Category Archives: Elections

Live Blogging the Second Presidential Debate

Ok, it’s 9:55 and we are on. As always, we will be watching on CNN. We have the new blogging software installed, and I’m eager to see how it works, so send me a test comment.

Meanwhile, Candy Crowley just gave the audience instructions – it’s alot like what I tell my students before an exam: turn off electronic hand-held devices, etc.

(Cason: are you on from Italy? We need the foreign perspective….)

By the way, in what may be an omen – or not – we were hit with a mild earthquake about 1/2 hour ago. So Vermont is a “swing” state of sorts….

One of the controversies with the format is that Crowley is not supposed to pose follow-up questions, but she has vowed to do so -despite language crafted by both sides indicating that she shouldn’t do this.

The other controversy is that Mitt apparently has never sat on a bar stool, so he’s been practicing all day….

First question: appropriately enough, from a college student. What’s in it for me?

Mitt comes out emphasizing two themes: I can create jobs, and I’m not an extremist. Look for him to push both themes all night. In this case, he’s not cutting student loans. Obama will push him on this.

Key in this format – remember the questioner’s name, and make eye contact. And here Obama stresses his major theme – he’s already turning the economy around, and no thanks to Mitt.

Once again, remember the target audience here – Ohio!

Obama is overcaffeinated – is there such a thing as too much energy?

And Candy breaks the contract and asks a follow up question – you go, Candy!

(For those of you complaining about our “new” software – it’s not the software I recommended…..sorry about that!)

Mitt is going to defend the bankruptcy claim – I’m not sure he wants to go there.

(Has Obama’s voice gone up?) Looks like he’s going to try to needle Mitt. There is some who argue that Mitt can be rattled in these forums, and that’s when he slips up.. Obama has certainly come out aggressively, and already pushed the Mitt as Vulture Capitalist meme.

Question: gas prices are too high – is it the government’s job to address this? Mitt will go right to Keystone here. Can you say “pipeline”? Obama is trying to preempt this, but here comes the outsourcing green jobs too. This is really a better issue for Mitt. Will Candy follow up here with an environmental emphasis?

Pipeline – Ding, Ding, Ding!

Obama was ready for the coal comeback citing Mitt’s famous campaign ad promising to close a coal plant.

Mitt is coming across as a bit too much of a bully here, I think…..and he’s ceding time to the President. …not a smart tactic….

Fact checkers will go crazy here, and they will likely find that both sides are right, depending on how you define terms. And here’s Mitt citing rules again. OBama is taking a page out of Biden’s playbook – cut Mitt off, talk over him, and let no point go unanswered.

Pipeline again.

Nice response by Barack to tie lower gas prices to a recession. And to cite workers in key battleground states.

Mitt once again claims knowledge of rules – and looks a bit like the prissy guy we’ve seen in previous debates.

Question: taxes. This should be good. I expect Barack to push Mitt here on the details of his tax plan.

Mitt scoring really well here with the focus group. I guess people like tax reductions. Who knew? I expect Barack disagrees. Expect him to say the number don’t add up. And there’s the famous Biden “buried middle class” reference. It’s all about the middle class.

Well, I’m shocked, shocked! Barack also wants to protect the middle class! And the focus group doesn’t mind raising taxes on the wealthy. Both guys scored well here. This really get to the philosophical difference between the two candidates, and their parties.

Split camera reveals Obama smiling at Romney’s five-point plan. Shades of Joe Biden. Here comes the inevitable attack on Mitt’s math. So far it’s not playing real well with the focus group. Women in particular don’t seem to be buying this attack on Mitt’s failure to specify which cuts he will make. Even the big Bird reference doesn’t work. Too much detail maybe? Ah, but support picks up when he summarizes as “Math doesn’t add up.”

Candy doesn’t want Mitt to respond immediately – Mitt is ready to explode! Mitt doesn’t really answer the question by specifying his numbers, does he?

Question: gender pay inequities – how would you address this? Remember, if polls are to be believed, Mitt has cut into the gender gap a bit recently. Obama should score with his reference to Ledbetter act. Also, he focuses on education – a winning issue with women. I expect Mitt to focus on how many jobs women have lost in the last four years. One of the underappreciated facts of this recovery is that men are doing better than women.

AS Romney talks about actively seeking qualified women, support for his skies among women – men stay flat. Mitt doing better here than I expected with personal anecdotes, but why no mention of women losing jobs? Ah, here it comes…. scoring well here.

Obama comes back with healthcare – another winning issue for him with women. Although the contraception/insurance issue is actually not playing well with women – not sure why. Ah, but he picks up support when he poses it as economic issues affecting women.

Question: Tell me you are not Bush. Mitt; again citing rules, wants to answer the last question first. Romney – appeals to Latino vote with Central American trade. Energy independence means no more foreign wars. Generally scoring well here. But who will stand up for Big business? No one ever does. Generally a strong response here by Romney on a potentially difficult question. Barack should have an easier time criticizing Bush! His partial reference to outsourcing gets a positive blip, but otherwise this isn’t playing well – except when he pivots to what the Obama administration did to curtail unfair trade practices with China. Interesting pivot at the end here to get the “romney as social extremist” theme in.

Question: You disappointed me. Once jilted, why trust you again? Nice opportunity for Obama to cite his record, and he is doing it well. Focus group is generally pleased. But when he pivots to attacking Romney for back millionaires, support drops, particularly among women. It seems clear that women in particular do not react well to candidates’ attacking each other. Same story here for the Romney response – not playing all that well either. Both candidates need to heed Ronald Reagan lesson – tell us how you will make things better! Romney – contrast the President’s speaking with the record. “That’s what this election is about”. Defining statement of his candidacy.

(Ooops – keystroke error – just deleted my comments on immigration!) Note the audience here – key voting bloc in some key swing states, but both candidates have to tread carefully here. This is a very polarizing issue, which is why both candidates try to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

Romney has been waiting to pull a Gingrich moment here, and turn the tables on the President’s pension investment overseas, but it falls fall with all the cross-talk. This started out well for both candidates but really degenerated quickly.

Question: Benghazi (Seb – here’ s your foreign policy). Note that Hillary fell on her sword earlier to give the President some cover on this issue. Still, not a good issue for the President here. “Hunt them down” – scores big with the focus group. Shades of Bush! And, don’t forget, I killed Bin Laden so I have credibility. Look for Mitt to come back strong here. Ok, maybe not. Not quite sure focusing on Obama’s fundraising is really going to score points. Hmm…interesting tact here – Mitt is using this question to unload on all of the President’s foreign policy. Candy has a follow up question – I think this is only the second one of the night.

The President is doing a great job here wrapping himself in the commander–in-chief flag, and it’s scoring well. Romney’s effort to pin down Obama’s language is not really working here. Good exchange for the President.

Question: What have you done about assault weapons? Obama – weapons designed for soldiers shouldn’t be allowed on the streets. But that’s only part of the problem. Obama pushes a broader agenda here, and it seems to be playing well. Romney pivots away from outlawing particular types of guns, and instead moves to broader socioeconomic issues. Scoring well here as well. Both candidates played this well. And Mitt gets in a shot at Fast and Furious. Not sure a lot of people know the details about this? Candy is having none of it – she wants to pin down Mitt’s views on assault weapons.

“Governor Romney was for a weapons assault before he was against it.” Poor John Kerry – he will forever be tagged with that line…

Question: Outsourcing of Jobs is bad. how to stop it? Haven’t heard much about Bain yet, but it’s coming now! Throw in the 47% comment while you are at it….Meanwhile, Mitt engages in some China-bashing and, by the way, label China as currency manipulator. Obama is going to mention all the cases of unfair trade practices he’s brought against China.

Hmmm, now it’s the President who is going to close loopholes! Candy wants to know how to get American companies to bring jobs home. Mitt – level the playing field. Obama – invest in advanced manufacturing. (With whose money? He doesn’t say…)

Question: biggest misperception of you as man, and as a candidate? Mitt: I’m not a 47% kind of guy. I believe in God. And the Olympics. And got 100% of Massachusetts kids insured. This quickly veers into a policy manifesto….

Obama – Bringing some passion here. And here comes the 47% comment – and it falls flat with the focus group. He’s was doing so well! Once he moves past this, however, and goes back to advancing opportunity, he scores better.

Ann is immediately on the floor – and here’s Michelle.

Let’s see how the post-debate spin plays out. I have to think the Obama supporters are happy. Their guy came up off the mat and fought at least to a draw, if not an outright win on points. (Time for the sports analogies). I thought Mitt scored on the economic issues that favored him, but he made more obvious errors (the Libya exchange) and too often came across as too focused on rules, and scoring debating points. Obama parried as well as he could on the economic issues, but it’s generally not a winning area for him. But he was more aggressive and did a better job on keeping Romney on the defensive in terms of explaining himself. And when he could wrap himself in the commander-in-chief role, he was able to bring some passion and righteous indignation to the debate.

Keep in mind that there are two narratives here – the one based what actually transpired, as seen by the audience, and then how the media interprets what happened. The two do not always coincide. We will have to see how the tweets play this – I completely forgot to see how the alternative universe was playing this – anyone keeping track of that?

On the whole, although Obama may be viewed as the “winner”, I’m not sure this is going to have nearly the polling impact that the first debate did, but that was my belief heading into this. Both sides got all their talking points in, and did generally well in stressing their winning themes.

The key question to me is whether Obama’s aggressiveness scored points, but at the expense of laying out a positive vision as an alternative to Romney. Romney, on the other hand, did what he always did: stayed relentlessly on message, which was jobs, jobs, jobs. His major weakness was getting distracted by petty squabbles on rules and factual disputes. If I was a truly undecided voter, it’s not clear to me that either candidate earned my vote.

Remember, when you see a poll saying who “won” the debate, you need to also check on the partisan makeup of the viewership that was polled. I suspect Obama will be judged a slight winner, but probably not enough to move the polls among undecideds.

Ok, I took a quick look into the bizarro world of the twitterverse. Here’s some selected tweets:

Maddow: “probably, I think, the best debate of Barack Obama’s career as a national politician.” I’m sure she’s seen every one!

Erick Erickson ‏@EWErickson

“Obama definitely did better than the last time, but I don’t think it was enough. Romney kept reminding everyone about Obama’s record.” I’m shocked, shocked!

The Atlantic ‏@TheAtlantic

.@JamesFallows breaks down tonight’s debate: Obama was strong, Romney was rattled http://theatln.tc/U1nsMa. (Fallows is a former Carter speechwriter.)

“Luntz focus group of former Obama voters calls it a win for Romney.”

This is why I love the twitterverse – neither side lives in reality. Instead, they create virtual reality. The strangest thing is they really, really, really believe their alternative reality is real!

More spin:

“I’m still trying to figure out why Steve Schmidt wants me to believe that this debate wasn’t a TOTAL knock-out for PBO. #Debates #MSNBC”

“Jay Cost ‏@JayCostTWS

Candy Crowley did Obama a real disservice tonight by fact checking wrongly.”

And this: “RT @kakukowski: Candy Crowley now says @MittRomney was right: “He was right in the main, but he just chose the wrong word.”

This is a reminder why I’m down on “fact checking” – the Libya story is being spun by both sides as proving that their guy was right, and the other side was wrong. The “truth” is that “reality” rarely can be summed up as either completely black or completely white.

Great participation tonight – thanks to all! I’ll have another go at the blogging software. Maybe the third time is the charm? Meanwhile, I’ll be on tomorrow with an post-mortem.

Why I’m Not Scratching My Head About The State Of The Election Today

Steve Lombardo, a former Romney adviser in 2008, writes this in his Huffington Post column today: “Any serious observer of the presidential election has to be scratching his/her head. In mid-September Obama was on track for reelection because Romney, at that point, had been deemed unacceptable by a vast segment of the electorate. Now, in mid-October, the President is dazed, staggered by a near knockout in the first debate and a subsequent Romney surge that seems to have the Governor on a winning trajectory. The problem is that neither scenario accounts for unplanned events.”

Except that’s not true. This race is essentially tied not because of “unplanned events”, but because of perfectly predictable events; as we get closer to Election Day, more and more voters are behaving almost exactly as political science forecast models suggested they would. As I said again and again, although Obama was outperforming the economic fundamentals in many of the swing state polls during September, that did not mean that this election was not going to tighten as more voters begin tuning into the race.

But pundits persist in insisting that rather than responding rationally to the state of the economy, voters are instead a fickle bunch who are largely ignoring the economy. Consider this observation today by another pundit who, citing a Gallup poll titled “U.S. Economic Confidence Best Since May, tweeted this: “I give up trying to make sense of this election.” Evidently he doesn’t understand how the race could be tied if voters’ economic confidence is on the rise. Again, however, if you look at the actual poll, (and not just the title), it’s pretty clear why Romney and Obama are running neck-and-neck.

The reality is that despite the positive trend recently in voters’ economic outlook, the poll actually shows that more Americans continue to be pessimistic about the state of the economy. Their collective confidence may be the best since May – but that’s not saying a helluva lot. And that pessimism is largely driving today’s polling numbers. Gallup’s Economic Confidence Index is based on the combined responses to two questions, the first asking Americans to rate economic conditions in this country today, and second, whether they think economic conditions in the country as a whole are getting better or getting worse. The Index is then computed by adding the percentage of Americans rating current economic conditions ((“excellent” + “good”) minus “poor”) to the percentage saying the economy is (“getting better” minus “getting worse”), and then dividing that sum by 2. So, an index above zero indicates that more Americans have a positive than a negative view of the economy; values below zero indicate net-negative views. As you can see, the index is still strongly negative. So, is it surprising that as Americans increasingly tune into the election to consider which candidate they will support that Obama’s “lead” has eroded? I don’t think so.

Look, I’m not saying everything is unfolding in this election precisely as anticipated – every campaign has unexpected twists and bumps in the road. But if you told me back at the start of September that this election would be essentially tied with less than three weeks to go, I would have thought you were reading my posts!

Which lead us to tonight’s debate. I’ll spare you a rehashing of the ubiquitous “Five Things Candidate X Must Do To Win” comments, and instead simply remind you to listen to what the candidates say more than watching how they say it. Candidates’ posturing and body language is a vastly over rated phenomenon, in my view. While I expect Obama to come out more energized, and to be more pointed in his critique of Romney’s policy platform, I don’t think there’s a lot of room left to change the campaign narrative on either side. This election is about where it should be, and if history is any guide, we aren’t going to see Obama move more than 2 polling points – at most – in either direction.

I will, of course, be live blogging the event. We’ve upgraded our blogging program to make it easier to comment (so I am told!), so I hope you’ll join in. Remember, this is the most crucial event in the campaign so far – I know this because most of the talking heads told me so. And they can’t be wrong.

I’ll be back on at about 8:45. See you then…. .

The Second Debate: “Hear What I Say, Not How I Say It”

In his interview with me for his column today on the larger-than-expected impact of the first presidential debate, New York Times’ media columnist David Carr wondered why the debate mattered so much, particularly given the fragmented nature of viewing audiences in the social media era. “How,” Carr asks, “is it that a ritual as old as Lincoln-Douglas — or Socrates versus Gorgias if you want to go all the way back to the Greeks — was able to move the needle at a time when audiences are so fragmented?” In my answer to him, I made a couple of points. First, debates still offer the only opportunity for voters to see both candidates on the stage together with each of them able to convey their views directly, rather than as portrayed through the other side’s negative advertising. Second, this was a widely-watched debate – the most widely viewed since the second presidential debate in 1992. (That was the one in which George H.W. Bush was panned for looking at this watch, suggesting he was bored with the whole affair. It also included third-party candidate Ross Perot.) Among first debates, it was the most widely viewed since 1980, when 70 million watched President Jimmy Carter square off against Ronald “There you go again” Reagan. Moreover, this audience number does not include those who tuned in via computers, phones or tablets, or who watched it outside the home. That means roughly half the number of expected voters in this election tuned in to watch the show, and for many it was the first time they seriously thought about who they wanted to vote for, as opposed to who they thought was getting the best of the media coverage.

Interestingly, a bit less than half that audience – about 31 million – came from the 55 and older set, compared to only 12 million in the 18-34 age bracket. Romney has generally been doing better among this older age group. Among media outlets, Fox News dominated the cable stations, with their total viewership during the debate almost matching that of the regular broadcast stations at CBS, NBC and ABC. All this suggests that Romney was able to capitalize on having an audience that was a least partly predisposed to want him to do well. And he didn’t disappoint.

Of course, as I’ve noted before, it is not unprecedented for the incumbent president to see a slight polling dip after the first debate; although the First Bush received a miniscule polling bump coming off his first debate in 1992, Clinton lost 1.5% in 1996 and Bush The Younger saw his numbers drop 2.3% in 2004. (Clinton, however, headed into that first debate in 1996 with a polling number near 60%, so his drop may have had little to do with his debate performance per se.) A glance at the RCP composite poll suggests that Obama lost more than 2% in his polling support after the Oct. 3 debate – that’s actually in the range experienced by both Clinton in 1996 and Bush in 2004. However, Obama was starting from a lower polling point than was Clinton or even Bush. Combined with Romney’s gain, Obama’s loss meant that we saw about a 4-point polling swing, which was enough to turn this race into a virtual dead heat.

It also raises expectations for tomorrow night’s second presidential debate which may attract a bigger audience than the already large audience that saw the first debate. That was the case in 2008, when the viewing numbers went up for the second debate, but not in 2004.

So, what should we expect? To begin, tomorrow’s event utilizes a town hall format, with Candy Crowley of CNN serving as moderator. One of the interesting aspects of Carr’s column was the degree of attention paid by the media experts he interviewed to Romney’s and Obama’s body language during the first debate, including their facial expressions which were caught on split screen. They seemed to think it made a big difference regarding perceptions of who “won” the debate. I don’t doubt that the media-driven narrative which determines who really “won” the debate is heavily influenced by perceptions of “body language.” But when it comes to determining how viewers vote, I tend to put far less stock in body language or facial expressions. It is true that the town hall format gives candidates more opportunity to interact with an audience, and with each other, which potentially allows more latitude for body language to come into play. For example, in their town hall-style meeting in 2000, Al Gore sauntered into Bush’s space while the latter was giving an answer, prompting some audience laughter when Bush gave him a bemused nod of greeting.

I mentioned above about Bush the Elder glancing at his watch. Maybe that mattered; in contrast to the first debate, he lost about 2% in polling support after the second one. In 2008, the second debate was also a town hall format, and it featured John McCain’s celebrated case of stage roaming, which was parodied in an unforgettable Saturday Night Live Skit. McCain was also perceived to have lost that debate.

Despite these memorable moments, however, I tend to think what the candidates say, as opposed to how they say it, will have a far greater impact on how audience members vote. In 1992, if Bush’s performance in the second debate contributed to his losing the election, it did so not because he looked at his watch, but because he gave a somewhat rambling, and defensive answer on a question that cut to the heart of the campaign: was he doing enough to dig the country out of an economic recession? In contrast, as you can see here, Bill Clinton’s response suggested he had answers to that question – or at least understood the reason for the question.

This is why town hall-style debates can prove troublesome – it’s not the physical interaction so much as the often more direct audience questions that can throw candidates. To be sure, these questions are vetted beforehand, but that still leaves room for audience spontaneity. Tomorrow night, the audience will consist of some 80 or so presumably “undecided” voters whose questions will be screened by Crowley, who also has the authority to ask a follow up question of her own. (Or at least she is asserting that authority!) Presumably, Crowley will pick questions that pertain to the central issues at the heart of this campaign: taxes, the budget deficit, and health care. Neither Romney nor Obama has shown Clinton’s ability to show empathy with a questioner – the Big Dog has the capacity to make questioners feel like they are alone in the room with him. In contrast, Obama conveys more of a professorial, somewhat dispassionate persona, while Romney can come across as uncomfortable or worse. But I don’t think that will matter nearly as much as what they say in response to these questions. If the President is not more effective at communicating the differences between his policies and Romney’s, and doesn’t do a better job putting Romney on the defensive, particularly regarding his proposed tax and Medicare policies, he’s going to lose this debate regardless of body language. That’s because when it comes to debates, the overriding maxim is “Hear what I say – not what I do.”

Live Blogging the Vice Presidential Debate

O.K. we are on live. Please join in. Alas, I have not updated my wordpress blog as planned (I’m still trying to find out where my add plug tab is located!) So you are going to have to update the comments section to see yours.

As always, we are watching CNN, and they have the usual suspects on. Already they are speculating on how this debate may change the numbers.

Wolf setting the table by contrasting their ages, almost like this is a prize fight between the young whippersnapper and the grizzled veteran.

Ryan, “Can I call you Joe?” Please let it be that….

Applause sounds like gunfire…..

Martha starts with Benghazi-gate – this has been trending in the news recently. (By the way, CNN has their gender-colored focus group lines running.) Joe – smartly – pivots to the broader war on terror – killing Bin Laden, and winding down the Iraqi war. Ryan will pivot back to Benghazi for sure.

And he does – this is a good issue for the Republicans, and Ryan is going to milk this. Ryan is looking at Martha. Nice opening segment here by Ryan on clarifying the Romney foreign policy differences – nuanced, but clear.

Joe is not going to take this sitting down. “The Congressman here….”. So much for cordiality….Ryan is smirking. Biden: “These guys bet against America all the time.”

Raddatz is showing her foreign policy street cred here – not letting go of the Benghazi story. Biden’s response – that we didn’t know – isn’t exactly uplifting. Raddatz tries a different tack on Ryan – trying to get him to choose between apologizing or defending the soldiers in the Koran burning – and he goes back to Benghazi. Enough already says Martha!

Topic 2 – Iran. Can we allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb? Biden is openly laughing at Ryan’s response – I don’t think he likes the young guy. Joe now looks into the camera, as if to say, can you believe this sh*t?

CNN showing a bit of a gender gap during Ryan’s answer on how to deal with Iran and nuclear weapons – surprisingly, women responding more favorably.. not sure why. Biden says we have a secret plan, but what’s the bluster about? Iran is not close to acquiring the weapon, so let’s not overreact. Ryan – administration has underreacted! Weakness invites aggression. Women like this response, men do not. I’m not getting this gender contrast at all. Maybe it’s nothing.

Joe is on a first-name basis with Bibi. “What does that mean, a bunch of stuff?” Ryan: “It’s Irish.” Joe is raising his voice here to drive home the point that the world is united against Iran. Joe laughs out loud when Ryan says, in effect, the administration is soft on Iran. Joe has to be careful here about seeming to scold Martha, and not just Ryan.

Joe is on the verge of appearing a bit to patronizing to Young Ryan here. He gets in a shot at Romney changing his mind.

PART II – The economy.

Raddatz mentions the latest unemployment numbers, but points out it’s not near where Obama projected it to be. Joe uses this to remind voters of how bad the economy was when Obama came in, and by the way, Romney opposed the bank bailout. And he’s off – Joe is at his best when he starts talking about his family, and he gets in the 47% comment not once, but twice. You Go Joe! He’s scoring here, but Ryan has a response. You can see it in his smirk. This should be good. And Ryan has his own regular guy story. And he’s ready for this topic too…Both guys are scoring well here….focus group loving both – Northborough Massachusetts, my home town, just got a shout out from Ryan….

I’ve been waiting for the charity number to come in……Ryan ready to pounce on the 47% and he gets a laugh by poking fun at Joe’s “bidenisms”, but Joe has a nice response ready in turn. These guys aren’t holding back….

I think Joe may have missed the point here – the personal story needs to be about the President, not him.

Joe has used the phrase “take responsibility” several times tonight. Must have focused well.

The focus group does not like it when Joe goes overboard on the sarcastic laugh – thin line between righteous populist anger and mocking sarcasm…

Ryan’s scoring a bit here with the overseas “green jobs”. Both sides getting testy here.

ENTITLEMENTS

Potential vulnerability here for Ryan. Expect him to trot out his Mom, remind voters that 55 and older won’t be affected by Romney Medicare reform. But Biden should score here as well. Biden should be able to match Ryan here on the Mediscare numbers game. Ryan’s defense is well-rehearsed – he’s said this a thousand times. (Ohh – crowd does not like Joe’s Sarah Palin zinger about death panels.)

Joe goes after the Ryan “voucher” plan – this was inevitable, and Ryan will be ready for it. And privatizing Social Security too. Joe evens looks into the camera to make sure we get his point. Ryan would prefer to talk about the link between Obamacare and Medicare cuts, but Martha – good for her – wants Ryan to defend the Wyden plan. Biden is going to get punched if he doesn’t stop interrupting….

Can we vote for Martha? She’s the most sensible one in the room. Why not follow Ryan suggestion to raise age limit? Joe completely ignores the suggestion (after saying he agreed to do this for social security). He’d rather talk vouchers.

(Just took a glance at the Twitter feed. It’s Bizarro world – same event, two alternative universes when it comes to describing it.)

They are deadlocked and Joe is angry.

TAXES – Who will pay more, and who less, if your guy is elected? Here comes the middle-class fight – both sides will accuse the other of taxing them. This promises to be supremely tiresome.

I’ve said it before – but why doesn’t anyone defend “big” business? They employ more people. It always small business.

Ryan employs the Biden trick – looking into the camera to warn “Watch out middle class – they are coming for you!”

Martha wants specific on what tax loopholes will be closed. Ryan wraps himself in Reagan’s 1986 tax reform plan – start with principles, negotiate details later. Will people buy this? It is actually the way to negotiate, but in a campaign it seems like dodging particulars. (Biden is wrong about Reagan’s particulars during the ’86 tax reform.) If Ryan doesn’t fill in the particulars, Joe will. This exchange is predictable and will go nowhere.

Martha needs to step in…..

Joe will have to shut up. Somewhere he decided that he wasn’t going to let Ryan get a word in. This is not helping the audience differentiate the two plans.

Martha making some of Ryan’s argument for him against Biden’s argument that JCS supports defense cuts. It has come to this.

Afghanistan. Ryan’s response – as soon as he opened his mouth – got a positive response. I think because Joe is actually silent for the first time in what seems like an eternity. I have to think Joe’s over-the-top performance tonight is a conscious effort to compensate for the President’s comparatively more sedate performance. And it is the role of the VP to play attack dog. But is this too much? Remember, who wins the debate is not only a function of how the audience reacts – it is also a function of how the media judges the debate. I’m trying to think of the takeaway points here.

Both sides are being rewarded here for appearing to discuss this issue in a more tranquil fashion, but also because they largely agree on the basic plan to leave Afghanistan. Not clear to me that Ryan trying to say both that we will leave on schedule, but that we won’t fix the date, really works.

Martha knows her foreign policy chops, and it enables her to push these guys on their responses. She pushes Joe on the Taliban resurgence…..and also on the timing on some of the troop withdrawals. Raddatz is not buying Joe’s argument that the military wanted out at that time, in that fashion.

Biden is not going to win by arguing that the Afghan troops are trained – trained in what? Shooting Americans? Not a strong point for Joe here.

Syria – I was waiting for this. Ryan should score. Bigger issue here, of course, is that Joe has an administration record to defend. Ryan can simply claim Romney would do differently, and better. Important to remember that foreign policy is not going to be a huge issue in this election – debate over Syria plays well on Fareed Zakaria’s show, but Joe and Jane Sixpack aren’t invested in this issue. And Joe is talking down to his “friend” again. Ryan still thinks he came to an old-fashioned debate – Joe realized from the start that this is a political show.

Final Topic – abortion and religion. Again, abortion is not (despite the controversy it elicits) a very important electoral issue. But both sides can use it reach out to middle-class Catholics – a key demographic. This isn’t really about abortion – it’s about Reagan Democrats.

Wait: one more question re: tone of campaign – ironic, given what transpired tonight. Joe uses it to get in one last 47% reminder, and to chastise those unnamed groups making scurrilous charges…I don’t think he really grasps the irony here…

(Joe is losing his voice here.) Ryan does the same – and the irony is lost on him as well, evidently. He uses the question about tone of the campaign to launch one final verbal attack. In both their defenses, that’s what vice presidents do. Both sides paint a picture of Armageddon if the other side has their way.

Martha – One more “final” question – the character question, but weirdly asked. Why ask them what they will bring that “no one else could”? I thought Ryan had the right response here.

Ryan really is a policy wonk – it makes it hard for him to close on a soaring high note. More wonkiness.

CLOSING:

Joe: “You might have detected my frustration.” You think? I think the Ryan shot at Scranton cut deep.

Ryan remembers rule number one at a VP debate: it’s not about you, it’s about the guy at the head of the table. And always close by asking for your vote.

It’s not over folks – it’s time for the spin room. Let’s see what talking points each side brings out.

My initial take: No clear winner. Both sides brought their strengths – Joe with the populist passion, Ryan with the wonky recitation of facts (true and alleged). I don’t think this will move the needle much. But it was very entertaining, but also substantive. Joe performed well, which I expected. I wasn’t sure how Ryan would do, but he held his own.

CNN talking heads chiding for Biden for interrupting – loses style points for being patronizing.

The exchange that will be replayed is the Ryan zinger about Joe knowing about saying things they regret, and Joe coming right back by asserting that he says what he means.

Interesting that talking heads can’t agree who won – more evidence that no one did. Looks like both sides are pleased enough to come right into the spin room. Let’s listen to the talking points.

Cutter: “A Decisive Win for the Obama-Biden team.” Facts matter. Joe’s an authentic guy. Speaks his mind.

Here’s the RNC chair Priebus. His first talking point is how Joe interrupted Ryan – isn’t this exactly what the Democrats said about Romney’s demeanor last time?

Lots of praise for Martha – I thought she started out well, particularly pushing them on going into more detail on foreign policy issues. But she needed to intervene a bit more later on to stop the cross-talking.

CNN focus group of undecideds see this as a draw. So that means it was a draw, right? How are the other station’s playing this? Vijay says the PBS pundits called it for Biden. In the twitter verse, the usual suspects are lining up behind their guy, but a few of the “nonpartisan” talking heads are on both sides – which I see as further evidence that this was truly a draw. The other point to remember: it’s not who wins the debate – it’s who wins the national polls.

Ok, twits citing two polls – one from CBS showing Biden won – one from CNBC saying Ryan did, and by equal margins. I can’t vouch for the polls internals, but on the surface more evidence that this is a draw, or at least so close that it won’t have much impact. Score one for political science!

Tweeters saying the CNBC poll is not a random sample but instead is an online poll. But keep in mind that all these polls only sample viewers – they are not a random sample of registered (or likely voters). so, if audience is skewed one way, sample will likely reflect that skew.

Ok, CNN “scientific poll” is released, and it shows a draw. 48% say Ryan won, 44% say Biden did. I guess it’s settled. No one won decisively.

Bottom line: this is one of those half full/half empty assessments. Half full for Democrats: Biden showed passion, stopped the bleeding. Half empty: he didn’t win, and he didn’t beat the younger, less experienced Ryan. For Ryan, the half full is that he kept the Democrats on the defensive, prevented them from regaining the upper hand. Status quo is a win for the Republicans. Half -empty – Didn’t keep Romney momentum going, and that means media narrative will suggest that race is tied – not that Romney is pulling ahead.

Great participation tonight! Next debate is the second presidential match on Monday. If Anna gets her act together, I’ll have our new live blogging format up and running.

I’ll be on tomorrow with the postmortem. Meanwhile, I’m getting quoted over at Andrew Sullivan’s site for a portion of my debate analysis. Let me reiterate that their choice to quote me should not be seen as an endorsement of my political views.

Big winner tonight? CNN – they show video feed of Obama watching the debate – on CNN!

Meanwhile, CNN shows best moment tonight for each candidate based on focus group responses. Ryan peaks when he discusses not raising taxes on small businesses. For Biden, it was also on taxes. As for low points, Biden’s came when he defended the administration’s failure to protect the Benghazi embassy. For Ryan, it was his abortion response near the end of the debate.

Nothing in the polling response, nor in the taking points from both sides, changes my view of what I saw tonight: this was largely a draw that will not do much to impact the polls.

More tomorrow….thanks again all to who participated.

The V.P. Debate: Stop Me If You’ve Heard This Before….

I know, I know. I said this before the first presidential debate, and how did that turn out? At the risk of a repeat performance, I’m here to remind you that tonight’s V.P. debate is not likely to impact the presidential race very much. Democrats, of course, are hoping a strong performance by Joe Biden will blunt some of the momentum Romney acquired coming out of the first presidential debate. A quick look at the RealClearPolitics composite poll suggests Romney netted 4% as a result of his strong performance last Wednesday, and that gain has boosted Romney to varying degrees in all the battleground states t as well.

I don’t see tonight’s “winner” gaining nearly as much in the polls. But then, when it comes to assessing the winners, there’s not much polling data regarding past vice presidential debates. In 2008, a CBS poll of uncommitted voters indicated that most of them thought Joe Biden had “won” his debate with Sarah Palin, but most of those polled remained uncommitted. Gallup has this table showing the impact of debates on voters’ party preferences.

As you can see, the VP debates haven’t been very consequential, at least by this measure.

So, I certainly don’t expect Biden to regain all that lost polling territory tonight. But he may be able to lay down some markers that will serve him and the President well on the stump, and during the next presidential debates. In this sense the debate is probably better viewed as a preview for next Tuesday’s rematch between the President and Mitt.

I won’t bother providing any pre-debates “what to look for” insights since there’s plenty of that elsewhere (see here and here). You know the drill by now – both sides want to stick to their talking points, hammer home their dominant campaign themes, and paint the opposition into a corner. If you saw Biden debate Palin in 2008, you know he’s good at this format, despite his reputation for dropping Bidenisms into his off-the-cuff remarks. Ryan has less of a track record that I know of in this format, so I have less to go on. However, the Onion indicates that he’s been taking his preparation to extremes (hat tip to Jeff Cason)! The one wrinkle is that foreign policy is on the table, and the moderator is Martha Raddatz, the chief foreign correspondent for ABC. So I expect some foreign policy discussion, including efforts by Ryan to capitalize on the unfolding Benghazi security story. It will also be interesting to see how Ryan reacts to the inevitable efforts by Biden to tie Ryan’s budget around Mitt’s neck. Keep in mind that this debate is not between Ryan and Biden – it’s between surrogates for Romney and Obama.

I’ll be live blogging tonight with a new format that, I am told, will make it easier for you to comment. So join in the fun – I’ll be back on at about 8:45.