Thursday, October 04, 2012

Don't believe the hype -- Now, With Video!

I've been noticing a lot of triumphalism on the Right today, following the shaky performance of President Obama in yesterday's debate. Let’s cut to the chase.

• Obama will be better in the next debate. Likely, significantly better.

• While I've been skeptical of the polling for the entirety of this cycle, especially polls with anything showing a +5 edge for the Democrats, I doubt that Romney is actually leading at the moment. It's more likely that Obama has a small lead than not, or that Romney and Obama are tied.

 • A lot of things are happening right now that will give Obama a chance to show leadership, especially in the Middle East. You may not have noticed it, but Turkey and Syria are on the brink of war. Turkey is a member of NATO, which means the U.S. has an obligation to get involved if war actually begins in earnest. Meanwhile, Iran is spiraling into a financial crisis and if things start to get desperate for the mullahs, you could see any number of things happen that will knock the debate results right off the front page.

• There are a whole lot of powerful people who are "all in" for Obama and they aren't likely to back away from him just because Obama had a rough night.

Bottom line — Romney likely helped himself last night. But he has a lot of challenges remaining. I wouldn't be taking any victory laps just yet.

UPDATE: While my advice stands, the reviews of what happened last night continue to come in. Tough hop for Big Bird on this one. Jim Lehrer can't be too happy, either. Don't miss Romney going Gangnam Style at the end:


6 comments:

Brian said...

As I said before, there is no question Romney did a better job last night.

The question I've been mulling over is this: if you drew a Venn diagram of "voters who are undecided at this point" and "people who are inclined to watch debates", how many people are really in the overlap?

I honestly have no idea, but I can't imagine that it's that many.

Mr. D said...

The question I've been mulling over is this: if you drew a Venn diagram of "voters who are undecided at this point" and "people who are inclined to watch debates", how many people are really in the overlap?

I honestly have no idea, but I can't imagine that it's that many.


If you did have any idea and really knew the answer, (a) you'd be in a different line of work and (b) exceptionally wealthy. I don't think anyone knows.

The one thing I wonder is this -- is the quarry "undecided" voters, or those who could be persuaded to change their minds? Because I think there may be a fair amount of those available. For both candidates.

First Ringer said...

Brian is absolutely right that likely few honest-to-goodness undecideds watched last night, but I think the greater impact comes from the media's reaction to the debate.

Most low intensity voters will stumble across coverage of the debate, if only in headline form. And that coverage was universally negative for Obama. As I write this, Yahoo! news headlines talk about Romney with a poll pump and my smartphone has headlines about Obama retooling his campaign. You didn't have to watch the debate or even care about politics to get the gist of it - Romney won and perhaps won significantly.

Caution is warranted for Romney fans, but let's face it - after months of the media declaring Romney down and out, the shoe's on the other foot for once.

Chuckwagon Boy said...

For your enjoyment is this link:
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

I know it will come as a HUUUUUUUUGE surprise to all of you that political candidates stretch the truth as it shows equally how both B.O. and M.R. spun their "facts". "What I found the most interesting was this phrase: Romney sometimes came off as a serial exaggerator."

Mr. D said...

CB,

Word to the wise -- don't assume that the self-styled "fact-checkers" are presenting the facts, either.

Chuckwagon Boy said...

Hot Air said that too, Mr. D when they disagreed on some things Fact Check said about Paul Ryan. They ran a blistering article on how inaccurate the site was in discussing some facts. Then a week later I went to look at some articles there and in article they quoted from the site once and on another they referenced Fact Check twice with no discussion the check could be wrong.

Another HUGE surprise that would ever be done by a homer supporting their candidate!