Would it be smart for Obama to say that Romney won the debate?

[oberliner]

I think it might be a good political strategy.

Come out in the next day or so, say that he had a bad day, that Romney did a great job, congratulate him on the debate victory and be the bigger person.

This could help with those who do feel that Romney won the debate but are still potential Obama voters.

Then come out strong in the next debate, as the underdog this time.

[gollygee]

1. I think he should say the truth

That Romney contradicted things he's said in his campaign so far, so either he's lying or he has a brand new platform as of last night. That lying and interrupting appear to be good debate strategies.

[jpljr77]

2. Yes. Because it's the truth.

There was only one candidate debating last night, and it wasn't my guy. It was very...unfortunate.

But I also feel that this will be a wake up call for Obama and his team and I expect the next two to go much differently.

[FBaggins]

3. On style... Yes.

As long as he makes clear that the facts are clearly on his side.

[BeyondGeography]

4. No

It would be smart to compliment Romney on his ability to bullshit and then unpack his lies about his tax plan, outsourcing, Medicare, covering pre-existing conditions, etc. for all to see.

[oberliner]

10. How does that help him though?

I'm thinking more from a political standpoint - what would serve his campaign.

[BeyondGeography]

11. How does it not help him?

Anyway, this is what the campaign is already doing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021467229

[oberliner]

13. Could make him seem condescending

I don't know - hard to read how "undecideds" react to various things.

[begin_within]

5. He should say nothing and just continue being President.

[skeewee08]

6. "He should say nothing and just continue being President"

Agree

[Selatius]

7. Obama is already the underdog going into the next debate.

Given how Romney "outperformed" the pundits' expectations of him, the pundits' expectations for Romney are going to be relatively higher going into the second debate vs. the first debate. Romney might not meet expectations going into round 2.

Obama is in fine enough position, perhaps a little ragged around the edges, but the point here is that Obama didn't abandon the truth wholesale. He simply answered the questions given to him; he probably didn't expect Romney to lie as much as he did.

Also, one thing you never do is give up a negative. In a job interview, you always try to redirect away from that, or you could invent a scenario where a perceived weakness becomes a strength.

For example, Obama would sit and come up with a serious answer with his cabinet to solve a major problem and he may do it with a steady tempo and a clear voice. Romney would blurt out the answer rapidly and begin challenging his idiotic cabinet by talking over them when it came to discussing the merits of the idea.

[reformist2]

8. Talk about how boring it was... that's not just spin, it's also the truth!

If most of the public thinks it was boring and too wonkish, the undecideds will hold off on making a final decision and wait for the next two debates, which are bound to be more interesting.

[KurtNYC]

9. Oh HELL no!

Romney ran away from his own tax plan, wouldn't name his loopholes, flip flopped and bullied the moderator.

Excuses are for losers.

[treestar]

12. How did Rmoney "win" if he said inaccurate things?

What is our standard for "win" here?

The campaign is wisely pointing out Rmoney's lies, since the media does not do its job and won't. It would be very unwise to conceded defeat in something like these styles of debates. There is no measurement to use.

Rmoney interrupted people, so he should be declared a loser based on that, too. The standards for win should be following the rules and saying accurate things.

[oberliner]

14. Beats me - but that seems to be the consensus

Have you not be reading the MSM press coverage of the debates?

[WI_DEM]

15. Yes, he won the debate on performance but lost the war by lying and now we're going to expose him.

[Jennicut]

16. This is why Dems frustrate me.

Why, why would you do that to yourself as a candidate?

Why would anyone say the other person won? That is like suicide in politics. "Oh, sorry, my debate skills sucked but his are great. Will do better next time, see ya!." It sounds horribly defeatist, not confident and sad. You never do that in politics.

Obama is much better off using himself, surrogates and ads to point out Romney's lies and then move on to the next debates.

[oberliner]

17. I don't think it's defeatest

When you have articles like this from the NY Times:

Scoring Obama’s Debacle

The snap judgment I tweeted after last night’s debate was “On points (facts aside): Romney A-/B+ (shameless but masterful), Obama C+ (missed every opportunity), Lehrer D (road kill).”

http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/scoring-obamas-debacle/

Might be worth acknowledging this.

[Jennicut]

21. It would come off as weak

and pathetic.

[PA Democrat]

18. If it were a WWE wrestling match

then Romney gets the win for fake staged stunts. If you want to score it on a factual presentation of their plans, Romney lost.

[Blue Idaho]

19. Nope.

Rmoney lied repeatedly and scored very poorly with some key demographics he needs to get elected. Give this debate a few days to work its way through the American psyche. The first polling showing the impact of this debate will be in about 4 or 5 days. I am not at all convinced he did much more than provide a rich tapestry of lies that can exploited over the next month.

[oberliner]

20. Obama Supporters Concede Debate Defeat, Romney Heads to Virginia

President Obama will look to rebound from an uncomfortable showing in his first debate with Republican challenger Mitt Romney with a big rally today in Madison, Wis., a college town he's likely to find a lot friendlier than the debate hall at the University of Denver.

Virginia is the next stop for a revitalized Romney, who in 90 commanding minutes offered his campaign, and some discouraged partisan supporters, new hope that their man can carry the newfound momentum through to Election Day.

Often criticized for being vague with his own policy proposals, Romney in his first ever presidential one-on-one made a sustained effort to rattle off dollar figures, rates, and plan-points in a rhetorical blitz that the president seemed unable to meet.

The Republican National Committee seized on Obama's body language today, releasing a web video called, "Smirk," a compendium of the president's occasionally exasperated facial contortions during the debate.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-supporters-concede-debate-defeat-romney-heads-virginia/story?id=17395080#.UG2tyeYh6D1

[Blue Idaho]

23. ABC - Seriously?

Have you ever watched ABC?

[oberliner]

25. Seriously

We are talking about news that "undecideds" might be watching - not where DUers would turn for news.

[Blue Idaho]

28. How many undecideds are left?

Its under the margin of error for most polls.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

22. No! Only the broadcast is over. The debate is ongoing.

[Ganja Ninja]

24. No it would be silly.

That debate is in the past. Romney lied his way through. To admit/declare him the winner based on the pack of lies he told would be more damaging then the debate itself. Obama needs to use Romney's lies against him. If possible in the next debate get him to lie and then contradict the lie he just told. Romney's lying so much that he can't possibly keep it all straight. It should be possible to trip him up.

[oberliner]

26. Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because He Lied

Democratic surrogates in the cable TV spin rooms Wednesday night seemed to have trouble explaining President Barack Obama's weak debate performance. By Thursday morning, however, the Obama campaign had settled on a explanation for why their guy lost: Mitt Romney lied.

"On Wednesday night, some saw Mitt Romney sounding polished," a 4:15 AM press release conceded. "But when the dust settles, Romney's dozen flat-out falsehoods will be the only thing remaining from his debate performance -- because avoiding the truth has been the very definition of Romney's candidacy, and he can't escape that with a single smooth appearance."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/obama-romney-lied_n_1938926.html

Best of both worlds!

[fishwax]

27. might that alienate undecideds who thought Obama won the debate or who thought it was a tie?

After all, according to the CBS poll, there were more in those two categories than in the "Romney won" column. Personally, I don't see why he should address the issue of who "won" the debate at all. (I would say that if he clearly won the debate as well.)

Rather, to the extent that he discusses the debate at all, he should focus on exploiting things Romney said that can help Obama in the polls. (Despite the apparent consensus among talking heads that Romney won, I think the Obama campaign will get more mileage out of the debate content in the long run.)

That's mostly the campaign's job, though, not Obama's. The candidate has no needs to join the debate over who won the debate. He should, instead, focus his energies on the debates that remain.

[HuckleB]

29. No. We need to fight back against this notion that acting badly equates to winning.

A decade or so ago, even, and Romney would have been trashed for his poor behavior in this debate. Only in an era where the 24-hour news stations push temper-tantrum throwing as discussion does this behavior suddenly become something other than agitated and bizarre.

Let's get back to being human. Don't let bad behavior go unacknowledged, and don't pretend that it equates to "winning" anything.