Game Theory is fun -- you look at the parameters of the game, your assets and your opponents likely moves/options in the context of those parameters and then plan your moves - in that context - to maximize your chances of winning.
In the first debate, Romney used game theory to score his big win. Much has been made -- many, many times here -- about how Obama lost the debate. Based on a more game theory - I think's that wrong. Romney won the debate with game theory.
Read this transcript of an interview on Fresh Air. Terri Gross interviewed Geoff Nunberg, a linguist who analyzes debates. What he found was that past Presidential debates, the candidates addressed each other directly only a few times. "You are no Jack Kennedy" or "There you go again" were notable because it was rare to address your opponent directly. So, it was kind of thrilling.
Romney addressed Obama directly 37 times according to Nunberg. 37 times. Obama addressed Romney directly 6 times. So, Romney addressed Obama 31 more times and "won" the debate in the CBS flash poll by 24 points (46 to 22). As many here have noticed, Romney's content and demeanor were not great. He lied a lot and blinked his eyes alot. But, the problem was not Obama countering his lies, the problem was not going directly at Romney in any way.
Obama was playing the old game. Addressing your opponent directly 6 times would have been seen as aggressive in old debates. Stuart Stevens or someone clearly studied tape of Obama and realized they could do this and he would likely not respond and, this way, appear dominant and win. They were careful at how Romney addressed Obama (it was mostly respectful). It played into the Romney campaign's preferred narrative -- Obama is a nice weak guy and Romney is strong.
So, Romney's team played 3D chess whle Obama's team played checkers. I wonder if Romney team got this from GOP debates where I hear the candidates regularly talked over the moderator and it each other. It does seem like those GOP debates, while annoying and dismal, were also groundbreaking in debate strategy.
So, what is the best strategy for the next debate with the voters? What is Romney going to do this time and how should Obama alter his game - or be prepared to alter this game - to respond.
I looked for Romney town hall video and found this recent video of a town hall in Bowling Green in July. Romney basically used people as props. He doesn't do empathy. He talks over them because he's not good at emphathy and knows it. He's not going to play to his weakness, he's going to play to his strength.
If I were Romney I'd keep on playing offense and plan to - nicely - talk over the voters and Candi Crowley and go at Obama. Obama is going to be focused on people not Romney (like he was focused on Lehrer and not Romney at the last debate).
I actually think this is what Obama should do. He can do it better than Romney. Listen to voter, connect and pivot and go directly at Romney rather than the voter hard, and then back to the voter. Create questions Obama wants to answer in his answers as well as new questions for Romney. Change the dynamic in the room, nicely, to make it extremely hard for Romney to pivot to his messages and towards Obama. Keep him on the defensive.
If Obama is overly focused on the voter or Crowley (and not Romney and viewing audience) like he did with Lehrer he is going to lose this debate. He has a lot of capital already as being empathetic and does not need to focus on the voters. I really hope his team watched the last debate closely and has a strategy this time and plans to work to change/manage the format in his favor rather than assuming it is his friend (like last time).
Did anyone watch the GOP debates and see any strategies in town hall that might be relevant?
6:47 AM PT: Note: I'm not advocating that Obama "ignore" voters. I'm suggesting he use their questions as a launching pad for where he wants to go rather than letting content, moves be dictated by questions in the room. He can be responsive, emphatic and control the debate. That should be his goal. He should avoid getting penned in by the format, like last time, that would be a mistake.