To Win the Televised Debates, It Was Enough for Barack Obama to Get Angry

They came together in battle for a second time, and this time Barack Obama prevailed over Mitt Romney. Yes, in the second presidential debate in Hampstead, New York, observers credited the incumbent president with victory, albeit not an overwhelming one. Judging by the public's reaction, it was not about what was said, or how. Obama became angry — and that changed everything.

One Form, No Content

What did they speak about? One got the feeling that the first round in Denver was simply being repeated, where the candidates spoke mostly about the economy and domestic policy. Of course, they touched upon the murder of the American ambassador in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11 of this year.

Barack Obama claimed that Romney's views were far from reality and “extremist” in relation to the middle and working classes. And regarding economics, it was said that Romney was a bigger extremist than George W. Bush.

Mitt Romney stated that the White House had not told the truth about the murder of the ambassador in Benghazi.

Obama noted that Romney managed to pay his income tax at a lower rate [than most], while those on a lower income are not able to.

The Republican candidate informed us that Obama has investments in Chinese companies (a terrible accusation).

At last, Obama did what was expected of him: He reminded Romney of his words about the “47 percent” — the part of the electorate who parasitically do not pay income tax and so on — in other words, bad Americans.

And, at last, came the moment that felt the most striking: when Obama said that his pension was not as large as Romney's, and so the corresponding papers could not be compared.

The text itself is a little boring. The general impression was that they had nothing to say that had not already been said to the American public 100 times.

But the form of the debate was “fiery.” The two candidates pointed the finger at each other, exchanged nasty remarks and jumped out of their seats. And Obama won this battle of wills, albeit with only a slight advantage. The polls put him as a little ahead.

Who Is Candy Crowley?

What took place in Hempstead had the special form of an American televised debate. The first round was “one-on-one,” with a third participant to act as moderator. In this round, the general public was also present in the hall to pose their own questions.

What took place was not even reminiscent of a press conference. After all, even the most vicious journalists have some kind of professional reflexes — that is, stereotyped behavior. And then 82 people were taken from the street and allowed to ask whatever they pleased to their presidential candidates.

It is interesting that both campaigns were represented. What would have happened if it were to turn out that the whole hall was in favor of Romney? Or Obama? Who puts the filters in place? (Usually, the public are gathered by Gallup’s sociological service. But why is this one service amongst many used?) Who takes care of the balance? Where is the guarantee that these really are “undecided” voters?

So we aren't even speaking of campaign headquarters harvesting questions (and answers to them) from the hall in advance, but of the complete unpredictability of the entire duel. Anyone could inflict anything or try to interfere.

So at last, who is Candy Crowley, the presenter (who works for CNN)? Who will she play along with? Why on earth would she suddenly inform us that the candidates were going to be asked specific questions “directly,” if this elegant maneuver would deviate from direct answers being given to the audience? This is not what we agreed upon!

I have already written about how it is interesting to watch the development of the institution of televised debates itself in this campaign. It is clear that someone had not approved of the previous debate, as it was too rehearsed with not enough direct questions and answers. As we can see, the situation has been fixed. And it will be interesting to see how the “conversation with the public” will be organized in forthcoming elections.

So Who Will Win the Elections on Nov. 6?

This is not such a simple question. It would seem that the debates — any of them — first and foremost favor Romney, or more generally favor anyone who isn't currently sitting in the president's seat. This thought was expressed by New York Times correspondent and writer David Brooks, who writes books on the themes of sociology, the most recent of which being the behavior of man as a social animal.

Brooks noted that: “The campaign consciousness involves simplifying your own positions, exaggerating your opponent’s weaknesses and magnifying the differences between your relative positions. In governing mode, you have to do the reverse of all these things.” That is to say that in debates, Obama needs to split his thoughts in two, which Romney does not.

In the given situation, there is also a difference in characters, which also most likely favors Romney. “Quality” American media — which becomes more clearly in favor of Obama every day — yesterday gave advice to the president: Don't look at the podium, don't glance down and demonstrate to Americans that a brighter future awaits them. In general, I would add that he should not be the epitome of the classic Russian intellectual, which the president did on the previous occasion. Obama has followed this advice.

But there seems to be a clear division between two battles — the debates themselves and the election. The opinion exists — and it is backed up by statistics — that losing the first [debate] doesn't mean a sure loss in the second.

It would seem that Americans have already made their mind up, and no debate is going to change their mind. It's just like in the stadium: If the defender of your team scores a goal against his or her team, you do not stop supporting him. The opposite is more likely.

These are the statistics: In spite of the president's clear defeat in the first debate and the draw in the battle of vice presidents, one poll (amongst others) by Washington Post-ABC News on the eve of today's debate shows that all the same, 49 percent of people intended to vote for Obama and 46 percent for Romney. It is true that Romney strengthened his position amongst Republican voters after winning the last round; before this, they had treated their candidate with suspicion and sadness, since there was no one better. But hey, look! This guy is good for something after all!

So we are already continuing into the second decade in which the U.S. has been frozen into two relatively equal groups of people stuck in their opposing convictions; these beliefs are almost impossible to shake — with or without debates.

Whether or not the third debate, which will discuss foreign policy — such a minor issue for voters — will change anything is a difficult question.