The Debate that Revives Romney’s Candidacy

A great frost descended upon Denver, the place of a debate. Between the moment when Barack Obama and Mitt Romney arrived at the University of Denver and the closing of arguments, the outside temperature fell 10 degrees. At their podiums, the broadcasters slipped on down jackets and gloves.

A similar chill overcame the Democrats. Unanimously, the ex-governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, was declared the grand victor of the evening. By forfeit, one can say. Mr. Obama, in retreat, only barely attempted to destabilize his opponent. The president’s team itself recognized that the Republican had exhibited a better performance, at least stylistically. At five weeks from the November 6 ballot day, Mr. Romney’s candidacy is revived.

Had Barack Obama chosen to make the temperature fall? For weeks, the tension mounted and 4,000 authorized journalists awaited the brawl. The leaders’ fight did not take place. His team had warned that he would not have “zingers,” those little assassin phrases that sink into the anthologies of politics.

Instructions: Do Not Appear Aggressive

In a country annoyed by the polarization, the two candidates had the same instructions: do not appear aggressive. At the start, they exchanged courtesies. The president waved to his wife — it was their 20th wedding anniversary — with the promise that next year, they would not celebrate “in front of 40 million people.” Mr. Romney amicably contributed in recognition that an evening with him had nothing “romantic” about it.

Without losing a second — the question came to employment — Romney launched into a regaining of Ohio, that blue-collar land that Mr. Obama took away from Republicans, according to the polls. “I was in Dayton, Ohio, and a woman grabbed my arm and she said, ‘I’ve been out of work since May. Can you help me?’”

Mr. Obama was swept away by compassion. He appeared a bit of a technocrat, sometimes a bit hunched over, trying to borrow some of Bill Clinton’s formulas to explain that one can hardly propose $5 trillion (€3.86 trillion) in tax cuts without an increase in revenue, but without the same pedagogical genius. He is “rusty,” explained Democratic strategists. Presidents are no longer in the routine of debating, while Mitt Romney was toughened by the 20 or so arguments during the primaries.

Those who still have the memory of the campaign lost in 2004 incriminated John Kerry, the senator from Massachusetts, who served as partner to Barack Obama in practice debates.

Address Yourself Directly to the Millions of Television Viewers

The Democrats were surprised that their leader did not even use the video where Mr. Romney affirmed that 47 percent of Americans who were not paying taxes have a mentality of receiving benefits and do not risk voting for him. The name of Bain Capital was not uttered, and the tax forms of its ex-CEO ignored. Barack Obama had decided to address himself directly to the millions of television viewers.

Several times, he looked directly at the camera, explaining that the partial privatization of the health insurance system for the elderly places them “at the mercy of the private insurance system.” Or skeptical, while Mitt Romney declined to pinpoint exactly where he is going to reduce spending. “I think the American people have to ask themselves, is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they’re too good? Is it — is it because that somehow middle-class families are going to benefit too much from them?”

Mitt Romney had practiced a lot. Every one of his responses was crafted to include examples of ordinary Americans — preferably women — for whom he is accused of not caring. He attacked green jobs and the choice of the president to devote $90 billion on a plan for reliance on renewable energy. He cited Solyndra, the solar panel enterprise that benefited from the governmental guarantee before going bankrupt, but Mr. Obama, there again, preferred to shy away. The Republican returned there with a more successful idea: “That [money] would have hired 2 million teachers.”

Reassure the Pensioners

In the background, Mr. Romney surrendered to a spectacular realignment. “Regulation is essential,” he proclaimed, even though he intends to repeal Dodd-Frank. He affirmed that he had no plan to reduce taxes by $5 trillion. During several rounds, he declared himself in agreement with the president, notably to affirm that the federal state has a role to play in education, a sector in which he has no intention at all of reducing the budget — contrary to what he indicated in the spring. He worked to reassure the pensioners. “If you’re 60 or around 60 or older, you don’t need to listen any further,” he started. “If you’re 54 or 55, you might want to listen,” squeaked Mr. Obama.

Mitt Romney assured that with his health care plan, sick victims with pre-existing conditions would still be insured as in the “Obamacare” plan — which was declared false by the fact checkers. He also reassured that he liked teachers, renewable energy and even the public channel PBS, although he will deprive it immediately of public subsidies. He finally presented himself as the champion of right-left consensus, arguing that 87 percent of the electorate in his state of Massachusetts were Democrats. “We need to have … leadership in Washington that will actually bring people together,” he exclaimed.

This turnaround created some skeptics. “Since when have you heard a Republican plead for regulations?” said the conservative columnist David Brooks in surprise.*

Mitt Romney demonstrated his mastery of numbers and budget files. He showed that he is capable of bashing. But he suffers, according to the polls, from a lack of “trustworthiness.” It will likely take more than a debate to convince Americans of the sincerity of his refocusing. The next debate is scheduled for October 11.

*Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.