Romney Takes a Step

Published in El Pais
(Spain) on October 5, 2012
by EDITORIAL (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by cami stewart. Edited by .

Edited by Kathleen Weinberger

He didn't have a home court advantage, but the opinion is practically unanimous: the Republican Mitt Romney clearly defeated the current president, the Democrat Barack Obama, in the first of the three televised debates. This was a stretch in the race to the White House that will be decided Nov. 6. Romney, on the offensive after his recent errors, was the less favored of the two rivals, but he came out of Denver with a much more conducive image.

We should establish what it means to win a debate in North American elections: Is it necessary to speak better and present clear and convincing government proposals, or is it enough to redeem yourself with good body language and project a dynamic image? Remember that according to many, John F. Kennedy won the first televised debate in American history against Richard Nixon because the Republican appeared with a bad shave and a sweaty forehead.

In any case, Romney undoubtedly prepared better for the encounter than his rival: He managed to dominate the playing field, appearing moderate and attractive while the president seemed tired, confused and sometimes even absent. The numbers and plans for economic growth and the creation of employment made up the basis for which Romney has some possibility of victory.

If we examined the debate as far as content is concerned, neither contender completely disarmed the other. Romney correctly emphasized the difficulties with which the economy struggles. Obama simply defended himself, but without passion or really reaching the voters like he did four years ago with his chant: Yes, we can. In any case, there are two other debates, in which Obama´s headquarters can count on the fact that when his rival speaks about the role of the U.S. in the world, he will appear as a child before the professor. From this, the president will recover from this beating and mobilize his voters.

Normally, the debates change the direction of the vote very little in the North American elections. The positive aspect of such a civilized quadrennial ceremony is that it has been undertaken, a great number of spectators watched and those who did feel that they know the candidates better. In Romney’s case, his secret weapon is that it opened the possibility that the voters see him differently than they have these last months.


Romney da un paso
En el primero de los tres debates televisados el líder republicano gana por puntos a Obama.
Jugaba supuestamente fuera de casa, pero la opinión es prácticamente unánime: el republicano Mitt Romney derrotó con claridad al presidente en ejercicio, el demócrata Barack Obama, en el primero de los tres debates televisados de la carrera a la Casa Blanca, que se decidirá el próximo 6 de noviembre. Romney, a la ofensiva después de sus recientes errores, partía como el menos favorito de los dos rivales, pero salió de Denver con una imagen mucho más propicia.

Habría que establecer qué significa ganar un debate en unas elecciones norteamericanas: ¿hay que hablar mejor?, ¿presentar propuestas de gobierno claras y convincentes?, ¿o basta con desempeñarse bien en el lenguaje corporal y proyectar una imagen dinámica? Baste recordar que John F. Kennedy, al decir de muchos, ganó el primer debate televisado de la historia en EE UU a Richard Nixon porque el republicano mostraba un rostro mal afeitado y una frente sudorosa.

Cabe poca duda, en todo caso, de que Romney preparó mejor el encuentro que su rival; que logró dominar el centro del campo; que se mostró moderado y atractivo allí donde el presidente pareció fatigado y confuso, en ocasiones incluso ausente. Las cifras y los planes de crecimiento económico y de creación de empleo conforman el terreno en el que Romney tiene alguna posibilidad de victoria.

Si examinamos el debate en cuanto a contenidos, ninguno de los contendientes desarmó por completo al otro. Romney subrayó acertadamente las dificultades en que se debatía la economía. Y Obama simplemente se defendió, pero sin pasión, sin llegar de verdad al electorado como cuando hace cuatro años entonaba el sí, podemos. Quedan, en todo caso, otros dos debates, en los que el cuartel de Obama puede contar con que cuando se hable del papel de EE UU en el mundo su rival haga la figura de párvulo ante el profesor y que el presidente recupere la pegada y movilice a su electorado.

Habitualmente, los debates cambian poco el sentido del voto en las elecciones norteamericanas. Lo más positivo de tan civilizada liturgia cuatrienal es que se haya celebrado, que lo haya seguido un volumen apreciable de espectadores y que estos crean que conocen algo mejor a los candidatos. En el caso de Romney, su baza es que abrió la posibilidad de que los votantes le miren con ojos distintos a los de los últimos meses.

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Australia: Australia Is Far from Its Own Zohran Mamdani Moment. Here’s Why

Ukraine: Why Washington Failed To End the Russian Ukrainian War

Topics

Australia: Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

Canada: Canada’s Retaliatory Tariffs Hurt Canadians

Spain: A NATO Tailor-Made for Trump

OPD 26th June 2025, edited by Michelle Bisson Proofer: See...

Germany: Trump’s Words and Putin’s Calculus

Palestine: Ceasefire Not Peace: How Netanyahu and AIPAC Outsourced Israel’s War To Trump

Mauritius: The US-Israel-Iran Triangle: from Obliteration to Mediation

Related Articles

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Spain: Shooting Yourself in the Foot

Spain: King Trump: ‘America Is Back’

Spain: Trump Changes Sides

Spain: Narcissists Trump and Musk: 2 Sides of the Same Coin?