Presidential Debate #1: Why the analysts are wrong!

The Virginian ^ | 10/6/2012 | Moneyrunner

[moneyrunner]

There is an accepted wisdom about the first Presidential debate between Obama and Romney. I didn’t watch it live. I rarely watch debates or conventions because I find these events almost painful to watch. I don’t need to watch two people debate to find out who’s the candidate that most closely reflects my values. There are other, better ways of doing that. I don’t need to hear dozens of people give carefully scripted speeches to form an opinion of parties and candidates. It’s like watching non-stop commercials. Who wants to subject themselves to that?

The morning after the debate I went to the Internet and found out that Romney had wiped the floor with Obama who, according to many both Right and Left, mostly wasn’t there. The Left was so shocked that they created theories … from drugs, to altitude to secret handkerchiefs to explain their champion’s loss. Romney partisans applauded him for finally coming out of his shell, for his energy, for his enthusiasm, for his good natured attitude, for a taking the fight to Obama, for finally showing us what he could do.

Wow!!! I thought to myself, I have to see this. My wife recorded the debate and so I was able to view it in its entirety. I clicked the "play" button and prepared to be entertained. As time went on I wondered what people were seeing that I was not. Don’t get me wrong, I am a Romney supporter. I intend to vote for him. I look forward to an economic recovery unhampered by the job killing, economy destroying, crony-socialist policies of the Obama administration. I think Romney is honest, smart, clean and able to allow America to escape from the mire we’re in.

But … and here’s a BIG but ... the people I saw on that stage were the same people I had seen any number of times leading up to the debate. The same people acting pretty much the same way and saying many of the same things they have been saying all this election cycle. Except now they were saying them to each other’s faces.

I didn’t get it. Obama was not on drugs or suffering from altitude sickness, he was the same Obama we had seen many times before. Obama is a declaimer, not a debater. Give him a speechwriter and a TelePrompTer and he’ll rabble rouse with the best of them. Speaking improvisationally, he gaffe prone ("You didn't build that") and literally gets lost in his sentences. This is evident in his press conferences in which he filibusters the compliant White House press corps in order to run out the clock from even the puff ball questions he gets asked. He has a supply of talking points and he repeats them during his public appearances. His comfort zone is limited to those talking points and he will not get beyond them. His debate demeanor is amused contempt, an expression he showed during the debate with Romney.

Perhaps the commentators have been watching too much of the press coverage of this campaign. The typical TV news coverage starts by telling us that the polls show the race is over and the election is superfluous. This is followed by a clip, a few seconds in length, typically of Obama giving a speech to students at East Cupcake Junior College promising them all free education and top executive positions after graduation, even the Theater Arts majors. This is followed by Andrea Mitchell telling us that Romney’s war on women intensified as he refused to denounce Rush Limbaugh as the anti-Christ, and that martyred Sandra Fluke still has to pay for her own birth control. In a related development Romney ignored a demand by the increasingly influential Nuns for Choice that priests perform abortions on their altars after the Mass. And did you know Romney was a Mormon?

For some reason, I thought that the talking heads had a better, more realistic view of the candidates than the farmer in Kansas or this guy analyzing the candidates via a computer screen. I thought that because they have the opportunity to see them up close and personal they knew their strengths and weaknesses. I thought that was their job. Apparently I was wrong.

[moneyrunner]

If you want to really get the full impact of what Romney did to Obama in the first debate, I highly suggest listening to the full 90 minutes with audio only. It was devastating.

Interesting point.

[moneyrunner]

And I don’t “get” your self-absorbed drivel.

I didn't invite your comment. Get off my thread.

[moneyrunner]

The answer was me.

Well, you were joined by 60 million others so you had a lot of company. I Tivo this sort of thing just in case there is something I want to catch afterward.

[Buffalo Head]

"I didn't invite your comment." I you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

"Get off my thread." Your thread? Who in the Hell do you think you are to order someone off Jim Robinson's forum?

[Mamzelle]

I watched the debate in a very similar manner. Likewise, i did not watch in real time. Only I started reading about it an hour after it was over. Then I watched the recorded speech.

The debates are not a sports event for me, they are deadly serious. We must win this election or we may never have another chance. So I find them painful to watch.

I had the same reaction as money runner. Obama didn't seem any worse than the "stupidly" guy, the "corpseman" guy, or the guy who mocked Ryan for bringing a copy of Obamacare legislation to a meeting about Obamacare. Obama was Obama.

The only thing that was perplexed me was the truly odd mannerism he had, looking down and sort of leaning away from Romney. It reminded me of a little girl who is trying to avoid the advances of a little boy. Sort of coy. Weird. "Importune me no more."

[nathanbedford]

On returning from church late one Sunday morning president Calvin Coolidge was accosted by a newspaper reporter who asked, "what was the sermon about?" "Sin," replied the notoriously laconic president. The reporter persisted, "what did he say about it?" "He was against it."

When I read,

"I don’t need to watch two people debate to find out who’s the candidate that most closely reflects my values"

I thought, Calvin Coolidge did not need to actually go to the church and sit through the sermon to learn the preacher's values about sin. That is not the entire point of attending a sermon, that is not the point of worshiping, or, for that matter, the point of viewing a presidential debate in real time.

I felt a little bit put off by the insinuation that I have a shallow apprehension of the issues and the parties for which I must compensate by watching the debates. That is a little bit like saying that I am naïve about sin. I watch the debates for many reasons.

I admit that the first reason is a horserace reason, I want to handicap the candidates and make a judgment about how their performance will affect the race. I want to do this by watching television not by being in the hall because it is television which will shape the national consensus. I want to do this because I believe as a conservative that my views are moral, because I too am against sin, and I believe that for the other side to prevail would be the moral equivalent of a political sin.

Call me a hobbyist if you like, but I care passionately about the country and I believe passionately that the results of this election could be fatal for the country with all that implies for my children and grandchildren. If I were on MSNBC they probably would call me a "Republican Strategist", which means a talking head with virtually no other credentials than that I support the Republican.

Having seen the debate, I want to contribute something to the advancement of my cause if I can and, since I am here in Germany and cannot knock on doors, I choose to do it by writing on Free Republic. Sometimes, one feels that what one writes on Free Republic is picked up by talk radio personalities and the effect of one's efforts are leveraged. Sometimes, real discussion is stimulated on these threads. Anyway, unlike Calvin Coolidge it satisfies me declare to the world that I am against sin.

In this respect I applaud your blog piece because I agree with virtually all of the sentiments in it except the sort of backhanded put down for those of us who get more excited over presidential debates than the Super Bowl. Politics in many ways is like preaching, one must be against sin, of course, but one must also convince. John Kennedy said, "first, you gotta win."

We gotta win.

[cynwoody]

I think the Obama team walked Romney.

They're smart, but not that smart.

[cynwoody]

If you want to really get the full impact of what Romney did to Obama in the first debate, I highly suggest listening to the full 90 minutes with audio only. It was devastating.

It was said that those who read the transcript of the first Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 thought Nixon won. As did those who heard it on the radio. However, those who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbrcRKqLSRw

[Grampa Dave]

Somehow I ended up on a left wing mailing list of Move On. This is an email re how the left wing progressives feel about the debate:

Dear MoveOn member,

That was infuriating.

During last night’s presidential debate, Mitt Romney smirked his way through dozens of mischaracterizations, distortions, and outright lies. The moderator, Jim Lehrer, never cut him off. And now the mainstream media is saying that Mitt won the debate.

We can’t let Romney “win” the debate on a boatload of lies.

He lied about his tax plan, his deficit plan, and Medicare. He lied about what “Obamacare” would do. He lied, baldly and convincingly, about Obama’s entire presidency.1

We need to move quickly to set the record straight. Our online team worked overnight preparing a media blitz—including online ads targeted at swing-state voters—correcting the worst lies in an easy-to-share format.

Chip in $5 to get the truth out—countering Mitt’s lies.

If we don’t fight back now with the truth, some of those lies will stick, and Romney could pull ahead.

Already, Romney and his Super PAC friends have spent millions on blatantly false ads attacking President Obama for gutting work requirements for welfare and cutting $700 million from Medicare.

Last night was more of the same.

And research shows that when lies get repeated enough times people will believe them—no matter how outlandish they might seem. The only way to keep Romney honest is to make sure the facts get corrected on the spot.

We’re now in the moment when millions of undecided voters who don’t usually pay attention to politics start to focus.

This is it. This is what MoveOn’s massive online network is for. Let’s use it.

Please chip in $5.

Thanks for all you do.

–Angie, Mark, Lenore, Tate, and the rest of the team

1. “Presidential Debate Fact-Check and Updates,” The New York Times, October 3, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=281980&id=53824-21930683-_smjiTx&t=4

Want to support our work? MoveOn Civic Action is entirely funded by our 7 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from

[Grampa Dave]

Somehow I ended up on a left wing mailing list of Move On. This is an email re how the left wing progressives feel about the debate:

Dear MoveOn member,

That was infuriating.

During last night’s presidential debate, Mitt Romney smirked his way through dozens of mischaracterizations, distortions, and outright lies. The moderator, Jim Lehrer, never cut him off. And now the mainstream media is saying that Mitt won the debate.

We can’t let Romney “win” the debate on a boatload of lies.

He lied about his tax plan, his deficit plan, and Medicare. He lied about what “Obamacare” would do. He lied, baldly and convincingly, about Obama’s entire presidency.1

We need to move quickly to set the record straight. Our online team worked overnight preparing a media blitz—including online ads targeted at swing-state voters—correcting the worst lies in an easy-to-share format.

Chip in $5 to get the truth out—countering Mitt’s lies.

If we don’t fight back now with the truth, some of those lies will stick, and Romney could pull ahead.

Already, Romney and his Super PAC friends have spent millions on blatantly false ads attacking President Obama for gutting work requirements for welfare and cutting $700 million from Medicare.

Last night was more of the same.

And research shows that when lies get repeated enough times people will believe them—no matter how outlandish they might seem. The only way to keep Romney honest is to make sure the facts get corrected on the spot.

We’re now in the moment when millions of undecided voters who don’t usually pay attention to politics start to focus.

This is it. This is what MoveOn’s massive online network is for. Let’s use it.

Please chip in $5.

Thanks for all you do.

–Angie, Mark, Lenore, Tate, and the rest of the team

1. “Presidential Debate Fact-Check and Updates,” The New York Times, October 3, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=281980&id=53824-21930683-_smjiTx&t=4

Want to support our work? MoveOn Civic Action is entirely funded by our 7 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from

[Windflier]

It was said that those who read the transcript of the first Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 thought Nixon won.

It's very interesting what the visual element adds to ones perception of these debates. As you noted, the Nixon-Kennedy debate was decided by that very factor.

What's more stunning about the first Romney-Obama debate, is that Romney is perceived to be the winner whether one views it with captions only, reads the transcript, listens to the audio only, or watches it with audio/video. His victory was that decisive.

[moneyrunner]

I felt a little bit put off by the insinuation that I have a shallow apprehension of the issues and the parties for which I must compensate by watching the debates.

I did not mean to imply that people who watch these debates are all shallow and I did not imply that the 60 million who watched it were wrong to do so. I’m very glad that it got a huge audience. I was trying to make two points: the first one is a personal one; I find that watching these presentations “live” is painful to me so I don’t do it. Second, I am not among the “undecided” that will be swayed by a superior debate performance. From your response that is also true of you.

My main point is that the Barack Obama and the Mitt Romney people saw in the debate are the real deal. This is as good as either one is going to get (remember the Jack Nicholson movie). The Obama you saw is the one making economic decisions and foreign policy decisions. If that doesn’t scare the heck out of you I don’t know what does.

[Nervous Tick]

>> I did not mean to imply that people who watch these debates are all shallow and I did not imply that the 60 million who watched it were wrong to do so.

Then you should learn to watch your arrogant mouth, because that’s certainly the way it came off.

Hope you don’t mind if I post that on YOUR thread, “sir”. I see you’re thin-skinned and I wouldn’t want to upset you.