Getty Images
A week from today, President Obama and Mitt Romney will share a stage at the University of Denver for the first of three presidential debates. But between now and then, the political world can expect a furious pre-debate debate over expectations. Consider this gem from the L.A. Times today.
President Obama has blocked out three days to prepare for the October debates, but with the constant pressures that come with one of the world's most important jobs, aides worry he may not get enough practice at the podium. [...]
Obama has already canceled some debate preparation because of events in the Middle East, said Jen Psaki, his campaign press secretary. "He has had to balance the management of world events, governing, time out campaigning," she said. "He'll have less time than we anticipated to sharpen and cut down his tendency to give long, substantive answers."
Why would Obama aides leak details like this to the press? Because they desperately want to manage expectations -- if everyone expects the president to come into the debate tired and unprepared, the argument goes, he'll face less pressure to impress.
At the same time, Obama aides are also making Romney out to be a modern-day Cicero for the same reason -- if the political world expects the Republican candidate to be The Greatest Debater In The History Of Western Civilization, then the pressure will be on Romney to meet high expectations.
Naturally, the GOP campaign is playing a very similar game, and it explains why Romney has been joking about Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), playing Obama in the debate prep sessions, "cleaning Romney's clock." Indeed, Portman told NBC News yesterday, "When you think about it, [Romney] hasn't had a real debate in 10 years." That's ridiculously untrue -- Romney endured all kinds of primary debates in 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012 -- but it's all part of the expectations game.
For what it's worth, putting aside all the rhetoric and gamesmanship, I tend to think Romney's strength as a debater is wildly underappreciated. Obama's good, but don't assume he'll cruise through these events.
The definitive, must-read piece on this was James Fallows' recent Atlantic cover story, and it helps explain why the former governor is formidable in this format. But one doesn't have to buy into Democratic spin to realize Romney is easily the best Republican debater since Reagan.
Granted, that sets the bar fairly low, given that McCain, Dole, and both Bushes struggled in this area. But I get the sense most observers simply assume that President Obama will easily out-class his challenger in their three meetings.
I'm not nearly as sure. Romney benefits from having gone through a series of debates this year; he's taken a lot of time off for prep; he's quicker than most of the recent GOP candidates; and he realizes this is his last meaningful chance to change the trajectory of the race. If Democrats expect Romney to falter in the debates, they're making a big mistake.
Update: Obama is scheduled to be in Nevada this weekend for debate prep.
Leave a Comment:
Romney tells people to pull their own weight, when he exports all the jobs overseas. What kind of moocher is Romney? No wonder troll Paul Ryan called Romney stench, he should know he is just as bad. What a crew these Republicans, extremists of hatred, and the extreme wealthy are. These people act like they are elite as everybody else is moochers, when they are the very worst things on this planet. Look at Bain Capital now they are exporting a very profitable company overseas to China, before anything changes just so they can screw the American people again. There was no need to change anything with that company, except some extreme rich people want more and more money in pure greed and drive everybody else to poverty and starvation. And you know what happens than war, violence, and death. All because of some brainless and uncaring idiots.
Tell Mitt there will be fact checkers with buzzers at the debates. The sweat from his face will short out his monitor.
Well, that's the beauty isn't it?
It is relatively easy to be a good debater when you don't have to have your fact straight. Anybody with good metabolism (who can pull something out of their bottom as fast as they can say "ugh") can be a good debater without facts. They already put up a disclaimer saying that they are not going to let some fact checker determine their campaign. Anybody still wondering what the debate strategy is?
All Obama has to do is keep pointing out that every word that comes out of Willard's mouth is a lie. Keep to the facts and keep asking him to do so too. And at the end look at him and say "Governor, do you even know what the truth is anymore?" Romney will be opening his mouth and flopping around like the fish out of water he is.
The truth has a known liberal bias. We hope that that continues to hold true for the debates.
Remember "Gore the Bore" -- the challenge is to keep it fast and short. Attacking the opponent can come across as bad, or worse make Romney sympathetic. He has to channel more of Clinton's confidence with the facts as quips.
The first debate will turn on forcing Romney to admit that his new plan will raise the taxes on someone and that someone is YOU.
No matter what tack Romney takes, Obama has to make sure that he is held to the issue on revenue neutral proposals as promised - which means cuts also have to include raising more revenue.
If 47% of people don't pay enough taxes, then in Romney's vision for them, they have to pay more taxes.
He'll claim they'll have higher paying jobs, and that would be nice, but no matter what he'll raise their taxes.
Middle class Americans already know how this looks because they do the bills every month and know there is no more money left at the end of the month. They hope to have higher paying jobs so they can pay the bills and maybe have some left over for a vacation.
Romney's tax plan has to be linked to this point- nope Romney wants you to pay more taxes with that new money, its arithmetic.
If Obama can get that point across it will make Mitt have to admit that his plans will not make it better for anyone who is now paying lower taxes.
"Romney wants to raise your taxes to cover his tax cuts.... that's more taxes for you."
The advantage usually goes to a liar who spews the Gish Gallops so quickly it's not possible to respond to any particular lie in any comprehensive way. This can still work because most people, if they even watch, will not hear of any refutation after the fact, if indeed that comes from media.
I still think Romney is going to look the country in the eye and ...., LIE.
Dya think? This reminds me of my "favorite" moment from the Rape-Public-CON primary debates, from 11/22/2011:
Willard even lies about his own name (check out 1:24 into the video)
I still have to believe that the truth will prevail...
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
@TCinLA, maybe that's all Obama really needs to do. In the spirit of the Great Communicator : (rueful smile, head shake ) "There you go again, Mitch ! " How do we know that Romney has changed position ? When he takes one.
@Philly Pretzel this is a post-1984, post-Fox republican world; there is no more Truth, for they cannot handle the Truth. I miss the truth, Yuengling, and fresh pretzels, too.
LOL. And they say there may be a world-wide bacon shortage as of next year, as well: 'Aporkalypse' Not. Here in Philly, we can still get fresh pretzels, anyway...
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
So, Portman cleaned Romney's clock? Maybe he should be the candidate. . .
interestingly, Portman may have cleaned his clock but remember Portmans job is to talk like Obama, using the talking points he would use. this isn't necessarily a compliment to Portman than it might be how difficult it will be to debate someone who can call you on every lie you tell.
Michael: A most excellent observation.
Romney may be the best Republican debater since Reagan, but let us not forget he was debating the class clown(s) in the primaries.
It is unclear if you are saying that Romney's adversaries were the class clowns, or Reagan's were (Carter and Mondale.)
If it is Romney's, then absolutely!
If it was Reagan's, I was young enough to have no interest in the 1980 debate, and I am old enough to know that history will vindicate President Carter and incriminate Reagan.
sorry the cut and paste made everything in that weird format. mea culpa
"Time out campaigning" would be where those fundraisers fall. No money = no campaign = no re-election. Why raise a question when you already know the answer?
It's called trolling.
Yeah, it was a rhetorical tongue-in-cheek question, since I knew the answer to mine as well. :)
Remember in 1984 when the first public signs of Reagan's Alzheimer's disease showed up in the first debate against Mondale and the nation held it's breath in the second one to make sure he would get through it ok? (or am I just older than most here)
I remember that debate very well. I also remember that Reagan had a very strong second debate.
That was the one where he didn't actually drool on himself, right? Impressive!
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
i don't know. However good Romney has been been in past debates, has he ever gone into them as completely empty-handed as he is now? What is his campaign even about? It's all generalities, contradictions, and lies. He can attack Obama, of course, but there is literally nothing he can say for himself that will appeal to anyone outside the Tea Party. Nothing true, anyway.
I will bet this shiny, new quarter that he doesn't say he is "severely conservative"!
Here's the thing, though - as Obama said at the DNC convention, he's not just a candidate, he's the President. He goes through a "series of debates" daily as part of his job. If you don't buy that line of argument, recall the time that Pres. Obama walked into a room of 200 or so Republicans, took on multiple challengers one-by-one - on live television - and ending up eating everyone's lunch, including Paul Ryan's. Seriously, Mitt "I don't know what I said, but I stand by it" Romney is going to "bring it" to someone who operates on that scale? Hmn.
Thank you June, I do remember that - it was the best lunch-time laugh I'd had all day! Rawmoney can barely speak as it is right now, exactly how "prepared" will he be with Mr. I have the facts in my head President?
I'll make sure I have popcorn ready...
I was going to say roughly the same thing. If those rethugs didn't hate him before, they sure did after. I always wonder why everyone seems to have forgotten that (except the rethugs, they remember it well, and have been retaliating for it ever since.)
I think the Prez will clean his clock even more than Portman. Facts are facts, and all that stuff.
It's true that Romney has had much more and much more recent debate experience than Obama, but that experience has been against other right-wingers. In that environment, the only disagreements were over who is the mostest truest "conservative". I'm not sure how well that experience will translate when faced with an opponent who appears to actually enjoy a clash of ideas. If Romney and Obama were knives, then Obama has been sharpened against a stone and Romney has been gently rubbed with a soft cloth.
Wow. The tension builds as the big debate trash talking continues. Yawn.
The problem for Mittens is that the policies he is pushing are unpopular. Obama bashing is now 3 plus years old, and people are tired of just bashing with no concrete proposal to do anything different. In other words, Romney is just another grifter/con man.
You'll be surprised at the Republican public's insatiable hunger for bashing. Why do you think Fox News has such a huge following?
.
"[Romney] hasn't had a real debate in 10 years."
- GOP Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) 9/25/12
.
.
.
Romney GOP debate appearances - 2011-2012 GOP:
23
.
To be fair, Romney hasn't had to debate anyone with a significant opposing view since he was governor
Well, since he looked in the mirror, snicker but still I don't think its a bad point for the Romney campaign to make.
He hasn't debated anyone with a brain in ten years, given that all he debated were Republicans.
You're right, but a 12-year-old can debate the likes of Bachmann and Newt. I wouldn't exactly call a debate with them proper practice.
Romney thinks he can practice his debate skills with an empty chair. Good luck with that.
Obama has to work extra hard because he has no idea which Mitt Romney will show up at the debates. Left-of-Teddy-Kennedy Romney? Hard-right Romney? Successful businessman but don't talk about why Romney? Experience-in-government but don't mention if it's good experience Romney? Experience in saving the Olympics but don't explain how Romney?
It's like when Andre the Giant would go into the wrestling ring with half a dozen "little people" wrestlers all at once.
Kamasutra Romney, of course -- many positions in a single session.
To win debates, you win debating points.
NOt based on facts.
Never concede a point (hence no apologies), no matter how wrong it may be.
Details don't matter. Clinton' speech was longer then the scheduled time for the debates--and that was for brief but honest appraisals of what is going on. Hence the Obama camp comment about the trouble with keeping replies short.
Yeah, I agree. I think it's more likely Obama will tie Romney in the debates rather than wiping up the floor with him. This is still a problem for Romney, though; he really needs to beat the crap out of Obama in the debates to have even a slight chance of the debates having an impact, and I don't think that's going to happen. Obama will, at the very least, be able to hold his own.
I expect Romney to do a Palin, and simply not answer the questions or stay on topic. The first debate gives them each long times for rambling answers.
rambling lies by Willard that the President can correct with the facts.
Obama is trained as an attorney to think on his feet and has a lot of experience from being in the Illinois legislature and US Senate. Romney has little experience despite his law degree. In fact, Romney's experience is being a CEO and does not debate inferiors; he gives orders. Thus far, his campaign has demonstrated that Romney prefers campaigning when the events are staged and not spontaneous. His stump speeches leave a lot to be desired because of his gaffes.
I would not be surprised if Romney tries to make demands before the debate and threatens to cancel. He did it with Univision and he may try to bluff to get his way again with the presidential debates. If Romney thinks he can push the people around who are responsible for the debates, he will try it. But he certainly cannot back down on the debates.
Sorry, but cancelling a presidential debate is not an option. The Univision event was not sanctioned, and they did not share the same stage.
If Romney tries to weasel out of any of the debates, the media backlash will be BRUTAL. If I were Obama, I'de take any threats from Romney and throw them back in his face.
Every 4 years, the campaigns play this psychological game with the voters. Both Obama and Romney have performed well in past debates. Unless one of them commits a colossal gaffe, I don't think the debates will matter much come election day.
Romney has a lot of recent experience. It shouldn't be forgotten that he didn't always do well against Teh Krazy Kar o' Krazy Klowns that was the 2012 GOP primary, but each time he did badly, he went back and prepared like crazy and landed solid punches. But, in every case, he almost invariably did that by positioning himself to the right of the wingnuttiest of wing nuts who were his opponents.
I expect he'll do well from a technical standpoint, but he's got two huge problems to deal with. The first is the huge body of lies and right wing positions he's built up. He dares not deviate from the wingnuttery, because every undecided vote he wins could cost him more than one wingnut who stays home or votes for Johnson or Goode. The lies are an even larger problem. If he tells the truth, he's screwed because the truth does't work for him and, in any case, is just another flip flop. If he repeats the lies, he gets screwed by the post-debate factcheck which, trust me, all the networks will be doing eagerly.
The bigger problem he's got though is that however technically skilled he may be as a debater, we've seen over and over again that the more he talks, the more people hate him. He was at his all-time low precisely at the moment when he was on TV debating every other night. To hear him is to dislike him. It's just the way it is.
"wingnuttiest of wingnuts" When I see those those words together I instantly picture the whacked out grin of Michele Bachmann Lunar Underdrive in all its glorious and dazzling nuttery!!!
O Queen of the Low Information (make that the NO Information) Voters...where forth art thou????
So, I keep hearing that Mitt is a very adept debater. Is this based on the never-ending debates during the primaries? Let's reflect on his competition: Santorum, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Paul and Pawlenty. With the exception of the last three - Really??? This is what we are basing his awsome debating skills on?
Romney is simply going to have to debate against all the other Romney's that he has been. Good luck with that.
Obama simply needs to not snicker or fall off the stage and I think Mr. Romney will take care of the rest.
At the worst, it will end up a tie, and Obama won't lose any ground.
I seriously doubt outside of a total fail that Mr. Romney will be able to make up any of the ground he's lose with his sparkling with and 'thinking on the go' attitude.
Oh, and what's the under/over on Romney using the phrase 'You people'?
By the third debate he's going to be so frustrated he'll blow and the "n" word will pop out like a big turd coming out the wrong end. As Brown is showing, it's all they've got.
Santorum beat him to it. (18 second video on web page linked to - no autoplay)
Willard could do it, too, though - he has been using Sen. Sweatervest as one of his (horrible) surrogates, and one does get to be known by the company one keeps.
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
TC that is the only message that Romney has really had this year, and the only one he can stay on, " I'm NOT Obama, just look at me! "
Personally am not a fan of debates,I know what their respective stands are on policies and frankly the idea that a debate can change [someone's] vote is ridiculous.And if they do change ones mind,i think they weren't paying attention in the first place.
Selling a product is the idea of a campaign and Romney hasn't been able to sell is toxic products.The Question is, would he have a closing that wears out the incompetence and awfulness of his campaign?
If you don't have a good or palatable product to sell,no matter how good a sales man you're,it remains a bad product if those listening know exactly what you're selling them.
The overwhelming majority, in all stripes feels the 1% should pay more in taxes, that has set in hard as cement. Nothing in the debates will change that. The competing visions meme, will reinforce both sets of supporters. As for undecideds, that's a bunch of BS, there are none.
i don't doubt that romney is good, but the president is no gerald ford. and, he's like the blackjack dealers in vegas--he takes all ties and pushes. not only that, he doesn't have to explain away things like the collective lunacy of his party, or a complete refusal to support his platitudes with specifics. any way you cut it, obama goes in with an edge. romney better be one helluva debater, just to get to a draw.
The big question will be how these moderators ask their questions. what will they ask, will they press romney for lies or just let him off the hook or will Obama get to respond to pin him?
with todays technology, for the life of me, I dont understand why we dont play back past footage when asking a question and let them deal with clear double talk in the past.
Exactly right. There are ways that the moderators can skew the appearance of a candidate's competence/smarts/debating skills/whatever. All that's needed is that one of them gets to spell "God", and the other "Czechoslovakia".
And Mitt would flub spelling "God", or offer someone $10,000 to do it for him.
In Dog we Trust! (Remember Seamus)
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)