Debate Review: Obama Wins Foreign Policy Debate As Romney Plays It Too Safe

By Ashish Pabari On October 22, 2012 · 21 Comments

Post-debate instant polls declared Obama the clear winner: CBS’s poll of undecided voters – Obama 53%, Romney 23%; CNN’s poll of debate watchers – Obama 48%, Romney 40%; Public Policy’s poll of swing state voters – Obama 53%, Romney 42%; Reuters poll – Obama 63%, Romney 33%.

The Mitt Romney that dominated the first debate with aggression and fire seemed to morph into the passive Obama of the first debate tonight, helping to make Obama the obvious winner (the instant polls, listed above, agreed). Not surprising, as incumbents usually are much more comfortable and authoritative in foreign policy debates than challengers, particularly challengers who are former Governors (as they have no previous real-life foreign policy experience). But outside of the few times he was able to pivot back to the economy, Romney seemed surprisingly passive tonight, given how contentious the last debate was. He often simply conceded points and agreed with Obama more than I can ever remember a challenger agreeing with an incumbent in a Presidential debate. This debate, at times, seemed like the President talking about foreign policy and some guy sitting on stage next to him agreeing with everything he said.

Romney clearly had a strategy to play it safe and to not get himself into a back-and-forth where he might make a mistake like he did last week over Libya. His campaign seemed to make the calculated decision tonight to just take his blows, avoid any major mistakes, and move on with whatever minor wounds he gets. From that standpoint, Romney did avoid major gaffes and didn’t make any major mistakes. He also managed to get across that he is not a George W. Bush/Dick Cheney-type Republican neocon and his aim at agreeing with Obama so much was probably to assure voters that he won’t change foreign policy much and to vote with their economic interests, not their foreign policy ones.

But in doing the “play it safe” strategy, he often suffered from the exact same thing Obama suffered from when he tried to “play it safe” in the first debate — aloofness, passiveness, lack of confidence, not seeming like the alpha-male, not seeming like he was a fighter, etc. Romney seemed weak at times, not the commanding, aggressive figure in the first debate that won people over. That guy was entirely gone. He wasn’t passionate, wasn’t controlling the debate, and seemed disinterested in even engaging with Obama over certain issues. He looked more like first debate Obama did than first debate Romney. I’m not sure any of this helped Romney look like a Commander in Chief.

Romney agreeing with Obama as much as he did had an effect at times of making him seem smaller than Obama in stature and reinforced Obama’s points several times. That probably wasn’t the effect they came in wanting. Obama also got the two zinger moments of the debate that will dominate the highlights — the 1980s called line and the bayonets line. He also managed to tie Romney’s position changes into the debate several times which I thought was effective. Both candidates often tried to link foreign policy back to the economy, but the only exchange that stood out from the usual talking points was the one over the auto-bailout. Romney took the bait there and ended up getting into a bad back-and-forth over an issue that isn’t favorable to him and isn’t one he should be discussing.

I’m not sure how much of an impact this debate will have on the polls, mostly because the last one didn’t have an impact. Obama won all the post-debate instant polls (again, they’re listed at the top of this article), some by large margins. But so much of the electorate is decided now, I’m not sure if anything happened tonight that will sway many people to switch from one side to another. That being said, Romney took a big risk tonight by essentially conceding point after point to Obama, not learning the mistake of what happened to Obama after he did that in the first debate. Time will tell if he will pay a similar price to what Obama has paid since that first debate. But it’s always better to win the debate than lose it, and Obama won it tonight, and now carries the momentum and the more favorable media narrative going into the final two weeks. Every little bit matters in an election this close.

21 Responses to Debate Review: Obama Wins Foreign Policy Debate As Romney Plays It Too Safe

Steve says:

October 23, 2012 at 12:02 AM

That horses and bayonets line was hilarious. I’m flabbergasted that a presidential candidate would actually say that we are weaker because we don’t have as many individual ships as we did in 19freakin17! Why does the average person know that the military is a hell of a lot more efficient now but the Republican presidential candidate doesn’t. Just stupid. No other word for it.

Reply
Nods says:

October 23, 2012 at 12:08 AM

This was as lopsided a debate as the first one, only this time to Obama’s favor. Romney was sweating, horrible body language, seemed afraid to counter Obama, seemed like a guy who didn’t want to be there.

Reply
Paul says:

October 23, 2012 at 12:09 AM

I guess Romney decided to be the one to take a nap tonight. What a difference from debate one to debate three. Guess he didn’t take a 5 Hour Energy tonight. Looked completely weak.

And BTW, why is the right now OK with Romney moving to the left on EVERY ISSUE?! He basically went on stage tonight and endorsed the entire Obama foreign policy!

Reply
Anonymous says:

October 23, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Obama walked all over Romney in debate number 3. I’ve never seen a guy sweat and stammer like Romney did tonight.

Reply
Grant says:

October 23, 2012 at 1:01 AM

While I agree that Obama clearly won the debate tonight, I think Romney did gain something in not letting himself be tied to far-right Bush foreign policy. Nobody is gonna think now that Romney wants to start a war or change the foreign policy in any major way, and that by itself is a victory for him.

Reply
- Sean says:
  
  October 23, 2012 at 1:26 AM
  
  Doubtful Grant. His inconsistency on every issue over the last year questions the truth of what he said tonight. Does anyone believe him when he makes these statements after contradictory statements just weeks earlier? His advisors are former Bush aides and Rice stumpped for him last week. Just because he says he won’t continue bush failed policies doesn’t mean he is genuine about it.
  
  Reply
  - Ray says:
    
    October 23, 2012 at 3:40 AM
    
    Not to mention the fundraiser with Dick Cheney. There seems to be this idea that if we don’t mention George Bush, Romney’s advisory team is everybody but Bush from the administration.
    
    Reply
Chester says:

October 23, 2012 at 3:59 AM

I am truly baffled at the GOP spin. Give these guys at least this much credit… They will say or do anything no matter how absurd it is.

First debate: “Romney attacked the president and the president didn’t have an answer.”

Every other debate including VP: “I can’t believe they went on the attack, that’s unpresidential.”

Apparently the “Commander in Chief” test was just sitting down and being calm for 90 minutes. No gaffes tonight, so he must be ready to lead!

They had three themes tonight.

1. Romney is ready to be commander because this debate he didn’t get hot under the collar.
2. Bayonets are still a very important part of the Marines. (Seriously, this is one of there arguing points!)
3. The president said Pakistan wrong. (Actually he pronounced it correctly. It’s “Pa-Key-Staan” not Pack-a-stan)

It’s astoundingly ridiculous. Unfortunately, Republicans continue to control the narrative. I don’t know how you reverse that trend when they control the strongest arm of the media.

These people will say anything and the scary part if how much of the populace will believe it. Facts don’t matter. What people say doesn’t matter. Who won the debates doesn’t matter (but they’ll trumpet their guy winning every time even if the polls say otherwise) and also, polls don’t matter (unless they’re winning)…. It just makes my head hurt.

People really are this stupid.

Reply
- willia451 says:
  
  October 23, 2012 at 5:41 AM
  
  Yep. But consider. Part of what made the impact of debate #1 larger than it really should have been was the left-wing freak out (which was widely reported with glee from right-wing media outlets). The Left wanted President Obama to crush Romney with his own words and clearly expected that to happen.
  
  When it did not, they all jumped off the collective cliff. Turning a moderate loss into something far worse:
  
  1. Right: We crushed President Obama.
  2. Left: OMG we agree. He sucked.
  
  In other words, if you say you won huge and the other side agrees wholeheartedly rather than trying to spin it into something else………..well, it just makes it look much, much worse than it probably really was.
  
  Not sure what the Left was thinking when they did that after debate #1. If they were thinking at all.
  
  So yeah. GOP spin after a clear loss by Romney? To be expected. Its politics.
  
  Reply
willia451 says:

October 23, 2012 at 6:07 AM

Another nice win by President Obama. Even if it translates into a very small boost (1% or so) in the states that are “in play” (Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, etc), its very bad news for Romney. He desperately needs those numbers moving in his direction. Especially with only 2 weeks to go until election day.

Anyway…….we should have some idea by the weekend.

Reply
Joe says:

October 23, 2012 at 6:56 AM

I actually took something from this that seems to be getting missed in most network discussions. At the end, Romney made a remark to the effect of “we can’t fix the economy by hiring teachers” then immediately stumbled and backpedaled for the rest of his time as he tried to rewind his gaffe by professing nothing but love for our teaching community. My jaw hit the floor. This guy will say *anything* and I feel like that point couldn’t have been made more clear in this particular moment.

Reply
Alan says:

October 23, 2012 at 7:14 AM

Obama did great. It’a just too bad no one saw it because everyone was watching football or baseball last night.

Reply
Matt in Omaha says:

October 23, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Is it just me, or did Romney have a really creepy smile on his face the whole night as he listened to Obama? I couldn’t help think that he was trying to show a softer side to women voters, but he came across as vapid or he was staring longingly at the president.

Reply
xjuggernaughtx says:

October 23, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I’m very interested to see where the polling is after this.

I find it astounding that Romney had a great debate performance and moved the poll numbers (and continues to move them) in a strong positive direction.

Then Obama had a very strong debate performance and the numbers basically didn’t move at all back in his direction. If they still don’t move after last night’s performance, that will be a very interesting result to me.

I’m not sure how to take what has happened thus far. Are the polls jacked up? Are the majority undecided just really Republicans that found Romney so distasteful that they claimed to not know who they were going to vote for? I mean, what has either candidate said in any debate that was persuasive? I have a hard time envisioning any truly undecided voter watching any of that and finding something in there that would solidify the candidates in their minds. I guess these are the people that are voting solely off body language, maybe. I never did understand those people.

Anyway, If the poll numbers don’t swing back in favor of Obama after two successful debates, that indicates a bizarre situation to me. The most logical reason I can think of is that some Republicans couldn’t bear to say they were going to vote for Mitt when they thought that he was going to get his head handed to him in the first debate. When that didn’t happen, they jumped on with the rest of the party. Obama’s debate performance wasn’t THAT bad and he more than made up for it in the second and third debate.

Reply
- Ashish Pabari says:
  
  October 23, 2012 at 11:41 PM
  
  Sorry about your comment getting lost for a few hours, result of a glitch.
  
  Reply
  - xjuggernaughtx says:
    
    October 24, 2012 at 12:39 AM
    
    It’s fine. I just thought it was weird that it was there for a bit and then gone. I guess it still had the Waiting for Moderation message before. Thanks!
    
    Reply
Ken says:

October 24, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I am surprised by the number of comments on here, and other places, claiming that Romney will say anything to get elected. Obama is just as guilty of that, probably even more so. For example, in the debate trying to claim that Romney said something he didn’t say in regard to GM and the bailout. Now Obama is promising to eliminate the tax break for moving jobs overseas. No such tax break exists. What next? Maybe Obama will promise to end prohibition if reelected.

Reply
- Sean says:
  
  October 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM
  
  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1140134/-Fact-Check-Tax-Breaks-for-Shipping-Jobs-Overseas.
  
  Wrong Ken. Wake up. Mitt has no clue.
  
  Reply
  - Ken says:
    
    October 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM
    
    http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/04/why_hasnt_romney_heard_of_these_tax_breaks_for_shipping_jobs_overseas
    
    No specific tax break for moving jobs overseas. If we assume that Obama means that he wants to change the “ordinary and necessary” business expense deductions, why should we believe him now? He’s been talking about it at least since the 2008 campaign. He had a golden opportunity to make good on this and a lot of other promises when he had a Democratic congress at the start of his term. If he couldn’t do it then, he won’t do it in a second term either.
    
    Reply
    - Sean says:
      
      October 24, 2012 at 12:37 PM
      
      http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/
      
      Pretty simple math. And with 5 months of this Democratic Congress of which you speak, I’m fairly certain there were higher priorities than this AND even if he attempted to pass legislation regarding it, would Republicans allowed it to happen? No.
      
      Reply
    - willia451 says:
      
      October 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM
      
      I agree. Presidents promise lots of stuff trying to get elected. That’s why nobody cares about specifics anymore. Because they don’t really believe any of it will ever happen. So its all about tone, tenor, and perception…when I look in the mirror, which candidate do I see most. That kind of thing.
      
      And ALL Presidents do it. Then they can’t get Congress to go along later. Even if they try.
      
      President Bush trying to privatise parts of Social Security or get immigration reform done after the 2004 elections is a great example. After the 2004 elections, President Bush said “I earned political capital in this election. And I’m going to spend it……..”
      
      Wrong.
      
      What President Bush found in his second term, even with a Republican Congress for the first two years of it, was what everyone already knew. Congress sucks. Nobody will take a hard vote on anything. At anytime. And they don’t really even want to try. Because even in the act of trying, they wind up vulnerable to attack and ouster.
      
      But by all means. Go after those specifics. Its still a nice drill. Even if nobody gives a ****.
      
      Reply