[Bleeding Heartland Logo]

About
Bleeding Heartland is a community blog about Iowa politics: campaigns and elections, state government, social and environmental issues. Bleeding Heartland also weighs in on presidential policies and campaigns, federal legislation and what the Iowans in Congress are up to. Join our community, post your thoughts as comments or diaries, help keep our leaders honest and hold them accountable.
Author
- desmoinesdem
Highlights
- Iowa politics in 2008
- Iowa politics in 2009 (1)
- Iowa politics in 2009 (2)
- National politics in 2009 (1)
- National politics in 2009 (2)
- Iowa 2012 election coverage
- Who's who in the Iowa House for 2013
- Who's who in the Iowa Senate for 2013
- Iowa wildflowers
2014 Election Coverage
- IA-Sen
- IA-Gov
- IA-01
- IA-02
- IA-03
- IA-04
- Secretary of Agriculture
- Secretary of State
- State Auditor
- Iowa Senate overview
- Iowa House overview
- Senate district 5
- Senate district 7
- Senate district 9
- Senate district 13
- Senate district 15
- Senate district 17
- Senate district 27
- Senate district 39
- Senate district 41
- Senate district 47
- Senate district 49
- House district 25
- House district 28
- House district 33 (2013)
- House district 51
- House district 60
- House district 65
- House district 68
- House district 73
- House district 91
- House district 92
- House district 95
- House district 99
Search




Advanced Search


Paid Advertising


Bleeding Heartland
It's what plants crave.

First Romney-Obama debate discussion thread

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 19:00:00 PM CDT


Republican nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama face off in their first debate tonight, beginning at 8 pm central time. I've posted a few links related to the presidential race after the jump and will update during and after the debate. I don't expect any major fireworks or gaffes.

Any comments about the debate or the presidential election in general are are welcome in this thread.

desmoinesdem :: First Romney-Obama debate discussion thread
The last couple of weeks of polling have been brutal for Romney. Six months ago the presidential race looked like a toss-up. Now Josh Marshall points out that Obama has polling average leads of at least 5 points in states that add up to 288 electoral votes. Also, the president "has leads of between 2 and 5 percentage points in states totaling an additional 44 electoral votes."

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com gives Obama a more than 85 percent chance of winning the election.

Why have things gone sour for Romney, besides the fact that he's a weak candidate? (I mean, who criticizes the cookies some woman offers you at a photo op?) Jonathan Chait argues that the Republican Party's image is a big problem.

In our poll-drenched landscape, the most underplayed poll numbers are the public's continuing preference for the Democratic party. The most recent Washington Post poll has the public looking favorably on the Democratic Party by a 49-42 margin, and unfavorably on the GOP by a 53-39 margin. That 21-point gap in party approval doesn't tell you everything - it probably hides a lot of disgruntled tea-party conservatives who will ultimately vote for the Republicans - but it tells you a lot.

Today's NPR poll gets at this dynamic another way. It tests a basic Democratic message ("we tried that top-down approach. More tax cuts for the rich and outsourcing American jobs doesn't work," etc.) against a basic Republican message ("His stimulus package failed to create the jobs he said it would, wasted billions of dollars on pork barrel projects at home ... "). Fifty-three percent preferred the Democratic argument; 42 percent preferred the Republican argument. [...]

Romney's best hope is to detach himself from his party as best as possible. And here is where the 47 percent video really blocks his exit.

The weak economy was supposed to do most of the work in defeating Obama, but Ben Smith points out that Americans no longer overwhelmingly see the economy in bad shape.

The most dramatic figures come from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which routinely asks voters about the news they are hearing about the economy. In August of 2011, Americans of all parties said the news was mostly bad, with only minor differences showing between members of different political parties.

A year later, a survey taken in early September found a "record partisan gap." A full 60% of Republicans said they were hearing "mostly bad" news. Only 15% of Democrats reported the same. And independent voters split on the question, with 36% saying they were hearing mostly bad news.

It's not just a matter of what voters are hearing. Gallup's tracking of Americans' reported confidence in the economy has also seen a dramatic divergence: Democrats' confidence reached a new high in a survey released September 25; Republicans' reached a record low.

Both Romney and Obama will talk about their plans to cut the national debt tonight. I wish a journalist would ask the question Joe Weisenthal posed:

As we've seen in Europe, attempts at austerity have resulted in a massive economic contraction and social unrest. [...]

Furthermore, it's clear that the US' large debt poses no threat to financial stability. Borrowing costs as seen in the below chart have been falling for decades, even as the national debt has exploded. [...]

As Americans sit at home and worry about the durability of the recovery, which one of you can promise to the American people that they don't have to worry about austerity under your watch?

It's sad that no beltway journalist would ever ask the candidates this question, but it's even more sad that if Romney and Obama did have to answer the question, both would wave the flag for austerity.

UPDATE: I listened to the whole debate but wasn't watching the screen most of the time, so I can't comment on the candidates' body language. I felt the president played it safe and didn't hurt himself, while Romney was a little more aggressive and helped himself. As a challenger who's behind in the polls he had no other option, and I don't think he made any big mistakes.

Viewers who already support or lean toward one candidate probably heard plenty to validate that stance. I don't see this debate changing a lot of minds.

Many online commentators are saying that Obama looked down too much or was too "low energy." I often find the president's speaking style to be "low energy," so that didn't jump out at me tonight.

James Carville said on CNN that Obama looked like he didn't want to be there, while Romney looked like he wanted to be there.

CNN's time clock indicated that Obama got four more minutes in the debate than Romney did, which surprised me.

SECOND UPDATE: The CNN instant poll of debate viewers found that 67 percent thought Romney won, just 25 percent thought Obama won. About 35 percent of respondents said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney, 18 percent said more likely to vote for Obama, 47 percent said neither. On who came across as the stronger leader during the debate, Romney led 58 percent to 37 percent.

THIRD UPDATE: This story about a focus group of women reminded me that this Romney line was highly effective:

There was one line from Romney on the topic that seemed to stand out, though. Two different women reiterated Romney's line to Obama about spending money on green jobs that could have hired teachers: "You put $90 billion into green jobs. And I - look, I'm all in favor of green energy. $90 billion, that would have hired two million teachers. $90 billion."

Nice sleight of hand there--few people will realize that the way Congress does budgeting, cutting "green jobs" money would never translate directly into hiring 2 million teachers. It's also ironic to hear Romney sort-of-advocate increasing federal funding for teachers, because like all the other Republicans, he opposed the stimulus money that saved many teaching positions.

FOURTH UPDATE: A CBS News poll of 523 uncommitted voters found that 46 percent thought Romney won the debate, 22 percent thought Obama won, and 32 percent said they tied.

Commenting on the CNN poll, Cameron Joseph noted,

CNN's poll sample skewed Republican compared to most registered voter polls, which likely inflated Romney's numbers.

FIFTH UPDATE: Dana Bash wrote an interesting piece about Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who has been playing Obama during Romney's debate prep. Portman also played Obama during John McCain's debate prep in 2008.

Since 2000, he has played the roles of Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards and Barack Obama. [...]

Portman said he spends hours reading, studying and watching everything he can get his hands on to best embody Democrats and to prepare Republicans for debates.

Though he declined to portray his Obama imitation, those who have seen it say it is uncanny. [...]

Portman remembers preparing to play Al Gore in mock debates with George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign, and noticing that Gore got unusually physically close to his opponent, Bill Bradley.

So Portman, acting as Gore, invaded Bush's personal space during rehearsal.

"Governor Bush's reaction was, 'He is not going to do that, that is ridiculous,' and sure enough in that last debate, which was the one we were prepping for, Al Gore did just that. I saw Governor Bush smile. I wonder if he was smiling saying 'Darn, Portman was right' or if he was just smiling at Al Gore, but he handled it well," Portman recalled.

Speaking to Laurence O'Donnell on MSNBC after the debate, Portman said he thought Romney "did what he needed to do" and predicted that Obama will improve his performance in the second debate because of the different format.

SIXTH UPDATE: Smart Politics has more details on the speaking time for Obama, Romney, and moderator Jim Lehrer, who did a horrible job in my opinion.

NPR's Mark Memmott and Scott Montgomery summarized the first wave of fact-checks on the debate.

SEVENTH UPDATE: I've talked to a bunch of rank-and-file Democrats today who are deeply concerned about Obama's debate performance. Interestingly, a couple of them said that their friend or spouse who only listened to the debate, like I did, also didn't feel Obama did that badly. His body language must have been atrocious.

The Obama campaign has a television commercial out today with debate footage, followed by fact-checking on Romney's tax plan.

Obama's voice: I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message. [photo of Obama sitting at president's desk, talking with someone on the phone and holding a piece of paper]

Black screen with words PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE DENVER, COLORADO OCTOBER 3, 2012

Footage of Romney speaking: I'm not in favor of a 5 trillion-dollar tax cut. That's not my plan.

Footage of NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell reporting from Denver after the debate, with "The Truth Squad" on screen: The non-partisan Tax Policy Center concluded that Mitt Romney's tax plan would cost $4.8 trillion over ten years.

Male voice-over: Why won't Romney level with us about his tax plan, which gives the wealthy huge new tax breaks? [Footage of Romney speaking from a podium, words on screen Why won't Romney level with us?]

Because according to experts, he'd have to raise taxes on the middle class or increase the deficit to pay for it. [footage from the debate, Romney speaking and looking at the president, words on screen THE WALL STREET JOURNAL 8/1/12 Study: Romney's Tax Plan Hits Middle Class, changing to "Tax Policy Center concluded that Romney's tax plan would cost $4.8 trillion" NBC News 10/3/12]

If we can't trust him here, [view of Obama and Romney standing behind podiums at debate]

how can we ever trust him here? [view of president's desk in Oval Office, words on screen HOW CAN WE TRUST MITT ROMNEY?]

Romney did lie a lot during the debate, including about his tax plan. I don't know how many people pay attention to fact-checking, though.

I wonder whether NBC News will demand that the Obama campaign remove the Andrea Mitchell footage from television commercials.

FINAL UPDATE: Yes, NBC did ask the Obama campaign to remove that footage from its commercial.

The first Romney-Obama debate reached more than 70 million viewers, according to Nielsen estimates.

Nielsen, a television measurement company, said 67.2 million viewers watched on television at home - the highest number for a first debate since 1980. That year, 80.6 million watched the only debate between President Jimmy Carter and the Republican presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan.

A few second- and third-round presidential debates since then have attracted more than 67 million viewers, including the second debate of the 1992 cycle. Nonetheless, Wednesday's totals were surprisingly high by almost any standard. [...]

Nielsen's total for Wednesday's debate did not count people who watched outside the home (in offices, bars or airports) or who watched in other countries. Nor did not count any of the millions of people who had access to the debate on computers, tablets or phones. CNN.com, for instance, said it recorded 1.2 million live streams of its debate coverage around the world. YouTube, the Web video giant, said its partners had "millions of live-streamed views of the debates," but declined to release specific numbers.

Of the 11 traditional channels that televised the debate and subscribed to Nielsen ratings, ABC was the most-watched, with almost 11.3 million viewers during the commercial-free debate, Nielsen said. NBC and CBS were close behind, with 11.1 million for NBC and 10.6 million for CBS.

Fox News Channel was as big as any broadcaster, with about 10.4 million viewers during the debate (up from 8.2 million in 2008 and 9.6 million in 2004). The Fox broadcast network attracted about 6.9 million; CNN, 6 million; and MSNBC, 4.7 million. (Fox News, MSNBC and CNN all skew toward older viewers, but interestingly, CNN had a surge of 18- to 34-year-old viewers for the debate - nearly 1.5 million, versus 882,000 for Fox News and 772,000 for MSNBC.)

More than 2.6 million Spanish-language viewers watched on Univision, and another 248,000 watched on Telemundo, according to Nielsen. (Telemundo showed the debate on a tape delay.) The lowest-rated of all the channels with the face-off was Current TV, Al Gore's fledgling liberal cable channel, which had about 100,000 viewers.

 
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Tweet This!

Dare I bah-humbug the whole thing? (0.00 / 0)
I'm posting here so obviously I'm not watching. Our votes have already been cast for Pres Obama (and BTW for keeping every judge) and even if-not, I finally realized that those debates merely tend to reinforce that my guy always is the right guy and the other guy is the wrong guy.

I will however invest a half hour or so after the debate surfing the punditry and commentary and tomorrow will comb the internet newspapers and news magazines.


I've already voted as well (0.00 / 0)
According to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, supporters of the candidates are more interested in the debate than undecided voters are.

Just 32 percent of voters who say they are undecided between President Obama and Mitt Romney or could still change their mind are "very interested" in the presidential debates. By contrast, 53 percent of "definite" Romney voters and 59 percent of resolute Obama supporters are "very interested."


Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
I have already voted too. (3.50 / 2)
But when President Obama said there wasn't much difference between them on Social Security I really had buyer's remorse.  WTF?  We can look forward to more attempts to cut these fundamental Democratic programs in the lame duck session, and then to the success of President Christie in trashing them permanently after the Republican wave election of 2016.  Why?  Because Braley, Loebsack, Boswell, and Vilsack aren't defending them and neither is the President. The Republicans will run against the Dems for cutting Social Security and have the truth on their side for once. If it were not for Tom Harkin I would feel that my party had left me entirely.

Here's a fun read (4.00 / 1)
that paints a wholly different picture of the future.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/wh...


[ Parent ]
I don't buy it. (4.00 / 1)
Moderately center left?  That is simply not true. Health care started as a Heritage Foundation idea. Cutting Social Security and Medicare has been the GOP wet dream for decades.  No help for homeowners but lots of help for banks and no prosecutions. More fossil fuel extraction than under Bush.  Etc. Obama is what moderate Republicans used to be, before the whole party lost its mind and the Democrats started whoring after Wall Street money.

[ Parent ]
I caught a bit of the coverage (4.00 / 1)
on MSNBC--Ed Schultz was furious about Obama's comments on Social Security too.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
You must have been watching a different campaign (4.00 / 1)
I have seen all those Democrats mention SS and Medicare almost to a nauseating point in my view.

I think you will need to do more than raising the cap on Social Security to reform it, there is a serious demographic problem.  Yes, I think millionaires who had to pay into Social Security should also have to pay for it.  

Let's be frank about this, have the Republicans ever had such a hold on all three branches where they can privatize Social Security?  No, so if anyone mentions SS privatization they just want to run up a score in an election in my view.  


[ Parent ]
N/A (0.00 / 0)
That should say that millionaires who paid in should get their benefits.  My apologies.  

[ Parent ]
from the context (4.00 / 1)
it was clear what you meant, and I agree, I would not want to make Social Security a means-tested program.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
raising the cap (4.00 / 3)
so that people pay Social Security taxes on all wages, not just the first $106,800, would pretty much solve all the fiscal problems.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
It's the Dems who keep talking about privatization. (4.00 / 1)
It's the bogeyman they keep trotting out, while the real threat is what they themselves have planned for the lame duck.  There will be some combination of eligibility age increases, reductions in the COLA ("chained CPI" instead of the current formula, or one that takes elderly health care costs into account, i.e. "CPI-E."  There will be cuts, and a Democratic President and Democrats in Congress will wholly own them.

The average benefit is around $14k a year, $11k for women.  For more than half, it is their only or their primary source of income.  Shifting Medicare costs onto the elderly, as Simpson-Bowles proposed, will further impoverish them. But all our Very Serious Pundits and most of the Democratic leadership are on board with cuts to both Medicare and Social Security because OMGTheDeficit!!!  Also because that is what Pete Peterson and the rest of the Oligarchs want, and Democrats want that sweet Wall Street cash.


[ Parent ]
I still have hope (4.00 / 1)
that such a plan won't get 60 votes in the Senate.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
No question, Romney had a better night (0.00 / 0)
I haven't finished watching the whole debate yet, but based on the early part it was clear Romney had a better debate performance. In a few days we should find out if people actually were convinced enough to change their vote.

While stylistically Romney did well, substance-wise he may have gotten himself into an even deeper hole with his new explanation of his tax plan and how it will generate jobs. Still not willing give out details, he is now saying his tax "cut" will be revenue neutral and the rich will still pay as much as they pay now. So the question is, what happened to his proposed tax cuts? I believe he's still campaigning to "cut taxes." If there is no tax cut, he is only talking about structural tax reform. And then to claim that somehow miraculously this structural tax change (instead of paying X dollars using tax formula Y, you are paying the same X dollars using formula Z) will lead to 12 million new jobs is completely nonsensical.

I'm just hoping Obama will more forcefully call out Romney's bs and evasiveness in future debates.


I talked with a couple of other people (0.00 / 0)
today who said their friend or spouse also listened to the debate (as I did), and also thought Obama didn't do that badly. His body language must have been atrocious.

Former Ohio Gov Ted Strickland was on one of the morning shows today and said what Obama should have said when Romney trotted out his stories about the woman he met here, or the man he met there. All of those hard-luck stories probably involved people who are part of the 47 percent not paying income taxes. All of a sudden Romney pretends to have compassion for these people, when a few months ago he was saying they'd never take responsibility for their lives.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Iowa Liberal Blogs
- Ames Progressive
- Blog For Iowa
- Essential Estrogen
- Iowa .Gif-t Shop
- Iowa Independent (archive)
- Iowa Policy Points
- Iowans for a Future That Doesn't Suck
- John Deeth
Iowa Conservative Blogs
- Hawkeye GOP
- The Bean Walker
- Caffeinated Thoughts
- The Conservative Reader: Iowa
- The Iowa Republican
Journalists' blogs and research
- 24-Hour Dorman
- Cedar Rapids Gazette government page
- Iowa Fiscal Partnership
- Iowa Policy Project
- Iowa Politics Insider
- Iowa Watchdog.org
- On Brief: Iowa's Appellate Blog
- On the Campaign Trail with Ed Tibbetts
- Newton Independent (Peter Hussmann)
- Politically Speaking
- Price of Politics, etc.
- O.Kay Henderson at Radio Iowa
Iowa Democrats
- Tom Harkin (U.S. Senator)
- Bruce Braley (IA-01)
- Dave Loebsack (IA-02)
- Iowa Democratic Party
- Iowa House Democrats
- Iowa Senate Democrats
Statistics


 
Powered by: SoapBlox