1. Larry is as nonpartisan as analysts can be these days.
2. The debate, I think, was, from a debating expert’s point of view, a victory for the president. But in terms of changing minds, it was a tie. That probably means the erosion of Romney’s new slight advantage on the enthusiasm front, but otherwise the polls won’t move much.
3. Pete was, as usual, always right below. The new big concern is that the foreign policy debate can’t help Romney. Pete explains why, as I have before. Obama’s goal is to make us seem less safe under Obama. That will be hard, simply because, as Jim said, there’s been no significant loss of noncombatant American life under Obama’s watch. And Obama will spin every Romney injunction to be more tough into the dangerous and hugely costly impulse to interventionism that animated President Bush. It’s not the time to use “national greatness” arguments. I’m on board with the thought that Romney needs to distinguish his tough foreign policy from Bush’s. That will be really hard. I have to add, following Carl, that Romney’s not-so-great foreign policy speech doesn’t give much hope. It, in fact, gives the president some useful fodder. But let us say that the foreign policy debate will be insignificant simply because the third debate is the least watched and people aren’t going to vote (except Jim) on FP anyway this time.
4. Having made that assumption, Larry and his experts remind us effectively about the electoral college challenge to Romney. He can’t win without carrying Ohio or Wisconsin, even if he “runs the table” otherwise.
5. Overall, my view, following the experts, is that what Romney is going to have to do is somehow improve his standing in the national polls another point or two for the “run the table” scenario with a key MIDWESTERN state to be all that plausible. And he’s going to have to do it without debate-generated mo’.
October 18th, 2012 | 10:18 am
1. I fail to see any undecided voter anywhere at this point who cares one bit about foreign policy.
2. The headlines from the final debate are bound to be about Libya, as are the ones from the second debate, which is absolutely not in any way, shape, or form to the advantage of the incumbent.
3. One new tack I thing Romney can and should take is to attack Obama for not getting Congressional approval for Libya. This would be a new twist on his bipartisanship-is-good-and-the-president-isn’t-but-I-am message.
4. Good grief, 90 minutes is absurdly long for these things.
October 18th, 2012 | 10:32 am
Sure, the more focus on Libya the better, just because, as you say, it can’t help Obama.
October 18th, 2012 | 10:36 am
5. Also, Mitt should have a well-planned attack on Obama’s “after the election I’ll have more flexibility” nonsense to Russia. That should hit pretty hard.
6. Chin up. An incumbent sitting at 47% in mid-October in a two-man race can’t possibly get to 50%.
October 18th, 2012 | 10:57 am
If we had better candidates it wouldn’t be so long…
October 18th, 2012 | 11:25 am
Romney in a landslide.
There’s not enough ‘useful idiots’, clowns, parasites, and progressivist ideologues to put the Gifted One over the top. His many flaws and derangements have long been revealed in his failed and costly policies.
Not even the American voter is dumb enough to give Him another term.
Romney 57%
Him 41%
October 18th, 2012 | 1:22 pm
Regarding point number 5: Ask and you shall receive…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
October 18th, 2012 | 1:36 pm
Isn’t Romney’s foreign policy distinguished from Bush’s by virtue of the position he has staked out on the deficit?
The foreign policy is distinguished on the level of the Vice Presidential Candidate.
Considerable contrast between Dick Cheney’s: “Deficit’s do not matter” and Paul Ryan’s: “Deficit’s are all that matter”.
Of course in terms of foreign policy debate, Bush himself said that he was not “a nation builder” and he (Bush) spent quite a bit of time in muslim areas of Michigan working on a sort of compassionate conservative synthesis. Lets just say that campaign speech isn’t worth much.
Lybia doesn’t necessarily hurt Obama. I am not sure what Obama did wrong other than move a bit sooner… but given everything that probably had to be worked out logistically, the way Obama got Gaddafi seems ok.
Of course the way Obama got gaddafi is a bit hands off…the actual guy who got gaddafi was killed in revenge.
In terms of “attacking” Obama for not getting congressional approval… anyone with a twitter account/or any sort of news feed knew it was developing. Congress actually had constructive if not explicit actual notice.
Pace Ron Paul, It does seem to be bad Con Law and bad overall responsibility not to actually ratify it.
October 18th, 2012 | 2:19 pm
John: Since you feel the need to be openly rude, I’ll return the favor and point out that Libya isn’t that hard to spell correctly.
Also, the Libyan bombing campaign lasted for seven months. There was no approval “developing” and anyone arguing otherwise thinks we were all born yesterday and didn’t actually live through the time, when the administration showed complete and total contempt for Congressional oversight.
Even if you were correct (you’re not), it would be a clear indication that the Democrat leadership of both the White House and Senate are grossly incompetent and should immediately be replaced by someone who can actually get things done.
October 18th, 2012 | 3:16 pm
I tend to agree with robert Cheeks here. Romney gets 51 is my gut.
October 18th, 2012 | 9:58 pm
57-41, eh?
Only if people are just a) lying now to pollsters, and/or b) will be having a moment of hesitation when in the booth.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact