andrew sullivan, gay activist and liberal columnist says that Pres. Obama may have lost the election last night
andrew sullivan, gay activist and liberal columnist says that Pres. Obama may have lost the election last night
Going by the press coverage after first TV debates where a sitting president faced a challenger, the record for presidents is 1-6 (including last night), meaning the president almost always loses the first debate, but half of those presidents still went on to win.
mitt was more personable more likable than Obama last night - that's pretty shocking
one of his really good lines after Pres.s
"i don't have a $5T tax cut - i don't have a tax cut on the scale that you're talking about ...... my view is we ought to provide tax relief to the middle class ...... but I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high income people - they're doing just fine in this economy they'll do fine with me or you as President ......... the people who are struggling now are middle income folks ....
under your policy they're getting "buried" (see Joe Biden) getting crushed
then he said .....
i know that u and ur running mate keep saying that i have a $5T tax cut planned and it's a popular thing to say but it's not the case"
LOOK I HAVE 5 BOYS - I'M USED TO PEOPLE SAYING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ALWAYS TRUE BUT KEEP ON REPEATING IT AND ULTIMATELY HOPING I'LL BELIEVE IT"
and i still think obama will win
didn't he scare u last night with his inability to talk to anything? and looking down?
and not engaging in any real debate?
then today all of a sudden he has a pair of balls when mitt isn't in front of him?
for me this feels like an nfl game where an average team - played a great game - and beat a more talented team
but it's still the regular season
All it did was re-energize the R base. Obama did not lose any voters. Undecideds are still undecided.
Obviously Bush is "anti-white" too?
Last edited by andysayshi; October 4th, 2012 at 06:42 PM.
check out the link - the data says the oppositeMitt Romney accomplished in one night of debate what the marquee names of the Republican Party couldn’t accomplish in three nights of the convention: he boosted his likability rating. A CBS News poll found that the percentage of undecided voters who say they feel Romney cares about their needs spiked by 33 percent after last night’s performance:
Last edited by opinterph; October 4th, 2012 at 07:49 PM. Reason: added quote tags
Historically, debates typically provide short-term bumps in polls, and little else. There was nothing major revealed, no mega blunders, no big surprises, so little will change. It will energise Mitt's donors, so he'll get some cash flowing in. And hopefully it might remind Dems that they they need to pull their fingers out and work hard to win. This is NOT going to be an easy election for Obama to win - he needs to bring his A game to every debate from now.
I think Obama realizes that welfare dependancy is not a good issue for him. A large percentage of the people agree that too many (other) people are recieving welfare and other charity. Many of the seniors included in the 47% figure would agree. If Obama raises the issue Romney is prepared to discuss the problem wth statistics. Recent news disclosed that 100 million are getting some form of welfare, not including Social Security and medicare. 47 million get food stamps including illegal immigrants. Romney will say again that Obama should have spent his energy helping employment instead of focusing on give aways including Obama care. I don't think Obama will open that Pandoras box.
I think it's hysterical how Conservatives are all happy with Romney. This guy just threw Conservatives to the wolves last night and transformed from the Far Right Conservative Candidate of the Primaries into Mitt "The Moderate" ... and not a peep about it.
Just goes to show that it isn't about substance at all ... but rather about style and "Football Politics"-- cheering on the Home Team no matter what.
Telling it like it is.
and he was better in every way last night than a sitting president
he was more engaged
he was more likable
he was better prepared
he had good energy
he was CLEAR
and it was pretty unexpected
he had Obama on the defensive from start to finish
the above is a lotta "what"
There have been a number of front-runners who have squandered leads due to their debate performance if you follow the historic pre-debate polls. Sometimes obviously other circumstances also played a roll.
80--Carter lead Reagan until "are you better off..." line at debate
92--Clinton was lingering between 2nd and 3rd place with Bush and Perot prior to his debate performance and Bush's inability to connect
00-- Gore was ahead before stumbling in all this debates with Bush 2.
Of course, Kerry won all his debates but still lost in '04.
In regards to incumbents, what Maddow said above is very true which was why a month ago I posted that Romney would take the first debate. Challengers do well vs incumbents in first debates.
But Chance1 , I must ask you if it doesn't make you uncomfortable that your man, Romney, suddenly became a free-wheelin' grandma-loving, poor people loving Massachussetts "liberal" again after two years of convincing America he was an extreme conservative? Do you not now wonder, "will the real Slim Shady please stand up?" I watched most of the GOP debates and I did not recognize that man last night. I liked him last night, but it wasn't anyone I've seen before.
I HATE that he chose/had to be "severely conservative" during the primaries - I personally think if he had a "sister souljah" moment early on in the primaries and explained who he was (a moderate) and that getting the economy back was the only thing that mattered and that he would not engage in right win politics ............
he run and won in Massachusetts right? what does that tell you?
primary politics sucks !!!
obama WON his dem primary in 2008 by being uber liberal - does it bother u that he's not that guy?
bottom line is he's not my fav but i think he's better suited to fix the economy than BO
This is the Obama a lot of people saw for the first time last night. It wasn't pretty.
Yeah, primaries do bring out the crazies but they are fun.
Interesting , I never saw Obama to be uber liberal in the '08 primaries...liberal, yes but not wacky liberal. He had such a minimal record and experience that there was very little to go on legislatively. He is about 60-70% the man I thought I was voting for....his beliefs have not been that out of sync with me (I did hate TARP) but his ability to lead and negotiate has been my biggest disappointment. He does not bend in the way that B Clinton did, making him less able to pass at least something; Hillary would have done better on the Hill. Still, I'd rather have Obama appoint court justices than Romney anyday.
Here are the specifics about what Romney will do for the economy:
Obama really isn't liberal; he's actually at the right end of the Democratic scale.
Romney used a technique in last night's debate called "Gish Gallop"... look it up.
If he tries to use the same technique in the remaining 2 debates it will backfire.
And you believe that businessmen are what America needs. Because the two previous presidents whose experience was primarily from business - Herbert Hoover and GWB - did such a great job managing the economy.
And yet, still you support this institution.
I wonder that you do not plan to vote for Obama because you think he is lying about wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy, about wanting to solve the health care problem, and about wanting to recognize gay marriage. You seem to judge that Romney is lying (he's actually the liberal you would prefer him to be) but Obama is telling the truth.
And your strategy is to vote for Romney because he lies.
It's all too easy to become conspiratorial about things, but for Obama to just stand there and look down at his podium while Mittens spews falsehood after unchallenged falsehood just doesn't make sense.
And when something doesn't make sense, it's either a lie or something is going on "behind the scenes."
Love him or hate him, Obama can be a brilliant orator that can lift a room up so high they have to look down to see heaven. That man didn't just vanish overnight in "the altitude".
I've always said that Obama is a chess player in a town full of checker players...
Please, Lord, let me be right in that assessment.
Last edited by Joshua_me; October 4th, 2012 at 11:36 PM.
Dems play chess, while the Rs play war. To kill. Literally.
Have y'all read about the "cheat sheet" Romney brought into the debate with him? (thereby violating the debate rules)
I'm just flabbergasted that there are gay people here who would vote Republican, I mean where do I start - internalised homophobia perhaps, or maybe gay rights are just not important to them jobs are. But wait Romney is committed to outsourcing jobs to other countries so that cant be it. Baffles me, because even with the economy Mitt is just hot air there is no way he could have handled the recession better than Obama based on the little of his policies that he has stated
Frankly, I'm not sure why any attention is paid to the media whore undecideds. They're the royalty of campaign seasons for no freakin' reason. On MSNBC they were interviewing an "undecided voter" who voted for Obama in 2008 and was leaning toward Romney. By definition he's not undecided. If he had to vote tomorrow, he'd vote for Romney. I want the media to stop treating these morons like they're special. Most of them will wake up on Nov. 7 knowing they forgot to do something really important.
But hey, we'll see what happens.
And, no, absolutely nothing Obama has done in his first term has suggested in any way that he is an uber-liberal... other than support gay marriage and repeal DADT that is (heaven forbid)... he is the definition of a moderate...
^Bill Maher proves there's something to be gained in brevity.
I managed to watch about 45 minutes of the debate - it was all I could endure!
Mr Obama appeared not to want to be there, and Mr Romney told a lot of porkies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...money-politicsBoth Obama and Romney are very intelligent men. And yet, both of them are completely avoiding, or being dishonest about, huge economic issues – even when their opponent is highly vulnerable to attack. Thus, we have the bizarre spectacle of a Republican ex-private equity banker attacking the Democrat on unemployment, while the Democrat argues gamely that if we just give him more time, everything will be fine – which we all know is not true. Both men say vaguely that they will "reform Washington", when neither means it.
Neither of them says a serious word about the causes of the financial crisis; the lack of prosecution of banks and bankers; sharply rising inequality in educational opportunity, income and wealth; energy policy and global warming; America's competitive lag in broadband infrastructure; the impact of industrialized food on healthcare costs; the last decade's budget deficits and the resultant national debt; or the large-scale, permanent elimination of millions of less-skilled jobs through both globalization and advances in robotics and artificial intelligence.
This thread is a perfect reflection of how the debates impact the voting in the US.
All of those who have already been committed to Romney still are. Those for Obama are still for Obama.
I really don't think that a talking heads contest influences voters much anymore.
It's difficult to argue that point.
But it's that's damned 10 percent of people that are still, "undecided".
Frustrating as that may be, I fear the election floats on these idiots that don't seem to know if they are on foot or horseback.
These are the people that buy "Sctickey's" at 4 in the morning. These are the people that look to The Real Housewives of New Jersey and to the Kim Kardashians of the world to make up their "minds".
It's nothing short of terrifying that there is a small but critically important of our voting populace that will make up their political "minds" based on what Ann Romney is wearing.
In many ways, as a country we are screwed.
In many more ways, perhaps we are getting what we deserve.
^They always say that the country gets the politicians and government that it deserves, so this is probably true.
I would have to say though, that voters who make up their mind about who to vote for on the basis of a few televised debates probably are about the lowest info voters that could exist. Particularly in this election cycle.
Last edited by rareboy; October 5th, 2012 at 05:18 AM.
Morning Joe's Joe said this morning that Obama may have had the flu on Wednesday night.
I knew that excuse would come out.
Let's see what the Romneacks think of 7.8% unemployment.
It just on MSNBC, I will try to find a link.
BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.
The only thing I am hearing out of the talking heads on TV is how unworkable the Romney plan is for the tax system. So much for a string showing. I guess you have to have a strong showing based somewhere close to reality.
I suspect now that Mitt got an ego boost from the debate, he will change his mind and agree to appear on SNL and Letterman before the election. I can almost guarantee it.
Pic of Obama at Wednesday night's debate.
Pic of Romney after elections
During the long debate, did he ever use the said napkin, and what happened to it afterwards when he was leaving the podium?