Juan Pablo Rivera Garza
Blogs Editor
The Second Presidential debate could not have higher stakes, especially considering the previous debate performance President Obama had in the first debate. In the aftermath of the first debate, Governor Romney made great strides in multiple swing state polls and general election polls, and President Obama’s supporters lay in the awkward situation of explaining the weak performance of the President. Needless to say, the President needed to step it up for this debate; did he properly do that?
There are four categories that each candidate is graded on: Substance, Attacks, Emotional Connection, and Personal Presentation. These four factors are great determiners to who will end up winning the sliver of undecided voters still left and the presidency.
Substance:
Both candidates once again failed to properly address the truly important issues of the campaign without dumbing down or significantly avoiding details from each of their policies. President Obama did a better job this debate than in the previous one in articulating his second-term vision, but still failed to properly give enough specifics and details on policy. Governor Romney, however, provided a strong economic vision with his five-point plan (which he constantly repeated throughout the debate.) The plan, although simple, provided a clear contrast with his policies and the President’s.
Winner: ROMNEY
Attacks:
This was a very tense debate, and the two candidates were constantly at each others throats. The exchanges between the two revealed a level of personal animosity between the candidates, and helped to bring along some great debate moments. The Libya exchange between the two candidates caught Governor Romney in a mistruth, leading to a fact-check by the moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, that led to an eruption of applause from the audience. This was a low-point for the Governor and allowed the Obama campaign to close one of their weakest points in term of foreign policy.
Winner: OBAMA
Emotional Connection:
The Romney campaign has tried their best to make the Governor more personable, and the increase in his favorability ratings since the first debate is a testament to that. The Governor made a great effort to connect with the town-hall meeting audience in any way possible, as did the President. Both succeeded in connecting with each questioner, and in turn they also connected with the TV audience.
Winner: TIED
Personal Presentation:
President Obama’s performance during this debate was a huge contrast to his previous debate in Denver. He was forceful, strong, and on the offensive from the start, and really got under Governor Romney’s skin. The Governor looked weak and nervous compared to the President, which was a big mistake on his part. Not to mention that some of the Governor’s comments during the debates, like the infamous “binders full of women,” were extremely awkward, and contributed to the idea that he is too robotic and aloof.
Winner: OBAMA
Both candidates provided an extremely interesting debate, and both definitely energized their own parties. The President delivered the performance he needed to end his slide in the polls, and my guess is the race is going to get much more even in the coming weeks. Governor Romney held his own, and his mastery on deficit and economic policy kept him alive to fight another day. The next debate will be this Monday and will focus on foreign policy, so be sure to keep your ears open for an attempt by Governor Romney to improve his answer to the Libyan crisis, while the President will try to build on his win in this debate.
“The Libya exchange between the two candidates caught Governor Romney in a mistruth, leading to a fact-check by the moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, that led to an eruption of applause from the audience.”
Really? Romney was caught in a mistruth? Romney told the truth that Obama did not say in the rose garden that the Libya attack was an act of terror. Candy Crowley inappropiately told her interpretation of Obama’s speech, presenting it as if it was a fact. Obama never said that the Libya attack was an act of terroism. In fact he said that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” He said that no acts of terror, plural, will shake our country’s resolve. He very well could have been referring to the 9/11 attacks, which he had mentioned just a sentence before. Romney wasn’t caught in a mistruth, Obama was. And then Candy Crowley lied to help Obama look better. She admitted her critical error later, but you failed to mention that.