It's been a long time since I've written a diary, or even a comment on Kos - I think dating back to 2004, though I've been lurking and reading for years.
I picked this day and this moment, i guess, because my perspective on the debate a few days ago and the overall presidential race feel at polar opposites to the rest of the world - go figure.
First off - the debate expectations game - here is a little snapshot of what was expected for the debate from the Washington Post:
By a 2-1 margin, voters think Mr. Obama will best rival Mitt Romney in the three presidential debates that begin in Denver Wednesday, according to a poll by Quinnipiac University. A national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press comes to a similar conclusion; it found 51% of voters think Mr. Obama will win the first debate and 29% think Mr. Romney will.
Simply put, Romney only had to walk on stage and throw some coherent sentences together to beat the expectations game.
This brings me to one of my points - as I nervously waited for the debate to begin a friend of mine referred to Romney as "the empty suit that would show up on stage."
I kind of looked at him in amazement, since he had bought the bill of goods his own party has been selling on Romney for months.
I knew, despite my distaste for the governor's policies - and the caricature the President's campaign has so successfully graffitied him with, Mitt Romney is a very intelligent man that would walk on that stage well prepared, and ready to fight for the life of a campaign in cardiac arrest.
I also knew just from the pre-debate polls of expectations the debate would, at the very least, be considered a draw, and more likely Romney would win in the eyes of the pundits and as well as both party loyalists - purely because the expectations of him winning were so incredibly low - again - those expectations being set by a very successful Obama campaign.
Throughout the debate my friend groaned and moaned how Romney was winning, a completely different perspective from what I was seeing.
And then it dawned on me, finally - my friend wanted to see Obama go at Romney - take him down - knock him onto the mat with Bain and then finish him off with the 47% comment. I think very much like very left leaning pundits on MSNBC and all you guys here, he wanted Obama to draw blood and destroy Romney.
But, by now, the pundits on MSNBC, my friend and you guys should all know:
1)Obama isn't campaigning for your vote - he already has it.
2) Both campaigns are mining for that very small percentage of elusive, undecided and independent - tuned out guy or lady who will probably vote this November.
3) That very small percentage of elusive, undecided and independent - tuned out guy or lady, hates partisan bickering and angry, negative campaigning.
Who seemed more angry, partisan and bickering? To me it was hands down Governor Romney.
Ill refer you to this article which has this little tidbit of information tucked away inside of it:
Romney, the widely acknowledged winner of the first debate, mostly registered negative emotions, Kowal said. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
"What Romney was able to do was really show anger, contempt, scorn and pride. Those are the emotions that his voters in his base feel," said Kowal, an assistant professor at Purdue University who has studied both Obama's and Romney's facial expressions since 2007.
Television is something like 90 percent about appearance, here is another tidbit from an article about the hidden impressions non-partisan viewers likely got from the debate:
The pundits may be calling Denver a slam-dunk for Romney, but David B. Givens, who analyzed the candidates’ mannerisms, disagrees: the governor looked ‘aggressive and manic, simultaneously,’ while Obama was ‘cool.’
This was an extremely good article that points out exactly what the mannerisms of the two candidates said to the average non-partisan, it's lengthy so I won't put it here, but you should take a look.
Here is another article I'd like to point out because it is talking specifically about the voters that Obama is and should be targeting right now:
A focus group of Walmart moms in Las Vegas, sponsored by Walmart and moderated by bi-partisan pollsters, revealed mixed reactions to each candidate in last night’s debate but a broad sense that Romney was the victor, ABC’s Elizabeth Hartfield notes.
Even so, the women didn’t walk away seeing Romney in a very positive light. When asked to describe their impressions of Romney, the women used words like “rude,” “pushy” and “assertive” — and when asked to clarify if assertive was positive or negative, the woman who offered that description said it was negative. The women’s impressions of Obama weren’t positive either. Words used to describe the president included “defeated,” “backpedaling” and “speaking the same game.” http://abcn.ws/...
And in a dial group session held last night in Aurora, Colorado by the pro-Obama super PAC, Priorities USA Action, a group of “weak Democrats and independents who voted for Obama in 2008 but who remain open to switching in the upcoming election” gave the president better ratings.
According to pollster Geoff Garin: “The large majority of panelists in the Aurora session were weak Democrats and independents who voted for Obama in 2008 but who remain open to switching in the upcoming election. Six in 10 respondents gave President Obama favorable ratings for his overall performance in the debate, compared with just one in seven who did so for Romney.”
One of the main points left leaning pundits screamed right after the debate; Why didn't Obama bring up the 47%????
As you, me and all of them should have guessed - umm - Romney had a well prepared mia culpa and he was chomping at the bit to use it in front of 60 million viewers. Obama and, for some reason, the moderator denied him that chance.
So he did it on Foxnews ...the next day - yea, I know - so many independents are glued to fox...oh wait, no they're not.
Remember, YOU want red meat, the pundits WANT red meat - the extreme right survive purely on red meat, but the Obama team is looking to appeal to the average independent.
The average independent wants us all to sit around a campfire together and sing kum ba yah
Which guy do you really think they would pick to sit around a campfire with right now?
The angry guy who wants to kill big bird or the chill guy who sat back and calmly explained his positions?
So, relax - don't freak over the polling - Romney WILL get a bump - a completely natural occurrence that the Obama team has been and is well prepared for.