The delegate rules in the Democratic primary were written with Hilary in mind. Her loss wasn’t a fluke or a technicality. She was soundly beaten by an outsider with a built in disadvantage.
Electoral votes are, of course, the whole point.
The next debate is a town hall and the last will be focused on foreign policy. The format of the former is better for Obama, and the subject matter of the latter is much better for Obama.
But, to your first point, I think it’s a mistake to read into Obama’s strategy a reluctance to take risks; he just clearly isn’t a risk averse executive, based on his performance as POTUS. He’s opposed to low return, high cost risks. He’s opposed to foolish risks. I kinda like that in a president.
My wife made some great points during the debates. When I mentioned the men vs. women discrepancy, she noted that Romney was telling people what he was going to do while Obama was explaining why he would do it, a style that women seem to prefer. She also said that Romney was coming across as the alpha, the corporate CEO, which men typically favor and why corporate cultures seem so generally similar in many ways.
The fact checkers will wear the skin off their typing fingers by tomorrow. The polls will be interesting to follow, because the immediate reactions will be tempered by the corrections and the backlash.
Debates are like boxing in the old days. To beat the champ you have to knock him out. Only the most partisan will claim that for this one. Romney looked good and Obama couldn’t get his act together. That’s winning on points - but among who? The undecideds are as low as 3% in recent polls. Even if Romney gets two-thirds of them that’s a one-point net bump. He has to change the minds of people already committed to Obama and that’s both much harder and much less likely from this performance. And foreign policy is coming up.
Romney will get a small bump out of it, but not enough to substantially change the numbers, and certainly not enough to sustain any change it might bring. The debate had a lot of substance from both sides; unfortunately, Romney’s assertions have been proven over and over again to be false, if not downright lies. Obama was right to approach the 47% issue obliquely instead of head on: that’s for the campaign to do in the ads.
Romney came across as smug and a bit arrogant; Obama came across as a bit tentative and tired (not surprising considering today’s news from the Middle East). There was no trouncing by either, despite wishful comments up thread.
My wife and I had almost exactly the same conversation.
I read or saw something earlier today that the Super PAC’s would stop funding Romney and start funnelling it to congressional races if they felt he had no chance to become POTUS, a la Clinton vs. Mondale.
Could that possibly be a reason why Obama didn’t bring his “A” game, to keep Romney in the race? I’m not much of a political animal (I do thoroughly enjoy these Election threads), but this seems like a possible strategy.
FWIW, IIRC, the majority of the posts on this thread four years ago (Obama vs. MaCain) expressed that Obama came off horribly and McCain won the first debate, even though the CNN viewer polls showed otherwise (although this time it appears the viewer polls sided with Romney).
On the plus side for Democrats, the superpac money isn’t going to move down ticket.
The writers at SNL must be pleased, that’s for sure…
He does stick to the playbook, and it usually works. He’s more concerned with winning the long game than appearing weak at any given moment.
Did anyone notice Romney’s tendency to edge over into the manic? At times he seemed desperate and agitated. If he takes this further he’ll seem unhinged next to a Obama. I recall his speech after the release of the 47% tape. He seemed scared, desperate, on the verge of losing it.
By now the President should know that the Super PAC money is a non-factor. If he tanked just to accomplish that, it was really dumb strategy.
I’ve only read the live transcripts so far. (Thanks for the links way back on page 3, by the way.) Seems like a win for Romney and a net neutral for Obama. Neither side opened up their defenses to risk any hard punches. Romney carries the momentum out of the first debate, but Obama hasn’t been hurt on his own merits. For a change, it seemed like a very impersonal debate, with neither side really trying to score cheap hits.
They’ll probably talk to him about that. It was the one area where he nearly blew it. At times he got a little bit too excited.
But then again, some commenters on Yahoo were STILL calling him robotic two thirds in. So maybe he needed to be a little over the top to show he was human.
What I really want to know is who the hell these focus groups are who respond positively to stories about random single mothers from Des Moines. It was slightly less idiotic when Obama referenced his grandmother, but that story was just incredibly boring.
It hasn’t been spent yet.
As a left-wing liberal hippy freek (and 2008 Obama voter) who thinks that there are actually 100 valid, legitimate reasons why Barak Obama actually deserves to indeed lose his re-election bid, this is the most ludicrous thing I have read all week.
Obama has clearly been a C- President, but Mitt Romney (despite an admittedly good job debating tonight) is a lifelong D- Human Being, and while Obama has generally done a piss poor job of leading this country, he is still someone the American people can feel good about supporting on a personal level, which is a congenital impossibility for Mitt Romney.
This is pretty hilarious from USATODAY
What I saw of the debate was exactly what I expected. I’m honestly unsure what some people were expecting when they say that Romney surprised them. He’s a pretty good debater, better than Obama, though he’s easier to ruffle than Obama. Of course, pretty much everyone is easier to ruffle than Obama.
Obama is ponderous in debates. He was in 2008, too. McCain was much more lively and much funnier, but people didn’t seem bothered by Obama’s mannerisms, and they were the same this time through. I remember thinking McCain had won, especially the third debate, and that wasn’t what the majority if voters saw.
Next up as Romney impersonator: Kanye West.
I hate the “citizen anecdotes”. “Hey, I managed to find one person out of 300,000,000 who has a story that fits my narrative! That’s gotta mean something, right?”
I’m aware that they must work but I still personally just find them tiresome.
Romney has helped a lot of random people throughout his life. You don’t ever hear any stories of people Barack Obama helped. Not even his family.
I completely agree with this.
Also, I’m really tired about hearing about the middle class. The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/articles/nations-lower-class-at-least-grateful-it-not-part,28999/]Nation’s Lower Class at Least Grateful it Not Part of Nation’s Middle.