Romney's big night
This post originally appeared on Slate.
When Barack Obama entered the debate hall at the University of Denver Wednesday night, the air was clear and warm. When he left, the winds where whipping and the temperature had dropped 20 degrees. Coincidentally, that was also the same number of undecided voters who thought the president had a good debate.
In two different polls of undecided voters by CNN and CBS, Obama received grim reviews. In the CBS poll, 46 percent thought Romney had done the better job. Only 22 percent thought Obama prevailed. In the CNN poll, 67 percent thought Romney had performed well. Only 25 percent could say the same of Obama. In another poll conducted with a group of "Wal-Mart Moms" in Las Vegas, Romney also scored high. His image climbed 20 points, while Obama's moved just 5. Many of the women had "somewhat tuned out Mitt Romney," according to the findings reported by a bipartisan polling team. "After seeing him this evening several are now re-engaged and want to learn more about him. They were somewhat disappointed with President Obama's performance. They do not believe he made the case for how another four years will be different or better."
Instant polls are a small sample and they only take a momentary impression, but that's all the Romney camp needed. Going into the debate Romney was on the long end of three bad weeks. Romney's advisers were looking simply for a pause in the race--a moment for voters to take a second look at Romney. They got it Wednesday night.
Romney had two tasks. He had to explain why the president was a failure while also seeming appealing enough for voters to think he might have policies will succeed. The risk was that he would get the mix wrong. He'd come off as too aggressive and turn people off. Romney was certainly aggressive. "You've had four years, " he told the president during the discussion of deficit reduction. "You said you'd cut the deficit in half. It's now four years later. We still have trillion-dollar deficits. You found $4 trillion to reduce or to get closer to a balanced budget, except we still show trillion-dollar deficits every year. That doesn't get the job done."
Romney seemed alive to the challenge, almost like he was enjoying himself. He looked in command, like he belonged on stage with the president. Voters polled by CBS after the debate showed a dramatic increase in the number who thought Romney cared about them. Before the debate, only 30 percent said they thought Romney "cares about your needs and problems." After the debate, 63 percent believed he was more empathetic of others.
It was clear from the start of the debate that Romney was going for kinder and gentler. He spoke of two different voters he'd run into who were struggling in the economy. "I was in Dayton, Ohio, and a woman grabbed my arm, and she said, 'I've been out of work since May. Can you help me?' Ann yesterday was at a rally in Denver, and a woman came up to her with a baby in her arms and said, 'Ann, my husband has had four jobs in three years, part-time jobs. He's lost his most recent job, and we've now just lost our home. Can you help us?' And the answer is yes, we can help, but it's going to take a different path."
The president's numbers also improved among those voters polled by CBS on the question of caring. He started with 53 percent, and by the end of the night, 69 percent said they thought Obama cared about them. It was the only bright spot of the night for Obama, who otherwise seemed listless and detached. When Romney spoke, Obama looked down at his notes and smiled, which conveyed something between low-stakes bemusement and "I can't believe I have to listen to this guy." Perhaps that's what happens when you're president and people don't often tell you that you're wrong.
In debates over Romney's tax plan, health care, and Medicare, Obama didn't prosecute his case nearly as powerfully as his opponent. At times the president seemed to think merely by appealing to voters' deductive reasoning he'd make his point. "Does anybody out there think that the big problem we had is that there was too much oversight and regulation of Wall Street? Because if you do, then Governor Romney is your candidate." That's a circuitous way to make a rather simple point. Obama did that again and again.
The president seemed thrown off by the fact that Mitt Romney was far more like the man who won the governorship in Massachusetts than the one who had won the Republican primary. In a debate about tax cuts, Romney consistently denied that his tax cuts would total $5 trillion. Shouldn't Republicans boast about cutting taxes? What Romney meant is that his 20 percent across the board cut would be revenue neutral and not increase the deficit. That doesn't mean, however, that they won't also be large tax cuts.
Fact-checking the first presidential debate
Debate analysis: Romney lands blows against cautious Obama
Economy in focus during Obama, Romney showdown
Romney also seemed to moderate his tone on regulations, particularly Dodd-Frank. Previously, his criticism of the bill had been much harsher, but in Denver on Wednesday night he seemed to say that it's big problem wasn't so much the regulations but the fact that the regulations were unclear.
Romney bragged about his Massachusetts health care plan, his ability to work with Democrats, accused Obama of giving a "kiss to New York banks," and insisted that he wouldn't cut taxes on the rich. "I'm not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce the--the revenues going to the government," Romney said, sounding unlike the self-described "severe conservative" of the previous 18 months. There might have been a time when this would have upset conservatives, but as GOP strategist Michael Murphy put it, conservatives "have tasted losing for the last couple of weeks." They're not going to complain now after a night that "tastes like winning."
Obama's point--and one he'll hammer home in the coming days--was that Romney's numbers don't add up, if for no other reason than he hasn't been specific. Romney is promising to cut taxes and increase defense spending while also balancing the budget. How does he get there? Romney doesn't really say. If the president were on his game, he might have argued that Romney will make up the difference by squeezing the 47 percent he spoke of so derisively in that video. But the president didn't draw that argument very clearly. The closest he came was during a discussion of block granting Medicare, when he said, "Now, you know, that may not seem like a big deal when it just is--you know, numbers on a sheet of paper, but if we're talking about a family who's got an autistic kid and is depending on that Medicaid, that's a big problem. And governors are creative." That's hardly a line of attack.
The president's team will immediately begin to hammer Romney on his lack of specificity. Romney promised the moon, but when you look at the details (or the lack of the same) there's no way it can all add up. Once again, though, the president made his case by backing up into it. "I think the American people have to ask themselves, is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they're too good? Is--is it because that somehow middle-class families are going to benefit too much from them? No, the--the reason is because when we reform Wall Street, when we tackle the problem of pre-existing conditions, then, you know, these are tough problems, and we've got to make choices. And the choices we've made have been ones that ultimately are benefiting middle-class families all across the country."
This was Mitt Romney's best night of the campaign. Now he has to sustain it. In the past, debates haven't stuck with voters for long. There wasn't one Romney moment that voters could take home and replay at work the next day. Romney seemed competent and in command, but how does that get passed around to other voters? Perhaps it's enough that many voters who were looking at him for the first time didn't see an indifferent millionaire. But his reputation for ideological malleability may help the Obama team argue that Romney is reinventing himself again. That will probably mean a pretty brutal round of charges about his ability to tell the truth. As the campaign heads deeper into October, the president is going to have to regroup, shake off the chill, and turn up the heat.
More from Slate:
Jim Lehrer vs. @SilentJimLehrer: Was Last Night's Moderator Really That Bad?
Pundits Agree: Romney Wins Round One--and It Wasn't Even Close
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 434 Comments
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 126 Comments
- Senate committee approves immigration bill
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 1200 Comments
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 172 Comments
- Obama: "Full focus" is on recovery from Oklahoma tornado 85 Comments
- U.S. IDs several men possibly responsible for Benghazi attack
- IRS scandal highlights leadership vacancies
Second, the $1.2T number I quoted is the number from the TOP EARNERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES, not the population at large.
____________
Guess what? It isn't those "TOP EARNERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES" that are buying houses and sending their kids to college. It's mostly middle-class families.
But then I wouldn't expect a Rush-bot like you to have the slightest comprehension of fiscal policy.
http://youtu.be/TyXJ1sAQtaY
He's not going to give the wealthy a tax increase. And he's going to give Defense more money even though they said they didn't want it.
At the same time, he's going to reduce our deficit spending and start paying down our national debt.
Doesn't more spending + the same amount of revenue INCREASE deficit spending and the national debt?
He says he's going to do this by "eliminating some deductions and loopholes."
But he claims that his plan will still maintain the "same level of revenue." Isn't this a fancy way of essentially saying he's going to rob Peter to pay Paul?
So all I can figure is that, by reducing or eliminating things like deductions for home mortgage interest and college tuition, etc. what he's REALLY talking about is a major tax increase for mostly the middle class. Fewer deductions = higher tax.
Not to mention that we already know that -- at the rate we're spending -- our deficit and debt keep growing. The only ways to eliminate that situation are either by increasing revenue or decreasing spending. Ultimately, a combination of both will give the fastest results.
So, since he's going to increase "Defense" spending, where is he going to make the cuts that are not only going to offset his increased Defense spending, but cut down total spending?
Can't be education. Boy howdy, he loves education and teachers.
Can't be energy. Although he hates renewable energy, he's gonna spent LOTS of money opening up protected wildlife areas for more drilling. And he "loves coal." (Hint: there's no such thing as "clean" coal. Some is less harmful than others, but none of it is good.)
Obama was right. Romney's "plan" is arithmetically impossible. But then, if Romney cuts federal funding to PBS, then there won't be any over-the-air channels broadcasting any real science or unbiased investigative reporting, so who will know? Certainly not the Rush-bots.
Obama's IRS claims there are about $1.2T in so-called "loopholes" enjoyed by top earners and companies.
Income taxes are a source of about $2.4T in revenue to the government. Romney's goal of a 20% reduction would be therefore be 20% of $2.4T, or about $480B per year.
All he needs to do is close about a third of all loopholes and his plan becomes revenue-neutral without a dime of taxes on the middle class. Nothing at all "arithmetically impossible" about that, is there?
The resulting lower taxes on small business would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, and therefore billions of dollars in new tax revenues.
It is quite a good deal for nearly everyone except those who are enjoying the benefit of those tax loopholes - you know, like Obama's friends in the failed "green energy" startups.
Most of those "loopholes" Romney's talking about closing are deductions for things like college tuition and home mortgage interest. If you "close those loopholes" that means that middle class people pay more in taxes. The very people that (as Romney himself admitted) are being squeezed beyond the breaking point.
KSNS: I completely agree. Neither candidate has a plan that will actually reduce either our deficit spending OR our national debt. But at least Obama didn't keep talking over the moderator, insisting that he should be allowed to talk as long as he wanted, trying to pile-drive home a "plan" that doesn't add up through sheer volume and force-of-will.
The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.
It is characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. The debater is allowed to run on for a fixed time, spewing forth torrents of accusations that the opponent hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate.
That's why Romney was so adamant to talk out of turn. If he looses the pattern, it would give Obama a chance to refute his accusations and be on the offensive.
Romney continues to surprise me. This debate has changed my opinion of Romney; from a 'flip-flopping dufus' to a 'diabolical liar'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12nYRa8PTzo
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
There are several ways to counter it. The easiest is to do the same thing, change the topic and attack. Of course you need to also be lying like crazy, which is why I never used that approach.
My most successful counter was to use a summarization of multiple points to create a logically impossible result and present that, which makes the opponent have to either change the topic again (and lose the initiative) or to attempt to explain the logical impossibility - which is a fail. They they change the topic, you hammer back the next opportunity and keep hammering the impossible scenario until the audience/judges are clear that they are refusing to defend, then siwtch topics yourself and regaing the initiave.
For the debate, that would be "Governor Romney, you just said you would cut taxes without cutting revenue and without increasing any taxes on the middle class, increase defense spending, leave Social Security and Medicare untouched for those 55 and older (10 years) not touch education funding, AND balance the budget. That's mathematically impossible, as ALL the remaining spending - food stamps, unemployment, the EPA, and everything else - does not add up to even a third of our current deficit. How do you explain that impossibility?"
They ran the biggest fiscal liberal they could find.
He does flip on almost a daily basis depending on who he is talking too.. He was for abortion before he was against it, he was for Romney care before he was against it, he was against the 47% of the Americans he calls moochers before he was for them; he was for tax cuts for the rich before he was against them!!!
It goes on and on, actually, he and Ryan are more than flip-floppers, they are out right liars and we all know it.
---------
I think you meant "THAT coming from a guy..." unless you were saying that about yourself.