Depending on how you wanted to look at it, prior to last week’s debate, the Obama camp was like a freight train rolling to reelection or the Romney camp was a car accelerating over a cliff. And the debate served as a giant brake on that process. What we wanted out of this election was to send Romney into free-fall. Once Romney went over the cliff, he would pull senators and representatives with him, turning this into a wave election and giving Obama the momentum to accomplish some big things in his second term. What we got instead was a tightening of the race which will diminish the Democrats’ upside. I’m pretty sure the damage will be lasting and costly because we probably cannot regain the speed and momentum with which we were crushing the Romney campaign. To use the freight train analogy, the faster it is going when you hit the brakes, the farther it will roll before it stops. We lost speed, and therefore seats in Congress.
The overall condition of the race is still fantastic if our only concern is winning a second term for the president, but that is not our only concern. We want to empower the president to do things. We want to teach the Republican Party a lesson about divorcing themselves from reality and governing in a reckless and self-destructive manner.
There are still two debates, both of which will be on friendlier turf for the president. There’s the vice-presidential debate, of course. And Romney is known as a gaffe machine for a reason. So, the race could readjust after this little blip and continue moving in the Democrats’ direction. But even if Romney hasn’t saved himself from defeat, he seems to have saved himself from humiliating defeat.
And I am not happy about that.
I agree. Very very frustrating to see the right totally energized by the debate. To see what was shaping up as a rout for republicans turned into a real fight.
It remains unclear to me if even a more energized and combative Obama could have neutralized the non stop torrent of lies and deception. As Newt noted some time ago, you can’t win a debate against a liar. But he certainly could have done better.
Smells like manufactured bullshit to me.
I assume you meant to post that as an answer to my question. I’m glad to have your opinion, in any case, bc I haven’t heard anything credible so far.
yes, sorry for the misplaced response.
I dunno. The loss of momentum is undeniable, but at the same time it can’t be overstated how fickle the swing voters are, and how short are their attention spans.
I’d been nervous because in spite of Obama’s clear lead in the Presidential race, and the increasing hopeful indicators in the down-ticket races, there were still a whole 6 weeks to go before Super Tuesday. Now we’ve encountered a serious setback, but there’s still an entire month to go.
Things can still change. Mitt Romney didn’t have a personality transplant. And there is still something up about Obama’s performance in that debate: he did not simply fail to address the $716 billion lie, or forget to mention that he spent a great deal of energy promoting his jobs plan, and that Obamacare is not a job killer.
He held back deliberately on these issues for reasons that are incredibly hard to fathom, given the outcome so far.
4 weeks is an eternity in the modern election cycle, especially the last 4 weeks up to election day. I believe in the President’s ability to pull out a net victory from this situation, but more importantly, I believe in Mitt Romney’s unerring tendency to fuck things up in a royal manner beyond the capacity of the average imagination.
That said, I heard a rumor last week about a looming campaign finance scandal that might hit the Obama campaign any day. Has anyone else heard about that?
There is less than a month to the election…quite a bit less than 6 weeks.
There’s no doubt at this point that the debate really killed the momentum that the campaign had built up. I still think Obama wins the election, but I think it’s quite a bit more likely now that he may only win with sub-300 EVs. And if that’s the case, we’re going to be in trouble in Congress. Obama is going to have to pull candidates like Shelley Berkley and Chris Murphy over the finish line, and if we lose those seats, it becomes a lot more likely we’ll be looking at something like a 51-49 Senate instead of 54 or 55 seats.
I really dislike how much the blogosphere has been saying “Chill the fuck out”. That’s the exact opposite approach that needs to be taken right now. Heck, even the Obama team knows their guy screwed the pooch.
Just in case I wasn’t clear in my original post, the “six weeks” bit is where I was 2 weeks ago. I don’t doubt that Obama wins the election, but neither do I buy that the situation we’re contemplating now is as good as it’s going to get. Nothing was set in stone 2 weeks ago, and neither is it now.
The Obama campaign machine is highly versatile, and with the one outlier (apparently) of a single strong debate performance, the Romney machine has so far been consistently ham-fisted.
If the entire voting nation can turn on the dime of the first Presidential debate, what can’t happen in the final (less than) month of this campaign?
“Chill the fuck out” is a reminder that we don’t need to panic over an isolated event. It shouldn’t affect our dedication or morale one way or the other. It for damn sure isn’t going to affect how the Obama team approaches the last leg of the campaign. They’re going to do what they’re going to do for their own reasons, and meanwhile the Republicans are slapping high-fives over a frankly dubious victory. This opera ain’t over yet.
I don’t think that degree of disappointment is really warranted. Romney is a weak candidate, but it was wishful thinking to suppose that he was SO awful that he’d continue to step on his dick every single day until his campaign simply collapsed. James Fallows had a good article about his history as a debater- to summarize, he’s always been pretty good at it.
Adding on to this, am I right that the debate represents the first daily news cycle Romney has won since the Republican Convention? (Why yes, I believe I am…although I’m willing to be corrected.)
I never expected Obama’s (or any candidate’s) campaign to win every single day of the last 10 weeks of the campaign. The race was always going to tighten, even if only because of the needs of the Gang of 500.
The presidential race is what it always has been: a race Obama is winning by a narrow margin, with both candidates having a high “floor” of support and very few “swing” voters.
Besides, if Republican donors swing some millions of dollars towards Romney’s campaign and away from Senate and House campaigns, and Obama still wins, how is that bad for Democrats?
It should further be noted that polling of Senate races doesn’t seem to detect any sign of Mitt growing coattails.
I couldn’t agree more with you, especially about what our goal in this election is. Any strategic decision on the part of Obama’s campaign to do no harm and not play for the win would indicate a concern that’s too narrow.
On our part, I believe that if bloggers have any impact on public opinion at all, we do real harm when we suggest (as I’ve seen elsewhere) that Obama wasn’t prepared for the extent of Romney’s lying. This is a crazy rationalization for someone who’s job it’s been to negotiate with Republicans for four years. Really, I’d end all talk of trying to explain his performance: every theory makes him look bad.
My first advice would be to bring out the Big Dog. He can make the case against the Republicans as a party. Next, I’d do whatever I could rhetorically to set up a mandate for Obama to say after the election “The American people elected me to do such-and-such.” He’s going to win, and if he says that the election is a referendum on protecting Medicare, stimulating the economy, regulating banks, opposing privatization of public services, etc., then the election will be.
I don’t know what we’re going to do about pushing against Simpson-Bowles and raising the retirement age on Social Security, since Obama doesn’t appear to be with us on this issue. Very depressing.
Having lived through the Clinton years I kinda don’t think he’s the greatest representative for Democratic progressivism. This is getting ridiculous.
The case against the Republican Party and the case for Democratic progressivism are two very different things.
Blowing Mitt Romney out of the water requires the votes of a lot of people who aren’t terribly progressive, but who think highly of Bill Clinton.
It might even require the votes of very progressive people who still think highly of the Clintons.
I’m sure they exist, but I’ll be damned if I know why.
If there are very progressive people who think highly of Bill Clinton, they’re rock-solid Obama voters anyway.
Maybe because you don’t know everything? Maybe because there are others who have a very different world experience? maybe because there are people who are more interested in making things better than in making a point? Maybe because the sum of all things political is not encompassed by Left/Right dichotomies?
Just sayin’
From DADT to NAFTA to welfare reform to financial de-regulation, Bill Clinton remains the most liberal Republican I ever voted for.
iirc he’s scheduled to appear in AZ this week. Excellent!
Clinton praising Obama makes it OK for a certain swath of white voters to say they’re for Obama. Just like Biden doing the same. There’s more to it than that but Obama can’t shore up that group by himself like the other two can.
If it’s any consolation, Obama’s advisers were apparently bewildered when he agreed with Romney on doing shit to SS.
I hate the bubble of the Beltway. They’re so obsessed with not frightening off the independents — which is why he just kept telling about himself rather than rebutting anything — that they ended up screwing themselves anyway. “indies don’t like conflict, they like agreement.” Screw your shit research. It’s bunk.
As the debate fades, the one line that sticks with me is Obama saying he agreed with Romney on Social Security. I felt like a chump voting for him the first time when he repeatedly attacked Liberals after he was elected. Now, I keep on thinking, “Do you want to feel like a chump voting again for the guy who’s going to put you in poverty in your old age with Simpson-Bowles cuts?”
You do know that he didn’t actually state support for any of that, right?
What part of that is supposed to be scary?
This part:
You know, I suspect that, on Social Security, we’ve got a somewhat similar position.
Ah, the polite sentiment that has nothing to do with actual policy.
Yeah, that’s what I thought. This little bout of hysteria isn’t actually about what Obama would do with Social Security; it’s about him not adopting a belligerent posture in his rhetoric.
It always is.
You’re damn right! I have to live on that starting next year and I don’t want politicians in silk suits cutting me off. I want someone that’s going to fight for me, not someone preoccupied with a “grand bargain” that flushes me down the drain.
…and, once again, there isn’t the slightest hint in anything Obama said that he would do so. Perhaps you can cite for me where, in the passage I quoted, Obama said anything about a grand bargain, or cutting you off?
Hmmm?
In fact, he said exactly the opposite – that Social Security needs to be kept strong, but that that required only minor tweaks.
“minor tweaks” like chained CPI and means testing? We scold Romney for vagueness, perhaps Obama should explain “minor tweaks”.
This may seem trivial to you. Most people under 50 that I know do not expect that SS will exist when they are 67 or 68. Most Republicans say one should save sufficiently to provide for retirement independent of SS. They say you should buy your own health care, too, or have a medical savings account. None of that is possible for blue collar people, even upper income unionized blue collar workers who are fast becoming extinct. “Permanent” employment itself is fast becoming extinct as more and more employers including the federal government under Obama are opting for temporary/contract workers with no benefits and only a limited term of employment.
No, I’m referring to something the debate. You made an assertion about Obama’s statement during the debate, and I’m calling you on it.
Show me something in the transcript of the debate that makes your hyperventilating look even remotely reality-based, or acknowledge that there was nothing there, and you made it up out of whole cloth.
Try this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/09/1142182/-Schumer-tells-Democrats-to-forget-Bowles-Simpson-t
ax-nbsp-plan
See my citations above 🙂
But since you’re starting next year, you’ll probably be spared the substantial cuts that are being proposed slated to begin years from now (that how America shreds the safety net decade by decade, after all).
and the political implications of Democrats (up and down the ticket) embracing austerity, or Bowles-Simpson, or anything of the like, ought to be enough to warn sensible Democrats away from those shoals.
I’m not sure there are any of those left, however.
And let’s not forget that the “tweaking” in the Reagan-O’Neill compromise included raising the social security age (to 67 by 2027). “Tweaking” my !@#$%^&*.
I believe we’re right to expect to feel like chumps.
http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/president-obama-calls-for-cutting-sociail-security-by-3-per
cent-raising-normal-retirement-age-in-acceptance-speech
Obama’s pattern is to compromise in secret and be vague in public:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/us/politics/obamas-unacknowledged-debt-to-bowles-simpson-plan.html
?pagewanted=all
Obama has been in office for four years.
Kindly point me to a single example of a single dollar cut from Social Security.
Take all day if you need to.
You just changed the terms of the debate from the future to the past.
And you’re rude.
So, no.
Oh, were those statements you cited made in the future? I didn’t realize that.
We’re both looking at the past, in our efforts to understand the likely course of the future.
I’m looking at specific actions he took, or did not take, in his actual performance as President.
You are looking at throwaway lines in a debate.
I have my opinion about the best way to understand a politician’s intentions, and I guess you have yours.
But, Joe. You were still rude. You gave him the whole day, critically implying that he couldn’t find them. That was very mean of you. And I got that from an expert in mean: My grandson. The kid has a PhD in mean. Takes after his grandmother.
TODAY THE PITS, TOMORROW THE WRINKLES!!!
I my comments I warned for being overly optimistic. When you are too confident, some have the tendency to play it safe. Wrong choice. Attack is the best defence and similar to sports tactics. The political gain and decisions on voting is limited in rationale and more often based on emotion. Instead of pushing Willard over the cliff, Obama let him scramble against all odds back up the cliff. Obama threw him a lifeline.
On foreign policy it’s not going to be easier for Obama, as I have written mistakes have been made. Willard will pounce on the issues in the Middle-East, Libya unrest, Egypt and Syria.
While I would relish an historic blowout of immense proportions so I could say “neener neener” to the Republicans, I will be satisfied with a comfortable win over Romney.
This lead up to the election is tense, emotional, and stressful for everyone, and it would be swell to know without a doubt that our guy will win. But we don’t. We just have to do what we can to keep the pressure on exposing Romney’s terrible plans for the country, and keep putting the word out that Obama is the best candidate.
And hope Obama doesn’t doze off in the next townhall.
The run Obama has enjoyed over the last month or two was extraordinary. There is no way it was going to continue forever.
Agreed, this is a major campaign juncture, and a dangerous one. Sweating out a close election will not do it this cycle–the only thing that can blunt the obstruction is some form of beatdown, up and down the ballot. Now we’re actually introduced to the unthinkable possibility that the momentum could shift entirely the other way if the next two debates don’t go well, and then real trouble.
Obama needed to break even in the debate in order to merely “lose” in the eyes of MSM. He didn’t do that. Certain aspects of his performance hewed to the debate strategy going in, while the rest of it was brain freeze. One thing I think was planned was to not necessarily bring up the 47% tape. The impact of the tape all but doomed the Romney campaign, but it also pushed aside the carefully calibrated machinations of the Obama campaign, freezing their ability to stay several steps ahead. Romney did a good job of toughing it out until the debate, when he had one last chance to change things up–which he did. But the Obama camp surely has a lot of oppo research material and lines of attack queued up and ready to go; this would have been easy to deploy after a debate that was a wash but now becomes very complicated. If, or I should say when, they return to Romney’s taxes and offshoring and plant closings and flipflopping, they now have to worry much, much more about the timing. I’m willing to bet they haven’t yet used the very best material the have on Romney–I suspect they have some real bombshells in their arsenal. Throwing in great ads at the wrong time now will result in them being wasted. I also expect they will have some nasty Romney ads to counter in a more difficult environment–previously they were able to easily swat them away.
So timing, in my opinion, is everything. There will be much riding on the Biden debate, and I suspect their plan will be to launch new lines of attack there and pivot from them the day after and leading up to the 2nd Prez debate. The margin for error got much, much smaller and thus the pressure is on. I still don’t necessarily expect Obama to be a flame thrower in the 2nd debate, but I think they’ll go in with a plan of attack that he’ll execute far better with a second chance. He’d better, since the only way to combat the certain obstructionism of a second term will be a resounding win with some real coattails.
Nothing, not even a beat-down, will blunt the obstruction.
A royalist party in a parliament has no real interest in participation in government. That would concede the legitimacy of the government, and presume they have a common purpose with the people sitting there. Their purpose for being is to shut the assembly down, and hasten the Restoration.
When the King comes into his own again, real government — courtiers jockeying for grace and favor, pensions and preferment, governorships and royal monopolies — can return. And parliament can go back to its real role — a talking-shop that occasionally votes the King credits for his wars.
The weirdest transformation of political terminology hasn’t been what happened to the word ‘liberal’ since John Stuart Mill — it’s what happened to the word ‘republican’.
All extremely valid points. But a resounding Dem victory and a change in the Senate filibuster rule along with a slowly strengthening economy and the full effect of the Affordable Care Act will go a long way towards minimizing the damage those traitors can continue to inflict on OUR country.
No one will repeal the filibuster, precisely because the GOP won’t concede the legitimacy of a Democratic government. Under those circumstances it’s too dangerous going forward to not have it.
Can someone please explain if I am missing something here? The rules, as I understand it, are that the Senate can change the filibuster every year. Even if the Dems never change it, the GOP still can the first time they control the Senate. Is that right? And we know that the GOP is going to do whatever is in their best interest. Even if the Dems don’t change it this year, the GOP will as soon as they can. They are not going to play nice just because the Dems did. So why not do the right thing?
As far as I can tell, not even a comma.
If they’re not going to control the Senate for the foreseeable future, the GOP aren’t going to change Rule 22. They need it.
The Democrats won’t eliminate it, because they know they won’t control the Senate forever, and although the Republicans may change it, someday, they haven’t yet, and even then, they may not, whereas if the Democrats change it, it will in fact then already be gone.
Neither side has an incentive. Plus in posse gets trumped by a minus in esse.
So, we’re giving up a chance to achieve any real progress in this nation, on the slight chance that the GOP will play fair in the future? Thereby proving that Dem Senators are naive and cowardly. Lovely. How many letters of complaint would we have to send to Harry Reid to get them to man up and do their jobs?
Interesting comment, thanks.
Obama will win as long as we continue what we’re doing. And we don’t necessarily need a blowout by Obama to win the Senate and House. There are still individual races that strategically are worth focusing on. I’ve been volunteering and contributing to mostly 2: Heitkamp for Senate in ND and Gill for Rep in IL-13.
It might help our chances if we obsessed a little less about the 2 at the top of the tickets. It seems to me to have become a lazy convenience. Ezra Klein hit it best:
That’s a really good bit from Klein. Link?
http://prospect.org/article/president-doesnt-matter
I already provided the first paragraph, but the second and third are equally perceptive:
Also note the date it was written. 2008.
Klein is one of the people in media who clearly have a lot happening under the surface that only occasionally bubbles up. It bums me out that he gets labeled “wonk” because he insists on dealing with detail.
Specifically here, he takes on the “great man” problem in history. The problem with the “great man” view of history is that it doesn’t suffice to explain historical change. Historians as a group have jettisoned it, and the only ones who push it are the ones playing for a pop audience. Academic history takes a more complex approach to causation.
This is a real problem in our political and economic culture. On the one hand a guy like Klein would do well in academia where his grasp of detail would put him in good company. Two problems: one, only other academics and a tiny group of others read academic work. Despite what academics tell themselves, public discourse doesn’t follow academic discourse 20 years later. The second is that there’s a bias in academia against broad synthetic work. Primary research is the order of the day. Only at the end of a career can one produce general works and retain the respect of one’s peers.
In journalism, the problem for Klein is the need to report events, and to keep it brief. Readers of the Post read bits in response to things, not a long, reasoned argument. At the same time, media culture demands broad and simultaneously brief explanations for complex developments. Hence, “The President,” etc.
I guess I’m saying I respect him knowing he will never be one of the big bigshots in journalism. I’m surprised he’s doing as well as he is.
Agreed, yet I think that this is a very practical problem with the Democratic Party as it has existed for most of the last few decades. I can recall a different article after a year of Obama in office that characterized this “great man” type of focus as inconsistent with progressive politics. I took it to mean we Dems especially need to follow the strategies that put our people power values to work and pay more attention to down ticket and local politics. That Repubs hold 2/3s of the Gov seats and 2/3s of the state legislatures is part of the problem. Those offices and other institutions are political building blocks that require effort and attention 24x7x365.
In part this is because congress is composed of cowards. Presidential power has grown because Congress has let it.
For my money the major root cause is two fold:
I’m not sure it’s ignorance so much as indifference. Knowledge of civics is about the same percentage as it’s always been. I suppose it might always have been inadequate. But the way the government was originally structured is quite bad. I guess I’d say that Americans want the government they want, not the one they’ve got.
The larger point of the piece is certainly true. If the momentum going into the debates had continued unabated, it would have been beautiful. It didn’t continue.
At the same time, I would think that from the Obama campaign’s perspective, timing as always is critical. The fifth act of the play comes after the debates. Their larger strategy against Romney is to use fact against him. To do so you allow him to produce fact, in this case the fact that he lied. You then use that to resolve the conflict in your favor.
Don’t misunderstand me–it’s not hard for me to see that Obama’s execution of the strategy was flawed in that debate. However, their goal was to let Romney make the first move, and that their second move would not take place during the debate itself.
I imagine that their larger goal is that momentum goes toward Obama not a month before the election but on election day. All that happens before then is back and forth. I would not be surprised if the assumption was made that Obama’s momentum in September would end before the election with absolute certainty, and that it was important, then, to create a chronological space for the pendulum to swing back and forth yet again.
It is wrong to assume that just because Obama and his team are exceptionally good at this that they intend everything to happen. However, I think that their strength is that they produce strategy that incorporates both space for the opponent to act and space for themselves to respond and tactically correct course.
It’s true that the loss of momentum cost, but it cost much less than if that momentum waned two weeks before the election.
Here’s the NY Times story on it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/us/politics/biden-up-next-obamas-aides-plot-comeback.html?ref=poli
tics&_r=0