Debate ...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-post-debate-spin.html

should you have any doubt about the effect of the media spinmeisters. . .

For these sorts of events, I just stick to CSPAN . . no talking heads, please.

...too. Besides the talking heads, camera angles and split-screens make a difference. I'm looking forward to tomorrow's debate. I know the President will do well. Senator Kerry is the BEST coach he could have.

The Newsbuster link is completely ridiculous because there is no doubt that the three debates made for a close race rather than a Bush landslide. Here is a link that shows the poll average for 2004 vs 2012. The very steep jump for Kerry - and fall for Bush was the first debate - the up tick started before the debate with the Iraq and Terrorism speech, but the debate was the big event - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_compared_to_bush_vs_kerry.html

The Sullivan post is good, but the results are very suspect. They each are based on about 25 people. I suspect that at least the NBC one was likely a focus group where a strong "opinion leader" can impact others. I also suspect that the numbers would have been closer for debate 1 and 2, especially debate 1. The polls moved slightly in Kerry's favor for both 2 and 3 and substantially for 1.

In debate 3, Kerry was good on everything and while watching it, I thought it a complete Kerry win. After the debate, you had the odious Lynne Cheney whining that Kerry was a "bad person" because he mentioned that Mary Cheney was gay (which she was and she was out and working as liaison to the gay community for Coors.) I have a gay sister and two gay daughters and found Kerry's answer warm, kind and inclusive. It is interesting that that was likely the reaction of most people who just watched the debate. (That was also the debate where Kerry quoted Bush saying that he wasn't really concerned where OBL was - and Bush responded by saying that he was "exaggerating" again - apparently forgetting that was an (Faux) accusation against Gore, not Kerry.

I agree with you that in Kerry, Obama has a great coach. Both an outstanding debater and one of the few people who went through the same thing.

The link on Libya is really good. Kerry is clearly doing his job as the first letter ( which seems very Kerryish ) is doing exactly what you would want an oversight committee to do. It addresses all the relevant questions that need to be asked and answered to help define how things could be made safer. It also seems strange that the first post half heartedly poses that this is somehow confrontational with the administration. (Kerry answered this well when speaking to Andrea Mitchell.) The fact is that by proactively and quickly getting these requests for info out, the administration can act quickly to have the sane SFRC address this to counter the political hay that the Republicans want to make. (Politics aside, this is their job and their responsibility.)

...thorough analysis. You are welcome for the links. I came across them while reading about President Obama's Las Vegas rally and was glad to see that Senator Kerry was prominently featured.

In 2004, every time I went to LV to canvass...and to see Senator Kerry rally the troops...I missed Bill Clinton visiting the HQ by HOURS. In 2008, I missed all their visits to OFA.

I couldn't go to a swing state this year, but it was nice to see the President there delivering pizzas to the OFA kids. It HAS to be unbelievably hot there right now...it's been over 104 here in CA the last several days.

I listen to KUSC online, and keep being startled by the weather report (when I forget that they're not talking about my current town).
But nevertheless, late sept/early oct is the classic hot-spell season for coastal CA. (though the duration of this one seems a little longer than usual, perhaps????? )

...is usually the 'Santa Ana' wind season, where the usual onshore wind flow (coming from the west) reverses. Then we get winds coming from the desert (easterly) and blowing toward the coast. It is hot and dry, and usually a high fire danger time.

You are right about the duration. Last year, it cooled sooner in the fall. This year, we have been hitting triple digits a lot, even closer to the coast.

I am definitely done with the heat and ready for fall to be here. I decorated outside and put a few pumpkins out. I don't want them to fry...

the whore media is really pushing Romney. they never gave credit to Kerry for his 3 clear wins against bush. and Kerry didn't come off as a nervous , creepy douche. Kerry came off as calm, cool, strong etc.

but the whore media is really propping Romney. saying it's a big day for him.

Obama didn't come off horrible the way Bush did but htey are acting like he did horrible.

i hate these people.

Felt the need to get in touch with people I trust and like are reasonable and not prone to overexageartion. I've been scanning Kos with MSNBC in the background. Depressing. Mainly because, irrespective of what I read or heard, my own reaction was that Obama did not do well. He did not seem all into it. At times seemed to have difficulties ptting together a coherent sentence. As the debate progressed, I kept having this deeper and deeper sinking feeling.... I hope I am over reacting... Anyway

So much, that the Bush people kind of gave up on spinning it and conceded something like Kerry is a great debater. The media did speak of how bad Bush was. The debate did shift the polls.

The question is whether this will have a similar impact. I may be being a pollyanna, but I really don't think it will. In 2004, the question was whether Kerry could be seen as a President. There was no question that he a likable person - even with the silly have a beer question. His favorables were in positive territory. For Romney, he was always given credit for being smart and a successful governor (even though with 37% approval he could not have won re-election) and a successful businessman.

With Romney, the question was his likability - and this can not help it. In addition, there is the question of the issues. Though people may see Romney as more forceful in the debate, but his solutions (vague as they are) are not to most people's interest.

It looks like Romney is winning (decisively) the quick polls - which themselves define the narrative - even if they are usually small sample size and not as valid as the regular polls. This likely will result in him moving closer to Obama. This really is very disappointing.

It is also surprising to me - as I saw Obama as the more Presidential, calm person with Romney looking unhinged at times when Obama was speaking - every bit as bad as Al Gore, but no one seems to think that is a problem on any of the media.

and Bush being really bad that they didn't try to spin it. but the media didn't praise kerry the way they are doing with romney .

i agree with what you say about romney and being likable. that's why i asked this question on DU during the debate because while they might be seeming to dominate, did he appear likable. and i don't believe he did. also i don't think Obama did bad in the way Bush did..

If anything they were MORE positive. Totally impressed with his command of foreign policy, impressed with his demeanor and his debating skills. They showed the moment when Bush was stammering "I know that, I know that".

But, within a few days, they stopped speaking of it and went back to ignoring Kerry.

Obama was extremely credible in his debate which Bush wasn't. The idea that acting as if you had one too many coffees (which a Mormon isn't supposed to do) and lying about everything you ever did is really not the best debating in the world. It's actually pretty bad.

and when silent seemed to have swallowed something really sour, that pained semi-smile of his that at times looks like he is on the verge of tears. This being said, as debating skills go, from his point of view and IMHO because I know close to nothing about debates, I think that he did what he had to do very well. My sinking feeling last night (which has not yet abated ) was not so much that Romney was good, I was almost sure he will be, I saw most of the primary debates, and yes, they were mostly a clown show, but still he was between OK and really good in all of them, I think, so (apologies for the rambling sentences) it's not so much that Romney was good, it's that I think that Obama was really bad. I heard a bit of Axelrod on Morning Joe, then turned the TV off, can't stomach it yet, Axelrod was saying that Obama treated the audience like adults, he kept coming back to the adults theme, guess it's the current talking point, or at least it was in the morning. I don't think it's enough. He really seemed off his game, he did not seem into it... I heard or read some comment comparing his demeanor to the infamous GHWB moment when he looked at his watch, I am sorry, but I thought of that also as I was watching. I know I sound silly, but the expression on his face while R was talking, the constant looking down, the pained smile.... what on earth was wrong with him?!?!? I think I read a comment on Kos last night that right before the debate he was told about the Turkey mini-attach on Syria, maybe it had something to do with that, who knows.... the same Obama that was making jokes while the raid on Ben Laden was going on?

First, let's admit I wish President Obama had been more forceful in calling Romney out on his lies.

I think, however, that the problem here is that Romney won the expectation game. The bar was so low that he could not lose anyway. Personally, I did not find him that much better than Obama (Hell, he admitted his kids were liars and seemed proud of that). But, once again, as people expected a dork, being able to go through this debate unscathed makes him a winner.

This said, for the most part, debates do not matter. Are people really going to change their votes because Romney did not make a joke on being rich or poor. I doubt that. But we will know soon, in a couple of days.

I wished I was more positive, but I also think the brouhaha (sp?) around this debate and Romney's win is largely overblown.

BTW, it is likely that Kerry was a poor sparing partner, but not because he is a poor debater (he is not). However, he is an honest and straightforward man. No way he would have lied through a debate the way Romney did yesterday..

That is why I am wondering if all of this helped Romney. He "won" but mostly by cheating. He pretended everything he proposed throughout the entire campaign didn't exist. I will omit mean spirited tweets, but these two are substantive:

https://twitter.com/AlecMacGillis/status/253852450803564544

Was the problem in using Kerry as debate prep that, all superficial similarities aside, he and Romney are in fact very, very different?

https://twitter.com/Zathras3/status/253859310264778754

They're not, because Kerry couldn't anticipate Romney's strategy. Romney went Full Brazen on Obama; K wld have missed that.

Kerry won his debate with Bush fair and square. He was honest, interesting, likeable, and yes, a good debater. Romney came across as a bit of a jerk to my ears especially the way he was interrupting Lehrer all the time. And that $5 trillion tax cut exchange was as David Corn alluded to today very "Monty Python". Seriously, do you want this buffoon to be in the WH for four years?



As to Obama, no it was not a great night, but he's never been that good a debater. He should do better for the next one.

and half way through it I went to bring up on my screen David Corn's article with the reference to Monty Python, then finished reading and saw you were already referringto it. For the others, here is the link http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/romney-obama-debate-october-3 I think it's a good analysis, or at least it matches pretty well my own perceptions and interpretations. Here are the Monty Python paragraphs:

The president was also placed at a disadvantage when Romney adopted what might be called the Monty Python defense. Obama repeatedly accused the former Massachusetts governor of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut that would likely increase the deficit, force massive cuts in government spending on education, health care, research, environmental programs, and the like, and lead to higher tax bills for the middle class. In response, Romney essentially said, "It does not."

Obama referred to studies that supported this conclusion. Romney said that there are other studies that say it does not. When Obama insisted he was accurately describing Romney's plan, Romney said, no you're not, and claimed that he would not pass any tax plan that added more to the deficit. Obama said that there was no way Romney could lower tax rates and remain revenue neutral without removing deductions that would hike the tax bill for middle-income families. Nope, Romney said, not so: "I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan."

Romney was throwing his tax proposal under the bus. But Obama didn't appear to have a good response to this reality-defying tactic. He wasn't able to nail Romney squarely for his long-running evasions regarding the deductions he would eliminate to make up for the revenue lost due to lowered tax rates. Romney seemed to be engaged in magical thinking concerning his economic plan—and perhaps discerning viewers picked up on this—but Obama couldn't quite rattle him.

they said someone on our side who most respresents that used car salesman sleazy type and Rendell probably being the closest.

i actually don't think that is a a bad idea. i really think the problem may have been Obama was just so turned off by rOmney that he was trying to control his own reaction in terms of looks that would easily be used against him and replayed over and over again.

in 2008 he debated Mccain. but he had respect for Mccain. and i think he really likes Kerry so even if Kerry does a romney impersonation it's still Kerry.

i think having a sleazy type could help him to control any negative reactions he might have while at the same time not letting them get away wiht bs.

In terms of the debate I think he was much better than Obama. Yes, he was lying, and O was not. But it was supposed to be a DEBATE, not a sequence of short, parallel, speeches. Obama was almost not debating. He had this pained expresion on his face when R was throwing another of his "nevermind" changes to what he has been sayingin the past, but then he was not really (or barely, or seldom) addressing what R had said. Also, hate to say it, but I think Leher was terrible.