180 degrees

That’s the outcome if you listen to some Obama supporters.

The President’s virtual no-show on stage in Denver has his usual flag bearers in the media apoplectic in despair. The drama would be entertaining if it were not so serious for them.
Here’s Andrew Sullivan, a usually pro-Obama blogger on The Daily Beast website: “I've never seen a candidate self-destruct for no external reason this late in a campaign before.”

The fallout for the left-wing was so savage that Saturday Night Live felt it funny enough to parody in a sketch.

Some of the blowback was based on a poll from the Pew Research Center that now has Romney four points ahead of Obama post-debate. The hook for Pew was that a month earlier Obama had a 51 per cent to 43 per cent lead over Romney.

Gallup, meanwhile, released its own poll that claimed Obama and Romney were neck and neck at 47 per cent a piece while others still have Obama leading, if only just.

Which throws up an interesting idea. Obama was clearly off his game last weekend. He failed to fight back against Romney and never countered effectively, looking lethargic and like he wanted to be elsewhere.

Romney, meanwhile, came out so energized, he smiled as he condemned Sesame Street’s Big Bird to death in a comment related to funding public TV. Voters apparently said ‘Who cares?’ to fact checkers as Romney got a bounce. This election was done. After one debate, everyone should pack up and go home. Obama was toast.

An important factor here is that Americans are not used to a parliamentary system where Julia Gillard’s blistering attack on Tony Abbott is part of regular political engagement (if, in the Prime Minister’s case, she is fired up on an issue).

The Presidential debates, therefore, become an event, a sport, a political Superbowl. It is now possible that the fortunes of an election campaign really do swing on 90 minutes of televised stunts where you are not necessarily beholden to facts or policy (as Romney wasn’t).

Which prompts the question, why have a campaign at all? Why not just hold three debates over a month and then go to polls? When President Obama has had to raise $690 million to keep his job and Mitt Romney has $633 million in the bank to win that job, why not tip that money into something else for the common good?  (That’s before you count the silly money spent by the so-called ‘Super-PACS’ on this campaign).

Set up a shaky set in front of a live audience, have cheerleaders and hot dogs, and go toe-to-toe. Done in a month. Off to the polls. Good efficiency and save on time and money.

Would anyone vote for that?