Team Obama Loses the Expectations Game

[Politico]

Despite both candidates' efforts to downplay expectations, the majority of Americans say Barack Obama (57%) will do a better job than Mitt Romney (33%) in the upcoming presidential debates. Republicans are a little less positive that Romney will do a better job than Democrats are about Obama, while independents -- a crucial group at this stage of the campaign -- tilt strongly toward the view that Obama will do better.

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157835/americans-predict-obama-better-job-debates.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

[opebo]

This is inevitable, Politico, as Obama has shown tremendous competence and intelligence throughout his career, while Romney is perceived as a boob based on his record.

[Simfan34]

This is spin on an entirely new level. Props to you, Politico.

[Politico]

The relentless attacks on Mitt worked well before the debates, but now it is going to nip them in the behind. Just by showing up and appearing to be a viable alternative to Obama, Romney should emerge victorious in the sense that he moves people from Obama's column into the undecided/Romney column. Most people have not seen a lot of Mitt outside of ads, and the picture they have of him is not necessarily going to be the picture they see tonight.

I heard on the news that 15% of voters are willing to change their mind based upon the debates. They are three quarters of the "20% in the middle" I am always talking about. I suspect Mitt is going to be Mitt, not a perfect politician but a competent executive who is ready to lead, and most of these 15% are going to consider voting for Romney by the end of the night.

Obviously the political prowess of Obama cannot be underestimated, let alone understated, but Romney has a lot to gain tonight whereas Obama has a lot to lose. At the bare minimum, it will be good political theater.

[Likely Voter]

The polling on who people expect to win the debates is in line with the polling on who people are expecting to win the election, which has always been the case. This is nothing to do with how Romney surrogates have won by talking about how Obama is the best debater since Cicero and Romney can barely string together a sentence.

I guess one could see this as a plus in that it helps Romney if he does well. But the fact that the  country has noticed the Romney campaign is failing is not exactly a feather in their cap. Unless you think that they have been throwing the game up until this point on purpose?

[Politico]

Unless you think that they have been throwing the game up until this point on purpose?

Sometimes a chess master sacrifices pieces early in the game in order to win later in the game.

Most people are not paying as much attention as they did in 2008/2004. Most people are turned off by the whole process, and will only start paying serious attention tonight, and onward. Team Obama wasted a lot of resources in September, but they did not deliver a knockout blow. Each and every time they knocked Mitt onto the mat, he just got back up. You don't win a slug-fest by knocking the other guy down more often than you get knocked down; you win with a knockout, which Romney can still deliver before Election Day.

[ajb]

Unless you think that they have been throwing the game up until this point on purpose?

Sometimes a chess master sacrifices pieces early in the game in order to win later in the game.

Most people are not paying as much attention as they did in 2008/2004. Most people are turned off by the whole process, and will only start paying serious attention tonight, and onward. Team Obama wasted a lot of resources in September, but they did not deliver a knockout blow. Each and every time they knocked Mitt onto the mat, he just got back up. You don't win a slug-fest by knocking the other guy down more often than you get knocked down; you win with a knockout, which Romney can still deliver before Election Day.

We heard this argument before the convention. And after the Paul Ryan pick. And after Romney locked down the nomination. "Sure, he's been a mediocre candidate so far, but he's going to astonish you all the more from now on."
This is the point of the analogy I made with Guiliani's 2008 primary campaign on another thread. Giuliani thought that the first four primaries would be a wash, and that if he concentrated his resources on Florida, and won there, he'd come out ahead. The only problem was that he hadn't calculated on the cumulative effect of getting fringe-candidate scores in four primaries in a row.
If you decide to win by losing the first three-quarters of the game, you risk those losses creating a "reality-effect," and leaving you looking like, well, a loser.

[King]

Huge victory for Romney.  It took Bush years of hard work to get 2/3rds of the American people to think he was an incompetent ineloquent dumb and here Romney has duplicated the effect in just months.

[Politico]

Huge victory for Romney.  It took Bush years of hard work to get 2/3rds of the American people to think he was an incompetent ineloquent dumb and here Romney has duplicated the effect in just months.