Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Well?

I am putting up a new poll after watching tonight's Presidential Debate. Who do you think was the clear winner?

Update October 4, 2012 PM From Undecided Voters: Round One Goes to Romney
By Chris Kofinis and Frank Luntz

Now, we don't agree on much, but reality is reality. Gov. Romney won the debate.
No way to deny it, spin it, or paint a different picture. It was the moment the Romney campaign was looking for -- a decisive victory that could change the narrative -- and he got it.
One knew from the opening answer that Gov. Romney had come loaded for bear. From that very first answer on, he was passionate and forceful. He recited a blizzard of facts and offered well-structured answers. He was empathetic and respectful to the president. And, he pushed a coherent and focused message. In fact, for these 90 minutes, he was the opposite of the campaign and the candidate the American people have seen.
Yes, he was quite good.
President Obama, on the other hand, was passive bordering on disinterest. He seemed displeased at times, and even worse, he showed it. He had no message and he meandered. He ignored facts and specifics he could have used to attack Gov. Romney. He didn't have an effective frame or any message. Interestingly, one of President Obama's best answers came when he defended his health care plan, but he still did not undermine Gov. Romney in this exchange. How is that possible? On health care?
Worst of all, he let Gov. Romney control the debate from beginning to end. Folks, it's Debate 101 that you never -- ever -- let your opponent control the debate. At a minimum, the president needed to be as aggressive as Gov. Romney. But he wasn't.
Putting aside our observations, based on an AOL-sponsored debate night focus group of 25 undecided voters, the results were clear. Romney won. President Obama lost.
When asked whether they felt that Romney improved his image, the answer was a resounding yes. When asked whether they felt this would energize his campaign, the answer was yes. While the president did show signs of improvement in the second half of the debate among our group, it just wasn't nearly enough.
So what did we learn from tonight's debate and what does it mean for the remaining two presidential debates?
1. Be On-Message: Watch the debate again. Count how many times Romney said the word "jobs" versus President Obama. Does anyone want to make a $10,000 bet how many more times Gov. Romney said jobs? It is inexplicable that the president ceded this word and issue to Gov. Romney. This election is about jobs and the economy, yet the president rarely talked about jobs. Gov. Romney kept talking about jobs and the economy, even when he was asked about something else. In doing so, Romney won the message war.
2. Expectations Matter: Much as George W. Bush won the debates in 2000 because voters expected so little, Mitt Romney "won" last night because he so exceeded expectations. Let's be honest, most folks expected Gov. Romney wouldn't do well tonight. In fact, if you were watching his campaign you would have expected -- predicted -- some disastrous gaffe or mistake. The expectations were low, and that kind of expectations game creates a dangerous dynamic. Voters come in thinking they're going to witness some caricature of a candidate they've seen and heard. But when they see and hear something different, the reaction and effect is even greater than the debate performance may even warrant.
3. Passion Matters -- a Lot!: Gov. Romney sounded and looked passionate, the president did not (except on health care). Gov. Romney spoke like he truly believed in what he was saying, while President Obama's tone missed the mark. He seemed unwilling to sell to the American people on his vision and policies in the passionate ways we have heard in the past. The word we heard most to describe Obama: "flat" -- and this is at a time when Americans want their president to rise to the challenge and inspire us to greatness again.
4. Stats Matter: Here's a little debate trick to remember: If you want to sound substantive, use statistics to reinforce nearly every response and attack. It's the "facts" voters say they crave. Romney did just that. He was a human statistics machine. He used them to not only reinforce his answers but to undermine the president's. Were these statistics all true? Who knows? But the president did nothing to undermine Gov. Romney's statistics and arguments. As a result, Romney's answers sounded more informed, more convincing, and more credible.
5. Be Aggressive: Aggressiveness is more appealing than defensiveness, and the president displayed no willingness to engage. He did not press. He did not counterpunch. He did not mention the 47% video or a litany of attacks his campaign has used to define Gov. Romney. Why? It's almost inexplicable. President Obama simply failed to take the fight to Gov. Romney, even as his own campaign takes the fight to Romney very day. There were clearly moments -- many of them -- where he could have forcefully engaged Gov. Romney. Instead, President Obama chose a more cerebral and filibustering approach, which does not work when you face a determined opponent.
So where do we go from here? Will this change the course of the election?
We'll see, but one thing is clear. The next presidential debate just became as important to President Obama as it is to Gov. Romney.
Let the battle continue.

Chris Kofinis is a Democratic strategist. Frank Luntz is a Republican pollster and strategist.

16 comments:

John David Kendrick said...

I was stunned!

Anonymous said...

You weren't alone! Mitt Romney left Obama in the dust.

One reviewer observed that perhaps the president shouldn't have spent so much time this week in Las Vegas.

As far as I'm concerned, the best man won!

Anonymous said...

From the PG,


http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/education/report-tight-subsidies-cause-more-public-school-layoffs-this-year-655679/

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/education/pennsylvania-survey-shows-huge-education-cuts-655780/

Anonymous said...

Obama is deploying his "rope-a-dope" strategy.

Now when he does marginally better in the next debate, he will be celebrated in the press as being the next great democrat President.

Anonymous said...

Romney appeared knowledgeable, credible and capable. Obama appeared unprepared and doesn't have a track record to justify another 4 years.

Go Mitt!

Anonymous said...

Last night's debate was an Obama-nation for Obama.

Mr. Romney left him in the dust.

Anonymous said...

You'll notice that Mitt was in favor of vouchers.

JoPo won't be too happy about that!

John David Kendrick said...

Vouchers... Yes... Isn't it interesting that public school supporters excoriate voucher systems that would bring accountability and competition between service providers? They claim that it just won't work because, because, because... but at the same time we have built the greatest collegiate level education in the world by leveraging the same principles as a voucher based system.

Anonymous said...

Now that the AARP realizes their endorsement of Obamacare has hurt their pockets they are trying desperately to distance themselves from him. It's laughable, really.

Anonymous said...

Obama's solution to our tough economy is to hire more teachers! Yeah, more pension obligations, union strangleholds (and grievances?) and here in the great state of Lebo even more administrators working four day work weeks in the summers after their unprecedented pay increases. Atta boy, Obama! That'll fix everything!

John David Kendrick said...

Don't get me started on social security and Medicare. That's where I break with the Republican party. Social security is a reverse annuity whose premium is paid via a tex on our paychecks. Why should it be unrealistic to expect a pay-back on the investment that you've made all of your life? Why are the expected returns in jeopardy?

I'll tell you why...

Because too many people put their sticky little fingers into the social security trust fund and transformed it into a pay-as-you go system.

Seniors need the government to be the insurer of last resort because this imperfection in the free market can not be addressed by the the private sector. We need to effectively pool and manage the risk just as government does for earthquake, mine-subsidence and flood insurance.

Seniors have a right to a sound healthcare system and our government has an obligation to protect this very vunerable class.

In my opinion those working here illegally are entitled to nothing from the social security trust and we have no obligation to feed, educate or provide medical services to the illegals kids let alone send a check back to their home country after they retire from their illegal work in the US. We need to end this corporate subsidy and return social security solely to the people who need it the most - our seniors.

We don't need to raise the qualification age; we don't need means based testing; we don't need a tax increase and we sure as hell don't need to continue to provide this subsidy to Corporate America!

Anonymous said...

Ditto 2:23

Richard Gideon said...

Presidential debates are "debates" in name only. Any college freshman can tell you that the dog and pony show of the 3rd, with its painful lack of moderation, was not a "debate."

Neither Obama nor Romney are offering solutions to the number one issue facing America - the staggering debt we are about to leave to our children and grandchildren. Neither candidate wants to acknowledge the 800lb gorilla in the room - unsustainable social entitlement programs and military spending, which take up the majority of our national "budget."

Only one presidential candidate has the guts to tackle Medicare, Social Security, military spending, and the coming implosion of our fiat currency: Gary Johnson.

I intend to vote for Governor Johnson, and before anyone tells me I'm "wasting my vote" just let me say that to suggest that I must choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee is both vacuous and insulting.

John David Kendrick said...

Hi Richard,

I felt like you until I examined Mitt's proposed comprehensive energy policy in detail. The Romney plan will not only position our country for energy independence, but the lower energy costs that result will revitalize many manufacturing industries. There is a very strong correlation between the decline of American manufacturing and the growth of the US debt. Mitt's energy policy is absolutely a step in the right direction. ;)

All of that said, the looming fiscal cliff may make any of the candidates policies moot. It won't be as bad as Europe, but our governing bodies will lose autonomous control of our future.

Richard Gideon said...

Hello Mr. Kendrick:
Thanks for your candid and thoughtful reply. But for me, the bottom line is this: Neither Obama nor Romney are offering actual reductions in the size of government, nor are they willing to take on social and military spending issues - which are the real problems. The best one can say about Romney is that his plans for government involve slowing its rate of growth, but certainly not its size.

The irony here is that while Republicans often say the right things about smaller government, their track record is abysmal. Starting with Jimmy Carter to the present day, we've had three Democrats and three Republicans as presidents; and government grew the most under the Republicans! Of course a lot of this has to do with the Congresses the Republicans had at the time, but George W had a Republican Congress for six of his eight years and he increased the size of government at a rate that beats everybody - so far (Obama is likely to "double down" and take the prize by the end of this first term).

One other thing - and this is a general comment; not, I assure you, directed at you - many, if not most, people talk about what a president will "do" to improve the economy, as if a single man (and eventually a woman) holds the secret to economic well being in the palm of his hand. This is a failure of our educational system (don't get me started there!), which seems to teach our young that government is the highest ideal to be desired. It's no surprise, therefore, that some people talk about "the government" as if it were some disembodied entity, as if you could pray to it for succor. But be careful what you wish for - you might get it.

John David Kendrick said...

Hi Richard,

I agree with you completely! Unfortunately, none of the choices is none of the above.

Take care,