On Wednesday night Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will square off in simultaneous dueling press conferences awkwardly set up to take place in the same room the first Presidential Debate. I have sort of a hobby where I do opposition research on GOP candidates past debate performances and write up a primer on what to expect. I don't know why I enjoy it.
The odds of someone in the Obama Campaign seeing my diary and learning something valuable that they didn't already know are very slim. Especially when you consider the fact that President Obama probably has his own opposition research team. A team that probably gets paid to sit and watch, in discomfort, footage from Mitt Romney's previous debate performances, interviews, etc. They probably also read all of Mitt's old Press Releases, Stump Speeches and books... That I would not enjoy.
But I enjoy this.
So here is my Mitt Romney debate Primer. This is not a list of unsolicited advice for President Obama, though I may chime with a thought or two here and there. Nor is this a list of things Barack Obama HAS to do in order to win. This is just a collection of observations and predictions about Mitt Romney's debate performance.
Mitt Romney in a Nutshell, if you will. Enjoy.
We will start off with the 2008 Republican Primary Debates. Here is Mitt Romney giving an answer on the question of "Isn't John McCain part of the mainstream?" after Romney reportedly claimed McCain would govern as a Liberal Democrat. I think this is relevant because there is a decent chance that the moderator of the Presidential Debate will ask a similar question about Romney's many criticisms of President Obama.
The relevant section starts at the 2:00 mark.
If you watch until the 6:00 mark you will also see Mitt respond to criticism of his record as Governor of Massachusetts, something that is also likely to come up in the Presidential debates. So lets look at that 4 minutes of footage and see how many observations we can make.
1) Mitt Romney comes extremely prepared. He obviously has notes and talking points on his desk, these most likely include a list of specifics. Names, stats, numbers, dates. These things matter. When a debate opponent calls you on something specific you better have the specifics either memorized or at your disposal, or you will be caught with your pants down.
John McCain made this mistake in 2008.
Had John McCain bothered to learn then Senator Obama's plan and more importantly Obama's argument he might have seen this coming, or at least heard Obama make this argument before. He could have then responded with something better than "Zero?" as if Obama had just won his vote.
This is important because as we know Romney has been preparing for the debates for quite awhile now. Right after his convention when candidates generally hit the road in order to capitalize on their big week of prime time mainstream media campaign coverage, Mitt Romney instead went dark. No campaign stops, no fundraisers, no events, no interviews. He went boating, but for the most part we were told he was in debate preparations.
Yet we still see a bumbling Mitt Romney every night on the news. One would think that if Mitt Romney has been doing his homework for the debates, some of the talking points he plans to use would be coming out of his mouth right now. Instead he is still flailing around like a fish out of water.
Here is Mitt Romney the other day after a week of questioning on the 47% tape, Mitt Romney gives another non-answer.
So he doesn't try to clarify and undo his most grievous gaffe. He does essentially no damage control at all except to say he cares about everyone which doesn't answer the question "Why did you say this?" or "Were you lying to those donors or are you lying now?" Had I been advising Romney I would have told him to say something about how the 47% number includes people who don't pay income taxes but isn't comprised entirely of such people. And that it's actually a very small number of Americans who see themselves as victims, etc.
THAT Response while still nowhere near enough to undo the damage, would at least be a mediocre explanation and rationalization of his remarks. An explanation that would also play into the whole "in-eloquently stated" talking point from earlier. In other words it would be a start! As mediocre of an explanation as that is, it is still better than what Mitt Romney says in that clip above. Which is basically Half of America doesn't like me, so fuck them I'm gonna focus on the Red Counties, but once elected I will care about everybody.
I am not a professional political consultant, but I kick ass at this compared to whoever is "running" Mitt Romney's campaign while Eric Fehrnstrom cashes bonus checks and plays XBox Live on Mr. Bus. This is not "Brain Science" or "Rocket Surgery" it's basic politics 101. Yet we see Mitt Romney babbling like someone who has never been in front of a television camera before, trying to put out the wrong fires by answering questions nobody asked.
My point is I think it has to do with the debates.
At every debate Romney comes prepared. He will be prepared when he shows up on that stage. He will have specifics. He will have "facts" and "figures" at his disposal and he will appear to have a sudden command of the issues so far absent from his campaign. The reason it's not showing up now is do to a political calculation I think the Romney campaign made back at the start of the campaign to hold off on specifics until the debates.
Being vague makes it very difficult to be wrong. It makes it very difficult to be unpopular. It also makes it very difficult to be criticized by your opponent. Al Gore ripped George W. Bush a new one on his "Tax Cut for the Top 1%" in 2000 because Al Gore knew exactly what was in Bush's tax plan. If Romney did like other candidates and published a plan on his website, or released it to the media, it would be torn apart by the Obama campaign. Barack Obama would walk onto that debate stage with a list of ways Romney's plan would hurt the average American.
Instead all Obama has is 3rd Party, non-partisan guestimations about which deductions Romney will cut and which loopholes he will close. Which is effective, but gives Romney the easy out of "That study was wrong." Which is exactly why Romney had stayed vague until the debates. I predict that is when the reboot will take effect. That is when Romney uses the element of surprise and starts spouting numbers, statistics, names, figures and dates that Barack Obama has yet to hear, or prepare for.
Instead of having perfect rebuttals to Mr. Romney's plan already memorized and ready to go, Barack Obama will be in the position of having to form an opinion, and make a counter argument against Romney's proposals within a few moments of hearing them. Within moments of anyone hearing them. Romney will also get brownie points in the media for finally offering specifics. So for Romney, catching Obama off guard is a win-win.
But that strategy if true contains two apparently unseen risks.
First, President Obama can pivot and deflect Romney's proposals by pointing out the fact that this is the first time Mitt Romney has offered any specifics and that he'd like to see Governor Romney's plan. This creates a rather smooth segway into criticizing Romney's many policy positions. There is no way to know if Romney's new numbers are going change tomorrow, or if they even add up. He can then go right on to his normal rebuttal of Romney's vague platitudes, because that's all Romney had offered up until that point. By the time the second Presidential debate comes around, Obama will have seen Romney's plan and will spend that debate thrashing it. And if Romney still hasn't released his plan to the public, Obama can spend the last debate thrashing that fact.
But even if President Obama decides to take Romney's word for it and meets the challenge on the spot, the President is pretty good on his feet. He knows the issues inside and out. He will not be as stumped as Mitt Romney would like him to be. Mitt Romney is hoping to catch Barack Obama in a John McCain like Deer in the Headlights moment. It ain't gonna happen.
Second, basing any long term strategy on the debates is foolish due to the fact that about half the states in the country are already casting ballots. You can't convince someone who has already voted that they should vote for you. It doesn't work that way. So basically if Romney has been purposely vague in a "long con" game to surprise Obama with a sudden swath of specifics, thereby "winning" the first debate. He's going to be facing a headwind of hundreds of thousands of already cast ballots, as well as a hard as cement perception that he will say anything it takes to get elected, only to flip flop on it tomorrow.
Not a good strategy.
2) At about the 4:34 mark in the Romney video you will see one of Mitt's favorite "catch phrases" which I am sure he thinks is very Reaganesque. When explaining that the study John McCain was citing included Jobs numbers from his predecessor (See #5) he says "Facts are Stubborn Things" and actually repeats it a few times. I fully expect this Romney version of "There you go again" to make an appearance at the debate on Wednesday.
I became absolutely convinced that we will hear this again when I read this article on the front page about Romney planning to "fact check" President Obama. This is also a pretty poor strategy. Here is how I expect the basic flow of the debates to go.
Obama is asked a question. Then Mitt's response is a "fact check" and criticism while offering no, or little specifics of his own. Then Romney is asked a question and Mitt's answer is a vague platitude with little or no specifics, followed by a "fact check" or criticism of Obama. And that's how it will go all night.
Romney will use "Facts are Stubborn Things" whenever Obama claims he did do something Romney claims he didn't, or didn't do something Romney claims he did. Romney is hoping his version of the "facts" will be enough to show the American people that he has a command of the issues and show his conservative base that he has a fighting spirit.
The problem for Romney is that being an attack dog is not Presidential. Romney will look desperate and bitter. Grasping at straws. Splitting hairs and purposely misinterpreting things to get a political advantage.
3) Romney takes the "he's not a bad guy, we just disagree" approach when called on his harsh criticisms. Romney likes to play Mr. Nice Guy while he criticizes people. Instead of just growing a pair and saying what he thinks, he goes straight to "I want him as a Friend, just not as a President" tone of voice.
All of this is wrapped in a "he's a bad guy because he disagrees with me, and I am obviously right" frame that directly contradicts his attempts to smooth over the partisan tone of his criticism. Which is why it's so ineffective. His complaints seem wishy washy. If someone has a real beef with something, especially when it comes to criticizing this President over the last 3 years, they don't sugar coat it. Doing so just looks fake.
Romney also has this tendency to state his opinion as not only fact, but as if it is some sort of moral truth. The one and only truth. So by simply disagreeing with Romney, you are admitting you're wrong and somehow unfit to serve. He acts as though you should be ashamed of yourself because he is so obviously right. Regardless of the fact that people disagree all the time, and disagreeing does not automatically make someone wrong, Mitt Romney views the disagreement itself as proof of his victory.
It's very condescending. In short Mitt is a dick. We all know that. Expect it to come out in the debates.
4) Romney's attempts at humor almost ALWAYS revolve around bashing or belittling others. Notice how when he says "The New York Times" in that video above that he might as well be pinching his nose and giving a thumbs down. His "jokes" and "zingers" are never intelligent jabs of wit, but the sort of condescending jabs a douche bag might make toward the homeless.
5) Romney's defense of his Job Creation Record as Governor in the clip above includes the same defense tactic those of us on the left use when we defend Obama's Jobs record.
Basically you can't include data from before the new policies took effect. For Liberals that means not blaming Obama for the jobs lost in the first few months of 2009 because they were clearly the result of the Bush economic downturn. For Governor Romney, he doesn't want job losses that occurred due to the policies of his predecessor.
Seems fair. But Mitt has a tendency to play by his own special rules. I wonder how he will respond when Obama asks to be held to that same standard. Or how much it will matter now that Obama has created a few thousand NET Jobs since taking office. I suspect Romney will modify his original criticism to something like "It took him 4 years to create one net job" which has the perk of being passably correct, while still insinuating that Obama has only created 1 job.
Suggested Zinger for Obama: "In just four years I filled a jobs hole the Previous Administration spent 8 years digging."
6) Romney is Awkward. Even in a controlled environment like a debate, Romney is awkward. Expect the Town Hall debate to be his worst because it involves "commoners." Even when he knows how long he has to speak, even when he has the benefit of hearing/seeing his opponent answer the very same question he is about to be asked, and even when he has notes and talking points before him, Governor Romney is awkward and very stiff.
Mitt Romney is the kind of guy to whom you can say "Don't think about the way you're breathing" and he will immediately begin breathing manually. The more this "Mitt Romney is a rusty Robot humanoid" meme gets spread around, the more he is questioned about his inability to connect with people and the more he stresses over it, the worse it gets. He chokes pretty bad during crunch time.
Now lets fast forward to 2012 and take a look at some of Mitt's attacks on President Obama, and his ideas toward the deficit and debt. Note the following is an actual, official Romney compilation put together by the Romney campaign.
Let's see how many observations we can make on this video that clocks in at just over a minute.
1) Mitt is still very much prepared. We do not see the meandering, unfocused word salad nonsense we are used to dealing with today. When Mitt shows up to debate his team must give him a Red Bull and a stack of talking points because he is very focused and very motivated to say his piece. Of course this is edited to make Mitt look better than his is, so take it with a grain of salt people.
2) His attacks on President Obama are on full display here and they're pretty predictable. If Romney is likely to have anything memorized it is these attacks. The Obama campaign should and probably does have rebuttals planned for all of these attacks and then some.
But ultimately what you're going to see from Romney is his strategy of attacking from a position of "Oh gee whiz I wish it didn't have to be like this, but I have a better plan!"
It's what I call his forced Earnestness. He acts like a soap opera Doctor explaining to a newly widowed woman that it's not her fault her husband is dead. There's no way she could have known he was allergic to poison. It's a kind of a "It's not your fault that it's all your fault." type of tone. With very a weird "sad puppy-dog" facial expression to go along with it. I find it off putting. I am sure team Romney thinks it personifies compassionate conservatism.
3) When Romney stands as he speaks off the cuff at these things it helps him look less stiff. Probably because he shifts his weight a lot. He sort of sways his hips and has a bit of a cocky swagger. He also turns his body to face his opponents which he probably thinks makes him seem engaged. That body language might play well if he can summon it at the debate. He is known for being so stiff and awkward that if he can manage to loosen up a bit it will serve him well.
Not that it is at all possible to cooler than Barack Obama.
4) Romney doesn't hold back when he feels like letting it rip, or if he feels like he's scoring points. This could have been a product of a friendly audience at the GOP debates. He has yet to face off with a Democrat, or even in the presence of a Democrat since he ran for Governor. But if he gets in his comfort zone and starts winding up the attacks, expect him to go all out. This could turn out to be a weakness if he goes off the cuff and says something dumb.
Now lets look at Mitt Romney under attack. (Skip to 20 second mark if you want)
I want you to pay attention to Mitt's body language both while Rick Perry is attacking him, and while he responds. Here is his modus operandi...
1) Turn to face opponent completely motionless, with no expression on face.
2) Enter standby mode.
3) Initiate Laugh Protocol.
4) State prepared remarks.
4b) If interrupted LOSE ALL COOL AND COMPOSURE IMMEDIATELY!
5) Echo "I'm Speaking";
6) GOTO 5
7) IF SILENCE = "1" THEN Talk down to opponent while invading personal space.
8) Initiate Red Face Protocol.
9) Resort to "I know I am, but so are you!" argument.
It's that last point I want to focus on for a moment.
It is not an uncommon tactic to point out the hypocrisy of your opponent calling you out on something you did. But it is a logical fallacy to think the declaration of hypocrisy somehow clears you of any wrong doing. It is also a poor strategy if you're are a challenger going against an incumbent. It's one thing if it's a Primary debate and you're all more or less on equal footing. If one guy knocks you down in the mud, and you pull him down with you he loses his advantage on the issue.
This also works well if you are the Incumbent. Incumbents can say "You criticize me for this, but you did it too" and that destroys the challengers right to criticize. For instance, anything Romney criticizes Obama for on Health Care can immediately be turned around on Mitt Romney and RomneyCare. So if you're someone sitting at home who might not have voted for Obama because of ObamaCare, being shown how Mitt Romney is equally bad on the issue is not very appealing.
Obama loses nobody, Romney might lose that anti-ObamaCare guy.
But when you're the challenger the point of arguing is to show how much better you are than the incumbent. Saying what is essentially "we're both the same amount of horrible on this issue" is not a winning strategy. It doesn't give the American people any reason to vote for you or even against the Incumbent. It does nothing to advance yourself as the preferred choice and kind if nullifies the issue because there would be essentially no difference between the two candidates.
Yet we see time and time again Mitt Romney resorts to this tactic. Not just in debates but when he is asked questions by the media in interviews. He has this idea that saying "I know I am, but so are you." is a winning strategy, and he uses it all the time.
So what does this guy have to do in order to win?
Romney has to look knowledgeable. He has to look comfortable. He has to connect with the audience. He has to look human. But mostly he has to look like a President and not like a political operative throwing pot shots at the commander in chief. You dress for the job you want, not the job you have. So Romney needs to come in acting like an incumbent, while arguing like a challenger.
By that I mean he has the job of criticizing the Presidents record and offering an alternative vision. In order to do that effectively he has to know the President's record. Not just the GOP version of his record, but the actual record. Romney's downfall will come quickly and painfully if he believes his own parties spin on the Obama Presidency. That is a record of recent history that does not match the experience of the average American. If Romney goes into this debate believing the President has no record to defend, he is going to lose the moment President Obama defends, and restates his record.
For Romney to win he has to know President Obama's victories and failures inside and out. And he has to have a clear, realistic idea of what the American people consider those victories and failures to be. For instance if Romney criticizes the President for failing to close Guantanamo Bay, as he promised, he better have a plan to do so himself. Otherwise he is going to look like an idiot. If he criticizes the Presidents slow withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan (unlikely) he better have a plan to bring them home now. Ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is seen by people like Romney as a bad thing, but the American people see it as progress.
Criticize at your own risk.
In short Romney better understand when he is attacking Obama from the Left, Right, or Center and what that means for his own policy proposals. I am not convinced Romney has done his homework. So we may see Romney criticizing Obama on things we the people see as victories, but he sees as failures. When it comes to his own proposals Romney has to be specific. As I said the second part of the challengers job is to offer your own vision. That cannot be some empty platitude like freedom, freedom and freedom. It has to include hard numbers.
Without the alternative plan Romney is not a viable candidate for President, he is just some heckler on stage. That doesn't sell.
If Romney can portray himself as a President in waiting. At ease while he tears down the Presidents record. Confident as he lays out his own detailed plans on how to succeed where Obama "failed" and manage to come off as likeable at the same time, than Mitt Romney may in fact win the debate.
Anything short of that is a loss.
For Obama to win he has to do 3 things.
First Obama has to continue to look Presidential, which will not be hard but means defending his record while not sinking to Mitt Romney's level. He cannot pull a Bush in 2004 and freak out when he gets criticized and challenged.
Obama also cannot do as Bush did and repeatably proclaim being President is "Hard Work" or otherwise look as though he is complaining.
This may be particularly tricky when he has to restate the challenge he was handed, and the Congress he was forced to work around. But Obama has a way of "keeping it cool" and he has perfected this argument of "it was way worse than anyone thought' over the last 4 years.
Second, Obama has to inspire the American people and reassure them that they might the right choice 4 years ago, and they will should double down on that choice with another 4 years. This means reigniting that Barack Obama spark, as he did at the convention. It means laying out a clear contrast between him and Governor Romney and demonstrating why our vision is better for America.
Third, Obama has to remind the voters of his record and he has to own up to places he has fallen short while offering a path toward progress in those areas (this can/should include "Give me a Congress that will work with me on these issues, not a Congress that works against your interests.")
That last one is important. Obama's "failures" as a President are in fact part of his case for re-election, as well as the perfect case for electing Democrats into congress. If you want the imperfect Health Care bill to be improved, if you want Medicare and Social Security to remain solvent, you need to elect Barack Obama and a Democratic congress you can trust to improve, not remove these programs.
That's the argument. We didn't get everything we wanted. Parts of his agenda was blocked by an unfriendly congress. But the next four years can be different. It is a chance to move forward and build on what we have accomplished. Not tear it down.
That's the choice and that's the way you can expect these debate to be framed.