Debates haven't helped Republicans' chances of winning the White House, Simon says. GOPers debate, Obama just smiles

In a recent interview with a group of journalists, President Barack Obama revealed his secret weapon for winning the election in 2012.

“I don’t think it requires us to go negative in the sense of us running a bunch of ads that are false or character assassinations,” he said. “We may just run clips of the Republican debates verbatim. We won’t even comment on them; we’ll just run those in a loop.”


Obama may be onto something. In fact, he may not even need an opposition research team this election. All he needs is a guy with a DVR and the patience, the grit, the sheer fortitude to watch every minute of every Republican debate.

And you have to wonder at what point the Republican candidates for president will wake up and realize all the debates they have waded through so far have not particularly helped their chances of winning the White House.

By my count, there have been 10 major debates over the past six months. And what has been the result?

They have made Obama look better.

According to the POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll released Monday, which was conducted by Lake Research Partners and The Tarrance Group, “The path to victory for Democrats is looking eminently clearer and more navigable,” and Obama and the Democrats now have “some welcome wind at their backs.”

According to the poll:

• “In head-to-head matchups, President Obama leads both Mitt Romney — 48 percent Obama to 43 percent Romney — and Herman Cain — 49 percent Obama to 40 percent Cain — by sound margins and noticeable leads in intensity of support.”

• “Roughly 80 percent of Obama’s support in both trial heats is derived from voters who say they are definitely going to vote for him.”

• “Independents support Obama 47 percent to 34 percent over Romney — Romney being the candidate a 48 percent plurality of Republicans believes will win the nomination.”

• “Obama not only wins over swing independents but consolidates his partisan base as well with 87 percent of Democrats supporting him.”

• “Democrats face the next 12 months with several important advantages, including … an opposition party that is defined … by the base’s displeasure with its potential presidential nominees.”

Not that everything is bleak for the Republicans. In GQ’s December issue, Cain is quoted as saying, “The more toppings a man has on his pizza, I believe the more manly he is. … A manly man [doesn’t] want it piled high with vegetables! He would call that a sissy pizza.”

If you find that statement somewhat odd or even unpresidential, don’t worry. In the next four months, there are 13 more debates scheduled. And Cain will have ample opportunity to explain what he means by “sissy pizza,” “Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan,” “I’ve got all this stuff twirling around in my head” and “I have never acted inappropriately with anyone.”

That is the beauty of these Republican debates. They have not just been more revealing than many of the candidates wanted them to be — ask Rick Perry — but they are also endless. Ninety minutes not enough to get in every question? Don’t worry, there will be another debate in a week or so.

Obama faces no such trial by combat, because he has no opposition. He won’t have to debate anybody until he faces the Republican nominee next year on Oct. 3 in Denver. You could look at that and say that Obama hasn’t debated anybody since Oct. 15, 2008, and that he could be mighty rusty.

Or you could look at that and say that by the time the Republicans are finally done debating each other, the nominee will be an oozing pile of mincemeat.

Newt Gingrich has said that if he is the Republican nominee, he will follow Obama around the country, dogging him until Obama agrees to seven “Lincoln-Douglas-style debates,” each lasting three hours with no moderator and only a timekeeper.

Presumably, the American public will have to be roped into their Barcaloungers with their eyelids propped open with toothpicks to watch 21 hours of such debating, even when one of the participants is as electrifying as Gingrich.

Gingrich doesn’t mention it, but the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 were not for the presidency but for a Senate seat, and the incumbent Democrat, Stephen Douglas, won. In those days, senators were chosen by state legislatures. So Abraham Lincoln and Douglas were really just trying to get a bunch of friendly legislators in their pockets.

In the Republican debates so far this year, each candidate has been limited to 60-second answers and 30-second rebuttals. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, one candidate would speak for an hour, then the other would speak for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate finished up by speaking for 30 minutes.

Sound like something you’d like to watch? Sure it is. Just as soon as “NCIS” is over.

Don’t feel bad. As debate historian Joel Swerdlow has written: “The Lincoln-Douglas encounters were popular mostly because they were excellent theater and not because what was said was particularly wise or revealing.”

So I guess they were more modern than we think.

Roger Simon is POLITICO’s chief political columnist.