High Stakes in Hofstra: Commentary on the 2nd 2012 US Presidential Debate between Obama and Romney

October 17th, 2012

Last night saw the second 2012 Election debate between US President Barack Obama (Democrat) and his Challenger Mitt Romney (Republican). Following on from the first debate, which was widely seen as a Romney victory in Denver Colorado, the second debate was held at Hofstra University on Long Island near the metropolis and global media center of New York.

The format for the event was a 'town hall' composed of members of the public, often undecided voters who asked questions facilitated by Candice Crowley of CNN. Each candidate had 2 minutes for initial comments, then there was a variable period of dialogue between them.

The debate concluded shortly before 11:00pm Eastern Standard Time (04:00 GMT) and so the print newspapers and columnists will likely conclude their analysis in the next 24 hour news cycle. The TV and internet was far faster though harder to make sense of the reality.

This election shows a growing trend likely to be replicated in many other parts of the world where polling data becomes increasingly difficult to make sense of. The Television Channels in the United States seem increasingly polarized with viewers watching the channel they are comfortable with and therefore receiving the interpretation of the debate that fits with their mental schema. Consequence: this is a highly polarized election.

From my own vantage point the key moments in the debate were as follows;

First, the President was straight out of the starting gate on the first question posed on the offense. Surprisingly, given his reputation as an orator, He did not come across as gracious thanking the audience, moderator etc. which the challenger did. Clearly he and his team wanted from the start to signal the combatative side of the President after accusations of passivity in the first debate.

In comparing coverage the news channel CNN had a panel which gave live feedback on their views of the candidates, shown as an 'ECG' style of monitor along the bottom of the TV screen. When candidates went negative in a sustained manner the panel's view did also for both Obama and Romney.

on the issues the weaknesses for the challenger, Republican Mitt Romney were many-fold. On the question of female equality in the workplace the answer was quite flat, whereas the President was keen to emphasize what had been done, his own upbringing as a single mother and that he intended to keep fighting. Mitt Romney referenced only his experience as Governor, where he asked for female candidates for his cabinet in Massacheusetts - as one commentator said, "what about the first 50 years ?". Amongst the immediate feedback via the internet one humorist commented, "[former President] BIll Clinton must be upset that Governor's are being given portfolio's of women".

Mitt Romney made repeatedly the claim that he knew how to create jobs and jobs are what the economy needs. He stayed on message for this issue though personally it might have came across better if used more sparingly - not to mention the lack of reference to quality of jobs - which the President picked up on.

Regarding the debate on taxes one missed opportunity for President Obama was on the subject of elimination of dividend taxes which Mitt Romney espouses. Given how the Democrats are seeking to paint the Republicans as caring for the wealthy minority the President missed the chance to score points by explaining in simple terms how actually the wealthy with huge investment portfolios would benefit from this tax disappearing - allowing the challenger to keep his comments regarding lowering everyone's tax bracket intact.

One questioner asked Mitt Romney about his differences with the Bush Presidency. Whilst the answer will not be remembered by the public at large it is telling that this is the first time the word "bush" has appeared in a substantive way. Mitt Romney sought to emphasize his differences and the President leapt on his comments to emphasize things that President Bush did well, that Romney is committed against. Again, the public might not care though the effect within the senior echelon of the Republican Party would be interesting to observe.

The footage from the debate which will be largely talked about after the election is over and in political science classes was the discussion of the recent attack on the US embassy in Libya in which four Americans including the Ambassador were tragically killed. The challenger questioned whether there was some form of cover-up in terms of understanding what happened to which the President struck back, displaying the - for want of a better word - power which being Commander-in-Chief bestows on the office holder. Romney was left looking like he made a cheap-shot and exposed his lack of grasp of foreign policy issues - in contrast to his mastery of the numbers on the economic side.

Given, the third and final Presidential debate will be on foreign policy issues clearly Mitt Romney will be undergoing intensive therapy - or else will adopt the BIll Clinton "It's about the economy" line and try to turn the foreign policy debate on its head into a discussion of economics.

For the Obama team they need to avoid falling in the trap as seeing foreign policy as theirs, especially given their strong record in this domain. Over-confidence could be a killer.

If you believe that the media likes a story - here in advance is the story line for the 2012 election. First debate - challenger puts President on back foot, second debate - level pegging, third debate - President displays his credentials for a second term.