The few clips I’ve heard made me think that as well. Romney even said that he enjoys firing people and we should fire the President. What he may not have remembered is that we are hiring him, too. I wouldn’t hire a brash dick-swinger. Although of course that might impress some people, having the ability to abrasively push people around doesn’t go as far as it used to.
Obama got off on the wrong foot at the very beginning. He sounded wooden and unfeeling when he was talking about his own wedding anniversary, and then Romney pounded it in by seeming genuinely congratulatory and self-deprecating about it.
The “I have five boys” line went well too, I think. (I also think it was stupid and inappropriately infantilizing for a candidate for high office, but it sounded good, like some of Ronald Reagan’s more fanciful stories.)
Love is blind.
Seriously, The trouncing was so definitive, that if you don’t see that he got dominated, you really need to expose yourself to people who don’t agree with you on politics. Just look at the number of liberal commentators who saw that Obama got beat. The problem is not really with the world on this one. And relax, it’s just one debate.
Sorry, but I have absolutely no recollection of this. Could you perhaps post a cite? I’d hate to accuse you of dishonesty without first giving you a chance to prove you’re recounting what Romney said in a fair and accurate way.
I cant think the perception of who won the debate is anything but the result of expectations. People thought Romney would stink it up really badly and he wasn’t as bad as all that. People knew how much ammo Obama had and that he’s generally a good debater and been crushing Romney. When Obama for some reason decided not to use all the easy lines of attack people were disappointed that he was only more correct and polite. I can’t say I’m not disappointed, he could have stuck the knife in any time about how much of a flip flopper Romney is or his 47% comments, or about his VP choice ect. Romney basically had nothing in the debate : “I big business man(that probably created net negative jobs in his “business”), you lie!”
I’m all with Feyrat on this one, other than maybe I’m less surprised that people are so dense.
It was boring, and they did talk past each other. Romney “won” in the sense that he as more engaged and assertive. Obama looked like he really didn’t want to be there and was waiting for it to be over.
It doesn’t matter, except in the sense of morale. The Repubicans desperately needed something to go right for a change, and Romney pulled through for them. He may be a chameleon, but he’s a hard-working, ambitious one.
A tie gies to the dealer – so Jim Lehrer won.
Actually, since Obama didn’t eviscerate Romney – he lost.
I agree it was about expectations. But most people’s expectations of Obama are not borne out by anything other than their idolatry of the guy. He’s NOT a good debater. The only debate he’s ever “won” was with McCain, and that’s with the sinking economy weighing McCain down. The fact that McCain still held his own speaks volumes about how weak a debater Obama was.
And people’s expectations of Mitt Romney were also not borne out by the facts. A passing familiarity with his debate performance in the primaries would have shown you that he’s no push-over.
Also, Obama wouldn’t have used a lot of the attacks you mentioned primarily because it would have just given Romney the platform to explain them. It’s too transparent and I’m certain that Romney would have prepared very well for those attacks and would have no problem with them.
I assume by the fact you never came up with a cite when I challenged you on this before that you know it isn’t true. Why do you feel that Obama is best served by falsehoods?
There you go again :rolleyes:
I sort of assume that you’re being disingenuous here, because it was a big story when he said it, but here:
Now you can say that it was taken out of context etc, but anyway, he actually did say it.
It wasn’t taken out of context, it was contorted into an entirely different remark. There’s a whole lot of difference between liking to have the ability to fire someone who’s performing poorly (as opposed to, say, teachers or government workers, who can be virtually impossible to get rid of) vs. being some comic book villain who loves to fire people just for kicks.
Republicans know a little about taking things out of context. RNC ring a bell?
SDMB’s a pretty big gong. 
I thought Obama came across as kind of worn out too, I’m surprised other people didn’t notice it. I also thought that Obama let a lot of easy points fly past him without a response, and so if people are saying that Romney won I would suppose that is why.
OTOH I thought Romney was pretty empty, and then there is the thing about changing all his positions again. I think it is pretty lame that Romney’s strategy is turning into, “just support whatever the other guy has been for, since he’s winning.” But I guess you can get away with that in a debate- the last 6 months of context apparently don’t matter.
So Romney looked more prepared, but then again he was all bs like he always seems to me, so what was it worth?
Romney didn’t win the debate, Obama lost it. The complaint was largely about missed opportunities by Obama to crush Romney on his lies. People felt like there wre obvious opportunities for Obama to deliver a knockout punch that Obama just didn’t take.
Looking at all of these national polls is pretty interesting. I mean, Romney definitely got a bounce out of his strong debate performance, but what I’m wondering is whether that bounce is reflective of Obama voters or independents who have changed their minds as opposed to a marked increase in GOP enthusiasm.
My own perception has always been that nobody watches the debates in order to decide who they’re going to vote for but instead to just cheer for the guys that they’ve already chosen. I mean, seriously, who the Hell throws away months of past considerations and precedents due to a 90 minute debate performance?
In any case, if Biden royally pounds Ryan tomorrow night that could stop the Romney surge, just as an Obama debate victory next week will probably erase any of this week’s Romney bounce.
I haven’t gone through the whole thread and am unaware if anyone has answered this, but it still comes up on the first page of Google. You know, it’s possible that the person just didn’t see your request. Breath easy and seek your own information;)
Lets call it the Elucidation Ratio, just to pick one, more or less at random. The E factor. It is the ratio of how much contradiction is required to rebut any given lie. The E factor can be very high for a simple lie that requires complex factual rebuttal. The E factor disadvantages the rebuttal, in that someone like, say, oh, Romney can spew quite a few untruths in a given amount of time. If the rebuttal requires more time than the lie, the advantage goes to the liar in a time-constrained situation, such as a debate.
Now, Obama is a wonk, half Kenyan, half Hawaiian, half Vulcan. If Romney serves up twenty lies in twenty minutes of allotted time, Obama will not rebut any more than five of them in his allotted time. The E factor. Which, of course, leaves Romney free to claim that he’s telling the unvarnished truth on the other fifteen, since Obama accepted them as fact.
And, of course, being a wonk, Obama has a naive faith in facts. He believes that a simple recitation of fact wins. If it were Horndog Bill Clinton, he would simply make shit up, say it convincingly, and win the point. Which is why Horndog Bill is the most gifted politician of our generation.
All in all, a shrewd and effective tactical maneuver, especially if you don’t give a rodent’s rectum about the truth.
Ludovic has a long and vigorous posting history here. I’m pretty sure he knows perfectly well that Romney never said he likes firing people.
But thanks for the suggestion. Calm and reason, though in short supply, are always appreciated around here. 