A liberal commenter elsewhere is in despair over this (as in full fledged Obama “went a long way towards losing” and “beginning of the end” stuff).
His belief is based solely on optics (which there seems at least some agreement was bad for Obama and good for Romney) - who seemed more confident and Presidential, and so on.
Do you think said optics are that bad, and are as determinative as feared by this commenter?
A wise builder (Obama is wise, right?) doesn’t take on a job he can’t handle.
(we can do this all day, maybe we should be Congressmen & Senators so at least we’d get paid for it).
The bottom line is that the Gish Gallop is effective if your opponent isn’t prepared for it, and Obama wasn’t. For that, I have to blame him and his team, since a Gish Gallop approach to the debates was an obvious complementary strategy to the GOP pattern of throwing out handfuls of shit to see what sticks.
Remember what I said about the busy fact checkers? The Washington Post online’s look at the debate is expanded from their print edition.
While we’re on facts, I need to drop this one. Nothing has changed. Despite some comments here, every person on every side of the political spectrum who understands polls and math has been saying all along that the debates actually change few minds. There is less room this year than usual to do so, because the population of undecideds is so small, and because only the swing states matter. A debate might move the meter a percentage point or two unless something extraordinary happens, and last night’s snoozefest was not extraordinary. Obama’s lead in several swing states is more than a percentage point or two.
Overnight and instant polls never mean anything. Any reaction to this debate will take a week to percolate through the polls and by then everyone will be hyping the next critical, crucial, momentous, earth-shaking debate that will also be a non-issue.
I don’t see any bad optics for Obama. I thought he was measured, thoughtful, and “presidential.” Romney, to me, seemed manic.
It was a disappointing debate on the liberal side to be sure. But it’s important to remember, that Romney just outright lied about his policy stances. He knew he’d have his biggest audience, so he just ignored the last couple years and stood in front of a pile of shit with his pants around his ankles, saying, “I didn’t do that.”
I’d hope that he gets called to task for his outright lies, but the media is so afraid of being seen as biased I dunno if that’ll happen.
Doesn’t Ryan still want to privatize SS, raise the age to 70, and siphon that money into Wall Street?
But there are plenty of people saying that the truth doesn’t matter. The undecideds will probably just see the debates, believe Romney knows what he’s talking about because he looked and sounded like he knew what he was talking about (hey, this addresses the poster previous too, kind of!), and just not pay any attention to contradictions later.
Thus some of the despair I mentioned before.
I love that, after telling us for weeks how Obama would wip the floor with Mitt, it is anow that “he is the President and couldn’t prepare”, “he’s saving ammo”, “he doesn’t know which version of Mitt he’s getting” and finally “debates don’t matter”.
Just love it.
Of course he does.
So if Romney had lost the debate, his supporters would be graciously bowing out, telling everyone how awful a candidate Romney is, and not voting for him? If you support a candidate, and want him and his agenda to win, what good would rending your clothing and wailing do? The money may have been thinking about abandoning Romney before the debate, but his supporters (and partisan foes of the other side) generally didn’t, and they shouldn’t have.
That’s the nature of partisan politics. I can’t see why you’re so surprised.
Besides, all the polls are skewed, so you shouldn’t believe them anyway. 
But, I was granting him eight years to get the work done, with a built-in renegotiation after four.
After consideration of the extenuating circumstances as they were over the last four years, I’ll stick with Obama’s plan after looking at the competitor’s plan, and investing in the previous four (which did make some headway, after all).
The worse thing that people can say about Obama is that he overlooked some low hanging fruit. He didn’t bring up the 47% gaffe and he didn’t exploit Romney’s tax return findings.
But this hardly paves the road to loserdom.
“We” can keep doing this only because you keep pointing the finger at the builder in the analogy (the one doing his job in the face of sabotage and hostility) and ignoring your own influence over the saboteurs and bullies. You can continue ducking responsibility for the bullies and putting the blame on Builder Barack, but that’s an easy scam to see through. Because you and “we” all know that if you replace the builder with the bullies, they’re not gonna finish your house either. They’re not even interested in doing that; they’re the ones that tore down your last house.
One metric by which to measure the success of a debate is to watch it with the sound down. Who wins with the body language.
I did this for a while, and to me Mitt looked a lot more eager. At times he looked like a hungry dog. Eyes dilated and moist, lips smirked and sorta smacking as if ready to chomp. His eyes darting from Obama to Leher looked like he was non-verbally saying “Can I talk now? Huh? Can I talk? This guy’s saying stuff I want to respond to NOW.” Hungry dog with Alpo on the counter, is how I might describe it
Obama looked tired, cool, pissed. His facial expressions looked like he was really holding back. Not sure how to respond without looking overly angry or snide. So it became pursed lips and eyes down. Almost removed mentally from the situation. Pissed teenager trying not to say something he regrets, is how I might describe it.
Manic for Romney. Pissed yet detached for Obama.
It felt like Obama was trying to run out the clock on the election. I just hope he isn’t taking a knee in the third quarter. he does realize its just past halftime right?
Oh, Lord, all that campaigning and news since practically last year, and it’s just past halftime?!?
God, we really DO take too long picking a goddamn President!
Oh, and a quote from that commenter mentioned earlier:
Thus my optics question.
Nah. Tomorrow’s job report, for good or ill, will wipe this debate from the collective memory except as a setting for the next debate.
Obama did poorly. But I think it’s getting spun today (by both sides) with more hyperbole than it deserves. He did poorly in that he didn’t attack enough and did a poor job of articulating some stuff that should be as easy for him by now as “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star”. But he didn’t get Romney’s name wrong or say our greatest enemy was Canada or pledge to raise taxes on everyone in America. His sins were sins of omission, not sins of commission.
I don’t think it was intentional (or at least that intentionally poor, he may have had a rope-a-dope strategy that just looked bad and hasn’t paid off) but it wasn’t a game ender or anything else. He’d better make a better showing next time, though.
Also, while it may have given the Romney supporters some new hope, I doubt it “drained the enthusiasm” from the other side. I haven’t seen anyone say they’re changing votes or giving up on Obama over it. Mainly just “Wow, that was bad. On to number two…”
Obama likely went into yesterday’s debate knowing that.
From Politico, it looks like Obama did exactly what they strategized, it just didn’t work the way they had hoped. They’ll be adjusting their game plan for Debate 2.