I didn’t watch the debate last night and I haven’t read any commentary on it yet today. So, y’all, what did you think?
Metric: at one point during the debate’s time slot Netflix crashed. I interpret that as either tremendous disinterest in the debate or the debate was boring or both.
Metric: after the Netflix crash I went over and looked at InTrade. Although the sentiment over there still reflected an overwhelming likelihood that the president would be re-elected, the president’s odds had already dropped 5 points while the debate was going on. I take it the president did not have a good night.
Update
The New York Times commentators (mostly grudgingly) say that Mitt Romney won the debate. From Timothy Egan:
Mitt Romney clearly was more aggressive, more chipper, better focused on attacks against the president. Forget about the zingers he rehearsed — a few were launched, though they sounded flat. Romney was loaded with the Mormon equivalent of Red Bull, and it showed.
On cosmetics, on delivery and on zip, Romney won. He may move some people who think he’s a cold, unlikeable plutocrat. He was a warmer, more likeable plutocrat. You can change the man — and Thursday night’s Romney was clearly a polished remodel — but you can’t change the policies.
From Harold Meyerson:
Does all this matter, with so few voters out there who have yet to make up their minds? Hard to say, but Romney is sure to get a bounce in the tone of media coverage, and some major GOP donors who were about to spend their remaining dough on senatorial and congressional candidates might decide to throw more money Romney’s way. For his part, Obama will be under intense pressure to step up his game, be more engaged, come out blazing, in the two remaining debates. He needs to, and his Beltway supporters can’t count solely on the Nats to lift their spirits.
Colby King compares the debate to the first Patterson-Johansson boxing match:
After winning the heavyweight, title at age 21, Patterson dusted off three contenders who never should have joined him in the ring. But when he went up against Johansson, Sweden’s top heavyweight, Patterson met, well not quite his match, but, a fighter who wasn’t the least bit scared of him, and who could, most important of all, hit, and hit hard. Johansson whipped Patterson, knocking the champion down seven times in the third round before the referee stopped the fight.
Patterson regained his title in a rematch, and defeated Johansson in a third contest. But the similarity to tonight’s presidential debate is inescapable: Obama got his butt kicked in Denver by a contender who was well prepared, unafraid, and willing to take it to his opponent regardless of the rules of engagement. Romney put Obama on the canvas tonight.
Can the president clear his head, regain his footing, and find some fortitude within himself for the next contest? He had better do so. Otherwise, he has the title “former” in his future.
This is a president, dismissive and condescending to any opposition, who went into that debate in Denver and essentially got his head handed to him by better-prepared opponent.
What was especially damaging to Mr. Obama is that when it became clear early in the initial discussion of tax policy that Mitt Romney was going to take his argument to a deeper level, the president’s response was essentially to start cutting and pasting stock lines from speeches he’s been giving for years. After awhile, he looked like a guy who was rummaging through a drawer for old audio cassettes. “The oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare.” He even rolled out the corporate jets.
The president sounded like someone who had simply run out of ideas. His challenger was elaborating detail on his policies, and the president was the candidate living in the past. His references to what he would do with a second term were minimal. Instead, he had to spend most of the 90 minutes trying to defend his policies from Mr. Romney’s critique.
The incumbency brings enormous advantages but it has its handicaps as well. You must inevitably defend your record.
If you had the sound turned off, Romney looked calm and affable through more of the debate than Obama did, and the incumbent president more often looked peeved. Romney’s default expression, whether genuine or forced, was a kind of smile; Obama’s, a kind of scowl. I can understand why Obama would feel exasperated by these claims and arguments. Every president is exasperated by what he considers facile claims about what he knows to be impossibly knotty problems. But he let it show.
That’s an important observation. Academic studies of popular reactions to presidential debates (yes, there are such things) suggest that people don’t consider the factual data being presented so much as the social cues. They listen to the debates as though they had the sound off.
The Romney campaign is predicated on the Obama Administration’s record of the last four years. The Obama campaign is predicated on Barack Obama being a better alternative than Mitt Romney. Based on the commentary on this debate Mitt Romney accomplished what he needed to by it while the president did not.
Andrew Sullivan (in his live-blog of the debate):
Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama’s meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.
Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn’t there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.
Noodling a little more about this, I think my disagreement with the media consensus is more over Romney’s performance than Obama’s. I agree that Obama didn’t bring his A game. But I didn’t think Romney was all that good either. Yes, he attacked, but he did it in a curiously hyperactive way, constantly insisting on getting in one more rebuttal and then using it to go over every single point that Obama had just made. I thought that was both confusing and exhausting. Romney also made frequent references to things that Beltway junkies understand but ordinary viewers probably didn’t.
Like most of those defending the president’s performance in the debate he’s looking at the information rather than the presentation and, as I noted above, that may not be how most people evaluate these debates.
Josh Marshall seems to be hoping that media fact-checking will provide a band-aid for the debate. He asks “Are they coming to have a discussion or coming to make a point?” Neither. They’re coming to leave an impression.
{ 72 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Janis
As to your comment about ‘being worn out,’ I think most presidents rapidly age after they assume such a stressful as POTUS. The gray hair seems to pop out like spring rye grass.
You’re married to a good girl.
Yep!
They have pointy toes, for kicking cockroaches in corners.
That’s called getting the full bug. Van Halen did a song about that. Well, actually the song was just called The Full Bug, and the title referenced some Puerto Rican bug stompers that Roth owned. Pointy-toed just like your cowboy boots, for getting the full bug. But it was really about the same thing most VH songs are about. (I love that band!)
Maybe he’s just worn out and retreating.
Janis, I really think that Obama thought his rhetorical brilliance would carry the day all by itself. Getting the Nobel Peace Prize for essentially just being there probably didn’t help. I’ve never seen any indication of hard work from him. He just wants to BE President, he doesn’t want to work at the job.
I suspect that Romney DOES want to do the work necessary. Like Clinton I think he relishes the work. jan brought up good points above about Romney working regularly with the opposition in Mass. while Obama doesn’t even want to keep in tough with his own party’s leaders. That’s an indication of being willing to do the fucking work for the one man, and not so much for the other.
Now the interesting thing to ask is “What does Romney want to do?” Beats hell out of me. His plans, sparse as they are, are written on an Etch-a-Sketch. That compares with President Blank Screen Upon Which We Project Our Desires. Whatever. I’m still voting Attila. I think we’ll probably watch the debate tonight though. Romney might be able to win my wife’s vote.
“keep in touch” not “keep in tough”.
@jan- I think that IBD piece may be even dumber than their famous Hawking/NHS observation. Very sad.
Steve
I think Obama did his work.
Remember, I live in a community in the deep South that’s nearly 30% black. He lifted their pride, taught them the value of education and a good appearance and good speech.
My teachers had that in the ’60’s. Where else could they go?
Janis, I live in a community that is about 85% black, about 12% Hispanic and the rest mostly white. I’m not seeing a whole lot of improvement in attitudes.
Well, you do live in Florida. Which I barely consider part of the states.
TL; DR version: Romney won, but this isn’t the end of Western socialism as we know it.
Long version: So we watched most of the debate tonight. We got cut off in the middle of Obama’s closing statement and didn’t see Romney’s at all.
It was pretty much what I expected. Romney won but it wasn’t the total disaster for Obama that the partisans of both stripes are making it out to be. Romney had more command of detail (“47 programs reporting to eight different agencies”) and was far more energetic. But Obama didn’t look any worse than Bush in 2004. Obama got some traction calling out Romney on lack of specifics in his plans but Romney defused that somewhat towards the end.
Claims of Romney’s dishonesty have been somewhat overrated. (I’ll note that none of the people bitching about Romney’s prevarications ever have any problems with bald-faced lies by Obama and his minions. Anyone calling out Cutter for accusing Romney of committing felonies? Anyone calling out Ried for being the biggest lying sack of shit in the US Senate (which is always a distinction)? Just to pick two of many….) It was the usual kind of political prevarications standard in campaigns.
Obama had trouble with specifics except when discussing healthcare. That was the best topic for him. He was more up on the details of Romney’s plans there than he was on his own plans anywhere else.
Overall Obama just seemed like he wanted to be anywhere else. His demeanor was fairly poor overall.
But when it came down to it both mostly stuck to their talking points. Romney’s delivery was tight (in the good way), and Obama’s was poor. But it was still mostly political pablum.
Many if not most back-benchers from the House of Commons in London would have cleaned either of their clocks. Romney left himself open to a couple of zingers (he all but admitted that he had off-shored jobs) but Obama was not alert to the opportunity. I remember Obama left himself wide-open on one point but I forget what it was. It’s late and I’m tired and this is the 58th (or so) comment and no one is going to read it anyway. So sue my grinning white skull if you want more.
Obama’s comments towards the end started falling apart. I’m not sure how repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is supposed to help me with my middle class ladder of economic opportunity. But what the Hell.
The big thing for Romney was that he had to look like he could fill the role of President. That he did. Everything else is secondary and will likely be forgotten. I will say that before my wife got tired she seemed to think that Romney might be talking himself into getting her vote. That would be something for Romney. But mostly it was an exercise in wonkishness from both sides. Most people aren’t going to know enough to wade through all of that.
Sorry for the general incoherence, but like I said, I’m tired and no one is going to read this comment anyway!
Icepick
I just did….
Hehe. If it weren’t for the weather, I’d think I was living in a suburb of New York, Boston or maybe Philly.
Damn Yankees!
Ice, I read every single comment on this site. From my point of view it wouldn’t make any sense to keep the site up if I didn’t. I have books in my library to read not just to own. Similarly, I maintain this site for the discussions. That’s something I mention in my very earliest posts.
I think that’s why most southerners reject Florida as a non-southern, southern state!
@Icepick
I read it when you posted.
@Andy
I do not consider Texas part of the South, but Missouri is an honorary member.
@Dave Schuler
I appreciate your efforts.
These boots are really comfy.
Ice, I read every single comment on this site.
Confirming what I’ve always suspected. You really are Phil Hartman.
…
Concerning Florida and such. Parts of Florida are very Southern. Parts of Florida are very NYC. Parts of Florida are completely late 20th Century suburban. Parts are clearly Third World. Here in my neighborhood the distinction is readily apparent. My household is late 20th Century suburban. The guy next door (whom I’ve discovered some interesting and mildly disturbing things about lately) is completely NYC, even if he’s never been there. His GF/wife is 21 Century Southern (white trash variety). Across the street we’ve got the Third World.
We used to have heavy input from Michigan (for some damned reason) and West Virginia (probably because of WVians passing through Central Florida during WWII and deciding the weather was better here than there). They have mostly died out as best I can tell. Most of the old native Floridians (meaning those with roots here, not first generation types such as myself) moved to North Carolina or died ages ago.
Texas is kind of Southern, kind of Western, but is more properly thought of as Texas. That’s best for all concerned.
Louisiana is strictly Third World. The Napoleonic Code, really? Acknowledged philandering crooks as the best possible political options, really? New Orleans?
The cities of the NE are American flavored international cosmopolitan places (if they’re successful) or the shitholes of America (if they’re like Newark).
These boots are really comfy.
Unless absolutely necessary never skimp on shoes, mattresses or booze. That’s about the only useful stuff I ever learned from my mother.
Nothin’ wrong with New Orleans. Have you ever been to the Audobon Zoo?
Missouri state law is based on the Code Napoleon, too.
You know, Ice, I bought these boots for $139.99 at Rushing’s in Ferriday. He repairs boots and shoes. The place smells wonderful.
Mr. Rushing and two compadres were sitting together gossiping. His tall, handsome young black-haired son was manning the shop.
Maybe grandson.
@Icepick
New Orleans is not part of the South, and it is barely part of the US. It used to be more European, but it began to change in the 70’s with the oil industry boom.
← Previous Comments