Obama has to dumb it down

[Laurajr]

Interesting read....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/16/mark-mckinnon-obama-has-to-dumb-it-down-at-hofstra-debate.html

We know his energy was low in Denver. That he looked like he wanted to be anywhere else. That he looked churlish and peeved. And that he missed countless opportunities to raise issues or counter Mitt Romney’s assertions.


Is it possible that Obama was too smart and talked over everyone’s heads? Or is it that Romney communicated more effectively? Those are both conclusions you could draw from analysis by Quantified Impressions, a personal communications analytics company.

Based on word and sentence length, not content, Obama spoke at an academic/scientific comprehension level. He delivered his message at a grade level of 9.4, which is appropriate for an academic or scientific text, while Romney spoke at a magazine or newspaper grade level of 6.9. The targeted grade level for spoken-word presentations is 6.5, to ensure maximum comprehension. So Romney was a more effective speaker by this measure.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. Romney was memorizing from a script

[1-Old-Man]

2. Balderdash. The American voting public is made up of adults, no need to dumb anything down

If Romney feels his best support comes from 12-year-olds (or their verbal equals) good for him, I prefer my President to speak to the adults in the room and if that requires a vocabulary greater than that had buy most teenagers that's OK with me.

[brooklynite]

3. The American voting public may be made up of adults, but...

...the audience of remaining undecided, low information voters is not.

[1-Old-Man]

5. It seems to me that if anything the undecideds seem to require high information

The reason the undecided folks remain so is they haven't got the information they need yet. It is us who have made our decision on whatever information we have gleaned thus far from the drivel both candidates put out who are the ones willing to place our bet based on low information.

That said I still maintain that it is not the dumbest people who vote, it is the smartest. And if that is true it makes more sense to me for the candidates to present the smartest case they can present rather than dumb anything down.

[brooklynite]

9. It isn't a question of what they require, it's a question of what they accept...

...there people will not be watching the News Hour or reading an op-ed on the NY Times to get a perspective. They'll watch a 2 minute clip on the evening news, and watch 1-2 of the debates to hear simple answers to the issues that concern them.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Precisamente!

The sixth grade, newspaper equivalent reading level may, in fact, be a bit too high.

[BootinUp]

8. I saw a demographic breakdown on a recent poll, that showed Mitt zooming

ahead with weekly Walmart shoppers. Probably includes a lot of the so called low info voters? The OP might have a good point, even though it was phrased in a less artful way.

[Odin2005]

11. The average American reads at a 5th Grade level.

[RagAss]

15. Do you understand the inherent mediocrity of a 100 IQ ?

[CoffeeCat]

4. I've said it before and I'll say it again...

I am convinced that Obama prepared, was ready and was energized and ready to have a debate with Mitt Romney.

When Obama showed up, Romney denied all of his policies. His main policies that he'd been touting for the past 18 months. Every time Obama brought up one of Romney's central ideas--like his $5 trillion tax plan--Romney called Obama a liar and made jokes about him.

I think Obama was pissed as hell. You could see the disgust on his face. I think Obama was completely thrown off. That is why he was off his game.

We can debate all day long about how Obama would have handled this. He should have done x, he should have said y. However, the fact remains that one authentic adult showed up to the debate; and one lying, barb-throwing, game-playing circus performer showed up.

Romney obviously crafted lying about his own policies--as his debate strategy. People forget that this was not an accident. Romney, no doubt, had extensive speeches that he memorized and filled with insults, zingers--for every time Obama brought up ANY of Romney's policies. Paint the President as a liar, attack and laugh at him--make him look weak. I think the President figured out quickly what was happening.

It was a near impossible situation. That's my opinion anyway...

[1-Old-Man]

7. You make a good argument.

My inclination is to agree with you. I think the best approach Obama can take tonight is to immediately correct each lie. He doesn't have to call it a lie, but he has to challenge, challenge, and challenge some more and each time he does give just enough fact to make the point and then move on.

Facts are stubborn things.

[CoffeeCat]

10. My guess is that Romney will avoid his lie-based strategy tonight...

The Romney camp has said before (which quasi-reveals their strategy) that they see all three debates as interconnected.

I think they've mapped out a strategy for all three debates--that are a cohesive unit.

First debate--Lie, attack and position yourself as the alpha-male.
Second debate--Opponent will show up ready to counter the lies, and in attack mode--so don't provide him any opportunities to do so. Be as sweet as pie. Be a salesman. Be positive to a point where it gives the other guy NOTHING to attack.

Mark my words, this is what Romney is going to do tonight. He's going to show up, dance around any controversy and act like Obama's best friend. A strategy like this would make it nearly impossible for Obama to counter the first debate's lies, especially given the town-hall format.

I hope Obama is prepared for Homecoming King Romney tonight.

[Democratopia]

12. Obama should stop saying "my opponent" thinks this and that

[kurt_cagle]

13. That can be difficult

I like Obama because he is intelligent - he can communicate sophisticated concepts with clarity and precision. However, as the OP points out, when you're used to thinking at this level, it is very difficult to scale back the concepts and present them in a form that people without that level of intellect can respond to. Of course, it also usually means that the mind behind the clarity and precision has usually mentally explored the concept in question in greater depth. Romney strikes me as being a very shallow person, intellectually - he speaks at a seventh grade reading level because that's the way he thinks, and would likely establish policy at a very shallow level without fully fleshing out the ramifications.

I noticed that there have been discussions about the MSM about the first debate being wonkish - I don't think this was accidental. The narrative needed to show that Mitt Romney is able to engage about as an intellectual equal, but from my perspective, Romney said very little "wonk". It's also a more subtle trap on the readership or viewership - "governing is hard, and you as an audience aren't in fact up to understanding it - don't hurt your head over these things and leave governing for the 'professionals'. Next up, the Kardashians!".

[RobinA]

14. This Was One Thing

I got from the Biden debate. Biden didn't really dumb down and he was substantive. But he spoke in shorter, more simply structured sentences with emphasis points. Obama tended to go on and on until it was easy to lose whatever he was saying. Biden put one idea in a sentence, Obama uses a more complex structure, which is not useful in this context. With Clinton, the master, you see a mixture of complex and noncomplex sentences, but the cadence of his speech simplifies the more complex structure.

Obama will never have the Clinton gift for gab, as his is in no small part a southern thing, but it IS possible to simplify (not dumb down) ones speaking style, and Obama needs to do that.