In Last Debate, Challenger Faces Incumbent on Foreign Policy

President Obama and Mitt Romney face-off in last showdown.

Last night’s exchange between Governor Romney and President Obama wasn't so much of a debate as much as it was a discussion. Governor Romney often found himself walking on egg shells trying not to take the President’s bait and coming across as ill-tempered. It was a tough debate for Mr. Romney—he could have gone about it in two ways. He could have disagreed with the President’s policies on every issue and then explain how he’d go about them differently. Given the President’s handling of Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arab Spring and Iran, that could come across as Romney wanting to prolong the wars or start new ones, which would not have been wise. Governor Romney chose to move to the center by often “concurring” with the President’s handling of foreign policy with the exception of perhaps China.

When the moderator, Bob Schieffer, asked the candidates on the relationship with Pakistan, Governor Romney said, “I don’t blame the administration for the strained relationship with Pakistan, we had to go in there to get Bin Laden; it was the right thing to do.”

On a timeline for Afghanistan, Governor Romney agreed on a 2014 deadline, and even admitted that “the surge worked,” which was surprising. On drones Governor Romney said, “I support that entirely and believe the President is right,” in substantially increasing strikes when compared to George W. Bush.

When in disagreement, Governor Romney often seemed to attack the President much more from the left than from the right—by implying that we should better direct our foreign aid and hinting at the fact that the administration is not doing enough to help women and the poor in the Middle East. Surprisingly, Mr. Romney chose not to go after the President on the attack on the compound in Benghazi in early September; which might have been a missed opportunity.

Both candidates often pivoted to domestic issues when they saw it to their advantage. “I don’t see our influence growing around the world. I see our influence receding, in part because of the failure of the president to deal with our economic challenges at home.” At times, Mr. Romney had to defend himself from President Obama’s ability to drive the narrative over the 90 minutes. On the last question of the night, President Obama diverted to education investments in the U.S. and how Governor Romney has expressed reluctance in hiring more teachers. Mr. Romney countered by saying “I love teachers,” which might have been seen as a desperate effort to explain himself. The moderator, Bob Schieffer then cut him off, “I think we all love teachers,” and then carried to closing statements.

Both candidates assured us of the importance of Ohio. President Obama attacked Mitt Romney on his position on the auto bailout. “If we had listened to you, Governor, we’d be buying cars from China rather than selling cars to China.” Hoping to clarify his position for once and for all and to regain some ground in the Buckeye State, Mr. Romney replied with “I am a son of Detroit. I was born in Detroit. My dad was head of a car company. I like American cars. And I would do nothing to hurt the U.S. auto industry.”

The President’s most successful moments were those when he managed to create an emotional connection with the American people while at the same time defending his positions from Mr. Romney’s allegations. Governor Romney accused the President of apologizing for American values on a tour he took to the Middle East and skipping a visit to Israel. “If we’re going to talk about trips that we've taken,” the President said in a cautious tone, “when I went to Israel as a candidate, I didn't take donors. I didn't attend fund-raisers. I went to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum there to remind myself of the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel would be unbreakable.” The President also took advantage of Governor Romney’s stance that “we shouldn't move heaven and earth to get one man,” on prosecuting Bin Laden. “It was worth moving heaven and earth to get him,” said the President before narrating a conversation he had with the daughter of a 9/11 victim who last spoke to her father on the phone from one of the twin towers.

Mitt Romney’s supporters won’t voice themselves too loudly. After all Mr. Romney did what was necessary—he didn't have a major gaffe, he played it safe, did no harm, and had a productive discussion with the President about foreign policy. However, President Obama, although he sometimes came across as snarky, drove the narrative and was in control of the issues. He clearly won the debate on both style and substance by touting his administrations accomplishments on withdrawing from Iraq, the Bin Laden raid, plans for Afghanistan and U.N. sanctions on Iran and by slamming Mitt Romney as a “wrong and reckless” candidate who’s been all over the map on definitive issues of the world stage.  He also managed to do something that up until now had been a weakness for him. Even though Mr. Romney went last, President Obama’s closing statement was strong and well versed—and directed right at the voter who might have been swayed by his tone, temperament and presidential demeanor.

                        CNN Post-Debate Poll: Who Won The Debate?

Post-debate polls gave the edge to President Obama—although it’s still unclear whether the debate will have an impact on polls throughout the country. When asked who won the debate in a CBS post-debate poll, President Obama had a 30 point lead, 53% to 23%. In a CNN scientific poll, 48% of debate watchers thought President Obama won and 40% though the victory went to Mr. Romney. On leadership, Obama had a narrow victory of 51% to 46% for Mr. Romney. When debate watchers were asked on whether each candidate had what it takes to be commander-in-chief 63% reported positively for Obama and 60% for Mitt Romney; showing that the challenger did what was necessary to pass the commander-in-chief test. With 14 days to go until election day, and such a close race, it will be interesting what these numbers will mean to battleground states like Ohio, Virginia, Iowa  and Nevada. 

Where Do We Go From Here?

Both candidates want your vote. When you ask them what they would do as President, they pivot to each other. 

Left or Right?

In Foreign Policy Debate, Candidates Likely to Draw

One could argue that the last presidential debate on foreign policy is the last chance for President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to woo voters who might still be swayed.

There's no doubt that being the president gives you the upper hand in an argument on foreign policy—the president has been commander-in-chief for four years and he knows the ins and outs of the world stage. So you can be sure President Obama will carry his gravitas onto the debate stage tonight; His challenge, however, is to make sure he maintains it throughout the night by making sure that his opponent doesn't gain ground. So in a way, even though the commander-in-chief has an advantage he also has the most to lose.

If you look back at past foreign policy presidential debates the role of the challenger has been unchanged over the years: attack the incumbent on everything and anything, possible and imaginable. So you can expect Mitt Romney to come out and challenge the President on the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya; expect to hear red line talking points on Iran’s nuclear capability. And you certainly will hear criticism on the President’s plan to cut defense spending.

The stakes were much higher in the first and second debate. Typically, more people tune in to the first debate than all the others. An estimated 67.2 million watched the first debate in Denver. Sixty-five million watched the second exchange between the candidates in Long Island, New York. Usually, third debate ratings fall flat—and we’re certain they will this time around since foreign policy is not that important an issue for Americans in this election. Also major sports events will overlap with the debate which airs tonight at 9:00pm eastern.

It’s hard to see how this debate will substantially move the needle—and most likely the candidates will draw a tie. Given that the President has been a somewhat successful leader on foreign policy but there’s still opportunity for Mitt Romney to attack him on some specifics, both candidates have a window to sufficiently perform tonight. As we see it, only a major blunder on behalf of either candidate could substantially help their opponent; the likelihood of that happening is almost nonexistent. Both candidates know that this late in the game a blunder could easily cost them the election.  

Taking Out An Incumbent: Easier Said Than Done

If there’s anyone out there that thinks President Obama has a tremendous case for re-election they've got some soul searching to do. The question we ought to be asking—the question that has Republicans scratching their heads—is whether Mitt Romney is making an effective case against what the President has done and what he has to offer in another term. And if that message is in fact sufficient, did they choose the right vessel to carry that message home?

I’m not going to deliver talking points for either campaign, but I can say this:

Three things are needed in order to remove an incumbent. First, the challenger needs a strong message for the American people. Second, the challenger needs a strong message against the incumbent; and third, and the most important one, the challenger has to be a strong vessel to carry both messages. Take Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. They delivered on all three of these points and they were extremely successful.

When it comes to Mitt Romney’s plan going forward we can say that it is not as effective as Republicans would like it to be. Let’s face it; Avoiding details on a tax plan, healthcare, and job creation does not quite work in his favor. Promising twelve million jobs in four years without a clear plan to deliver on it, committing to repeal the Affordable Care Act without telling the public what to replace it with, or claiming to cut taxes and reduce the deficit in spite of evidence of its improbability does not allow for that message to be delivered effectively—so it does not resonate with voters.

Mr. Romney has also been unable to reach voters by delivering a pessimistic message about the President’s performance. By now we've already heard the twenty-three million unemployed, or the forty-seven million on food stamps talking points—and these numbers sort of worked in the beginning. But just throwing these numbers out there and hoping they stick doesn't do much. Unless Mr. Romney makes it personal—by referring to the coal miner, who lost his job because of this administration’s policies, or the mother who now has to work two part-time jobs and who barely has time for her kids, or the college kid who had to move back into his parent’s house because he can’t find a job—the message won’t hold.

And regardless of how the pundits will try to spin this, Mr. Romney is not, in any way, a strong enough candidate to deliver the kind of messages that will remove Barack Obama from the White House. Unlike Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton, he has no personal warmth whatsoever.

In order for Mitt Romney to be successful in spite of all of this would be for President Barack Obama to have a terrible campaign and a horrendous presidency. Unfortunately for Mitt, Obama’s presidency wasn't horrendous, and his campaign is far from terrible.

Unless this country goes into a double-dip recession or some kind national security tragedy takes place, Mitt Romney doesn't have a strong enough argument or solid chances of winning this election. 

Don't Seek Validation

                                                            

                                                                 

James Carville said it well; don’t try to get informed by watching platforms that validate your points of view. Yes, let’s admit it. If you’re a liberal, MSNBC is fun to watch. Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow really make you feel good about yourself. And if you’re a conservative, FOX and Friends will probably make your day. But, face it; you’re not looking for information. You’re looking for validation, which is quite different. Think of FOX News and MSNBC as cheesecake—you really want it. But if it’s part of your daily diet, you’ll probably end up gaining some pounds. And while these networks won’t make you fatter, they might just make you stupid, or straight out blind. If you’re looking for validation, you learn little, if anything at all. So where should we look for information that actually satiates that thirst?

The problem isn’t that there’s not enough information out there. I feel that if we went back to early twentieth century traditions of reading the newspaper every morning or listening to five o’clock radio broadcasts, people would be much better informed. So I’ve got bad news, and worse news.

The bad news is there’s too much to choose from. The worse news is you can’t trust anything out there—including what you’re reading right now. Now you ask, “Well, then how am I supposed to get informed?” I have the answer for that. Read as much as possible, and only then should you choose what to believe in. 

Don’t fool yourself.