The Great Debate Megathread! Black Lincoln versus whiter, richer Douglas!

[derspiess]

Pretty sure David Ploof is a robot of some sort.

[DGuller]

   I guess people are seeing something I'm not.  On a victory scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being "Old Bush looks at watch" or "Gore sighs", this one was a solid 1.

[DGuller]

Obama's Intrade odds dropped 8% after debate.    Still not seeing it.

[CountDeMoney]

Pretty sure David Ploof is a robot of some sort.

Well, to his credit, he's more of a West Wing staffer than a campaign puppy.  At least he's not the god awful blonde bitch bimbo.

I'd fuck the living fuck out of her, but she's no campaign megaphone.

[Sheilbh]

I can see this debate performance maybe galvanizing Republicans who've been disheartened by the Romney campaign over the last couple of weeks.

I think it's interesting.  It was a pitch to the centre.  This was compassionate conservatism at its best (in tone, not policy). 

It'll be interesting to see if that and potential victory excites Republicans or if some are more unhappy at the compassionate tone - no cuts to education (from a party that cheered abolishing the Department of Education just 9 months ago), revenue neutral tax reform and so on.

[merithyn]

I really like CNN's balanced way of handling this debate, as well as the election in general. Probably the best I've seen yet.

Flash poll they did of registered voters who watched the debate: 67% say Romney won, 25% say Obama won.

[Tonitrus]

MENBC is pissed.

You should've seen the first 5 minutes immediately after the debate.  *This* close to Maddow breaking out the defib paddles for Big Ed.   

Chris Matthews put the debate loss completely on the President.

A decade or so ago, when Chris Matthews was a fair bit less partisan, I thought he'd make a great debate moderator.  Nowadays though, if Mitt Romney blew him off like he did Lehrer, Chris would have run up to the podium and beaten Mitt down with a tire iron.

[merithyn]

Anderson Cooper would make an amazing moderator. Can I vote for him?

[FunkMonk]

I can see this debate performance maybe galvanizing Republicans who've been disheartened by the Romney campaign over the last couple of weeks.

I think it's interesting.  It was a pitch to the centre.  This was compassionate conservatism at its best (in tone, not policy). 

It'll be interesting to see if that and potential victory excites Republicans or if some are more unhappy at the compassionate tone - no cuts to education (from a party that cheered abolishing the Department of Education just 9 months ago), revenue neutral tax reform and so on.

Romney leaving his "tack to the center" till the debates is an interesting strategy. Minus any more campaign foul ups, I can see Romney momentum snowballing into the general election.

Also, I think this late in the game most of the party will swallow up anything Mitt says in the debates.

[CountDeMoney]

I can see this debate performance maybe galvanizing Republicans who've been disheartened by the Romney campaign over the last couple of weeks.

I think it's interesting.  It was a pitch to the centre.  This was compassionate conservatism at its best (in tone, not policy). 

It'll be interesting to see if that and potential victory excites Republicans or if some are more unhappy at the compassionate tone - no cuts to education (from a party that cheered abolishing the Department of Education just 9 months ago), revenue neutral tax reform and so on.

At this point this late in the game, I think Romney's decided to eschew the frothing nutbags on his side of the aisle and trying to position himself for indie voters. 

But he has no where else to go but up at this point.  But I will agree that he seemed to discard some basic tenets he's been campaigning on.  Whether that works or has blowback by the rest of the GOP and more calls of chameleonism, we'll see.

[alfred russel]

I can see this debate performance maybe galvanizing Republicans who've been disheartened by the Romney campaign over the last couple of weeks.

I think it's interesting.  It was a pitch to the centre.  This was compassionate conservatism at its best (in tone, not policy). 

It'll be interesting to see if that and potential victory excites Republicans or if some are more unhappy at the compassionate tone - no cuts to education (from a party that cheered abolishing the Department of Education just 9 months ago), revenue neutral tax reform and so on.

I think just appearing as an adversary to Obama was enough for the Republican base.

[Sheilbh]

Anderson Cooper would make an amazing moderator. Can I vote for him?

He was a good moderator in the Republican primaries.  Brisk, kept things moving.  Didn't ramble.

I agree with this from Alex Massie (at the Spectator, but a British former Washington correspondent):

Mitt Romney hammers Barack Obama in the first presidential debate
2 CommentsAlex Massie 4 October 2012 4:00

Everyone says that the debates don't change the dynamics of a presidential race very often. President Barack Obama better hope that remains the case this year. Last night's debate wasn't even close. Mitt Romney thumped Obama in Denver. It was, as they say, an old-fashioned ass-kicking. Any Democrat who pretends otherwise is either deluding themselves or trying to kid you.

Will it shift the dynamics of the election? Perhaps not. The best Obama's supporters could say last night is that the President avoided the kind of blunder that might hand Romney an obvious advantage. Maybe so but that kind of defensive mindset seemed somehow to have seeped into Obama last night. He seemed sluggish, even lethargic, hesitant, distracted and oddly unable to land any heavy punches on Romney. Much of the time he was pictured on the split-screen with his head down. Doubtless he was scribbling notes but it had the effect of making him look weary and disheartened. Defeated or despondent, even.

Obama's answers were so bad that even when tossed a softball such as "What's your view of the role the federal government can play?" he stumbled on his answer and failed to give any kind of credible – far less inspiring – call to federal arms. With the possible exception of a highly technical exchange on Medicare I'm not sure he won a single round.

Romney by contrast was back to his best. The 27 debates he endured against his Republican challengers in the spring proved good preparation for this contest. He was consistently sharper and quicker to the punch than Obama and much, perhaps even most, of the time his blows were heavier too. Hell, he even managed to come close to being funny from time to time. This was as likeable as Mitt can get.

A trivial observation that nevertheless set the tone: Obama told us that the debate was happening on his wedding anniversary. Somehow he contrived to flub this and Romney, responding to this news, managed to be funnier and more gracious about the Obamas anniversary than the president was himself.

Not once did Obama really manage to discombobulate a challenger who, frankly, looked leaner, fitter and hungrier for the fight. Even when given obvious opportunities to counter-attack – on Paul Ryan's budget or on entitlements for instance – Obama pulled his punches. Heck, he never once mentioned the magic number: 47%. And when he complained about tax "loopholes" for oil companies and corporate jets he rather invited the response: well, you've been president for four years so couldn't you have done something about that?

But if you play not to lose you often end up losing. That was Obama's problem this evening. Now it may not matter in grand electoral terms but Democrats have cause to be appalled by Obama's performance while Republicans will leave Denver believing, at least for a day or two but perhaps for longer than that, they're right back in this and that Mitt has a little bit more than just a puncher's chance.

It wasn't that Romney was super-persuasive but he consistently had a better range of facts, figures and examples to illustrate his points than Obama had to put flesh on his. If this was a debate between a management consultant and a law professor then the former proved better equipped for the task at hand. Obama had 10% more speaking time but said (it seemed) 30% less than Romney.

There was an unusual amount of substance mixed in with all the usual nonsense. That's fine.  On some of it – on Dodd-Frank for example – Romney made a convincing case. Other parts of his presentation were less persuasive. Romney said he wouldn't cut the "share" of taxes paid by the wealthy. Perhaps not but his budget plan suggests he actually will. He placed great faith in magic tax-cutting beans too and denied he'd cut any tax that increased the deficit. Even so, it was notable how Romney tacked to the centre in this debate. This was reasonable Romney and a Mitt who could understand your disappointment and even almost feel your pain.

Well, good people can agree to disagree on the truth of that. But as any old debater will let you know you can get away with any old twaddle so long as it ain't challenged by your opponent. And Obama didn't challenge Romney very much, very often or very effectively. No wonder Romney dominated the debate.

I'm not sure there were any true stand-out moments. There was certainly nothing that will be added to the (pretty short!) list of classic presidential debate moments. Nevertheless, Romney was poised, sharp and seemed want to be president. Obama was passive and sluggish and seemed almost bored of the job.

That's how it seemed in pure debating terms anyway. The politics of it are a different matter. But if you saw a convincing debating case for four more years then you're a better, more acute man than me Gunga Din.

[CountDeMoney]

Romney leaving his "tack to the center" till the debates is an interesting strategy. Minus any more campaign foul ups, I can see Romney momentum snowballing into the general election.

Double-edged sword.  Campaigning as one candidate for ages, and then suddenly turning into another candidate?  We'll see.

Also, I think this late in the game most of the party will swallow up anything Mitt says in the debates.

What's more important to them: campaigning on their platform, or beating the President?  We know the answer to that one.

[alfred russel]

Romney clearly had a very good night.  Did Obama?  If the answer's 'no', then that's why Romney won

To win a debate, you actually have to make a damaging point successfully.  Being more poised while failing to land a punch doesn't get you a victory over an opponent who is less well poised while failing to deliver a punch.  Or, in soccer match terms, the team that got more corner kicks and free kicks close to the penalty area in a 0:0 game still doesn't win.

I gave up on understanding how this stuff worked when Gore wiped the floor with Bush during the debate on policy, but it was a disaster for Gore because he was sighing when Bush said really dumb crap. That, and when Bush's "fuzzy math" line actually worked for him.

[FunkMonk]

Romney leaving his "tack to the center" till the debates is an interesting strategy. Minus any more campaign foul ups, I can see Romney momentum snowballing into the general election.

Double-edged sword.  Campaigning as one candidate for ages, and then suddenly turning into another candidate?  We'll see.

Also, I think this late in the game most of the party will swallow up anything Mitt says in the debates.

What's more important to them: campaigning on their platform, or beating the President?  We know the answer to that one.

Republicans love a winner more than anything else. I know, I used to be one.