Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:19 AM Sep 2012

There's a hell of a lot riding on the debates- particularly the first one.

Romney is looking for a knockout in Wednesday's debate.

He's hoping to replicate Reagan's performance in the 2nd debate of the 1980 campaign. There were only 2 debates and President Carter refused to participate in the first one, held at the end of September, because John Anderson was included. The second debate was on October 28th and Carter also refused to debate unless Anderson was excluded. At the last moment, he was. Still, Carter was substantially ahead going into the second debate. Gallup had him at 47% with Reagan at 39% on October 26th.

The second debate was widely seen as a disaster for Carter and a game changer.

It's clear that Romney hope to emulate Reagan in next week's debate. Unlike Reagan, he doesn't have the likeability factor going for him. What he does have, is a lot more recent experience debating and considerably more practice going into the debate than President Obama has. Will this make a difference? It's impossible to count it out. President Obama is not renowned for his debate skills. That might work in his favor.

President Obama is a better politician and fighter than was President Carter and Mitt Romney is no Reagan- and Reagan was an accomplished politician who was comfortable in his own skin, but debates are strange and you never know what will happen. However, even if it's pitched by the MSM that Romney is the winner of the 1st debate, President Obama has 2 more at bats. Reagan and Carter only debated once.

28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
There's a hell of a lot riding on the debates- particularly the first one. (Original Post) cali Sep 2012 OP
That one Gallup poll was an outlier: Carter and Reagan were neck-and-neck until that last debate. reformist2 Sep 2012 #1
It was, but still there's little doubt that that debate cali Sep 2012 #2
Indeed. reformist2 Sep 2012 #8
Forget 1984. Think 1964. (Now that will really cause any Repub to really melt down! :) - n/t coalition_unwilling Sep 2012 #14
Historically the game before debates is managing uncertainties... HereSince1628 Sep 2012 #3
Ronald Reagan was an actor and a convincing bullshitter. Frank Cannon Sep 2012 #4
oh, stop with the idiotic "concern is noted" crap. cali Sep 2012 #5
It's the silly season around here, MadHound Sep 2012 #6
yes, that's for sure. cali Sep 2012 #7
Old time DUers ewagner Sep 2012 #28
That is the narrative. aandegoons Sep 2012 #9
Not going to happen, no matter how much the Rs fantasize treestar Sep 2012 #10
Not a compelling argument alcibiades_mystery Sep 2012 #11
Is anyone really waiting on the debates to make up their mind who they're voting for...? porphyrian Sep 2012 #12
Oh please, Mitt is going to make a total ass out of himself. RevStPatrick Sep 2012 #13
You're probably right. LOL reformist2 Sep 2012 #17
I don't think Mitt's a zinger type of guy. charlyvi Sep 2012 #21
I disagree rock Sep 2012 #15
At the opposite pole, I'm looking for Obama to knock out Romney and coalition_unwilling Sep 2012 #16
If One Only Followed Gallup They Would Believe The Reagan "Come From Behind" Miracle DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2012 #18
Where will DU be next Thursday morning? kentuck Sep 2012 #19
I have to disagree with the basic premise. DeadEyeDyck Sep 2012 #20
Nice slam on Jimmy Carter. Arctic Dave Sep 2012 #22
I admire Carter. That doesn't mean he was a great politician. I don't cali Sep 2012 #27
If it were a closer race and if Obama was behind a bit then yes, the debates Jennicut Sep 2012 #23
Here's a good analysis as to why that meme is wrong BumRushDaShow Sep 2012 #24
IMHO, only Romney "has a lot riding on the debates"....... Wounded Bear Sep 2012 #25
I'm not too worried. Here's why: The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2012 #26

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
8. Indeed.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:56 AM
Sep 2012

Repugs keep thinking it's 1980 again. I think it's more like 1984, and Romney=Mondale, and Obama=Reagan. Tell a Repug that, and watch them flip out!

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
3. Historically the game before debates is managing uncertainties...
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:40 AM
Sep 2012

If you're widely expected to deliver a great performance and you don't...you lost by not achieving your objective.
If no one is expecting a great performance and the candidate doesn't trip...he wins by not having stuck a foot in his mouth.

The interpretation could be that the media is being told Romney is going in for zingers because Romney is in enough trouble to have to manage a very different risk...the risk that no one is going to pay attention to him any more because they're already convinced Romney is the loser.











Frank Cannon

(7,570 posts)
4. Ronald Reagan was an actor and a convincing bullshitter.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:42 AM
Sep 2012

Romney has none of these skills. He is also hampered by the fact that his campaign is anchored to total garbage that he and Ryan are both having a very tough time selling.

As far as Romney's recent "debate practice", he was debating a roomful of similarly eccentric morons. A fifth-grader with access to Weekly Reader would have kicked any of their asses in a debate.

Your concern is noted, but I wouldn't be too worried. The only thing that is a sure bet is that after Romney plainly gets his ass handed to him for all to see, FOX News will go into hyperdrive sales mode the next morning and pretend that he's a goddam Cicero.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
5. oh, stop with the idiotic "concern is noted" crap.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:46 AM
Sep 2012

I'm so sick of that knee jerk shit. I have 75,000 posts here. Does it really make sense to accuse me (and yes, that what the concern is noted crap is about) trolling?

I noted the differences between Romney and Reagan in my OP. I provided my analysis of why the debate is important. Disagree? Fine. Insinuate that I'm concern trolling? Fuck that. I won't let it go unanswered, dear.

 

MadHound

(34,179 posts)
6. It's the silly season around here,
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:49 AM
Sep 2012

Lots of longtime DUer's are being accused of being concern trolls or worse. I'll be happy when the election is over and things go back to normal, both here and in the real world.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
7. yes, that's for sure.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:56 AM
Sep 2012

I just got a heads up that one of my ops was alerted on because I said it was too early to celebrate. Gobsmacked. What it is with that mentality? Lockstep or you're a concern troll.

Election season is too damned long. It leads to brain softening. Or something.

ewagner

(18,964 posts)
28. Old time DUers
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:26 AM
Sep 2012

and I include myself in that group....Since March of 03....we've been through the hell of the Bush years...we've seen swift-boating, voter suppression and downright vote stealing, we've seen supposedly honest pundits jump on the conventional wisdom bandwagon and forsake any loyalty to truth or objective journalism. We' ve seen Repub governors take away civil rights we NEVER would have believed would be possible except perhaps at the point of a gun and watched the press rationalize it into reality. We were also witnesses to the media swooning over George W. Bush and his ill-begotten wars when we believed that no American Citizen would stand by and let it happen.

In short we've seen crap happen that defied belief and so we have to be forgiven if we're skeptical of what we're seeing.

We've had our hopes raised and crashed so many times since the Republican theft of our country that even the best news looks like a a "silver-lining attached to a gray cloud".

Sorry if that sounds pessimistic but the Repubs have never ceased to surprise me with the depth of their political depravity.

aandegoons

(473 posts)
9. That is the narrative.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 09:09 AM
Sep 2012

Though I think instead of belly aching about this upcoming debate we need to be out front.

Romney is shooting for zingers so the story goes. Why not be ahead of the game and let the American electorate know that Romney is trying to reduce a very important part of the American election process to a comedy show.

His disdain for the American electorate is on stage here and at each one of his so called gaffes. He hates us for our freedoms and that includes the right to vote.

That is the narrative we should be putting forward, and not that President Obama will have a disaster and lose the election.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
10. Not going to happen, no matter how much the Rs fantasize
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 09:13 AM
Sep 2012

They are obsessed with Ronnie, but the country has already moved past that. This was 32 years ago. The Mittiwit does not have these capabilities.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
11. Not a compelling argument
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 09:16 AM
Sep 2012

Do the debates have some power to change the dynamic? Sure, any major appearance does, especially when people invest a great deal of emotional and mental energy into it. But debates are very different today than they were more than 30 years ago, the race is very different than that one was, and the candidates are very different as well. I'll leave it to other people in this thread to enumerate these differences - they've already done so to some extent, and you've already agreed to some or all of those, and even tried to handle them yourself proleptically in the OP, while maintaining your thesis (sorta). But, ultimately, I think the major claim - that there's a helluva lot riding on the debates, and especially the first one - falls flat because of those differences. You selected a minor parallel that is itself an outlier poll in what might be called the primitive age of polling, and that's really your only evidence of a parallel dynamic. Everything else works against your argument.

I get that your spiel here is something like "This is still a close race! Don't get overconfident!" I wouldn't dream of calling you a concern troll, and I think it's an important point to make. But just as imagining the race to already be finished is a silly move, so one can make a mountain out of a molehill in the other direction, as I think is the case in this particular argument. The debates can move the needle, though probably less in today's media/election environment than they ever did before. Sure. But the dynamics of this race and the way people follow elections now is radically different from what it was in 1980.

Just as people who are "so sure" that Obama has it sealed up are probably responding to a fear of the opposite, to some extent, people who are so worried that it is still a race are probably responding, to some extent, to their fear that this exciting thing that occupies so much of their mental space is probably not very exciting at all, this time 'round. We shouldn't let our own desire for the adrenaline of the race cloud our thinking, in any case.

 

porphyrian

(18,530 posts)
12. Is anyone really waiting on the debates to make up their mind who they're voting for...?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 09:17 AM
Sep 2012

...or is this just manipulation by the media to keep us watching for next month or so? Are there really any undecideds left? Are they enough votes to cost anyone the election at this point?

 

RevStPatrick

(2,208 posts)
13. Oh please, Mitt is going to make a total ass out of himself.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:07 AM
Sep 2012

He's going to try one of his little zingers in the first 5 minutes, and the president is going to gently and with humor put him in his place, throwing Mitt off balance. He's going to lie so much that the M$M will be forced to report on it. The combination of sleep deprivation and happy pills is going to make him manic. The president will remain cool as a cucumber, which will visibly piss Mitt off.

It's 50-43 now, and at worst, will remain so after the debates...

charlyvi

(6,537 posts)
21. I don't think Mitt's a zinger type of guy.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:46 AM
Sep 2012

Or a rallying type of guy, or a humorous anecdote type of guy, or a projecting sincerity type of guy......you get my point.

rock

(13,218 posts)
15. I disagree
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:15 AM
Sep 2012

I doubt that the debates mean that much. I think back to the Gore and Bush debates. W was trounced worse than any debater I had ever seen and to what end? The media and the conservatives at first acted like it was a draw, ultimately given in to a thin win for Gore. But the net effect was nil. The debates didn't change anybody's mind.

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
16. At the opposite pole, I'm looking for Obama to knock out Romney and
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:17 AM
Sep 2012

put the Republicans on the mat as well with a TKO that casts them into the political wilderness for at least a generation if not longer. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor

For a black man to do it will only make the irony and poetic justice all the sweeter (said by a Blazing Saddles fan

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,704 posts)
18. If One Only Followed Gallup They Would Believe The Reagan "Come From Behind" Miracle
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:27 AM
Sep 2012

If you looked at aggregate polling you would have seen Reagan had a commanding lead for several months that he never relinquished:

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/09/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/


And Willard Romney is not Ronald Reagan.

If Barack Obama can't beat that clown in a debate I'm going to be really disappointed.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
19. Where will DU be next Thursday morning?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:28 AM
Sep 2012

Celebrating a slam dunk by Obama or complaining about the media's interpretation of Romney as the winner of the debate?

DeadEyeDyck

(1,504 posts)
20. I have to disagree with the basic premise.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:44 AM
Sep 2012

It would seem that everyone has decided that Romney is a superior debater!! Where is the evidence to support that? Obama has shown that he is one of the best speakers since Daniel Webster!! True, that Reagan had a folksy repertoire that connected with the people of his day but we are no longer living in the day of Reagan. He was talking to a less sophisticated WWII generation.
The one disadvantage that Obama has is his talking style. He is NOT a sound-byter. Obama, like most of us, like to lay a framework to his arguments. His answers are longer than 30 seconds. Often longer than the typical listener can tolerate. But that can be adjusted with a little coaching and that is what he has been getting from Sen. Kerry.
What I think we are witnessing is the goading of a "good fight". If the press were to admit that Obama will trounce Romney in the debates, few would watch. So there job is to lower the expectations of the frontrunner and raise the expectations of the loser. Get it? The fact that they are playing down the President means they see him as clearly the frontrunner. They want to sell the debates as the "Fight of the Decade."
Come Thursday morning, we will be asking, "Will Romney stay in for a 2nd debate." We might even feel sympathy for him. Well, maybe not.

 

Arctic Dave

(13,812 posts)
22. Nice slam on Jimmy Carter.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:50 AM
Sep 2012

He was one of the most forward thinking Presidents in our time. Even more then Obama. Obama is a babysteps president while Carter was visionary.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
27. I admire Carter. That doesn't mean he was a great politician. I don't
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:21 AM
Sep 2012

see that is a slam. And I agree that in many ways he was a visionary.

Jennicut

(25,415 posts)
23. If it were a closer race and if Obama was behind a bit then yes, the debates
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:58 AM
Sep 2012

would have great meaning. Romney is behind in Ohio by more then 5 points. Can you swing 5 points from one debate? Unless Obama shows up drunk or refuses to talk then I doubt it. Obama is also a pretty calm guy and does not get rattled easily and at the end of the day Mittens is still really, really unlikable as a human being.

BumRushDaShow

(127,283 posts)
24. Here's a good analysis as to why that meme is wrong
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:00 AM
Sep 2012
It is an intriguing notion: A story today suggests Reagan trailed then-President Jimmy Carter by eight percentage points in late October, and that, when paired with Reagan's 10 point win on Election Day, would have made for a remarkable turnabout.

But a review of the late 1980 polls shows that while Reagan soared over the final week (following the campaign's one and only debate on Oct. 29), the contest up until that point was tightly competitive, not trending toward the incumbent Democratic president. At the time, the Associated Press reported "new polls say the race between the two men remains too close to call."

(snip)

The bottom line is that there was no evident momentum for either candidate as the 1980 presidential election neared its completion. That is until Reagan's breakthrough debate performance.

Of course, at that time Carter was the president with sub-30 percent approval ratings, and Reagan the relative outsider seeking to prove himself to be a "safe" choice.



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/10/reagans_comeback.html


President Obama currently doesn't have "sub-30 percent" approval ratings".

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/24/as-romney-stumbles-obama-regains-his-mojo/

Wounded Bear

(58,437 posts)
25. IMHO, only Romney "has a lot riding on the debates".......
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:03 AM
Sep 2012

President Obama is good at many things. One of the things he's really good at is appearing presidential. He showed that against McCain and I expect him to show it against Romney.

Romney throwing zingers doesn't worry me much. It will be the equivalent of Palin winking at the crowd; cute, but inappropriate for the venue. I cannot recall a single incidence of President Obama being knocked off kilter by something an opponent has said or done.

The campaigns are lowering expectations, the media is trying to raise them for ratings.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,269 posts)
26. I'm not too worried. Here's why:
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:17 AM
Sep 2012

1. Debates themselves don't swing elections (except on very rare occasions, see Kennedy vs. Nixon). While many people watch them, many more do not. They are influential in the sense that what the media report about them afterwards can operate as to some extent as a thumb on the scale. But not a very big one. I can't imagine anything happening at a debate at this point making a huge difference, unless one of the candidates freaks out or throws up or something.

2. Mittens isn't a bad debater, but he's not especially agile or imaginative. It sounds to me like he will actually be over-prepared, which could mean that his responses are likely to be canned, memorized and robotic (like the guy himself).

3. Obama presents himself much better than Romney - he seems more relaxed and real. His main flaw as a debater is a tendency to get too wonky and professorial. I'm sure he's being coached on how to avoid that. And he is unflappable. No matter what Romney says, Obama won't show anger or irritation. Romney, however, has a short fuse. Obama might be able to provoke him into going off his script, and there's a potential train wreck. We can only hope.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»There's a hell of a lot r...