit of excitement. "Oh gee, he's trying to back into office ahead of a complete ditz. Wow."

 

We'll see how he does now. Cause it's Game On.

by quinn esq 10/4/2012 - 3:00 pm (re: artappraiser)

The convention was nearly perfectly done and did get enthusiasm high.  The enthusiasm gap closed in polls, and Dems moved ahead in at least two I saw.  I don't think Obama's night will cause Dems to stay home, though I think it is more likely to build GOP enthusiasm. 

Axelrod says they will adjust, and that Obama needs to deal with Romney being "an artful dodger," that is, to pin down and drive home that he is Etch-a-Sketching.

As surely as sports metaphors are controlling, and as surely as I have a David Axelrod-autographed baseball in my office, I know this will work out ok.

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 4:43 pm (re: quinn esq)

At a Denver rally Thursday morning President Obama reflected on his opponent's performance in last night's debate. "When I got on to the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney. The man on stage last night does not want to be held accountable for the real Mitt Romney's decisions...for the last year,"

by Another Trope 10/4/2012 - 4:52 pm (re: Articleman)

It's already a miracle that with this economy and the sense of the nation that the incumbent President is an 80% favorite for re-election.  It's a tough sales job.  But when your campaign is largely that the other guy is worse and bad, to win that argument in a bar, a few quips, bon mots, or enthusiastic moments go a long way.

Biden, who like Romney was, will be expected to lose, excels in all the things you just said Obama needed.  There's a reason Biden's speech was so widely viewed.  I predict the performance of his life for that guy.  Who has passion, belief, and enthusiasm in spades.  Unlike last night, which I dreaded given the lead and the clock ticking down, I look forward to Biden-Ryan.

by Articleman 10/4/2012 - 4:23 pm (re: artappraiser)

This is too rich not to share:

President Obama Doomed by Denver’s Altitude, Al Gore Suggests

by artappraiser 10/4/2012 - 2:54 pm

Throws some conventional blogosphere and pollster wisdom about interest on its head:

Obama-Romney debate draws bigger TV audience than 2008
By Reuters, 1 hour ago

LOS ANGELES - More than 58 million Americans tuned in to Wednesday's first presidential debate between President Barack Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney, early figures show -- higher than the television audience for the first 2008 matchup between Obama and Republican John McCain [....]

Nearly everybody might have decided already, but many are still open to listening.
by artappraiser 10/4/2012 - 5:19 pm

There is saying that the crowd watch a hockey game hoping that they get to see a fight break out. Some of the debate audience wasn't really listening (all politicians just lie, don't you know :P), but waiting to watch one of the candidates have a train wreck of a response.

by Another Trope 10/4/2012 - 6:58 pm (re: artappraiser)

Someone out in the Twitterverse has suggested that maybe the reason President Obama appeared subdued at the debate was to play down the "angry black man" from the video recently re-aired by Hannity.

I don't quite buy into that particular suggestion, the President isn't that insecure, but it is an intriguing notion.

by flowerchild 10/4/2012 - 7:06 pm

I think in his mind he always walking that tight rope, video or not.

by Another Trope 10/4/2012 - 7:10 pm (re: flowerchild)

It could be, Trope. We won't know for sure until he writes his memoirs.

I am nursing the idea that President Obama was indeed prepared enough to respectably debate Boy Romney but wasn't expecting the Etch-a-Sketch version to show up. The one who clearly forgot to take his Ritalin that morning.

by flowerchild 10/4/2012 - 7:17 pm (re: Another Trope)

I agree.  Who would think he would say his tax plan would not lower taxes on the rich. 

by Another Trope 10/4/2012 - 7:30 pm (re: flowerchild)

Maddow had a great opening piece tonight.  Starting with Ford through Obama, looking at the first debate between an incumbent president vs. the challenger, the result is incumbent 1, challenger 6.

In terms of who actually won so far the election: incumbentnt 3, challenger 3.

Will Obama make it 4 to 3 or 3 to 4.

by Another Trope 10/4/2012 - 9:21 pm

 

In terms of who actually won so far the election: incumbent 3, challenger 3.
I was about to correct you on this until I realized you were right. (Reagan, Clinton, Bush II vs. Ford, Carter, Bush I) Of course, Ford was a (very) special case, but those statistics really fly against the historical average of how well incumbents do. That said, if we start with Reagan, we've already changed the statistics back to 3:1, and if we go back to JFK, the statistics are 6:3. I always find it interesting how one can drastically alter statistics just by picking the right starting point (something that climate change denialists like to do, but are having an increasingly difficult time).
by Verified Atheist 10/5/2012 - 6:51 am (re: Another Trope)

Latest Comments

more