It Wasn't Close
Mitt Romney brought his A-game tonight. At best, Barack Obama brought his C-game.
The governor was engaged, specific, detailed, and crisp in his answers. He had clearly done his homework and all of the preparation he went through--and let's not forget to give a hand to Ohio Senator Rob Portman for apparently being a better Barack Obama in practice debates than Barack Obama was in the real debate--paid off in a major way. There were times that I thought Romney might have been a bit too hyper and too dorky, and I wish that he looked at the camera more often when making his pitch instead of looking at Jim Lehrer. But overall, Romney took the fight to the president's doorstep and Barack Obama responded by confusing being listless with being presidential.
It is worth noting that the liberals aren't even trying all that hard to spin this as a win for the president. Jake Tapper reported on ABC that the Obama campaign was putting in very little effort--with only middling level staff--in working to convince him (and presumably, other journalists) to declare the president the winner of the debate. CNN has Romney as the winner of the debate by a 67-25 margin. No, that's not a typo. And mind you, these are registered voters; likely voters, who are more Republican in their makeup, may well have Romney as the winner by an even higher margin.
Equally revealing is the way that Obama supporters in the old and new media are reacting to the president's performance. Here, for example, is Chris Matthews losing his mind:
Clearly, the best way for the president to recover is to watch more MSNBC. Because nothing spells "comeback victory" like immersing yourself in an ideological cocoon, watching liberal cable pundits pontificate on the one million six ways in which Barack Obama is just so dreamy. Incidentally, the MSNBC reaction led to Candidate No. 1 for best tweet of the night.
Also losing it: Andrew Sullivan:
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.
The person with authority on that stage was Romney - offered it by one of the lamest moderators ever, and seized with relish. This was Romney the salesman. And my gut tells me he sold a few voters on a change tonight. It's beyond depressing. But it's true.
There are two more debates left. I have experienced many times the feeling that Obama just isn't in it, that he's on the ropes and not fighting back, and then he pulls it out. He got a little better over time tonight. But he pulled every punch. Maybe the next two will undo some of the damage. But I have to say I think it was extensive.
And now, Candidate No. 2 for the best tweet of the night. For those of you who may need to brush up on your Sullivanese to get the joke, see here.
If the liberals are despairing--and yes, Sullivan is a liberal now, no matter how much he may call himself an "Oakeshottian conservative"--the conservatives are downright exultant. Jim Geraghty:
We knew Mitt Romney would be prepared – his campaign has had him doing only one rally per day most days, spending hours and hours on debate prep. From watching the primaries, we knew Romney would come out and be aggressive and generally look good, but we have also seen Romney be stiff, or awkward, or turn to the moderator when attacked. Not tonight.
The “zingers” line appeared to be a bit of chaff; Romney did offer a few good lines — “You don’t pick the winners and losers, you just pick the losers”, “trickle-down government” — but he never seemed to force them or shoehorn them into lines. (George H.W. Bush declaring, “that last answer was about as clear as Boston Harbor struck me as the gold standard for a forced zinger.) Instead, Romney looked like he had done this before. Maybe he practiced with Rob Portman so much, he felt like he had. He was prepared on every Obama attack, that he could maneuver Obama into talking about his preferred topics – how much time did Obama spend on IPAB? How much time did Obama spend making implausible claims he’s going to get to reducing the deficit really soon? — and Romney demonstrated that he knew these issues, in detail, backwards and forwards.
Early on, Obama said, “I want to talk about the values behind Social Security” – and it was revealing that Obama wanted the topic to be on the warm and fuzzy feelings about the subject, instead of the numbers, the long-term solvency, the details of the reform proposals. He looked like a student who hadn’t done the readings and who wanted to desperately steer it towards a previous chapter.
As Geraghty notes, we heard nothing about the 47%, nothing about tax returns and nothing about how awful Bain Capital supposedly was/is. I will add that we also heard nothing about Mitt Romney shipping jobs to China. Geraghty speculates that this is because the president didn't want to repeat those attacks to Mitt Romney's face. I certainly believe that they will be repeated in the next debates and I think that the reason why we heard nothing about them tonight is because the president was completely off his game.
So what when wrong for Obama? Let's count the ways.
First, Obama brought his stump speech to the debate. This was the single worst decision the President made in preparing for tonight, because his stump speech was the most obvious material that Romney would have prepared for. It showed. Now, don't get me wrong, Romney was prepared to talk about a lot of other things, but the absolute minimum, the basis for his preparation was going to be Obama's stump speech. Romney did his homework and Obama did not anticipate it.
Second, Obama's staff forgot to arm him with facts. Not a single minute went by without Romney laying out some new fact in support of his ideas. Obama had ideas of his own, but he had very few facts to back is ideas up. I'll admit, there may be more facts to support Obama's ideas, but he just didn't have them ready to hand. This may simply be a brute-force memorization thing. As Obama supporter Bill Maher put it on Twitter, "I can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter."
Third, Obama's demeanor was not what America has come to expect from him. He looked like he didn't want to be there. He smirked, he stuttered, he paused. In fact, he spent so much time stuttering and pausing that by the end of the debate he clocked in four minutes more speaking time than Romney. Those extra four minutes weren't usefully spent rebutting the former Massachusetts governor. They were instead spent stuttering and wildly casting about for answers. It was undignified and, frankly, unpresidential.
No Romney supporter should think that one debate is going to win the election. However, Romney supporters must feel as though the momentum for Team Obama has halted, and that Team Romney is feeling the wind at its back. If Romney can continue to bear down and be tough and prepared in debates, if he can continue to dominate the president and show more life and energy, if he can continue to be polished and prepared in his answers, Team Obama will have legitimate reasons to panic.
I suspect that much of the spin in advance of the vice presidential debate next week will portray Biden as the underdog and on his heels--especially thanks to the president's poor performance tonight. Team Romney must not allow expectations to be set so low for the vice president. They must point out that Biden is beloved by the Washington press corps as a longstanding--if goofy--figure of the political establishment, and they must shame the press corps into calling out any errors or verbal fumbles that Biden commits. Paul Ryan has to do exactly what Mitt Romney did tonight--take the fight directly to Biden, force him on the defensive, and appear more connected, more energetic, and sharper in his debate performance. Both he and Romney need to build on what Romney achieved tonight and they should make sure not to slacken for one moment on debate preparation. After all, we know that after tonight, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will be loaded for bear in order to overcome their stinging loss in the first debate. Moreover, Romney and Ryan need to make sure to work the debate performance into their stump speeches, focus on Romney's strong points and the president's weak ones, and further the case that Romney should be the next president.
An excellent night for Mitt Romney. Hopefully, he and Paul Ryan can go from strength to strength in the upcoming debates.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: It Wasn't Close
A deeper analysis here is that Obama reflects a de facto entitlement mentality culture, that people are deserving regardless of merit and mediocrity is acceptable.
Romney, with his Mormon background and representing traditional culture, shows that hard work, with an eye towards excellence, pays off.
The Left has been deluding itself because it can feed off the wealth and goodwill of the nation. The idea that they are what they want to believe they are is fully supported by the MSM, and it works if they never have to actually confront someone who actually is who he says he is.
Tonight's confrontation was the fruits of deconstruction meeting the fruits of labor, it was no contest.
Sep '11
Re: It Wasn't Close
Quite right. One debate performance does not a victory make, especially when there are 2 more debates. But neither do I think this was simply another signpost on the way to November 6.
I think the biggest difference it makes is with people that haven't been paying a lot of attention, or maybe were sliding toward the whole "out-of-touch, rich guy" meme. They saw someone that was engaged, personable but tough, in command of the facts and quick on his feet. Romney both looked and sounded like a President.
I'm not as concerned with the VP debate; Biden will sound like a crazy uncle and Ryan will sound like the next-door neighbor that just happens to be smarter than the President, much less the Veep. The concern is the next foreign policy debate. The President will be much better prepared, and there is no way a Governor can match foreign policy experience with a sitting President. But there are manifest weaknesses in the President's foreign policy, and Romney can tie in economic strength with strength abroad. Prepare just as hard, Governor, and you'll reinforce tonight's image of Presidential vs. Potemkin.
Re: It Wasn't Close
Stop lowering expectations for Biden, Brian! ;-)
Nov '10
Re: It Wasn't Close
Romney destroyed Obama tonight, but that's not the most important thing he did. I think he also destroyed the media caricature of him, which I suspect was one of the main things holding him back. Personally, I'm elated!
May '10
Re: It Wasn't Close
A great evening for Romney! What's interesting is that the better you know Romney, the harder it is understand how this event will change the race. This was the Romney that got me to become a Republican in 2007.KVEL CITY!
Dec '10
Re: It Wasn't Close
Pejman Yousefzadeh: Mitt Romney brought his A-game tonight. At best, Barack Obama brought his C-game.
...
Actually, I think Obama did bring his A-game to the debate. The MSM obfuscated truth about Obama's A-game, when compared to a competent opponent and evaluated by objective standards, is that in reality it's barely a D-game ...
Apr '11
Re: It Wasn't Close
It was an incredible performance...on the part of Romney.
For me, the most telling thing was that after arguing that Romney was not specific on what he was going to do after Romney spoke rather specifically of what he intended to do, Obama said his proposals were on the Internet so he didn't have to go into detail. At that point, I got the feeling that he didn't know his own policy that was on the Internet, or that he couldn't articulate it.
In addition, Obama showed he has no understanding of what economics is. He doesn't know that low taxes increase revenue...and hence you will never get him to argue agains tax increases....math be damned.
Obama cannot see the future...he is in the present, he votes present, and presently he should be voted out of office.
Mar '11
Re: It Wasn't Close
Romney's now getting security briefings, which I'm sure he attends more often than his opponent does. What he lacks in experience is more than compensated by the target rich environment the current administration provides.
Mar '11
Re: It Wasn't Close
Just so. The guy's never been ready for prime time.
Apr '12
Re: It Wasn't Close
"The concern is the next foreign policy debate. The President will be much better prepared, and there is no way a Governor can match foreign policy experience with a sitting President. But there are manifest weaknesses in the President's foreign policy, and Romney can tie in economic strength with strength abroad. Prepare just as hard, Governor, and you'll reinforce tonight's image of Presidential vs. Potemkin."
I respectfully disagree. I don't believe Obama is particularly up on foreign policy. He's made an art of skipping such meetings. And, oh yes, he refused to send additional military personal to the Lybian Embassy. The problem with Obama, (and the entire modern Left, for that matter) is that they've reduced all conservative thought to the crudest stereotypes possible. And even if Obama actually did know his stuff - he's got this problem that he's had his way for four years, and the world situation has gotten much, MUCH, worse.
Jul '10
Re: It Wasn't Close
This is a big win, but I hope Team Romney isn't preparing to rest on its laurels. The next couple debates will be harder.
Joe Biden isn't a fearsome debater, but expectations will be dialed down so hard that all he'll have to do is not choke himself with his own necktie to be declared the winner. Look for media reports of how he gave a "surprisingly clear and skilled performance", which also be how they'll smuggle in the reports of his screwups that they have embargoed up to this point. "Look, we talked about Joe Biden's gaffes!"
Obama is also less vulnerable on foreign policy. He's more vulnerable than he was in August, but he still has Bin Laden and drone strikes. Stickier questions like Iran and the Arab Meltdown won't hurt him because Romney doesn't exactly have stirring, clearly defined policies on those either.
May '12
Re: It Wasn't Close
Thanks for the Left summaries and link. Good solid win for Romney. It should get a few fence sitters.
Apr '11
Re: It Wasn't Close
Excellent analysis.
It is interesting to note that there seems to be a trend of incumbent presidents stumbling in their first debate. We saw it with Reagan in '84 and Bush in '04, so we should definitely expect a sharper Obama next time.
The difference is that Mondale and Kerry merely won their debates by default. Romney was prepared to take down Obama no matter what game The One brought to the court.
I've never seen an unequivocal debate smack down like this. Even going back to 1996, I recall coming away from Clinton-Dole debates still able to convince myself "well, it wasn't that bad...."
Most other debates were either quickly forgotten or hinged on a "zinger" or "moment" that emerged from the post-debate spin cycle (Bush's watch, Gore's huffs, etc.)
This was almost all substance and one man was clearly in command and the other was obviously reeling.
If Ryan can decisively wipe the floor with Biden it should establish a pretty clear narrative that Romney/Ryan are the serious and knowledgable team while Obama/Biden are just out of it.
What does a emperor once his "new clothes" are exposed?
Sep '10
Re: It Wasn't Close
For months we've been hearing how the Obama campaign was eager to debate Romney on Obamacare versus Romneycare and point out the latter was the inspiration for the former. That moment came tonight and I thought it backfired. When the topic of healthcare came up Obama eagerly tied his plan to Romney. Indeed, I thought it was the only moment in the debate where Obama seemed energized and ready to spar with Romney.
For several minutes President essentially argued, "vote for me, I passed Romneycare!"
Not exactly the most inspiring campaign slogan. Romney managed to pull off not looking like a flip flopper and I thought it made the President look like the challenger.
I kept wondering if voters were asking themselves, "if it was Romney's idea, why the hell should I vote for you?"
Nov '10
Re: It Wasn't Close
Man, I read the transcript, but it did not do that clip justice. Chris Matthews sounded like he was about to cry.
Re: It Wasn't Close
Once they cut to commercial, he probably did.
Of course, it should be said that Matthews thinks he knows more about politics than he actually does. So when a politician fails to meet his (low) standards and causes him to weep and wail, that's saying something.
And it really is saying something when that politician is the incumbent president of the United States.
Oct '12
Re: It Wasn't Close
Debates matter. In this election. Or did you not see the roller-coaster that was the GOP Primary? Bachmann shone early in the debates. Followed by the Folksy and Likable Cain. Did you see how Gingrich emasculated King and won South Carolina? Or Romney doing the same to Gingrich in Florida and winning big over there? Reason why romney was able to survive the debates was because nobody went after him on Obamneycare until it was too late (Santorum rocked him, but was too little too late)