A spirited debate that ultimately won’t boost Obama
If President Obama needed a win — any kind of win, by any margin — in last night’s presidential debate, maybe he can claim victory. But if he needed a decisive win in which he regained the initiative by spelling out his vision for the next four years, he’ll have to wait until next week and hope the third time’s the charm.
For Obama did not win such a victory. Personally, I would have called it a draw at worst, because the best, most sustained argument all night came from Mitt Romney, talking about Obama’s economic record, in response to a man who asked the president why he should vote for him again. It was a withering recitation of the missed opportunities of Obama’s presidency. “We don’t have to live like this” and “we don’t have to settle for [insert specific item from Romney's list of Obamanomics miseries here]” were simple but powerful points about what voters overwhelmingly call the most important issue of this campaign. The fact that Romney was responding to a question from a black man, whose demographic has been described as unanimously in favor of Obama, only made his answer more effective.
In snap polls of undecided voters by both CBS News and CNN, Romney won on the economy question by almost a 2-to-1 margin, reminiscent of his debate drubbing of Obama in Denver on Oct. 3.
Overall, those surveyed by both CBS and CNN gave Obama a narrow victory. CBS had it at 37 percent saying Obama won, 30 percent saying Romney, and 33 percent calling it a draw. CNN: 46 percent Obama, 39 percent Romney, 15 percent tie.
In other words, on a night when he needed to regain the momentum, more than half of undecided voters did not say Obama won — and his pluralities not only were at or below his current level in national polls but were also within each poll’s margin of error. This was no thunderbolt like Romney’s Denver performance, which registered the largest margin of victory in Gallup’s history of polling debate results. Yes, Obama “showed some life.” But is this what the Planet-Healer and Sea-Lowerer has fallen to? Showing a pulse?
So, perceptions about the candidates haven’t altered much. Did either land any blows on substance?
Besides the economic monologue by Romney I already mentioned, there were few, if any, clear-cut victories. The Obama campaign will try to make hay out of the president’s sharp line about being “offended” by Romney’s suggestion that he or members of his administration were playing politics with the lethal attack on our consulate in Benghazi. But Obama also kept the issue alive by insisting he’d said terrorists were behind the attack as soon as the second day, when in fact his reference that day to “acts of terror” came after he mentioned the original 9/11 attacks and was not specifically applied to Benghazi. What’s more, Obama and members of his administration still kept referring to the anti-Islam YouTube video and the protests it allegedly sparked for weeks after the attacks; we now know the State Department knew very early on that there had been no such protests in Benghazi. Hashing this out in the press for even a couple of days more does not help Obama — and we’re bound to revisit the issue during next week’s debate, which specifically covers foreign policy.
On energy, both men essentially accused each other of lying about the facts on U.S. fossil-fuel production. National Journal notes that oil production on public land rose between 2008 and 2011, as Obama said — albeit possibly due to policies put in place by the Bush administration, given the lag time between policy making and the effect in the field — but there was less natural gas and coal from public land, as Romney said.
The back-and-forth about Romney’s tax plan covered little new ground, and each candidate can point to a study that supposedly proves his point. About the only thing new was Romney’s hint that taxpayers will have a cap for whichever deductions they choose to use. He emphatically promised more than once neither to raise taxes on the middle class nor to lower the tax burden on the wealthy. Obama could do little else but insinuate Romney would break these promises.
In all, the one big thing Romney did well was to keep the president tied firmly to his record in office, while the one big thing Obama failed to do was sketch out a vision for the next four years other than staying the course — a course, of course, of which a majority of Americans disapprove. Those are the two most relevant outcomes from the debate, and they don’t help the incumbent.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
406 comments Add your comment
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 17th, 2012
10:45 am
The stupid is strong on the lib side this morning.
Not an original thought yet this morning.
Bruno
October 17th, 2012
10:45 am
What’s more, Obama and members of his administration still kept referring to the anti-Islam YouTube video and the protests it allegedly sparked for weeks after the attacks; we now know the State Department knew very early on that there had been no such protests in Benghazi.
For anyone interested, here’s the entire transcript of Obama’s Rose garden speech following the Libyan attack.
http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack
If you will scroll down to paragraph 4, Obama makes reference to what he believes is the “cause” of the attack:
“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”
So while Obama and his sidekick Candy Crowley continue to play word games, it is clear where the Obama Administration stood from Day 1. I can only hope that the Far Left media will tell the truth for once.
Bruno
October 17th, 2012
10:48 am
Not an original thought yet this morning.
Ti–All I saw last night on this blog was a bunch of mindless cheerleading from the Lefties last night. When challenged on specific points, all they could do was regurgitate false DNC talking points. If the group here is representative of the average Obama voters, it’s no wonder that our country is in trouble.
ragnar danneskjold
October 17th, 2012
10:48 am
As per my custom, I elected not to watch the game show. I understand that President Obama is now affirming that he immediately called the Benghazi attack “terrorist,” rather than “due to a video.” Remarkable.
Lambeau
October 17th, 2012
10:49 am
Two things that shows Obama knows he is in the wrong and that he doesn’t want the average American to know the truth:
1) He is trying to twist his words to make everyone think that he was calling the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack the day after it happened. This was not true and its a shame hes using semantics to try and justify why he kept going with the video excuse.
2) He waited until the very end to bring up the “47%” comment. This gave Romney no chance to explain and Obama knows that he is taking Romneys words out of context. Instead of allowing the other side to defend and have a discussion about the issue, Obama was a coward and took a cheap shot at the end.
It’s just a shame the president has to resort the such tactics to try and pull off a win. Yes I think Obama took a “victory” and it’s not an excuse when you say he had more time and was cut off many less times than Romney was (those are facts) but it was much closer than most Democrats are admitting. With Obama coming out all hot and bothered, of course it’s going to appear as though he won outright.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 17th, 2012
10:51 am
From Thomas Sowell: “Economist Edward Lazear has cut through all of Barack Obama’s claims about “creating jobs” with one plain and inescapable fact — “there hasn’t been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office.” Whatever number of jobs were created during the Obama administration, more have been lost.”
Read that money quote again: “Whatever number of jobs were created during the Obama administration, more have been lost.”
The epitome of a failed economic policy.
Gravy Train
October 17th, 2012
10:52 am
One last thing before the blog is overrun with old, white male, xenophobes and racists:
If Willard isn’t a career politician, why has he spent his whole life trying to be a politician? If Willard has such a sterling record as governor of Massachusetts, then why was he not re-elected for a second term? Why has Willard not learned from his first debate walloping at the hands of Ted Kennedy back in 1994? He got exposed for not having details then too.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 17th, 2012
10:52 am
” If the group here is representative of the average Obama voters, it’s no wonder that our country is in trouble.”
They may be representative of the average Obama voter, Bruno, but they are distinctly below average Americans.
Georgia
October 17th, 2012
10:53 am
American society of the 19th century tried to exterminate every vestige of Mormonism with the same sense of Divine Will they used to justify the genocide of the Indians. America was sure that neither population deserved to exist. We still have a little of that in our national DNA, and that’s why Romney is as unelectable as Geronimo. The debates are for entertainment purposes only and any resemblance to any real issues is strictly coincidental.
Lambeau
October 17th, 2012
10:55 am
Also, a mistake from Obama when he said something along the lines of “Romney is a very successful investor”.
Del
October 17th, 2012
10:55 am
Candy Crawley saved Obama’s hindquarters on the Benghazi security failures but that I’m certain only gives Obama a brief reprieve until their final debate on foreign affairs where this issue will once again come up. Romney effectively challenged Obama on his attempts to dodge and lie about his actual reduction in drilling permits on federal land. He also got Obama on the economic issues, which Obama couldn’t defend. Obama attempted to borrow from Joe Bidens’s high school Harry playbook but only made himself appear foolish in his obvious attempt to mimic. We shall see how the needle may or may not move but Obama lost so much from his poor performance in the first debate that just being a bit more effective in last nights debate probably won’t buy him much.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 17th, 2012
10:57 am
Truly stupid comments from our resident religious bigot this morning:
“If Willard isn’t a career politician, why has he spent his whole life trying to be a politician?”
Because he hasn’t. His first race for public office was senator from Massachusetts. His second one was for governor. Before that, he spend the majority of his lifetime in the PRIVATE sector. So he has ONE elected office in his reume, Gravy. One. Not even close to the definition of a career politician.
“If Willard has such a sterling record as governor of Massachusetts, then why was he not re-elected for a second term?”
Because he didn’t run for one. Idiot.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
October 17th, 2012
10:58 am
It’s just a shame the president has to resort the such tactics to try and pull off a win.
whaaaaaaaaa
Gravy Train
October 17th, 2012
10:58 am
“Sure Willard is going to create jobs, too bad they’re all in China.”
Check mate.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 17th, 2012
10:58 am
Wow, three religious bigots on the same blog.
Too bad some people just can’t advance in life.
RW-(the original)
October 17th, 2012
10:58 am
Tiberius…,
I’d say you buied the lede. The money quote was “there hasn’t been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office.”
Georgia
October 17th, 2012
10:59 am
After the first debate, America tried on Romney’s suit of clothes. They liked the sheen and the feel of the material, but last night, they pulled one loose thread and the sleeves fell off.
Ike
October 17th, 2012
10:59 am
Romney is so far ahead I won’t even have to go vote.
monty
October 17th, 2012
11:00 am
Obama simply doesn’t have a leg to stand on. He can’t show where his 4 years have improved the quality of life in America, it’s gotten worse and only a fool or someone with a political agenda to push would refuse to believe that. Will Romney pull us out of free fall? Who knows. But this current President has proven he doesn’t have a clue. Obama lied about calling it a terrorist attack the day after and the leftward leaning moderator saved his bacon. He won’t be so fortunate next week.Four more years of the same? No thanks. See ya at the polls.
Bruno
October 17th, 2012
11:00 am
It was a withering recitation of the missed opportunities of Obama’s presidency. “We don’t have to live like this” and “we don’t have to settle for [insert specific item from Romney's list of Obamanomics miseries here]” were simple but powerful points about what voters overwhelmingly call the most important issue of this campaign.
Kyle–As I’ve been saying all along, “All politics is local”. People are going to vote with their pocketbook, period. And, as poll after poll shows, Americans trust Romney far more than Obama to lead us to prosperity.
Blog prediction: If Romney is elected and the economy improves, the Libs will claim until their dying day that Obama should get credit for laying the groundwork.
Lambeau
October 17th, 2012
11:01 am
Finn, If Obama has a strong case in EITHER of the two points I brought up, why would he try and dodge them and why would he wait until there can be no discussion on the “47%”? If he or his party felt they had a strong/winning case in those areas then he would tackle the issues head on.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
October 17th, 2012
11:02 am
Del you can switch a lot of your words out with “Navy Seals” and “Bin Laden”.
In other words, Obama in no way played any role in the success of that event.
Latino Voter
October 17th, 2012
11:02 am
I was really disappointed with both candidates as they spent more time arguing with each other than answering the questions. When they were not arguing, I thought that Romney did a better job explaining his course of action and because of that and the professionalism portrayed by Paul Ryan in the VP debate they will get my vote.
Gravy Train
October 17th, 2012
11:02 am
For Tibi:
From Red State:
“He could have. He wasn’t term limited. There was no legal reason that prevented Mitt Romney for running for reelection. So, why didn’t Mitt Romney run for a second term as governor of Massachusetts?
He would have lost. And, not just lost by a little. He would have been creamed.
Romney won his first term with about 49% of the vote. After 4 years in office he had a 30% approval rating–30%.
You can’t blame this on Romney being a Republican. Massachusetts, when it comes to electing governors, is friendly to Republicans. For 16 straight years Massachusetts elected nothing but Republican governors (Weld, Cellucci, Swift, and Romney).
Yet, it only took one Romney term to destroy this Republican popularity streak.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
October 17th, 2012
11:03 am
Finn, If Obama has a strong case in EITHER of the two points…</i?
You serve cheese with that whine?
Bruno
October 17th, 2012
11:05 am
There is no degree or theological training required. Another mormon man simply has to “lay his hands” on another mormon male to qualify him as a “priest.” Sadly, this is a very true statement.
In case you’re unaware, Gravy Train, there are no legal requirements for any person to call themselves a “minister”, “priest” or even “bishop”. It’s the same for all faiths. But, I’m sure you won’t let that fact get in the way of your asinine rants.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
October 17th, 2012
11:05 am
. Romney’s response had nothing to do with women’s inequalities, but everything to do with his bizarre quest to find “qualified women” for his campaign, which apparently was so difficult that he had to collect “binders full” of those things called “women.”
salon.com
LOL
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 17th, 2012
11:06 am
“He would have lost. And, not just lost by a little. He would have been creamed.”
Pure conjecture on your part. There s a HUGE difference between a sitting “approval rating” when not campaigning and one during an ongoing campaign.
You do not know anything you are talking about, Gravy.
As usual.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 17th, 2012
11:07 am
Finn, why do you continue to post that nonsense from salon.com?
No one but the brainwashed faithful believe that stuff.
Rightwing Troll
October 17th, 2012
11:08 am
“Zero accomplishments, bigger problems.”
Better economy than 4 years ago, better employment than 4 years ago, OBL is dead, GM is alive, Stock market has practically doubled from where it was 4 years ago…
Maybe in your angry little corner of the world things aren’t better, but everywhere else they are…
Gravy Train
October 17th, 2012
11:08 am
So a 30% approval rating equals a sterling record? Only in the minds of those who think George Bush (34% approval rating) was great too. You guys can’t really be that stupid?
Gravy Train
October 17th, 2012
11:09 am
Tibi, go change your magic underwear, they’ve lost their mojo.
adam smith's invisible hand
October 17th, 2012
11:10 am
If Romney was such a great gov. of Mass, then why didn’t he think he could get re-elected for a second term? If Romney was such a great gov. of Mass., then why is he trailing Obama by 15 or more points in the polls there? I guess to know him is to loathe him.
Lambeau
October 17th, 2012
11:10 am
Really Finn? Say that Im whining right here? I’m not whining at all but bringing up a valid point. Why doesn’t Obama want to tackle the issues head on? Why is he avoiding them? When you dont have an answer to those you resort to saying im whining. Very mature. Come back when you can join in grown-up talk.
Just Saying..
October 17th, 2012
11:11 am
Credit Romney at least with using Binders full of Cons to take the nomination he needed to become the Centrist-right candidate for President.
Bruno
October 17th, 2012
11:11 am
Gravy Train: If Willard has such a sterling record as governor of Massachusetts, then why was he not re-elected for a second term?
Ti: Because he didn’t run for one. Idiot.
Gravy Train: He would have lost. And, not just lost by a little. He would have been creamed.
Ti–Hard to argue with “logic” like that.
Gravy Train
October 17th, 2012
11:12 am
Too bad none of that is “my words.” They are the words of your pals at red slate. Cue the price is right loser sound effects!
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 17th, 2012
11:13 am
“Better economy than 4 years ago,”
Being the tallest if the midgets doesn’t get you on the basketball team.
“better employment than 4 years ago,”
Actually, less people working today than 4 years ago, and more people not even looking anymore.
“OBL is dead,”
1 accomplishment.
“GM is alive,”
And would have been if it had gone through private restructuring, and we wouldn’t have incurred more debt.
“Stock market has practically doubled from where it was 4 years ago…”
Which has almost nothing to do with the overall health of our economy.
But other than that, Troll, you nailed it!
JDW
October 17th, 2012
11:13 am
@Kyle…”A spirited debate that ultimately won’t boost Obama”
Make yourself feel better if you wish, but the hard cold fact is he didn’t need a boost…all he really needed was status quo. Now given the whole $5 Trillion tax cut boondoggle it is obvious Republicans aren’t great at math, but even they understand that if they lose Ohio its over. They could lose Ohio and keep it close enough to whine but they won’t win.
So given that, all that is needed is to maintain the lead in Ohio and last night was enough to accomplish that goal. I think it was better than that, but it doesn’t have to be.
Georgia you are racist liar!
October 17th, 2012
11:13 am
Iggy,
Take that cry towel out of your @$$ and wipe your face with it because lying,filp flopping Mitt got his @$$ whip last night. There is no doubt you are are repubilcan because you wouldn’t know the truth if came up and slap you in the face with your @$$ wipe crying towel. The sad part is your party is built on racism and lies and you people don’t care. On another note, Mitt has only 2 segment of the voting population White people and Racist white people. Obama has white, black, asian, hispanic, women and gays, If you do the math, oh wait you can’t count, there is no way in hell Mitt will win. the numbers don’t add up punk!!!
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 17th, 2012
11:14 am
“If Romney was such a great gov. of Mass, then why didn’t he think he could get re-elected for a second term?”
How do you know he didn’t run for that reason, adam smith?
Answer: Because you don’t know why he didn’t run, do you?
Rightwing Troll
October 17th, 2012
11:14 am
“Blog prediction: If Romney is elected and the economy improves, the Libs will claim until their dying day that Obama should get credit for laying the groundwork.”
Is that similar to the wingnuts claiming until their dying day that the groundwork laid by W had nothing to do with the economy of the last couple years? Or that Clinton laid the groundwork for 9/11 and W laid the groundwork for the killing of OBL?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 17th, 2012
11:15 am
“So a 30% approval rating equals a sterling record?”
No, a sterling record equals a sterling record.
An approval rating is just random opinion.
Gravy Train
October 17th, 2012
11:15 am
For all you ditto-heads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A
iggy
October 17th, 2012
11:17 am
You could see it in Obamas eyes. He is tired, bored, befuddled, dumbstruck, in over his head and he knows it. The same ole diatribes keep tumbling from his mouth. He has nothing new to say and nothing better to do then further ruin the USA.
Cherokee
October 17th, 2012
11:17 am
Nice try Kyle, but I don’t blame you – I tried the same self deception after the last debate.
A clear win for President Obama. And for America, for that matter.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 17th, 2012
11:17 am
“Make yourself feel better if you wish, but the hard cold fact is he didn’t need a boost…all he really needed was status quo.”
I’m sorry, but when did the “status quo” become dropping steadily in the polls, JDW?
iggy
October 17th, 2012
11:18 am
“Mitt will win”
Agreed!!! Mitt will win. Would you prefer a white, brown or black crying towel?
Georgia
October 17th, 2012
11:20 am
It’s now clear that the spin is more important than the win. Polls are showing that voters are like candles in the media-spin wind. All sixty million viewers are commenting on the sixty million blogs that they’ve all started for each other. Here comes everybody, folks.
MarkV
October 17th, 2012
11:20 am
It is quite amazing how some people, in this case Lambeau @10:49 am, can twist truth into a lie and vice versa.
“He is trying to twist his words to make everyone think that he was calling the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack the day after it happened. This was not true and its a shame hes using semantics to try and justify why he kept going with the video excuse.”
Here are Obama’s words from the Rose Garden speech: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.
There is no “using semantics.” Obama clearly connected the death of four Americans in Benghazi with “act of terror.”
This accusation comes from a person who claimed that Obama continued to lie to American people in his UN speech, but cannot find a single sentence fromm that speech that can be shown to be a lie.