Late Thoughts on the Second US Presidential Debate

Obamney.

I do not have TV currently. Last night, I finally got to watch the second US presidential debate for myself. I think, on balance, it will help Romney.

Scored as a debate, it was a draw, or possibly an Obama win. But that does not account for context. Obama had great responses for everything; but the fundamental problem was that he was largely defending his record of the last four years, and his message was that everything was great. This is not going to work, because everyone looks around and sees things are not great. They can see it on the gas pumps. Romney nailed it, drawing out this perception, by saying Obama was a great speaker, but his record shows he does not get things done.

As a result, even Obama's best arguments are likely not to stick to the target. Worse, the contrast between what he said and the perceived reality gives him an aura of mendacity, which hurts him on the essential likability factor.

This is made worse, I think, by his flashes of anger during the debate: most notably, his attempt to shut down all criticism on the Libya debacle by declaring it “offensive” to suggest he or anyone in the administration lied about it. Anger is not generally attractive; and he was, to some extent, expressing anger at voters themselves—the many among them who have indeed been suspecting the administration lied for two weeks about the nature of the Benghazi attacks.

And I think Obama's likability suffers again from the open partisanship of the moderator. Her intervention to endorse Obama's claims on Libya was, to me, absolutely jaw-dropping.

We know from many polls and surveys that most Americans no longer trust the media. The fact that Obama and the moderator were acting in consort—this is an observable fact, not some kind of conspiracy theory—actually tarnishes Obama as the candidate of the media. It will anger many who do not like to feel manipulated.

And the intervention itself probably did no good. Anyone who has been keeping abreast of the news knows full well that the Obama administration was saying for two weeks that the Benghazi attack was spontaneous and not terrorism.

The attempt to wiggle out by bombast, tricks with words, and collusion with the media, instead cements the impression that Obama's claims and promises, on anything, are not to be trusted.

Obama's energetic defense of his record will probably energize his base, and prevent him from being embarrassed on election day. But his base, in poll after poll, is under 50%; it alone will not get him reelected. He did not reach out to undecideds, and his debate strategy did not seem to be designed to reach out to undecideds. A defense of his record is not going to accomplish that; he has to give them a positive reason to vote for him, a vision for the future.

Obama did not do that in this debate, and he has not done that in this campaign. It is, of course, a difficult thing for an incumbent to do—the inevitable question becomes, “if this is your plan, why didn't you do it over the last four years?” Still, others have pulled it off; and it seems to be the approach best tailored to fit this candidate's oratorical skills. Why has he not done this?

I think it is further evidence that he does not really want to be president. He does not like to even think of the task of governing for four more years. His game now is to protect his legacy, and retire with some dignity.

That was his tone throughout this debate.