My two cents: Two interesting things I noticed during the debate.

[TrollBuster9090]

Remember: Napoleon beat Kutuzov at Borodino, and the next day he moved on to Moscow. But Kutuzov used Borodino to gauge Napoleon's weaknesses, and by the time he finally retreated from Russia he had lost 90% of his Army.

Don't sell Obama short, he might be more of a Kutuzov or a Wellington than a Napoleon.

I watched the debate on CNN with their 'creeping approval graph' showing both male and female UNDECIDED voters (who both sides are trying to win), and I noticed two interesting things:


1. Both lines dropped like a rock whenever Obama went negative, or took a political shot at Romney. The same thing happened to Romney, but to a lesser extent. No doubt the Obama team had focus group data that showed people don't react well to the 'blame the Republicans' theme even though it happens to be true. This is a reaction the Republicans have worked hard to SET UP, so it shouldn't come as a surprise. But it means that Obama was WISE not to go for Romney's jugular, the way most of us here were hoping he would. He would have lost more points if he'd gone on the attack. He was wise not to.

2. When Obama told the story about his Grandmother being independent in old age because of Medicare and Social Security, the FEMALE approval line shot up like a rocket, but the MALE line stayed at baseline. The same thing happened whenever Obama talked about protecting Medicare and Social security. By contrast, whenever Romney talked about 'privatizing' Medicare, ostensibly to increase competition, the MALE line shot up, and the FEMALE line dropped like a rock.

What does this tell you? That women (in their WISDOM) are more concerned about protecting the social safety net than men.
What's good about this? It means that the Obama Campaigns efforts to drive a wedge between Women and the GOP rhetoric have been successful! This is a wedge issue that can be exploited further, and the Dems should start re-crafting their message accordingly. You've seen where they're vulnerable on this. Play your cards right, and you'll convert "SECURITY MOMS" from being worried about TERRORISM-related security to being worried about MEDICARE/SOCIAL SECURITY-related security.

Finally, here are two things to remember:

1. If you'd watched the debate without any expectations going in (as I tried to do) you'd have seen that Romney and Obama scored about even. The reason it APPEARS that Romney did well was because of (forgive me for using a Luntz-ism) the soft prejudice of low expectations. The expectations for Romney were set incredibly low, and those for Obama were incredibly high. Thus, any debate where Obama didn't slaughter Romney in the first ten minutes would be viewed as a failure, and if Romney managed to stay on his feet without fainting, vomiting, or bleating like a wounded sheep (which he DID do, a little), it would be viewed as an overwhelming success. Remember when 'pundits' were blathering about how well Sarah Palin did against Biden? SERIOUSLY? That was again an example of extremely low expectations working in favor of the party of morons. It was true of Bush, Palin, AND Romney.

What's the good news? The good news is that Romney no longer has the ADVANTAGE of low expectations...OBAMA does.

2. By not challenging Romney on his lies (ie-lies about his tax cuts and views on regulations), Mitt was emboldened to tell more of them. Yes, TOMORROW the story is going to be how badly Romney (apparently) thumped Obama in the debate. The day AFTER tomorrow, and for the next two weeks the story will be fact checkers enumerating how many lies Mitt told during the first debate, and how Obama's 'poor' performance was due to being taken off guard by a slick salesman who will say ANYTHING (true or not) to make the sale.

[MissHoneychurch]

1. Slick salesman

is a perfect expression for Rmoney.

[spicegal]

13. I agree he's a "slick salesman" (Romney that is). He seemed very hyped up. He talked fast, and

was actually difficult to follow. If you really listened, he was either lying or didn't make much sense. Obama had a better command of the facts, but seemed hesitant to go after Romney on his lies and nonsense.

[glowing]

18. That was my take away from Romney!

He acted like a petulant child. This is the man who you could believe tripped his own daughter in law to win a family Olympics game course, it's the man you can believe strapped a dog to car roof, and a man who bullied a young gay child in high school.

If you listened to him, he lied, moved away from all of his positions to etch a scetch and disrespected the moderator and the president. He talked too fast, negatively, and like he was on an attack. The lies we're overwhelming!

I think there are going to be a lot of "spin ads" showing the two-sided, headed monster that is Romney. If he can lie in debate, he will lie when he's President.

I think it's actually Joe who will do the attack dog stuff against Paul Ryan. He's an older white male. He can get away with it. President Obama can never come off as the "angry black man" in this racist county.

[Hutzpa]

33. The president expose Mitt for what he is

a Slick Salesman, fast talker with lots of noise but nothing coming out.

Romney is toast, but he doesn't know it yet.

[sabrina 1]

2. Very interesting OP. You make some excellent points. I did not see the debate yet

but have been reading the comments here and even Paul Krugman eg, was baffled by Obama's performance.

Your analysis imo, (and admittedly without having seen it yet) is one of the best I've seen so far.

Very interesting info on the reaction of women v men on Social Safety Net issues.

Also on when the candidates show anger. I find that surprising to be honest. Take Bush eg, what made him popular, was his 'tough guy act'.

Why do you think the public would react differently to these candidates 'acting tough'?

But I think your best point is the 'low expectation' point. That is definitely a factor, especially since Democrats have assumed that Romney is 'not smart'. That is the image that has been created and it may have been a false image. Being a liar doesn't mean not being smart. I think Democrats especially expected a knockout by Obama with Romney falling apart completely. Since that apparently didn't happen, it looks like a 'win'.

But now, as you point out, what was an advantage for him, is gone. More will be expected of him now.

Good points, thanks for the work you did on this.

[TrollBuster9090]

38. Thank you!

About the 'not smart' part. Romney is relatively smart. When I referred to the 'party of morons' I was referring to the party base, not Romney.

I think he's fairly smart, but either has no core values, or has core values but has just never revealed them. His biggest weakness is the fact that he's relying on votes from a party that, at the national level, puts LITMUS TESTS on core values. Meanwhile, he's been on every side of every issue, and is obviously just pandering to his audiences, and saying whatever he thinks he has to say to get elected. As dense as the Republican base can be sometimes, they can't possibly have failed to notice this, but they hate Obama so much they're willing to ignore it.

So, somewhere between hatred for Obama and dislike for Romney there is a tipping point. Part of team Obama's strategy should be to find that tipping point, and I'm sure they know that. Last night Romney shook the ETCH-A-SKETCH quite a bit, claiming he's NOT really in favor of lowering regulations on business, or lowering taxes. An obvious flip-flop, but one which only applies to the things PLUTOCRATS care about, and not the 'VALUES VOTERS.' The plutocrats tend to be intelligent enough to know that, even though Romney now CLAIMS to be against deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy, he really IS in favor of those things, so it dosn't matter what he says. The values voters are not like that. None of the women's issues, or reproduction rights issues came up in the first debate. But when they DO come up, Romney will NOT be able to shake the etch-a-sketch. He has to stick to the extremist positions the values voters have jammed him into. He has no choice. So, the Democrats need to concentrate on those.

[morningglory]

3. Very good post, TB. In the cold light of morning (in America),

I think Rmoney looked wild-eyed (not relaxed) with a crazed, fixed, inappropriate grin. President Obama looked cool and collected. Looked confident and intelligent. He is doing it to us again.

[TrollBuster9090]

39. Absolutely. As I said, with no expectations going in, they scored about even. However, due to

due to low expectations for Romney and high expectations for Obama, 'even' LOOKS like a massive victory for Romney. We should have learned from Bush and Palin just what a powerful advantage LOW EXPECTATIONS gives you.

But now the shoe is on the other foot, and Romney is going into the next debate with the high expectations.

[marions ghost]

44. A grin something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_%28comics%29

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Thank you for analysing the reaction meters. nt

[UCmeNdc]

5. Romney's lies were what threw President Obama off

I felt that way also. At times Mitt sounded like he was supporting to a lesser degree President Obama's position on the issues.

[ananda]

23. Romney's MO is to lie like a rug.

Why would that throw anybody off?

Obama pretty much stuck to the truth and plain speaking,
with real ideas and plans.

Romney had no specific ideas and plans, and his plan was
to come across as a WHITE leader who can take charge and
take talking space away from the Black man. This plays well
with those who haven't come to terms with their racism
and oppressive status.

[TrollBuster9090]

40. Exactly. But as I said in another comment, he shook the Etch-a-Sketch on the TAXATION and

Regulation issues which mainly effect the plutocrats. The plutocratic wing of the GOP is sophisticated enough to know that he can say one thing and believe another, but the 'values voter' wing is not. If women's reproductive rights come up in the next debate, and he shakes the etch-a-sketch, he's done for. Women's issues are a powerful wedge for Obama to use in the next few weeks.

[jimlup]

6. Good points - I mostly agree...

Though "focus groups" and trend lines are not everything. Sometimes one must take a hit in order to setup the situation for later. Attacking Romney may have dropped the running trend line but it sets the situation for the winning debate later. Focus groups only show short the effect of short term "tactics" but miss entirely "strategy".

The analogy I want is this one: In chess sometimes one sacrifices a piece (short term trend line) in order to gain the initiative and win.

[Digital Puppy]

7. Very good points

Thanks for posting...you encapsulate my thoughts on the situation. You (and Rev. Al) foresee an immediate "bump" for Rmoney, but in the long run, he probably did more damage than Obama could have done with a direct attact.

It was obvious after the first 5 minutes that both Rmoney and Obama had a plan that they were going to stick with. Your observations are excellent proof of this....

I will be interesting to see how the Dems and Obama move forward. Thanks, again!

[Cha]

8. Thanks TrollBuster

for your analysis. Always interesting to look deeper into it.

Mitt called his sons liars and then went on to illustrate where they got it from..and rode over Jim Lerher like the red bully he is.

Elizabeth Warren got a good Tweet out of tonight..

Elizabeth Warren@elizabethforma

Tonight it's clearer than ever: Mitt Romney is counting on Scott Brown to help him repeal Obamacare #AClearChoice #masenz

[CabCurious]

9. Very accurate analysis imho

The Obama team viewed this as round one, and went forth with a "be honest and serious" approach. They knew the likely outcome with be "Romney Wins" practically no matter what happened, so they went with "just the facts" and no defensiveness.

Now Romney has much higher expectations and desperation. He also made a series of new, absurd claims.

Romney has no actual PLANS. This won't win the match.

[Iggy]

10. Good Take, However...

what is more important, the "creeping approval graph" which measures debate viewer's immediate
response to the candidates-- or, the endless factchecking and "analysis" which will now begin
in Bloggo world?

its the first thing.. the immediate, visceral reaction.

[gkhouston]

29. More people are likely to see the fact-checks and ads and jokes floating around the internet.

The Big Bird thing is already going viral.

[TrollBuster9090]

41. Hahah! Yeah, but I was hoping Obama would snap back with the following:

Obama: "You've added $5 trillion to the debt, how are you going to make up the difference and balance the budget?"

Romney: "I'm going to make CUTS! For example, I'm going to cut PBS...blah..blah...blah...I love big bird (snicker)...blah blah cuts."


Obama: "Okay, that's $30 million you've saved by killing Sesame Street, now what about the other $4 trillion 999 billion 970 million you still need to cut?"

And seriously, there are several things they KNOW he's going to single out for cuts because they're touch stones for the right wing base. PBS, and 'SESAME STREET' in particular is a popular target for right wing dog whistle politics because the show's debut on TV coincided with urban school BUSSING. Sesame Street showed black, white and latino kids living and playing and learning together in harmony...something that made the racists and segregationists heads explode.


So, if anybody from Team Obama is out there reading this: be prepared for some more zingers on Big Bird and Sesame Street. They're not done with it.

Also, the next thing will be the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Be prepared for the following:

Obama: "You've proposed a 20% across the board tax cut. That will cost $5 trillion. WHat are you going to cut to make up the difference."

Romney: "Well, lets start with the Department of Education...blah blah blah...State Governments...blah blah...big brother...teachers unions blah blah...."


Obama: "Okay, great, that's $71 billion you've saved. Now what about the other $4 trillion 929 billion?"

Ditto for the Department of Energy, which has a budget of $24 billion. It's a GUARANTEE that Romney will claim he's going to cut the Departments of Energy, Education, and maybe Commerce in response to the question about what he'd cut. Obama has to be ready with the zinger to counter that argument. Those departments are popular rhetorical targets, but the fact is that they do a lot of good and cost relatively nothing.

[gkhouston]

47. The campaign should do an ad about this.

The music track would be an upbeat instrumental version of "Dry Bones". One one side of the screen, a heap of (cartoon) bones, on the other, Romney's head floating in mid-air, in time to the music. Start with the caption: "Can you make Romney's budget work?" Show video clips of Romney naming each suggested cut. After each cut, add bones proportionally related to the size of the cut to Romney's skeleton. After each addition, "Okay, that leaves X billion Y trillion. Now what?"

At the end, there would still be very little of the Romney-skeleton (perhaps just a partial hand or foot dancing in mid-air) and a lot of bones on the floor. Close with something like, "Romney. He's just not all there." or "The math's bone's not connected to the tongue-bone."

[Iggy]

53. Solid Analysis, However

this is all sort of MOOT.. since one of the deductions Willard thinks "he" can get rid of in order to
get his magic underwear economic plan to work is: the mortgage deduction.

Hah hah hahhhhhh! that's a good one!

just TRY getting this thru congress, Bozo. besides being one of the few decent deductions left for the
shrinking middle class-- the residential construction and real estate industries will blow up hugely
over any effort to eliminate this deduction. Rmoney knows this-- that's why he can't reveal just
what deductions he is referring to.

[Iggy]

51. So What?

FYI: I don't exactly buy into the notion there are _millions_ of "undecided" voters out there
who are likely to be swayed by these debates-- or the blah, blah, blah fact checking that
goes on after the debate

outside of political Bloggo world, just not that many people are engaged/care

[gkhouston]

52. So apparently people can only have an "immediate visceral reaction" to one event and can never

change their minds afterwards, no matter what else they see/hear. Doesn't seem likely.

[BlueMTexpat]

11. Thank you very much for your cogent and insightful post.

I have not yet seen the debate - it was an eight-hour time difference for me so I was sleeping. But I have been interested to read what people have to say before I invest any time in watching the C-Span version, which at least one DU commenter said provided the best coverage. Rmoney drives me crazy and frankly, I've had it with the pundits so I generally don't even bother listening to their opinions. Plus I've already voted - for President Obama!

I also found the KOS live write-ups quite interesting. For those who would like to see them, here is the url for #1 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/03/1139440/-The-first-2012-presidential-debate-President-Obama-vs-Mr-47-1

Just keep clicking on the new link at the bottom of each section for the next. There are 15 sections in all.

There is also this from Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/03/1139588/-A-loss-but-not-a-game-changing-one Apparently the same snap polls that had President Obama losing the debate by an arguably wide margin also found that the favorable/unfavorable numbers for both candidates remained basically unchanged. If that's true, Rmoney may have won this particular battle but he is still losing the war. And that's what we want.

Besides I look forward to see how the Dems will use Rmoney's own lies, statements and general obnoxiousness, outright discourtesy and supreme sense of entitlement against him. Doing away with Big Bird is going viral already.

[TrollBuster9090]

42. Thanks! Hahah! As I said above, I have a feeling we haven't heard the last from Big Bird.

Sesame Street is a dog whistle signal to the racists who still carry a grudge over urban school bussing in the early 70s, and I don't think the Republicans are going to stop blowing the dog whistle any time soon.

[cpamomfromtexas]

12. Sharp Analysis

[YellaDog1950]

14. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

And, the President was exactly who he has consistently presented himself to be to the people of the nation. Some of my favorite pundits rolled over and criticized the President for not attacking rMoney on his lies. My question for them is this: Have you considered the idea that that's exactly what rMoney was wanting? If he had spent his time attacking each lie, he would not been able to explain what he wants to do for the next four years. rMoney was aggressive. So what? To me, that's how I've come to see him anyway. Obama missed many opportunities to call him a liar. So what? When he did go that direction, rMoney, in full jello mode, in full shapeshifter mode, presented another lie.

People can call it a victory for rMoney if they want, but he accomplished nothing more than a presentation of new lies. If people only accept that debate as a finalization on how they will vote, then so be it. They were obviously going to vote that way anyhow.

[gkhouston]

48. And do you know what many of those pundits would have said if Obama had spent all his time

calling out Romney's lies? They would have said that Romney succeeded in keeping the President from explaining his own positions.

[yankeepants]

15. Thank you TB.

I feelmuch better after reading your take on that debate.

Obama looked like I probably do when confronted with a Fox Noose crazy. It's that kind of "Where do I start to fix this?" mixed with "Why bother." exhausting thought process.

[TrollBuster9090]

43. Thanks! I think Team Obama expected Romney to shake the Etch-a-sketch, and lie, but they knew

that if Obama literally called him a liar on air it would damage him as much as it did Romney. Leave the fact checking to the 24/7 cable news people and the newspapers. Obama stayed on the High Road.

[4lbs]

16. Good points all. Also, I think Obama was letting a known LIAR and flip-flopper state everything he

could in this first debate.

Romney tells so many lies he can't keep track of them all. He also changes his stance as much as the wind directions. People can't nail him down on a stance.

So, in the next debates, if Obama hears Romney state anything different than the first debate, he can now say:

"But, wait, in our first debate, you said <this> and now you are saying <this other thing>. So, which is it? Why do you keep changing your stance?"

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. "The good news is that Romney no longer has the ADVANTAGE of low expectations..".

With two more debates to go and Romney having a record of lying.

I'll add this: Romney is such a flip flopper that he will be a different person at each debate.

[Don Draper]

19. Obama should have mentioned Rmoney's 47% remarks

When Rmoney lied about taxes, healthcare, etc, Obama should have said Mitt just shook the etch-a-sketch.

[lunatica]

20. Have you noticed everyone is saying and implying that Romney lied straight through?

It's emerging that people are saying that the liar is the winner, but only because Obama didn't call him out on all the lies, and instead continued to lay out the facts.

I find that ass backwards on logic, but maybe that's just me.

I'm very impressed with your analysis. When I see your name from now on I'll be clicking on your threads.

And it's possible Romney may actually get a negative backlash from his own base. He tooted his horn and vaunted his 'accomplishments' in the things his base hates the most.

[gkhouston]

30. +1. n/t

[TrollBuster9090]

45. Thanks! As I said in a comment above, Romney flip flopped and lied on the Tax and Regulation

positions last night, and got away with it. But that's only because those issues only effect the plutocratic wing of the GOP, and the plutocrats already know Romney's on their side no matter WHAT he says.

The 'values voters' on the other hand, are not like that. Last night I saw a big differential between men and women when Obama spoke on the medicare and social security issues, and that wedge can be exploited. Women's reproductive rights and women's health didn't come up last night, but when it does, Romney will NOT be able to shake the etch-a-sketch without losing base support.

Team Obama needs to start hammering away at the women's reproductive rights wedge.

[justiceischeap]

21. You know what I'm going to remember from that debate?

That Mitt Romney wants to fire Big Bird.

[FailureToCommunicate]

25. Yes! Wouldn't it have been great if Jim Lehrer had stood up and said "Hey!

I've got grandkids, for Gods sake, and you want to take away MY job?!?"

If the audience had been allowed to react there would have been an loud gasp when Romney said he'd cut PBS funding -as a way to bring down the deficit!

[FailureToCommunicate]

22. Thanks for finding some 'silver lining' TB. I hope you're correct that

over the next few days pundits will find more to like about the Presidents demeanor. I thought he was his steady reasonable self we've all come to know (sometimes very frustratingly amenable) and Romney was the same smirking,waffling, jello man we also have seen. He was our Governor and acted the same way back then. This was no "new, tougher, yet softer" Romney as one commentator crowed. He was the same old snake oil salesman in my opinion. He may have done okay in this 'battle' but I don't think this changes that the Republicans are losing the 'war' for the hearts and minds of the electorate, particularly the "undecideds"

The choice is abundantly clear to this voter.

[BumRushDaShow]

24. K&R

And agree.

You don't put all your cards on the table and imagine Rmoney sweating through 1.5 hours waiting for the 47% shoe to drop but it didn't. Meaning that he will stress even more the next time around because it "HAS" to come (in his mind). It may or may not, and if not, then he might think then that's it, and that is when it gets dropped that final debate (or not). Pure psyops.

Also, I compare this with singing the national anthem - if you start out on too high a note at the beginning, then you'll never be able to hit the real high note that inevitably comes near the end.

[txwhitedove]

26. The best 2-cents I've read about the debate. Thanks.

[monmouth]

27. I feel much better after reading this great OP. Thank you...n/t

[truebrit71]

28. Excellent OP and I think that after reflecting on the debate overnight you are spot on...

...All Rmoney had to do was not say anything stupid and he'd be crowned the winner, if Obama had gone after Mitten's pile of lies he would have been accused of being a bully or 'angry' (and we know what that is code for), so instead he was Presidential, calm and measured, and he has been called 'passive' or 'un-engaged'...can't win for losing...

Everyone has to remember Mittens has been in roughly eight or nine hundred debates over the last 18 months, last night was Obama's first because you know, he has a pretty rigorous day job...I think Obama did just fine last night...and if Rmoney thinks he "won"...great...take that over-confidence on the road for a test-drive and let's see how you do...just remember pride comes before the fall...

[gollygee]

31. There is lots of time to fact check it

And honestly the percentage of people who remain undecided at this point who bother to watch debates is small. Debates are more for cheerleaders. What is said about the debates will have a much bigger impact. But there will be people saying Romney sounds strong and capable alongside those pointing out he spent the entire evening spewing lies.

[Tsiyu]

32. Great post

And thanks for the heads up on the insta-polling thingamajig.

I believe this debate will be another gift that keeps on giving for our side.

The words have been spoken and etched in the media, and now they get parsed and scrutinized until the next debate.



Rmoney may not be keeping track of his own lies, but the American people can't help but hear them.

[truebluegreen]

34. I did have the thought that

Romney, being the entitled egotistical bullying snob that he is, is very likely to be even cockier and more condescending in the coming days.

I don't think that will work well for him.

[flamingdem]

35. The 2 latina women interviewed with the other independents

made it clear that likeability matters. These women undecideds apparently like Obama's performance more in general than the aggressive and nasty performance of Rmoney. This matches your points above

[Hutzpa]

36. I was even convinced of this before seeing your analysis

which by the way is a very good one; people really do not understand the type of politics Obama is playing, this knee jerk reactions by democrats has got to stop such as the reaction shown by MSNBC cast last night, democrats for some reason seems to always play into republican hands for so long that some of us gets complacent in our thinking, we ignore long term goals for short term goals.

What the president did was to get Mitt Romney on record in front of the American people to say all his lies and then counter him with facts. People just need to take a chill pill for the knee jerk reaction.

[Blue Owl]

37. Only a gullible fool would think Mitt was the better choice

...or a paid M$M shill...

[marions ghost]

46. worth more than 2 cents

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. Okay. Devil's advocate time.

There's a good reason that medicare/Social Security resonate better among women than men;



Although women are 54% of voters, driving a wedge between women and men is very risky. Single women vote for Democrats by vast margins, but when women marry, they tend to adopt the voting habits of their husbands.

Bragging about our suppport of the safety net is great and should stand on its own.

[femrap]

50. Your analysis

is and wise.