Both camps played hard: http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/obama-campaigns-debate-expectations-game-jumps-th
That's not rolling over; that's what both candidates have done before every debate in pretty much every presidential race ever. And Obama was doing his best to lower expectations a week before Romney got to it. There's usually no prize for winning the debate on its merits. The prize usually goes to the guy that beats expectations in the debate. The lower a campaign manages to set the expectations, the more likely the candidate is to exceed them, and thereby derive the only advantage to be had from the debate - a bump in the polls. George W. Bush "won" a lot of debates this way. Romney will get a little brand upgrade when he shares a stage with Obama. Sharing equal footing with a sitting POTUS makes anybody grow a couple of inches in stature. His problem lies in the fact that nobody's going to manage to lower expectations for this debate so this debate can't be won that way; it has to be won on the merits. (This is empirically bad for Romney because of all those pesky facts.) They're both pretty good debaters and sometimes they each screw up in a debate, but nobody's going to convince anybody that one is a significantly better or worse debater than the other. Obama's team has said Romney's more practiced at debating this season, which he clearly is. And they've said he's a strong debater, which he is -- about half the time. On the other side, Romney's side has said Obama's the frontrunner, has the advantages of incumbency, is the master orator, that Romney's actually never been in a one-on-one debate... And they've said that Obama's a strong debater, which he is -- about half the time. Both guys miss as often as they make. Both are viewed by the public as aloof. Obama has a real advantage on likability. And Romney has a real advantage in that he thinks it's okay to just lie, and even when confronted with evidence of the lie, to just say it again. That is a serious, serious advantage, one that has won countless elections for GOP candidates. But they're playing the expectations game out of habit on this one. It almost looks like the debates might actually be decided by the words coming out of the candidates' mouths. Advantage: Obama.
The first debate will probably coincide with Romney's free-fall coming to an end and reversing. Just holding his own against Obama will improve Romney's standing.
Very nice analysis, BJ. Palin tiptoed to a public perceived draw by speaking 8th grade American I think Cons are more interested in the Biden-Ryan debates since they believe Ryan will intellectually destroy the drunken gaffe-laden gas bag. Biden's a true politician though. He oozes more blue collar than the other 3 men combined. He's only been in Washington for half his life, so he might know a little something about conveying and debating policy without coming off as a wanker. PS. I still think that the media will either crown Romney the winner or proclaim it a tie. Cynical drama manipulation...
I think on Romney's part it plays into this theme he's pushing that his campaign isn't a disappointment which is obviously not the reality.
It's always fun to take a poke at Biden (I do it too) until you realize what he's been through and how resilient he's been and what a passionate fighter he has been, his entire career, for working families. Biden is going to murder Ryan in this debate with that compassion. Paul Ryan is only considered the great intellectual of a major political party because that party is so bereft of deep thinkers. And his own budget, as draconian and callous as they come, doesn't even add up. I predict a line from Biden that is on a scale with Lloyd Bentsen's devastating "I knew Jack Kennedy and you're no Jack Kennedy." I don't know what the line will be but I suspect it will contain actual care and concern for people and the values from which that concern springs, and I suspect it will begin with the stingingly kindly word, "Son..." Because though Joe Biden is so tin-eared that he would make a faux-pas like calling a VP candidate "Son," he is also so sincere as to mean it in a genuinely nice way. That is because Biden loves people. He loves them and he cares about them. And though I can't speak for Ryan's friends and family, he by and large doesn't love or care about people. Some people don't. Maybe even most people don't, so I'm not saying it makes him evil or anything; I'm just saying it's why he's going to lose that debate.
This. At the end of the day, it will come down to the issues. Romney said it about a couple of days ago in Ohio for folks not to expect a big reduction in taxes. He said he will cut rates accross board and reduce some deductions and personal exemptions (of course, he was not specific as to which deductions). I am no tax expert, but if that were to happen, I could see an increase in income tax for the middle class. For example, last year, I took a mortgage interest plus property tax deduction of $24,000. Unless my tax rate comes down to 10%, without those deductions, I will probably pay more in taxes. I could be wrong, but this is my thinking now.
One thing I will say is that because Romney is putting out the line that Obama lies during debates the media may do more fact checking with what Obama says than what Romney says, and so that can work Romney's favor in post debate analysis by the media. The media will tell everyone who won, and most people will buy what they're told.
Ryan has more to lose in their debate than Biden. IMO, what's really at stake is how people perceive him post-election. Ryan's viability as a future national candidate weighs in the balance.
Agree that Biden will destroy Ryan. Biden is so genuine that Ryan’s lack of sincerity and compassion will be amplified standing next to Joe. Biden is also a smart guy who does better off the cuff than with canned responses or speeches. When they really get into the differences between the two campaigns, Biden is going to clean Ryan’s clock.
the problem with this is that Romney will have to hold his own against Obama, which he is incapable of. the hole only gets deeper for Romney after the first debate. this election is over.
If there are instant polls after the debates, like in 2008, Obama is going to absolutely massacre Romney in the debates. These instant debate polls are incredibly important. Without them, "analysts" drive the narrative and determine the winner and that's bad news for Democrats. In 2000, the analysts didn't like Gore's sighing, and set the narrative that he had "lost" the debate to Bush. In 2008, there were debates where they tried to do the same thing with Obama and McCain, then the instant poll results came in with Obama as the clear winner, and they had to STFU.
Here's how I see it playing out: Brit Hume, Shep Smith and the dolts at Fox News will declare Romney the winner regardless of performance Rachel Madcow and MSNBC tards will declare Obama the winner regardless of performance Candy Crowley will be stuffing her face with pizza Wolf Blitzer will offer up some nonsense that nobody cares about John King will f around with some touch-based applications and question by question breakdown that gets boring in about 30 seconds
It has nothing to do with debate experience. It has everything to do with Mittens being on the wrong side of every major economic issue that both candidates will be ask about.
It would be great if the line was "I'm a fan of Tom Morello, I know Tom Morello. You sir are no Tom Morello..."
Romney not only has to win, he has to significantly change the narrative of the race while debating Obama. I find it unlikely he can do the first and believe it is damn near impossible for him to do the second.
