At Esquire, Charles P. Pierce channels a little Hunter Thompson and comes up with one of the more blistering — and perceptive — takes on the vice presidential debates. Here’s an excerpt:

For the second time in as many presidential elections, Joseph Biden got to debate a young, attractive Republican candidate who was demonstrably less qualified to to be president than I am to be chairman of the World Bank…
There is a deeply held Beltway myth of Paul Ryan, Man of Big Ideas, and it dies hard. But, if there is a just god in the universe, on Thursday night, it died a bloody death, was hurled into a pit, doused with quicklime, buried without ceremony, and the ground above it salted and strewn with garlic so that it never rises again…
The battering that Biden gave Ryan brought something into sharp relief that the Republican party has been fudging ever since Romney put the zombie-eyed granny-starver on the ticket — that, for his entire political career up to that point, on critical economic issues, Paul Ryan was an extremist even by the standards of the modern Republican party, which are considerably high indeed…For years, Paul Ryan has been the shining champion of some really terrible ideas, and of a dystopian vision of the political commonwealth in which the poor starve and the elderly die ghastly, impoverished deaths, while all the essential elements of a permanent American oligarchy were put in place. This has garnered him loving notices from a lot of people who should have known better…
Joe Biden laughed at him? Of course, he did. The only other option was to hand him a participation ribbon and take him to Burger King for lunch.
You know what’s the difference between Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan?
Lipstick

Pierce has written a great piece, and with luck, it could serve as a fitting epitaph for Ryan’s political ambitions. Read the rest of it here.

Ed Kilgore has some salient thoughts about last night’s debate in his post, “Leaving it All on the Field” at the Washington Monthly. From a couple of his article’s nut graphs:

…Biden’s performance, whatever its effect on swing voters, dispelled a dark cloud over the Democratic tribe. And that’s not just because it might have interrupted Romney’s “momentum” or countered the president’s “loss” last week.
In retrospect, what dispirited an awful lot of Democrats about the first presidential debate was that it emblemized the fear that in an intense, high-stakes battle with an ascendant and radicalized conservative movement, progressive elected officials just didn’t have the willingness or ability to make a full and passionate case for their own cause. That was at the heart of criticisms not only of the president’s demeanor, but also of his many missed opportunities to rebut Romney and expose the rickety substructure of the mendacious self-presentation Moderate Mitt was attempting. And this is obviously a complaint that’s been just under the surface of mixed progressive attitudes towards Obama and many other Democratic leaders for years now.
…Biden “won” because he achieved an important objective for Democrats who were beginning to wonder if all the Romney-Ryan ticket had to do to achieve victory for the most radical major-party agenda in decades was simply to change the packaging and play the horse-race-expectations game to the hilt. Whatever ultimately happens, the dynamics have now changed, and Joe Biden deserves the credit.

Kilgore has more to say about what Biden has accomplished and an observation about the victimization bragging rights Ryan’s GOP groupies got out of it. You can read it all here.

Bill Maher’s tweet in the title above pretty much captures my impression of the veep candidates debate. I would also be comfortable with the headline of Alessandra Stanley’s New York Times article, “Night of Withering Ripostes, Mostly Delivered by Biden.” Although, even Ryan’s big zinger about Biden’s gaffes came off as scripted and labored.
It really did look and sound like the seasoned veteran having his way with the smarty-pants college kid. Ryan appeared a little intimidated, and with good reason. He was up against the Democratic party’s toughest debater.
Half of the ‘undecided voters’ polled by CBS agreed, with 50 percent saying Vice President Biden won and 31 percent giving the edge to Rep. Ryan and 19 percent calling it a draw. CNN’s poll gave Ryan an M.O.E. edge, 48-44 percent. The CNN sample was 381 registered voters, compared to CBS’s 431 ‘undecided voters.’ Which poll strikes you as more relevant? As always, Nate Silver has a solid wrap-up of the data points.
As for issues analysis, it wasn’t much of a contest. Biden had a strong, credible response to every Ryan talking point, with respect to both the economy and foreign policy. It would be a stretch to say the reverse was also true. Biden’s edge in experience served him very well, and Ryan wisely clammed up at several points.
The post-debate spin is predictable enough. I thought the CNN stable of pundits, for example, looked a little embarrassed to be calling it a draw. But what could they do — trash their own poll?
Some commentators griped about Biden grinning and chuckling at Ryan’s prevarications. I was a little worried at first about it, but as the debate wore on, it was clear that it was part of Biden’s more easy-going personality. He could have been having a friendly argument in a bar. My guess is his demeanor played well enough with most informed voters, in contrast to Ryan’s chilly, stiff persona. Despite pro-Republican comments about Biden’s ‘rudeness,’ by the end of the debate, no one could fairly argue that Biden denied Ryan a chance to respond at any point.
As Silver explains, “Vice-presidential debates rarely move head-to-head numbers between the presidential candidates…One should err on the side of caution in assuming that the debate had much influence either way.”
But my bottom-line take-away is that I feel even better about Biden being a heart-beat away from the presidency, as well as more confident about President Obama’s judgement in choosing Biden. I don’t think he could have done better.
As for Ryan, well, he’s brighter than Dan Quayle, and I credit him with being more conversant on foreign affairs than I thought was the case. But Ryan is still a rigid right-wing ideologue. And, despite his comments about the need for more bipartisanship, his track record and personality scream otherwise. It’s hard to envision him providing leadership in bringing the two parties together.
All in all the Biden-Ryan debate was an encouraging — and instructive — win for the Democrats, one which should build interest in the October 16th presidential debate in Hempstead, NY.

In all the endless discussion of last week’s first presidential candidates’ debate, there has been a heavy emphasis on “style points”–Romney’s “crispness” and Obama’s “rambling;” Romney’s “empathy” and Obama’s “detachment;” Romney’s superior use of anecdotes, stronger physical “presence,” and higher “energy level.” And much of the advice being offered to Obama (and to Joe Biden, who debates Paul Ryan tonight) is similarly focused on the sizzle rather than the steak: be engaged, be aggressive, show some conviction, show some passion, float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
While it’s difficult to determine what does and doesn’t matter in public perceptions of events like televised candidate debates, it is reasonably clear that for Mitt Romney, the strategic effect of the first debate was to reposition him as a plausible, “safe” alternative to Barack Obama for low-information “wrong-track” voters. As I argued yesterday at Washington Monthly, the illusion of “moderate Mitt” was quite an accomplishment, presenting Romney as the man with the five-point plan to revive the economy, who isn’t interested in divisive social issues and loves to work with Democrats, and just wants to give the public sector a nice, reforming tuck and trim.
To put it another way, for many voters with lukewarm attitudes towards Obama, and an inclination to embrace change, Romney, at least for a moment, crossed the threshold of acceptibility. The big challenge for Democrats is to push him back across it.
There is plenty of raw material at hand to do just that, particularly since–though this is an aspect of the “Moderate Mitt” phenomenon that eludes many MSM observers–Romney has not really modified the extremist agenda he was forced to embrace in order to secure the GOP presidential nomination. His “moderation” is mostly a matter of assertion, but must be refuted in some detail; simply calling him a liar or charlatan will easily melt in the undifferentiated impression of casual voters that all politicians lie and lie equally, and particularly lie about each other.
With three debates and more than three weeks remaining, however, Democrats must work to rebuild both sides of the “big choice” advantage Obama enjoyed immediately after the convention, re-establishing the sense that the president is fighting right along with middle-class Americans to bring the country back from where it stood four years ago, and re-identifying Romney as offering an extremist version of George W. Bush’s policy agenda. Again, Mitt has already reached the limit of what the ideological commissars of his party will allow him to do to resposition itself; it’s just a matter of offering a clear and consistent refutation of the idea that he’s a candidate of “safe change,” and not the vehicle for a radical right-wing strike at the great policy accomplishments of the 20th century.
Taking up this simple but difficult challenge should be the focus for Team Obama–not the stylistic observances of pundits who don’t know much and care even less about the substantive differences between the parties and candidates.

The following article, by Erica Seifert, is cross-posted from The Carville-Greenberg Memo:
When Barack Obama and Mitt Romney met for their first debate one week ago, we were there — in the swing-voting state of Colorado — to track voters’ opinions during the debate.
Based on dials that voters used to register their real-time reactions and post-debate interviews, the results of our research were lackluster, at least for the president. During the debate, the dial lines fell flat when the president emphasized the progress his administration had made over the last four years.
By contrast, Romney performed well among independents when he talked about his plans for the future and the middle class. In our post-debate focus groups, voters told us they were “surprised” by Mitt Romney and “confused” by the president.
This was a different Barack Obama (and definitely a different Mitt Romney) than we had observed in September. Following the party conventions, our tracking showed stronger margins for President Obama, although the race remained close. And then Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” video suddenly appeared on the Mother Jones website. For many voters, this footage really changed the choice and the stakes. We saw the poll numbers move decisively in Obama’s direction and against Romney.
On the eve of the first debate, half of all voters (50 percent) gave Mitt Romney a negative rating and the president took a commanding lead on the ballot–leading by 7 points nationally and 6 points in the battleground states. More voters said they trusted Obama on key attributes that predict their choices–focusing on issues important to ordinary people and making the right decisions to address big national problems–and he had pulled even with Romney on issues where he had previously trailed, including the economy.
But the trend in the polls has changed course in the week since the debate. What happened? In the first debate, the president touched on none of the themes that had fortified his lead in the post-convention period–focusing on the future, emphasizing economic policies that build the middle class, and clarifying the choice over the “47 percent,” which Bill Clinton had summed up at the convention: Democrats believe “we’re in this together”; Republicans say, “you are on your own.” In many ways, Obama let Romney own the future and the middle class in the first debate.
We saw the results on the dial lines in Denver. And we have begun to see the impact in the polls. To win over swing voters and energize his base to turn out, the president needs to speak to these themes clearly, meaningfully, and emphatically. He needs to stand up for, and advocate policies to advance, the so-called “47 percent.”
The “47 percent” theme works because voters believe that if it was more than a simple gaffe, it revealed something important about Romney. It also works because Democrats can offer a powerful contrast: Medicare, Social Security, taxes, and a political outlook that rejects the “you’re on your own” economics advanced by Romney, Paul Ryan, and the Congressional Republicans.
Barack Obama has the chance to make this election about a country and an economy that works for all Americans. If he does that, Mitt Romney will not win.
Why is the “47 percent” so powerful? Our extensive research shows that voters–the elderly on Social Security, unmarried women, young people, veterans, the working poor, and even those in the middle class–strongly identify with the “47 percent.”

Read more…

In his WaPo post, “Vice presidential debate’s No. 1 rule: If chatter’s about Biden and Ryan, they’re doing it wrong,” David A. Fahrenthold unpacks what he believes to be the most important tip for both of the vice presidential candidates in tonight’s debate. NYT’s John Harwood has a diffrerent number one rule.
Pew poll shows expectations for Rep. Ryan actually higher than for Vice President Biden, according to the Wall St Journal.
Matt Miller has a pretty good script for Vice president Biden in his WaPo column. Among Miller’s suggested comments: “Let me be clear: I’ve worked with Republicans over my entire 40-year career. You can’t accomplish anything in Washington if you don’t. But something a little crazy has gotten into the water the GOP has been drinking these last few years. Too many Republicans today won’t support the policies we need to renew America’s middle class and assure opportunity and security in a global age…First, on taxes: The single highest priority of Mr. Ryan and Republicans in Congress has been to cut taxes on America’s top earners — even though we’ve been at war for a decade and have huge deficits to shrink. This is the first time in our history that America has cut taxes for top earners at a time of war. Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans think we should let other people’s children fight our wars, and let other people’s children pick up the tab for them later. The president and I believe this is wrong.”
E.J. Dionne, Jr. mines “Sherrod Brown’s lessons for Obama” in his WaPo column, quoting Sen. Brown thusly “Ryan, Brown said, has “dressed up trickle-down economics and wrapped it in an Ayn Rand novel.” The vice president, Brown added, should highlight the Republicans’ desire to privatize both Medicare and Social Security, reflected in Ryan’s own record and Republicans’ attempts to do so whenever they thought they had the votes. “It’s clear they want to go there,” Brown said.”
The National Journal’s Steven Shepard says “Polls Show Small Romney Bump in Swing States,” while Tom Sherfinski of the Washington Times reports that “NBC/WSJ poll: Obama leads by 6 points in Ohio, virtual tie in Fla., Va.”
But today Nate Silver’s latest numbers crunch gives Romney just a one in three chance of winning the Presidency.
At HuffPo, Alan I. Abramowitz reports on the “Dramatic Change in Racial Makeup of Gallup Tracking Poll as Likely Voter Results Begin.”
For those seeking refuge from panic-driven journalism, Ed Kilgore puts the presidential campaign in sober perspective in this Washington Monthly column.
Regarding the Romney campaign’s deployment of Kid Rock to help win youth votes, you have to wonder how cultural conservatives — especially the evangelicals — would feel about the over-the-top vulgarity of Kid Rock’s songs. See here and here for a couple of examples.
Ahh, the wisdom of Google.

The following post comes from an e-blast from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. Readers are strongly encouraged to click on the link below for a more in-depth look at this innovative Democracy Corps study:
Single women, people of color and young people – the Rising American Electorate — voted for change in 2008. To understand the dynamics of this election, Women’s Voices. Women Vote Action Fund and Democracy Corps engaged in a three-phase research project with a particular emphasis on disengaged voters, Obama defectors, and unmarried women. This project included a national survey, focus groups among unmarried and married women in Fairfax, Virginia and Columbus, Ohio, and dial meter research during the first presidential debate with follow up focus groups in Denver, Colorado.
What is clear is that unmarried women are more likely to engage and turn out when they are convinced they have a stake in the outcome of the election – and that there is a powerful argument that can be made to persuade them to show up and vote their values.
It is a pretty straightforward story. President Obama was pushing toward his 2008 margin among the Rising American Electorate- particularly unmarried women – according to this pivotal research completed right before the first debate. But the debate touched on none of the issues that have moved these voters.
According to this survey and focus groups, Obama can get to 2008 levels when he makes Romney own ‘the 47 percent’ and offers a robust message to make this country work for the middle class again – with more punch and choice, more values, more on the consequences of unequal power, and above all, big policy choices that go well beyond the thin rhetoric of the first debate.
Read the full memo at Democracy Corps.

Mitt Romney’s latest schizoid experiment to see how much flip-floppage he can get away with may not end so well. Romney sent out an “anti-abortion legislation? who me” trial balloon in an interview appearing in the Des Moines Register yesterday, and it is already doing a number on what’s left of his credibility.
After quoting from Romney’s support for a host of extreme anti-choice legislative measures in a National Review article, Ed Kilgore adds in his Washington Monthly post on the latest Romney evasion.:

So last year, in a carefully considered and drafted statement, Romney was all for new legislation to ban federal funding for Planned Parenthood, and promised to “advocate and support” federal “fetal pain” legislation along the lines of bills being promoted by anti-choice legislators from sea to shining sea. He basically agreed to do anything within the president’s power to help The Cause, with the exception of administering litmus tests to a host of his appointees, which is what the SBA List was asking him to do. To some extent, his comments to the Register simply reflected the limitations of the executive branch on this particular subject, which has been a source of great frustration to anti-choicers over the years.
But Moderate Mitt should not be able to get away with bland reassurances on this issue–with his own campaign repudiating him almost on the spot–without dealing with specific pledges he made during this very campaign. Is he–on behalf of himself and his loyal running-mate, Paul Ryan, who up until now has been universally considered a leader in the anti-choice cause–specifically retracting promises to promote a funding ban on Planned Parenthood and federal legislation flatly banning abortions prior to some arbitrary point in the second trimester of pregnancy?

It’s another 180 degree flip-flop for Mitt the Mullet, and it will be interesting to see how many are willing to let it pass unchallenged.