This is blatant psychological projection. You should maybe play it a little closer to the vest. Or don’t–maybe you’ll learn after being wrong so many times that people in general don’t think like you. Plenty of people do–but plenty of people don’t.
Your speculation isn’t compatible with what the polls show about how people judged the two debates. A great majority believed Romney won the first one. That great majority has to include a substantial number of Obama supporters. Indeed, the talky/bloggysphere on the left was in general saddened agreement that Obama lost the first debate. Not tied–lost.
On a side note, Gallup should also be beaten and shot for finding these so called “undecided” voters. What undecided voters cheer when Crowley hits Romney with a left hook? If you were truly undecided, wouldn’t you have listened to that exchange politely to see how it played out?
And, I’m not saying that they are in the tank for Obama, though. On their post debate town hall with “undecided” voters, more than half said Romney won and three members of the panel used the term “job creators.”
It seems as if strong partisans attempt to get in these panels and debates and Gallup does a terrible job of screening them out…
It’s an analogy. You’re saying two distinct things about Crowley which contradict each other, much as Obama-haters (R U 1?) attempt to claim he’s ineffectual and dictatorial both at once. It just them look very, very stupid, though that doesn’t seem to deter much from claiming “But he’s both! He’s a floor wax AND a dessert topping!”
And you must have missed every other freaking post. How long did it take you to trawl through these threads to find the one post that kindasorta supported you while staunchly ignoring everything else?
I have puzzled over this post for several seconds. (That’s a long time!) I can not figure out why you posted the quote from spazurek. I don’t know what point you think you’re making by posting it. Can you help me out here?
She didn’t “take a side,” she simply provided a fact. She was not “factually incorrect.” Surely you can do better than regurgitating Sean Hannity lines.
Oh Good Lord, I can’t believe people are trying to rewrite reality so that Mitt wound up not sticking his foot in his mouth when he claimed Obama didn’t label it “an act of terror” for nearly two weeks.
Aside from the fact that he did call it an act of terror the next day, yes, over the next few days the administration when asked if this had been part of a mob action as a result of the Muhammad video or a co-ordinated terrorist act and they said they were investigating.
That’s what the authorities are supposed to do, and it wasn’t initially clear that it wasn’t a mob action the same as happened in Egypt and later happened in Yemen.
In fact, if one wants to go over threads here on the SDMB, you’ll notice multi-page long threads where people were blaming the reaction of Muslims to the Muhammad video for the death of Ambassador Stevens and saying things like with the death of an American Ambassador can we no longer tolerate what thin skins Muslims have blah, blah, blah.
Sure, we can look back at it now and it’s obvious that it was a co-ordinated terrorist attack by Al-Quaeda, but it wasn’t initially obvious that was the case. In fact, the reaction of most people on the Dope initial response was to think it a riot connected the reaction to the video.
You certainly can’t blame the administration for making sure they had their ducks all lined up before ruling out the possibility that it was a riot that went even more out of control.
So it’s not a tie. Obama clearly won based on the polling so far. Maybe not by as large a margin as Romney won by in the 1st debate, but he won pretty clearly nontheless.
Calling it a tie is just wrong, if you’re going by the polls.
Can I borrow some of you straw? C’mon, she treated them basically the same, the Libya thing notwithstanding. And again, what were the loaded questions you’re talking about, specifically?
If one wishes to argue that Pepsi is better than Coke, one cannot make the primary point of attack be an assertion that Coke has a funny green color. I can plainly look and see that it does not.
Similarly, I can plainly look at the transcript and see that Obama characterized the attack as an act of terror during his speech in thr Rose Garden.
It wasn’t an anti-Romney clap. It was a pro-getting-facts-straight clap. They’d have clapped, I think, in much the same way, had she been correcting Obama instead about something.
BTW I think the moment was an awkward one and wasn’t well handled by Crowley. It appears to me she did overstep the bounds of what her understood role was. I can say that now that I’ve finally watched the thing.
I forget now the nature of the research, but I once read a pretty convincing article that seemed to show that the number of true undecideds is vanishingly small. There may be almost none of them, in fact, among those who are mentally competent and minimally aware of politics. The votes of those who call themselves “undecided” can be pretty easily and reliably predicted.
I know you quoted me, but I think you did so mistakenly as your remarks have nothing to do with my post.
My last word on the moderator is that yes, I think it was a slip up, not a calculated attack. I think even Candy knew it was inappropriate as soon as she said it.
On the debate as a whole, I give Obama a slight edge, but not a floor mopping victory. Romney’s performance was all over the map. He ranged from very strong on some points (economy, employment) to pretty weak on others (foreign policy). Obama, on the other hand, was more consistent throughout. He managed to avoid any really low points.
I found it amusing that when asked how he would differ from Bush that Romney tried to play it off as if the W Bush presidency was a different time, a different era, a different generation, a different set of problems, etc. (4 years ago:rolleyes:)
but when asked how he would get things done he reached back over 20 years and said he’d do things like Reagan:D
Failure? He has plunged America into recession, nationalized businesses, and instituted death panels while laying the groundwork for an Islamic coup. Or something, I can’t keep up.
Most Democrats agreed that Obama lost the first debate.
You said Democrats considered the first debate a tie. You offered a single post to prove this. You seem not to be aware that there can be some Democrats who believe it was a tie without making the first statement wrong. Democrats do not have to agree 100%.
ETA: Are you saying the fact that it was the OP to a thread lends it extra weight? Perhaps I will start a Pit thread shortly.