Okay, first of all, a major qualifier is in order. I have been a voter for almost thirty years (wow, am I really that old?), just not in this country.
I was sworn in as US citizen in December of 2008, and as the voter registration cards were passed out after the ceremony, we were told that we just "missed a major election" but that there would be another one "four years from now."
Of course I knew better, and in 2009 I gladly voted for Julian Castro. In 2010, I also voted, but none of my candidates won.
It is true, however, that November 6 will mark my first presidential elections as a US citizen. From that perspective, I am going to add yet another
comment/analysis/whatever to the many that are already floating around.
While these are the first presidential elections in which I will be actually voting, I have followed US politics as long as I can remember. The most baffling aspect, to me as well as many observers from abroad, are the televised presidential debates.
Where I come from, debates always focus on a specific proposal that is going to be voted on. If a proposal passes, its proponent won the debate. If it fails, the proponent lost. It's that simple.
Presidential debates, however, have no clear criteria on what constitutes a victory. There are no rules (other than format), rubrics, or score cards. Apparently at some point the media and the public come to a consensus (or not) who won the debate.
Last night, apparently, the consensus was formed after fewer than 500 already Romney-leaning white, 50-plus-year-old Southerners decided that Romney won. CNN shouted its poll results from the rooftops, and that was that. Romney 1: Obama 0.
Sometimes, it's not that clear-cut. From what I've read (I wasn't alive then), to a radio audience, Nixon appeared to have won his debate against Kennedy. However, the fact that Nixon wasn't wearing make-up and sweated under the studio lights while Kennedy had a nice tan convinced TV viewers that Kennedy was the winner. So visuals apparently count for a lot.
The winning candidate must look energetic and vigorous. It's okay if he appears to be Botoxed to the hilt and hopped up on something, as long as he exudes passion. So what if he's lying through his teeth and his opponent's points withstand scrutiny?
Apparently it's okay to ignore the moderator and the opponent -- as long as one stays "on message." That's how Sarah Palin "won" her debate against Joe Biden. Never mind that to me she came across as utterly ridiculous (winking into the camera? a shout-out to third-graders? really?) and Joe Biden as likable and sincere. As long as Snowdrift Snooki got to spew her talking points, she "won."
Dominating the debate seems to be everything. Never mind if it's obvious that the candidate is lying through his teeth and comes across as a total prick. As long as he avoids obvious insults, sighs, or glances at his watch, victory will be his.
So what was my personal impression before I was told who won?
First of all, I didn't watch the whole thing. I simply cannot stand looking at Mitt Romney for 90 minutes at a time. He exudes a creepiness that makes me physically uncomfortable. I don't even want to imagine what it must be like to encounter him in person. Also, I hard a time hearing what was said. Next door, a brass band was practicing, and in the kitchen, my boyfriend had Stevie Ray cranked up to the max.
From what I did see: obviously those around here who thought that Romney didn't really want to win were proven wrong. The presidency is prominently featured on his bucket list, and he wants it very much -- but on his terms. Since the only aspect of a presidential campaign he can actually win is a debate in the pissing contest format, he saved all his energy, Botox, and whatever he was on for last night. No, there is not going to be an October surprise or Diebold hack -- last night was it. He is counting on a game-changer boost that will carry him through.
President Obama did not even enter the pissing contest; therefore, he had no chance of winning it. He was there to plead his case and avoid providing the other side with sound bites that they can distort into memes and bumper stickers (like the variations on the theme of who did or didn't build what). Unfortunately, he was flying so low under the radar that he came across as too timid.
The only surprising part about Mitt Romney's performance was the fact that he was cautious (or cautioned) to not let his dick flag fly too freely. Of course the inner a-hole came out long enough to provide the makers of memes and bumper stickers with the kind of ammunition that Obama avoided: Romney wants to fire Big Bird. In the age of social media, that will be the part of the debate that people remember.
So how much of a difference will the debate make among undecided voters? Only time will tell. However, I doubt that someone who is uninvolved and uninformed enough to still be undecided actually sat through the whole thing last night and paid attention.
So who won? The true poll will be tallied on the first Tuesday in November.