Readers of these pages won’t be surprised to hear non-leftists
suggest that Mitt Romney won last night’s debate.
But let me tell you of a few early reactions you might not have
heard about (other than in Stacy McCain’s excellent
article) and which are perhaps more informative simply due to
their objective or even anti-Romney fundamental nature, starting
with the rabid Obamaphiles at MSNBC:
- MSNBC hosts this morning made a comparison between Buster
Douglas and Mike Tyson, asking “Where did that come from?!?”
- More: “Performatively, the president of the United States did
not show up last night…Obama really was passive, annoyed-looking,
looking away. It really was dispiriting. It might have been the
worst performance in a debate, not just the worst performace by
Obama in a debate. He did not show up and he has to next
time.”
- “It was one of the great debate performances that anyone has
ever seen on Mitt Romney’s part last night. Barack Obama let Mitt
Romney back in the game.”
- “The president’s weakest moments were when he was trying to
defend his record…Rope-a-dope without the knockout punch.”
- Chuck Todd said “I was amazed how poorly (Obama) defended
Dodd-Frank.”
- One point they made which also really struck me at the time:
“Obama had a bad closing two minutes”, with the commentators
wondering aloud why Obama was not better prepared? “He knew his
closing was coming, and it was just so flat.”
- They noted that he never mentioned women’s issues, “the 47
percent”, or President Bush.
- This was a “stylistic disaster” “much worse” for Obama than the
Republican convention was for the Republicans.
- “Mitt Romney was reasonable, compassionate, in touch with the
middle class. He seemed like a guy who had a plan.”
Again, those were all on MSNBC. The fact that an outlet so
biased against Romney had no choice but to make statements like
these; the reality was that clear.
- BBC hosts said Obama looked tired and that Romney was far more
energetic and in command. They also noted, as others have, that
Obama kept looking down, or at the moderator, while Romney kept
looking at Obama.
- It was interesting to hear BBC interviews of Democrats at a
“debate watch party” in Washington, DC. Each of them said that
Obama was better and clearer than Romney. They were obviously
watching another debate, but the real take-away from those
interviews is that Romney is wasting his time to go after urban
Democrats. Obama, liberalism, and the Democratic Party are their
religion.
Influential Democratic strategist
James Carville said that Obama looked like he would rather have
been somewhere else.
In terms of more objective measures of who won the debate:
- Stock index futures immediately rallied last night and are
holding the gains into Thursday’s market opening.
- Betting odds at
Intrade.com of Obama’s being re-elected plummeted from 74
percent to 66 percent (accelerating a slight downward drift from
nearly 80 percent a week ago. 80 percent was the culmination of the
GOP’s polling and betting weakness which began shortly after the
Republican convention and took Obama’s odds from 58 percent to 80
percent over the course of three weeks. Most that month-long gain
in Obama’s betting odds has now been erased.
The question is whether the debate performance moved voters,
i.e. whether it moved undecided voters to Romney and whether it
re-energized Republican voters, activists, and current or potential
volunteers and donors. I expect it must.
In addition to Romney and his campaign, the most relieved people
of the night must be Republican congressional candidates across the
country. If Romney can win with coattails, or even if Romney loses
but prevents Obama from having coattails, it’s a massive benefit
for those candidates and for the nation. After all, Republican
control of the Senate would make a tremendous difference no matter
who is president.
In the wake of Todd Akin and other memories of Republicans who
can fairly be portrayed as stupid or extreme, Romney needed to come
across as intelligent, reasonable, and able to connect with people
of all stripes. In addition to his serious but likeable demeanor,
his repeated statements about how he was able to work with
Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature to “get things done”, in
stark contrast to Obama’s “my way or the highway” approach, was
very effective, in part thanks to Barack Obama’s failure to use any
of his most aggressive talking points.
Between Romney giving the best debate performance of his life
and Obama giving his worst, Wednesday’s debate was a huge win for
Republican electoral hopes next month.
Keep an eye on tomorrow’s employment report where, if the trend
continues, the unemployment rate may drop to 8% or even 7.9% but
primarily because people are dropping out of the work force much
faster than they are getting jobs. Since Obama took office, more
than 8.4 million people have dropped out of the work force. If they
were still in the work force, the reported unemployment rate would
be over 11 percent. The final employment report before the election
comes just 5 days before the November 6th election date.
Mike G| 10.4.12 @ 9:44AM
"This was a "stylistic disaster" "much worse" for Obama than the Republican convention was for the Republicans."
Typical of the Obamaoists...they still believe that a President should be more style than substance.
C. Vernon Crisler | 10.4.12 @ 11:23AM
"his repeated statements about how he was able to work with Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature to "get things done", in stark contrast to Obama's "my way or the highway" approach, was very effective...."
I wouldn't be too happy about this. This was surely a bone to the Independents or the nitwit Undecided who always swoon over talk of bipartisanship. In today's world bipartisanship usually means going along with Democrats.
I hope Romney doesn't really mean it, or else he was only throwing red meat to morons. As Obamacare proved, you actually don't need bipartisanship to get anything done. You need a fillibuster proof majority. Democrats had that and Republicans never have had it. Republicans can get things done when people stop electing socialists to office (and metoo Republicans).
RCV| 10.4.12 @ 1:52PM
Vern: first, I agree fully that Romney outperformed Obama significantly in the first debate. But your take is quite perceptive. Romney made very clear his lack of any conservative ideology, and his plan to govern as a corporate problem-solver, seeking and reaching consensus, as he did in Massachusetts. It's always been the main reason why, as a liberal Democrat, I've never been particularly alarmed at the prospect of a Romney victory as I would be at one by a Ryan or Gingrich or Bachmann or Palin.
C. Vernon Crisler | 10.4.12 @ 2:42PM
I don't know RCV, everyone claims to be bipartisan, even though no one really means it. Such claims don't tell us anything about the candidate other than they know what pieties to intone in order to attract the great Undecided. It's just one of those modern day rituals that all candidates have to perform.
Occam's Tool| 10.4.12 @ 4:05PM
If everyone recalls (look 'em up), the Great Razor was saying that this debate would closely resemble the 13th round of the Wolcott (Obama)/Marciano (Mitt) fight, with Marciano, a crude puncher behind on points and not looking too graceful until the 13th round, when he hit out with one punch that was faster, crisper, cleaner than Jersey Joes's, and knocked JJW out decisively and quickly, with a punch he wasn't supposed to know how to throw.
Damn, but I'm GOOD. Man, can I prognosticate.
Occam's Tool| 10.4.12 @ 4:10PM
Hey, as long as you're not upset by Big Bird being defunded while my taxes are lowered (and tax receipts for government go UP), I'm cool with that, RCV.
I already know that your view of the Middle East and Romney's view are closer together than your view and Obama's view.
RCV| 10.4.12 @ 5:28PM
I have to chuckle though that his suggestion for reining in the deficit is cutting funding for PBS. That's like bailing out the Titanic with a thimble!
vigilant| 10.4.12 @ 1:23PM
C. Vernon, I agree. But then, the nature of politics is compromise. Yet we continue to look to politicians to rescue us from society's ills, and are so disillusioned when once again, they don't. Darn that pesky human nature! Why can't we just legislate it out of existence?
C. Vernon Crisler | 10.4.12 @ 2:44PM
Well, I'd say the nature of politics is to get the other side to THINK one is compromising, whether it's true or not.