It’s not just Big Bird that Romney plans to fire; He will also try to screw America’s charitable nonprofits if he is elected. Brian Beutler explains at Talking Points Memo:

Mitt Romney’s big new tax reform idea — to cap the amount individuals can benefit from tax deductions in a given year — still lacks for hard specifics but the basic shape of the idea provides tax economists key clues about its potential incidence. And the biggest loser, if he were to implement the plan as president, according to an expert on charitable giving, would be one of the right’s favorite features of the tax code: the deduction for charitable giving.
“The effect on charitable giving is likely to be large for high income individuals, especially in the short run,” says Jim Andreoni, a UC San Diego professor of economics who studies the economics of charitable giving.
Under the current tax code, people are allowed to deduct scores of expenses from their taxable income. Mortgage interest is tax deductible. The cost to workers of their employer-provided insurance is excluded from their taxable income. And reflecting the long-held conservative view that private giving rather than government should be the main source of public welfare, charitable contributions are partially exempt from taxation.
If Romney were to impose a cap on the total amount individuals could benefit from these deduction, people would likely respond by shifting priorities, experts say. But some priorities are more easily shifted than others. While it’s very difficult to downsize a home, and a bitter pill to accept stingier health insurance benefits, cutting smaller checks to churches, universities, and ballet companies is a no-brainer.
…”[D]ata show that the tax deduction is very important to donations,” Andreoni adds. “So, high income donors will have two reasons to cut back on giving. First, they are losing after-tax income from deductions on things other than giving and that are hard to adjust, like mortgage interest. Second, giving itself will become far more expensive and is far easier to change than other deductions. It’s intuitive to me that charitable giving will take a big hit from the cap on deductions.”

Milton Friedman, sainted economic guru of libertarian Republicans, urged his fellow conservatives to give to charities as an alternative way to help the poor in preference to government public assistance programs. Ayn Rand, in stark contrast, condemned even charity for the poor as a misguided value worthy of contempt. Romney, like Ryan, clearly identifies more with Rand’s viewpoint, and that is not likely to sit well with most Americans.

Ace polling analysts Mark Blumenthal and Adam Carlson have an update on the battle for control of the U.S. Senate, and Republicans aren’t going to like it. Writing at HuffPo, Blumenthal and Carlson explain:

…With the exception of Connecticut, where a new poll released on Thursday indicates a very close race for the open Senate seat being vacated by independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, Republicans have seen few positive trends in their uphill battle to regain control of the U.S. Senate.
Currently, a combination of both returning senators and also candidates leading in 2012 contests would give the Democrats 48 seats, with 51 needed for a majority. One independent candidate likely to caucus with the Democrats continues to lead in polls in Maine. To retain control of the Senate, the Democrats would need to carry just two of eight races now considered toss-ups, a list that has been expanding in recent weeks.

The authors review competitive Senate races, now trending Democratic and conclude:

…In recent weeks, the Republican candidates appear to have lost ground in Senate races in Arizona, Indiana, Wisconsin and Missouri, while gaining only in Connecticut. With less than five weeks remaining before the votes are counted, the odds of a Republican Senate majority appear long.

That’s quite a change from a year ago, when a GOP takeover of the Senate was considered all but a done deal.

The following excerpt, by political strategist Mike Lux, author of The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, is cross-posted from HuffPo:
There’s no spinning this one, babe:… Obama was off his game, and Romney was so much better than usual he looked almost lifelike. But the real story…reinforces the fact that Democrats are winning the overall debate in this race, because the way Romney won…was by acting like a Democrat — and by being a stunningly blatant bald-faced liar. [The] debate will not change the basic dynamic of this race because Romney is playing on our turf. The biggest question.is ..not whether the election dynamic is different, it is whether the press corps does its job and calls Romney on his lies. Having lived through the Al Gore debate where a couple of tiny exaggerations set off a media firestorm over whether Al Gore was a serial liar, if the media doesn’t nail Romney on his BS, it would be a moment of shame. Based on a video I got sent this morning by the Obama campaign, it looks like…reporters started to dip their toes into the water on a Romney Pinocchio routine, so we’ll see if they do their job and that keeps building.
Whether the media does its job, though, Romney’s strategy…was remarkable: after years of thoroughly sucking up to the right wing base of his party in every conceivable way, Romney…sounded more like a Democrat than a great many Democrats I have seen over the years. He talked about how important regulations were to a market economy. He decried Too Big To Fail banks. He said he wanted to lower the tax burden on middle income people but didn’t want the wealthy to pay any less than they currently pay. He emphasized that our society needs to take care of poor people and seniors. He passionately disparaged cuts to Medicare. He talked about the importance of helping the middle class and how we needed rising wages and incomes, not just more jobs. He emphasized the importance of high quality teachers and schools. He said he wanted to keep people from losing their health insurance because of preexisting conditions.
Romney’s policies put the lie to all these things, and the rhetoric is the precise opposite of what he said during the Republican primary and his remarks on the infamous 47 percent video. But no matter: we still have the Etch-A-Sketch device. And we have a candidate who is willing to say absolutely anything if the moment calls for it.
The most fascinating thing about all this isn’t that Romney is so willing to say anything, even if it contradicts his policy stands and past rhetoric, because he has been doing all that for quite a while. The fascinating thing is how the Republicans are walking away from their own arguments about the economy. For years now, we have been hearing from Republicans that we have to cut taxes and regulations for the wealthy so that they can create more jobs. We have been hearing that since 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax, we will need to tax lower and middle income people more. We have been hearing that we need to cut programs that help poor and middle income folks because people were growing too dependent on government, that we had too many “takers” and not enough “makers.”
…In his most blatant lie of a night that was chock full of them, Mitt even tried to frame his and Ryan’s budget proposal, which openly lowers taxes for the wealthy and massively slashes funding for virtually all domestic programs, as a budget that would do the opposite of what it does. What we heard from Mitt.is ..that you should vote for him because he really is a Democrat.
The only good news from the night was that, while polls show voters thought Romney won, the debate really did not change the nature of this race at all. Whether the press corps does its job or not and calls out Romney for all the lies, this election is being fought on our turf. In the campaign ads and speeches, in the next three debates, the Obama team needs to clearly and definitively show, as all the evidence makes obvious, that Romney really is not a Democrat and does not share the values or support the policies he said he did…If we stay true to ourselves, we will show that Romney and Ryan are definitely not true to what they believe, or being honest with the American public.

Via Chris Bowers, Daily Kos has a couple of posts up skewering Romney for his outright lying in the first presidential debate, Barbara Morrill’s post, “Mitt Romney: Lying to victory” and Voter123’s post, “NPR: Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks.” See also Sara Jones’s “The 12 Lies That Made Mitt Romney’s Debate Performance Pure Fiction” at PolitcusUSA.
Romney also had a disturbing gaffe, missed by many, but not by the Boston Herald’s Frank Quaratiello, who noted: “The GOP nominee, who co-founded Boston-based private-equity firm Bain Capital and has been blasted for outsourcing jobs and laying off workers at some of the companies he took over, tried to take the president to task…”You said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas,” Romney said. “Look, I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about.” If he had stopped there, Romney might have been fine, but his next line was: “I maybe need to get a new accountant.” The implication was stunning and crystal clear: Romney, who has been trying to dodge his image as a ruthless corporate raider, or his accountant would have known about any tax break for outsourcing — and would have taken advantage of it…The Republican’s implication was clear: I ought to know.”
It’s good to see that the Prez already has his mojo back, according to David Nakamura’s WaPo post, “After sluggish presidential debate, a more combative Obama appears at Denver rally.”
At WaPo, James Downie sees it like this: “…The president’s supporters would be wrong to wring their hands. Fundamentally, Obama’s loss will not matter. At most, Wednesday night was a case of “too little, too late” for Romney. Yes, the polls will probably move a point or two in Romney’s direction after the first debate. But all the evidence suggests that for Romney, whether or not you believe he should be president, closing the gap and beating Obama is a bridge too far…never has a challenger’s strong first debate performance closed as large a national polling gap as Romney faced going into last night’s debate…The majority of voters have already made their decision, and the debates won’t provide enough of a boost to alter the contest’s trajectory. Sadly for Romney, the path the race is stuck on ends with his defeat.”
Ezra Klein’s Wonkblog post “How much will the debate move the polls?” offers this guestimation: “…Wednesday was as good a night as Romney can expect to have in the rest of this campaign, in front of as big an audience as he’ll get, with a maximum of media coverage. So his bounce will help tell us how many voters really remain persuadable, or at least how many of the persuadable voters are paying attention to the final events of the campaign. If that number is high, Romney should close the gap substantially, if not pull slightly ahead. If it’s low, he won’t see much bounce, and it will be that much harder to see his path to victory.”
Mother Jones’s David Corn has a revealing explanation for “Why Obama Didn’t Mention the 47 Percent Video.”
At the Crystal Ball, Larry J. Sabato, Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley say “Given the polarized electorate — which Crystal Ball Senior Columnist Alan Abramowitz has written about at length — we believe poll respondents when they say that the debates probably won’t change their minds…If Romney cannot significantly move the polls after turning in such a strong performance against Obama, what is left on the calendar to change the numbers in his favor? (Maybe the two jobs reports or an unscheduled October/November surprise?) Meanwhile, if Romney does make significant gains — cutting into or even erasing the president’s national lead and gaining ground in the swing states, particularly in vital Ohio — will Obama be able to recapture momentum in the debates to come? At least we now have a reason to stay tuned.”
In “The Return of Massachusetts Mitt,” Jonathan Chait opines at New York Magazine, “I do think the instantaneous, echo chamber reaction that is handing Romney an overwhelming victory is overstated. Romney made a huge error selling his Medicare plan, promising, “if you’re around 60, you don’t need to listen any further.” It was a moment in which he went from smooth to oily — when you urge voters to stop paying attention, and especially on an issue where they start off distrusting you, it heightens the distrust. Obama replied, “if you’re 54 or 55, you might want to listen, because this will affect you.””
For an interesting take on the debate by award-winning debate coach Todd Graham, read “Debate coach: Obama, heat up; Romney, stay cool” at cnn.com. Graham says: “Obama will need to stick to one subject over a series of exchanges. If he doesn’t, Romney will be like Teflon, and nothing Obama says will stick to him in these debates…And the president should utilize the backward-step-pivot-forward technique as often as possible. Since Romney will continue to put him on the defensive (and this is guaranteed), Obama must turn potential flaws into strengths. It’s easy enough to predict Romney’s attacks. Now, the president must figure out rhetorically how to turn those criticisms into benefits.”
Just to bring today’s Strategy Notes 10-pack full circle, check out Mike Luckovitch’s cartoon, The Great Debate

Ed Kilgore’s Washington Monthly post, The Audacity of Mendacity addresses the question of how long Romney can get away with piling up outrageous lies with little accountability. As Kilgore explains:

Can the president and his forces (with some possible help from MSM types who are probably embarrassed they didn’t mention Mitt’s factual challenges in awarding him the overwhelming victory last night) bring swing voters up to the level of informed cynicism that just about every regular political observer, D and R, felt while watching Mitt reinvent himself? I don’t see why not, though it would have been vastly more efficient to have done so during a debate being watched by 50 million people.
The more difficult question is how Mitt Romney follows up this reprieve and deals with the inevitable blowback. Sure, he’ll take a victory lap now, and you can expect his people to become an endless fount of upbeat chatter about Momentum and Enthusiasm and all that psych-ops jazz. Perhaps having now laid out his “vision for the country,” he’ll go right back to the old game of calling the election a referendum on the president and refuse to deal with all the questions about his agenda, which were increased, not resolved, by his debate performance….
…At some point, the blatant and continuing contradiction between what Mitt’s been telling “the base” and what he’s telling swing voters now will matter, even if, as seems far more likely today, the representatives of “the base” are willing to go along with the game, believing deeply that it’s voters, not they, who are getting zoomed.

As Kilgore concludes, “Mitt Romney negotiated a fine highwire act last night, but he’s still up there teetering, with a long way to go to safety.”

The following analysis, “Romney Has a Good Night, But No Evidence of Changing the Game : Strong Debate Performance Does Not Seem Likely to Change Political Calculus,” is cross-posted from Democracy Corps:

Working in partnership with the Women’s Voices. Women Vote Action Fund, Democracy Corps seated a group of 45 swing voters in Denver to watch and react to the first Presidential debate. This group, which included 16 unmarried women, is part of a larger research effort to take a hard look at these critical voters, exploring their role and participation in the 2012 elections.
Overall, the dial testing and follow-up discussions showed Mitt Romney performing well, improving his personal appeal and a number of important attributes. Obama also impressed the group, but not to the same degree as Romney. However, the research does not suggest that Romney fundamentally changed the political calculus in this election. For example, while Romney picked up some voters, he mostly consolidated undecided voters who leaned Republican–the former McCain voters who had not yet warmed up to the Republican nominee. He did not cut into Obama’s weak support among voters in this group.
It is important to recognize that while we recruited swing voters, most of the “swing voters” in the group reflected the remaining swing voters in much of the country. In this group, there were nearly twice as many Republican-leaning participants as Democratic-leaning participants–22 percent Democratic-leaning to 42 percent Republican-leaning. These participants voted for McCain by a 9-point margin in 2008.
Romney improved his personal appeal score in the group by 27 points and did particularly well moving the needle on “taxes,” the “economy” and being a “strong leader.” In the dials, he impressed voters with his five-point economic plan, his promotion of small businesses, and newly-found commitment to bi-partisanship.
As one participant said in a post-debate focus group, “Romney cleared up a few things for me that I’d seen in commercials and hearsay. It makes a lot more sense now. The debate helped say he does know what is going on.”
The President also had his moments. Obama’s best points in the dials came when he referred to the “Clinton model” and the former President’s job growth coupled with tax fairness. Among unmarried women in particular, Obama’s promotion of community colleges and defense of Obamacare found traction in the dials. As one unmarried woman put it, “I like the whole community college aspect about Obama. He has my best interests in heart.”
In the end, though, this debate did not emerge as the game-changer the Romney campaign needed. While his ballot support grew in pre- and post-debate testing, so did Obama’s. Moreover, all of Romney’s gains came from Republican-leaning undecided voters. He did not move a single voter away from Obama.
Only 42 percent of these voters concluded Romney won the debate, no larger than the Republican lean of this small sample. Nearly four in ten voters (38 percent) say neither candidate won the debate.
Romney’s greatest tactical achievement was winning the engagement over taxes, an issue where he came into the group at a disadvantage, but especially won over participants talking about small businesses.
But even while making significant gains over Obama on the economy, Romney failed to fundamentally advance on the core issue of this campaign: restoring the middle class. Even in a group where these voters believe Romney won the debate, Romney only managed a net 3-point shift on “restoring the American class.” Romney posted a similarly unimpressive shift on “cares about people like you.” The latter is particularly critical, especially given the recent discussion around the “47 percent.” This debate did not seem to erase the biggest gaffe of the campaign so far. As one woman said, the “47 percent [comment] was really insensitive. I don’t know what he was thinking or feeling. If this is the kind of stuff he says when he doesn’t think people are seeing or listening…”
The debate also represents an important missed opportunity for Obama on the issue of women. Obama comes to this issue with huge advantages, both in this focus group and in national surveys. But he failed to expand his lead. Among unmarried women, Obama started the debate with 50-point advantage – an advantage that did not change during the course of the debate. As one unmarried woman said, “they didn’t touch on women’s issues at all. That’s a big thing for me.”

I’ve heard it said somewhere that in every defeat you can find the keys to a future victory — if you learn the lesson(s) of the loss. Here’s hoping President Obama has debate coaches that will give it to him straight. And while no one has appointed me to that lofty position, it appears that the president’s coaches could benefit from some unsolicited advice, which is what the political blogosphere is supposed to provide.
Lesson #1: Style, unfortunately, matters. If you look at the actual transcript of the debate, and read it in context of Romney’s record and his unflagging vacillations, Obama won. He was far more truthful and accurate, and made more well-stated points — on paper. But no one is calling it an Obama victory, because his presentation was, well, kinda wimpy.
It’s clear the President forgot about the split screen format (I refuse to believe his coaches didn’t tell him — they can’t be that bad…can they?). As a result, he spent a huge portion of his on-camera face time looking down and taking notes, like a chastened schoolboy. Romney, in stark contrast, stood rail-straight and looked directly at Obama when the President was talking.
Lesson #2: Give your inner wonk a rest. Stated another way, go lighter on the policy analysis and show more compassion and moral concern, as psycholinguists like George Lakoff and Drew Westen have urged. Here’s an excerpt from Lakoff’s HuffPo post, ‘Why Obama Lost the First Debate“:

You don’t win a presidential debate by being a policy wonk. Obama violated all the basics of presidential debating. The best defense is a good offense. You have to set the terms of the debate and press those terms. Obama failed. Here are those basics:
-State your moral values. Contrast them with your opponent’s.
-Project empathy and enthusiasm. Connect.
-Communicate clearly and simply.
-Be authentic. Say just what you believe.
-Project trust.
-Present an authentic view of yourself that the public can identify with and be proud of.
Obama did none of this. Instead he talked about policy details.

Lesson #3: Attack. Obama seemed verbally stuck in a defensive crouch. He scored a couple of jabs. But his hits should have been harder. While I would give Obama an “A” for civility and graciousness, at a certain point civility can morph into surrender, when your adversary is hitting hard. It’s possible to be both civil and strong. Where were the attack points on Romney’s hidden taxes and offshore bank accounts, Bain’s outsourcing or his condescending dismissal of the 47 percent who need some government help? There should be brief, well-crafted soundbites for each of these attack points on the tip of Obama’s tongue, and at least one or two of them should blister.
President Obama is much sharper than Romney on a broad range of issues and his policies merit the support of an overwhelming majority of voters, in contrast to those of his adversary. But it won’t do the president any good unless he distills his attack points and hones them to do serious damage to Romney’s bloviating persona. Defeat can be an excellent teacher, when the student is paying attention.

Evan Soltas of Ezra Klein’s Wonkblog has what may be the best wrap-up thus far of last night’s debate (full transcript here). Among Soltas’s observations:

Wonkbook’s number of the day: 67. That’s the percentage of 430 voters who said in a CNN snap poll that Mitt Romney won the first debate against President Obama. Twenty-five percent of these voters said Obama won the debate.
In the same poll, 61 percent said Obama had a worse performance in the debate than they expected; 82 percent said Mitt Romney overperformed their expectations. 18 percent of voters said they were more likely to vote for Obama as a result of the debate, 35 percent said they were more likely to cast a ballot for Romney, and 47 percent said it would have no effect on their vote.

Soltas notes that Romney also won the spin war, since the commentariat is close to unanimous that Romney won the night. Soltas also credits Romney with a dominating offense, forcing Obama to be defensive, failing to attack Romney for his 47 percent comment or Bain Capital [nor his offshore personal banking and failure to be open about his taxes]. Soltas quotes Ezra Klein crediting Romney with “crisp, clear answers and an easy demeanor.”
As Josh Barro, quoted by Soltas, puts it at Bloomberg, “The debates usually don’t do a lot to change how people vote. When they do matter, as with Gerald Ford in 1976, it’s usually because of a major blunder, not a broadly weak performance.” And many will remember that George Bush II’s abysmal performance in his first debate (“It’s hard, it’s hard…”) with a highly energetic, focused and well-prepared John Kerry in 2004 did not prevent Bush from winning re-election.