The second debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney is now in the books. Was there a winner and loser?
I think the loser is the town meeting format. It’s just not well suited to a meaningful debate. The candidates both ran roughshod over the rules, often failed to answer the questions, and frequently argued with each other and interrupted each other. The result was a very messy discussion. It was not particularly attractive to watch, and in my view didn’t reflect well on either candidate. I’d be interested in knowing whether the folks in the room felt as uncomfortable watching the interruptions and posturing as Kish and I did watching from our family room.
The questions at least got us into some new issues that haven’t been addressed yet — domestic gas prices, trade, immigration, gun control, and Libya, with the Libya discussion probably being the one that is the most likely to be carefully deconstructed and analyzed. These are issues that need to be discussed, and it is worthwhile that they have been introduced to this campaign.
Both candidates obviously decided to be more assertive. The President certainly was more aggressive than he was in the first debate, and in that sense I think he did what he needed to do in the debate. Mitt Romney responded in kind. Because the President gave a much stronger performance than in the first debate, he at least won’t be criticized by his own supporters — which will be a victory of sorts for him. We’ll see what the fallout is as people digest the discussion and the argument, and the unattractive, off-putting nature of this debate.
Tonight President Obama and Mitt Romney square off in their second debate. Debates always are a political high-wire act — and tonight that is particularly true for President Obama, who will be looking to recover from a first debate that has given Mitt Romney a surge in the polls and a sense of significant momentum.
I’m not a big fan of the town meeting format. Too often, the citizen participants ask narrow questions about topics that might be important to them but aren’t really relevant to the general public. Due to the short time limits the debates flit from topic to topic, each candidate reeling off their two-minute talking points about the issue without any real give and take between the candidates. How is the moderator supposed to “facilitate a discussion” in one minute? When was the last time you had a one-minute “discussion” about anything?
Still, the format does have its intrigue. Any time you have average folks in a room with presidential candidates there’s the chance that something unexpected might happen and a screwball question might lead to a memorable moment. Add in questions about whether Crowley will depart from the agreed-upon moderator’s role and conspiratorial theories about whether any of the “undecided voters” are really partisan plants who will ask a question scripted by one of the campaigns and you have an event that is worth checking out.
My only prediction is that this debate will have an even larger TV audience than the first one. I think the continuing talk about the President’s performance during the first debate will cause people who skipped that contest to tune in just to see how the President does and whether Mitt Romney can turn in another strong performance. I think we’ve finally reached the point where all likely voters are fully engaged in the process. That means most people — outside of New York Yankee and Detroit Tiger fans — will probably watch to see how their candidate does.