Full disclosure: I have not steered entirely clear from post-debate news coverage, and I was quite active on Twitter during the debate itself. That said, I’ve yet to absorb much post-debate spin at all, so here are my initial thoughts, pre-groupthink phase:
1) Everyone knew Joe Biden would be on the attack, and he was. However, I really think he overplayed it — especially with the laughing while Paul Ryan was speaking. (He also interrupted Ryan way too much.) There was far too much of that going on. It’s not a good — or a serious — image for Biden to be guffawing on the split-screen while Ryan discusses Iranian nuclear aspirations. Three or four times might have been alright, but Biden was laughing so much that it was quickly obvious that the laughter had been part of the debate prep. Biden’s good enough (and authentic enough) on his own without resorting to prepackaged and insincere facial expressions.
2) That said, when it was time for him to speak, Biden was on fire. He was lucid, specific, and even demonstrated the perfect level of righteous indignation at Ryan’s naïveté. It felt like the old master schooling the cocky young apprentice. Especially on the crucial issue of Medicare, Biden never allowed Ryan to get into the weeds with obscure statistics and numbers: he simply steamrolled over him and directly addressed seniors — his peers — while looking directly into the camera. Ryan didn’t have the facts on his side; Biden did. And he kept pressing Ryan for specifics, which Ryan was unable to provide.
3) At first, I liked the moderator. But when she started directing nearly all her follow-up questions to Paul Ryan and at one point even seemed to mock him (I can’t remember what exactly she said, but the tone of one of her questions to him was distinctly ironic), I was disappointed. Biden was taking care of business just fine; she should have at least pressed Biden on some of the things he was claiming, if for no other reason than the fact that Obama-Biden have an actual record they have to account for. Romney-Ryan may be promising the moon, and it’s absolutely appropriate to press for specifics (no matter how uncomfortable it makes them), but in my opinion she looked biased by consistently failing to follow up on Biden’s defenses of the Obama administration.
4) While I do believe Paul Ryan got schooled, I don’t think there was much he could have done differently. He maintained a calm, even keel throughout the debate, suffering through Biden’s mockery and near-constant interruptions. He spoke slowly and deliberately. Unlike the presidential debate, where it was more apparent that Obama had lost it than that Romney had won it, this time the tables were turned: Joe Biden clearly won the debate, but Ryan definitely did not do anything to embarrass himself or Mitt Romney. My one major beef with Ryan’s performance (other than the fact that he defends indefensible policies) was something he may or may not even be able to control: he just looks and feels insincere, even cheesy. His closing line elicited uproarious laughter among the group watching the debate with me: he looked straight into the camera and recited an obviously scripted stump speech with absolutely zero authenticity.
5) My takeaway? Biden’s performance will absolutely rile up the base. I also think it may make some inroads with seniors, especially those already wary of the sly-seeming Paul Ryan and his voucher plan. Biden is simply more credible to older people, especially as someone of retirement age and from a working-class background. As for the independents, I could easily imagine Biden’s performance working against him: he was perhaps overly combative with the constant interruptions and unconvincing laughter. When he spoke, he was spot-on; it’s what he was up to when he wasn’t supposed to be speaking that could be a big problem.
6) One thing I really didn’t like: Joe Biden bringing up his deceased wife to score a political point. Just…not classy.
This was definitely a high point for me of the election season so far, and I couldn’t have agreed more with the Twitter user who posted, “I wish I could watch this debate forever.” Amen, brother.
Post Revisions:
There are no revisions for this post.
Jay- I actually agree with you on the debate, simply as a critique of a debate. Take away the biased jabs at Ryan and I think you have written one of the best non-partisan articles in the blog world. Joe
Thanks, Joe. As for bias against Paul Ryan, I would definitely take a look at this report by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf. Its conclusion: “Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lowerincome taxpayers.”
But Romney has specifically said he would NOT decrease taxes on high-income households: http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/romney-gets-specific-on-tax-plan/. So then where is this $5 trillion coming from? The only remaining mathematical possibility is to raise taxes on the middle- and/or low-income households, which he has also said he would not do. (In fact, he said — in the link I just quoted — that he would DECREASE taxes on the middle class.) Biden repeatedly pressed Ryan on this mathematical impossibility, and Ryan couldn’t be specific because it is literally impossible.
I disagree wit you on the issue of follow-up questions posed by Martha Raddatz to Paul Ryan. I think it’s BECAUSE Obama and Biden have a reord for voters to look at that she felt Ryan should have to fill in a few more blanks. He and Romney have deflected an enormous amount of substantive discussion regarding their proposed policies, and there is an information deficit there between what people know about Obama from watching him over 4 years, and what people know about Romney from watching him over the course of this campaign. As a good reporter, Raddatz knew where the information void was and she sought to fill it. I give her credit for being one of the first media figures with enough journalistic savvy and enough tenacity to really push Ryan for some sort of specifics, because without them there is no real way for voters to compare and contrast the policies and poritions of the candidates.
Whoops… *positions* of the candidates, not *poritions*…having a bad keyboard day!
Chris, I see your point. And to be clear, I have absolutely no problem with her repeatedly pressing Ryan. In fact, as you said, this is something that’s been sorely missing from coverage of the Romney-Ryan ticket during their entire campaign. She was great on that. But I also felt she let Joe Biden off the hook with his statements. For example, even as someone who agrees with the administration’s approach to Iran, I would have liked to see her ask him, point-blank: “You sound like you’re ruling out war. Isn’t it possible this could encourage Iran to continue developing nuclear capabilities?” etc. Again, this is not because I thought he was wrong on this (he was great, in fact), but I think she could have pressed for more specificity from him just like she did for Ryan.
Fair enough, more questioning is always better than less. I think Raddatz was keeping a keen eye on her time, and she did pull it off well, so maybe that factored into her follow-ups as well. But I think Candy Crowley will have to step up her game if she’s going to do half as well on Tuesday’s debate as Martha Raddatz did last night.
Agreed. Hopefully Obama shows up fully awake this time.