For what it’s worth, Romney doesn’t need Ohio to win. According to last evening’s 538 simulations, he’s favored in states worth 257 votes. That’s 12 short of what he needs. It just so happens that the two weakest Obama states are Iowa and Nevada. At 6 votes each, they’re all Romney has to flip in order to win (well, technically that’d be a tie, but Romney will be President).
Romney CAN win without Ohio, just as Obama was able to win without Missouri last time. But it’s a lot tougher. Easier to win Ohio than both Iowa and Nevada, or Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.
Personally, I think that if Romney wins either IA or NV, or NH for that matter, he’s probably won OH.
The only thing that matters in the VP debate is that your man doesn’t actually pour the bucket over his own head. Neither guy did, so both parties avoided a bullet. But it didn’t stop the Dem bleeding from Debate 1.
The polls continue to slide in Romney’s favour; 538 now calls Obama only a slim favourite, 61-39. It’s clear now that Debate 1 could be the most decisive presidential debate since 1980; Obama, IMHO, must win the next two or he could pull off one of the biggest chokes in the history of presidential elections. He did one of the only two things that could possibly lose him the election - a crushing debate defeat.
I doubt he’ll win either one. He won’t lose. He’ll hold his own, but that’s about it.
The rapid slide is proof that his support was soft to begin with.
The same could be said about Romney when he imploded after the convention.
There is not going to be a straight line between now and the election.
Yeah, we got a ways to go yet.
What was the other?
Is there any chance (tin foil hat on) that he threw the debate on purpose? I mean, he was so universally bad, that it is just hard to imagine that he was that terrible accidentally. How often do you see a debate performance so bad that both sides agree who won?
I can’t come up with a good explanation for why they would do this. Maybe they were so confident in the presidential race, that they wanted it to appear tight to keep money from flowing into Senate races? Is it possible they know that Romney’s taxes are going to leak, and it will be disqualifying anyway?
I know that this is not likely! I’m openly grasping at straws to explain how a professional politician can have done that poorly.
You’re exactly right. Why didn’t Jesus fight back against the Roman soldiers? After all, he could asked his Dad to smite them and His will would have been done. So the only explanation is that Our Messiah lost the debate on purpose–but in the bigger picture, this was not a loss, but a glorious victory! Praise his name.
I know that election season tends to sweep people up, but preferring one politician to another, does not necessarily require one to believe that said politician is a deity, merely preferable to the alternative.
Live boy or dead girl.
An absolutely stunning, front-page, dead girl/live boy level scandal.
Cel phone video of Obama getting a hummer from Scarjo in the backroom at a Hwd fundraiser.
Topped only by Romney being taken anally by his dancing horse.
I presume Nixon in '60. Or mebbe Ford in '76.
Did you hear this one from John Stewart:
I particularly enjoyed Stewart’s criticism of the Obama campaign’s decision to keep running the Big Bird comment into the ground, in both his ads and campaign appearances. GIVE IT UP ALREADY!
So true.
Democrats, when you have Jon Stewart making fun of you for being stupid and running an inept campaign/debate, you really should be worried. He is extremely insightful.
Meanwhile, Romney has been running a surprisingly successful campaign, and actually sounds like he wants to be president, and that he actually cares.
Is it… is it possible that the two switched bodies/spirits but not ideologies (too much)?
He’s also primarily an entertainer. I think Democrats need to calm the heck down (and wake the f&*$ up).
Intrade and 538 have converged: 538 puts Obama at 62.9% while intrade gives him 61.2%. I give Obama 60% odds, same as intrade gave him in March and April and approximately the same as I gave him in June-July. The polls are basically returning to the mean, following the shocking revelation that Romney thinks half the country are irresponsible, even a few who pay a higher share of their income in taxes than he does.
Romney is a better debater than Obama, and he caught Obama flat-footed by changing the Romney campaign’s positions overnight and delivering brazen lies. Some of them, such as opposing the ban on pre-existing conditions, were reversed the next day. Romney needed to change the game and he did that by swapping flags. I suspect though that the Townhall Forum will be more evenly matched. Obama’s conciliatory instincts will play better there, though I’m not expecting him to destroy his opponent, as Biden smacked down Ryan.
I can’t for the life of me comprehend why one debate performance has had such an effect. This doesn’t make one shred of sense to me. To me the candidates’ debate performances carry about as much weight as their hair styles or ties. It’s like the whole country watched with the sound off and isn’t giving any weight to the content of what was said. So Romney was more energetic-- big fucking deal. His ONLY job is running for President. The President HAS a day job that requires a lot of energy. To focus this much on that couple of hours is just plain stupid. But then, the unwashed masses ARE stupid. That is all.
Debates are never, ever won or lost on content. Everyone watching already knows which ideologies they support.
Debates are won on how well a candidate connects with the average person. It makes a huge difference whether or not it looks like someone cares about you. In the first debate, for perhaps the first time ever, Romney actually came across as sincere and compassionate, and that he actually cared about becoming president and cared about each individual American. Obama came off as if he couldn’t care less. And that matters to people, like it or not.
Clinton won his debates for this reason; he was able to emotionally connect.