When I want to feel good about how a Republican did in a debate, I consult Hugh Hewitt. When I want an honest evaluation, I check Ann Althouse, Michael Barone and Charles Krauthammer. I like Ann because she’s non-ideological and, in addition, to considering the policy issues the candidates address, she also offers her impressions of how they appear.
And the latter may matter more in how undecided voters react. If my recollection is correct (UP-UPDATE: see UP-UPDATE below), the snap polls after all three debates in 2000 showed Al Gore the winner, but shortly after those debates, the polls started moving in W’s direction.
Comparing the debate to one of those Civil War battles “in which both armies battered each other but neither came out a clear victor and the war went on“, Michael Barone concluded that “on balance Romney came off as more presidential.” Reader Kurt e-mailed me a passage from Ann Althouse’s debate post where she seemed to offer a similar evaluation:
8:23: Romney is able to stay relaxed while dominating. Crowley and Obama both seem cranked up and stressed.
8:25: A question about taxes. Romney is clear and focused. Obama’s over there on the chair, hunkered down, crouching, oddly. Hey, Jaltcoh is live-blogging. Check it out.
8:31: “Governor Romney, I’m sure you have an answer,” Crowley almost snarks. Her bias shows. She prompts Obama, suggesting the substance of the answer. Now, this doesn’t really help Obama. It makes Romney look more dominant, and we get the impression that Obama needs a boost. It’s actually patronizing.
8:34: When Obama speaks, Romney doesn’t go back and sit down. He stands there, eyeing Obama, who seems desperate. Obama yammers quickly in a high, strained voice. I can’t believe this is making the people in the audience feel connected and confident.
Image matters. And on that score, Romney appears to have edged Obama, even if the opinion polls suggest that Obama won it*, but I would note that only a plurality declared him the victor. “The focus groups say Romney won their votes at [the] second debate.” Indeed, Frank Luntz’s “focus group made up mostly of former Obama voters say they now support Mitt Romney.” Perhaps, the same things which registered with Ann registered with them.
The consensus among conservative bloggers & pundits is that the debate is not a game-changer, but then again, they’ve already made up their minds. The focus groups seem more bullish on Mitt Romney.
Perhaps had this been the first debate, it would have made much of a difference.
*UPDATE: RIght after posting this, I was checked Breitbart where I learned both the CNN and CBS polls showing Romney walloping Obama on the economy, by margins of 58-40 and 65-34, respectively. (CNN poll registered voters, CBS polled uncommitted voters.)
UP-UPDATE: My recollection was only partially correct. Snap polls showed Gore winning first debate and winning independents in third. That latter link reported that in “the second debate, . . . viewers picked Bush as the winner by a 16-point margin.”
I think the polls on the economy are going to hurt Obama. This election is more of an ‘It’s the economy stupid” election than any other.
I watched the debate with 3 of my teenagers. My daughter kept saying Obama was boring and she had heard him say everything before.
My younger son Romney had a lot more facts and answered the questions.
My older son said all politicians lie and seemed to call it a draw.
I wasn’t watching the debate but I was following Twitter, and based on what I saw on Twitter (as well as on comments such as Ann Althouse’s) it is hard to believe Obama could have won.
According to an MSNBC/PPP poll, among voters who describe themselves as “probably likely voters” who didn’t watch the debate but saw media coverage of it (i.e. most Americans) Obama won hands down, 9,000% to 1%,
Nov. 7th Polling Response;
” I was going to vote yesterday, but I was rushing home to watch ” The Housewives of New Jersey ‘, …and it wasn’t on. Preempted by some-sort-a political rubbish so I watched ML Baseball instead. The Mets won…..Yay!”
Jim Treacher – “[Obama] was hostile and petulant, instead of just sullen and petulant. That’s why dumb people think he won.”
Obama copied some of biden’s behavior – the constant petulant interruptions, distraction and hubris.
He came across as very angry; once again not being able to hide his contempt for Romney.
His rage resulted in extreme stuttering, sputtering and bumbling while interrupting Romney to assure that voters were unable to hear Romney’s explanations/answers, Crowleys sabotage of Romney by cutting him off, changing the subject and/or assisting obama by throwing him a lifeline was ugly. The tag teaming of Romney was bias at it’s worstand, damning.
Obama blinked a whole lot-which usually allows an observant person to witness his deception and intentional lies.
When Crowley covered up the lie regarding Bengazhi, it was mooch leading the clapping, out of camera shot, although Fox news captured her beginning of the clapping.
All in all, lies have a way of exposing itself; the next debate being about foreign policy will allow Romney to get his ducks in the row – there’s no escaping for obama.
BINDERS FULL OF WOMEN