X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

Obama edges the 2nd presidential debate

17 October 2012

5:53 AM

17 October 2012

5:53 AM

Obama edged this one, but I’d say it was a pretty low quality debate. The president’s performance would have done nothing to reassure voters who wanted to know more about what he’d do with four more years. He was eloquent but, at times, vacuous. Romney, for his part, started to ask questions of Obama directly. He ended up looking like a snapping lapdog – or a failing interviewer – when Obama declined to answer. A snap CNN poll calls it for Obama by 37-33, with 30pc thinking it was a draw. Gallup gave the first debate to Romney by a far bigger margin, 72-10 with 9pc undecided. So the early verdict is a decisive Romney win, followed by a marginal Obama win. People’s verdicts may be changed when they realise that the moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, wrongly slapped down Romney on a point of fact over the Benghazi attack (which ought to have been Romney’s strongest point).

At least Barack Obama had come to fight this time. Here are his best lines:-

And here are Romney best lines:-

And yes, you’re right, neither were particularly impressive. Obama at least did what his fans had longed for him to do last time: go on the attack over Romney’s secret recording saying he was not interested in the 47pc of the electorate who were net drains on the taxpayer:-

[Alt-Text]


Romney hit back on claims that he is launching a “war on women” – but in a way that certainly wouldn’t endear me if I were a woman. He blamed Obama for overseeing a net loss of 580,000 women’s jobs. But he then said he wanted to go out to look for women to serve on his Cabinet and that his team came back with “binders full of women”:-

This image captured the imagination of the social network and there’s now a tumblr site devoted to illustrating what Romney meant. Here’s my personal favourite:-
Romney misfired when he claimed that Obama did not immediately refer to the Libya attack as an “act of terror” – he actually did, and had to be corrected. Or so he thought. “Get the transcript” said Obama, and  moderator Candy Crowley seemed to correct Romney. ‘He [Obama] did in fact, sir.” Obama then said: ‘Can you say that a little louder, Candy?’ to laughter and applause from the audience. Here’s the video:-

Actually, Crowley called it wrong. What Obama actually said was “no acts of terror will ever shape the resolve of this great nation” – which is enough for Obama to duck Romney’s blow. But Obama didn’t, actually, say that America had just witnessed an act of terror. He referred to it a “senseless violence” and the White House still believed it the Benghazi attack was a protest in response to some film. Romney’s point was correct, but he fluffed it. Unsure of his facts, Romney accepted two wrong corrections: one from Obama and one from the moderator.

Crowley looked a little shaken afterwards, interviewed by her CNN colleagues. She rowed back a bit saying she remembered the t-word being used by Obama in the Rose Garden. But that wasn’t Romney’s point. “The president did call it – or refer to it in some way – as an act of terror” she said. Actually, he didn’t. “I was trying to bring some kind of clarity to the conversation,” she said. If that was her aim, she failed.

So how will all this affect the race? Not by much, if the CNN poll is anything to go by. I doubt it changed the monentum of the race: Romney’s achievement, to connect with voters in the first debate and break free of the caricature painted by the Democrats, has not been changed by last night. And the election will be decided by other questions, such as: what would Obama do with those four years? Is Romney really a joke?

CNN assembled a focus group in Columbus, Ohio (a state that may well decide the whole election). They scored it 40-17 for Obama, with 42pc saying no one won (there were just 35 members, so a very small sample). Fox News had a very different result from Frank Luntz, whose focus group reported a big switch towards Romney. Here’s the audio:-

 

 

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close