Beinart worries that the race is still “Romney’s to lose”:
I suspect—or should I say, fear—that the reason the polls moved so much is that there were a lot of voters who had tuned Obama out as a result of the bad economy. They were ready to vote against him so long as Romney passed a reasonable threshold, which he did. We’ve seen this before in presidential campaigns: in 1980, Americans were looking for an excuse to vote against the incumbent, Jimmy Carter, and so what mattered most in the debates was that Reagan didn’t look like a right-wing maniac. In 2008, Americans were looking for an excuse to vote against the de facto incumbent, John McCain, and so what mattered most in the debates was that Obama didn’t look like a novice. If the debates are really about people disillusioned with Obama becoming comfortable with Romney, it doesn’t really matter that Obama did better than Romney tonight because Romney did well enough. He again and again reminded Americans that the economy is worse than Obama said it would be, and he offered some kind of plan to make it better.
Peter may be right in his analysis of what happened in the first debate. He may even be right that the success the Obama team had in defining Romney in the spring and summer may have enabled Romney’s surge after the first debate. But I don’t believe Romney last night presented a more positive and specific response for the future than Obama did. And last night, many of the resilient lies used against Obama in the past were finally refuted.
Where we may be now is where we were always headed: for a close Bush-Kerry style election. Bush was saved by Ohio.
The Dish 