Obama the debater
Obama is trying to lower expectations about his upcoming performance in the debates:
“Governor Romney – he’s a good debater,” said the president. “I’m just okay.”…
“[Obama] has had less time to prepare than we anticipated,” said [Obama campaign press secretary] Psaki. “It’s difficult to schedule significant blocks of time when you’re the president, regardless of your party.”…
In rare praise of Romney, the Obama campaign spokeswoman said: “He’s been disciplined and has been able to give short answers, so we know that’s a strength.”
One thing you can count on is that Obama doesn’t think he’s “just okay” as a debater. The phoniness of his rare attempt at humility is transparent, and I’m not even sure it’s meant to fool many people. Maybe instead it’s intended as sarcasm; I don’t know, because I haven’t heard the audio.
I don’t know about you, but as I’ve written before, I dislike political debates and speeches. My preferred mode of processing such information is not auditory. So I usually find watching the debates a chore.
But it’s worse than that. I long ago learned that with debates, the winner is in the eye of the beholder. So many times I’d find myself thinking my guy had won, only to hear that there was hardly ever any objectivity, and people tended to think their guy had won no matter what. The press likewise, and since the vast majority are deep in the tank for Obama, their opinion on the debates is a foregone conclusion.
I suppose they could surprise me, although I doubt it.
Debates make me very nervous. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is my over-active imagination; I can’t help but put myself in their places, and knowing how nervous I would be be under similar circumstances, it always amazes me that they can muster up the cojones to speak at all. This, I know, is an absurd reaction on my part, because this is what politicians do—it’s their meat and potatoes, and they are both probably quite at home in the venue.
But my nervousness goes beyond projecting myself into their places. It always seems to me that the debates don’t mean a whole lot—sound bites and surface answers to surface questions—but offer vast opportunities to put one’s foot in it in a way that, although often meaningless, can have hugely negative repercussions. Think of Ford and Poland, Bush I glancing at his watch, or Dukakis and the death penalty for his wife’s hypothetical rapist/murderer.
So I tend to be on edge while I listen, pacing around and almost unable to watch. Add to that the fact that, if you believe the polls (and although I don’t necessarily believe the extent of the Obama lead, I do believe he’s slightly ahead and that the debates could loom large for Romney and the undecideds), it seems Romney must make a good showing in the debates, whereas Obama only has to avoid major slip-ups.
The debates are one of those occasions when I wish I were a drinking person.
[NOTE: Think Ford made a major boo-boo when he said, during a debate against Carter, that “There is no Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe”? It’s widely thought that the remark cost him the election.
In 1989, Ford explained what had seemed truly inexplicable:
Well, you may have read the little piece I did, the op-ed piece for the Washington Post about a month ago which I was very pleased to write at the request of Meg Greenfield who said to me on the phone, “well, I think you got a bad deal from the press and with all the things that are happening, would you like to write an op-ed piece?” And I said I’d love to. Well, in that piece I go into the details of what happened as the debate moved along. There’s no question I did not adequately explain what I was thinking. I felt very strongly, and I, of course, do so today, that regardless of the number of Soviet armored divisions in Poland, the Russians would never dominate the Polish spirit. That’s what I should have said. I simply left out the fact that at that time in 1976, the Russians had about 10 to 15 divisions in Poland. Well, of course the presence of those divisions indicates a domination physically of the Poles, but despite that military occupation of Poland by the Soviets, it never in any way ever destroyed the strong, nationalistic spirit of the Polish people. And I felt, and of course, I’m pleased now, the Poles are going to throw the Russians out. And, the quicker they do it, the better. And I’m proud of what they’re doing, and, of course, I get a little satisfaction that maybe I was right in 1976.
Ford was not a seasoned campaigner on the national front. He’d been catapulted into the presidency by a series of errors on the part of the previous administration: VP Agnew’s forced resignation, Ford’s own appointment by Nixon to fill the spot, and then Watergate, which (I believe, unless I’m forgetting something) made him the first and still the only president to achieve the office without having been part of a national campaign. He was not an especially popular president, nor did he have much debate experience. It’s not surprising that he wasn’t especially good at articulating what he actually meant.
Another interesting fact about Ford, at least according to this interview he gave, is that around the time of the Republican Convention in 1976 he was thirty-one points behind Carter in the polls. Wow. He said that was why in his acceptance speech he challenged Carter to a debate, the first presidential one since the famous Nixon-Kennedy debates in 1960.
One could say it’s ironic, except that it’s also true that Ford rapidly closed the gap with Carter and the result was remarkably close. So I wonder about the common wisdom that that debate hurt him so much:
In the end, Carter won the election, receiving 50.1% of the popular vote and 297 electoral votes compared with 48.0% and 240 electoral votes for Ford. The election was close enough that had fewer than 25,000 votes shifted in Ohio and Wisconsin ”“ both of which neighbored his home state ”“ Ford would have won the electoral vote with 276 votes to 261 for Carter. Though he lost, in the three months between the Republican National Convention and the election Ford managed to close what was once a 34-point Carter lead to a 2-point margin. Despite his defeat, Ford carried 27 states versus 23 carried by Carter.
See this for more about the course of the 1976, and whether the debates helped or hurt Ford.]
I thought Jim Geraghty’s comments on this topic were pretty amusing:
“In light of today’s memo from Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod, claiming Romney is the heavy favorite in next week’s first debate, here’s the likely next step in campaigns attempting to lower expectations for their candidate in the debates:
“As you know, our candidate goes into the debates as a heavy underdog.”
“You know he has a speech impediment, right? We’ve been lucky so far, most people haven’t noticed, but our expectation is that the night of the debate, he’ll freeze up, panic, and all voters will hear from him is a series of grunts, stammers, and incoherent noises.”
“There’s just no way of getting around it, our guy just falls apart every time he’s under the hot lights in a debate setting. Forget any previous debates you’ve seen. That was smoke and mirrors and a less-scrutinized environment. What you’ll see in the coming debate is an absolute meltdown that will embarrass him, the campaign, the party and the country. We fully expect his performance to not only surpass all previous candidate debate disasters, it will set a new standard for catastrophic, self-immolating candidate appearances.”
“During the first debate prep, he came out in his underwear. Yup, completely forgot to put on his pants — just a bundle of nerves, trying to remember any of his talking points, sweating profusely. He got halfway through thanking the moderators, couldn’t remember whether it was “Jim Lehrer” or “John Lehrer,” and he just started swearing a blue streak. Got so angry he kicked the lectern and it fell over, and the visuals were really bad because he hadn’t put his pants back on yet….”
Read the whole thing:
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/328761/ultimate-lowering-debate-expectations
I don’t really like debates either. I’d prefer something along the lines of what Newt Gingrich proposed. A series of long conversations so that we could get a real feeling for who the candidates are and what they stand for. In 2008 the Pastor Rick Warren took a step in that direction. Not perfect but better then a debate.
I’ve put my Carnac the Great Hat on and have ooked into the future……Romney wins, Obama loses…..
NY Times headline “Election over….Obama wins Romney loses….Republicans stay home”
Correction: that’s “LOOKED” into the future.
I’ve put my Carnac the Great Hat on and have looked into the future……Romney wins, Obama loses…..
NY Times headline “Election over….Obama wins Romney loses….Republicans stay home”
So among the 9% who respond to polls Obama has a small lead. That seems about right.
What has me worried is that Obama is such a liar. In the 2008 VP debate, Joe Biden spouted a bunch of stuff that made him sound like a foreign policy guru. I’m no expert on Hezbollah, Shia, or Suni, and neither are the vast majority of Americans. It turned out afterwards that Joe was talking completely out of his a__ and none of it made any sense. But did the people hear about that? Nope – we heard about how outclassed Palin had been on foreign policy.
I thought that the best “debate” in 2008 was the separate forums hosted by Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church. He asked excellent questions and covered a lot of topics. It helped that Warren didn’t project the same pompous attitude that most of the media debate moderators do.
What I hate about the debates is the loaded questions. And after Stephanopoulos’ seemingly out-of-nowhere question about birth control coverage in a January Republican debate – just weeks before Obama & Sebelius announced the HHS contraceptive mandate – I don’t have faith that the moderators WON’T be working with the Obama campaign on debate topics & phrasings that best suit Obama.
I’m more interested in this debate than I usually am because I think Romney has a chance to make Obama look ridiculous.
I still urge him to almost ignore the moderator’s questions and attack Obama directly and ask HIM the questions that the moderator should.
If Oama start’s BSing, call him on it. And answer with short pithy statements backed by facts people can understand.
Any informative value the debates may have had will be utterly destroyed by the partisan bias of the moderators.
No matter the relative performance of Romney and Obama, the media will declare Obama the winner and clearly better prepared.
And finally, the media will develop some statement by Romney to declare a major gaffe. And undoubtedly spend the next three days wondering what Romney can do to recover from such a grievous error.
I won’t be watching. It really isn’t healthy for my blood pressure or for any throw-able object within reaching distance.
“[Obama] has had less time to prepare than we anticipated,” said [Obama campaign press secretary] Psaki. “It’s difficult to schedule significant blocks of time when you’re the president, regardless of your party.”…
That’s got to be the funniest line in this whole story, considering his appearance on The View, the endless fundraising trips, etc.
Side note: neo wrote of President Ford, “He was not an especially popular president . . . .”
The way I remember it, he was good ole Uncle Gerry, a nice guy (with a popular wife) who was in essence a temporary caretaker of the office, so that when Ford ran for president in his own right, he was not a “real” incumbent but someone who’d been elevated by accident.
But I thought he was well-liked enough, especially in comparison to Richard Nixon — who, even when he was winning reelection in a landslide, was never particularly popular (if you know what I mean).
Your mileage may vary . . .
M J R: that’s exactly what I meant when I wrote the phrase “not an especially popular president,” although I guess I didn’t make it entirely clear. I meant he was well-liked enough as a man, but not as a president.
There is the possibility that Romney’s sincerity might overcome Obama’s arrogance.
Obama? Not a master debater? I find that hard to believe considering all the practice he gets in at master debating.
I’m half way expecting questions such as-
Pres Obama: What is your favorite color and why do you look so awesome in it?
Gov Romney: You have 5 sons are you sad or glad that you have no daughters since you would have had an incestuous relationship with her?
IMO, unless Romney totally flubs the debates he comes out a winner. Those who will vote for BHO no matter what will of course declare him the winner. Those of us who will vote for the anti-BHO will vote for Romney and the debates will not matter to us. The 2-5% who have not yet decided how they will vote are looking for a reason to vote for Romney. As long as Romney comes across as a warm body with above average intelligence they will vote for the anti-BHO.
What should happen at least once, is something open-ended.
Give each candidate 3 minutes each for 10 segments each, with no direction what to say, no questions, just start talking…or stand there on an empty stage, it’s up to them.
The moderator just runs a timer and keeps order (one from talking over the other)
For a guy who’s said he’s a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, and so on and so forth… Why would he LIE and say he’s not The World’s Greatest Orator and Speechifier?
All of this debate about a debate presumes there will be one. If Obama doesn’t want to answer the question or discuss the point, he’ll simply use the question as a segway to filabuster whatever point he wants to discuss.
Romney will end up debating himself and the moderators. I find it inconceivable Mittness of Queensberry will be rude enough to request his Majesty to answer the question or stay on topic, and the moderators aren’t about to press him either. Unless Romney is very clever about cornering Obama, or baiting him to answer, Obama is not going to play the debate game, at least on in the sense that he engages Romney on the issues they are asked to discuss. And if he’s not careful about how he approaches this, Americans will be reminded by all media outlets that Romney seemed unpresidential for attempting to debate. Romney has a very difficult job. Obama’s going to act as though he has better things to do than debate a guy like Romney, and the media will play along.
I believe past debate history is irrelevant to the present circumstances. One does not debate evil.
Sam L,
Ace of Spades goes even one better (ace.mu.nu). He notes that Obama’s oratorical skills were so great that they would bring peace to the planet and make the oceans recede.
Now, by Obama’s own admission, Mitt Romney is even better than that.
Parker,
I agree that your comment is a good presumption of the effect of the debates.
“Maybe instead it’s intended as sarcasm; I don’t know, because I haven’t heard the audio.”
Was Obama scratching his face with his middle finger?
“Was Obama scratching his face with his middle finger?”
The odds are: yes. After all, the messiah is an audacity of dope narcissist.
This is a non sequitur comment, but here goes….
In my 64 years, of which at least 50 were years I spent paying attention to politics, BHO is a unique and odious personality on the national political stage. Has there ever been a more dangerous and duplicitous player strutting across the national stage? From my POV, BHO makes Huey Long look like a ‘moderate’, he makes FDR look like a Patrick Moynihan or a Scoop Jackson. He makes WJC look like Richard Luger.
Lizzy @ 3:32 wrote:
“I don’t have faith that the moderators WON’T be working with the Obama campaign on debate topics & phrasings that best suit Obama.”
I expect precisely that, and I’d expect the Romney team to expect exactly the same thing. But look at it this way: 60% of the American public does not trust the media. If someone you distrust was shilling for Obama would that make you more–or less–likely to vote for him?
Especially in the aftermath of Pat Cadell’s condemnation (a Democrat) it is possible for the media to become their own worst enemy. The deeper in the tank they go, the more distrust they generate. The more distrust they generate, the more likely they are to inspire precisely the opposite of the effect they intend.
“Obama’s going to act as though he has better things to do than debate a guy like Romney, and the media will play along.”
But the public will not necessarily capitulate (except for the die-hard Obamaphiles, and no one will change their vote anyway).
Neo an MJR,
W/ regards to Gerry Ford, I always had a great deal of respect for him both as a man and as a presient. The story that had a profound impact on me was one about cleaning up after his dog. Apparently a secret service agent was about to do just that and President Ford stopped him, saying “No man should have to clean up after another man’s dog.”
I thought that revealed President Ford to be a true mensch.
Jerry Ford was a good man in an impossible situation. He was a good and faithful caretaker during his time as a non-elected president who was not a VP selected at the ballot box. It was a singular, unique situation.
I can find no fault with Ford as a man or as a president, and in my narrow window of approval, that is as near to Reagan as anyone can achieve. Ford was the ballast the country needed at that time in history.
Regarding Obama & the upcoming debate(s), moderated by Flaming Libtards of The Press (aka Propaganda Arm of the Progressives):
Do you REALLY believe there’s been no, uhmmm, “tiny little hint” to President My-Pictures-All-Have-Halos about the topics that will come up?
Given how enthusiastic our MSM seems to be about guaranteeing Obama gets re-elected for a second term, I’ll assume he’s *not only* got a cheat-sheet of the questions — I’ll bet they thoughtfully provided him with appropriate responses, as well. (Along with little cues as to when to pause, when to gesture, when to speak forcefully, when to smile…)
T-
Hope you’re right. I hope the public also turns off the debate after it’s over, and the undecided aren’t treated to the usual network analysis that says if Obama gets his ass kicked, ” you didn’t really see that, here’s what you saw” analysis.
I don’t have much faith in the processing power of the target audience to make up their minds without the network anchors explaining what Obama MEANT to say, and what Romney REALLY meant.
The debates worry me. There is no doubt that Romney will be well prepared, and that he can articulate his points, but as suggested above,Obama will demagogue and filibuster given the chance. I also expect him to get plenty of help from the so-called moderators. He can win on style without making any valid or truthful points at all.
I think Romney’s strategy is a ticklish one. To truly win, and do so without dispute, he will need to get under Obama’s skin. He needs to get Obama flustered and into his stammering mode. We have all seen it on more than one occasion. On the other hand, Romney must do this without seeming too heavy handed or mean spirited. High risk; high reward.
“One thing you can count on is that Obama doesn’t think he’s “just okay” as a debater. The phoniness of his rare attempt at humility is transparent, and I’m not even sure it’s meant to fool many people. Maybe instead it’s intended as sarcasm; I don’t know, because I haven’t heard the audio.”
Neo, I did hear the audio and, yep, it was VERY snarky and oh-so-full of himself I just wanted to reach out and smack the little dipstick alongside his oversized jughandle ears!
T (October 1st, 2012 at 11:04 pm)
and
parker (October 1st, 2012 at 11:17 pm) —
Agreed, very much. He was a mensch, and as a caretaker, he was exactly what we needed at the time.
Oh, to have a president for 2013 who will be exactly what we need!
Charles (October 2nd, 2012 at 12:22 am) —
Agreed ^very^ much, except for the part about the ears. Sez me, we diminish our point when we focus on the adversary’s physical imperfections.
Is it possible that the debate(s) will not have the influence it/they once did because the populace is more inattentive than it’s ever been?
The vast American public can tell you stats about every sports and entertainment character and know nothing about political positions and their ramifications.
I don’t know where Ford ranks on a list of “greatest” Presidents. But when it comes to character, decency and honesty he was near or at the top.
I agree with Gary. He put a full stop to that which was destroying our country at the time and did so knowing that he was sacrificing his career for it.
Obama’s comment was sarcasm. I watched it.
Debates are meaningful and important because it is our only opportunity to see the candidates in an unfiltered format. No teleprompters, no media gloss and no reductions to sound bites until afterwards. Typically, they are looked at as a means of destroying a candidacy, but just as often they can elevate one.
Speaking of bad debates… though he would go on to win re-election, I couldn’t help but wishing that GWB would wipe the spittle from the corners of his mouth. But that also pointed out the tremendous amounts of stress that he was dealing with at the time.
Obama’s attempt at humility–he’s OK as a debater– and his so called lack of prep, is probably a psychological ploy. By doing so, he’s likely hoping to give Romney a false sense of security, and then moving in for the kill–so to speak. He’splaying mind games. Romney should prep and go in on the premise that Obama is well prepared, and playimg dirty.
Romney has more to lose by being “nice” than by going on the attack.
I hope he says, “that’s a straw man. You do that to trick the American people. You know darned well that is not my position or my plan. Can we agree: no more straw manning. “
Let us assume that the “debate” will be stacked by the media in collusion with the Obama campaign beyond anything suggested here. I contend that is as good for Romney as a fairly and impartially moderated debate, perhaps better.
The majority of the electorate who voted in 2008 believe that they were sold a bill of goods by the media. They will view these debates through that cynical eye. They will see how Romney handles himself when the deck is stacked against him and he must “debate” Obama, the moderator(s), and possibly rigged accusations from the “audience”. While it is a forgone conclusion that Obama will be declared the winner, or at least that Romney failed to “do well enough”, the audience will see Romney under pressure and will evaluate him on that basis. If Romney handles himself well, he will pass the test the audience is using.
MJR, Oh, to have a president for 2013 who will be exactly what we need!
Rather than what we deserve, which is what we got in 2008.
Regarding the debate, I’m looking forward to watching Obama attempt to come across as articulate and intelligent without a teleprompter. I think that is flat out impossible, but the verbal fumbling and stumbling should be entertaining.
As he preps for the debate, someone will no doubt be reminding Obama of key facts such as, “There are 50 states, Mr. President.”
and OT but back to the polls if I may:
the link:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/10/a-pollster-under-oath-137100.html
And this is Politico writing this, not Fox News.
I repeat: Subconscious bias, conscious bias and fraud.