Mitt Romney came out loaded for bear in the first debate last night (Oct 3, 2012). He was animated, full of information, and fully energized.

President Obama, on the other hand, appeared passive, disengaged.

On Facebook, I kept a running list of comments going during the debate. Early on I said Romney was kicking butt, and repeated it later. That was my perception, and all of the pundits pretty much agreed with me. (Not that they were reading my Facebook feed.)

It also appeared to me that Romney was hogging much more air time. But this morning I learned that, according to the persons keeping the game clock, Obama spoke over four minutes more than Romney did–42:40 for Obama, 38:14 for Romney. I would never have guessed that. So I’m wondering what shaped my perception. Maybe, because I found Obama’s turns so dull, I was tuning him out, checking email, or using the opportunity to go to the fridge. Or, more likely, doing a Facebook update.

I did find Romney’s aggressive style to be off-putting. It annoyed me, the way he steamrolled the moderator, and forced his way into the foray. But I don’t find many other people bothered by that.

Will Romney’s performance matter? It certainly will help at least some. But the electorate is very polarized, with minds already made up. Maybe it’ll move the needle, but maybe not.

The pressure is on Biden now. If both ends of the Republican ticket prevail, that won’t go well for the incumbents. I do expect Obama to do much better in the town hall format. They will both be interacting with everyday people, rather than going at each other. Clearly, going at each other face to face is a format where Romney excels.

That, unfortunately for Obama, will also be the format for the final debate. However, the subject is foreign policy, which (in my book) is a glaring weakness for Romney and a strength for Obama. But Romney obviously prepares very, very thoroughly. I much prefer Obama’s view of the world and generally like his stewardship of foreign affairs. Whereas some of Romney’s statements, especially his sabre-rattling regarding Iran (he sometimes has seemed to really want to get into a war with Iran) seriously concerns me.

But we’ll see. I would predict, at this point, that Romney will win that final debate as well. And then it’s just a couple weeks until people vote.

Neither candidate has gotten specific on what he’ll do to get the economy moving. I’ve decided that neither candidate really, truly, knows. We’ll see in tomorrow’s first debate if either gets specific. I don’t expect Obama to do that–he, sadly, seems to be coasting just fine on the strength of incumbency. Meanwhile, Romney must make the case for an alternative path, and he’s just not getting it done. He keeps getting sidetracked.

Has there ever been an incumbent more vulnerable on the economy than Obama? At least, since Herbert Hoover in 1933? Republican movers and shakers are going nuts over what is shaping up to be a monumental missed opportunity.

This morning on Morning Joe, Chuck Todd made a good point. He said Romney has made the case for a weak economy, but hasn’t connected the weakness of the economy to specific Obama policies. Obama, on the other hand, has successfully directed blame in two directions: to the mess he inherited from George Bush, and to uncompromising Congressional Republicans.

The September 17 BusinessWeek notes that, if Romney got more specific, it would just open himself up to more attacks. That’s true. The same applies to Obama. Tackling the debt will require some pain and sacrifice, and people won’t vote in favor of pain and sacrifice. So the candidates are dodging. Obama’s getting away with it, Romney isn’t.