Following last night's Presidential debate - the first of three between the two candidates - I heard numerous "news" pundits clamoring away that Republican Mitt Romney dominated the president and we will see polls tightening as a result.
This was even the case on left-leaning MSNBC, where Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews, in particular, voiced their displeasure with the president's performance. Al Sharpton and Chris Hayes were a little more forgiving and Rachel Maddow didn't really voice her opinion one way or another (at least while I was watching) on which candidate she felt won.
An instant-poll conducted by CNN showcased Romney handily defeating Obama, winning by a margin of 67-25%, I believe. A CBS poll indicated the GOP nominee won 46-22%. CNN has since admitted their sample may have been skewed a little too much in favor of Republicans, so I'm more inclined to believe the CBS poll. Google took two such polls, one where Obama won by a slight margin and another where Romney won by a similar margin as he did in the CBS poll.
Was I watching the same debate as these people? My questions are: Why is it they feel Romney won and why do they feel Obama performed so poorly? I keep hearing that Romney dominated and while I've seen the numbers reflect that, I've still not been given an adequate reason as to why this is.
I have heard that he was the more "aggressive" and "energetic" of the two, that he took control of the debate, set the tone, had Obama on the defensive, etc. I've also heard that Obama wasn't aggressive enough, that he didn't bring up "47%" or Bain, that he was too kind and respectful, too laid back, etc.
Is that all this is? A show? Since Romney was the more aggressive and energetic of the two candidates, he automatically won? Is the debate simply for entertainment purposes? Can I run for president, dress up like a clown for my first debate and run around the stage for the full 90 minutes, while mixing in somersaults, cartwheels and jumping jacks while and yelling insults at my opponent and be guaranteed a victory in the media and public's eyes? I guess I just don't understand why the debate should be about that. I don't watch debates to be entertained. I watch them to learn more about the candidates and through that be able to make a more well-informed decision come election day.
I have to wonder if the liberals that are angry or disappointed by Obama's performance have a poor memory, because the Obama last night was the Obama in just about every other debate where he's taken part. The guy is typically cool, calm and collected. He defends himself with specifics. He's not afraid to go after the other's record with specifics. He lays out his future plans a bit more broadly. Lastly, he tends to alternate whom he looks at during the debate, from the moderator to the camera to the audience to his opponent. This was nothing new. This is how the president debates. Is it the most exciting thing on television? No, not likely. He's never been apt to start yelling at his opponent, hurl insults and make the debate a popcorn-worthy spectacle. If liberals were disappointed by last night's performance, I'd probably suggest they not watch the other two debates, because they'll likely be seeing more of the same.
Along with the entertainment-obsession of the media (and perhaps voters) aiding the perception of Romney's performance last night, I also think the expectations game and ratings-game played large factors as well. In the run-up to the debate, the Romney team basically said that if the Republican candidate pronounced the word "the" correctly, he'd fulfill their expectations. Polls showcased that this was effective, as a fairly large majority of people said they felt the president would win the first debate. Whether or not Romney actually "won" last night is quite debatable, but I have to believe the lowered expectations set forth by his campaign did help on some level as far as perception is concerned. Lastly, let's be honest here - the media wants a tightly-contested race and why? They want ratings. Chances are the more lopsided the outlook appears to be heading toward election day, the less excited people are going to be and due to that, the less apt they'll be to constantly check out the news. The closer the race is, the more excitement that will be generated and as a result - the better the ratings. Some people like to claim that the news-media is liberally-biased, while others like to state that it's conservatively-biased. While there can be no questioning the fact that there are some outlets which either lean to the left or the right on the political spectrum, the bottom line is they want ratings.
After watching the debate, I can't say I garnered a different perspective on either candidate. Perhaps this is one downside to all the research and fact-checking I do - it's difficult for me to see things from an uninformed voter's perspective. It was difficult for me to have seen last night's debate as a solid Romney victory, due to the fact I knew about half of what he was spewing was false, and that may be an understatement. What I did see while watching the debate was a direct reflection of the two men's personalities as well as their standing in the race. As I mentioned previously, President Obama appeared cool and collected, as he almost always does, and appeared to be the one in a comfortable lead. In contrast, Romney appeared to be hyper, aggressive, rude, almost child-like, and like he knew he was behind. From how I saw things, the president appeared to be the adult in the room and the one more suited for the Oval Office, while Romney appeared to be a guy more suited for selling cars. This isn't to say I think the president won the race. In all honesty, I felt like it was a draw. The real losers were truth and with that, the viewers. It was horribly moderated by Jim Lehrer, for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect. However, his questions were fairly general and not nearly as interesting as they should have been. He also lacked control over the debate. Romney interrupted him more times than Nickelback has written similar sounding songs. In my opinion, it was a horrible debate largely due to all of that and I sincerely hope some necessary changes are made to the format heading into the next debate.
http://www.examiner.com/article/cnn-poll-67-believe-romney-won-first-presidential-debate
http://www.local12.com/mostpopular/story/CBS-Poll-Mitt-Romney-Wins-First-Presidential/g-o6GKCZf0mE8wzzUyQBqg.cspx
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/polls-show-a-strong-debate-for-romney/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/30/poll-finds-most-think-obama-will-win-first-debate/?page=all
This was even the case on left-leaning MSNBC, where Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews, in particular, voiced their displeasure with the president's performance. Al Sharpton and Chris Hayes were a little more forgiving and Rachel Maddow didn't really voice her opinion one way or another (at least while I was watching) on which candidate she felt won.
An instant-poll conducted by CNN showcased Romney handily defeating Obama, winning by a margin of 67-25%, I believe. A CBS poll indicated the GOP nominee won 46-22%. CNN has since admitted their sample may have been skewed a little too much in favor of Republicans, so I'm more inclined to believe the CBS poll. Google took two such polls, one where Obama won by a slight margin and another where Romney won by a similar margin as he did in the CBS poll.
Was I watching the same debate as these people? My questions are: Why is it they feel Romney won and why do they feel Obama performed so poorly? I keep hearing that Romney dominated and while I've seen the numbers reflect that, I've still not been given an adequate reason as to why this is.
I have heard that he was the more "aggressive" and "energetic" of the two, that he took control of the debate, set the tone, had Obama on the defensive, etc. I've also heard that Obama wasn't aggressive enough, that he didn't bring up "47%" or Bain, that he was too kind and respectful, too laid back, etc.
Is that all this is? A show? Since Romney was the more aggressive and energetic of the two candidates, he automatically won? Is the debate simply for entertainment purposes? Can I run for president, dress up like a clown for my first debate and run around the stage for the full 90 minutes, while mixing in somersaults, cartwheels and jumping jacks while and yelling insults at my opponent and be guaranteed a victory in the media and public's eyes? I guess I just don't understand why the debate should be about that. I don't watch debates to be entertained. I watch them to learn more about the candidates and through that be able to make a more well-informed decision come election day.
I have to wonder if the liberals that are angry or disappointed by Obama's performance have a poor memory, because the Obama last night was the Obama in just about every other debate where he's taken part. The guy is typically cool, calm and collected. He defends himself with specifics. He's not afraid to go after the other's record with specifics. He lays out his future plans a bit more broadly. Lastly, he tends to alternate whom he looks at during the debate, from the moderator to the camera to the audience to his opponent. This was nothing new. This is how the president debates. Is it the most exciting thing on television? No, not likely. He's never been apt to start yelling at his opponent, hurl insults and make the debate a popcorn-worthy spectacle. If liberals were disappointed by last night's performance, I'd probably suggest they not watch the other two debates, because they'll likely be seeing more of the same.
Along with the entertainment-obsession of the media (and perhaps voters) aiding the perception of Romney's performance last night, I also think the expectations game and ratings-game played large factors as well. In the run-up to the debate, the Romney team basically said that if the Republican candidate pronounced the word "the" correctly, he'd fulfill their expectations. Polls showcased that this was effective, as a fairly large majority of people said they felt the president would win the first debate. Whether or not Romney actually "won" last night is quite debatable, but I have to believe the lowered expectations set forth by his campaign did help on some level as far as perception is concerned. Lastly, let's be honest here - the media wants a tightly-contested race and why? They want ratings. Chances are the more lopsided the outlook appears to be heading toward election day, the less excited people are going to be and due to that, the less apt they'll be to constantly check out the news. The closer the race is, the more excitement that will be generated and as a result - the better the ratings. Some people like to claim that the news-media is liberally-biased, while others like to state that it's conservatively-biased. While there can be no questioning the fact that there are some outlets which either lean to the left or the right on the political spectrum, the bottom line is they want ratings.
After watching the debate, I can't say I garnered a different perspective on either candidate. Perhaps this is one downside to all the research and fact-checking I do - it's difficult for me to see things from an uninformed voter's perspective. It was difficult for me to have seen last night's debate as a solid Romney victory, due to the fact I knew about half of what he was spewing was false, and that may be an understatement. What I did see while watching the debate was a direct reflection of the two men's personalities as well as their standing in the race. As I mentioned previously, President Obama appeared cool and collected, as he almost always does, and appeared to be the one in a comfortable lead. In contrast, Romney appeared to be hyper, aggressive, rude, almost child-like, and like he knew he was behind. From how I saw things, the president appeared to be the adult in the room and the one more suited for the Oval Office, while Romney appeared to be a guy more suited for selling cars. This isn't to say I think the president won the race. In all honesty, I felt like it was a draw. The real losers were truth and with that, the viewers. It was horribly moderated by Jim Lehrer, for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect. However, his questions were fairly general and not nearly as interesting as they should have been. He also lacked control over the debate. Romney interrupted him more times than Nickelback has written similar sounding songs. In my opinion, it was a horrible debate largely due to all of that and I sincerely hope some necessary changes are made to the format heading into the next debate.
http://www.examiner.com/article/cnn-poll-67-believe-romney-won-first-presidential-debate
http://www.local12.com/mostpopular/story/CBS-Poll-Mitt-Romney-Wins-First-Presidential/g-o6GKCZf0mE8wzzUyQBqg.cspx
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/polls-show-a-strong-debate-for-romney/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/30/poll-finds-most-think-obama-will-win-first-debate/?page=all
Comments
Post a Comment