That’s true, because the 30 percent is really zero.
Hacks don’t care if they are exposed. They are shameless that way. Fox News, for instance.
Well, then what might we expect? Is Romney going to forcefully confront the economy in a debate, and win? Is that where all those jobs are going to come from? Will his assertive posture force compliance, economic theories that have never worked will suddenly prove to be correct?
Our consumer economy will revive itself on faith alone, people spending money they don’t have and cannot borrow? Are they to borrow money based upon their negative equity? Ask their parents for loans? Austerity, perhaps? Reducing the amount of money consumers have to spend as a way of encouraging them to do so?
The Republican terror of “redistributing wealth” is like a guy rotting from gonorrhea refusing penicillin on ideological grounds.
In a consumer based economy, the consumers must have money to buy loud, shiny crap or you have no economy. It’s that simple. But you tell Republicans that, and their stainless steel Calvinist rectums slam shut so hard, their eyes bug out.
But Dude, just a Romney win will automatically boost the stock market, and we can all buy new cars and stuff from the rise in our investment portfolios, dontcha know?
Why, he’s gonna create 12 million jobs, just like that!
Well I guess it depends, you can personally say you thought Obama won because you liked his position and you were able to recognize Romney’s lies, even if you though Romney won the bathing suit portion of the debate. So I can say Obama won on my scorecard, but if you add up all the scorecards, he lost.
Here’s something I’ve been wondering: a lot of people say that Romney did himself a lot of favors by looking strong and presidential. Just how much COULD Obama have done to blunt that? Yes, Obama could’ve defended himself better and called out lies, and certainly him looking weaker by comparison helped Romney’s image a lot, but I wonder just how much difference it could’ve made with folks who didn’t already like one candidate or the other.
I also wonder just how much the polls are reflecting the debate in particular, like with Gallup’s +2 for the Republican side nationally. If the “damage” is permanent, then the debate really DID elect Romney. That would certainly be… interesting if so. (Although some of the swings in some of the polls I’ve read about are STILL so huge as to be viscerally unbelievable to me as sustainable.)
I think prior to the debate, people were really on the fence with Romney. A significant majority doesn’t like how Obama has handled the economy but are reluctant to go with someone who they really knew nothing about.
What Romney was able to accomplish in the debate was twofold. First, he was able to sell himself effectively to the electorate. He spoke of his success as a businessman. He recounted his success in bringing about bipartisan legislation. He displayed a good command of pretty much every topic he was asked. Second and more important, he was able to effectively summarize for a lot of people good reasons why not to vote for Obama. That portion where Romney was saying "the proof is (insert Obama administration failure), the proof is (insert another) was really powerful.
A lot of people have been very reluctant to vote against Obama because of how easily the charges of racism are thrown. With his lackluster performance in the debate and the success by which Romney has summarized the failures of his administration, it has given many people enough ammunition so that they can abandon Obama and not feel like a traitor.
People have been reluctant to vote against Obama because of racism charges? You know voting in this country is by secret ballot, right?
Fact free speculation based on personal animosity. Yay!
Well, to be ruthlessly fair, I think that if he had any facts, he would share them.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15495137&postcount=47
Apparently, the Obama team saw this thread, and took my advice. So it’s all my fault! :eek:
A Washington Post pollster opines, among other things, that the debate did not actually “upend the race.” Someone else, in talking about this point, uses the RCP averages to argue that Romney was actually rising in the national polls days before, and that the debate just sped up an existing trend.
I noticed that too. In the RCP average, he starts to climb on September 30th. I was trying to brainstorm things that may have caused that, but so far, I’ve got nothin’.
The fading of the 47%/DNC bounce seems most plausible.
Biden seems to have read this thread, and taken my advice. Obama will grin next time, too.
Oh, goody. He does it so well.
Well, that link was kind of apropos of nothing.
Not sure if it was the case nationally, but there was a definite uptick in Romney’s TV package here in Florida around 9/30-10/1. Until July or August the Obama campaign had been spending more on advertising than Romney, so that might have something to do with it. For what it’s worth, Romney’s ads aren’t bad, either; nothing genius, but nothing that will offend little old ladies either. Just a lot of hammering on the economy.
That’s the sort of negative campaigning that actually works.