In my opinion the debate about the debate is more interesting than the debate itself.
Good grief, the stupid! Get it off me! GET IT OFF ME!!!
I won’t claim that there is an agenda motivating this performance by Obama, but I can see a few ways that it would be strategically beneficial to take a loss in this first debate.
First off it would have been close to impossible for Obama to actually “win” the debate, considering the expectations. Exactly how much would he have out performed Romney in order to meet expectations? Now if you look at the three debates in context, the result from losing this one is that the two remaining ones are suddenly much easier to win. Had Obama stomped Romney in this one, it would only have been the “expected” result and the bar would have been raised even higher for the next one. Now, the playing field is level. In fact, you could even say that Romney is the one with higher expectations going into the second debate.
Refusing to bring up the gaffes like the 47% quote has some benefits. The issues will stay alive either way (now we are talking about why he didn’t talk about it…), but now you get points for taking the high road.
Romney on the other hand insinuated that Obama was corrupted and funneling tax money to his friends by subsidising green energy companies. This had two effects on me. First it made Romney look like a complete cunt to me. After reading a bio on him I had actually started to like him, that comment completely ruined it for me. Secondly it made me research the statement, since it seemed so preposterous, and I found out that there was no truth to it. So in one sentence Romney managed to make me think of him as a lying cunt. Other than that, I thought he did well.
Try not to eat any paint chips or library paste while you’re doing this.
Yeah, you are biased.
I was floored at how poorly Obama did. Quite disappointed, and it was not part of some genius strategy; he was caught off balance and did a shitty job. And the polls bear that out; Romney is overwhelmingly the winner of the debate according to the voters.
Was he agitated and angry? Yeah, a bit. But it worked; he was getting his points across and Obama was on the defensive.
Of course, there’s two more debates.
Yes, from about three people.
Can I just say that calling these debates is a joke…on us apparently…they are competing bite-sized stump speeches.
But it felt more like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
That’s what I was wondering, to be honest; he looked surprised and distracted.
Has there been any bellyaching from the right today about Romney’s move to the center? It seems not, which is pretty impressive.
Mitt has always been a severe centrist.
Except when he’s not.
I mean I know he was never really the darling of the Right, but embracing Dodd-Frank and saying he wouldn’t cut taxes as much as he had earlier said (among other tacks to the center) would have had the Michelle Malkins of the world howling only a few months ago.
Forward (George W. Bush) not back (Ronald Reagan)!
Mitt to Tighty-righties: Ha, Ha, You’re Fucked Now!
“Ammo” saving guy here. Perhaps you just love my comment because you feel I’m worried, or panicking, or just plain making excuses. Rest assured, I’m as confident as ever that Obama will win. Romney just has too much ground to make up. But already, Obama is using that ammo from Romney’s statements last night to good effect, as evidenced by part of a speech I saw him giving earlier today.
But really, does it make any sense at all to take some unknown person’s comments about wiping floors and such, and then contrast them with statements people make here on the Dope?!
I am getting the sense that Obamais the one who is coming out harder in the immediate aftermath of the debate. You could argue that he has to do this because he lost but I think it also indicates the debate opened up major line of attack that he can run with till election day: you can’t trust Romney and he isn’t being straight about his plans.
What’s the big idea for Romney coming out of this debate? Sure he was forceful and articulate but no one is going to remember his specific points a month from now. I am not understimating the benefits to Romney from his performance. He badly needed a change of momentum and he got it and the media adulation over his performance is going to him a decent boost in the next few days. But that sort of thing fades away whereas a persistent attack on his credibility can leave lasting wounds.
Obama, on the stump, as quoted in Talking Points Memo.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/president-obama-real-romney-debate.php?ref=fpblg
He’s the GOP candidate now. They would vote for him if he french-kissed Fidel Castro.
A large portion of the electorate will be thinking “He’s just telling folks what he needs to in order to get elected. I know what he really is going to do, and that is what he said several months ago.”
Romney is simultaneously trying to convince a different portion of the electorate to think “Oh, so what he’s saying now is what he really is going to do, while he said that other stuff in the past just to get through the primaries.”
This, rather surprisingly, can be an effective strategy.
Whether or not it worked all depends on whether all this agitation and anger translates to votes in the swing states. I don’t think it does. We’re essentially in the 11th hour of the campaign and it’s only now that Mr. Milquetoast Romney has shown some grit and personality that is making people talk about him positively? Sorry that I’m not falling out of my chair in wonder over this, but it just doesn’t strike me as a big deal.
All Obama has to do next go round is tighten up his argumentation, remind us about some of Romney’s key embarrassments, and keep putting Romney on the defensive about his Medicare plans (voucher, voucher, voucher), and he will be okay.