I have few links below to stories touching on the recent debate between Obama and Romney, which most seem to think Romney won - which fits the "incumbent's curse - where most incumbents have been judged to have been beaten in their first debate. There's no consensus on whether this yet matters though - as of now no polling data conducted since the debate have been released.
The stories which interested me the most were the one's that argued that Romney used this debate to begin to reposition himself in the minds of the voters. Prior to Wednesday he was still the Romney that had to win over the Republicans base and sometimes run to the right of other candidates. Since it is difficult to win a general election with very conservative positions, he had to pivot and in hind sight, what better time to do that than in the first debate?
Here are two stories making that argument:
- The Return of Massachusetts Mitt.
- Entering Stage Right, Romney Moved to the Center.
- And a doubter: No, "moderate Mitt" isn't back.
This illustrates a story repeated every time we cover elections. Primaries are won at the extremes, general elections in the middle - for the obvious reason. Who votes in each. It may seem cynical, and seems to confirm the negative attitudes people have about politicians, but its how races are won. Beyond that, its how the rules of the races require candidates to behave if they are to win.
Some commentators have argued that Obama may have been ready to debate the conservative Romney, but was thrown off when the more moderate Romney took different stances on some key issues like health care and taxes on the wealthy.
Here are some Andrew Sullivan posts that discuss specific issues about the debate itself:
- Live Blog.
- First Debate: Blog Reax I.
- The Etch-A-Sketch Debate: Blog Reax II
- The Etch-A-Sketch Debate: Blog Reax III
