The debate over the debate debated

I didn’t watch. For one thing: baseball. For another: boring. But mainly: I knew Mitt was going to “win”.  The Media was never going to let him “lose.” The only way he could have lost is if he finished up crumpled on the floor behind the podium, whimpering “Make it stop! Please, God, make it stop!”  Which wasn’t going to happen.  Even if it did, the press corps still might have declared him the “winner” because they needed him to be in order for them to go back to their “It’s a toss up” narrative.  If last night couldn’t have been described in any way favorable to Mitt as a “game-changer”, the press would have nothing to do for the next month but duck calls from their Republican sources demanding to know why they weren’t reporting on how the game had changed in Mitt’s favor.

That said, though.  Mitt won.

Handily, apparently.

Worse.  The President lost.

But from all I’ve read online it looks to me like this:

1) Mitt won the debate but nobody much likes him for it.

2) The President lost the debate and Democrats are really pissed at him.

3) Nobody's vote was changed.

4) Mitt won by being the kind of jerk most people already think he is. My bet is that women were especially put off.

5) The President lost by being a stiff and by looking and acting bored stiff. Like I said, this pissed off Democrats, didn't change their votes.

6) The worst part for Democrats and the best for GOP is that the Media will spend the next week asking each other if the debate was a game changer.

Is that about right?

All right, so…bad news.  But we live to fight another day.

What I’d like to see, though, is liberal women taking control of that fight.  We men are too well-trained by sports coverage.  For us it’s always about power and dominance.  This is why every single loss by the hometown team sends us into panic, depression, or a rage.  But women know this guy.

Mitt did to the President and Jim Lehrer what types like him do to the women they work with every day. Interrupted, condescended, bullied.  These guys pretend not to hear you, then they repeat what you said as if they just thought of it themselves.

Mitt broke the rules last night.  From the start he played it like he owned it.  And he lied non-stop.  And the President just stood there and let him get away with it, possibly because, like so many women who find themselves dealing with a Mitt in their midst, he was reluctant to speak up because it would have seemed impolite or…uppity.

In the President’s case it might have been that he’s trained himself too well not to give anyone an excuse to dismiss him as an angry black man.

For a lot of women, it’s the case that they know if they try to assert themselves they will be told they’re being…bitches.

And the trouble is that the men around them who know the Mitts in their midst are being jerks don’t speak up because they’ve been cowed into thinking this is how the game is played.

But who says the rules can’t be changed?

Mitt won last night by being a liar, a bully, and an all-around jerk.  That should be the story.

That, and he wants to fire Big Bird.

At Think Progress: Mitt’s 27 lies in 38 minutes.

Updated cuz I just thought of it: To reiterate, we men know what Mitt did was despicable but we’re of no help because we think that’s how the game is played.  But this too: we want to show off how well we understand that’s how the game is played.  So all we’re going to do is going explain over and over again how Mitt won and the President lost.  Shows we’re savvy and tough-minded, see?  Make us stop!

Comments

[Samuel]

I skipped the debate and only saw the end of the replay because a friend's TV had it on. I thought if I was the only thinking Mitt reminded me of smug bullies. Turns out not, I hope more people came out thinking this way.

[Mark]

I watched about three minutes. I can't stand to watch Romney, any more than I could stand to watch Ronald Reagan. I guess it's simply not feasible for Obama to point out that Romney is a lying liar. Apparently no one can say "liar" now. Maybe Obama should have a copy of Al Franken's book on the podium next time.

[Kevin Wolf]

I watched about 40 minutes of it until Obama's lack of potent responses drove me round the bend. I agree with your take, though, and hope the story, the narrative, for at least the next week is what an arrogant shit Romney is.

[Sherri]

You're so right. As a woman, I've seen that guy before. I used to try to fight him, go toe-to-toe on his terms, but that doesn't work. Now I just walk away from him. There's no point even engaging with him, because he's never going to respect me.

Mitt Romney doesn't respect me, and he never will. He doesn't respect you, either.

[Kathleen Maher]

I didn't watch the debates last night the same as always. My mind's made up.
Since Obama's been president, who's obviously so much smarter than I am, I haven't pronounced my laughable but (to me) obvious fixes, such as: a living wage for honest people, including a modicum of decency if that's a priority; no death penalty; no jails except for the criminally insane; food, shelter, and hope for that 47%; no guns; no war; zip cars, trains, and bicycles only (including billionaires); a ceiling of $10K for presidential campaign spending.
If that leaves a surplus, email me. I know of many worthy, honest, efficiently managed charities to which I'd donate if I felt assured of food, shelter, and emergency health care--come what may. If that sounds like yet more hyperbole, you should watch the (untelevised) stream of suit-wearing people being escorted from companies for which they've worked most of their lives.
Ideally, we would depend on sports for team thrills, not politics. It feels great when your team wins a basketball championship after being down 12 with 30 seconds to go. But what if we separated politics from sports and approached it as sane, sober, and unfortunately necessary?
My cousin Alex Medler, who very knowledgeable about the inner-workings of government (although I think he's a professor, not a politician) once explained to me that politicians looking for a progressive change will often break ranks to appease someone or throw others off balance.
I've read that Obama seemed bored last night. What is that? Honesty? Now that's breaking ranks.

[Chris the cop]

"Mitt won last night by being a liar, a bully, and an all-around jerk. That should be the story."

That should be the story but you didn't watch it to see if your narrative was remotely accurate? And you fault the MSM because they don't want to change their 'it's a toss up' narrative?

[Lance Mannion]

Chris, like I said, what I wrote was based on what I'd read before I posted. Which was a lot. I've read a bunch more since, most of it by disappointed and discouraged liberals who were impressed by Mitt's performance. And apparently he played the part of supercilious jerk very well. He was smooth, quick, and energetic. "Spirited" even. My father and others say manic. My mother says boring. Women more than men do seem to have seen him as acting like a jerk. And he lied his ass off. But that's not what you saw, I take it? What did I get wrong? Was the President not stiff and bored?

[nancy]

Lance, this was perfect. You got it all right as far as I'm concerned. I'd forgotten how long it has been since I've had to put up with someone like Mitt in my life, and there he was on screen last night bringing it all back viscerally. I'd guess the general women's response is "Oh yeah, I remember that guy. And no thanks". Without the "thanks but..." preamble.

[Katherine]

i watched the debate on C-span / camera work was headshots of the two debaters / the first thing i noticed was how good looking President Obama is / i cried when i voted for him / i have had black friends, neighbors, lovers, theatre directors, and so on / naively i thought we had reached a post racial phase of our history / on the other hand Mr Romney was unappealing and his behavior was rather manic / there was excessive smirking and head shaking and impatient vibes to get in his next batch of memorized talking points / he just cdnt wait to talk, run over and interrupt the President and the moderator / i got up at 4 a.m this morning to see the gang on MOrning Joe / i saw them yesterday moaning and groaning over Romney' s polling numbers / the morning after the debate when they though Romney had "won" they were all over themselves with gloating and congratulating Chris Christie for predicting the Game Changer / what a bunch of jerks / pack journalism is the ruination of the media / President Obama was smart to just let Romney run on with his verbal diarrhea / that's my 2 cents

Katherine

[Jaquandor]

From what I'm reading, I wonder if Obama didn't just say to himself, "As long as I don't shit my pants on live teevee, this thing's not really gonna matter much." Especially since the media seemed to really be pushing itself into declaring Romney the 'winner' before the damned thing even took place. (And what the f*** is 'winning a debate', anyway? And how have we become a country where you can 'win' a debate whilst being factually incorrect all over the place, whether intentionally or not? If Romney had been arguing charmingly that the Earth is flat, and Obama had been sleepily intoning that it's actually a sphere, how can the 'style points' add up to the dumb-ass 'winning'? I'm really coming to HATE HATE HATE our narrative-driven media landscape.)

[minstrel hussain boy]

if there was a clear, undisputable winner from citizens united it was the folks who sell TV and radio ad time. i agree that media has a dog in the fight regarding a perception of a close race, but it's not because they have a narrative they want to push, it's all incidental to the ads they sell. along with the political ads there are lots of ads for other stuff. it all piles up in huge mounds of cash.

when i was in the jingle game we knew we were the real darlings of the industry. the best show on TV was nothing but a stage built for us to perform our little 30 second money making dance upon.

like "deep throat" said: follow the money, it will lead you to the truth.

[Rana]

Having paid attention to three of these things now, I think I can say that the reason the two female moderators were effective where Lehrer was not, is that, to get to where they are in their careers, they must have had to deal with many men not unlike Romney and Ryan: pushy, entitled, not interested in what women have to say or think, and aggressive in their defense of their turf. So they have the confidence to push back against their encroachments, and the strength to make it stick. Meanwhile these men - Romney especially - are clearly not used to push-back from people they consider their inferiors; they are prickly, defensive, and have little practice standing up to pressure graciously.

One of these days we will finally have a female president, and boy that will be interesting to watch.

[El Jefe]

What Rana said, times my four daughters. Without being too chivalrous (nine-tenths of which, as Dorothy L. Sayers pointed out in the 1920s, is a desire to have all the fun), when that day comes I will gladly buy the popcorn.

[El Jefe]

Also, although this segues too towards "Big Bird and the Women": binders. Binders, binders, binders. Also lying about binders. And binders.