Bad night, little difference

OK, I'm going to talk you down. But first you must promise you'll do or decide nothing rash. You must say your Oms. You must recall that the pundits always overreact, that last night was only one of three presidential debates, and that we're talking Mitt Romney here, who is way, way overdue for another blockbuster gaffe.

Actually, just to back up a bit, the NY Times avoided the customary unsightliness of punditry-panic and took things in fairly reasonable stride: "Obama has the facts on his side to expose the hollowness of his opponent. But first he has to decide to use them aggressively"; as did BuzzFeed's Ben Smith: "Romney's core success was that he won by not losing."

PowerLine, on the other laughable hand, boomed in its headline--"It's over"--while retreating on second thoughts in its text: "This was a huge night for the cause of freedom, one from which, one hopes, Obama can’t recover."

Andrew Sullivan used, in conclusion, the all-important "may" word: "this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look."

Here's the first look at that second look. MSNBC held a post-debate focus group of independents. Its members, overwhelmingly, believed Romney dominated the evening's debate. But get this: When asked if any were now supporting Romney, not one focus-grouper said yes. Not one.

Remember, these are the undecided voters, America's most fickle of the transcendently fickle. As a basis for forming a decision, they've had four years of Obama's solid performance in the White House and at least five years of Mitt Romney flipping and flopping everywhere and now a presidential debate and they still can't decide. More than a few probably never will; they'll just stay home on Election Day, bundled in chronic indecision and swathed in permanent angst.

As for pre-existing likely voters?--the vast mother lode of voters? In them, there is a pre-existing commitment to one candidate or the other as well, and one poor debate performance on Obama's part is exceedingly unlikely to reverse sentiment in, say, Ohio, where the nation's election is effectively talking place.

Comments

[Peter G]

Don't need to be talked down. I confess I will be shocked if if this debate makes any significant difference to likely voters. The politically disengaged didn't watch and that is the largest portion of the undecideds at this point. The remainder who might lean to Romney if they can look past the rather transparent bullshit he put forth on solving Americas economic problems aren't going to make a hell of a difference. The waves of panic currently washing over the left just might jar them out of that sense of complacency that I have been worried about. Gotta say my favorite pundit meltdown of the night was definitely Chris Matthews. I thought he was going to soil his Depends.

[Robert Lipscomb]

Well, I am glad I waiting until this morning to tune in to the Democrats having the vapors. Unfortunately, I am reading all this on a laptop in a diner. So, I am now "the guy in the corner giggling to himself".

I noted one zinger last night, and Obama gave it. I suspect it will be the theme of the campaign for the next couple of weeks.

Obama said something like, "There is a thread running through Governor Romney's statements. He says he will repeal Obamacare and replace it it with something, but he won't say what it is. He says he will repeal Frank-Dodd and will replace it with something, but he won't say what it is. He says he will cut $5 trillion in taxes without affecting the middle class, but he won't say how he will do it.'

Then came the real zinger of the night.

"What's he hiding?"

No, Obama nor Jim Leher did not pull a gun on Romney and make him answer those questions. Yes, he rudely bullied his way through the debate on his own terms, dismissing the moderator at every turn. And yes, the Democratic pundits got the vapors, and the Republican pundits got ... well, wet ... at Mitt's manliness. Now the campaign resumes.

"What's he hiding?" is a ready-made series of campaign commercials and a razor-sharp talking point. It also ties in with Romney refusing to to release his tax returns. Finally, Mitt's 47% video shows that he is hiding his real agenda.

Hell, even I could script those commercials.

Got to run. Folks are staring at the guy giggling in the corner.

[Robert Lipscomb]

P.S. Remember all of Romney's promises to revive Reaganomics? You know, all tax cuts are good; all regulations are bad? Me neither.

"Trickle-down economics" was trotted out as a double-negative dressed up as a positive.

Romney did absolutely and confirmed, thanks to Jim Leher, that he would raise absolutely no taxes. So he never promised to cut taxes (Reaganomics). The best he could do was promise (lie) that he will not raise them. Insert this into the "What's he hiding?" math test.

The son-of-a-bitch actually said regulations are good, but some were wrong-headed. Reaganism is down to repeal and REPLACE as a regulatory dogma. And this leads to "What's he hiding?" in the replacement.

this was an implicit capitulation on Reaganomics.

[Susan M.]

I didn't watch, I listened instead...I thought Mitt was shrill, frenetic, and bullying, and wow, the lies...Obama was calm, thoughtful, and a bit dismissive to what Mitt was saying; my guess is that he was caught off guard with the ease and extent of the lying, and didn't want to get down to his level.

The men in my house wanted a knock-out punch, and were disappointed that Obama did not take the opportunity. I felt it was a draw, and did not feel bad or worried about Obama's 'performance', until I heard the pundits rail on about it. Mitt was very unappealing, and the fact checkers will debunk much of what he said...I do believe that will be what people remember about this debate.

[japa21]

This was round one and there are two more rounds to go. (Not counting the VP debate.) I don't think Obama was hurt by all of Romney's bombastic bullying. Instead, it will be hard for Romney to expend the same amount of energy in the next two rounds, both of which I expect Obama to dominate.

The phrase I would like to hear him say, during one of the debates, not just on the campaign trail, is "A few weeks ago one of the staff people for Governor Romney said, in effect, that they won't let facts stand in their way. From what I have heard the Governor say tonight, it appears he agrees with that statement."

[shsavage]

Team Blue is despondent this morning because they were hoping for the rhetorical equivalent of a double-tap from Seal Team Six. What Obama delivered (helped by Mitt's unprecedented tapestry of lies and fake swing to the center) was a slow bleeder. As the media unravels the threads of Romney's tapestry, which has already started, the wound will prove fatal in the end.

[Chris Andersen]

The thing I have always found most frustrating about being a Democrat is the way other Democrats seem to go into total meltdown at the first sign that things aren't going their way. It's a distinctly unattractive trait and it's probably one of the reasons Democrats have such a reputation for being wimps.

Obama did not give a great performance last night, but it's the democrats reaction to it that I find the most frustrating.