100 Day Sprint: It’s tied and Romney has Big Mo
Voting in the 2012 presidential election officially ends three weeks from today. For Team Obama — for the first time in the campaign — I’m guessing there’s a profound hunger for more time, more days, more hours in the day.
Polls generally give Mitt Romney a narrow-verging-on-statistically-significant lead in the overall horse race, with the latest Gallup poll showing the Republican challenger four points ahead and capturing 50% support from voters. That’s a huge milestone.
Barack Obama, meanwhile, continues to lead by thin margins in battleground states that would give him 294 electoral college votes — 24 more than he needs to win a second term. But his “big blue wall”has shrunk dramatically.
If Obama doesn’t change the energy level in the coming week, his strategic advantages in the race may come to look more like a big blue speed bump.
So what does that mean for the second debate?
I think it’s actually a bit more fifty-fifty challenge tonight than most pundits are suggesting. Obama needs to be great. Truly on his game, channeling Bill Clinton, Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr. All at the same time.
But I also think Romney has a big task tonight.
He simply can’t go back to being Boring Romney. He also can’t allow Obama to deligitimize the tax-cutting and job creation plan, cornerstones of his campaign, which have taken significant fire over the last week.
That said, however, the burden is obviously on the president to change the dynamic of the race. For months, the contest seemed to have stabilized with Romney just under water — close, within shouting distance, but not a real threat.
That changed with Obama decided to flop in a nationally televised debate with 70,000,000 people watching.
Obama’s danger is the campaign will find a new kind of equilibrium down the stretch, this time with his own political future sinking fast.
He once described himself as a change agent. For his own sake, he better be right.
.jpg)
It kind of looks now like it did at the beginning of summer. The conventions helped Obama, and the debates helped (so far) Romney. Obama has a slight advantage now as then. Three weeks to go.
I can’t see where this will be a game changer, unless one of them flops badly. Topic is foreign policy, right after ballet and cricket on most Americans’ radar, most of the time. And why is the foreign policy debate the town hall format? Seems like a better place for informed media (e.g., Thomas Friedman), with town hall format at the final debate.
The last debate should be the big one.
Newt – they arent going to pay much attention to the actual questions. They will “pivot” to whatever talking points they have to get in. Hopefully (for me) Obama will go nasty and negative early (carefully in a cheerful manner). Romney you can count on to get in “failed” “unraveling” etc as often as possible.
Just to clarify:
“The second presidential debate (October 16, 2012, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.): The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which citizens will ask questions of the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. Candidates each will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion. The town meeting participants will be undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization.”
The third debate is on foreign policy.
This debate could actually be important in that questions from undecided voters may raise issues important to undecided voters elsewhere, and give both candidates a chance to speak directly to those voters.
The format might be more favorable for the President. One of his strengths is connecting with the average person.
On DemocracyNow: George Farah, author of “No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/16/secret_debate_contract_reveals_obama_and
Also: Glenn Greenwald: Presidential Debates Highlight “Faux Objectivity” of Mainstream Journalists
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/16/glenn_greenwald_presidential_debates_highlight_faux
So now the same “experts” (Brian I am not referring necessarily to this blog) who told us a few months ago that debates don’t matter are now telling us that they do matter? My question. Is it because in the past they did not matter because they were not as hyped like these or they didn’t really matter.
Personally I think one of the presidents weaknesses may be that he doesn’t connect well in this type of a less formal forum. He is an elegant speaker for sure, this is a format for someone who operates well without a script. He has maybe been working on that for the last few weeks but over a long career in business management this is all that you do. The forum is perfect for Mitt Romney. A cynic would call it a perfect forum for a “car salesman”.
“over a long career in business management this is all that you do.”
The audience in the board room and the audience in the living room are completely different.
With all due respect, I am really troubled that even Democrats and Public Radio have jumped on the bandwagon of saying that Obama “lost” that first debate. How could he have lost when Romney suddenly shifted position, his math did not add up, and many of his facts were revealed to be false? Since when are inconsistency, shifting positions, and lying regarded as “successful” rhetorical strategies, meriting a “win” if only you look confident enough?
On that debate night, Romney’s shifting of positions bewildered me and made me think, “I cannot trust this man. He says so many different things that I do not know who he really is or what he really believes. Nor can I trust that he will really do what he says he will do.” And his math did not add up. He was trying to promise people everything without saying how he would pull it off. That makes me suspicious that he has some trick up his sleeve.
Meanwhile, I liked what Obama had to say, and I appreciated his calm and respectful attitude and his sincerity. I also very much appreciated his commitment to the middle class. I think he is right that taking care of the middle class is the real way to bolster our economy.
So, I counted Obama as the winner that night, and was downright astonished (not to mention sick at heart) when I turned on the radio the next morning hearing the so-called “objective” news media at once point out all the falsehoods Romney uttered while simultaneously repeating that he nevertheless “won” because Obama was basically too nice! What a strange world we live in. Is it that the Republicans have brainwashed everyone into repeating this chant, and we now have a nation under mass hypnosis?
Laura – It was the visuals and the body language. I listened on the radio and didn’t see photos until the next day. On content the President held his own.
Laura, Republicans are good, but not to the extent that they can brainwash an entire nation. If the New York Times says Obama lost, it was a rout.
Brian, this column is irresponsible to the point of incompetence. It pushes the horse-race narrative to its illogical extreme. The press, including you, announced that Obama “lost” the 1st debate, choosing not to focus on Romney’s repeated distortions, abrupt policy shifts, and downright rudeness. This emphasis generated its own momentum, and people who hadn’t even watched the debate jumped on the Romney bandwagon. In your assessment of how the race stands as of today, you choose to insist it’s practically a tie, yet Nate Silver at the NY Times, clearly the best analyst of polling data, says Obama has 2 chances out of three of winning. The Intrade prediction market has Obama at 60% to win, Romney at 40%. In other words, the race is pretty much where it was at the end of August before THE PRESS decided that Romney was doomed and, consequently, Obama’s numbers went way up–artificially. This is not a football game, and every time someone in the press offers another handicapping assessment, democracy and responsible citizenship sink a just a little bit further out of sight.
Calm down, now. Which is it: Republican brainwashing or is the Press to blame for Obama’s abysmal showing in the first debate? Could it be that his performance in the debate (as in his first term) did not meet expectations? I think so. I can feel the hysteria rising as the unthinkable unfolds before our eyes! Let’s see how it plays out.
Speaking of Nate Silver:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/no-guarantee-of-obama-rebound-in-second-debate/?hp
Don’t get discouraged; it gets better.
The Media accepted the idea that Romney would use his Etch-A-Sketch and become a completely new candidate after the convention and so when he brought his new face to the debate they didn’t think anything of it.
Larry is right. Is the unthinkable true? I don’t think the unthinkable is his performance in his first term which was a solid B-, but the unthinkable is that he is simply not that good on his feet, I mean its too bad but Romney being a Republican can’t say, “Sir you are no Bill Clinton”.
after watching that, i don’t think romney has the big mo any more.
That was weird debate. I felt bad for both guys. There was no moderation. Did you seee the clock? In the end you got talking points. What else HT? The results are in 25% to 25%. Obama won on the “attack” poll. But mostly a draw.
well as far as the polls go, you’re right paul, it looks like obama is only “scored” as getting a narrow win. but i really thought he wiped the floor with him!
Smartest debate analysis, written a month before the debates. Pretty much predicted the first debate theme of a better-prepared Romney, and last night’s theme of a fluster-able (Libya “terror” moment) Romney. Please downrate this post: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/slugfest/309063/?single_page=true
I see Romney as the winner. He made Obama accountable for the last four years and put the focus on the economy. All things Obama has been trying to avoid. In fact his answer was, I killed Bin Laden!
Gromit is correct in decrying on Brian’s breathless jump on the media horserace bandwagon. Very unfortunate. Brian, how about including 538.com analysis in any future polling discussions, or until Nate Silver is shown to have less than the 99% accuracy he has demonstrated up to now?
I wonder how I got the foreign policy debate timing wrong. I was also wrong about something in 1998. I believe. Forgot what it was.
Laura is partly wrong about the first debate. Romney was perceived the winner, so he won (see Packers v. Seahawks, 2012). But she is perhaps more than half right in that in winning the first debate on lies, Romney set himself up for the pummeling he got last night, and will get again next week.
I’m sorry, but I just have to jump on the “binders full of women” meme. It’s like the GHWB UPC scanner moment. I wonder if he still takes notes on his Ampad legal notepad. He must have gotten a big box of them when he shut down the company.
I was disgusted with Obama’s response to Romney’s accusations of how he handled Libya.
And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander in Chief.
He insults the American people’s intelligence.
I agree completely with Kathy on the Libya comment and Obamas attempts to paint his administrations handling of the event in a good light. He lied, he continued to lie and his people did the same. To this day nothing has been done to address the event, taken no action and left the US looking pathetic and weak.
Playing politics and misleading is all Obama has done for the last 4 years.
I want to clarify a couple of points: I do love Public Radio (and am a member!), and I very much appreciate Brian Mann’s analyses. Also, I realize that it is appropriate to share opinions in opinion pieces, and the “In Box” is clearly a forum for opinion pieces.
What I object to is when the news media reports “wins” and “losses” of debates that are not actually objectively scored. Doing this crosses the line from reporting facts to telling people what to think. Blurring the line between facts and opinions can insidiously steer people’s thinking.
But I do like the “In Box” as a forum specifically designated for sharing opinions. I was not criticizing Brian for sharing his views here: he should! But I did want to raise the question why he and so many others regarded Obama’s performance in the first debate as a “flop.” *Was* it a flop, or was the flop socially constructed by the news media repeating that opinion so often?
I think we need more posts from Laura on here. And don’t worry about Brian M’s feelings, that’s why he gets paid the big NPR buck!
Laura: It was a flop! That being said I couldn’t agree with the point you are making more. What I find interesting is the media said he lost and yet it has been the media who seemed to favor him in their reporting. So the media put him ahead of Mitt then turned the whole election around. I haven’t paid much attention to the news this morning but my guess is the media realized how they helped Mitt so they are doing damage control today by pumping Obama up.
The media is also good at projecting winners before the polls close!
The media is not a person.
The function of the media has historically been to grab eyeballs to sell to advertisers.
Many specialize in conservative eyeballs.
Decent showing from Obama. In fact, he needed it to keep a grip on the race. Another performance like the first one would have been a devastating blow to his chances. Romney was treading water, and if his objective was only not to get thrashed, he achieved it. A few observations:
Romney missed a knock-out punch on Libya. Has anyone considered that that idiotic video story was a cover-up for a failure to provide additional security as requested? It would have been interesting to see Romney press Obama harder for answers.
Obama didn’t have a definitive answer for the man who asked why, after his lackluster performance of the past four years, he should be reelected.
The question about Bush was a cheap shot and should not have been allowed. It was a partisan Democrat sucker punch. Romney’s answer wasn’t great and Obama missed a golden opportunity to really hurt him.
Romney’s manner and style were consistent with the first debate: he continued to appear sincere, empathetic and engaged but many may question if appearance matches reality. Obama was much more presidential but had a dismissive manner and showed an annoyed, spiteful edge. He transitioned from the errant schoolboy being lectured by the principal to the principal delivering the lecture. People may dislike someone who turns nasty when challenged.
All in all, Obama wins a close decision on points.
Obama came back slugging with gaffe-free stumbles leading to a home-run trot TD dance in the end zone, in my opinion. Game on!
“I was disgusted with Obama’s response to Romney’s accusations of how he handled Libya.”
It’s clear mistakes were made in the Libyan situation with regard to security, but I was far more disgusted at the Romney campaign’s immediate attempt to score political points within hours of this tragedy. Romney has absolutely no tact nor shame when it comes to winning. This personality trait has shone through repeatedly during the campaign from his condescending and outright lie with the 47% comments, to making a bet of 10K in the Republican debate, to pretending he’s some sort of genius business man when he’s in fact a very good corporate raider/leverage buyout kingpin. The two are not the same.
Besides, what more would you have the president say than that he takes full responsibility for the deaths of state dept. personnel? I take that statement to mean he’s acknowledging the security lapse and takes responsibility for it.
And Rancid, to suggest that nothing has been done to address the tragedy implies you somehow know everything going on behind the scenes within the FBI, State dept., our intelligence agencies, etc. Care to share with us how you know “nothing has been done?”
An attack on our embassy and four dead Americans, including the Ambassador, is one hell of a “mistake”! Why is a challenge to a “mistake” characterized as an “attempt to score political points” but feeding the American people that inane story about the video not seen as an attempt to minimize political damage? We know nothing has been done because if anything had been done we would be hearing it over and over and over, as we are constantly reminded that Obama “got” bin Laden.
I still sense the panic amongst those who try to turn a decent showing resulting in a narrow win into a four game sweep in the World Series. Still too close to call.
Larry – you are assuming that there is some kind of scandal and untruthfulness in the Libya tragedy – and the only “evidence” is the Republican chanting. The other obvious interpretation is that the Republicans are trying to make political hay out of the killing of our ambassador. Since it is clear that the Republicans ARE trying to politicize the event, but there is no actual evidence that there is any type of coverup going on… You can claim that there isnt any proof that there ISN’T a coverup, but that seems more consistent with a politicization argument (or a simple paranoid one).
The Republican intent may be “clear” to you but it’s no different than my theory that the video ruse was an attempt to mitigate political damage. Neither one of us knows for certain. I don’t understand why it is considered inappropriate for Romney to comment on Obama’s “apologies” for that video, especially when those comments reflected the feelings of many Americans. Obama shouldn’t get a pass on a major failure.
By the way, Peter, you say I “assume” there is some element of scandal and untruthfulness in the Administration’s handling of the Libyan attack. How would you describe their change of story from “video protest” to “terrorist attack”? They either lied in their initial description of the attack or were wrong about it entirely. Lying is lying and a mistake of that magnitude, repeated over several days, is surely a scandal. There’s no chanting in that; it is what it is.
Obama’s actions speak for him.
I did not need any news media telling me anything that was not obvious. Obama left for a fund raiser after the Libya attack. His actions speak louder than his skill of words.
Since Obama told Romney and the American people last night he said in the Rose Garden it was an act of terror, then why did he then leave for Las Vegas for a campaign event that same day?
Campaign events are times of celebration, getting the vote, and getting campaign money. Seems like a terror attack and the murder of 4 Americans should have had his complete and undivided attention that day. I would have though more of him if he had cancelled it. But alas, actions speak louder than words and reveal a man’s character.
The bottom line is this:
The average American is concerned about the economy and terrorism.
1) Romney has proved himself as governor in creating jobs and balancing the budget. That means something. A good leader is able to come into chaos and create balance.
2) Romney has proved his decisiveness in dealing with the Mid East. He is not willing to throw Israel under the bus or appease the countries that hate us.
“An attack on our embassy and four dead Americans, including the Ambassador, is one hell of a “mistake”!”
No argument here, Larry. A huge security lapse for sure…But again, Obama and to a greater extent, Secretary of State Clinton, have taken responsibility for it. What more should they do? Should they be on the scene themselves leading the forensic investigation, scouring Libya looking for the perpetrators, throwing their weight around and getting in the way of the professionals who most certainly are working behind the scenes to get to the bottom of this whole tragedy? Or is it possible they’re smart enough to leave such endeavors in the hands of the professionals?
I think they “were wrong about it” that doesn’t seem to rise to the level of a scandal. It was ingenious for the president to use the fact that he mentioned the word “terror” in his first remarks. Of course he was referring there to a general statement memorializing what happened on 9-11-2001. But it worked well last night and the moderator even backed him up. It was good for the president but I don’t think a debate moderator should answer questions for the participants.
“The question about Bush was a cheap shot and should not have been allowed.”
Boy, you really want to pretend that George never existed. It is a perfectly valid point. There is virtually no difference between Romney’s stated positions and GWB’s policies. That’s why Romney was left with nothing to say except “I wouldn’t run up the deficit.” Well Bush said he wouldn’t run up the deficit, either. And so far, Romney’s proposals look like they’re on track to run it up some more, what with his failure to specify how his tax cuts will come out revenue neutral, and independent observers saying that his stated plan doesn’t add up.
From my point of view, that is the question that voters ought to be asking themselves.
This is the old “fog of war”. variant – war on terrorism. There were lots of attacks around the world using that video as excuse, mostly by some imams for their local political reasons – inciting to riot. It would be reasonable to think (at first) that the Benghazi one was also. It turned out to be (we now think) an Al Qaida attack rather than a local one.
Politicizing it in the presidential election is truly offensive in the absence of any evidence of scandal. It was very likely an intelligence failure that hopefully we will learn from. So what. There have been many intelligence successes but there will be more failures no matter who is president. Thats just the way it is. There are soldiers killed in action in Afghanistan, occasionally because of intelligence failures. Again hopefully we are right most of the time, but bad things happen out there in a very nasty world.
I find it interesting that the Republicans are all in a twitter over the deaths in Libya but don’t seem to give a damn about all the troops killed in Iraq and Afganistan – and seem to be in favor of more troops being killed in wars of choice in Iran and Syria.
Any of Mitts boys planning to join the military?
As to Mitt and his plans. About all he says is that he has a plan for this, that and the other thing. He claims to be some sort of economic genius who can snap his fingers and create millions of jobs. He is for something until he is against it.
Mitt won the first debate. Obama won the second debate. Like being president is about winning stupid debates?
It’s unfortunate there’s been virtually no coverage on NCPR (or elsewhere) of that little US Senate race New Yorkers will be voting on next month between Colia Clark, Scott Noren, Tim Sweet, Chris Edes, Wendy Long and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. I think I heard a 10 second news brief this morning on it, which highlighted the broader blackout. There’ve been an avalanche of postings and stories about Obamney to supplement the avalanche of stuff on it we can get thousands of other places. But nothing about another important race that’s been almost universally ignored.
Very distaste to have a liar in the oval office.
Even worse when he exposes himself like he did last night.
distaste should be “distasteful”
Kathy says “Romney has proved himself as governor in creating jobs and balancing the budget. That means something. A good leader is able to come into chaos and create balance.”
“1) Romney has proved himself as governor in creating jobs and balancing the budget. That means something. A good leader is able to come into chaos and create balance.
2) Romney has proved his decisiveness in dealing with the Mid East. He is not willing to throw Israel under the bus or appease the countries that hate us.”
Kathy,
Are you aware the Mitt is behind in the polls by double digits in Massachusetts? His own home state, that he was once the Governor of? The very same governorship that he very rarely mentions on the campaign stump. Isn’t that rather telling of his performance as Governor?
And what decisiveness do you speak of with regard to the Middle East given he’s never served in any capacity that could actually have any relevance on the Middle East? Beyond the rhetoric and usual Republican talking points what is this mysterious “proven decisiveness” of which you speak? I ask because maybe there’s something in Mitt’s past that I’ve missed. Do tell….