The Obama vs Romney Debate Thread

[Indy Coug]

Who's going to come out on top tonight?

[kccougar]

Romney will be critiqued for being wooden and insincere. That being said, he will have won the arguments.

[Moliere]

Who's going to come out on top tonight?

Debates are lame. They are about as interesting as Tuesday MAC games on ESPN. The only time I watched a debate was the one after Gingrich went postal on John King for bringing up his infidelities. The debate I saw sucked because they put the candidates in kindergarten desks and Wolf didn't let Newt go off. All the debates engender are more ludicrous promises. I remember both Bush and Kerry promising to cut the deficit in half in the next 4 years (I think Obama made the same promise 4 years later).

I already know enough about the candidates based on their previous actions and voting records to know who I'm going to vote for. I don't want to hear more and more pandering and I have better things to do tonight, but I'll admit I'll check into this thread before bed to see if any big gaffes happened.

[All-American]

I don't expect either of the candidates to be able to maintain the narrative that they've been telling in the past few months. Mitt won't be able to use "you didn't build that," and Obama won't be able to use tax returns. The typical fodder for thirty-second commercials isn't the same stuff you use in a one-on-one debate. The candidates will have to shift to something more substantial, or they will come away looking small.

Both will say that the other raises taxes on the middle class. Both will deny it. Hopefully, Obama doesn't mutter "not true, not true" as Romney is speaking, like he did with McCain.

I don't expect an election-changing moment from the debates tonight, but if one comes, it will come from Mitt. He might fumble the ball, or he might come out swinging. In the GOP primaries, he has left Gingrich stammering, and he has left his supporters shaking their heads. Mitt Romney's performance will be by far the more interesting of the two, for ill or for nil.

Both sides are eager to embrace the story about this election being a choice. They'll do the best they can to show why their option is the better choice, and both sides will claim victory because they will have told the story that they think is the winning strategy.

[Uncle Ted]

One thing I wouldn't be surprised to hear at the debate tonight...

In an afternoon conference call arranged by the Romney campaign, former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu said Biden's comment helped "set the stage" for the debate. Of the two candidates on the debate stage, only Obama is responsible for the pain middle-class families feel, Sununu said.

"Vice President Biden finally got something right when he made the admission that the middle class has been buried in the last four years under President Obama. I suspect it is probably in his debate preparation he's been looking at the statistics that are out there. The middle class has been devastated under President Obama," said Sununu, who served as White House chief of staff under President George H.W. Bush.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-...e-last-4-years

[oxcoug]

Excellent primer from National Review covering how Mitt's been preparing and what his strategy is. Some fascinating detail on how they're breaking down his tendencies to prepare him for this.

We'll see if it translates tonight.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ert-costa?pg=3

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am expecting Mitt to get slaughtered.

[creekster]

I am expecting Mitt to get slaughtered.

do you mean on the substance or in perception?

[byu71]

I know what the press will say.

All I am hearing is the challenger usually wins. The press analysis will be that this time the challenger didn't win and it is over. Romney blew his shot.

[Art Vandelay]

I thought President O was generally considered a weak debater, or even speaker without a telepromter. I don't have much recollection of him versus Hilary. However, Mitt always struggles to come across as likable in these settings.

I'm not sure anyone ever wins a debate, but often one side seeming loses it (generally when speaking off-the-cuff), making the other candidate the default winner.

[Y84it]

I know what the press will say.

All I am hearing is the challenger usually wins. The press analysis will be that this time the challenger didn't win and it is over. Romney blew his shot.

This is why I won't be watching. I know who I want. The rest is out of my control.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Persuasion is first and foremost about perceived credibility. After that, it's about emotional connection. Reasons and facts come a distant third.

Romney has a good shot if he finds ways to talk about his competencies and if he is warm. He should stay away from too many stats and facts. He should drill Obama on broken promises and roll out a specific of his economic plan (debates are great times to do this as the other side has to react on the spot, and doesn't have the comfort of focus grouping response ads or one-liners).

Obama has a good shot if he can leverage his experience as president and if he seems strong and in control. He should avoid getting in the weeds with Romney about his record and should try to get Mitt floundering over stats and facts.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I know what the press will say.

All I am hearing is the challenger usually wins. The press analysis will be that this time the challenger didn't win and it is over. Romney blew his shot.

If I'm a liberal network executive who worships at the altar of ratings, I want Romney to do "good" but not "great" tonight. The "Romney is behind" rhetoric is leveling off and the talking heads need something new to bring in viewers. The press wants Romney to make a bit of a comeback.

[byu71]

If I'm a liberal network executive who worships at the altar of ratings, I want Romney to do "good" but not "great" tonight. The "Romney is behind" rhetoric is leveling off and the talking heads need something new to bring in viewers. The press wants Romney to make a bit of a comeback.

That would be nice.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I thought President O was generally considered a weak debater, or even speaker without a telepromter. I don't have much recollection of him versus Hilary. However, Mitt always struggles to come across as likable in these settings.

I'm not sure anyone ever wins a debate, but often one side seeming loses it (generally when speaking off-the-cuff), making the other candidate the default winner.

Gerald Ford lost the debate in 1976 and arguably the presidency by saying the Soviets had no presence in Poland. Ronald Reagan utterly destroyed Jimmy Carter. Since 1980, we've had two presidential races that were competitive -- 2000 and 2004. George W. Bush was somewhat of a blank canvas in 2000 and Al Gore came across as a total knob. While Bush certainly didn't win the debate, he didn't totally blow it and Gore looked like a jerk. In 2004 people discovered through the debates that John Kerry wasn't really a huge intellectual upgrade to George W. Bush.

In uncompetitive races, the debates probably don't matter much. But 2012 is going to be competitive. We've seen quite a bit of Romney in debates and typically we've seen three different types of performances out of him -- 1) Playing it safe; 2) Playing it safe Romney who then gets pissed off during the debate when the other guys start landing cheap shots (the $10,000 bet debate); and 3) Deathstar Romney. #2 is obviously the worst version of Romney, but #3 can be terrific. Newt Gingrich's run in the GOP primaries came to an end after Romney destroyed him in those two famous Florida debates. Romney's handlers will tell him to be #1 which would be a mistake. Voters gravitate to strength and the best possible result from these debates is to make Obama look small and weak no matter how many journalists and hardcore Democratic voters you piss off in the process.