Lost in Translation

October 4, 2012

Quick, instapundits: tell me who won last night’s debate!

The seemingly universal answer is: Mitt Romney. Republicans are ecstatic, Democrats despondent. Conservatives smell a comeback; liberals fear a collapse. And the commentariat is running wild with discussions and speculations and fantastical formulations of might bes, can bes, and ought to haves. It’s quite a thing.

So why did Mitt win? Well, the answer here has focused more on style than substance. Romney was seen to be on the attack, Obama on the defensive. Romney seemed confident, Obama passive. Romney got to go after Obama’s record, which Obama, given that the debate was ostensibly about the economy, had a hard time defending. Whatever the reason, Obama is seen to have been off his game, while Romney was on his.

Except … well, what, exactly, was that debate about? I heard endless strings of claims and counterclaims, statements of specific points disconnected from any context in which to make sense of them. Numbers, policy proposals, assertions about the other guy flew out of the candidates’ mouths yesterday, with nary a piece of a discussion to back them up or flesh them out. Basically, you already had to know a great deal about each candidate’s proposals to have the slightest idea what either of them was talking about.

It was like visiting a foreign country where you know something like six words of the local language. You can figure it out, but you’re often just guessing.

In part, this was a consequence of the debate format. The supposedly 15 minute blocks of time encouraged lots of talking past each other as each candidate tried to make their canned speeches at every opportunity. Such behavior was virtually guaranteed by the debate’s format. But it was a hot mess.

But another part of the reason the debate was so chaotic lay in the moderator’s hands. While there is only so much any moderator can do to rein in presidential candidates’ egos, Lehrer’s obsessive focus on identifying the specific differences in the candidates’ plans made it easy for them to make their talking points while plucking out tiny little examples and amplifying their importance. This, in turn, made it easy for each candidate to play “do so!” “do not!” games with each other. Which they did, all night long.

In the end, I don’t think much changed last night. Obama did not crush Romney, and the next week or so should be good Romney’s poll numbers. However, my guess is that once the debate turns from the economy to foreign policy and domestic policy, Obama will be on surer ground, while Romney will be weaker. In any case, this debate will not likely change the outcome in November. Now, if Obama stumbles in the future debates, all bets are off. But if he “recovers,” he, like Reagan and Clinton before him, will be the comeback kid.

Which is why I’ll watch even though I probably won’t enjoy it.

11:05am | URL: https://tmblr.co/ZPUuPyUdaMQJ

(Notes: 86)