SCOAMFOTUS blows the debate

The really deadly point of the debate:  from professional commentators to man-in-the-street focus-group members, everyone noticed that the President fell apart the first time he was hit with difficult questions he actually had to answer.  The press has never let him be exposed like this before.

15 comments:

Grim said...

Romney did very well. He came ready to fight, which is a quality I like in a man (not setting aside my previous objections).

Now, in the face of a clear and honorable victory by the challenger, we'll see how much the debates really matter to the election.

Joseph W. said...

I would like to have seen that but it didn't come across to me that way. Like most vocal debates, a great deal of it came down to factual assertions, and they both seemed good enough at making those as if they believed them.

(My standard for "fell apart" may be different - I remember one of the Bush/Dukakis debates, when the moderator asked the candidates who were the heroes young people in America should admire. Dukakis was poleaxed - he couldn't name a single individual, so he rattled off a bunch of professions...there was a man falling apart on an answer. Bush had a half-dozen names on the tip of his tongue.)

The station we watched it on had a panel of undecided voters watching it, and showed their positive reactions by sex (a green band for male, a yellow band for female) as the candidates spoke. When Obama spoke, the female band was always way higher. Will Cassandra be by to remind us to take care of business?

Joseph W. said...

(my response was to the OP, not to Grim)

Grim said...

We watched it on the same channel, and I noticed that too: the females responded much better to Obama consistently, no matter the subject of his remarks. However, as I recall, the bands were tracking a group of "Colorado undecided" voters, the makeup of which (beyond male/female) we can't know. It could be that a larger portion of the female voters were black, for example, in which case it's hard to know how "undecided" they really were.

We also in general don't know how well formed that group was, so I'm not sure how much to ascertain from the sample.

By the way, Joe, good to see you. Stick around, because I've got some new things to talk about with you when we have a chance.

Joseph W. said...

I didn't take any of that "undecided voter" bit seriously. (But I do like teasing Cassandra, just a little.)

Thank you kindly. I'm glad to be back. I may be overmatched on whatever the topic is, but I'll enjoy it.

Grim said...

We all love teasing Cass.

I'm sure you'll be up to it.

douglas said...

I have to say what impressed me about the debate was that it wasn't like other big victories in debates past where it's muddling around for a while, then someone lands the haymaker on the button for the K.O. This was more of a well crafted, subtle pugilism, a steady rhythm of jabs and body blows, taking their toll round after round until in the 12th of 15, one solid body blow is too much and the opponent collapses. Romney just came in and brought a steady solid stream of energy, command of the facts (and by extension, leadership), and a perfect balance of 'I was an (R) governor of a state where I had to work with an 87% (D) legislature' for the mushy middle who think gridlock is our big problem, and references to the Declaration and Constitution (in particular the 10th amendment reference) as subtle red meat for the base to feel more excited about him. They were prepared, for certain.

I also think the press, in the end, did Obama no favors by helping to be so two dimensional in their portrayals of Mitt, such that once people who don't follow politics too much started watching (as tradition holds, at the first debate) the contrast of the real Mitt against that image wouldn't let the false image hold in their minds.

Joseph W. said...

the perfect balance of 'I was an (R) governor of a state where I had to work with an 87% (D) legislature' for the mushy middle who think gridlock is our big problem...

Indeed...a great many people in his place would've said, "When the opposing party wants input into legislative decisions, I'm not just going to tell them 'I won'..."

E Hines said...

...a great many people in his place would've said, "When the opposing party wants input into legislative decisions, I'm not just going to tell them 'I won'..."

Frankly, I think he should have said that, also. To extend the boxing metaphor, Romney was short on combinations, satisfying himself with single punches, however effective.

I also would have liked to see Romney add to his point about Obama's citing a "study" claiming that Romney would have to raise taxes on the middle class by $2k. He should have added that the "study"'s own authors in the end were forced to admit that their study was fatally flawed with false assumptions and wrong "facts." Another combination of punches.

I thought Romney did the better job, but that it wasn't the resounding victory the instapolls are calling it. Winning on points won't move the voters a whole lot.

There's also quite a bit of criticism of Lehrer over his loss of control of the debate. I disagree there, too, based on the actual outcome. True enough, the two debaters combined to overrun the format's allotted time for each subject/"pod," so that there was too little time for the last segment. But the two debaters generally stayed on point, and the debate itself didn't get out of hand. Whether that accrues to Lehrer, or to the two debaters, or to all three, is largely irrelevant.

Eric Hines

bthun said...

"Winning on points won't move the voters a whole lot."

Maybe not, but the swing state polls this am are bumped up for Romney by approximately 4, if what I read this am is accurate.

I heard the poor Obama performance was due to the thin air. Come to think of it, O was scowling as if he was holding his breath.

E Hines said...

I heard the poor Obama performance was due to the thin air.

No, it was because of Romney's lies. No less a light than David Axelrod says so. It must be true.

Eric Hines

bthun said...

"No, it was because of Romney's lies. No less a light than David Axelrod says so. It must be true."

Help me Obi One Journalista! You're my only hope... -Axelrod

douglas said...

I agree that there were spots where I wanted him to go a little deeper or hit with some particular fact I think damning of Obama, but we don't have to face the timer (even putting aside the overruns) and try to cram it all in a limited space, so I'm quite willing, given the overall results, to cut Romney some slack there- he established openings, which he can exploit in more depth on the campaign trail, and in TV ads.

I think it was more effective than winning on points- look at the reactions of the Luntz focus group, or the flash polls (we'll have to see how the bigger polls trend in a day or two) and I think it really was a late round KO or maybe TKO if you like- and I admit, I wanted the haymaker, but perhaps the well crafted display of the sweet science is in the end a better demonstration of the man and his abilities. Buster Douglas landed the KO on Tyson. What else did he ever do? I think this will be more difficult to overcome for the Obama campaign, particularly as a single thing of note can be countered (however twisted the logic necessary), but a complete domination is more difficult to spin.

Grim said...

Least effective Obama attack: "Your Romneycare is really the model for Obamacare."

Well, then, if you're in favor of health care reform, you can trust Romney to fix the problems with Obamacare. Who'd know better than the guy who wrote the prototype?

Joseph W. said...

It may be an example of "believing your own BS" - if you imagine that Romney has reinvented himself as a small-government extremist then you might expect him to act embarrassed about that, and be surprised when he doesn't.