President's MEDIA strategy for last night's debate: Remember "the private sector is doing fine?"

[ProgressiveEconomist]

Many people have struggled to understand the President's "wonkish" and laid-back performance at last night's "debate" with Mitt Romney. Since the election is not tomorrow, I think it was extremely wise for the President to concentrate on substance and not on style or emotional appeals. Those element's of his re-election campaign will be coming very soon. Right now, it's important to get the media to actually report on substantive policy issues.

Unfortunately, today's media don't want to do that. They don't want to learn anything about the distribution of tax revenues by income, about the failure of trickle-down economics in job creation, or about tax incentives for corporations to move operations overseas. They have to be "tricked" into doing their job. The President's "stunning defeat" last night has opened up a big "newshole" in which those very issues are being discussed.

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe this concern was uppermost in the President's mind last night. "Debate" moderator Jim Lehrer was absoltely no help in refuting demonstrable lies from Romney about his own proposals and about the President's record ("doubled the deficit"?).

So the President used a "rope-a-dope" strateegy, allowing Romney to tell all his lies, and calmly refuting them on the spot with all the relevant facts, though not in any emotional way that the media would report immediately.

Romney is now on record as saying that he supports hiring more teachers, that he would never push for a "tax cut" that helped the wealthy or ballooned the deficit, that he supports the popular elements of the Affordable Care Act, etc.

The media now are very busy trying to explain the President's "debate loss", In the process, they are being forced to report on the issues the President calmly explained last night. Without the "controversy" about the President's "stunning defeat", how much time would the media be devoting to these issues? Had the President simply repeated the elements of his standard stump speeches, and "won" last night, IMO the media already would have moved on to other infotainment stories.

Remember when the President tried to explain a monthly jobs report that showed how the Republicans had decimated public works construction, education, and other government employment? The media seized on the President's comparative statement--"the private sector is doing fine"--as a gaffe that showd he was "out of touch", But in doing so, they inadvertently put pressure on John Mica to stop his two-year delay of the Transportation Bill, which the President signed into law within weeks.

I believe President Obama's "stunning defeat" last night similarly will stimulate media coverage of policy issues, as Democratic campaign and SuperPAC ads contrast Romney's lies last night with what Romney said just days or weeks ago. If the media can be tricked into doing their job informing voters about real issues, last night's debate performance will have been well worth it.

I wonder whether the President alrady had been briefed on tomorrow mornings jobs report, the last jobs report before the election. If there is a spike in private sector employment, or a noticeable drop in unemployment, Democrats now are in position to make the most of good news.

[TroyD]

1. I don't think the President gets the job numbers until tonight

But I did post the *Gallup* unadjusted numbers for September this morning, which say they are down to 7.9%

But we've been fooled before by 'good' job numbers from other sources that turn out not to be as good when the official numbers come out.

If tomorrow's job numbers show an improvement, then we can celebrate.

Until then I am going to be nervous and don't want to jinx it or assume that the President has some Machiavellian purpose behind his debate performance.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

2. This week's ADP employment report was so good that the WSJ ran a refutation

This week's ADP employment report ( http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/the-economy/articles/aapl-goog-amzn-spy-255EDJI-services/10/3/2012/id/44626 ) was so good that the Wall Street Journal ran a refutation article impugning theat yardstick ( http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/10/03/adp-jobs-data-in-the-statistical-doghouse/ ).

You never know--the BLS may agree with its competitors this time.

[Chuckyoufarly]

3. Job report numbers do not really matter

Someone once said " A recession is when your neighbor is laid off and a depression is when you are laid off.

A .1 change even if it goes below 8% will not matter. People who are laid off are on one side or the other.

I feel that Obama has his base and his share of undecided. You must admit you would have to be nutty not to know who you want. Everyone has had four years to watch Obama and Romney has been running for 6 years.

This election is a done deal and is in the can. We must now get out our vote and wait to celebrate.

[Blue Idaho]

4. 8% is a watershed number.

I agree there is not much difference between 8.4% or 8.3% or 8.2% but if the number drops below 8% - that is a big deal.

I also agree with your last statement - its time for all of us to do what we can to bring this election home for the President and House and Senate Democrats. Its time for all hands on deck!

We can celebrate later.