How Obama Could Lose This Debate, Too

On the eve of the second presidential debate of 2012, which will be held in a town hall type format, President Barack Obama’s campaign is telling reporters that their candidate is planning to “be more aggressive and show more passion this time around.” Mitt Romney’s advisers are saying he “intends to build on the progress he made in the first debate by conveying authenticity.”

Although it may be hard to imagine the president compounding the error of a debate performance that left Romney with a lead in many polls, the reports about the candidates’ debate preparation suggest Obama may have the wrong idea about what he faces on Tuesday. The town hall is technically a “debate,” but winning depends very little on actually debating one’s opponent. In the town hall format, victory often depends on looking like you’re relating to the audience. This is partly because of the media’s predilection for covering debates as if they’re stage plays. But it’s also built into the format itself.

Take, for example, this classic moment from 1992, in which then-President George H.W. Bush almost face-palms himself after challenger Bill Clinton takes a question about how the national debt personally affects the candidates and knocks it out of the park. Bush rambles about interest rates and gets defensive about being rich. Clinton starts off by asking the questioner how the debt has affected them, then starts talking about all the people he personally knows who’ve been laid off: 

Now, in fairness, Clinton does give a substantive answer about government being in the grip of a “failed economic theory,” which happens to be the same one Mitt Romney is pushing. He also turns around the question around and explains the debt is not the only cause of the recession. But for people who don’t write or think about politics every day, it’s the delivery that makes the difference here.

Meanwhile, the past offers us an example of what it looks like when a candidate trying to make up for lost ground mistakes a town hall debate for pistols at dawn. In 2000, Al Gore, frustrated by media coverage of the previous two debates that prized superficial behavior by the candidates over substantive policy differences, walked up to Bush in a confrontational manner at the third town hall style debate and allowed Bush to make a fool out of him:

In sum, town hall debates aren’t so much arguments as acting competitions. The nature of the town hall format carries substantial risk for a rusty incumbent president and a candidate with something to prove. Obama is both. Romney, by practicing his Clinton impression, may be better prepared this time around, too. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate