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.

[bray]

Not getting the analysis from someone who didn’t bother to watch it?

Pray for America

[InterceptPoint]

He watched it, just not real time.

And I pretty much agree with his position which I will summarize as follows:

Obama did not have a bad night. He did as good as would be expected in a debate where notes and teleprompters are banned. He isn’t very good and never has been when he has to write his own script on the fly.

Bottom line, IMHO, we will see the same thing in debates 2 and 3.

[bigheadfred]

… and here’s a BIG but ...

Here is a big but.

Apropos of nothing...

obama, Biden, and Holder are in Cairo when their car breaks down. They go to a used car dealer, but all the have is $200. The dealer says for $200 all I have is this camel. But he is completely trained. He stops at red lights and goes on green. So they ride off on the camel and sure enough, he stops at the first red light. At the next red light a car full of Egyptians pulls up. One of them says "Look at the 3 a$$holes on that camel". obama, Biden, and Holder got off to look, the light changed to green, the camel took off, and they never saw that camel again.

[Jedidah]

And when he finally did watch it belatedly, he had the benefit of having read and watched the opinions of those who formed their opinions the hard way, in real time, live.

I don’t have much respect for those who think they’re above the fray, too cool to be bothered.

[fireman15]

I think that is a pretty good summary. If Obama is off the prompter you have to drink plenty of the Kool-aid to believe he is articulate. The talking heads believe their own propoganda; if he had been up against McCain again he probably wouldn’t have looked so bad.

[andyk]

I find these events almost painful to watch.

I find them excruciating. I can only watch the recap the next day, and the talking-head analysis.

[GunRunner]

I agree with him to an extent.

I think the Obama team walked Romney.

This is a media narrative setup from the beginning. Obama is weakest on the economy, and they knew that it would be nearly impossible for Obama to do well in this debate. It's no accident that Obama didn't mention the 47% comment, Bain, or tax returns. They're saving those for the town hall.

Obama is going to draw an imaginary line with him arm down the middle of the audience, and say that that half of the room represents the people who Romney considers victims and doesn't care about. Then he'll bring up Bain and Cayman tax shelters, and go right at the live audience with every attack he's got.

[andyk]

Obama did not have a bad night. He did as good as would be expected in a debate where notes and teleprompters are banned.

Correct. That was the genuine Obama of which conservatives have been aware for years.

[Windflier]

"I wondered what people were seeing that I was not. ...the people I saw on that stage were the same people I had seen any number of times leading up to the debate. I didn’t get it."

I actually understand where this guy's coming from.

I initially listened to the debate live on radio while I followed the FR thread. As I listened, it was abundantly clear to me that Romney was wiping the floor with Obama. I finally watched a replay of the debate on C-SPAN.com today, and I was actually less impressed with Romney's beat down, than I was just listening to it.

I think it had a lot to do with simple visuals. Obama didn't come off nearly as bad visually, as he did in pure audio. Yeah, he looked like he was tired, worn out, or something, but I honestly thought it was an acceptable performance, visually speaking.

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.

[Slyfox]

I find these events almost painful to watch.

I felt the same way but something told me to stick around and watch it. I'm glad I did because when I saw Obama shush Lerher with his forefinger I knew BJ was a goner.

[bray]

Exactly the read I got from it too.

Pray for America

[FryingPan101]

I stopped reading after “Who wants to subject themselves to that?” The answer was me.

[moneyrunner]

bray, I watched it. In fact I watched it twice. The point I’m making, in case you missed it, is that Obama was doing his best in an unscripted environment. It’s just that his best isn’t very good. Romney was good, but Romney is always good. You don’t head a company Like Bain and not be smart, and a good presenter. I tried to think why people thought Romney was better than they expected and Obama was worse. The only reason I could come up with is that they got their information from the MSM because Obama is presented as “almost Godlike” and Romney is depicted as stiff and unappealing. So when you see them side-by-side and neither one lives up (or down) to expectations, you get the reaction that we see to the first debate.
The problem for Obama is that he’s not going to get any smarter in the next few weeks.

[moneyrunner]

I agree. Obama is not going to get any smarter in the next few weeks. Watch out for some kind of scandal to erupt to distract the people from the debates.

[Nervous Tick]

>> I didn’t get it.

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

We’re even, then.

[Balding_Eagle]

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.

THAT statement should have been the very first sentence.

It shows the nonsensical starting point and everything that followed.

It would have saved me and everyone else a lot of time.

[Future Snake Eater]

I tried to think why people thought Romney was better than they expected and Obama was worse.

I'm one of them. I figured Romney would try to be a "gentleman" and Obama would aggressively lie his ass off, resulting in a tie more or less. Thankfully, I was wrong.

[moneyrunner]

Jed said, And when he finally did watch it belatedly, he had the benefit of having read and watched the opinions of those who formed their opinions the hard way, in real time, live. I don’t have much respect for those who think they’re above the fray, too cool to be bothered.

The fact is that I don't need to watch a debate or a convention to decide who to vote for. There are a whole lot of sources these days so I don't need to listen to people pander to me. Same reason I don't take robocalls. If you think it's your patriotic duty to do so, knock yourself out. I knew I was going to vote for Romney before he was nominated because I was going to vote for anyone but Obama. I wrote this simply to point out that neither Romney nor Obama surprised me, and was surprised that so many others were surprised.

[moneyrunner]

Jed said, And when he finally did watch it belatedly, he had the benefit of having read and watched the opinions of those who formed their opinions the hard way, in real time, live. I don’t have much respect for those who think they’re above the fray, too cool to be bothered.

The fact is that I don't need to watch a debate or a convention to decide who to vote for. There are a whole lot of sources these days so I don't need to listen to people pander to me. Same reason I don't take robocalls. If you think it's your patriotic duty to do so, knock yourself out. I knew I was going to vote for Romney before he was nominated because I was going to vote for anyone but Obama. I wrote this simply to point out that neither Romney nor Obama surprised me, and was surprised that so many others were surprised.