Fall Debates

[Themistocles18]

The CW here seems seriously, embarrassingly wrong.  I've watched every debate, Republican and Democrat- excluding a few candidate forums- since '08.  I thought Obama lost or tied all but one of the '08 primary debates (he won, at least rhetorically, the one with the "likable enough" comment).  Of course he shellacked McCain three times; but McCain was, bar-none, the worst debater in the Republican field.  Romney repeatedly shellacked him.  McCain won exactly one of those debates with Romney and exactly one exchange- the infamous "timetable" debate, where he managed to make Romney seem weak and weaselly.  Other than that, he was awful.  More to the point, Romney was the candidate winning most of those debates.  This isn't just me talking.  Go back and look at the contemporaneous reporting.  Until the late Fall when Huck surged, Romney was repeatedly- I'd wager 50-60% repeatedly- proclaimed debate "winner".  In total (including post-Huckabee surge) Romney clearly won a plurality of debates.  Rudy won one or maybe two, McCain won one, and Romney and Huckabee pretty much split the remainder.  Romney also had some notably successful debates against Jane Swift in '02, the last of which resulted in something like a 5 point swing in the election (i.e, the last of which made Romney governor).  And of course, in this campaign Romney won the overwhelmingly majority of debates- including a few where, when all the chips were on the line, he brutalized Newt and Santorum; a fact that helps explain his nomination despite significant opposition among Republican primary voters.  So Romney is a fine debater.  We have lots of evidence of this.  Plenty of people have said so, while the debates were going on, though many seem to forget this after the fact.  Obama, in comparison, has only seemed like a particularly fine debater in comparison to a particularly awful debater (McCain) and was, at best, sub-par against the only fine debater he's faced (Hillary).  There's no way- none- that the like 4 to 1 Obama advantage in this poll is an accurate reflection of the disparity between the two men's debating ability.  If Obama won- flat-out- even one of the debates I'd be shocked.  He'll probably manage one tie and two narrow losses.  But there's definite potential for a significantly worse outcome. 

[Themistocles18]

The CW here seems seriously, embarrassingly wrong.  I've watched every debate, Republican and Democrat- excluding a few candidate forums- since '08.  I thought Obama lost or tied all but one of the '08 primary debates (he won, at least rhetorically, the one with the "likable enough" comment).  Of course he shellacked McCain three times; but McCain was, bar-none, the worst debater in the Republican field.  Romney repeatedly shellacked him.  McCain won exactly one of those debates with Romney and exactly one exchange- the infamous "timetable" debate, where he managed to make Romney seem weak and weaselly.  Other than that, he was awful.  More to the point, Romney was the candidate winning most of those debates.  This isn't just me talking.  Go back and look at the contemporaneous reporting.  Until the late Fall when Huck surged, Romney was repeatedly- I'd wager 50-60% repeatedly- proclaimed debate "winner".  In total (including post-Huckabee surge) Romney clearly won a plurality of debates.  Rudy won one or maybe two, McCain won one, and Romney and Huckabee pretty much split the remainder.  Romney also had some notably successful debates against Jane Swift in '02, the last of which resulted in something like a 5 point swing in the election (i.e, the last of which made Romney governor).  And of course, in this campaign Romney won the overwhelmingly majority of debates- including a few where, when all the chips were on the line, he brutalized Newt and Santorum; a fact that helps explain his nomination despite significant opposition among Republican primary voters.  So Romney is a fine debater.  We have lots of evidence of this.  Plenty of people have said so, while the debates were going on, though many seem to forget this after the fact.  Obama, in comparison, has only seemed like a particularly fine debater in comparison to a particularly awful debater (McCain) and was, at best, sub-par against the only fine debater he's faced (Hillary).  There's no way- none- that the like 4 to 1 Obama advantage in this poll is an accurate reflection of the disparity between the two men's debating ability.  If Obama won- flat-out- even one of the debates I'd be shocked.  He'll probably manage one tie and two narrow losses.  But there's definite potential for a significantly worse outcome. 

You're right, Romney was a fine debater. Not good, not bad, only fine. During the primaries of 2012, he didn't do anything in the debate that made him win them, he only made sure he didn't make mistakes. But Governor Rick Perry really got under his skin in the debates, as you can see from the links below.

And that's what Obama is most likely gonna do in the debates. He's gonna try and unnerve Romney, he gonna get him off his game and get under his skin. Obama doesn't have to win the debates, he just has to keep Romney on the defensive, and not allow for a Reagan-Carter debate moment. And Obama is pretty good at taking down Republicans and defending his record from 2010 when he took on the entire Republican Issues Caucus Confernce.

I meant "fine" as in "of very good quality", of course.  Some Romney's early debate wins were as you described; i.e, Romney just being technically competent and cautious.  That does not describe Romney's performance destroying Gingrich in the two Florida debates, or his performance destroying Santorum in the Arizona debate, just to give a few examples.  

Romney has lost no more than a handful of exchanges with other candidates since he started running for President in '06.  When he's lost debates, it's typically been because other candidates had big moments, either displaying humor, or attacking the moderator; or because Romney tripped himself up while answering the moderator (think the tax return dodges in the South Carolina debate).  Even the first exchange you highlighted is an example of this; yes, Perry "got under his skin".  Perry nonetheless lost decisively. Not only did Romney pull the alpha routine and shrink Perry (an alpha himself) but he plainly had a better command of the facts.  Nor is it obvious to me that a testy debater is a bad debater.  All of Romney's best moments in debates have come when he was "testy".  He does testy well.  He gets pissed and summarily garrotes him opponent.  It works.  

Obama's performance at the Republican Issues Conference is not particularly relevant.  Debates aren't Q & A sessions where Obama can leisurely opine and filibuster.  General election debates especially are full of exchanges.  I.e, one candidate says something, the other responds, and they start beating the hell out of each other.  Romney is demonstratively excellent at these types of exchanges.  Obama's shakier and is, at any rate, rusty.  To give you a modest example (a lot more modest than an actual general election debate), recall the health care hearings, where mild-mannered Paul Ryan seriously took Obama off his game.