Ok I've Finally Watched the Debate

     I already wrote three posts about it at 1 in the morning before even having seen it! I had seen the most important soundbites and was puzzled on how Romney supposedly hit a grand slam as that's not really what I saw.

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/10/whats-puncline-from-debate.html

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/10/more-on-romneys-win.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/10/more-on-romneys-win.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29

    What stood out in Romney's clips was just how dishonest and sophistical he is. I mean how was he able to again and again take credit for ObamaCare in Massachusetts as a model for the nation while vowing to on his big Day 1-where he's going to do more than has been done net in human history until this day-to repeal ObamaCare; he also will end Planned Parenthood, declare China a currency manipulator and now in the latest, will also have the Democrats over for a bipartisan meeting on the first day-to repeal this very same ObamaCare? Cognitive dissonance much?!

     So I didn't get it, though what the theme is was becoming clear and it's that the President lost on style points. This was the consensus. Now I've finally watched it. If you haven't yet and want to go to this link.

     http://www.politicalforum.com/elections-campaigns/269355-presidential-debate-replay.html

     I got to say I don't get all the hype. I don't think that the President did so bad. I was a little struck the way Romney ran roughshod over Jim Leher. But really, when the dust cleared, where's the beef on this Romney laugher? I'm quite serious: I don't see it.

     Others though do. The MSM is all agog over this declaring that this will make it a race. In other words, the media is eating it up as it-they hope-will validate their claim that this will incredibly tight and that Romney has a good chance of winning.

     According to Jeff Greenfield this was a 'debate debacle" for the President:

     "If this debate—as one-sided as any I have ever seen—does not change the landscape, if Obama retains a small but measurable lead, it means that the election is more or less over (barring some overwhelmingly consequential event), that voters have decided they are going to stick with the President. That is thin gruel on which the Obama campaign must dine for the next few days; but after this debacle, it’s the only sustenance on the menu."

     http://news.yahoo.com/after-the-debate-debacle-for-obama--we%E2%80%99ll-find-out-if-we-have-a-race.html

     I honestly don't know what Greenfield was talking about. What was so one-sided? Still it's not only the MSM that's buying it. Many liberals feel that Obama wasn't aggressive enough. I don't know. Certain things you might have liked him to call Romney out on-most of all both running on ObamaCare and vowing to repeal it in the same breath.

     Yet in many ways it seems to me this is what the President did in his convention speech which many of the talking heads thought was "flat" just as this was allegedly flat. That performance certainly didn't hurt him-the convention as a whole, though arguably less from his speech than those of other Democrats-fundamentally altered the race.

     It seems that Obama was sort of playing it safe, perhaps, maybe running out the clock a little. That can be a dangerous strategy. Yet what stands out is that he really didn't have any unforced errors. To stick to the football analogy, there were no fumbles, picks, or even bloopers. So in a sense he was very successful in playing it safe.

    And what every points Romney is supposedly getting in style, he flunks in substance. It's amazing the rhetorical and logical knots he weaved on that stage last night. Krugman puts it this way:

    "OK, so Obama did a terrible job in the debate, and Romney did well. But in the end, this isn’t or shouldn’t be about theater criticism, it should be about substance. And the fact is that everything Obama said was basically true, while much of what Romney said was either outright false or so misleading as to be the moral equivalent of a lie.
Above all, there’s this:

MR. ROMNEY: Let — well, actually — actually it’s — it’s — it’s a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.

No, they aren’t. Romney’s advisers have conceded as much in the past; last night they did it again.

     http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/romneys-sick-joke/

     So even Krugman admits that Obama did a terrible job in the debate. I just don't see it. I don't think he did a terrible job. Perhaps it wasn't as inspired as some would have liked. I would have maybe liked him to push back a little more on certain things-like both taking credit for and repealing ObamaCare and the jab about $716 billion in Medicare cuts.

     But most of what the President said was dead on accurate. He maybe didn't have many style points in it and maybe certain things could have been said differently or better. But I didn't really see it as terrible.

     And I do think the big story will be just how many logical errors and lies Romney told. Here's Robert Reich:

      "In Wednesday night's debate, Romney won on style while Obama won on substance. Romney sounded as if he had conviction, which means he's either convinced himself that the lies he tells are true or he's a fabulous actor."

       "But what struck me most was how much Obama allowed Romney to get away with: Five times Romney accused Obama of raiding Medicare of $716 billion, which is a complete fabrication. Obama never mentioned the regressiveness of Romney's budget plan -- awarding the rich and hurting the middle class and the poor. He never mentioned Bain Capital, or Romney's 47 percent talk, or Romney's "carried-interest" tax loophole. Obama allowed Romney to talk about replacing Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act without demanding that Romney be specific about what he'd replace and why. And so on."

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-first-presidential-de_1_b_1938720.html

     Actually the President did point out that Romney had proposed no plan to replace either Dodd-Frank for ACA. What I think is that he didn't do it with enough style.

     As for the 47% and Bain, it's not essential that he discuss this himself-both stories are omnipresent in the media and I don't think it's a problem if the President himself stays above the fray on such issues.

     He definitely could have at least pushed back some on the $716 billion Medicare canard. Up to a point, it's a good thing not to allow Romney to dictate what he discusses. Simply not responding to something Romney says may not always be the wrong move. But he could have responded to that at least once.

     I don't get Greenfield saying this was as dominant a debate performance he's ever seen. He seems to have forgotten Kerry-Bush which was only 8 years ago. The debate didn't win it for Kerry or nor do I see it winning it for Romney.

    I think the dirty little secret is that these debates matter a lot more for a challenger especially one who's struggled as badly as Romney has. Incumbents don't need them nearly as much. As Nate Silver showed yesterday the challenger on average over 40 years picks up on average about 1.4% in the polls from debates but still averages a loss in the election itself by 1.5%.