Let's keep our eyes on the prize, people. Are we in this election to win a debate...and what does "winning" it mean, anyway? That we revel in a white-faced and shaking Romney, dissolving into a puddle of quivering jelly behind the podium? That our guy walks off the stage with arms waving in the air, the crowd screaming a victory chant? (Actually, it would be pleasurable, but keep reading to consider the cost.)
Ah, winning -- Almost all the pundits, both right and left, and many diaries here are certain that Romney won the debate and that Obama lost. But not everyone agrees. For example, some diaries have pointed out that the final word has not yet been said, that there is more yet to come, the final word has not yet been said and that Obama's behavior is part of a bigger plan and here.
If you think about it, is there any reason to win a debate, other than as one of the gazillion steps needed to win an election?
As a thought experiment, let's begin by reviewing the state of play:
-The Romney campaign has been a "rolling catastrophe," as described by Repub writer Peggy Noonan. Sure, there have been a few high spots for RR adherents -- a couple of good debates, Romney's acceptance speech at the RNC Convention, for example.
-The Obama campaign has been a precisely calibrated re-election machine that has had us all on a high for a couple of months straight.
Would you bet on the consistent player who is always ahead or the inconsistent always-behinder? And if you placed the Obama bet, what strategic considerations would give you confidence in it?
Follow over the orange fleur-de-lis...
First, you'd want to remember that we're in this to win an election -- that's the prize, that's the ball game. Not just a debate. So the meaning of the debate was entirely different for the two candidates. For Romney, it was survival; for Obama, it was ... what? Here's some possibilities:
1. Winning a debate
2. Winning a debate as a way of dominating the 24/7 news cycle for a day or three
3. Winning a debate as a step towards re-election
4. Giving Romney the rope with which to hang himself (as noted by DataBob and others)
5. Teeing up the VP debate between Biden and Ryan
If the goal was one, two, or three, then Obama's performance was a stunning failure and we'd better get cracking to make up lost ground. But what if these were not the objectives of the campaign? If the goal was number 4, then the various rope-a-dope theories come into play. Romney's victory would dissolve into jelly as the days pass and his duplicity comes to the fore. (The rope-a-dope play could extend as well to the media, a means of driving them to actually perform their fact-checking duties, rusty though they may be.) In this way, the media (free editorial) provides free "campaign ads" you just couldn't pay for on any budget.
Consider for a moment one of the most important of Obama's strengths: He is seen as a man who understands the plight of people in a severe recession, who will fight for the middle class, who cares about health, about women, and who relates to the problems of the average US family. All of us who wish Obama had demolished Romney would have risked squandering that valuable capital on a single victory -- not the election, but a single, glorious night of verbal violence and mayhem.
A colleague who was a debater in his college years used to come from out of state to debate at Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City described his experience. "The BYU debate team would all show up in navy blazers and white pants. They'd obfuscate and lie their asses off for an hour, then pass the judges saying, 'Don't forget the blue and white.' You couldn't call them liars -- not in Salt Lake City with Mormon judges. You just had to do the best you could making your case," he told me.
Obama remained above the name-calling, while making his disdain and anger clear. He was dignified, respectful, and on-message, putting forth his own ideas.
Biden, on the other hand, is free to be the alpha attack dog. He can expend his "nice-guy" capital with little or no penalty to the ticket. I hear that nobody on the campaign trail likes Paul Ryan, who is seen as a jumped up, pretentious, offensive jerk who really isn't all that smart.
To gather evidence for my hypothesis, I will be looking for two types of outcomes:
1) A week of media fact-checkers reporting Romney lies, 24/7 on Romney lies, and a gradual letting of air out of the Romney balloon over that week; and 2) A withering Biden attack on Ryan that let's us all witness the ritual blood-letting we crave.