Reminder: President Obama did not win in 2008 due to his debate skills, but due to other strengths

[TomCADem]

I posted prior to the debate that Romney could and probably would win on "points" due to the fact that he was a lying dick and (sadly), I was right. However, I also predicted that President Obama would win in the end, which remains to be seen:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251111366

Now, as some folks are still freaking out on post-debate polls, it bears reminding that President Obama did not win in 2008 due to his debate skills. Google most of the primary debates between him and Hillary Clinton and you will see that pundits generally concluded that Hillary Clinton "won" their head to head debates. Yet, Barack Obama overcome such debate shortcomings on the way to the presidency.

The fact of the matter is that President Obama's strengths are also what makes him weak in debates. President Obama does not speak in talking points, sound bites or applause lines. Yet, it is this difference that made peoplee rally to him, because he talked to people, rather than simply rattle off platitudes. Of course, this caused some folks to complain that the President is long winded. Yet, you generally can't have one without the other. Some people argue otherwise by pointing to Bill Clinton, but if you recall, Bill Clinton was also known for his really long-winded speeches if you recall his first DNC speech as an Arkansas Governor (boring!) or his long State of the Union speeches. Of course, Bill Clinton sounds fresh now, because we don't hear him all the time.

President Obama is great at rallies and he is great when talking in less structured environments. This is why he is seen as likable and charismatic. He looks like he is seriously talking to you, rather than simply reciting talking points despite the question asked. This strength also undermines him in a debate where he would be best served by ignoring the question and simply reciting the attack line.

I think the problem is that we forgot that President Obame was a weak debater. Worse, we expected him to be a great debater based on his strengths, which actually made him weak in a debate environment. Thus, part of Romney's "win" was due to the unrealistic expectations of both candidates. People thought that Romney would be a bad debater because he was so weak in rallies and giving straight answers, yet this was a strength in a debate, because he was willing to be a dick in terms of delivering his scripted attack lines and talking points. Conversely, we expected President Obama to "win" based on his strengths, which made him poorly suited to debates.

So, in the end, my take is to avoid buying into the media narrative about the optics of the debate. President Obama is right on the substance and he is great at getting people fired up to win this election despite the millions being poured into the campaign by corporate interests on behalf of Romney.

Yes, President Obama could have been more skilled in speaking in sound bites and talking over questions to deliver his political attacks while ignoring inconvenient truths. However, if this were the case, President Obama would not be in the position he is in of winning with an excellent ground game and holding his own by fundraising among individual voters as opposed to corporate interests.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Folks posting polls all up and down this forum

know damn well what's about to come up,
and what superficially (with media help) is coming down......

And if they don't, I suggest they stop posting these stupid incomplete polls!

[andym]

2. I think President Obama is quite capable of winning the battle of the narratives

He just needs to tell his story and make sure to point out the inconsistencies in Romney's.

Battle of the narratives:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021495764

[bushisanidiot]

9. +1

.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. I believe that the Obama campaign made a tactical decision there.

I was rather surprised that Obama agreed to the format of that debate in the first place. Obama stammers a little bit, and such a free-form debate is probably the worst kind he could be engaged in. Romney is slick, and few people can rattle off figures like he can. If Obama had debated Romney squarely, it would have been a disaster. Obama would have been left in the dust and Romney would have been standing there with that smirk on his face. If people think the polls are bad now, Romney would have had a 5% lead after a head-to-head debate with Obama. The campaign chose to forfeit that one, essentially, and focus on the ones where the Pres. has a chance. I think it was a smart move, but I guess we'll know for sure in a couple of weeks.

[TomCADem]

4. I Think The Idea Was To Have Lehrer Have A More Of Moderated Discussion, But...

Of course, Lehrer got run over and President Obama did not or could not really respond with a barrage of scripted attack lines. Give credit to Mitt, he played to his strengths by simply getting in his well rehersed attack lines regardless of whether it contradicted his actual policy proposals so that he sounded like a moderate.

[bushisanidiot]

5. Sincerity counts, which is why the President will win the town hall debate

Romney will show people, to their faces on live t.v., that he is a complete jerk.
In contrast, the President will easily show his compassionate, authentic self.

[fugop]

7. Curious about the town hall

Seems to me that the reason Mitt won the first debate was because he just stomped all over the president and the moderator. Just talked fast and furiously and didn't let up.

That strategy clearly worked in that debate format.

But now we come to the town hall format. I would assume that the same strategy won't work. Who will he stomp all over? THe people asking the questions? Candyass Crowley? No. I just think the same opportunity - to win by bluster - won't be available.

I don't know how the President will do, but certainly it would seem difficult for Mitt to win the same way.

[krawhitham]

6. Sure the fact Obama crushed McCain in all 3 debates according to flash polls had no bearing at all

on who won

[fugop]

8. Obama was helped in 2008 in a similar way that Bush and Mitt were

Obama in 2008 was very much still an unknown quantity to many voters. They'd been hearing how horrible and Muslim and socialist and terrorist (etc. etc. etc.) he was for months. Then they turned on debates and PRESTO CHANGE-O! He's a normal man. He seemed smarter than they'd been led to believe, calmer than they'd been led to believe, less "Rev. Wright! Palling around with terrorists! Socialist Muslim from Kenya!" than they'd been led to believe. McCain was an old guy who'd been around forever and hugged Dubya. Easy win for Obama. All three times.

Same with Kerry. Same with Bush. They were "unknowns" in comparison to their opponents (Bush and Gore, respectively) at the time of the debates. Kerry had been painted as a lily-livered flip-flopping injury-faking liberal. Bush was the likeable but dumb governor of Texas who managed to sneak in there instead of his much smarter brother. Kerry pounded Bush, and it helped him win the debates, if not the election. Bush pounded the known-quantity Gore - for many reason that still depress me so I can speak no further of it other than to say that we know who won and we know who "won."

Anyway, same happened here, in many respects. Romney is the new guy. People had read about him and caught bits and pieces in the news all year. But most probably went into the debate assuming he's not that bright and a robot. He came off better than that, and it helped his cause, as did the president's quiet performance.

So ... yea. McCain was crushed by Obama. But Bush was crushed by Kerry. Reagan by Mondale. Elder Bush by Clinton (and Perot didn't hurt).