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
JF McNamara
October 17th, 2012
11:21 am
I actually thought that Romney won not that I would ever vote for him. He’s switched positions on a lot of issues and basically disavows his record from anything over a month ago. I just don’t know who the guy is, and the only thing he ever produced that seems authentic is his 47% rant.
He could go a long way by putting pen to paper and coming out with a detailed economic plan where he actually gives specifics on what deductions would be cut. Obama was spot on when he called him out on that.
Del
October 17th, 2012
11:22 am
Finn,
If Romney just sticks to the facts regarding the OBL take down there’s a far greater chance that Obama could really step in it should he attempt to once again thump his chest during the final debate. Fact is that all Obama did was green light the operation and in actuality he had no other choice. Most of the intelligence heavy lifting had occurred prior to Obama setting foot in the Oval Office. The final piece of intel that Identified OBL’s courier cell phone contact with him and thus his location couldn’t be discounted. If Obama had failed to green light the operation word of his failure would have leaked and he would have been political toast.
Rightwing Troll
October 17th, 2012
11:23 am
“Being the tallest if the midgets doesn’t get you on the basketball team.”
Depends on the team…
“Actually, less people working today than 4 years ago, and more people not even looking anymore.”
Depends on who you get your “facts” from… Faux news doesn’t count.
“1 accomplishment.”
Bless your heart, I know it near killed you having to type that…
“And would have been if it had gone through private restructuring, and we wouldn’t have incurred more debt.”
We’d have spent the money one way or the other, if GM had gone under there would’ve been a large number of jobs tertiary to GM’s manufacturing that would’ve vaporized as well… so instead of giving unemployment to folks out of work, we kept them working.
“Which has almost nothing to do with the overall health of our economy.”
Wall Street and the American public disagree… when the market is down, the economy is down, when it rises the economy rises as well…
“But other than that, Troll, you nailed it! ”
Thanks, but I really didn’t need your affirmations when I had the facts on my side…
TBone
October 17th, 2012
11:27 am
I particularly scratched my head when the undecided voter asked the question to Romney how he would compare himself to GW Bush. Yeah that’s the question “undecideds” have alright. And you Ozombies enjoy the last weeks of your guy.
Dearie
October 17th, 2012
11:29 am
I wish these Comments had a “Like” button similar to Facebook. There are so many that are well written, say exactly what I would like to say, and would keep Comments stream lined.
Kyle Wingfield
October 17th, 2012
11:30 am
TBS @ 9:34: CNN polled undecideds last time and I thought I read that they did this time, but apparently this CNN poll was of registered voters who watched the debate. Not even likely voters. So there certainly is a qualitative difference between the two polls; my apologies for stating otherwise.
Given the emphasis on undecideds at this point, as well as the typical edge Democrats have with registered (vs. likely) voters, I’d say this means the CBS poll has more value as far as who benefited most from the debate — meaning it was even closer to a draw than I previously indicated.
Tealiban Party
October 17th, 2012
11:30 am
If the Republicans had such great ideas, then they should talk about them instead of parsing and misconstruing President Obama’s words (i.e. Acts of Terror, Build That).
Instead Mitt and the Republicans, devoid of any new ideas and unable to provide details about how those ideas come to fruition, concentrate on deconstructing a few sentences in a speech.
Kyle Wingfield
October 17th, 2012
11:31 am
Cheesy @ 9:34: “Obama won big last night. All the polls reflected just that.”
There you go again…
So now a plurality within the margin of error is “big”? When does this Cheesy Dictionary of the Parallel Universe’s English Language come out in print? Or are you only going to serialize it here in comments on my blog?
Matz
October 17th, 2012
11:31 am
Know who else has binders full of women? Serial killers.
Get Real
October 17th, 2012
11:32 am
Both bases will consider it a win for their candidate, as we all know it is all about “the undecided”…it is really hard to believe there are any but supposedly there is…anyway, it will take a few days post debate for those opinions to be formed and assessed….stay tuned
Lambeau
October 17th, 2012
11:33 am
MarkV at 11:20… you really just don’t get it do you? You are so enamored with Obama that you can’t see a fault. You AND Obama are using semantics to try and escape the issues. He clearly used the video as an excuse in his UN Speech and he did not acknowledge it was a *planned terrorist act* until several weeks after it happened. You can beat this dead horse you were trying at yesterday as long as you want but it doesn’t make you right.
Beyond The Middle of the Road
October 17th, 2012
11:33 am
While the Vice Presidential and second Presidential debates were mostly even, I think you’ve overlooked one key factor. They have raised the enthusiasm of the President’s base which took a hit after the first Presidential debate. Increasing the turnout of your own supporters is about as important as swaying the undecideds.
Rightwing Troll
October 17th, 2012
11:33 am
“Fact is that all Obama did was green light the operation and in actuality he had no other choice. Most of the intelligence heavy lifting had occurred prior to Obama setting foot in the Oval Office. ”
So W knew where the man was and chose NOT to act (again, like at Tora Bora)???!?? And then Obama sat on this for 2 years?
Here, you’ll probably believe this: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osama_dead.php
Kyle Wingfield
October 17th, 2012
11:33 am
And here: “Voters with a +8 margin to the republicans.”
No, the party IDs were even. Your “+8 margin to the republicans” comes from the fact CNN has been sampling +8 to the Democrats in all its other polls. Which is more of a partisan split than the D’s had in the wave election of 2008. If you believe this electorate is going to look even more pro-Democrat than this one, it’s no wonder you believe some of the other things you believe.
Matz
October 17th, 2012
11:34 am
Guns don’t kill people. Single mothers kill people.
Kyle Wingfield
October 17th, 2012
11:36 am
carlosgvv @ 9:59 raises a good question. But my guess is it’s always been this way, to some degree.
JDW
October 17th, 2012
11:36 am
@Tiberius…as I said make yourself feel better if you wish…BTW how is it that the beloved former Governor of MA currently trails in the polls there by 15-20 points…seems odd for someone that did such a “bang up” job.
Tealiban Party
October 17th, 2012
11:37 am
Matz
October 17th, 2012
11:34 am
Guns don’t kill people. Single mothers kill people.
Ha! Good one Matz. Wonder how many others picked up on such tangential Romney thoughts last night.
Kyle Wingfield
October 17th, 2012
11:38 am
I am also very amused at the liberal incredulousness about “binders full of women.” The context in Romney’s answer explains it all: he asked for, and received, a lot of female candidates for his cabinet positions. My guess is they’re harping on this somewhat awkward phrasing because they don’t want anyone to notice that he talked about his track record of hiring women to high positions.
Matz
October 17th, 2012
11:38 am
Obama courageously dispels a stereotype:
“I don’t look at my pension, its not as big as yours.”
Matz
October 17th, 2012
11:40 am
Tealiban Party,
Romney needed to take a jab at single mothers to stroke his base. That he chose the assault weapon question as the opening to use could be the subject of extensive psychoanalysis.
Del
October 17th, 2012
11:40 am
“So W knew where the man was and chose NOT to act (again, like at Tora Bora)???!?? And then Obama sat on this for 2 years?”
It’s obvious you don’t know very much about the lead up to the SEAL Team operation.
Kyle Wingfield
October 17th, 2012
11:41 am
Obama 2012 @ 10:29: ” Let’s continue the growth of America.”
You mean the anemic job growth or the anemic economic growth?
Tealiban Party
October 17th, 2012
11:42 am
Kyle Wingfield
October 17th, 2012
11:38 am
My guess is they’re harping on this somewhat awkward phrasing because they don’t want anyone to notice that he talked about his track record of hiring women to high positions.
You’re right Kyle. We should examine his track record at Bain….
“Romney, however, did not have a history of appointing women to high-level positions in the private sector. Romney did not have any women partners as CEO of Bain Capital during the 1980s and 1990s.”
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/16/fact-check-romney-record-hiring-women/r3gqpykaQudNNqigmLZfuJ/story.html?camp=misc:on:twit:mostpop
iggy
October 17th, 2012
11:43 am
Cheesy dictionary….lol.
Amongst the many things our Grand Poobah refuses to disclose he now denys his pension plan, stocks etc. I bet all his monies are in his kenyan piggy bank.
So sad he tells so many whoppers.
JDW
October 17th, 2012
11:44 am
@Kyle…”I am also very amused at the liberal incredulousness about “binders full of women”
Well outside of the fact I think women will find it offensive, the question was what was he planning to do to support women in the workplace now unless he is going to have a very big cabinet he didn’t help himself with the answer.
Don't Tread
October 17th, 2012
11:45 am
“How did style come to be more important than substance?” Has been since the 90s, and “style” has become increasingly more important since television became affordable to the masses. Dumbing down education hasn’t helped either.
As predicted, the moderator was biased towards Obama, but given her background information, were we expecting a different result?
Del
October 17th, 2012
11:45 am
I think at this point the only undecided’s are those who voted for Obama in 08 undecided if they’ll bother going to the polls and vote for him again this time.
JamVet
October 17th, 2012
11:46 am
You mean the anemic job growth or the anemic economic growth?
Yep, because after the attempted corporate destruction of capitalism and the biggest economic meltdown in four generations – to the tune of $10Trillion – Republicans would have just snapped their magic fingers and everyone would be on easy street.
This sucker could go down. ~George W. Bush, September 2008
Kyle Wingfield
October 17th, 2012
11:47 am
JF @ 11:21: And what are Obama’s specific plans?
jconservative
October 17th, 2012
11:48 am
“He waited until the very end to bring up the “47%” comment.”
I believe Romney actually brought up the 47% matter when he made the following remarks in answer to the last question.
“I care about 100 percent of the American people. I want 100 percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future.”
Then in his answer to the question Obama made his remarks on the 47% as follows.
“I believe Governor Romney is a good man. Loves his family, cares about his faith. But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considered themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about.”
At least that is what I thought when I heard Romney use the phrase the 100% twice. But then again, I was looking for Obama to bring up the 47% matter.
Jeffrey
October 17th, 2012
11:49 am
A course, of course?
H.E. Pennypacker
October 17th, 2012
11:49 am
This reminds me of Kyle’s earlier assessment of the two political conventions, where I am paraphrasing, but he stated they were pretty much a draw, except he would hand the advantage to Romney for displaying his “soft side”. We now know that the conventions played a contributing factor in an Obama surge, (also fed by the 47% video), which was only arrested when President Obama sleepwalked through the first debate.
I do not expect a similar polling advantage to commence after last night, but Democrats should take comfort whenever Kyle calls something a draw.
Kyle Wingfield
October 17th, 2012
11:50 am
JDW @ 11:44: Why, exactly, would women be offended that Romney asked his staff to seek out female candidate for jobs, they returned with lots of them, and he hired a number of them?
The only answer is that the left is trying to focus on one snippet of his answer rather than the whole thing.
stands for decibels
October 17th, 2012
11:50 am
The context in Romney’s answer explains it all: he asked for, and received, a lot of female candidates for his cabinet positions.
Apparently not, actually. The “asked for” part, at least. If this account is to be believed.
What actually happened was that in 2002 — prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration — a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.
They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.
I have written about this before, in various contexts; tonight I’ve checked with several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm that this history as I’ve just presented it is correct — and that Romney’s claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false.
(I do agree that some are going way overboard on the “binders” business though.)
Bruno
October 17th, 2012
11:51 am
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?
In case you’re unaware, Troll, and I’m sure you are, there’s a huge difference between correlation and causation . Correlation simply means that one event preceded another, with no connection of the events other than temporally. In order to show causation, there has to be some kind of mechanism by which one can show that the first event was directly responsible for the second event.
In the case of 9/11, a lot of folks point to the fact that Clinton gutted our intelligence forces during his time in office, thus handicapping Bush coming in to office. Furthermore, Clinton did little to thwart terrorism world-wide during his tenure, allowing al-Quaeda to grow unchecked.
Per the economic meltdown of 2008, the direct cause was the housing market meltdown, the seeds of which were sown prior to Bush taking office. Specifically, the legislation which allowed banks to engage in high-risk investments was signed by Bill Clinton. More immediately, Bush and other top Republicans began sounding the warning bells about FannieMae and FreddieMac by 2007, but the Dems who were in charge of the banking committees by then, Frank and Dodd, willfully ignored the warnings until it was too late.
As for Bush sharing some of the credit for the killing of Bin Laden, the intelligence which led to his discovery did, in fact, originate prior to Obama taking office.
Now, as far as Obama’s policies somehow improving our economy, I’ll simply invite you to make a case for that. The stimulus moneys spent created almost no immediate results. At the same time, numerous CEOs have publicly stated that the uncertainty created by Obamacare, new onerous regulations and Obama’s anti-business sentiments have caused them to hold back on business expansion.
stands for decibels
October 17th, 2012
11:52 am
I believe Romney actually brought up the 47% matter when he made the following remarks in answer to the last question.
I actually turned to Mrs. sfd and said during Romney’s closing: “Why on earth is he bringing THAT up, now? Obama hasn’t said a peep about it.”
Of course, maybe he had some reason to imagine that Obama would close with it, but still… pretty risky.
Lambeau
October 17th, 2012
11:52 am
j, Romney had to try and do some preemptive “damage control” at that point because he knew Obama would bring it up in his closing argument where Romney couldn’t retort. Again, my point is that if Obama really had a strong case he would approach the matter head on.
md
October 17th, 2012
11:52 am
Typical Obama, claiming credit when none is due and pointing the finger of blame at others. Anyone else notice the “I ended the war in Iraq” statement?
No mention whatsoever that Bush negotiated and signed the SOFA with Iraq prior to leaving office……shows a major lack of character for Obama as far as I’m concerned.
Matz
October 17th, 2012
11:54 am
A binder full of women sells for 77 cents, while a binder full of men sells for a dollar.
HRPufnstuf
October 17th, 2012
11:55 am
Still no specifics on Romney’s tax plan. At this stage of the game, he isn’t going to tell us, and will keep trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Don’t Republicans want the specifics? Romney can’t keep saying “I’m going to change the tax code and eliminate loopholes and deductions”, and not say what he’s going to change. I want specifics!
iggy
October 17th, 2012
11:56 am
Thats cuz men are worth more than women.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
October 17th, 2012
11:56 am
Kyle, the guy set up a task force to go find qualified women to serve. Did he not know any? None of his underlings knew any?
“I need some African Americans and Hispanics in my administration. Boys, fetch me some binders.”
Completely out of touch.
NoBodyYouKnow
October 17th, 2012
11:57 am
Hey “cheesy grits”, you didn’t mention Jimmy “peanut” Carters record on how many Americans were killed in his Chic. Sh. administration. What a wimp. O’bama got his dander up when that incident was brought up. Wonder why? Because his leaderships decision on that matter failed. He was too busy going on the VIEW, and Letterman.How in this world ANYBODY can support this guy after all has been brought out about him baffels me? He has no experiance in anything. His education is in Law. Many questons still remain about where and when he attended school. His past has always been in queston. His close friendships with radical socialist. Him attending a church where a pastor cusses and damns America. And after being a member there 20 yrs. and that pastor marrys him he has the gall to say he never heard that man say that? A large majority of Americans were 100% against that healthcare bill and he shoves it through anyway. His statement “the healthcare bill will not cost a cent more”. He confiskates a large amount of money from the medicare program to pay for his Obamacare. The AJC has already said there will be a shotage of doctors in the next 3 to 5 years. The article didn’t say but we all know doctors are getting out of their practice because of that stupid bill. BUT GO AHEAD VOTE FOR THE MAN WITH THE BIG SMILE AND SMOOTH TALKING. Hey he sure can make a great speech. MSNBC loves the guy. Romney’s a much better educated, experianced, and knowledgeable man.
Kyle Wingfield
October 17th, 2012
11:57 am
Pennypacker @ 11:49 conveniently leaves out this portion of my assessment of the conventions:
“But that [very slight edge to Romney] just as well could have been neutralized by greater enthusiasm for Obama among his base, which clearly was the target audience all week.”
Obama ended up with a 2-point bounce out of the conventions. So the base-rousing more than neutralized Romney’s effort, but only by a bit and only temporarily. I was off, but not that far off.
Matz
October 17th, 2012
11:58 am
Thats cuz men are worth more than women.
Unless they’re bundled together in binders. Like Romney’s grandaddy did.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
October 17th, 2012
11:58 am
Instead of offering a fact on his tax plan, Romney throws out a made up number of 25%?????
What are we supposed to do with that? If his numbers don’t add up we can’t hold his feet to the fire.
Is Romney being vague on everything so he doesn’t get hit with a list like Obama has of failed campaign promises and such?
Kyle Wingfield
October 17th, 2012
11:59 am
sfd @ 11:52: “maybe he had some reason to imagine that Obama would close with it”
That’s all I can come up with. I thought it was risky, too. But probably riskier not to say anything and leave it totally unaddressed … he had to think Obama wouldn’t go the entire debate without mentioning it.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
October 17th, 2012
12:00 pm
I just want the binders of Thai women. K, thanks…
Kyle Wingfield
October 17th, 2012
12:00 pm
Finn @ 11:56: Are you saying you’d prefer that he hadn’t hired the women?