So the first presidential debate is coming up. Most of the polls indicate that Romney needs a strong performance to cut into Obama’s (narrow) lead. So here are my thoughts on the pros and cons of what we can expect from Romney against Obama:
pro,
1. Romney isn’t as bad a speaker as he came off in his convention speech. He just made a bad strategic decision about how best to appeal to the public. If Romney comes with a real message (along the lines Ramesh Ponnuru outlined) and brings the heat on Obama’s proposed Medicare cuts (like Paul Ryan did on Friday), then Romney should come off better.
2. Romney was the most consistent debater of any of the Republicans who ran for president. He didn’t win every debate (Gingrich got the better of him in a couple), but Romney won a lot more than he lost. And when he focused on taking down his opponents, Romney always got the job done. Romney totally destroyed Perry in their exchanges. When it all came down to the Florida primary, Romney beat down Gingrich good. Romney ran rings around Santorum in the one debate where those two were the main focus. Don’t believe anyone who tells you that Gingrich would have been a stronger debate challenger against Obama. Obama would have cut the undisciplined and terribly compromised Gingrich into little pieces.
con,
1. Romney is on his own – Romney’s debate record in the Republican primaries is a little less impressive than it seems (though still impressive.) The debates had a weird dynamic that favored Romney. Romney was the frontrunner and all the other candidates were trying to become the main Romney alternative. So almost every time a candidate emerged as a the Romney alternative, all of the other candidates would gang up on whoever had emerged as the main Romney alternative. So when Perry entered the race, it wasn’t just Romney that went after the Texas governor. You also had Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul help Romney out by directing most of their fire at Perry. It was really something. They were going after Perry like a pack of wild dogs. Then when Gingrich emerged (the first time, just before Iowa), you had Bachmann and Paul directing most of their fire at Gingrich. When Santorum had emerged as the last non-Romney standing, Ron Paul helped Romney out in the last Republican debate that mattered. The only non-Romney that wasn’t gang mangled in then debates was Herman Cain, but I think that is because everyone on the stage (including Herman Cain) recognized that Cain was a joke that had zero chance of lasting. About the only time when Romney took an opponent down with no help was in the Florida debate with Gingrich. The other candidates (Paul and Santorum) mostly stayed out of it, and Romney still took down Gingrich hard. Romney won’t have Michelle Bachmann to help him out against Obama.
2. Obama is a lot more likeable and rhetorically well prepared than any of the people Romney beat in the primaries. It isn’t close.
That doesn’t mean Romney can’t win the debate. Obama is neither Superman nor a bumbling wimp. He is a tough, pragmatic, ideological politician with a weak record and some major ideological weaknesses that his opponents have failed to exploit. I put the odds of Romney “winning” the first debate in the way that John Kerry won his first debate against George W. Bush at less than one in three, but not at zero.
September 23rd, 2012 | 1:05 pm
I saw Galaxy Quest on cable last night. I get the feeling that Obama and the Democrats are Sarris, the reptilian humanoid starship warlord willing to do anything for victory and delighting in the destruction of his enemies, while Romney and the Republicans, like Tim Allen & Co. in the movie, are “actors” just playing a role and going through the motions.
An overstatement, I know, but still – I get the distinct feeling that the Romney and most (not all!) Republican politicians and GOP operatives, even if they won, would not be inclined to use their victory to achieve anything in particular (except, maybe, extending the Bush tax cuts). And so they really don’t care that much about winning, and have not thought through a realistic path to victory. Unfair, maybe, but that’s what comes across to me (and I’m a committed conservative).
September 23rd, 2012 | 2:23 pm
Pete, I think what’s missing in your pros column is the fact that one of Obama’s greatest advantages in his 2008 debates with Hillary and with McCain was a devestating combination of his likable, articulate (as Biden would say) persona combined with the fact that he had no record that is rivals could point to as counterfactual evidence against the claims he was making about himself. As a result, the voters, lacking any notable record to look to, took his persona as a reflection of the reality of the man.
One example I vividly recall was when McCain challenged Obama’s presentation of himself as someone who could unite the two political factions in Washington. McCain aptly said Obama was just too far on the left to be able to reach that far across the aisle to conservatives. I don’t even remember what Obama said in response, he just smiled winningly projecting that persona, and pretty much devastated McCain’s argument by shear theatricality.
Obama will not have the same combination of advantages this time around. He’ll still be likable, but Romney will have 3 and half years of a tattered political adminstration to point to, effectively exposing Obama as merely a grinning simulacra of executive competence.
If Romney plays it right, he can be Toto to Obama’s Wizard behind the curtain.
September 23rd, 2012 | 2:25 pm
Ok, I’m sorry but no Obama would not have cut Gingrich to pieces at all. Obama’s equally undisciplined. His advantage to the point he has one is that not being and thinker, but a talker he might be less prone that Gingrich to get caught up in his own thoughts.
And let’s face it Romney with the whole rest of the field ganging up on him beat Santorum. This site has a real chip on its shoulder about Santorum. Just imagine the last two weeks with Santorum talking about his private sector union support and comparing it to Obama’s public sector union support. All this with the disgusting spectacle of a teacher’s strike looming as a spectre. Instead, we got Romney and the 47%.
September 23rd, 2012 | 3:04 pm
One thing that is going to have to happen is that Romney is going to have to pick a single consistent campaign narrative and stick to it. His very bad habit of merely telling every audience what he thinks they want to hear hasn’t worked because the press reports all of it to everybody. Consequently, all the public actually knows about Romney is that he is a very rich man with overseas bank accounts who is very inconsistent in what he says.
The comment above from djf is a perfect example of what results even with people of the same point of view. Two (small) cheers for Mitt just isn’t going to be enough.
In the debates this same thing will occur without need of mediation by the press: his primary audience will finally consist of people with every contradictory point of view, and even those with none of the above. Mitt will finally have to come clean, which is what he should have done in the first place, no matter to whom he was speaking, because he was always speaking for the cameras, too.
He’d also better start getting specific and realistic. Statements that he will create 20,000 jobs by X date, presumably by magic, just won’t cut it. Nor will the absurd grandstanding of “On my first day in office I will repeal Obamacare!”
I think djf is perfectly correct, the Republican technocrats, professionals, and office holders care little about anything other than cutting taxes and doing favors for K street. As soon as they have your vote, they have no interest at all in why you voted for them, because your vote is the only thing they expect from you.
And they have finally brought forth a candidate incapable of hiding this fact.
September 23rd, 2012 | 3:29 pm
Sam, when comparing Gingrich and Obama in debate, look at Gingrich debating Romney or Ralph Nader and look at Obama debating McCain and Clinton. One guy is just a lot better at preparing, keeping his cool and talking to the median voter. Though Gingrich’s act was never really for the median voter which is why he would have been such a disaster as a nominee. Gingrich couldn’t handle a prepared Romney gunning for him. Obama knew how to evade McCain’s and Clinton’s attacks and be critical himself without seeming harsh.
Pseudoplotinus, I agree that Obama is in a weaker debating position this year. His campaign is a lot more anti-Republican than it is pro-Obama and Obama himself comes off too hostile these days. He also has a record to defend. The problem is that Romney has shown no ability to hit back at Obama’s criticisms and the romney campaign has not laid the groundwork for refuting Obama’s attacks on taxes and Medicare (never mind make a positive case for Romney.) And a less likeable Obama is still probably more likeable than Romney on a good day.
All in all, Romney isn’t favored but he has a shot – which is more than McCain had after the financial crisis hit.
September 23rd, 2012 | 6:51 pm
Pete, agreed on both your points.
Regarding Gingrich, I used to joke that the worste case scenario for Republicans wasn’t if a candidate Gingrich lost against Obama, but if he won. His term as Speaker of the House did not leave many admirers even among Republicans for among other reasons suffering from a debilitating case of policy ADD. Apparently his lack of discipline was not just limited to his debating style.
Regarding Santorum, he’s fine, but all that needs to happen is some journalist to ask him about HSS and all of a sudden the Republican candidacy will go down the Roe vs Wade rabbit hole and we’ll find ourselves explaining to friends at the water cooler why Santorum doesn’t think women who are raped should have the right to an abortion.
No thank you! I get that Romney isn’t Reagan, but he actually has some executive experience, is disciplined, organized and, in my estimation, a quick study. And with Ryan on the ticket, I think we have good reason to expect that his policy will be guided by a conservative sensibility.
September 23rd, 2012 | 7:23 pm
Eh, “over my pay grade” should have been a Gerald Ford “soviet domination” level gaffe. He walked into a debate hosted by a televangelist and didn’t think he’d get a question about abortion. That doesn’t suggest preparation. Keep in mind John McCain, easily the least intelligent major party candidate since Mondale (I am only 25 so I really do not know) fought Obama basically to a draw in the debates and definitely like I said won the Saddleback debate.
Romney had the advantage of effectively being able to attack whomever was his rival that debate from either the left and right. When Perry tried to hit Romney on the vulture capitalist thing everyone cried foul. When Romney hit first Perry from the right on immigration, and then Santorum from the left on social issues everyone acted like that was just good preparation.
September 24th, 2012 | 8:39 am
Mitt’s biggest problem with these “debates” (I use the quotes because these ridiculous things don’t deserve the term) is that the MSM is 100% against him. That’s par for the course for the GOP in recent years, but the nominees haven’t always handled it well.
One thing Mitt needs to have in his back pocket is an effective response to the first time Obama parries a question about his disastrous record by blaming Bush. Americans don’t like whiners, and Mitt needs some way to hammer Obama, but “nicely”, on this (some lame reference to “the buck stops here” won’t cut it).
Also, Mitt needs some way to answer the coming questions on Romneycare vs. Obamacare in ways that won’t alienate most of his base. I despair of his being able to handle that well.
Based on ads I’ve seen the Romney campaign running (online, not on TV), I don’t have much confidence he has folks who are up to the job.
September 24th, 2012 | 2:57 pm
Pete, you called Obama a “pragmatic, ideological politician”
Which is it?
Are his politics guided by body of ideas & beliefs, or are they dictated more by practical consequences? Not sure how it can be both.
September 24th, 2012 | 3:57 pm
Dave, well both. He tries to push his policy preferences as far as the constraints of the political system and culture will let him. I’ve no doubt he would prefer a single-payer health care system and that Obamacare is a step toward that. He took half a loaf. I don’t doubt he would prefer the Freedom of Choice Act was law, but won’t push if it prevents him from being president and appointing pro-ROE Justices. And of course personal ambition to hold office has something to do with it too.
September 24th, 2012 | 4:03 pm
Sam, “Eh, “over my pay grade” should have been a Gerald Ford “soviet domination” level gaffe” Yeah, he was off balance (and is generally vulnerable to a thought out and persistent critique on abortion), but there is a lot more to his debate performances than that.
September 25th, 2012 | 9:57 am
[...] Romney just “needs a strong performance to cut into Obama’s (narrow) lead,” says Pete Spiliakos at First Things. There’s reason to believe he can deliver one, too. After all, Romney “always got the [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact