It’s Important To Understand Why Romney Won

Understanding why Mitt Romney so decisively won the first presidential debate is as important as the fact that he did. Why? Because once we know the reasons, almost everything about President Barack Obama and this election becomes clear.

First, Obama lost because he, like virtually the entire left, lives in a left-wing bubble.

Left-wing academics live in this bubble. There is no greater uniformity of thought than at our universities; their much-ballyhooed commitment to diversity is about race and ethnicity, not about ideas.

So, too, the great majority of news media people live in the same bubble, the left-wing herd that covers national and international news. Reading The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times or Le Monde or listening to the BBC is essentially reading or listening to the same selection and presentation of the news.

One reason leftists talk to, read and listen to only fellow leftists is that they are certain that there is no other way to think rationally, compassionately or morally. Therefore, there is no reason to debate conservatives, let alone expose oneself to their ideas.

Obama is a man of the left. Leftism is his Weltanschauung, his value system, his way of understanding the world. Every one of the president’s mentors whom we know about was a leftist, usually a radical leftist. The church he was married in and the pastor he adored were leftist. His work — “community organizer” — was left-wing work.

When you live in a bubble — be it religious or political — you cannot successfully debate opposing views. You’re not even familiar with what those opposing views are. This debate was the first time in Obama’s presidency — if not his life — that he had to defend the policies he believes in against an articulate conservative.

He couldn’t.

The second reason for his defeat was that Obama lacked two things that have been essential to his popularity for the past four years.

One was a teleprompter. Most people would sound articulate if they could rely on teleprompters to speak words they and/or others wrote. But there were no teleprompters last Wednesday night.

Were a Republican president as dependent on a teleprompter as this president has been, the media constantly would report — and mock — the fact.

Which brings us to the news media’s protection, the other thing the president was deprived of at the debate.

In the increasingly inglorious history of the mainstream (i.e., liberal) media, nothing has matched their four-year protection of this president. To cite but one of countless examples, when President George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act and incarcerated terror suspects at Guantanamo, the press was relentless in its attacks on him for allegedly undermining civil liberties. When Obama extended the Patriot Act and kept terror suspects in Guantanamo, the press was virtually silent.

A third reason for the Romney victory was the debate format. Moderator Jim Lehrer and new guidelines allowed the debaters to actually debate. The reason the liberal media have been so contemptuous of Lehrer is that, perhaps for the first time in the history of modern American presidential debates, the moderator did not attempt to dominate the proceedings. And what the left cannot control it fears.

According to Reuters, Obama spoke a full four minutes more than Romney did. But because Lehrer allowed Romney to actually respond to Obama, Romney didn’t need any more time than he took.

Obama also lost because he is not intellectually deep. He is extremely bright. But he is not intellectually deep. If you read, rather than only listen to, any of his speeches — from Berlin and Cairo until today — you will discover how essentially empty they are. But because he never is challenged and because he delivers his largely nice-sounding vapidities so smoothly and authoritatively, many Americans are fooled.

He could not get away with this in the first debate. And though Obama surely will be much feistier and more aggressive in his second debate, if Romney is allowed to respond and challenge as he was in the first debate — very possibly a big if — there is no reason to believe that he will get away with his platitudes then, either.

Finally, Romney won because he understands how the economy works much better than Obama does — and because he understands what America stands for much better than the president does.

The great unknown is whether enough Americans will come to realize all this by Election Day.

  • Count_E_Limerick

    Libs found Obama’s defensiveness offensive,
    Others found him dispassionate and pensive.
    Ideas he did not need address,
    To the press that would not press –
    Now his liberal bubble may prove quite expensive!

  • venter

    GREAT ARTICLE.  You got is so right and expressed what we all feel out here.  Without the MSM  Obama will loose.  Without a teleprompter he will loose.  Without passion for America he can’t win .  All this was evident during the debate.  Romney was there without the MSM giving out false info..  He spoke  with knowledge to back him up.  We could sense his passion for being an American.  I believe he won over more people then can be reported including the womens vote.   I also believe the silent  majority will come forward on November 6th..  No one talks about them anymore. However they are out there in many colors because everyone is hurting and they don’t want be Greece.  Romney will do good in the town hall setting if he doesn’t hide from his success that he earned.  GREAT ARTICLE   

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PPL2AXPXJMWPEJWFN34MPC5RNY terry

    ROMNEY SHOWED HIMSELF TO BE AN INTELLIGENT, GOD FEARING CHRISTIAN
    MAN THAT IS TRULY CONCERNED WITH HIS FELLOW MAN.

    OBAMA IS AN EGOTISTICAL,SELFISH, IGNORAMUS, THAT HAS A CHIP ON HIS SHOULDER AND WANTS TO GET EVEN WITH SOME SORT OF PUNISHMENT.
    HE IS A DISGRACE.

  • BerthaLovesRickALOT

    Rommeys’ a rasist bigget he will loose!

  • http://profiles.google.com/tbfh1955 tb thomas

    I’m very concerned about the second debate and the format, so-called “town hall”. I believe one of the reasons Romney did so well in the first debate was the fact that he had an audience of two: Lehrer and Obama. That freed him to speak candidly and directly, without pulling his punches.

    In my view, the single biggest failing by Romney throughout this campaign has been his inability (or unwillingness) to be candid and direct with ordinary voters, whether a live audience, or a media audience. He invariably comes across as editing his comments and/or answers as if he is afraid of how they may be received by “the general public”. As I’m watching him, I am overwhelmed by the feeling that he is both subtly condescending and insincere, even though I am in 100% agreement with his text.

    If Gov. Romney adopts that same approach answering the questions of the so-called “undecided voters” Gallup has been asked to provide, he may give up a big part of what he gained in the first debate. If he can take a page from Gov. Christie’s book, and speak clearly and directly to that audience as his adult peers, he will set himself up for a decisive victory — that night, in the third debate, and on November 6th.

  • Tim Ned

    I have heard from the inside it is much simpler than that.  Ann Romney and their kids met with the campaign managers and ordered them to permit Mitt, be Mitt.  And that’s what we saw.  And we haven’t seen nothing yet.

  • Paul Courtney

    Let’s hope and pray that recent reporting from CBS and Jake Tapper at ABC (on Libya lies/coverup) are cracks in the granite.  

  • GlenFS

    Dennis,  thanks for the wonderful analysis.  This fits much better than the excuses offered by the left.  I do not think that he had an off night at all except that he did what he does: drone on about nothing until the public’s collective eyes cross.  

    I agree with those who say the Dems were strategically playing safe for all your reasons and their arrogant notion that they were so far ahead, no need to risk it.  They got that from all those skewed polls which amplified reality by some unreal factor which warmed liberal cockles everywhere!

  • CCNV

    You would think people would see how DESPERATE obummah and his campaign are. AARP didn’t want associated with him (not until obammy care that is). The lame stream media is beginning to question obummah’s thought process (or lack of). Today, Big Bird dumped (on) him. Yesterday it was all the foreign campaign contributions from China via obama.com. It’s been one debacle after another. He’s spinning out of control. WATCH and LEARN, folks!

  • venter

    I agree with your article, especially the last sentence!  We all saw Obama differently and what happened at the debate makes us question ourselves.  Those who voted for him may have been brain washed by the MSM to believe he was soooooooo  smart or was the MSM brain washed by the President.  I listened to all his speeches as time went on they were all the same, empty ( Clint was on to something).  Actually the empty chair came into mind, when I watched the debate.  I think people who had doubts,  their minds went back to the empty chair .  Will they realize we have a President that has been unable to do the job? It is a shame because “Mr. Teleprompter’ is like the Wizard of Oz..  The next debate will be good if Mitt is himself. 

    • http://profiles.google.com/tbfh1955 tb thomas

       I voted for Obama in 2008. Looking back on it, I realize I “brain washed myself”. He said all the things I wanted to hear, so it was easy to dismiss the possibility that he was a methodical liar and talented con-man. It was a clear case of “willing suspension of disbelief” on my part.

      What confounds me now, is why so many others are still in denial as to his narcissism, and thinly veiled contempt not only for those of us who oppose him, but his sycophants as well. I consider him a profoundly disturbed and dangerous personality, who’s manipulative nature and instinct for dictatorship is impossible to ignore.

  • EddieD_Boston

    “You’re not even familiar with what those opposing views are.” The most accurate (and frightening) sentence ever written.

    Yes Dennis, Romney showed the world Obama doesn’t have a clue. He didn’t defend himself either b/c he thought he owned the truth and didn’t need to or he had no idea what Romney was talking about. Probably both the more I think of it.

  • Bai-shan

    For the next debate, both Obama and Romney need to do their works: Obama needs to watch Fox News and Romney needs to watch MSNBC. They will understand their opponent better.

    • Count_E_Limerick

      That’s unconstitutional!

      Bai-Shan says that prior to the next duel,
      Obama & Romney need to get more fuel.
      From Fox, BO may get slyer,
      As can Mitt from Matthews’ ire –
      But that’s punishment unusual and cruel!

  • Bruce A.

     Fine article Dennis.   How could Pres. Obama defend his failed record.  He is asking us to move forward but he seems to be driving us off a cliff.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZHOWZO7PTWEB522QIDPTZ7LS3A Clark Kent

    The next debate will show if the first was a fluke or if Mr. Prager, VDH, Steyn, Klaven and so many others are right about the President being an image constructed by others otherwise empty.

    But what I fear is if Obama gets nasty or otherwise inappropriate, and the moderator gives him aid, his supporters will cheer. After all, Communism was never about a peaceful transition.  Neither for that matter is much of Islam.  Many suspect he has sympathy for both.