ELECTIONATE OCTOBER 4, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
It looks like Romney has been declared the winner of the first presidential debate. But will it be the turning point he needs? Romney’s performance was very strong, but the debates have not tended to fundamentally reshape past presidential elections, so the burden on Romney was quite high. For that same reason, a good performance by Romney might not have been good enough.
While Romney was on the offensive and Obama was listless, the president did not commit any gaffes and Romney did not level any blows that are likely to reverberate for the next few days. The president did not appear incapable or incompetent as much as he was simply out-debated. If you tend to believe that elections are about the incumbent, this matters. Forty-nine percent of voters have already made it clear that they're willing to reelect the president, so the question is whether tonight's debate introduced new information that might change their minds. If so, it would have to come from changing perceptions of Romney, not the president.
There’s no question that Romney came across as knowledgeable and substantive; to the extent that voters were unsure about his ability to handle the office, he certainly made real gains. But it’s unclear whether Romney made progress toward redressing his fundamental problem: low favorability ratings. It could be the case that Romney’s energy, passion, and interest in policy could help him address the “does Romney care” problem in an indirect way, even if it doesn't necessarily prove that he cares about the middle class. On the other hand, though, Romney didn’t go out of his way to stress a message oriented toward the middle class and he didn’t seem unusually empathetic. If anything, his quick pace might have left voters missing his message, even if they were impressed by his performance.
None of this is to say that Romney didn’t win the debate decisively, or even that voters won’t perceive that Romney won decisively. This analysis is just as nit-picky as it sounds, but with good reason: The threshold for assessing that Romney might have reshaped the race is quite high, so it’s worth questioning whether Romney’s good performance was good enough. History suggests that the answer is probably no, but it's not assured and we'll see over the next week or two.
Regardless of whether Romney has upended the race, he can expect something of a bounce in the post-debate polls. Following the first debate in 2004, Kerry closed to within 1.6 points in the RCP average, compared to his final 2.4-point defeat. Four years earlier still, Bush seized the lead in post-debate polls and didn’t relinquish it until the Election Day results showed Gore winning the popular vote. While Obama did get a post-debate bounce, it fell short of his ultimate margin of victory, perhaps because the full effects of the economic crisis were still settling in. So when reading next weeks polls, know that it's possible that it could reflect a bit of a bounce (like 2000 or 2004) or something more like a bump (1980, 1976).
As an interpretive matter, the key questions are whether Obama falls far beneath 49 percent and whether Romney can get past 47. If neither of these conditions are met, then Romney's performance just wasn't good enough. If Obama falls far from 49 percent without Romney surpassing 47 percent, that might suggest renewed opportunity for Romney, even if he would still be an underdog. The fact that Obama previously held 49 percent of the vote might be a reason to presume that the advantage lies with Obama, even if only by the slightest margin. Despite the president's low approval ratings, there still isn't much evidence that a sufficient number of voters are prepared to oust the president. It's clear that a sufficient number of voters are willing to reelect the president, even if their votes are not yet assured. Of course, the race would get quite interesting if Romney takes the lead.
While the post-debate polls might slightly exaggerate Romney’s standing, the polls over the next week or so are still quite important. The leader in the post-debate polls has won the presidency in every election with a presidential debate (caveat about the popular vote-electoral college split in 2000) and shifts from this point on are generally relatively modest. This doesn’t mean that the candidate’s couldn’t overcome a small deficit, but, from this point, the chances of a comeback get slimmer and slimmer with every passing day. Along those same lines, Romney's chances essentially dwindle to risk of a systemic polling failure, exogenous game changing event, or something historic if Obama maintains a modest lead in next week's polls.
16 comments
Is there any doubt? Swing voters who truly were keeping an open mind have swung Romney's way overwhelmingly, and that's the game over hit. Will they remain open minded, except for a few not a chance. From now on whatever the numbers show, the outcome is certain. It's Romney. Dramatic development, and decisive.
- Tgossard
October 4, 2012 at 1:04am
IGNORING AMERICA'S POOR POSTING IN AL JAZEERA Ignoring America's poor With 46 million people living in poverty, why are the presidential candidates so quiet on issues affecting the poor? Inside Story US 2012 Last Modified: 03 Oct 2012 09:38 http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/10/201210343152481862.html
- JAIMECHUCH
October 4, 2012 at 6:59am
America's economy will not react well to 4 years of "Return to the Supply-Side". We're in a lackluster recovery, which will be killed by keeping the Bush-II tax cuts, adding 20% MORE tax-cuts on top of those, followed by deep cuts in public spending to "balance the budget". America was enormously fortunate in November 2008 to have Ben Bernanke as head of the Fed, and that Bush-II really was willing to pass TARP to prevent the financial melt-down. Romney is no Bush-II, and he wants to fire Bernanke and double-down on the exact policies that created 2008 -- more deregulation, more tax-cutting. We really can't afford 4 years of Romney.
- AllanL5
October 4, 2012 at 9:00am
I can't help but wonder whether Obama was distracted by overseas events, especially the fact that Syria and Turkey are on the verge of a major war, with actual deadly hostilities already a reality. I wouldn't be surprised if much of his day was spent dealing with that. That being said, his performance was in fact kind of flat, especially as the debate wore on. Let's see how this all plays out in the days and weeks ahead, though. The debate impact is not just the product of a 90-minute encounter, but of all of the spin, video clips, advertising (including Obama and Pac ads taking Romney to task over his flip-fopping and untruths), polls, etc.
- Thunderroad
October 4, 2012 at 10:12am
"Swing voters who truly were keeping an open mind have swung Romney's way overwhelmingly, and that's the game over hit." Tgossard, to summarize my points below, you're insane. 1. Swing voters don't watch the debates in large numbers. 2. Swing voters are unlikely to judge the president's performance as harshly as either Republicans or liberal Democrats. So Obama didn't go after Romney. 3. Romney needs to pull >75% of undecideds to his side. Ain't gonna happen, either as a result of this debate or anything else.
- AaronW
October 4, 2012 at 10:19am
Tgossard, do you actually know any people who qualify as "swing voters"? I do, and I spoke to several of them this morning at my office. None of them watched the debate, as they had other things to do, and didn't even seem all that interested in what happened in the debate. I know this is simply anecdotal evidence, but it's just some food for thought to hungry media-consuming partisans.
- wildboy
October 4, 2012 at 10:53am
I remember when Mondale "won" the first debate with Reagan.
- bjones
October 4, 2012 at 12:19pm
Exactly, Thunderroad. For my part, I was astonished that Romney said he would fire Big Bird. It seems there's something viral in his comment that's just waiting to be unleashed.
- polcereal
October 4, 2012 at 12:22pm
A few"zingers" I wish I'd heard from the president last night: "That sound you hear is the Romney campaign turning its Etch-A-Sketch machine upside down and shaking hard." "The Republican war on math continues." "I would have loved to arrive at true bipartisan compromise more often. I tried. But today's Republican party isn't interested in compromise, as most Americans understand that word. The congressional Republicans' definition of "compromise" is: Republican policies." OK that last one isn't a zinger; it's just a description of one of the basic political truths of the past 4 year.
- bjones
October 4, 2012 at 1:10pm
The consensus is that Obama lost. Too laid-back and presidential, it seems. Missed all those opportunities to say what he has accomplished. Perhaps. But the fundamentals still favor Obama, even if the race tightens. I think many were so convinced of Romney's basic ineptness that they forgot that he is, indeed, a smart guy with nothing to lose and everything to gain by fighting as hard as he can (even if that means trashing the pre-arranged debate format, and his own tax position, in the process). Whatever else you may say about him, Romney REALLY wants to be president! He's "hungry." (That doggone boxing metaphor again!) The question is how much Obama wants to KEEP the job. Romney now has to avoid all mistakes and blow past Obama in a debate centered on international affairs, where the president ought to have a major advantage. If he does that maybe he'll pick up enough steam to win in the end. But remember that every time in the past when Obama had to summon the strength to rebound from a hit he has done so. In the last political contest of his life I'm betting that he (and his formidable organization) will do so one more time. Look for more Chicago and less Harvard Law School.
- cforeman
October 4, 2012 at 1:10pm
I think the only thing Romney won was the image contest. It took Obama too long to find his footing; he made almost no sense for the first 20 minutes or so, and I know what he was trying to say. And Romney did a good job of keeping him on the defensive, but didn't really knock anything out of the park, except maybe his one good zinger. I guess it will be a while until the fact checkers get done listing all the topics and tidbits and posting their analysis. I'm thinking Romney enjoys a slight bump as more republican leaning undecideds accept Romney as sufficiently positioned on the issues that are important to them to warrant their vote instead of staying home and twiddling themselves. If Obama puts up another performance like that, I'll be the one thinking it'll be a more productive use of my time on Nov 6 to stay home and twiddle myself.
- GSpinks
October 4, 2012 at 1:10pm
I may have to rewatch the debate though. There was at least one thing that flew under the radar that, a minute later, I realized what had been said and that so much could have been made out of it, but by then they had meandered on in their ramblings (and it was much more like two old guys rambling on in a stream of consciousness sort of way than a debate) and now I can't remember what it was.
- GSpinks
October 4, 2012 at 1:14pm
The most disappointing thing is to watch a candidate for a major party (Romney, of course) lie his way through a debate and invent things on the fly. How do you debate the invisible man? The only thing Romney DIDN'T do was say Obama was planning to hand the US over to the Martians, though he came close. The lies were breathtaking and spectacular...a Grand Canyon of lies. And yet there's no penalty. He 'won'. WTF is going on?
- bpuharic
October 4, 2012 at 1:17pm
Worth pointing out, though, that Obama does not seem to be suffering in the polls today and that there are two more debates to come, neither of which favor Romney in either format or subject matter.
- ironyroad
October 4, 2012 at 5:05pm
Ryan gave a great speech in the RNC too, where they said he'd knocked it out of the park. In the ensuing week, when his statement were analyzed, they discovered he'd been lying through his teeth -- the Auto-Plant Obama had closed was closed by Bush, etc. After a week, the Ryan speech was instead an indictment of Republican propaganda. I'm hopeful the Romney speech will soon be understood in the same way.
- AllanL5
October 5, 2012 at 9:46am
If Romney consistently lied, which seems to be the case, why isn't the Obama campaign telling us what the lies were, instead of just continuing to ask for money. If the Dems send a series of emails to the 3 or 4 million on their email list with specifics of Romney's lies, the word will spread and Obama.s campaign will be helped. Romney will be seen as slick but absolutely untrustworthy, as he is. So, Dems, give us some facts ... not just another appeal for bucks!
- PeteBeck
October 5, 2012 at 11:14am