The Final Debate

Whoever you are for won the debate.  If you're for Biden, the attacks on Trump's finances, racist policies, and lack of empathy were damning.  If you're for Trump, the pounding on Biden's decades of not getting it done and frequent references to Hunter were devastating.  If you were for Welker, she was by far the most commanding of all the moderators although her bias toward Biden was pretty clear.

I would give the win to Trump.  He was more controlled than his last debate.  This is probably because he was forced to be thanks to the muted microphone.  He repeatedly hit Biden on the obvious question: you were VP for 8 years and didn't get it done.  Why didn't you let Obama know how to get it done.  Though the MSM is still trying to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, Trump hammered it.  Joe replied with denials that could come back to bite him soon.

For a guy who everyone says is suffering dementia, Biden did well but never effectively answered the point of having been there already and not gotten it done.  He made the claim of a Republican congress.  True.  But there was the first year where the Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency.  Trump had that same benefit for 2 years.  As for Hunter, one has to be willfully obtuse not to know his financial success is directly tied to his father's political career.  Same goes for any of Trump's kids.  Hunter isn't rich because of his keen business sense.

As to the moderator, I was unimpressed.  Why is it that in the four debates (#2 was cancelled but still worth mentioning), all the moderators are Democrats.  Admittedly, I don't know their registration but it was obvious in every case that they were pro-Biden and anti-Trump.  Who's Chris Wallace voting for?  How about Susan Page?  Steve Scully?  Kristen Welker?  Every one of them is a Biden voter.  Why do Republicans let this happen every single election?  Welker was more of an interviewer than a moderator.  She constantly cut off any debate between Trump and Biden because 'we have a lot of questions to get to.'  Who came up with this format?  Why not let the candidates decide what questions to ask and have the moderator just try to keep the time even and maybe move things along if there is a lull.  You know, what the candidates thing is important might tell us a lot rather than what the moderator thinks is important.  When the interruption numbers come in, it is going to be astonishingly lopsided as to how often she cut off Trump vs. Biden.  Two Democrats vs. one Republican.  Typical.

The First Debate

Quick thoughts.

Trump was boorish and overbearing.  He barely let Biden speak with his constant interruptions.  What is funny is that it reminded me of how Biden debated Ryan in 2012.  Well, Biden wasn't rude and overbearing but he constantly interrupted.  Trump had a hard time staying on topic but he was dogged about answering Biden's accusations.  Though he clearly dominated, it didn't come across well.  Seemed almost like bullying.

Biden was rather passive.  Where was that Biden who schooled Ryan?  Though I thought Ryan won that debate on substance, Biden won it on optics.  Here, he was getting steamrolled and waited for Wallace to tame Trump.  If Biden can't handle Trump, what is he going to do when facing Putin and Xi? 

Wallace was clearly on Biden's side, especially as the debate continued.  Trump even asked if he was debating Wallace, which he often was.  To an extent, perhaps Wallace was trying to balance the scales since Trump was bulldozing Biden.  When it came to climate change, Wallace was debating Trump and Biden was just a bystander.  Has this become a hostile interview?

Overall, I'd say it was a draw.  Biden exceeded expectations in that he didn't say something truly bizarre (e.g. "dog-faced pony soldier") and managed to remain coherent.  Despite his verbosity, Trump lacked focus.  Sometimes, he was on point but other times he rambled.  Browbeating a senior citizen (I know they are both senior citizens but Joe looks it) is not commendable.  Wallace was a failure as a moderator.  He couldn't maintain control and let his bias show.  He grilled Trump about the recent tax story but then pretended that the ballot harvesting story from Minneapolis (released the same day as the tax story) never happened when they discussed ballot integrity.  He demanded Trump denounce white supremacists but didn't make a similar demand for Biden to denounce Antifa/BLM.

Presidential Debates with a Twist

After watching the presidential debates, Professor Maria Guadalupe had an idea.  What if the genders of the two candidates were swapped?  How would Trump's aggressive demeanor have been viewed were a woman to have acted that way?  Would Hillary's superior political experience have received more recognition when delivered by a man?  She set out to test the theory.  Actors were cast.  A woman would play the Trump clone, Brenda King, while a man would play the Hillary clone, Jonathan Gordon.  Watching and listening to the debates, each actor sought to mimic the tone, cadence, and mannerisms of the candidates.  Finally, they gave a couple of performances.  To the amazement of all, Brenda King came off surprisingly well while Jonathan Gordon came off stiff and overly reliant on rehearsed statements.

 

Though an interesting experiment, it doesn't look fair to the Hillary clone.  Assertive and aggressive behavior in a woman is far more acceptable than effeminate behavior in a man, especially when looking at a potential president.  One picture shows Gordon in a very awkward pose for a man that would be unremarkable of a woman.

 

Of note, in the first televised presidential debates in 1960, those who heard the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won while those who watched on TV chose Kennedy.  The visual cues made a big impression.

 

For a future experiment, run the debate twice with the same actors but have them switch roles the second time around.  Script remains unchanged.  One actor should be George Clooney and the other can be Steve Buscemi.  This sounds like an obvious sort of experiment and has probably already been done but the results could be instructive.

The First Debate

I watched about half of the debate.  I'd say Hillary was far more disciplined and prepared.  She landed some good points on Trump.  Clearly, the tax returns issue was gold for her as he started riffing about his taxes and building values and other stuff that in no way advanced the debate; it was defense or pointless rambling, you choose.  Trump landed some good points with regard to Hillary having been in public life for 30 years and only now is she going to fix things.  Her argument that we are on the cusp of real recovery with lots of jobs and rising incomes if we just stay on the current path was weak sauce.  Trump tried to tie her to Obama's policies, especially TPP, but she generally dodged that without being forced to criticize Obama; that in itself was good strategy on her part and again showed that Trump needs more practice at debating.

 

Trump came off as a protectionist.  He is unhappy with NAFTA - calling it the worst deal ever - and says TPP is almost as bad.  He wants to levy a tax on imports (that would be called a tariff, by the way) and renegotiate trade deals.  Reminded me a bit of Pat Buchanan.  To the good, he wants to reduce regulations and taxes.  Clearly, if we couldn't reach 3% growth for even 1 quarter out of the last 7 and a half years while driving up the debt by nearly $10 trillion, the government isn't doing a better job of spending that money than private people would have.

 

Hillary had a tough row to hoe on her side.  She offered the same policy prescriptions as Obama did 8 years ago.  We have 8 years of results which are not great.  After all these years, it is still the Bush economy to hear her tell it.  If she wins, is she inheriting the Bush economy or the Obama economy?  I am astonished she rolled out the 'rich need to pay their fair share' bromide.  Always the answer is to tax the rich.  Again, we've just had 8 years of her policies and, though better than the trough of the Great Recession, it is below average.

 

Though I read that some rated it a draw, I would give Hillary the edge for the first debate.  Her discipline did her great credit.  Trump needed to stay on message and not drift.  Also, he need to trust the audience more.  There was too much repetition.  This is going to get replayed ad nausea for the next several days; it is better to say it just once and let the media replay it for you.  He is too used to playing a crowd rather than engaging in a back and forth debate.

 

If I get around to watching the second half, I may offer revisions.

Balance of Decorum

For years, Democrats have made a practice of seeding embarrassing guests at joint events.  The most noteworthy of them was Cindy Sheehan who was invited by Representative Lynn Woolsey to attend the 2006 State of the Union Address.  She wore a shirt critical of President Bush and the Iraq War.  The shirt violated rules of the House and she refused to cover it.  She was arrested and held for 4 hours before being transferred to Capitol Police HQ.  This became a big story and that was the point.  It was a political chess move and Cindy Sheehan was a willing pawn.  By contrast, Republicans are less prone to inviting obstreperous critics, certainly not ones who earn headlines like Sheehan.  This is because Republicans possess decorum.  Part of the reason that Republicans are far more decorous than Democrats is that the media will hammer them for improper behavior that would be ignored when committed by Democrats.  They are held to a higher standard.

 

That brings us to Monday's impending debate.  Hillary has invited Mark Cuban, a former Trump supporter and now Trump critic to sit in the front row.  Now, Cuban won't be disruptive like Cindy Sheehan but he will provide an opportunity for the media to discuss him and his criticism of Trump.  It is political chess, placing a story on the field and trusting that the media will pick it up.  It's like setting an attack ad against Trump that will appear as unbiased news from the pundits.  No one thinks twice when sports commentators point out the QBs wife in the stands with some color commentary.  Whereas a Romney, McCain, or Bush had too much decorum to reply in kind, Trump doesn't.  He is willing to fight fire with fire.  He has invited Gennifer Flowers!  Let's see what the pundits have to say about her.

 

Called and raised!

Democrat Debate

There has been much grief from lesser candidates in the Democrat field that there are only going to be 6 debates.  There are 19 declared candidates though I doubt most Democrat voters could name more than 3.  Of course, only the top five are of note:

Hillary Clinton: Former Secretary of State, New York Senator, First Lady.  She is the current front runner.  Her email scandal is damaging her standing.  On account of this, the top three words associated with her in a Quinnipiac poll were "liar," "dishonest," and "untrustworthy."  She has more than a year to counter that but the continued bleeding and lack of resolution with the email server will be an anchor on her campaign.  She is a member of the New Nobility.

 

Bernie Sanders: Vermont Senator, former Congressman, former Mayor of Burlington.   He is a self-described socialist and Clinton's most successful rival at this point.  Bernie is an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate.  Unlike Democrats who only offer lip service to opposing Wall Street (while taking the lion's share of political donations from them), Bernie is a true believer.  As such, the party elites do not want him.

Martin O'Malley: Former Maryland Governor and Baltimore Mayor.  He barely registers in the polls at this point, thus his strong interest in lots of debates.  He is likely hamstrung by the failure of his hand-picked successor to win the governorship.  Also, the recent trouble in Baltimore reflects on him, fairly or not.  However, he is a solid Democrat with executive experience who doesn't have the baggage of Hillary or the outspoken socialism of Bernie.

Jim Webb: Former Virginia Senator and Secretary of the Navy.  He served in the Reagan administration and is too pro-military and bipartisan to win the Democratic nomination.  The most conservative of this leftist field, he is going no where.

Lincoln Chafee: Former Rhode Island Governor, Senator, Mayor of Warwick.  Former Republican, former Independent.  Lincoln was a liberal Republican back when that was openly allowed.  He has since transitioned to a Democrat.  He wants the US to switch to the Metric System.  He is a member of the New Nobility.

The choice of the party elites is clearly Hillary, thus the desire for as few debates as possible.  Hillary lacks her husband's charm and political instincts, thus debates are likely to harm her candidacy while simultaneously offering alternative candidates.  The last time the voters were given an alternative to Hillary, they took him.

Of late, there has been a growing 'Draft Biden' movement that would like to see Vice President Joe Biden jump into the race.  For the political novice, this might sound like a great idea but Biden has plenty of baggage himself, from plagiarism to inaccurately reporting his voting record on issues like Iraq.  This is a man who lost the nomination to Dukakis in 1988.

There is also some hope that, if Hillary falters, Elizabeth Warren might jump into the race.  Warren is quite popular with the base, probably more so than Hillary.  This popularity with the base is unlikely to translate to the general election voter.  I see her as the counterpart of Ann Coulter; Coulter is hugely popular with the base but couldn't possibly hope to get elected because of her divisive nature.  Warren has had electoral success in the bluest of blue states.  Let's see, how did Dukakis do on the national scene?

Obviously, I am opposed to all of these candidates but with no incumbent, it does strike me as fair to have lots of debates to give the voters an opportunity to get to know the candidates.  The Republicans have already had two debates, the second of which has so far been great for Carly Fiorina.  O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee certainly wish they had such an opportunity to connect with the voters.  They should get it and the base agrees.

 

http://therightscoop.com/democrat-mutiny-dnc-chair-debbie-schultz-heckled-by-huge-crowd/

Perplexing Debate

Romney apparently didn't read my recent blog on Obama's foreign policy failures.  If he did, he didn't use it.  In fact, he seemed to cede foreign policy to Obama.  He let the Benghazi question slide and did some cheerleading for a few of Obama's positions.  Romney seemed to be shooting for a tie.  He was like a football team that plays a prevent defense in the last few minutes of a close game.  Clearly, he came in with the impression he has a lead and didn't want to change the momentum.

Obama was very aggressive, perhaps a bit too much so.  His worst line - which probably was viewed as his best line by partisans - was when he disparaged Romney regarding the navy, saying that we now have things called aircraft carriers where planes can land and ships that go under water.  That's a great put down on Real Time with Bill Maher but beneath the dignity of a President.  When he didn't sink into attacks on Romney, the President presented his case quite well.  Many times, I thought Obama was mopping the floor with the oddly passive Romney.  However, I was also bothered by how Obama painted a picture of foreign policy that could be refuted and Romney declined to do so.  Obama declared terrorism to be the greatest threat to the US.

Romney painted the big picture for American foreign policy, some of which I approve and some that I don't.  He doesn't want to nation build but he wants to get these Middle Eastern countries to have peaceful, growing economies.  Wow, if only someone had thought of that before.  How long has the Israel-Palestinian peace process been going?  It is unlikely the Middle East will change its ways short of being forced to change.  Force means violence and violence tends to mean war and Romney's rhetoric kept war at a safe distance.  He was all for the sanctions regime against Iran but wanted more.  The economy did come up several times as an issue for foreign policy.  An indebted nation inevitably is forced to withdraw from the world stage and Romney made that point.  Romney identified a nuclear Iran as the greatest threat to the US.

 

Romney did have the 'vision thing' while Obama offered no Obama Doctrine.   Interestingly, I think both men touched on the greatest threat to the US in their answers.  A nuclear Iran would likely provide terrorists with a nuclear device.  I'd probably lean toward an Obama win, mostly because Romney didn't engage him.  However, some have said that Romney was trying to avoid being portrayed as a warmonger, which he did quite well.  Considering that as a strategy, perhaps it could be called a tie.  By essentially promising to mostly maintain Obama foreign policy, Romney pushes the electorate to decide based on domestic issues, returning us to the first debate where he had a decisive win.  Yes, I'd tend to agree that this debate didn't paint a stark contrast and thus is unlikely to change minds one way or the other.  Even so, I still say Obama won.

Equal Time

I read a funny headline yesterday:

Bizarre Coincidence: Democrats Get More Time in All Three Debates.

As I mentioned in a blog on the first debate, Obama had roughly 3 minutes more than Romney.  I was a bit surprised since Romney had so dominated that debate it felt like he spoke more.

In the VP Debate, Biden got a minute and a half more than Ryan.  If that's not bad enough, he badgered Ryan with constant interruptions (almost one per minute, which is impressive when Ryan spoke for less than half the time of the ninety minute debate).  More interesting still, Biden declared that he had voted against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan though the Congressional Record shows he voted to authorize both.  The moderator, Martha Raddatz, didn't play favorites.  She interrupted Paul Ryan 31 times and Joe Biden 19 times.  Yes, it is great to have a neutral referee.

In the latest debate, Obama spoke four minutes more than Romney, despite Ms. Crowley's constant assurance that she was watching the clock to make sure the time distribution was equal.  Billed as a town hall-style debate, it was not.  Ms. Crowley had accepted questions submitted by the audience then picked the ones she wanted asked.  In a pool of 80 people, that allows considerable opportunity for the moderator to steer the debate.  Really, who would pick the question of "How are you different from George W Bush?"  Worse still, she jumped in to fact check (with the wrong facts, she later admitted) Romney's accusation regarding Benghazi but she was completely silent when Obama claimed that oil production on Federal lands was up.  She didn't attempt to redirect Obama to answer the question of  who is responsible for denying more security in Benghazi.  Much like Raddatz, she was roughly equal in interrupting the candidates: Romney 28 times and Obama 9 times.  Balance.

But back to the funny headline.  Is it any wonder that the Democrats get more time when Democrats are moderating the debates?  I used to watch the MacNeil/Leher News Hour on PBS and it was decidedly left of center.  I always enjoyed when Mark Shields and David Gergen would represent Left and Right viewpoints but somehow repeatedly agree.  It wasn't much surprise when the 'rightwing' Gergen joined the Clinton Administration.  See, balance.  President Obama was a guest at Martha Raddatz wedding but that probably didn't impact how she dealt with Obama's running mate.  Candy Crowley claimed a still anonymous Republican told her that Romney-Ryan was a 'death wish' ticket.  Clearly, she is unbiased.

 

Next week, we will have Bob Schieffer.  What are the odds that the bizarre coincidence continues and the interruption count dramatically favors the Democrat?

 

I read a pundit who suggested that Republicans demand the opportunity to choose two of the moderators in future debates.  It would be interesting to see how different the debate went if Charles Krauthammer or Bill O'Rielly were the moderator.  Why do PBS, CBS, ABC, and CNN get to moderate debates but not FNC?

Romney 1, Obama 0

Unlike the last presidential debates which I could not stomach beyond the introductions, I managed to keep with this one throughout.  Here are some random observations and thoughts.

Obama hammered on Romney's tax cut plan, claiming that it would cut $5 trillion mostly for the rich and result in a $2000 tax hike on the middle class.  He repeated it again and again to become rather tiresome, especially since Romney would take his turn denying it.  He notably did not pursue the widely-broadcast Romney gaffe about the 47% whose votes he is not seeking.  Many Democrat pundits were befuddled by its absence.  Perhaps it was just me, but it seemed as though Obama was sometimes debating as if he was not the incumbent.  He noted that Romney didn't have specifics for his plan but Obama's plan - specifics or not - has clearly failed to get the economy moving.

For his part, Romney pounded on the $716 billion cut from Medicare several times.  He also touched on the $90 billion for Green Energy.  Whereas Romney was quick to counter Obama on the tax plan, Obama let these go unanswered.  Though these were the ones repeated, Romney fired volley after volley on a range of economic issues: unemployment, deficit, debt, Obamacare, etc.  Some of these came across as zingers.  Though it only got a mention, I really appreciated that Romney brought up the 10th Amendment; if we actually followed that one, the budget would be in surplus next year.

Of the two, it is obvious that Romney was well-prepared with a quiver full of arrows and a number of ready responses to predictable Obama lines of attack.  By contrast, Obama was not prepared for predictable Romney attacks and didn't have anything beyond the $5 trillion tax cut.

 

Of course, between the two, I far prefer Romney.  Recognizing that I was biased, I still thought Romney presented his case better.  It was funny how he didn't let the moderator moderate him.  Speaking of the moderator, Jim Leher seemed to frame Obama's responses on a couple of questions: I recall he asked the president to respone to Romney's assertions on deficit reduction by announcing that "you want a balanced approach."  He may have done that in both directions but this instance struck me.

 

Amazingly, though Romney dominated the debate, he actually spent less time talking.  The post-debate showed that Obama spoke for something over 42 minutes and Romney for something short of 39 minutes.  Even Democrats agree that debate one goes to Romney.

 

The next debate between them will be in a townhall format which should benefit the charismatic Obama and hinder the often wooden Romney.  Plus, expectations for Romney have just jumped while Obama's have sunk.  Thus, I expect Obama to come out much better there.

10 to 1 Cuts vs. "Revenue"

Much has been made of the question in last night's debate where the candidates were asked if they would walk away from a budget deal that promised $10 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases. The candidates unanimously walked away. And so they should. The cuts never happen, as Reagan discovered with TEFRA. He was promised $3 in cuts for every $1 in tax increase. He got the tax increase but future Congresses were not bound by the $3 in cuts which never materialized. No matter the ratio, the tax increase will come but the cuts won't. It's like that email where the Nigerian lawyer promises you a million dollars if you forward him $500. Sounds like a great deal. Do you walk away? What if it was $10 million? $100 million? The ratio is irrelevant.

If you change the tax code, the new tax structure continues until modified by some future Congress. On the other hand, cuts don't have that same structural longevity. If Congress cuts Program B by $1 billion this year, there is nothing to prevent them from restoring it next year. Worse still, the Congress can play the 'We would have spent' game. How does that work? Well, Congress was planning on spending $5 billion on Program C but instead only spent $4 billion. That's counted as a $1 billion cut. A cut should be when you look at what you spent last year and spend less than that amount. Such rarely happens. However, oddly enough, it happened last year. Lacking a new trillion dollar stimulus, 2010 saw a 2% reduction in federal spending. Before that, the last time spending was less was 1955.

If someone offers 10 to 1, one should skip the taxes and just take the $9 in cuts. Same difference, right? If someone offered you $10 if you paid them a dollar, wouldn't it be easier if they just gave you $9? Should give you the same balance, right? But that's not the point. That's not the goal of the person offering 'cuts' for taxes. A tax for cuts deal is doomed from the start and should never be accepted, no matter what ratio is offered.

The Debate

It was a mildly entertaining and sometimes fiery debate. Not easy to declare a winner.

- Romney did well though his defense of Romney-care as consistent with the 10th Amendment was weak. It is hard to believe in small government on the federal level while supporting large government at the state level. Still, he is correct. There were established state churches when the Bill of Rights was approved, though no one mentions that. The Bill of Rights exists to limit the federal government, not the states. Other than that, he came off well.

- Bachman was mired in defending herself from repeated attacks from Pawlenty. It was often distracting how much she had to reply to attacks. One attack stuck, in that she has a limited list of accomplishment but Congressmen seldom have much in that regard, especially if you believe in limiting government. Even so, it was massively unfair of Pawlenty to pin anything the Congress did on her, since she is but 1 vote among 535 Congressmen. She may not be on the winning side but she votes right, even Pawlenty would have to admit that.

- Pawlenty was desperate. I found him generally annoying, too often jumping on opponents very directly. Though he was on attack, he lost his battle with Bachman. Very difficult for a man to attack a woman and come away the winner; ask Rick Lazio. Worse, no one attacked him except in response to his attacks. When Pawlenty spoke, he either attacked someone or defended his record. Not a good impression.

- Paul was sometimes brilliant and sometimes obtuse. The liberty agenda is great but at times Paul saw no difference between war and crime. A foreign terrorist is not a criminal who should get the benefits of US trial. Geneva convention says we can stand them against a wall and shoot them. Let's go with that. Still, I'd be willing to try Paul's isolationist foreign policy if I could get his domestic policy. Abolish the Fed!

- Huntsman was better than I expected. Of course, that doesn't say a lot. And, though it has only been a short time, I can recall nothing memorable about what he had to say. But he left a good impression.

- Santorum was overlooked. He got irritated by the lack of questions that came his way. It did seem that Romney and Bachman had an unusually high portion of the time. Santorum was probably the most socially conservative person there. He jousted with Paul several times, notably on states rights (Paul would let the states do as they please where Santorum held there were limits, mentioning polygamy). Well-spoken and passionate.

- Cain was good on economics but less so on everything else. He needlessly announced that he had studied up on foreign policy, thereby revealing to a new audience an earlier gaffe. After prefacing his comment with that, he gave an adequate answer about Afghanistan.

- Gingrich was strong. He jumped down Chris Wallace's throat in response to a question about his resigning campaign staff, calling it a gotcha question. His answers were often the most thoughtful. He and Paul were the only ones who proposed that the entirety of US foreign policy needed rethinking. He and Romney were the best debaters.

Most of these candidates have very little riding on the Straw Poll. However, it could be a make or break for Pawlenty. I'm leaning toward break.