On the Second Presidential Debate
|October 18, 2012|
by Elvin Lim
The second presidential debate tells us about the candidates’ readings of their own campaigns. Both Romney and Obama were fighting for air time, trying to break out of the impasse of “he-said-she-said.”
Women were mentioned about 30 times in the debate, because Romney knew that he had to close the gender hap. Obama joined in on the China bashing, because Romney has started to gain traction with workers in Ohio with his attacks on China’s trade violations.
Obama knew that he had to deflate the Libya story, so he took full responsibility for what happened in Benghazi, even though Secretary Clinton had given him an out. Obama’s taking offense at Romney’s charges would not have gained him any Republican converts, but they are likely to have a net positive impact on undecided voters, who are usually willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Commander-in-Chief, because nobody has access to intelligence information the way the president does. The good news for Obama is that the next debate, on foreign policy, will shield him from his weakest link, the economy.
Where Romney will continue to have the benefit of the doubt is his proposed handling of the economy. His strongest moment in the second debate was when he pulled up statistics on the number of people unemployed, on food stamps, the size of the national debt, etc. This was Republican version of Bill Clinton’s “arithmetic” speech. Obama tried to characterize Romney’s economic plan as a “sketchy deal.” The problem is that he doesn’t exactly start off with a whole lot of credibility.
Emboldened by his last debate performance, Romney might have been too enthusiastic in the second debate. At times, he may have been snarkier than he should have been. Undecided voters, who already don’t like negativity, would not have liked Romney’s smack-down of Obama. (“That wasn’t a question; that was a statement.”)
Overall, Obama did much better in this debate than in the last, but he did not do enough to make up the ground he lost, in part because of the town hall format. A victory when a candidate is standing beside his opponent and sparring with him directly is more compelling than a (possible) victory when both are directing their comments to a small group of voters. The town hall format is just less interesting to watch, and I won’t be surprised that audiences were bored and were channel surfing during the second debate.
As far as the horse race goes, Obama still has more paths to 270. Romney is looking good in Florida, but Obama leads in Virginia and Ohio. The Romney team knows that their campaign needs to put Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin in play in case they lose Ohio. Watch for a re-nationalized campaign strategy from Team Romney if they see movement in these previously leaning-Democrat states.
Piece crossposted with Out On A Lim
Inherent Vice’s Two Directions
The jokes certainly strike one as sophomoric and the latter one as clichéd, further below Pynchon’s intelligence than one would like to think he would stoop, at least in print. Discounting them and moving on, or throwing the book across the room as Parker half implies we should do, however, would be to lose sight of “that high magic to low puns”.
Auden, Larkin and Love
I was prompted to revisit these ancient questions anew by a long footnote about a single line in the new Complete Poems edition of Philip Larkin’s poetry. The footnote refers to “An Arundel Tomb” contains a provocative remark about that the poem’s celebrated, controversial, closing line, the one about the true nature of immortality: “What will survive of us is love.”
Plato, Our Comrade?
Not surprisingly, there have already been critics of Badiou’s translation. The first is that his translation breaks the formal rules of translation to such a degree that the original meaning of the text has lost its significance. But this critique is inadequate at face value because Badiou’s hyper-translation is forthright in its intention of taking Plato’s concepts and modifying them into his own lexicon.
You may also like :
“Don’t they get it? Don’t they understand that Facebook and Twitter are part of the government surveillance machine?” Comments like this are a vignette of the evolution within online activism in recent years. They are often heard from the mouths of veterans of the anti-globalisation movement in reference to the deeds of younger activists who have been at the forefront of the occupation movements of 2011-13.
In a letter dated Jan 6, 2014, London Mayor Boris Johnson declared that he would support—both politically and financially—the Metropolitan Police’s request for water cannons. The 2011 summer riots in England prompted the Home Office to look into the possibility of equipping police forces with water cannons, already actively deployed in Northern Ireland and used in countries across the world to disperse and demoralise crowds.
Stuart Hall has died. The enormity of the loss cannot be exaggerated. There is little point trying to measure Hall’s importance against other significant figures: he himself would have abhorred the macho individualism of such a gesture. But it has been a long time since the intellectual Left in the UK has experienced such a loss, or one more keenly feared by those who may have anticipated it.