The following article, by Democratic strategist Mike Lux, author of The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, is cross-posted from HuffPo:
It has been clear since each parties’ chance to lay out their case in consecutive weeks at the conventions — and Democrats from the presidential race on down made a sustained rise in the polls — that when we go toe to toe with Republicans and engage the debate, the Democrats win. Obama just flat-out failed to engage in the debate the first time around, but this time he came to play. And won decisively. When we debate, we win the debate.
This is the lesson cautious and wonky Democrats need to internalize. When we, as my friend Bob Creamer likes to say, listen to our mother and stand up straight, we win. When we are clear, strong and decisive on defining the differences between Democrats and Republicans on policy, we win. When we engage the debate on philosophy and values, we win and win decisively.
Stylistically, Obama was, of course, a lot better than last time. I loved his toughness, his body language was so much better, his language was crisper and cleaner. But he won last night because he directly, forcefully took the debate straight to Romney. From the first question to his home run of a final answer where he took apart the philosophy Romney exhibited in the 47 percent video, he laid out for the country the differences between the men and their parties.
There is no question voters still have their doubts about Obama, which is natural given the crushing nature of the financial collapse suffered under Bush and the deepest darkest recession this country has seen in 80 years. But when voters hear each party’s case as to how they want to improve things, when they really hear the debate, they side with Democrats because a majority of voters know that our country and our economy work better when we are in it together — when we help lift each other up, when America tries to be more like a family or a community rather than each person acting for themselves and devil take the hindmost. They prefer the philosophy of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bobby Kennedy to that of Ayn Rand and the Social Darwinists, who — along with Romney and Ryan — preached that anyone who was wealthy was a productive person to be rewarded by government, and anyone who struggled was a leech on society.
The ironic thing is that we can win the debate, as Obama did last night, even when the Republicans try to run away from the philosophy and policies they realize are unpopular. Romney again last night tried to sound far more moderate. He talked about expanding Pell Grants even though his and Ryan’s budget would slash them. He talked about compassion even though his and Ryan’s budget ends Medicare and slashed Medicaid and pretty much every other program to help people in the federal budget, and even though his own 47 percnent video show a man utterly devoid of compassion for anyone other than the poor oppressed wealthy. He contradicted his own long-standing policy on contraceptive coverage. Yet even though Romney was scurrying away from his own unpopular platform all night long, Obama still won the debate by stating clearly the difference between the men and their parties on issues, philosophy and values.
Here’s what else Obama figured out how to find the right balance on: the balancing between trying to oversell economic improvements and still laying out the good things he had accomplished in his first term. I was pretty worried about how he would strike that balance, because he was way over on the overselling side on the first debate. But this time, I thought he found the golden mean.
Even though the domestic-oriented debates are over, we need to keep the bigger debate over our values and policies alive. Whenever we engage, we win. Whenever we force Republicans to defend what they have said they believe, we win. And whenever we remind voters what Romney has shown he believes about the 47 percent, we win.
We also need to nationalize this debate. I liked the way Obama took on the Republican House last night, as well as Romney. This election is about big things, and the Republican philosophy is an anchor around their necks up and down the ticket. Obama and the Democrats need to drive that message home: that this isn’t just Romney and Ryan, it’s the entire Republican party.
Whenever we engage the debate, we win the debate. Let’s keep doing it, and lock this victory down.

Both national polls that were taken immediately following last night’s presidential debate at Hofstra University show President Obama besting Romney by 7 percent. A CNN/ORC poll indicates that 46 percent of voters who watched the debate said that the president won, while 39 percent said Romney won (and the sample in the poll was about 8 points more Republican than polls taken among all Americans this year).
In a CBS News instant poll taken right after the debate, 37 percent of “uncommitted” voters said the president won, 30 percent gave Romney the edge, and 33 percent said it was a tie. Although the CBS poll gave Romney a sizable edge with respect to managing the economy, it’s hard to pinpoint anything the GOP nominee said that was especially persuasive in terms of his economic policy.
A snap poll by Public Policy Polling in swing state of Colorado gave President Obama a 48-44 edge, while CO Independents said that the President won by 58-36 percent.
For those who want a detailed point-by-point review of the debate in print as well as video, The New York Times has an interactive transcript of the Hempstead debate with a dynamic fact-checking sidebar.
Probably the most noteworthy screw-up of the evening was Governor Romney’s ‘Benghazi boomerang,’ in which he launched a badly-botched ‘gotcha’ ploy to portray the president as distorting his description of the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans as “an act of terror.” When moderator Candy Crowley quickly fact-checked Romney’s allegation and determined that the president was correct — that he did indeed call it ‘an act of terror’ at that time — Romney appeared reckless, desperate and embarrassed.
Earlier in the exchange, President Obama’s strongest moment came when he looked the challenger squarely in the eye and delivered a withering put-down of Romney’s cheesy attempt to politicize a tragedy at a moment that called for bipartisan unity in condemning terrorist violence. “Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening.”
(Dems who want to get up to speed on the politics of the Benghazi tragedy should check out James Heffernan’s HuffPo post, “Benghazi and Republican Hypocrisy.”)
Obama also scored sharply in highlighting Romney’s investments in companies that are “pioneers of outsourcing to China,” and added, “Governor Romney, you’re the last person who’s going to get tough on China.” He also stung Romney for Republican plans to voucherize Medicare and the GOP nominee’s support for “self-deportation” of undocumented immigrants. I thought Romney also fumbled his defense of his ‘let Detroit go bankrupt’ policy.
Romney’s best zinger was repeatedly noting that the number of women living in poverty has increased substantially during the Obama administration. Alert voters know, however, that the comparison suffers from using 2008 statistics, since the effects of the Bush meltdown reverberated well into the Obama administration.
Other than that, my guess is that Romney’s overbearing attitude towards moderator Candy Crowley — the first women moderator of a presidential debate in 20 years — who had to straighten him out several times, bordered on arrogance and did not play well with many women. There are reasons why Romney is not infrequently likened to an obnoxious boss. President Obama, on the other hand, struck the right tone, it seemed to me, in terms of being both assertive and respectful.
Democrats can rest assured that President Obama is back in top form — I don’t recall him ever doing better in a presidential debate. No telling at this point whether or not he will get a nice bump in national polls as a result, but it seems reasonable to expect a point or two shifting in his direction.
The final debate next Monday, October 22nd, at Lynn University in Boca Raton, FL will focus on foreign policy, and Romney will be back with new soundbites and zingers on the Benghazi attack, Iran and trade with China. The president’s solid performance last night indicates that he will be ready to defend and attack as needed.

At the National Journal’s ‘The Next America’ blog, Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin have a post explaining “Demographic Fundamentals Remain Critical to 2012 Presidential Outcome.” Teixeira, a TDS co-founding editor, a senior fellow at both The Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress and guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and John Halpin, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress focusing on political theory, communications, and public-opinion analysis write:

…There is scant historical evidence that the debate will have much of an impact on the eventual outcome of the presidential election…What will matter most are the two fundamentals we outlined in our November 2011 paper, “The Path to 270.” In that report, we argued that the election will boil down to two primary questions. Will the rising electorate of communities of color, the millennial generation, professionals, single women, and seculars that pushed Obama to victory in 2008 be sufficient and mobilized enough to ensure his reelection in 2012? Or will the Republican Party and its presidential nominee capitalize on a struggling economy and greater mobilization from a conservative base that holds the president in deep disdain?

The authors believe these two issues will “remain the central issues of the election” and discuss the impact of three key demographic groups, “minorities, college-educated whites, and noncollege/working-class whites.” They conclude that “Obama should be significantly advantaged in 2012 by demographic change, especially a projected increase in minority voters and decrease in white working-class voters.”
Halpin and Teixeira add further, “…if the president’s minority support holds up in 2012, with the level of Hispanic support being the biggest question mark, he could absorb quite a lot of falloff in his support among white working-class voters and still win the election,” particularly if the president retains the support of white college-educated voters.
The authors then explore the prospects of the presidential candidates with respect to these groups in 2012:

….Based on analysis of the most up-to-date information about eligible voters from the Current Population Survey, the overall minority composition of the electorate increased by 3 points since 2008, while the percentage of white working-class voters declined by an equal amount (see data below preceding map). White college graduates increased also, but only very slightly, about two-tenths of a percentage point.
…These new figures are based on changes in the composition of eligible voters, which may or may not be fully reflected in the composition of actual voters, depending on turnout patterns. Given that minorities’ turnout tends to be relatively low while white college graduates’ turnout is relatively high, the shifts we see in 2012 may still wind up close to our original projection.

Verifying that the president is holding his 2008 support levels from minority voters, the authors note further, “in 11 national polls of Hispanics conducted from December of last year through August 2012, Latino voters have favored Obama over Romney by an average of 43 percentage points, substantially higher than the margin of 36 points they gave the president in 2008.”
Regarding the president’s support among college-educated whites, the authors say that the president is also close to matching or surpassing his 2008 performance with this group. With respect to the pivotal white working-class demographic,

…If the minority and white college-educated vote hold up as well in November as they have in recent polling, Romney needs to generate a huge margin among white working-class voters to have a decent chance of winning–closer to the 30 points congressional Republicans won this group by in 2010 than the 18-point margin received by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in 2008.
In fact, if Obama replicates his 2008 performance among minorities and white college graduates, then Romney would need to carry white working-class voters by double McCain’s margin (36 points) even if the minority vote does not grow at all. And if the minority vote does grow as expected, he would need north of a 40-point margin among the white working class to prevail…Romney has not been remotely close to that level of support among white working-class voters. He’s been averaging around the same margin McCain received in 2008…Romney, to be successful in November’s election, needs to greatly exceed his currently observed upper bound of support among white working class voters.

Teixeira and Halpin caution, however,

…Demographics are important but not determinative of election outcomes. Politics and campaigns matter in putting together viable electoral majorities. A few weeks out, it is certainly possible to see Romney building on his debate performance to turn a surge of conservative activism and white working-class skepticism into a narrow victory should the president’s supporters end up being as apathetic as they were in 2010 and if late-deciding voters break heavily against him. But it is also possible to envision many voters, including some segments of the white working class, turning away from the perceived radicalism of the Republican ticket and agenda and returning the president to office by a few percentage points.

As the authors conclude, “Many difficult challenges lie ahead for both candidates and campaigns to consider. The complex mix of demographics, economics, and ideology makes this already close race even more vigorously contested.”

Take a short break from debate hysteria and horse race analysis and give a read to a couple of posts by TDS Founding Editor Ruy Teixeira, as he discusses why President Obama should begin focusing on growth as a unifying theme that can solidify his electoral coalition into an enduring force that can enact and implement policy.
At ABC News/Univision, Teixeira explains why Obama’s lead with Latino voters appears even stronger than in 2008, and why the president will need to focus increasingly on growth as a central goal. First on why Obama has such a solid edge with Latinos :

…Immigration, after all, while hugely important to Hispanic voters, is not the only issue that concerns them by any means. Jobs and the economy are also of the highest importance, hardly surprising given the state of today’s economy. Indeed, in the LD tracking poll, 54 percent thought jobs and the economy was the most important issue facing the Latino community, compared to 39 percent who thought it was immigration reform and the DREAM act.
It is this strong concern with the economy that helps explain how Obama could have such an unusually large lead. On question after question on the economy, Obama is favored by very wide margins among Hispanic voters. In the LD poll, voters chose Obama over Romney by 72-20 as the one they have confidence in to improve economic conditions. Similarly, in the Telemundo poll, 58 percent believe Obama is better prepared to create jobs and improve the economy over the next four years, while just 22 percent think Romney is better prepared. And by 76 to nine percent, Latinos see Obama as best able to look out for the middle class.
Latino voters also believe conditions have started to improve on Obama’s watch. In the same poll, by 60 percent to 32 percent they believe the economy is recovering and by 50 percent to 9 percent they think the economy will get better, not worse, over the next twelve months.

However, warns Teixeira, “If Obama is reelected, he will still have to deliver the robust economic growth these voters need to realize their economic aspirations. This may be difficult.” Teixeira cites the low, 1.6 percent, growth rate since 2000 as a daunting challenge Obama must tackle after the election if eh wants to hold Latino support for the Democrats.

Read more…

TDS Managing Editor Ed Kilgore makes an important distinction in his Washington Monthly post, “Change and Safe Change.” After acknowledging that “Obama needs to improve significantly in the ability to define a second-term agenda,” Kilgore makes the case for “depicting Romney’s entire agenda as a leaner and meaner version of W’s.” Kilgore adds:

Romney, much like Bush in 2000, is presenting himself as the candidate not just of change, but of safe change–the hyper-confident moderate technocrat, who will assess the country’s challenges each day without fear or favor, and do what is best without worrying about his party’s “base” or the radical ideologues who represent it. Like W., Romney is touting a reputation (in Mitt’s case, a bit questionable and long in the tooth) for working with Democrats, and is also asserting a degree of empathy and “compassion” notably lacking in the GOP these days. This ingredient of his latest self-presentation is just as important to his cause as the mantle of “change.”
So while it may seem complicated for Obama to label Romney as the candidate of the same-old, same-old, and also as a radical, it is both accurate and effective. The two candidates have different agendas for the future, and while one is well-tailored to tough current challenges, the other is essentially an effort to advance the worst qualities of Richard Nixon and the worst policies of George W. Bush and Barry Goldwater.

As Kilgore concludes, “It shouldn’t be that terribly hard to distinguish a reactionary from a change agent. “Change” isn’t always good when it’s not “safe,” and a better alternative is readily at hand.”

The following article is excerpted from a Democracy Corps memo:
The campaign has reached a tipping point where we believe the president has to offer a bold narrative, policies, and choice if he is to win re-election and get to a substantial enough victory that enables him to govern and face the great challenges ahead. The first debate really did disrupt the race and presents a painful real-time test of what happens when the president tries to convince people of progress and offer a very modest vision of future change. Voters are not looking for continuity but changes that help the average Joe.
Up until now, with Romney campaigning solely on Obama’s failures, a focus on America’s middle class was enough. But it is now – and there are enormous opportunities for the President to use this moment. In the first debate, Obama did not make a bold case for the bold policies he would offer in the next four years. In the Vice Presidential debate, Joe Biden thankfully struck blows on Romney’s authenticity, duplicity, truthfulness, coziness with the rich and disregard for the middle class, but he gave no hint of Obama’s plans for jobs and growth.
In dial-meters conducted by Democracy Corps for Women’s Voices. Women Vote Action Fund during the debate, Obama lost the attention of independents and unmarried women when he spoke about economic progress or talked about the progress of the last four years. With most of the President’s surrogates saying, “give him more time to finish the job” and with the President closing the debate making the same small offer, Romney got the opportunity to be heard as the voice of change.
Obama won most support when he said what he would do to make the economy better in the years ahead, but both Romney and Ryan spent much more time on that future and sounded like they had a real plan to make the economy better.
Read the full memo at Democracy Corps.

In preparation for the debate tomorrow, Obama might want to borrow a line from one of the Die Hard movies with Bruce Willis.
In the film Willis’ character John McClain is racing to save his kidnapped daughter, accompanied by a geeky computer kid. As they near the kidnappers hideout the geeky kid asks “What’s your plan, McClain?”
Willis answers: “I’m going to bust in there, kill all the bad guys and rescue my daugher.”
The geeky kid responds: “That’s not a plan McClain, how you do that is a plan.”
In the coming debate, when Romney recites his completely vacuous “Five Point Plan” (eliminate regulations, cut taxes etc. ) Obama should say:
“Gov. Romney, you don’t know what a plan is.That’s not a plan. How you actually do that is a plan.”

Associated Press previews the Tuesday night presidential debate at Hempstead, NY and probes the ramifications of the town hall format.
At The Fix, Chris Cillizza has a good capsule desription of the debate format: “…The setting for the second debate will be a town hall full of “average” Americans with CNN’s terrific Candy Crowley moderating. The questions in the debate will be asked by people in the audience, with Crowley following up or holding the candidates accountable as she feels it’s needed. That sort of format makes it tougher for the candidates to go harshly negative on each other than if it was simply the two of them standing behind podiums with Crowley seated at a table between them. The town hall backdrop puts a premium on trying to connect with the struggles, worries and hopes of the person asking the questions, not scoring points on scripted attack lines — although there probably will be plenty of those, too. The bar to being seen as overly or unnecessarily negative is far lower in a town hall debate than in a more traditional setting, meaning that both candidates will need to walk a very fine line with their attacks.”
All good Democrats will love the title and theme of this Telegraph article by Dan Hodges, whose bionote reads “Dan Hodges is a Blairite cuckoo in the Miliband nest. He has worked for the Labour Party, the GMB trade union and managed numerous independent political campaigns. He writes about Labour with tribal loyalty and without reservation.”
Paul Krugman rolls out the alarming cluelessness/dishonesty of Romney’s assertions about health care in the U.S.: “Last week, speaking to The Columbus Dispatch, Mr. Romney declared…”We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance….” Krugman adds,”these are remarkable statements. They clearly demonstrate that Mr. Romney has no idea what life (and death) are like for those less fortunate than himself…the reality, to which Mr. Romney is somehow blind, is that many people in America really do die every year because they don’t have health insurance…States that expand their Medicaid coverage, and hence provide health insurance to more people, consistently show a significant drop in mortality compared with neighboring states that don’t expand coverage..The fact that the United States is the only major advanced nation without some form of universal health care is at least part of the reason life expectancy is much lower in America than in Canada or Western Europe.”
Dan Balz and Jon Cohen report that “Presidential contest tight nationally ahead of second debate,” and they cite the new WaPo/ABC poll showing Obama leading Romney 49-46 in the “If the election were held today” question.
The Virginia race for the U.S. Senate — and perhaps control of the U.S. Senate — may turn on a key constituency, northern Virginia seniors. Ben Pershing has the the story at the Washington post.
At The New York Times, Jim Rutenberg reports that Libertarian Gary Johnson “is on the ballot in every state except Michigan and Oklahoma, enjoys the support of a few small “super PACs” and is trying to tap into the same grass-roots enthusiasm that helped build Representative Ron Paul a big following. And with polls showing the race between President Obama and Mitt Romney to be tight, Mr. Johnson’s once-fellow Republicans are no longer laughing.” Hmmm, makes you wonder if there might be some benefit for Dems to do a McCaskill in a couple of states.
In his New York Times op-ed, Steve Rattner has some good talking points explaining why “The Radical Is Romney, Not Ryan.”
Sarah Jones takes the mask off Romney’s claims about his supposed bipartisanship as Massachusetts Governor, noting at Politicus USA that “All told, Romney issued 800 vetoes in his one-year term as Governor. 800. Nearly all of them were overridden – 707 to be exact. Romney doesn’t mention that part in his “I like vetoes” ad.” Jones adds, “A March 2005 poll found that only 32 percent felt Romney should be re-elected if he ran for a second term as governor.”
The lede of the week award will probably go to Alex Altman for his “As his standing in the polls improves, Mitt Romney is piling up public endorsements from a new cohort of voters: the celebrity train-wreck set.” Altman’s post at Time Swampland, “The Lohan Effect: Will Romney Get a Boost from Low-Information Voters?” also has this insightful observation: “UCLA political scientist Lynn Vavreck has been tracking a large group of uncommitted voters since December 2011. As they’ve made up their minds, those voters have gravitated in roughly equal numbers to Romney and Obama. Obama “has the advantage among undecided voters who are making choices as Election Day draws near,” Vavreck wrote recently.”