Behind in the polls and widely expected to lose, the presidential challenger proudly boasted after winning a fall debate, "Today, we have a brand new race. Today, everything is different." The candidate's aides argued that voters were finally giving their guy a second look and rethinking their support for the president.
Chris Wallace said the incumbent's bandwagon "hit a bad rut last night and the president seemed to know it." The incumbent mentioned the debate at a rally the next day, and tried to make the best of a bad situation, but Wallace added the debate gave the challenger "new life."
I'm referring, of course, to 1984.
If you missed last night's opening segment -- especially if you're one of the Democrats who responded to Wednesday's debate with dread and despair -- it's well worth your time. Rachel noted the recent historical record, and the pattern that emerges.
Incumbent presidents nearly always lose their first (and in some cases, only) debate. It happened to Ford in 1976; it happened to Carter in 1980; it happened to Reagan in 1984; it happened to Bush in 1992; it happened to the other Bush in 2004; and it happened to Obama this week. The exception was Clinton in 1996, but as Rachel noted, the scorecard for sitting president -- one win, six losses -- points to a trend.
With this in mind, the Democratic handwringing over the last 36 hours is a bit much. As Rachel put it, "In terms of the nationwide Democratic bedwetting that's going on today over the challenger having won this first debate against the incumbent president, Barack Obama -- come on, kids. Buck up. Challenger wins first debate is not a headline that should surprise anyone. Let alone cause anyone to tear their hair out in disbelief."
In terms of why this happens as often as it does, there are competing explanations.
I'm inclined to think incumbents are simply at a structural disadvantage: challengers have just wrapped up a season of primary debates, which gave them valuable experience and practice, and have extensive time to prepare for the big event. Presidents, meanwhile, are four years removed from their most recent debate, and have an executive branch of the government to run while squeezing some prep into their schedule.
Plus, in this week's case, Romney's just really good at debating. For all of his many faults, this is arguably his single greatest skill.
Regardless, the political world needs to calm down a bit. Republicans dancing in the end zone should ask Presidents Kerry and Mondale whether winning a debate against an incumbent is a ticket to the White House. Democrats on the verge of panic might want to do the same.
Leave a Comment:
Since the mainstream media has now decided to crown Mitt Romney as the next president ans the clear winner of an election still one month away after a single debate performance where the candidate looked comfortable while lying, it may be time for them to ask Mitt exactly what he meant by calling half of Americans "victims" and worthless slugs. This is what he told his most trusted and deep-pocketed supporters in a private meeting. Why should we believe him when he promises things to the American people in the open, when he says the opposite when he doesn't know the cameras are rolling? Time to vet this man properly since he apparently already won the race on Wednesday. - pp
He appeared on Fox "News" last night and is now saying he was "completely wrong" about the 47% comments.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/04/romney-on-47-comments-i-was-completely-wrong/?hpt=hp_t1
This, after he and Paul Ryan have been saying all along that it just wasn't "elegantly stated." Right after the debate, I was disappointed that Obama hadn't brought this subject up; now I'm glad he didn't give Romney the chance to spout yet another egregious lie in front of 60 milion people.
Yes Activist a lot of the media has seemed o have conceded the election to Romney because of one Etch A Sketch debate.And now Romney has shaken it again saying he care's about the 100%.Yes he care's about the 100%,that is 100% of the 1%.He will say anything and I mean anything to win this election.He tell's a hoard of wealthy donor's what he really think's about the 47%,and now say's aw I really did'nt mean what I said.Anyone who ca'nt see through this plastic man need's to get a new pair of glasse's.
As often happens, the first debate was analyzed all wrong. It was not a debate that in isolation would determine that Romney would win on November 6. No, it was like the first quarter of a basketball game. Sometimes one team shows up with a great deal of energy and plays with abandon and makes the other team and the referees accept it. Break the rules of the game, okay. Change the game plan you had used in all of your other games, okay. Then, declare that you have won the game after the first quarter, okay! The problem for Romney and those who declared him the winner is they didn't understand what Obama and Lehrer were doing. You know, give a man enough rope and he will hang himself. That's what happened to Romney. Obama let Romney choose what topic he wanted to develop --- and develop Romney did. Kill Big Bird, etc. If Barack had done what the "critics" wanted, would all those delicious Romney gems have been said? No, Romney would not have been in control and would not have had such an abundant time to flip-flop. Barack is a good listener. When the President was looking down, he was taking notes. Since the debate, the President has hammered the flip-flops and he has defended Big Bird. Oh, debate critics, wasn't Obama's strategy in the debate the work of a genius?
Mondale was president?
I wish he had been, his pick for vice President hurt his chances, I think or that may have been McGovern.
In the words of Boone from Animal House
"Forget it, she's rolling"
"Debate?"ROTFLMAO! (remember that one from the internet's infancy?)
James Lipton was on Tweetie's show, and gave the "debate" all the gravity it deserved- that of an Off Broadway Opening Night.
Or, perhaps an out of town tryout, in New Haven.
Does anyone have any idea of what H I am talking about?
I suspect you are referring to opening a show as you indicate Mr Lipton said . This is a device for refining a show in order to sharpen its edges towards audience appeal . Both off Broadway and out of town are useful for gaining a less costly reflection of the theatre going publics current voltage .
H is a popular letter followed by the promise of , I .
No, you are still under the effects of the shape shifters and their power to hypnotize.Take 2 aspirin and wash it down with a bit of coconut juice and lyme. Then, call me back later this morning and I'll tell you what else you can do.
"Today, we have a brand new race. Today, everything is different."*
Well, yeah...So far, since the debate, Romney has disavowed his "47%" comments, thrown Ryan under the bus on the budget and medicaid, backtracked on Romneycare, and contradicted his own tax plan.
But hey - The day is still early. He could still come back full circle.
*Yes I read the post, I know it refers to an earlier time. Let's call it ironic license
If it wasn't so funny smelling , one might get to why in the end it is so gosh darn funny to see a grown man cry while running around in his socks begging for the love of a good hearted , clear eyed , and pure soul . This while not so indistinctly , honestly offering to forsake this stated love , either in viewing the trail of tears guaranteed by virtue and the general composition of a "free lunch" . That or as a demonstration of the stern backbone he otherwise lacks .
Following the rejection of this sickening suitor a virtuous , good hearted , and clear eyed soul will stay tuned for his next act , which in this case seems to be followed by a two faced liars roll of outlandish with extra relish .
Sex is not love, and lunch is not love. Sex is also not lunch, although I eat both with relish.
Are you referring to Tom Cruise dancing , maybe we'll feel that way after the Biden/Ryan debate. You can dance if you want to. What kind of relish?
Has anyone considered that President Obama might have just let Romney go on, rapidly unwinding ample rope to hang himself and giving Obama extra to whip him with for the final stretch? I don't agree that Obama lost. I think there was some calculation there. (I also think he looked like a man who might have had greater concerns on his mind on that particular evening. Syria? Turkey?)
After all, Romney also came out of it looking like a belligerent bully, rude, and eager to mount Big Bird's head on his mansion wall. And the fact checkers are having a field day, aren't they.
Let's just see what happens in the next debate.
I don't think so , but it may have . It seems very probable that a lie will get around much more quickly than an honest person can get their pants on . Imagery provided by Mark Twain .
No. Obama was overmatched. Romney looked good; in command rather than a bully. He probably blunted his victory significantly by lying through his teeth, but he still won fair and square. The President needs to step up his game. He's more than capable of doing it. One thing in his benefit is expectations for his performance will have been lowered greatly.
@ Marlo..Actually I think so too. Also I think the President was just fed up with the half truth Mr. Romney was speaking and decided to let him go on. He can call him on it later when he flips again.
The thing is, if the President had use Mr. Romney's debating style many would have complained about it so he opted to just let it go and stick with the talking points.
Watch the news world over the next couple of days...I think we will see more people writing articles about Mr. Romney's debate style and it won't be complementary.
The numerology aspect was interesting also. The number 33 ended up on the bottom and it was split down the middle. Which in my mind reflects the need to get in the middle of the road regarding almost everything now. Agree to disagree. Yes, Libra is in the House. Happy Birthday, Cindy.
Thank you Rachel, for putting the first debate in perspective. The fact remains is that Romney still didn't say anything fantabulous in his responses and we all are aware of his record with corporations, money and job losses as a result of his personal actions.
OK. So Obama looked bad in the first one. Two to go.
"Romney's just really good at debating."
THAT WAS NOT DEBATING!!!!!
That was aggressive spewing of word salad statements - to heck with truth, the rules or any shred of respect for the other person or even the moderator!!
He sounded like the proverbial "Crazy Uncle" that just spouts opinions. Letting someone else speak is just a chance to take a breath, than interrupting and blasting ahead. There is no point in trying to discuss a particular point, give a rebuttal or an alternative point of view.
It wasn't a debate. It was a one sided FOOD FIGHT!!!
Romney will be anything you want him to be, I think he could actually get away with wearing a tutu and playing a guitar, he could calll himself Elvis Bowie.
Having had some experience with chemical stimulants in my younger years, I can't help but think amphetamines might have been at play. I have heard some great, off the top of the head sermons given by a pastor on speed (he admitted it to me) so I wouldn't rule this out because of Romney's Mormon beliefs. I mean if the Air Force can give its pilots flying long missions a dose of bennies, what is to keep a potential commander in chief from reaching for the prescription bottle? And then, there was JFK ...
Romney's supposedly a clean-living Mormon, he could have gotten the same stimulation from a cup of regular coffee.
Maphi: I would not call it a debate either. To me, a debate is having two different perspectives discussed.
President Obama would have had better luck nailing jello to a wall, than nailing Mittens in his lies.
I don't know if Obama was exhausted or disgusted. But, we all know Romney's platform and agenda and if he is so cowardly that he has to stand there and lie, well then, nothing short of Obama aggressively calling him a bold faced liar on national TV...
No way, JFK? The President may have been correct, if he were to have asked Romney, are you taking any prescription medication? Followed by F-A-R-T. and I am an excellent driver.
The Republicans say privatizing Social Security would be a good thing. Of course, to Republicans would say that because it would make major huge profits for the rich. The rich will charge their own price to control Social Security plus really steal from it, when we hit a recession and the market goes down. The pattern for Republicans has been to drive us into a recession just so the rich can make major huge profits even more and as they also drive down people’s wages to make even more money. And who suffers the average American who will be depending on Social Security to retire. Because now a huge amount of money has just been stolen from Social Security and has been given to the rich from a recession. And there is another point to this also about just over a year ago they say Social Security was good until 2027 and now all at once it is good until 2033. That is a 6 year increase of Social Security being good for in comparison to the change in years to a time frame of just over a year ago. So apparently, there is plenty of money that is going into Social Security and how can they justify a change to it? Something is amiss there, when they start talking about changing Social Security as they say to tweak it a little. But why and for what reason? Is it maybe, because they want to use it for something else and we will say No way?
Don't forget pensions !
Mittens never let promises of health insurance or pensions interfere with his bold "business" plans . Why they were not even a moments distraction .
Oh sure Republicans have been doing this for a long time with the rich just to ruin our economy. The rich and whoever knows about it make huge sums of money just making put buys. Everything the average person has gets affected even to our environment and the average person looses big time. Look at all the regulations and laws they changed just to get away with these crimes. That drop in the Dow in such a large amount results in trillions of dollars of profit to the rich. The rich and Republicans just sit there and steal people blind.
Everything in the Czech Republic is privatisized. It would be wise to see how they are faring? And if this Country has a huge class warfare problem, because this is what the right extremists are basing their model on. But, in their Country there are alot of atheists(vast majority).
Most of the handwringing I've seen has come from MSNBC pundits, actually. I didn't watch Ed Schultz or Chris Matthews last night, but I really hope they have calmed down after their ridiculously hyperbolic reactions to the debate on Wednesday. I was afraid Matthews was going to have a stroke right there on live TV.
Maybe both of them will take Rachel's opening segment to heart.
I agree. I purposely turned off MSNBC after the previous night's post-debate coverage. I'm not going to watch for a few more nights either. It bordered on ridiculousness. Talk about running around with your hair on fire! Rev. Al was the voice of reason that night.
Don't be too hard on us hand-wringing Dems. It isn't like we don't know what's at stake here.
We do want the good guys to win...
It's been a long battle, it's frustrating when you know exactly what's going on and people don't see it. If greed takes over our Country we are doomed, it's as simple as that. The rest of the World will never respect us again, if we surrender to the rich and famous of this Country, greed will devour our entire Earth, it is already starting to have a negative effect on it. Father time is checking his watch, the Republicans are obstructing the healing process.
To be fair look at the facts and what was said before the debate. You got beaten over the head with the whole "Obama's a great orator" line so much that all Romney had to do was effectivly walk out on the stage and present himself to the American people with any degree of competance and he would have been considered to have exceded expectations. He did and he had a great night. Good for him. Now lets see him perform that well again Vs. an Obama who is going to be better prepared and waiting for him.
The higher you climb the farther you can fall
I like your point . The only tweak I would consider is that Obama being a great orator as an asset in removing rats and other pests , requires both studying the vermin along with a quieter trap .
My crystal ball is fogged up, my Tarot cards are at a tea party, the stars hide behind the clouds and yet I see Obama as the next president. Either that or ...wait while I adjust the set...it's not Obama it's,it's Jamie Farr in a Victoria Secret baby blue teddy?
Now I am gonna throw up.
Dreaming about Farr in Blue, hopefully just residuals from your birthing experience...hope you are doing better.
Rachel is this cheating?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQZ5_qdHLV8
One of the comments stated that it was his handkerchief that he used at the end of the "debate". I tend to believe that more than cheating.
Though someone else thought it looked well starched....but I wouldn't put it past him from having a starched - even ironed - handkerchief. Don't his jeans have creases?
What I didn't like was the way he had to sneak it onto the podium, Maphi. I for one keep mine in my back pocket, if I have one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251119479
I agree, Gary. The entire action was sneaky, especially the way he drops it on the podium. And he's wearing the "look how neat I got away with that one" look on his face. Just like his disgusting smirk every time he looked at President Obama.
It's not a handkerchief.
If that was a "winning debate", why am I hearing so many people saying that they hate him even more after the debate than they hated him before. Sure hope I don't "win" anything that way!!!!!!
Gary: thank you ... why is he throwing his hankerchief on the podium?
I completely agree with those who disagree that Romney "won the first round" and find it appalling that to stand up there with THE POTUS and behave as an arrogant, lying, spewing bully can be considered "winning" in America. I especially like MarloG's and maphi's comments and concur 100%. My take on it is that the president was so stunned and possibly so tired from having to actually run the country and debate this windbag at the same time that it was his 20 year wedding anniversary that he was somewhat speechless. How could anyone have been prepared for that kind of rancid, total game changing, vitriolic attack? The president is a brilliant, soft spoken gentleman. Mitt Romney is a spineless, cheating, bullying gasbag.
Maybe not a "debate" at all. Maybe just a "bait". Mitt has "shown his cards", "left it all out on the table", "shot his wad", at all his previous debates. Knowing two "debates" remain, President Obama is able to use Romney's words in campaign addresses and advertising rather than come off as argumentative in a national/world forum where the president could appear defensive and possibly offensive. The President knows the facts that are on his side and simply allowed his opponent to exhaust his punches in the first round. The revolving critique against the President is his silence. I believe this silence will prove to be golden as will be evident in the upcoming "de-bait".
Whatever way you look at it: Obama was awful. No excuses for letting Romney getting away with the evening. No excuses. If I do my job like that, I'm looking for a new one the next day. Obama says he kinda agrees with Romney on Social Security? Wow. I think I'll just vote for Betty Sutton and Sherrod Brown. Leave the rest blank. That way I don't have to blame myself when Simpson-Bowles becomes law, because that's just what's gonna happen whoever becomes POTUS: increased retirement age, different cost-of-living calculations. Somebody's gotta pay for unfunded wars and banker's excesses and unfunded prescription drug plans and unfunded tax cuts for the rich.
Romney did NOT win the debate. OBAMA WON, ON SUBSTANCE.
I don't understand how anyone can concede victory to a guy who literally flip-flopped before our eyes. If all I do is read a phone book or say things that are wrong (not supported by facts/evidence) or things that I'll do even with no plan, with no details of how, even if it goes against what I've been saying for a year, but I say it confidently, you can't say I won a debate. You can say I delivered nonsense more effectively than my 'delivery opponent' (don't call them a debate opponent).
This was not a delivery contest. It was a debate. So treat it like a debate and not like a public speaking event where we don't care about facts, coherence, or what was said.
If you win on delivery but lose on substance, YOU LOSE. (ROMNEY)
If you lose on deliver but win on substance, YOU WIN. (OBAMA)
If Romney didn't have the blood money from his noble effort in crushing American manufacturing , disguised as an interim management assist , his chamelon act would be far less adept . Romney has a green hue that is interchangeable with the bleeding heart he adopts to rule the rubes . This is very helpful as the focus on the actual details , rather than the changing camouflage , reveals his origin of speciousness .
Anyone who has tried to use a live eel as bait knows what POB faced. You can debate known positions but Mitt has 11 sides to each issue and is willing to add a 12th if need be. All you can reasonably do without being constantly accusatory is to tell the truth and let the judges decide. Unless Mitt is willing to be waterboarded while answering the lying will continue.
Still, there's no excuse for being unprepared for the onslaught of lies. They should have been prepared with catch-all comebacks in case that happened. All you have to do is listen to his campaign speech yesterday to get an idea of what Obama should have been saying at the "debate."
"I don't know who this guy is on the other side of the stage. For the last year, this unknown character has been saying <X>. Now the unknown man is saying <Y>..."
They should have been prepared. They weren't.
I believe someone somewhere is preparing "THe many faces of Mitt" to be shown soon.
While we have been focused on the "debate", everyone has been ignoring more important news - specifically Turkey shelling Syria.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443635404578035822373395226.html
"Turkey attacked targets inside Syria for a second day Thursday and its parliament authorized military offensives into foreign countries, deepening the threat of sustained conflict along the neighbors' 565-mile common border."
I have been trying to figure out the time-line. This started on Wednesday right? How many briefings and phone calls did President Obama have dealing with this crisis? Was there a "3 am phone call"?
Someone said (I can't remember who) that he had received calls on the situation just before the debate. I would imagine he was thinking about that too.
Since everyone is so hyped up about his not confronting every lie Romney told, may I point out that if the President had confronted every lie, the "debate" would have necessarily turned into a school yard argument by the end of the first four minutes. The President in spite of his shock about the flip-flop did challenge his lies about the 5 trillion cost of his tax policy. From then on the lies were simply so non-stop and rapid fire that in order to have any real discussion of substance, the President had to stick to the rules. He stated his plan.
Secondly, he showed himself as Presidential. He didn't rise to play the "I did not", "you did too" garbage. Obviously Romney was hoping to derail the "debate" into a unending accusation/refuttal rather than a real discussion on substance.
Romney just scares me more and I abhor him even more than I did.
Again Rachel shows what an idiot she is. The challenger won in '76, '80, '92. So again what did her analysis really prove? Plus I'm not sure anyone crowned Mondale the winner of the first debate but even if he was there are only three examples that prove her point of not worrying. I would say she would only have an arguement if the incumbent always won regardless of the debate outcome. The reason for the lib flip out is the media and libs treated O as a god and now their deus ex machina didn't show up, well he did but his name was Mitt.
The "deus ex machina" was flabbergasted and taken aback by the unabashed, proud lying of the Gish Gallop'ing Fake Alpha Male.
Your boy didn't win a debate. Your boy only served to impress the likes of a group we call a press corps but who behave as if they're nothing more than a bunch of pre-teen girls at a Justin Bieber concert.
Do tell, C S John. With her long-running nationally televised and syndicated show, Rachel should be taken down a peg by a challenger as half as idiotic as she is knocking around in comments claiming a higher level of general intellect on the very topics in which she specializes. [Wayne's World thumbs up]
Oh touche I am mortally wounded. She is trying to make the point that O is Ragean in '84 or Bush in '04, n"othing to worry about we will still win, it ain't so bad." Well one could easily argue this is Ford in '76, Carter in '80, HW in '92. This isn't good for O this now a serious challenge. Thankfully Nov will be here soon enough. I try to read Maddow to stay balanced but her misleading "facts" drive me over the edge.
You're mortally wounded. Good.
I think the point that she was trying to make, is that it in fact means nothing- could go either way. That is why she compared 3 to 3- 50/50 right? So, no reason to freak out, but a reason to continue to focus. I thought she did that rather non-partisan-like. Of course, everybody likes it when their candidate wins the debate, but historically speaking, the first debate has no real impact on the results of the election. That is the point she was making, I think.
Mitt said you put your money where your heart is..... Cayman islands
You are ignoring the republican party's progress in campaigning. They won with GW Bush the pathological liar so now they have hired a duo of professional liars. This strategy combined with the strong arrogance of ignorance their party instills could very well win. If winning means putting our more unstable citizens on full display.
I don't remember reading about President Mondale in any history books.
Here's the deal: Mitt Romney didn't win any "debate." He won an acting performance. A performance that consisted of a massive Gish Gallop of non-stop lies and an overbearing, brow-beating, faux alpha male contest that flabbergasted an inexplicably unprepared President. The alpha male performance impressed the tingly hormones of a group of cowardly, technically incompetent mediocrities we call a press and media in this country and who cheer for a horse race so their lives will be a smidgeon more interesting for five more weeks and who don't give a f uck about the content.
That's all that happened. And I'm still pissed the President wasn't prepared for it. (Still can't believe no comeback to the urgent pleading from Faux Alpha Male "... it's not working..." Arghhhhhh....)
@Disgusted
I had never heard the term "Gish Gallop" - so I looked it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish {emphasis added}
"Gish has been characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop," describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate" and criticized Gish for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents. The phrase "Gish Gallop" has come to be used as a pejorative to describe similar debate styles employed by proponents of other, usually fringe beliefs, such as homeopathy or the moon landing hoax."
WOW! YES! - that was exactly what Romney did!
Yes, it is EXACTLY what happened. I've been talking about it quite a bit here. It's a tactic that is used to confuse and impress listeners when the topic(s) is (are) complex and it is very difficult for the opponent to respond to each and every mischaracterization. It is used very frequently in climate denial.
The President should have been prepared for it. There's no way to prepare for each lie, but you can prepare to expose the tactic to the viewer. Just like he did with his campaign speech yesterday with his "I didn't know who that guy was..." lines. And I'm extremely disappointed Obama didn't know anymore about stage presence that to continually look down at his notes while being brow-beaten by a Fake Alpha Male. Pathetic. He should have been defiant and staring right back at him, then delivering charges of misrepresentation when he got his chance.
And I'm still angry that they were NOT prepared for it. After all, it's not a secret Mitt Romney lies.
I would LOVE to see Rachel do a segment on this term, it is SPOT ON.
She probably has in one way or the other. Whether she's used that term or not, I have no idea. Hell, Steve shows evidence of it every Friday when he lists the lies Mitty used during the week, many from the same speech (and surely not a comprehensive list).
If this became a commonly understood term, than I envision it coming really handy.
For instance, in a debate when the other person is doing this, then the response could be: "There you go - Gish Galloping - again!!"
Or used in response to "Crazy Uncle" or blog troll - Gish Gallop!!!
I plan on using it often.