MITT'S DEBATE "WIN"

So last night was the first Presidential debate of this election. "Pundits" left and right are all abuzz about President Obama's lackluster performance. By virtually every optic, they generally concede the first Presidential debate to Mitt Romney.

In the world of the electorate, righties feel a renewed sense that they have a chance to beat President Obama. Lefties are upset that President Obama did not show enough fight.

I'm not so quick to follow that current consensus. There are a few things to consider.

The pressing question. Was President Obama's showing in that debate simply a lackluster performance, or was there strategy amidst those optics?

I was driving at the time of the debate. I didn't get to actually see it, but I did hear the debate live on C-SPAN radio. My focus was solely on what both candidates said.

Optics aside, there is no doubt that Romney sounded better in style than Obama. 

Style aside, I also would say that Mitt lost the debate. The sheer volume of blatant lies and flip-flops was just too staggering. 

Not that Romney failed to offer sporadic numbers and state them with an air of authority like he had facts or even actual plans on his side. He certainly stated his "facts" with a confidence conveying them as if they were real, even when all the evidence proved them to be anything but facts. 

Yet Mitt still accomplished his goal in the first debate. For him, it was less about winning over undecideds with actual arithmetic, sound proven ideology or even verifiable facts. Being able to look and sound Presidential was the most important thing. Mitt knew that he would be judged mostly on how he came across in a head to head with the President. Would he look at least as assertive as President Obama? Could he look even more authoritative than the current President? Despite the severe factual instability of his words, any of the specifics of what Mitt said would be less important than simply looking and sounding as if he is at least an equal to President Obama.

Hearing only the audio when the debate aired live, I conceded quickly that on this goal, Mitt Romney was a great success. No matter what he was saying, he sounded confident and authoritative. 

Even when speaking of an imaginary President Obama and an imaginary Mitt Romney, onstage Mitt was able to present all his fictions as if they were real. It was like he believed all the previous etch-a-sketch versions of his platforms and statements which no longer suited him in the moment were actually erased from our collective memories, and the videotapes, and the hard drives that so thoroughly document his many contradicting "re-introductions". He spoke as if youtube does not exist.

Frankly, Mitt Romney went far beyond the standard spin of every campaign. He flat out lied many times over. But he did it with confidence.

He even pushed that show of confidence to eleven when he made sure to get in the zinger of telling President Obama that he may be entitled to his own house and plane as President, but he is not entitled to his own facts. The comic irony of that cliched zinger only pushes me further from any chance of viewing Mitt Romney as a viable Presidential candidate.

I however was not the audience Mitt was trying to impress. I have been paying attention to both candidates' words. I have given lots of thought and research into what implementing their words would actually mean. Most voters however are not political junkies and can only absorb so much. Tired of the ads and knowing that spin is always a basic ingredient in politics, most Americans are not instantly fact-checking Romney's words. They may not recognize the severity of the flip-flops and flat-out lies that made up Mitt's well delivered yet blatantly incompetent vocal content. 

We all however respond to optics. Do the candidates present an air of authority and confidence? Do they "look" Presidential? Do they "sound" Presidential? 

Passing that optics test in his first go-round with the President was crucial for Mitt Romney. Content and substance aside, Mitt clearly passed that hurdle. Not only from the sound of his voice, but once seeing a televised replay, I can say that adding the optics of body language, facial expression, etc. in both candidates, only added to Mitt's success in this goal.

Frankly, despite all the lies of his words, Mitt Romney "won" this debate by looking and sounding more authoritative than President Obama, and he certainly knows it.

President Obama also knows this. I believe the President also knew this as it was happening.

Yet President Obama remained cool. No fight. Very little calling out Mitt's lies. Not even a strong closing argument. The part where the candidates get to offer a prepared statement. The part where one would expect an orator as skilled as President Obama to shine. Even that was lackluster on President Obama's part.

Now as for the why, pundits will analyze that for decades I'm sure. Was it poor performance or some kind of chess strategy? I have a few things that should be considered in weighing that question, including some things that (at least for the moment), I have yet to hear pundits consider.

First there is the very real dilemma of a black man having to hold to a higher professional standard than a white male. Dare to show passion as a black man, and there will be those who then dismiss you professionally as the dangerous "angry black man". 

Many may deny this reality. All one need do to see it very much still alive today is tune in to Sean Hannity. Sean is STILL harping on (now PRESIDENT) Obama as an American threat because of his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, the man he continually points out as an angry black liberation theologist. The day after this first 2012 Presidential debate, Sean focused on Jeremiah Wright and the "shocking" video of then Senator Obama speaking at Hampton, VA about the poor response to Hurricane Katrina. Sean points out with great disgust how Obama sounded so "different" as he infers that Obama's speech style was not acceptable as he addressed a predominantly black audience. Frankly, it is laughable to see this 2007 clip of Obama and react with such indignation, but nonetheless, such reaction is still a reality, especially among old white men.

Consider further the intentional direct portrayal of President Obama as an angry black man by Dinesh D'Souza. Despite President Obama's overly cool demeanor, D'Souza made a "documentary" about President Obama and the danger he poses to America. When D'Souza was asked to summarize his anti-Obama film on Bill Maher's RealTime, he claimed the takeaway is that President Obama is an angry man. Maher's reaction was priceless as he pointed out that such a portrayal of President Obama is utter bullshit with no supporting evidence whatsoever. D'Souza just claimed that Obama's anger is internal. We can't see it, but we know it's there and it threatens us all. Maher pointed out that Dinesh D'Souza never actually met president Obama.  

Even with the "No drama Obama" nickname, President Obama still has to succumb to the inequity of acceptable passion, lest he be painted as the spooky "angry black man". There is no doubt that this social reality played some factor in President Obama's debate style(just as it always does with every word he ever speaks), but there is much more to consider.

The optics of Mitt Romney looking directly at President Obama and presenting himself as a forceful challenger while President Obama is often looking down comes off to some as mild bullying. This is subtle psychology at play here, and it will likely be analyzed in virtually every possible direction, but consider the effects of a challenger with low likability numbers appearing in even some small way to bully a President with very high likability numbers. Consider the issues with literally hundreds of attempts to restrict women's reproductive rights by the Republican Party. Consider the down ticket Republicans belittling their female Congressional challengers by calling them not "ladylike" or even calling them "vile" and "despicable". Consider that no matter how much denial and protest there may be from the right over being called out for a war on women, it is only Republicans proposing laws that limit, hinder, or directly outlaw women's reproductive choice and health. Consider that women deal with the assertive/aggressive male every day of their lives. 

Now consider how the optics of even a subtle sense of bullying towards a highly liked President can have an influence on many women voters. Especially when an empathy can be felt at the President maintaining dignity throughout while politely enduring poor treatment. I doubt Romney's debate "win" offered him any bump in female support. I suspect if anything, it may have actually hurt it.

For the real political junkie, comparing the internals of upcoming post first debate polls may be of interest if comparing any change in Romney's likability numbers by gender.

Of course, the likability factor is not just a concern in seeking women's votes. Romney has consistently trailed Obama in likability polls. Even with a small uptick after the Republican Convention, Mitt still struggles to be "likable enough". While Mitt's debate "win" may have gained him some enthusiasm for Republican support, I don't expect his performance to translate into any significant increase in his likability.

Now consider the record-breaking rate at which Mitt Romney threw out blatant falsities. He could have practically ended unemployment altogether had we hired enough fact-checkers to keep up with Mitt's lies. I for one didn't bother wasting the time trying to actually count them. Others have, and they place the count at just under one lie per minute. President Obama did not let his debate time get consumed with defense on Mitt's mis-statements. If he had, he would be doing nothing else. The punditry narrative then would have been about how President Obama was on the defensive all night.

Instead, Obama stayed cool. He let Romney tell one whopper after another with little interference. Obama knew that fact-checkers would be running frantic for days, if not weeks, debunking most of what Mitt uttered during the debate. Endlessly talking about Mitt's lies would become the focus. President Obama was also well aware that there were many fact-checkers doing their work in real-time, tweeting and facebooking the actual facts while the debate was still going on.

Not only would fact-checkers be working overtime to rebut Mitt's lies (so President Obama didn't have to play that role all night), Mitt's uninterrupted lies were giving the Obama campaign more ads than they could ever dream up. Case in point, those ads are already running today, only one day after the debate.

Speaking of ads, consider that there was no mention of Mitt's 47% quote. It's not that the Obama campaign is not using Mitt's 47% quotes. They are playing those ads everywhere, and getting quite far with them. So much so that it is virtually undeniable these 47% ads are the Obama campaign's most effective tool at the moment. Despite this, there was NO mention of it at all. Could that really be because President Obama was so bad at debating that he simply forgot to mention it? Especially when there were so many opportunities to bring it up? Not going there seemed quite intentional on not only Mitt's part, but President Obama's as well. If I am not wrong about that, then why could there be such a strategy on Obama's part to NOT use Mitt's 47% quotes in the debate?

But the strategy may be even more calculated. Advanced chess. Big picture thinking. 

Consider the upticks of the polling for Obama in the past month or so. President Obama's leads in virtually every swing state were climbing and already hitting the double digit marks. Obama's increasing leads were confirmed in poll after poll by firm after firm. Even FoxNews had Obama up by five in their OWN POLL! 

Karl Rove had already pulled his funding out of several key swing states. The strategy on the Republican SuperPACs was trending toward pulling money out of Romney's campaign and placing it instead in Congressional races. Many of these Congressional races are tight. In most cases, they are slowly moving towards the Democrats, but they are by no means beyond the margin of error. A strong Obama "win" in that first debate could very well have been a tipping point in Republican strategy to focus almost exclusively on Congressional races. 

Explore that path for a moment. If an Obama win in November now became all but a certainty, and Republican SuperPAC money went almost exclusively to Congressional races, the most likely outcome would be Republican control of both House and Senate.

Why? Massive amounts of money would flood into ads to make that happen, and most would be very effective by playing against the core nature of the American voter. Tell voters that an election outcome is "inevitable" and see what surprises come about at the polls. 

No matter how much we all complain about the ineptitude, the infighting and resulting inaction of Congress, convince voters that a second term for Obama is inevitable and watch the massive turnout to counter that "inevitability" with an opposing Congress. Also watch how secure that "inevitable" second term actually is. American voters do not like to be told that any election has an "inevitable" outcome.

Now we are hearing a boost in Republican hopes. The right-wing narrative will shift from talk of how polls are "skewed" towards Democrats, and instead focus on how Mitt Romney's decisive "win" in the first debate is signaling a great shift away from President Obama. As Mitt Romney's performance will simultaneously be dissected for all its lies over the coming days and week(s), more Republican money is being spent on Romney and less of it is being funneled into Congressional races. Had the debate gone differently, the narrative would be different. Mitt Romney's debate "win" helped slow President Obama's momentum that was progressing well for him, but ironically was actually traveling just a bit too fast to arrive at its peak at the right time in November.

Was President Obama's first debate performance simply a display of unpreparedness on his part, or a show of weakness against a Republican challenger overly loose with facts? Was Obama's overly calm lackluster debate performance (including his prepared closing remarks) a skilled well thought-out big picture strategy move? I won't presume to know for certain either way, but given all the possible long-term outcomes, neither will I simply dismiss it as just an off-night for President Obama.