Romney Wins Big

There are two ways to judge a debate between candidates for office and only one of them matters. I actually thought, contrary to almost all of the online commentary, that Obama did slightly better on points. He was utterly cool and smoothly clever in a lot of his answers. I thought he did a better job, logically speaking, of exposing Romney's inconsistencies and parrying the latter's thrusts. Unfortunately for Obama, this is the way that doesn't matter. Obama is running for President of the U.S., not the faculty senate.

The judgment that does matter is which candidate advanced his cause. Here the punditocracy on both sides of the aisle seems to be in accord. It was a very, very good night for Mitt and a very bad one for Barack. If Romney seemed a bit repetitive and over excited at times, he was always in control. More than that, he seemed passionate, forceful, and very well organized. He rebutted the President's key talking points again and again. He was constantly on the offensive and did a lot to expose the President's weaknesses. Here is William Galston at the Huffington Post:

Romney presented himself as a reasonable man -- neither an extremist nor an ideologue. He calmly rebutted familiar attacks on his proposals. He was clear and forceful, tough but respectful. He sounded knowledgeable. He conveyed an impression of competence and experience as a potential manager of the economy. He praised some aspects of the Obama administration's program, such as its Race to the Top education reform program. And when he insisted on the importance of working together across party lines, it sounded as though he meant it.

As Galston acknowledges, we won't know for a few days how this played in Ohio; but if Galston is right about how Romney appeared, he won a smashing victory. Above all, he looked like he wanted to be there.

The President did not look like he wanted to be there. He looked down a lot. But don't take it from me; take it from Andrew Sullivan:

10.31 pm. 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.

If anything, the reviews of Obama's performance from the Left have been much more scathing than those from the Right. Bill Maher tweeted that "I can't believe that I am saying this but Obama does look like he needs a teleprompter."

Debates rarely matter, but this may be one of the rare cases. Most viewers, I suppose, see what they want to see. Some, however, sit down already leaning one way or the other and want to see whether they should or should not commit. In 1980, most viewers were leaning toward Reagan but some were at little worried that he was the wild-eyed cowboy that they were constantly warned about. All Reagan had to do was look sane and sober. He did and that may have closed the deal.

Most voters have a less well-defined impression of Romney at this point than they did of Reagan at his debate. Given the President's weakness on key issues like the economy and his persistent weakness among independent voters, it is that there is a significant portion of the electorate ready to swing in the direction of change. If so, this may have been the decisive point in the election.

CBS did a 500 person instant poll after the debate. Here are the results:

By a 2 to 1 margin, uncommitted voters crowned Mitt Romney the winner over President Obama in the first presidential debate in Debate, Colo., on Wednesday night, according to a 500-person instant poll taken by CBS News.

In the moments following the candidates' performances on the University of Denver stage, 46 percent of voters gave the economy-centric debate to Romney, 22 percent said they believed the president was the winner, and 32 percent called it a tie. More good news for the GOP nominee: 56 percent of those polled said they viewed Romney in a better light after watching the debate. Eleven percent said their opinion of him dropped, and 32 percent cited no change in opinion.

CNN found even better numbers for Romney:

Two-thirds of people who watched the first presidential debate think that Republican nominee Mitt Romney won the showdown, according to a nationwide poll conducted Wednesday night.

According to a CNN/ORC International survey conducted right after the debate, 67% of debate watchers questioned said that the Republican nominee won the faceoff, with one in four saying that President Barack Obama was victorious.

If those numbers are an accurate reflection of the viewers at large, this was probably the biggest single debate victory in the history of this kind of thing. Obama's critics have often argued that he is good at campaigning but clueless when it comes to governing. What if he isn't any good at anything?

Comments

[Bill Fleming]

Every dog has his day. This was Mitt's. His etch a sketch moment. Saying he won is perhaps euphemistic. He dominated. Alpha male style. Awesome perhaps but not particularly inspiring.

[Donald Pay]

It wasn't even close--Obama won. If you count lies and obfuscation, yeah, Romney definitely won. But saying you will kill Big Bird, and then being a smarmy, insincere buffoon about it isn't winning. The liberal MSNBC panel thought Romney won, too, because they wanted Obama to counter Romney's lies and put that lying buffoon in his place. I wouldn't read too much into the instant polls. Romney's grimace is about to become the fodder of SNL. He's toast.

[larry kurtz]

RT @RasmussenPoll: National Daily Tracking: #Obama: 49%, #Romney: 47%...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: saying he won is saying what is obvious now to everyone but Donald. The liberal side of the MSM almost universally recognized this as a defeat for the President. Chris Matthews and Andrew Sullivan were wailing and gnashing their teeth. That's not just what losing looks like, that's what losing is.

I don't think the President did as a bad as nearly everyone else seems to think, but the only way you could deny that he lost is to do what Donald does: ignore all the evidence and sputter.

[Bill Fleming]

The worst part was the way it looked on TV. It was as if Obama were being scolded — eyes down, not looking at the speaker, takin' a whippin'. Romney even compared him to his 5 sons, (who aparantly are all pathological liars). So yes, Obama appeared to lose, stylistically.

So did Gandhi. And Jesus.

Some are calling it rope a dope.

Maybe it was more like "give him enough rope..."

In substance, he got Romney to endorse regulation, admit that ACA is a good health care model, agree not to cut taxes on the wealthy, endose Medicare, admit that vouchers may not work for everybody, admit he was going to give Big Bird and the Arts a pink slip, etc, etc, etc.

So much footage for new commercials.

Plus, it's good to remember, continuing the prize fight metaphor, that it's just the end of round One.

[Donald Pay]

Bill has it right. Essentially, Mitt handed Obama the election. Romney came across as the arrogant CEO. The Big Bird thing was especially telling. It's the exact same way Romney, as Bain Capitalist, went about outsourcing jobs and the devastating middle class. There was never anything personal ("I like Big Bird, but....") about wrecking the lives of the people whose jobs he outsourced. "Have a great life, Big Bird, because we're giving your job to Hoshi, the Panda."

[Ken Blanchard]

So Obama is Jesus! Sorry, folks. Bill has gone bye bye. While we wait for his buss to get back from Fantasy Land, I would remind him that Jesus' strategy may have worked out well in the long run but was not so convenient in the short run. What do you suppose the political equivalent of crucifixion might be?

[Bill Fleming]

"What do you suppose the political equivalent of crucifixion might be?"

Having people hound you about your birth certificate?

[Bill Fleming]

"What do you suppose the political equivalent of crucifixion might be?"

Bailing out the banks and then having them turn on him?

Cleaning up the GOP economic and foreign policy outhouse, then having them blame him for causing it?

GOP filibusters?

Citizens United?

...just spitballing here, KB. I can keep going if you like.

[duggersd]

"What do you suppose the political equivalent of crucifixion might be?"
Accuse you of killing a woman?
I could keep going too.

[Stan Gibilisco]

Bill:

Not sure the rope-a-dope analogy would apply here. In a sense this debate was "round one," but individual debates are far more self-contained, semantically, than rounds in a prize fight.

I don't think Obama would employ a rope-a-dope strategy by holding back for an entire debate. The first 90 percent, maybe, and then pouncing with a fantastic one-liner near the end ... that would be rope-a-dope!

Noooo ... Methinks maybe Obama had a bad bowl of broccoli or something, and simply did not have his usual edge. Look for better performances from him in the coming debates.

[Stan Gibilisco]

"What do you suppose the political equivalent of crucifixion might be?"

The sort of thing that almost happened to Bill Clinton.

[Ken Blanchard]

You guys are a laugh. If crucifixion means anything as a metaphor in politics, it means losing because you spoke the truth. "Having people hound you about your birth certificate?" Talk to one of the other guys hanging next to Christ and see if it makes sense to them.

The idea that Obama intentionally lost the debate is ludicrous. He has assiduously avoided any situation where he might be challenged. He thought that preparing for the debate was boring. The press has always protected him in the past. It must have come as a shock when everyone could suddenly see him for way he was.

[lynn]

An Iowan who listened to Obama during the Iowa caucuses during the last election called him an empty suit (she wanted Hillary). It seems now that even his suit has disappeared, and he's just an empty chair!!

[Bill Fleming]

It's just a metaphor, KB.

[Bill Fleming]

Got any more spears you want to stick him with?

[Bill Fleming]

Another metaphor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC8FVkZTam0

[Stan Gibilisco]

I was kidding about Clinton, of course. So I'm glad somebody got a laugh there.

It seems to me that Obama has a certain (quite large) portion of the electorate locked in, and even the second coming of our Lord could not change their minds.

Romney, in contrast, has less firm support, even among most Republicans, although in the end, I think most Republicans will go his way because they detest him less than they detest Obama.

It comes down, then, to the independents. The independents, like me.