After last week's debate, one of the more common criticisms of President Obama is that he stumbled a bit during his closing statement. But for those who got a little hysterical about this a week ago, take a couple of minutes to consider then-President Reagan's closing statement during his first re-election debate in 1984.
We've talked before about how routinely incumbents struggle in their first debate, but this Reagan clip was something of a train wreck. Early on, he went on a tangent about those who weren't better off than they were four years prior; he meandered his way through a series of statistics; he put himself on the defensive over military spending; and he seemed to lose his train of thought several times.
Dave Weigel noted yesterday, "This was bad. Reagan knew it was bad."
"As soon as he left the stage," reports Lou Cannon in President Reagan, "Reagan confessed to [adviser Stu] Spencer that he had flopped." According to Jack Germond and Jules Witcover, when Mondale left the stage, he confided to an aide that "This guy is gone" -- as in mentally not all there. Two days after the debate, RNC Chairman Paul Laxalt held a press conference admitting that Reagan had blown it, but "it wasn't because of any physical or mental deficiency... he was brutalized by a briefing process that didn't make any sense." Why mention mental deficiency? Because the "drive-by media" was covering the debate that way, bringing on mental health experts to ask what the hell happened to Reagan.
Political communications were much different in 1984 -- no Internet or social media; no daily tracking polls; no Intrade; one cable news network instead of three -- but the public response was harsh enough that Reagan quickly slid seven points in the polls. Had it happened today, I suspect it would have been far worse.
Obama's taken a similar hit in the polls, but the difference is, his lead was much smaller going into October, and less ground to give.
As for the bigger picture, ABC's Diane Sawyer asked President Obama yesterday whether it's possible his performance handed the election to Romney. Obama, not surprisingly, said, "No."
I'll confess, I have a hard time understanding the premise. There are, to be sure, plenty of fickle people out there, but I find it hard to fathom a significant number of voters thinking, "I had a set of priorities and a sense of where I wanted the country to go, but one candidate delivered pre-scripted lines better than the other candidate did for 90 minutes, so now I have an entirely new set of priorities and want the country to go in a very different direction."
I'm sure this happens, but I find it hard to understand.
Leave a Comment:
People need to realize that while Romney flops around from one idea to the next, changing his mind on an hourly basis, people - VOTERS have their core concerns and nothing changes that. For the undecided voters - WHERE THE HE!! HAVE YOU BEEN? Really? You have no clue and need these debates to help you choose? The fact that those idiots could decide the future of this country is scary to me. If you have no idea what you are going to do on voting day, just how long does it take you to decide what to have for breakfast? If you haven't seen Romney for the liar that he is by now, then you are way off, and need to get a clue.
I love this blog, but this (and the "Obama is just sucking Mitt!") post just reeks of desperation / rationalization. Let's suck it up and keep working.
I kinda thought the same thing....
Personally, I want to stuff a sock in Chris Matthews mouth for one. He's still raggin' Ed didn't help that night. They 'were the news'. You have many of what I am now calling talking heads 'being the news' which is forcing us to even double up the work we're doing on the ground as we don't have a forum to which we can speak to the many that they can.
It's clear they don't know about each others show in that Rachel did the segment that 5 out of 6 lost the first debate. Have we heard it elsewhere -- crickets. So much for Matthews being the 'expert' historian, etc.
Sorry Rachel -- but I'm fed up being fed that Chris and Andrea are the experts -- NOT. Andrea's interviews are weak and just gives an open mike to anyone - Sununu on a weekly basis. Chris - when someone mentions about some that overspeak their guests and interrupt - Chris said 'I don't do that' - Your kidding -- he can't see himself.
How much have we heard about the unemployment number from last week on MSNBC. You could almost say crickets other than the tweet from the ex-'we've paid 0% taxes- GE bozo. Why not turn the conversation around -- Announce the unemployment number of 7.8% but turn it to and that makes the Employed Number 92.2%. Doesn't that sound more positive? Yea there is some gray matter in there but it does make it to 100%
While many of these mouthpieces have continued to spew the same since last week -- we've been out organizing and voting. Thanks MSNBC for a majority of 'NOTHING'. MSNBC has sounded more like a Romney supporter this week in a number of cases. Sad.
Let's see! Who won that Reagan Mondale election anyway? Was it close?
I am pretty sure Gallup's switch from registered voter to likely voter screens has had something to do with the big switch. Who benefits from a close election? Everybody in power including news departments of the entertainment divisions of the networks.
I don't think Romney is winning this race. I don't know enough to know how the polls are now screening for likely voters but I suspect the race has tightened a little. My guess is Obama is still ahead. The fundamentals just haven't changed. An 18 point swing among women is simply too much to believe, unless you have a 1960s advertizing executives view of the fickle nature of women. I don't. Women are damn pragmatic. It is hard for me to think they swung 18% over the last debate.
What I saw was a lying piece of crap that was so comfortable spinning his lies that he let them flow like a stream of s... versus a man who seemed caught off guard by the audacity of his opposition.
I am amazed at how some people do not care about the fact that they are being lied to.
It is not in the best interests of the media to give a @!$%# about the lies. They are in the advertizing business. They work with world class liars all the time. MSNBC primetime is the exception because they are actively marketing to people like us.
By the way, the Gallup registered voter poll has Obama up by 5. The likely voter screen has them tied at 48 each with Obama trending up. I would like to know more about the likely voter screen.
Yes, Nate Silver has proffered the reason for the difference between the LV and RV polls to be a drop in Democratic voter enthusiasm since Denver (as well as the well-known Republican advantage of LV over RV). The moral of the story to me is we can't let it get us down.
So for me, it's get at them -- not us -- time. And that's exactly what I'm going to do.
I have some advice for those "Undecided-( both of them)- Voters":
Do not listen to what they say, look at what they do. Specifically, what Obama has accomplished over the last four years- with no help at all from the GOP.
"Do unto others" and blame it on President Obama. "Forgive us our trespasses" and blame them on POB. The right has taken the little 'b' out of Bible and spew their bile cloaked in rhetoric and lies.
Last week we made the mistake of confusing our junk foods; we expected
Zingers and we got Whoppers.
No more predictions.
I have really had it ! Turned off the teevee I can't even take MSNBC. Non stop same shMitt , same faces spouting the same opinions over and over. Gaffe!!! Shiny object!!! This coupled with (here in Flor-I-Duh ) non stop back to back ads pro and con including all the senate and local races GAAAAAAAAAA It really is too much
I agree. I've stopped watching MSNBC because of the same thing. I know they have to tout their colleagues, but if they offer up David Gregory one more time, my head will explode. I don't expect them to be syncophants, but really, keep the comments on a professional level, not emotional. There's Andrew Sullivan for that. I do love this blog and consider Steven Benen one of the brightest so I keep coming back here, but until this election is over, I'm not watching MSNBC.
I caught a clip from that Diane Sawyer interview this morning, where Obama admitted he had a bad night at the debate, and Sawyer reacted with incredulity: "Bad!?!?"
Obama did a good job of deflecting it, but the clear implication was: "Bad? Are you kidding me? It was a disaster, a debacle, an embarrassment, a catastrophe!"
Which is one aspect of today's media that drives me nuts. Yes, it was one bad debate. Big f-in' deal. These media folks get so hyped up over matters that are relatively trivial, that they blow them all out of proportion. Would that they had jumped all over George W Bush when he was making his phony case for invading Iraq, with the same enthusiasm that they are jumping all over this one lackluster debate performance.
The problem is you have to understand the environment in which you exist. It IS ridiculous, but it IS reality.
Bahhhh... I though Mitt and Obama's closing statements highlighted a very important distinction:
While Mitt went on a vainglorious tirade about "protecting the Constitution", Obama said he wanted to "protect people".
I picked up on this right away, rather than registering whether Mitt was "winning" or Obama was fumbling. I think this is an important distinction. Mitt is talking about protecting abstract ideas--which is fine--but Obama was actually talking about living, breathing people. With the example of his mother relying of SS and Medicare as way of maintaining her independence, the anecdote about the woman in NC (?) who went back to school for more job training, etc., earlier in the debate, I did feel like that was the general direction he was headed in, albeit on a circuitous route. I'm only disappointed that Obama didn't refer to more anecdotes about how is policies have already and will continue to positively help Americans.
My two cents...
To Romney, debate day was time to put on the Mr. Moderate mask. To the under informed he appeared reasonable. Then the overpaid horse race, drama critic pundits did their schtick. That's all that happened.
You don't understand the extent to which these people exist, Steve. You clearly exist in a world that gets nowhere near them. This is why Democrats lose. They do not understand the world they live in. They do not understand just how irrational and flat-out stupid approximately 50% (and I'm low-balling it) Americans are. In a very liberal geographical area and a very liberal work environment in which I used to work, my colleagues had concluded long, long ago, Romney had absolutely no chance. I told them they were idiots, that they didn't know their own country, and that they'd better wake up to the reality. They didn't listen.
Democrats will never learn. The barbarians are at the gate. And it's on fire.
I had billiard league the night of the debate. Was there a stareing contest? What do you do in a stareing contest with a sociopath? I would have covered one hand flipping the bird with the other hand hideing it from the cameras,, maybe hold the podium in such a way as to also flip the bird,, yeah, yeah, immature,, but where do you look when you can't stand the POS you're debateing? So the split screen catches Obama looking down alot, therefor he lost the debate?
Not so much a staring contest. Obama refused to engage. Next time, he must. No matter it is for him to stare into the eyes of raw, unprincipled, viciously aggressive brow-beating he has to do it.
Reagan had Alzheimers at least during his second term if not earlier. I remember when they finally admitted it, I asked a friend, "how could they tell it was different from before?"
Similarly, but from the opposite side time-wise, from what I've seen, how could they have not known it before? From what I've seen it was pretty clear things weren't right.
Our standards have declined, because if Reagan's closing statement was a "train wreck" it still was more cogent and coherent than 90% of any statement of GWB's when he wasn't reading off a teleprompter.
Mondale's closing statement has a familiar argument about VP Bush's taxes being lower than his janitor's. The more things change...