General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: One of my surprising days on DU, [View all]Spike89
(1,569 posts)Seriously, debates in primaries when we're getting to know the candidates are slightly important, but Presidential debates are just not that influential. People who are paying any attention already know the basic positions of the candidates, they've already heard most of the stump speeches, or at least the excerpts and highlights. The conventions are nothing but huge promos for the candidates and their platforms. Those that haven't paid enough attention to know what the POTUS (who's been in the political spotlight for more than 5+ years) and the GOP candidate (who's been running for 5+ years!) stand for...well, those folk aren't going to watch or care about the debates.
We learned (or should have learned) how relatively unimportant the debates are when Kerry totally dismantled Bush in their first debate. It didn't change the dynamic much at all--at that time, pretty much 95% of the electorate had made up their minds. I think it is pretty much that way now.
Romney could promise a sharply leftist agenda and free ponies and he wouldn't convince anyone to switch votes--he might get a few right wingers to stay home and possibly pick up a few idiots who like ponies (not everyone who likes ponies is an idiot). His problem is that most people already think he'll say anything to get elected, so pandering only reinforces that meme and alienates the red-meat republican base.
To be fair, nothing Obama says would convince Repugs to switch to him either.
This election, like the recent ones, is all about the turnout. In that, I think Romney failed because to "win" the debate, he had to turn his back on his base and that was his only advantage (the teabagger hatred of Obama). If they stay home, he isn't just toast, he's burnt to a crisp.