I know there are WAAAY more important issues in the world, but just as a sort of trivia item I am curious about what actual term the President will use to address Mitt Romney when he is speaking to/about him in the debates.
Before you roll your eyes --- there is definitely a segment of the population, possibly including some independents, who notice social-nicety protocol sorts of things like this. And you know Team Obama is gaming out every tiny detail of the debates (you know how long they haggle over things like who will stand where and what color the table will be and that sort of junk, right?) to make sure that the impression created is favorable. Scott Brown's people in MA-SEN have studiously been referring to Elizabeth Warren as "Professor Warren" in ads -- apparently concluding (or, God-forbid, having focus-tested) the idea that making her seem more academic makes her less attractive as a candidate (the anti-intellectualism of the nation is a subject deserving of its own diary...).
So what should he go with?
"Governor Romney"
I don't know the precise ruling on this, but in general it seems like most officeholders are generally given the respect of being referred to by their most senior title even after leaving office. So this seems like the most cautious and easiest choice to make. If he were still in office obviously this would be the clear choice. But does it risk imbuing him with more implied status than is fair for someone who hasn't held elected office for years?
"Mr. Romney"
This might do, provided it wasn't overdone. There might be some who would take offense that the "Governor" tag was being overlooked, but there might be others who subconsciously lowered their opinion of Romney after being reminded that he is, really, just an unelected private citizen right now, beholden to no group of constituents, making no risky decisions on behalf of anyone save himself.
"My Opponent"
Team Obama could decide just to depersonalize his back-and-forthing entirely and not use Romney's name at all. You may recall that in both 2000 and 2004 George W. Bush almost never spoke either then-VP Al Gore's nor Senator Kerry's names aloud, ever. It was almost a "any press is good press" approach. This might come off as too combative, but it would have plenty of precedent.
"Mitt"
As any follower of this POTUS knows, while President Obama is a truly gifted speaker he also occasionally lapses into slightly casual speech. Most of the time this comes off well, and often it helps him explain complex concepts using more understandable language (he's not as gifted as Bill Clinton, but he ain't bad). One can fairly easily imagine an exasperated Obama, after hearing lie after lie after lie, stretch after stretch, etc., finally blurting out something like "now c'mon Mitt, you know that's just not true" or something similar. Would this play? Would anyone be upset? What if the inverse happened -- would folks be offended if Romney referred to the President as "Barack"? Or is there really a fair double-standard because one IS the President and the other is not?
"You idiot"
This gets my vote but historically speaking, it's a bit unlikely. Pity.
Something else?
Curious about what the group thinks. In this age of hyper-analysis and 24-hour news cycles and Twitter, every little thing matters. I'd be shocked if Team Obama hadn't already begun talking about this and made a decision and told the President to stick to it -- call him THIS and nothing else. But I wonder what that is.