The third and last Presidential debate

In the past four weeks we’ve witnessed 4 debates, 3 of them presidential and one VP. With 2 clear wins for Obama, one for Gov. Romney and a too close to call finish between Biden & Ryan, we’re back where we started. With the President smooth sailing towards reelection. That’s not to say there haven’t been interesting moments, it’s actually been a very busy month for analysts all over the world. Here’s my take on the whole story:

Since most people are likely to have made up their minds by the time the debates are held and aren’t looking to be persuaded otherwise, there is a general consensus among experts that debates don’t really matter. There have been however, some exceptions to this rule. Like the Kennedy/Nixon debate of 1960 which according to many swung the election in favor of a more attractive and presidential JFK. Well, after the first debate in Denver in which Mitt Romney (then trailing by 4 points) clearly outwitted the President and won by a considerable margin, even I thought the election could go down the same path if Obama didn’t up his game. All that Romney needed was to take advantage of the momentum his first performance generated and deliver some more blows in New York and Florida. That didn’t happen.

The President comfortably took the second one home 46% to 39% leaving the score tied 1 to 1. Monday night was Romney’s last chance to prove his worth just days away from the election. The last clash was held at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla. It was a round table, a format similar to that of the Vice Presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan. It was divided into segments, all regarding foreign policy. The moderator was the very experienced Bob Schieffer of CBS News, a household name when it comes to third debates; he moderated the Bush/Kerry debate of ’04 & the McCain/Obama of ’08.

Throughout his administration, the President has had many triumphs in foreign policy. He ended the war in Iraq, killed Osama Bin Laden and took part, along with other members of NATO, in the removal of Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya, so there wasn’t much room for Romney to attack on this front, the only major setback in Obama’s policy was the government’s inability to protect the staff at the American Consulate in Benghazi from an attack that cost the lives of four men including ambassador Christopher Stevens. We were all expecting Romney to focus on this; it’d be his only real opportunity to question the President’s resolve when facing direct threats to the American people. Schieffer asked:

The first question and it concerns Libya. The controversy over what happened there continues...What happened? What caused it? Was it spontaneous? Was it an intelligence failure? Was it a policy failure? Was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened?

 Obama knew this was the only place Romney could hit him and just when we were all expecting Romney’s usual bully self, he avoided it completely and just gave a general diagnosis of the Middle East situation. From Syria to Egypt, he even mentioned Mali. It was his only chance and he blew it.

Both of them focused on Israel which turned out to be the big winner of this debate. Would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States? Asked Schieffer. The president was the first to answer:

 “Israel is a true friend. It is our greatest ally in the region. And if Israel is attacked, America will stand with Israel” then came Mitt: “If Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily.”

It’s a very important point. They both support Israel, the difference is: would they be willing to allow or help Israel bomb Iran? We know Gov. Romney is a close friend of Prime Minister Netanyahu who’s adamant on bombing Iran before they get a nuclear bomb. This could potentially be a recipe for yet another conflict in the Middle East. President Obama has guaranteed that as long as he remains commander in chief, Iran won´t get a nuclear bomb but has never spoken of an attack, just sanctions to Iran if it continues to enrich uranium.

Obama’s greatest moment came when the Gov. questioned the downsizing of the military:

“Excuse me; our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917 (…) I want to make sure that we have the ships that are required by our Navy. Our Air Force is older and smaller than at any time since it was founded in 1947.”

To which Obama brilliantly responded:

“Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

The “horses and bayonets” line immediately became a worldwide trending topic on Twitter, it was the cherry on top of the President’s performance. Important omissions were the financial crisis in Europe and the war on drugs in Mexico, a country that shares a 2000 mile border with the U.S. and is immersed in a conflict much bloodier than Syria’s. Deaths in Mexico more than double Syria’s 30,000 in the last 6 years but somehow didn’t even deserve a mention.

Obama took this one too, without breaking a sweat. According to a CBS instant poll of uncommitted voters, he won the last debate 53% to 23%. So, after 3 debates Romney’s chances are pretty slim. The Huffington Post has the electoral vote count at 253 for Obama and 191 for Romney with just 14 days left in the campaign.  Intrade.com, a website in which there is actual money running on who will win the race has Obama at 57.1%, way ahead of Romney’s 43.0%.

The former governor of Massachusetts needs a miracle to turn this one around, between his “47%” comments and his lack of initiative in the last debate, he dug his own grave. Looks like the Obama’s will call1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home until 2016.

 

http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/pollster/

2nd presidential debate 2012

The second debate between the incumbent President Barack Obama and the former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney was held at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York last night. The format was that of a “town hall” which favors direct confrontation between the candidates. It gives them the opportunity to walk around the stage and address a group of 80 undecided voters directly. The questions were chosen by the Gallup Organization, neither the candidates nor the Commission on Presidential Debates had access to them in advance. The moderator was Candy Crowley from CNN state of the union, who in my opinion did a better job than Jim Lehrer, especially considering this was one of the most aggressive debates ever.

Both candidates arrived at Hempstead under a lot of pressure. Gov. Romney had to battle not only his opponent, but the massive expectations he generated after his performance in the first debate, where he clearly outwitted an uncomfortable Obama.  According to a CNN/ORC International poll, 67% of registered voters surveyed said the republican candidate won, whereas only 25% called it for the President.  Pressure was high at Obama camp as well; another loss would further increase the momentum Romney achieved in Denver and tighten the gap just 3 weeks from the election.

The unemployment rate (currently at 7.8%) was one of the topics the candidates focused on. According to Romney, his 5 point plan (energy independence, opening up trade, balanced budget, training programs and championing small business) would create 12 million new jobs in 4 years. To which the president responded saying: “he has a 1 point plan, having folks at the top play with a different set of rules” this response is by no means new or improvised, the President has tirelessly repeated this throughout the campaign, difference is he delivered it at the right time and with the confidence he lacked in the first debate. His strategy was to call Romney on all his lies. This was followed by another highlight:  “We haven’t heard from the Gov. any specifics other than Big Bird” he has a good point there, jokes aside Romney has never explained with detail what loop-holes he wants to close to lower taxes and balance the budget, considering he plans to spend 2 trillion more on the military (according to Obama, fact-checked by Pulitzer Prize winning website Politifact.com).

Throughout the campaign, Governor Romney has been forced to move across the political spectrum, from the extreme right (trying to get Tea Party members on board) to the near center (where he is right now). Problem is he’s bound to contradict himself eventually. And that he did when the topic of immigration was introduced. “This is a nation of immigrants, we welcome legal immigrants in this country” he said, problem is he offers no real pathway to citizenship for those already living there, people who pay taxes, and pledge allegiance to the flag. He’s been known to support part of the Arizona immigration law which according to critics encourages racial profiling. Granted he remained ambiguous in his comments and never went as far as calling the most controversial part of the law “a model for the nation” as President Obama said, he did support employment verification of legal status. This doesn´t seem so bad, in itself it’s not necessarily inhumane, however, it’s only part of his plan called “self-deportation”, a strategy designed to make the lives of illegal immigrants so miserable that they’ll have no other option but to leave. This should cost him whatever he had left of the Hispanic vote, which has proven to be essential to win federal elections. Something similar happened when discussing a weapons ban. He’s expressed the need to enforce existing regulations; however, we all know he’s changed his mind on this topic when trying to gain the NRA’s favor. It’s not that he’s a bad man, not at all. I believe he has America’s interests at heart, there’s just little place for his own convictions (whichever they may be) when he has to answer to extremists within his own party. He’s a good politician and his performance wasn´t very different from what we saw in Denver. This time around however, the President brought his A-game and won by a considerable margin. CBS News’ instant poll said Obama won 37% to 30%. CNN called it 46% to 39% in favor of the President as well.

Part of this may have to do with his closing statement in which he finally mentioned Romney’s comments on the 47%. "Think about who he was talking about" Obama said. And this includes veterans, seniors, immigrants, etc. He saved the best for last and it paid off.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/3274

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57533850/poll-obama-edges-romney-in-second-debate/

 

My take on yesterday's presidential debate

When speaking at public events or fundraisers, presidential candidates are never alone. There’s a whole team behind them, a favorable audience that never puts them on the spot and even a stage designed for them to convey power and confidence. All of this makes them seem and probably feel larger than life. Take both conventions for example; they’re huge events that cost millions of dollars conceived for the sole purpose of making the candidates seem unbeatable.

As impressive as they are, these events rarely give you an insight on who they are as people, and I don´t mean learning about their private lives, what’s really interesting is to see them get nervous, to see them argue and come up with quick answers, that’s what we get from debates. And the first debate between President Obama and Governor Romney albeit technical at times –some even say boring– did give us an idea of how they deal with the pressure. Expectations were very low for the former governor of Massachusetts (John Cassidy of the New Yorker described him as: “A tax-avoiding human blooper machine, to whom English sometimes seems like a second language.") and very high for Obama, who’s proven to be an excellent public speaker.

It seemed like an easy win for the President, he just had to remind the viewers of Romney’s comments on the “47%” at a fundraiser in Boca Raton or to deliver that combination of suave and emotive he’s so well known for. None of this happened. Obama seemed out of rhythm and uncomfortable, he struggled to get his message across, unlike Romney who was on his toes the whole time. It was the Mittster’s show, he even managed to get in a few zingers that stayed on my mind after it was over, (even if they were clearly practiced). He was better prepared and calculated every detail, I’m sure his team even planned on how to handle the moderator Jim Lehrer, who proved to have no authority, allowing Romney to walk all over him and get the last word on every segment, even if it wasn’t his turn. It was a very smart move that left the president hanging, denying him a chance to clarify any accusation made at the end of each topic.

Fact-checking is important now, I’m sure many of Romney’s attacks and comebacks were just clever lies or cover-ups, particularly regarding his plan to cut taxes (which according to Obama would increase the deficit by 5 trillion). My stance hasn’t changed, I believe Obama was truthful but uncomfortable, it was an off day for him. Romney was slick and deceitful, nothing more than a salesman. Good for show but not necessarily for running a country.

 What we saw yesterday was a great exercise of democracy, it was very well organized and it revolved around the topics that matter. There’s much to be learned from this for developing countries like Mexico. I’m not sure if bipartisanship is the way to go here but it certainly makes for interesting debates.