Getty Images
One of the main drawbacks to televised political theatrics is that we tend to evaluate the events in an unconstructive way. We see players on a stage, after extensive rehearsals, playing to a packed house, and we judge them as if they are actors -- who seemed "crisp" and looked "confident."
In other words, we invariably value political theater on its theatrical qualities, watching to see who knew their lines and delivered them more effectively.
By this measure, when it comes to determining who "won" last night's debate in Denver, I'd argue the conventional wisdom is right: it wasn't close. Based on style and performance, Mitt Romney did all of the things a "winning" debater is supposed to do.
Did he know his lines? Obviously, yes. Did he deliver them well? Flawlessly. I argued last week that Romney's "strength as a debater is wildly underappreciated" and "if Democrats expect Romney to falter in the debates, they're making a big mistake." Last night illustrated what I was talking about.
President Obama, meanwhile, was listless and timid. He stumbled on his words. At times he seemed distracted and unfocused. There were key opportunities for the president to go on the offensive, but for whatever reason, he chose not to engage. For pundits checking boxes -- who gave the appearance of being "in control"? -- Romney excelled.
But all of this overlooks an element I like to think is sometimes important: substance. The men on the stage last night aren't actors; they're candidates for the nation's highest office. Delivering lines well is a nice quality, but as the dust settles, it's worth pausing to reflect on whether those lines were true and reflect reality in any meaningful way.
Indeed, it seems to me Romney thrived in large part because he abandoned the pretense of honesty. And as it turns out, winning a debate is surprisingly easy when a candidate decides he can say anything and expect to get away with it.
Romney told viewers his proposed $5 trillion tax cut isn't really his proposed $5 trillion tax cut. He suggested he could eliminate a $1 trillion deficit by going after Big Bird. He said his non-existent health care plan protects those with pre-existing conditions when in reality the exact opposite is true. He cited trumped up "studies" from far-right ideologues as if they're legitimate, assuming the public won't know the difference. He said a deficit that's shrunk has actually "doubled."
And when Romney wasn't repeating falsehoods, he was furiously shaking an Etch A Sketch, rolling out yet another version of himself.
This new model -- version 8.0? 9.0? -- likes regulations of the financial industry, wants to work with Democrats, thinks his Massachusetts health care law was a great idea, and has no use for the goals of his running mate's budget plan that Romney enthusiastically endorsed. Does this in any way reflect the candidate who's been running for president the last year and a half? No, but the Republican assumes most voters won't realize and most news organizations covering the campaign won't tell them.
He might very well be right.
But as Romney and his supporters take a victory lap this morning, it's fair to note their success was a triumph for style over substance.
Leave a Comment:
I find it interesting to hear Romney say he will not raise taxes on the middle class, then state that he wants to broaden the base. That implies that he will raise taxes on the poor, and working poor. Broadening the base is, by definition, increasing the absolute number of taxpayers.
I too was unimpressed by Obama's performance, and spent the better part of a sleepless night trying to understand what, if any, the strategy was. I came to these conclusions:
1) This has been Obama's style throughout his campaign and presidency. Many people said the same thing about his performance against Hillary in the primaries. Obama has consistently showed he has a knack for giving people just enough rope to hang themselves with. Instead of Romney's team plastering the airwaves with chants of impending victory over the next few days, they're going to be forced to actually EXPLAIN IN DETAIL how he can actually accomplish all the claims he made in the debate. This will expose him even further as the fraud he really is. I think that it's possible Obama laid off the counter punches knowing full well that Romney's claims are going to be thoroughly debunked in the press.
2) Obama did enough, I think, to make reasonable people understand that Romney was just telling people what they wanted to hear. Romney did nothing to change the impression of him as an empty suit. And remember, most people have already decided who they are going to vote for. It could come down to white middle to upper class women that decide the outcome of this election, and Romney did himself no favors with that demographic by being rude and obnoxious. Sure, the right wing is ecstatic, but he's just preaching to his choir and this does not change any dynamics of the race.
3) This debate was supposed to be about different domestic issues, but it wound up being heavily focused on taxes and the economy, Romney's only real supposed strong suit. Rather than save his ammunition for the long haul, he went all in last night. He was essentially allowed to turn the debate into a nationally televised stump speech in which he simply regurgitated right wing talking points. There is nothing more that he can say or do, unless he actually starts laying out details of what he actually intends to do. But he can't do that because it's the same old snake oil the republican's have been selling since Reagan and people aren't buying it anymore. The other debates are in a different format focused on different topics.
Obama's style can be infuriating yes, but his strategy seems to always pan out for him. Remember people, Romney did what he HAD to do last night to save his campaign. This is similar to an underdog team coming out in the first quarter and going up 21-0 against the heavily favored. The superior team more often than not can take that first punch, and eventually wears down the other team because of their superior skill and experience. I see this happening over the next few weeks.
My 2 cents.
"...and spent the better part of a sleepless night trying to understand what, if any, the strategy was."
You, too, huh? I thought I might be the only one who took it so badly that I lost sleep. Guess not.
Me too! I kept thinking what the frack was that all about? Romney verbally prancing about like a desperate loser.
citizen_pain_71, I hope you are right.
The thing that puzzles me is that Obama and his team are very media smart. Do they have a plan and wanted Obama to come off meek?
Romney and his team follow the lie loud and often tactic because this has been working for them.
I hope Obama and his team have a counter offense that will over come the lies.
One thing that came to my mind when Mitt would lie was Obama using Ronald Reagans "there you go again". I don't know how that would have come off.
Respectfully wonder, Captvic, why would they "want" the POTUS of a first world nation to come off looking meek? I don't see the stragetic advantage to such games.
Where the president failed, to the extent that he did, was on the tax plan.
Romney's plan is vaporware a much hyped program without a real world existence. Obama should have pointed out that we have already tried cutting taxes and increasing defense spending in the Bush administration, and if we wanted him to be president again, we'd say so.
Why do I get the feeling that the far right wing/tea party will be so pleased (with Romney going after the President like an attack dog), they won't even notice Romney shook the Etch-A-Sketch -- erasing the picture of him arm-in-arm with them, before he tossed the damn thing into the trash?
Watching Jim Lehrer was like watching Willie Mays play for the Mets, a superstar whom you're reduced to just closing your eyes and hoping he makes it through the game.
Two things strike me about the debate (the little I saw) and the reaction it:
1. Just as a person, to look at, Romney sends bad signals. From my first view of Romney (early 80's?), based on his looks and mannerisms, my reaction was that this person is "handsome" without being in the least attractive, a signal that this person is probably not a good person to be attracted to! GW Bush had the same quality. Good lookin' fella, enjoy the beer, but stay clear of him...
2. Once you start to think about where the two candidates are coming from, the debate takes on a wholly different look. Romney can use all his efforts on winning this race. On the other side, and at any given moment, more than half of Obama's attention is and remains on more important matters, whether in Aleppo or Benghazi or a couple dozen serious issues we don't yet know about and he can't talk about.
In spite of all that Obama at one point (sound of something crashing behind the curtain) let a smile take over his face that was a wholly genuine smile, not (switch camera back to Mr. Snakeoil) the paste-on, never-varying snile (half way between sneer and smile) of the unscrupulous salesman.
Romney handsome? It's no secret some people think Ryan looks like Eddie Munster. Well, Willard sure looks like Frankenstein-same brow ridges, jutting jaw and forehead and brick shaped head. Sorry, I'm not being very nice this morning after being up most of the night and really really concerned with the lack of Republican morality.
I think you pretty much nailed it, Kay! And as for Republican morality -- their narcissistic "the rules don't apply to us" behaviors -- I'd add about ten more "reallys" to that concern...
I kept looking at his eyebrows hanging over his eyes and all I could think of was Cro-Magnon man. If I keep picturing him doodling on some wall in a cave in southern France, maybe I can get a good night's sleep! Bon soir....
Watching the debate, it struck me for the first time how Romney is all Bain. By that I mean his strategy is always to take the good and push the bad over on the other guy. He does this with policy by endorsing the parts of Obamacare & Dodd-Frank that are popular (thus taking kudos for them) but then blaming Obama for mythical disasters over parts that haven't yet been implemented (e.g., you WILL loose your employer base health insurance, this WILL cost jobs - Note: it is all just speculation).
This Bain-style tactic is most evident in his plan for Medicare. I agree with Obama - everything Romney is proposing with regard to Medicare will result in the end of the program as we know it. Healthy people will use vouchers - sick people will use Medicare and make the program so expensive it will not be able to continue. Again, it capitalizes on the Bain-tactic of sucking the life-blood out of an institution and leaving it to collapse under the weight of its liabilities.
I wish Obama had made the point that Romney was fortunate to be working with Democratic legislators in Massachusetts - people who believe in good government and are willing to negotiate. Obama was working with the Tea Party Republicans - the most obnoxious and offensive lawmakers ever to be elected.
Exactly, boardroom Bain. Selling to the executives.
How many people trust Romney more after seeing the debate?
I am more scared than ever, I trust him a 1000 times less.
You got the title backwards. Substance won over Style.
Style only wins when you do not know the substance. I know the substance and Romney as usual lack substance. In addition, I thought he forgot to take his ADD medication prior to the debate.
I was very disappointed in the president's performance last night. Romney lied, lied, and lied again, just as he's done throughout this campaign. The president should have challenged the lies much more aggressively. I've seen him go after Romney during political rallies many times. When the president talks plain truth to the American people, he's at his best. I wanted to see him fired up. Last night, it just wasn't there.
How much can you do with two personalities? Whatever the President say he will take the opposite answer, agree, or deny.
Romney directly contracted himself on taxes among other issues last night.
He said his tax plan was both revenue neutral and was a tax cut as well, a tax cut that would result in a small business incentive and a personal spending incentive for average income earners.
He also plans to spend an additional $2 Trillion on defense, and keep the Bush tax cuts in place which also contributes to the national budget deficit.
But then he said he would cut everything that could not be justified by paying for it by "borrowing from China" to pay for it.
These proposals are directly contradictory, and too indefinite and ill defined to be believable.
And this is where Romney failed last night, he has a major credibility gap with average income voters, and unless they are too dense to notice these direct contradictions, and unless no one points them out to them in the upcoming campaign, only then will he get away with making these contradictory claims.
But I doubt that, Romney did nothing to address the level of distrust people have for him, despite his aggressive debate performance.
Well, it looks it's all over for Muhammad Ali. George Foreman is just having his way with him.
Viewing this from across the pond in the UK Romney was quoting our Shakespeare ` a thing of sound of thing and beauty signifying nothing`. Romney is the ultimate Postmodern Politician he is so plastic according to which audience he is facing that if he could be called to account for his views he would a modern Janus. For those none classics among us Janus was the God of the New Year who faced both ways and accepted both the past and the present, what better description of Romney. Romney was a bully tonight I felt sorry for the man attempting and that is the word trying to ask relevant questions I doubt he will be asked again, why not get Rachel to be there , now that would be interesting for both sides. I doubt it will happen as she is too intelligent but it would iron out some of the difficulties that appeared in the debate tonight
The Commission for Presidential Debates is sponsored by corporations. It was started in 1987 because the political parties did not like the way that the League of Women Voters was running the debates. The parties could not control the debate, so they created their own debates. Democracynow.org did a good story on them this week. So, the CPD would never allow someone like RM to be a moderator.
It is all freaking lies.
I was furious last night, but not with President Obama. I was furious with Jim Lehrer, I was furious with the MSNBC "pundits", I was totally enraged with the arrogant, smirking, lying, distortions that were being foisted on the public by a rude, motor-mouthed, spoiled creep that had to have the last word, the first word and everything in between while he spewed the garbage his handlers gave him.
I am not sure the President wasn't thrown into shock with the outright lies told in the very opening statement of this Wizard of Odds that he has no intention of cutting taxes on the wealthy. I doubt any amount of practice or rehearsal could have prepared him for that any more than it blew the minds of every person listening and watching.
I am so sorry to disagree, but I personally much prefer a President in the White House that is calm, collected and thinking than someone so hyped by his wonderful self that he can't have even the least amount of respect for a person that far outweighs him in position, honor and veracity or for the rules and efforts of the "moderator" to try to hold him to those rules.
Mitt Romney proved to me last night that putting this mountebank in the White House would be the true end to our great country. He is literally Grover Norquist's puppet of 5 working digits that will sign whatever is put in front of him because he has no moral values, no compassion, no true beliefs, no conviction and no respect for anyone but perhaps his shrew of a wife. (I'm not even sure he respects her. Unless it's that she is as greedy and ugly as he is.)
I am thrilled that President Obama realized that his job carries more weight than the Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz or any "commentator". I am thrilled that he doesn't talk over people and refuse to give them the time or respect to listen to them rather than blare their mindless jabber over, above and around the airwaves.
I also believe that President Obama was so furious over the behaviour and lies that he had to really hold himself in check. That took guts and he had enough to do it. Good show, Mr. President.
Last night Romney demonstrated how to be the perfect etch-a-sketch candidate. He re-drew himself for the American public. The shame is that the President never called him on it.
One simple example: Romney cares about education. This from the candidate that wants to eliminate the Dept. of Education and doesn't think class size matters.
President Obama reminded me of a former President last night. In 1992 at the end of his debate with Clinton and Perot, my girlfriend said to me, "President Bush looks like he wants to be anywhere else but on that stage." Clinton obviously looked like a man who wanted to, and would become the next President. Last night Gov. Romney looked like a man who wants to (and may) become the next President. President Obama looked like he wanted to be somewhere else. Another couple of performances like that and a slight majority of the voters will send him somewhere else.
All I have to say is that the commentators were certainly watching a different debate than I was, President Obama clearly won, hands down. Romney looked smug and nervous, at one point his true colors started to come out as he tried to bully the interviewer. He repeated his old tired story, it was all a smoke screen. On the other hand the President appeared calm, he smiled a lot and behaved like a gentleman, he spoke the truth, and that is all that matters. Romney has a lot of experience pulling the wool over people's eyes, and that is all he did. The commentators were looking for some kind of a brawl between the 2 of them, why? The President went after Romney and de-bunked all of his myths. One thing the President is not, and that is a puppet. There is a difference betrween being angry and being assertive, the President took the intellegient side of the road and stayed on task , being assertive. Chris Matthews on the other hand looked like a lunatic. He should have skipped Happy hour and went and watched a wrestling match if that's what he was looking for. They psyched themselves up, this is not entertainment tonight, this is more serious. The President hasn't failed us yet, don't be fooled, he knows exactly what he is doing, he has Romney right where he wants him. He let Romney sing and dance and do his old routine,, Romney showed us all he's got, and he is no match for President Obama, partys' over. Especially, when you try messing with Big bird.
Rachel, as always, your analysis is great! My impressions are "what debate"? There was no "debate" The moderator refused to moderate. Romney, to me, came across as a very rude, greedy, deranged drama queen. One minute he came across as a preacher delivering an unfocused sermon, and another minute he was stringing out one lie after another. Obama was respectful and I'm so very glad he did not allow himself to get pulled into Romney's act, and it clearly was an act from Romney. I can't see how people were "impressed" by Romney; he was a complete turn off to me. I saw a rude desperate greedy man who will say anything and everything to get his way-sort of like a spoiled child with a big mouth. How do you even begin to try to talk sense to someone like Romney? You can't! He's too in love with his own mouth to actually listen. Thanks!
Yep, style over substance. All that glitters isn't gold!
I love it! Romney
really showed him “whose boss, king of the roost, whose is bigger.” Yep, Romney was aggressive, rude, louder,
prouder and edgy. Yep, if you turned the
sound down, Romney thrashed the President, but the sound was clear and Romney
was clear. “The private sector can do
things better and cheaper!” Now, anybody
who heard that knows that the private sector does everything better at a
cost. That is called capitalism. I believe the President pointed that out,
basically saying that the pay to play logic doesn’t get the job done for all
Americans. Let’s imagine Social programs
under private control. Yep, just hit you
didn’t it, no profit, no programs. Mr.
Romney is a very confident businessman and believes free enterprise will cure
all ills, but we know better, or we should.
The President cited many areas where the almighty dollar clouded
judgment and you see what that mentality has done. Somehow we muted that out and just watched a
mannerisms debate. It is fact that
companies have found a loophole in the tax-code to get tax breaks for outsourcing,
but Mr. Romney said, “In all his years in business, he’s never heard of such a
thing and didn’t know what the President was talking about”. Now the President noticeably agitated by this
bold-faced lie lost this moment to the mannerisms portion of the debate. I don’t know about most people, but when
someone says something you and they know is a flat-out lie, it makes me blink
and grit in frustration. The President
had no preparation for the amount of energy needed to stand there for 90
minutes and listen to a self-absorbed liar rant.
I totally agree, the President lacked focus and energy and
all those mannerism things needed to win the mannerism debate last-night, but
liars and ambitious people make your head hurt.
Mr. Romney gave a big fat kiss and hug to those 47% he loathes and
basically said he only said those demeaning things because he had to, you know,
“the devil made me do it” line. He used
“what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander” remarkably. Look at what I did in Massachusetts for
healthcare, but you Mr. President are and idiot for implementing a plan that
actually can work, that’s not, what government is for! No profit or bottom line, yikes! So says the guy who’d probably sell bottled
water to those who can afford it after poisoning the waterhole! Yep, Mr. Romney looked good, but said
nothing that should make anybody really think he has all Americans in his plans
for the future of this country. The
Republican base is ginned-up, because Mr. Romney does have a pulse, but anybody
that tells you “Big Bird” has no value and should be pink-slipped should ask if
warm blood flows with that pulse.
Yep, Mr. Romney won the debate, if he gave you what you
wanted to see, not necessarily what you wanted to hear.
I usually don't like trying to address Steve Benen (or anyone else contributing pieces to maddowblog), as a: it usually seems like anyone who does it is pandering for attention and b: I assume they would all (especially Benen) are too busy working on the next piece to accept criticism or praise for their previous pieces.
But this time I want to thank Steve for articulating what I was trying to get across last night. The President is (or should be) more than just an actor delivering lines and a hand to sign bills, no matter how much that definition thrills the Grover Norquists of the world. Substance with style is preferable, but substance should mean more, and point after contradictory point, Romney proudly and arrogantly claimed the opposite to be true, and I fear too many Americans may agree with him.
Did anyone catch the moment in the debate when Romney actually implied that Obama was a boy? He did so during a rebuttal in which he compared his response to that of a father of five boys who would keep repeating things that weren't so, in the hopes of convincing him otherwise. Whether or not you like and agree with Romney, you have to admit he owned that debate last night. Lehrer even looked appalled that he might lose his job along with Big Bird. It was a coup for the Romney camp but I don't expect it will continue in the next debate.
Romney addressing the president as a boy is disrespectful and does not win any points for Romney.
Last night's debate had the same narrative as the movie,'Rocky 3': a successful heavyweight boxer ( Barrack Balboa) has been sheltered from difficult boxing opponents by an overly-protective manager. This has made him soft and untested. Clubber Romney, an up and coming fighter, has survived brutal attacks from vicious hungry competitors (Republican base, Tea party, MSM, reality), and the sheer endurance of that pain has made him an invincible fighting machine.
Both Boxers meet; it's devastating.
Obama needs to get back to basics, find the 'eye of the tiger' and run on a beach in slow motion with waves crashing around him.
president obama may be down, but he is far from out! sure, i was disappointed, but who can list all the accomplishments with a worthless congress working against all of his proposals?
register, vote and support president obama.
anti-intellectualism is not what has built this country. greed should not the be driving force behind our ideals.
Romney did not shine last night. He shined us. Romeny revealed himself to be the nakedly ambitious grifter that he is. He bullied the moderator into silence and proceeded to ignore the time limits and filibustered the evening, dominating the time of possession as we say in soccer. Throughout the evening he repeated the lies he has been called out for during the last 36 weeks -- see Steve Benen's series Mitt's Mendacity. It was shameful. Then Romney denied repeatedly that his much touted tax plan would reduce revenue by $5 trillion over ten years. That threw the President who didn't really know how to respond. Despite the rules for the "debate" carefully negotiated and agreed to by both sides. Romney isgored them when it suited him and demanded they be enforced when he wanted them. Obama appeared deflated to some extent.
Obama's base wanted him to go for the jugular, despite the fact that's not hia style and never has been, so the liberals turned on him and said they were disappointed - again. I'm guessing few minds were changed.
I won't waste my time watching the next debates -- Romney has turned them into political porn just like everything else he touches.
THe most amazing thing about last night was that Romney changed his position again right before everyone. He seemed to have gotten a hold of the presidents practice sheets and changed his words to fit a whole new Romney. People seemed to eat it up Anderson Cooper and the gang were so excited. ¨ NO no the white guy won this time!¨ seemed to be the attitude. I was amazed. HELP! thank you Rache for being awake
I totally agree that Romney "won" but he did so with lies and new positions. Sadly, most voters will hear this debate.. think Romney 9.0 is telling the truth (many simply can't believe that someone could run for President and make it this far being so dishonest) and may be swayed.
I have no idea what on Earth was wrong with Obama! Many of my friends, strong Obama supporters were stunned this morning as we discussed it. What happened to him? How did he let Romney get away with this? Why was there no mention of the 47% remark nor Romney's hiding his tax returns?
All we can do is pray Romney's image and out of touch and dishonest is pretty concrete and he gets very little bounce out of this due to that. Obama best come back for the second and third debate and blow Romney off the stage!