So, Romney's team blew it, game theory wise. They got greedy and doubled down on debate 1 strategy and it blew up on their faces.
In debate 1, Romney's team unveiled a bold, new strategy for presidential debates: going directly at the opponent, relentlessly directly addressing him/her with answers questions. Romney did this 37 times. In past debates, this happened only a few times which is why "you are no Jack Kennedy" or "there you go again" were so memorable because a direct exchange was rare. Romney's team realized that Obama was very unlikely to directly address Romney and so knew they could - as long as Romney appeared somewhat neutral -- get an easy win that way. Indeed, Obama only directly addressed Romney 6 times in debate 1. And, despite Romney's clear lying and kind of strange blinky demeanor he got a huge win and bounce (much more than they expected).
So, onto debate 2. What would Romney do? The smart thing would have been to reassess the game and seek to preserve the bounce by not giving Obama a chance to resolve negatives from Debate 1. Obama needed a chance to counterpunch. He needed Romney to throw a lot of punches, counter, initiate and bloody him up. Obama needed a fight.
Romney stupidly gave it to him and Obama delivered again and again. They got greedy (no surprise) and deluded about Romney's skills and thought they could go for the kill by repeating the same strategy. It was innovative - only Gore had tried to be so aggressive in a town hall (and even that was tenative). But, Obama's team is really smart and was ready for the smackdown.
It was really satisfying and hugely important because it shored up all of the President's weaknesses from the first debate disaster: a) he showed he was tough not weak, b) he showed the he wanted the job and c) he showed that Romney is an asshole (being a bully/alpha only comes off well if you can control things without looking like a bully, he looked like a bully). Oh, and then Obama got the plus of clearly showing that Romney is a liar with the Candy Crowley live fact check.
This could not have gone better, strategy wise. Big credit to the Obama team for being ready and big minus for the Romney team for going in with a really bad game plan.
Last thought: I'm a Chicago Bulls fan. The Pat Riley Knicks were the Jordan Bulls nemesis. Anyway, Romney reminds me of some of those Knicks players. He's an Anthony Mason. Solid, overachieving bully who can hit a mid range jumper and do some damage until you figure out his game. Not too hard. A B player who needs a good system and some luck to succeed.
Obama is like Jordan, a really special talent. Jordan, when he first got into the NBA really didn't have a jumper because he didn't need it. He scored 40 a night by going to the basket. People got on him about it. Then he got older and -- because he had to - developed one of the most "money" midrange jump shots in the game. Obama never needed to be great in debates before. But, he's a natural talent. So, when he needed it, he beared down and developed one of the best games in the biz.
We got Jordan they have Mitt Mason. I like our team and our chances a lot better.