There's an old joke in football that goes "We won the game 1-1". It isn't necessarily as illogical as it sounds, if the game takes place in a tournament in which one side needs a win to qualify and the other needs only a draw. A presidential debate between an incumbent who is leading in the polls and his challenger is one such contest.
Last night's debate was calm, measured, and detailed. There were no explosive moments of confrontation or whizzing zingers - in fact it is hard to identify any "moments" at all. There were substantial discussions of deficit reduction, tax and spending, Medicaid, bank regulation, and healthcare. There were no partisan attacks - the words "Democrat" or "Republican" were barely mentioned for most of the debate. The emotional thermostat was set to Cool throughout. Neither candidate offered us any amusing physical or verbal tics to snigger at.
It was, frankly, pretty dull. I should think many Americans fell asleep in front of the TV. Which is just what Obama wanted.
At this stage, Obama just needs to run down the clock. The race is pretty much where he wants it. He doesn't need to take any risks, and last night, he didn't. There no rousing calls to fairness of the kind he's been making on the stump. He didn't draw bold contrasts between himself and his opponent. He never mentioned "47%". He just focused on sounding reasonable.
Last night was Romney's big chance, and probably his last chance, to change the fundamental dynamic of this race. To borrow a phrase, he had to be the change he seeks. But he was too cautious.
He gave a very decent account of himself: he appeared poised, at ease and in command of his material, and defended his policies from Obama's attacks with energy and conviction.
But he didn't take any risks. His 'zingers' ("You're not entitled to your own facts") were half-heartedly delivered. He didn't try and knock Obama off his easy stride by making surprising attacks, or capture the audience's attention by showing a new side of himself.
This calm and sober approach worked well for Romney during the primaries, because his opponents were for the most part a bunch of loonies and incompetents. All Romney had to do was be the grown-up in the room.
Last night, debating another grown-up, he needed to be more daring. Instead, he gave a highly competent performance, and he lost.
PS I wrote this before looking at any of the reactions on the blogs or Twitter. And this is an interesting example of what I was talking about the other day, because it turns out my take represents a minority review among the pundits. The consensus is that Romney won decisively - and that Obama was way too defensive and low energy. Hmm, interesting. But I'll leave this post here before I start changing my mind.
(Full debate here.)
I don't understand withholding your best material from a debate, which is what Obama did. Why didn't he come back to Romney's 47 percent remarks again and again? Why not hammer Romney on the diaphonous distinction he draws between the Massachusetts health-insurance plan and Obamacare? When the Simpson-Bowles plan came up, why not mention that Romney chose Paul Ryan to run with him and that Ryan helped kill the plan? One could go on. I think Obama is still on track to win, but the archetypal voter who is first turning his attention to the campaign by watching the debate, or its first half hour, was not persuaded to vote for Obama last night.
Posted by: Hal | October 04, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Obama, while he did not make any major mistakes, seemed rusty. Romney had the advantage of having participated in the seemingly endless number of primary debates (even if most of his opponents were loonies), and it showed. But I think you're right about the overall debate, it was dull with no memorable moments that will have people talking through the weekend (with maybe the exception of Romney's comment about PBS). I don't think it will have much effect on the outcome of the race. I'm looking at next week's VP debate to provide more entertainment.
Posted by: Leah | October 04, 2012 at 01:21 PM
I watched it live and seemed a decisive Romney win to me. I was astonished by how weak the president was- the amount of 'um' and 'ah' and lack of presence. And lack of detailed knowledge compared to Romney; some commentator pointed out that Obama isn't a real policy wonk like Clinton, and it was showing. I didn't find it dull at all but maybe that was partly astonishment at how one sided it was.
Posted by: ejoch | October 04, 2012 at 01:46 PM
Both Reagan and GWB had poor first debates when incumbents and still won. http://myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.blogspot.co.uk/ quite good on this.
Posted by: CNRW | October 04, 2012 at 01:52 PM