Spin Don’t Win
No amount of Democratic operatives and corrupt media liars saying Mitt Romney was dishonest during the first debate changed what people saw in front of their faces: a sullen, unprepared Obama unable to defend his record against a better, smarter and more experienced opponent. No number of declarations that Joe Biden had “stopped the bleeding,” stopped the bleeding; and no matter how often Republicans applauded Paul Ryan, no one believed he crushed Biden as Biden should have been crushed.
Last night, my sense was pretty much the same as everyone’s: Obama did far better than his first outing; the debate was a tie on impressionistic points; the moderator befouled herself and her profession… and there was a strange after-effect in which the president’s lousy economic record continued to linger in the mind after the TV set was turned off. Go on RealClearPolitics and you’ll see op-eds and blogs with titles like, “A Wowsy-Wowser for Win-Win-Winning Obama,” and “Mitt Drives the Nail into Obama’s Coffin,” but I very much suspect these and other such writings will have exactly no effect and won’t change what people experienced for themselves.
My guess is the debate results will show up as a continued slide in Obama’s poll numbers due to the fact that he’s lousy at being president and the first debate woke everyone up to that fact and this debate did nothing to change it — re-enforced it rather. The question is whether his slide will be quick enough to give Romney the victory by election day.
I respectfully disagree. I like Romney, I dislike Obama, but lets face it; the President “won” last night. At this point in the game the people you’re trying to influence are what I think of as low-information voters, who as a group they tend to vote Democrat (but not always). And Obama came off well enough in the second debate to sway that group. Romney came off especially badly about the oil/gas leases on federal lands Obama had cancelled, and was saved by Crowley on the Benghazi terrorist attack.
Calling Obama’s bluff about lying through his teeth is now coming off badly? I respectfully disagree.
Romney just exposed Obama as a monumental liar, Obama unable to back up his own statements. That’s a story that needs to be told again and again and again.
Tex, numerian is just a leftist troll with very bad “undercover” troll skills. Pay no attention to the left wing Inferior.
Indeed. The remnants of The Long Lost C. Blunder From Under a Rock.
Interesting, a Mr. President win is its only salvation. Imagine, a Modern Liberal resorting to… salvation, of a sort.
What program did you watch last night? Honey Boo Boo maybe? This is a paid Obama troll. ABO2012
There were a lot of paid Obama trolls in 2008 (see this article and scroll down for that story) and I have to assume there are even more of them out there now. That’s where a lot of his campaign budget is going.
Obama was lying through his teeth on that issue of oil and gas leases on federal lands. Romney was right to call him on it.
“The President ‘won’ last night” … if lying through your teeth and acting ungraciously, smugly, and contemptuously toward your opponent, while fanning a class war, and shaking audience members’ hands and not your debate opponent’s, can be thought of as “a win.”
My husband agrees with you, because he said Obama made good debating points. ‘Thing is, if the content of your debating points is below-the-belt, twisted, smug, and perverse — all the while hiding behind the skirts of your co-conspirator, aka, media moderator — I say you don’t win.
Sure, Oblamer might have made some headway with people who are impressed by bullies, Democratic bullies in particular, but to the fair-minded voter, a lot of what Oblahblah said was pure smoke-and-mirrors bluster and coverup. The guy can’t run on his record, so he’s got to tear Mitt Romney and the GOP down. It’s not a winning strategy.
My extremely apolitical wife watched part of the debate. She is a registered Democrat. She emphatically stated that after the first lie Mr. empty chair told she was done with him. Being in her forties she has no tolerance for lies nor liars. Your husband may have been technically correct in that MEC scored debate points but I dare say that with every lie he lost a woman’s vote.
Believe you’re right, Andrew. If Obama gets credit for “aggressive style points”, he was great. So is radical Islam aggressive, but we never equated that to strength or great.
As I said this morning, I have yet to hear one word come out of Obama’s mouth about how his possible second four years would be any different than his first four years of abject failure.
Isn’t that the purpose of debate? Isn’t that what Obama should be selling? I’ve heard tax the “rich” a little more. They’ve already demonstrated that would hardly dent the deficit. Certainly wouldn’t create jobs. At it absolutely wouldn’t fix what ails the economic engine.
If you evaluate what Obama said, it was rehashed from Debate #1 – platitudes and speculation of what Romney might do, elaboration of Romney gaffes, conjecture. There literally is nothing to Obama’s arguments.
Like the man, they are empty.
Romney won the debate last night, hands down. Obama just kept telling lie after lie. Who are these idiot pundits that say Obama won the debate????
They are not idiot pundits, they believe the voters are idiots who will believe their “impartial” spins.
Debate One: Romney’s audition for the job. Did he look presidential? He passed.
Debate Two: Did Romney still look and act presidential? He did.
Debate Three: Can we afford four more years of this guy who has never taken responsibilities for things that went wrong, and has never passed up claiming credits for the things other people did? E.g. murder of an ambassador, killing of Osama.
The “moderators” can give more time to Obama to prevaricate, the audience don’t care. Those who believe him are already his 47%. Those who don’t still don’t.
Joe Biden lied also – about Syria in the VP debate:
US consulate in Benghazi was a hub for recruiting jihadis to fight for al Qaeda in Syria
What I’ve noticed is that the ‘my guy won’ is in affect (or is it an effect? >shrugg<) I listen a little to the C-Span call in between 7am and 8am ET, and the calls are almost universally "Well I'm voting for X and X won the debate. Y only lied. X was better and told the truth, Y didn't look presidental. X came off better," etc etc etc.
But then maybe the callers are part of the 90%+ who have already decided how they are voting for X (or Y) and can't see anything but their guy winning.
Being as I assume you mean the noun form: effect = result. affect = an expression of emotion. The noun form of affect is usually only used as psychological jargon. Affect is more commonly used as a verb, however, and means to cause a result, such as “The rain affected the crops.” It is also sometimes used as the verb form for affectation, the deliberately display of emotion, usually by pretense. I don’t believe this form is correct, however, despite its common use. Affect and effect can both be used as verbs, though effect usually isn’t. As verb effect = to cause a result, while affect = to cause change. They have very similar meanings, so a good rule of thumb is effect for noun and affect for verb. Unless you meant a deliberate show of emotion, then you mean affectation. Other than that, you own question to yourself in your post confuses me as to what the context is. So I can’t answer which one you should have used.
LOL. Well, effect = result makes sense in the sentence, so some what does affect = an expression of emotion. But based on a review of what you wrote, and going with effect being usually used as a noun and affect as a verb, and the word ‘in’ as a preposition, thus the word following is a noun, not a verb, and effect is more correct.
(geeze does the SAT or GRE require any of htis kind of thinking anymore, probably not.. but that is the effect of modern education)
Gallup +6 today!
Not only is Romney now winning easily, he’s now ahead for the first time in months on registered voters (+2) as well.
This race is over. Romney is shaping up to get 350+ electoral votes. Obamee’s debate crash has been a 12 point collapse in just two weeks.
At this point any swing state that Obamee “wins” is fraud and we will take to the streets.
There is another point.
There are voters like me who hate the “theater of politics”.
I read the programs and the platforms of the candidates, I examine their past opinions about the main political themes…
And I use my TV to watch real movies, not movies with non-professional actors who try to be “liked”.
I don’t even need to like the candidates I vote for. I am not marrying them, I am hiring them to do a job for me and for us: what I need to judge is if they can do the job.
The resume of Obama stinks. Period.
In addition to everything you said, which is the way to decide — ‘agreed, you’re not marrying the candidate — Oblahblah’s an adulation whore, not what’s needed in the White House.
One of the most intelligent posts I’ve read this year. Oh, yes, I do read a fair number of them. It reminds me of the opposite phenomenon which presented itself with my in-laws. They would select their doctor’s for their affability rather than their skill. I never did understand it.
Keep an eye on this, it is about damage control for Obama. This is about keeping the Jackson’s silent about what they know about the Obama’s And how Patrick Fitzgerald and the Tribune protect Obama..
Latest Jackson Jr. probe clouds political, legal future
http://touch.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-72918139/
As Obama’s cover story comes down, the curtain goes up on the USAO’s cover-up of J.J., Jr.’s role in the Blago story
http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2012/10/05/as-obamas-cover-story-comes-down-the-curtain-goes-up-on-the-usaos-cover-up-of-j-j-jr-s-role-in-the-blago-story/
1. Did Obama win the Information Battle?
No.
2. Did Obama succeed in re-demonizing Romney?
No.
3. Did Obama re-convince people that it’s OK to vote for him again?
Probably.
Mitt probably didn’t lose any ground with the people he picked up after the first debate, but Barack did win back some “undecideds”.
If by “undecided”, we mean “undecided between voting for Obama or just staying home”.
I still think at this point the Obama Campaign is trying to press the Voter Turnout game.
Are They Doing Their Job Well? Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on October 16, 2012
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/123130.html
Spin and the LSM ‘press” isn’t the issue, in my humble view; the real issue is far more perverse. Here’s one issue among those, voter fraud:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/majority_believes_voter_fraud_likely_in_presidential_race.html
Unfortunately, this country has become just another developing country, mainly through illegal immigration but also through the collective and persistent over the past quarter century socio-economic forces unleashed by the endogenous ideological adversaries of Western Civilization, by our domestic enemies.
As another developing country, voter fraud is abundant in the US – as is in any such ‘developing country’ around the globe. Moreover, the current neo-communist regime in power (like any other past or present communist regime) will not lose power through “elections.”
Regretably, America formally died on November 4th, 2008 – and it isn’t likely that this once great Nation will be resurrected on November 6th, 2012. May God prove me wrong.
The MSM believe the voters will fall for their spins because the voters are stupid. The voter may be stupid about the issues, they are not stupid about how they feel. They can’t vote for someone with whom they are not comfortable, they are not comfortable with four more years of “growth” with more and more people on food stamps. The undecideds would decide whether they are comfortable with Romney or just stay home.
Obama gets desperate and that means, possibly, war. Obama will start a war or a like-war massive attack. In desperation he will count on the nation coming together behind a war-time President. What are the brakes to such a thing?
Klavan’s a victim of the spin himself…the spin that said the Fraud was ahead of Romney and the inevitable winner.
That’s the spin that pravda invested hundreds of millions in, but it was always wrong. Romney was ahead the entire time.
Add 5 to 10 points to any poll, ANY POLL, and you will get in the neighborhood of Romney’s postion.
He has been leading for months, and barring a major surprise (certainly a strong possibility), R&R should have enough of a margin by Nov 6 to overcome the 5% cheating edge the criminals have awarded themselves.
Those who are on foodstamps and want to remain on foodstamps will vote for Obama and those who are on foodstamps but wish to get off of foodstamps will vote for Romney. This is, of course, a generalization which does not preclude the other choices for president thoughtful people might make.
If people could understand the JOY of earning your whole keep almost none (maybe 10%) would want to be on food stamps. In our days nearly ALL of the retired are still capable of earning their keep — if government unleashed the free market by radical reductions of regulation and returning to the SILVER standard that the very word “dollar” used in our Constitution suggests. In our era of the new digital “Continental Currency” the money flows to those closest to the digital money pumps — the politically connected, crony finance and crony corporation. They are pigs and like pigs wasteful and slackers with no enterprise and little motivation except to be fattened, but the sheer amount of fiat money pouring into the system means the insiders are capturing real assets at rates the rest of can not compete with.
We were out at a restaurant. The debate was on the silent television. Obama looked like he was trying to keep quiet about immense physical pain. He looked worn, and he grimaced and moved like he had something wrong with his intestines.
Romney didn’t look light and happy, but he looked calm and businesslike. You could see him answering levelly. His face was congruent, if that’s a word.
Ari @ 15. In cognitive neuroscience studies the term “congruent face” means that the perceived expressions of the face parallel other measures of context of the situation, state or communication in which the individual is involved.
A “bizzare conincidence”: in the three debates, Democrats get more time than Republicans.
A more “bizzare coincidence”: conservatives always poll lower than liberals before the elections, even in France: pre-election poll was liberals (socialists) +20, on election day, it was +3.
As long as Obama polls less than 3 to 6 points ahead of Obama in Battle ground states, Romney will win on election day.
Correction, faster than NYT has ever done:
As long as Obama polls less than 3 to 6 points ahead of Romney…
Ever since June and the Scott Walker recall election and how it was reported in the run-up, the profiles of voters’ reactions to all the corrosive union/media blitz, I’ve been predicting Romney will win and win HUGE. When the air war gets so toxic that voters are not telling pollsters, family, or friends how they will vote, it signals to me that the reason they are not being candid is they plan to vote for the target of the hate campaign and they have more sense than to leave themselves vulnerable to harassment.
Those elections also indicate that there is a strong whole ticket carry, meaning the GOP should the 60+ seat Senate and more seats in the House.
I’m greedy. I want a Republican Congress too. While I’m praying for it, I stick in a plea that this one is smarter than the one that disgraced us good conservatives from the time Newt was kicked out of the speakership and Lott was kicked out of the senate leadership.
Kicking out Lott was one of the few GOOD things they did. That former Democrat sold us out time after time after time.
“none of the punditry seems to have the slightest effect on the opinions of voters.”
Couldn’t disagree with you more. Until the MSM began to accumulate such a racid reputation for bias, the pundits determined how the media reacted to debates. That made all the difference in how the voters perceived the candidates in a debate context.
“When you watch a debate,”
Well, there’s your first fallacy. Most people don’t watch the debates. The 10/4 debate was the most watched in 30 years, and then only about half the electorate saw it if all 70 million were voters as opposed to bored spouces and texting kids. They rely on the media to tell them what was said and who won. You think that doesn’t influence the voter? Dream on. How many times has it been said that it’s more important to win the post-debate spin than to win the debate itself?
I NEVER watch debates precisely for that reason. What’s said ABOUT them is much more important than what is said IN them. A candidate can say important things and they will be either fairly reported or ignored. A candidate like Kennedy or Obama can look fabulous for the camera and say little of merit, and that will be either fairly reported or ignored, as it was in 1960 and 2008. Look at this nonsense about the binders remark. Why has it gone viral, aside from the Chicago mafia’s palpable desperation? Because most people didn’t see the debate. Ever since Frank Luntz hit the scene with his real-time focus groups’ analysis, I don’t even watch the post-debate spin. I watch his focus groups’ reactions and their analysis. They are the REAL people who vote. So far they haven’t disappointed.
TO: elkh1
From your lips – to God’s ears!
We had all better get on our knees and pray that happens!
For probably ten years I have notice on C-Span that callers are using techniques of the spin room. Regular people on both sides who are into politics have it figured out. Brian Lamb (pbuh) would say “why don’t you think other people can see that as well as you” when a caller would complain about some guest’s bias.
He was right. We know the bias, figure it in like a reader of Pravda and only the clueless care about what the spin doctors prescribe.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. God bless Brian Lamb!
Americans are tired of word games in place of solutions and results.
Chris Matthews was elated. So forget all the rambling blather and tall tales that scramed, “Loser!” Chris Matthews was elated. The trolls have it.
“None of the punditry seems to have the slightest effect on the opinions of voters.”
Punditry was vital for a campaign back lets say in the 70′s and 80′s when we were limited to the major press rooms and the morning paper. Obviously we know that’s changed. That’s why they don’t work as well any more. People are better informed to draw their own conclusions for themselves than on just one or two big binders…
If people are able to process information ctitically and do not need to rely on any alleged pundit to “explain” what they themselves just saw or heard, Obama’s goose is cooked.
I meant “critically”. I should have processed my own information better before posting.
In 2006 the Democrats and the media screamed bloody murder over the high price of gas. When Barack Obama was inaugurated, the average gas price was $1.87 a gallon. Now that the price has more than doubled, what are the Democrats and the administration saying now? If you guessed that high gas prices under Obama are somehow a good thing, give yourself a pat on the back. The liberal mindset is always an amazing thing to behold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdScVerrBU&feature=plcp
Aside: excuse my lack of art knowledge, but can someone tell me what is the name of the painting of the woman with the spinning wheel and who is the artist behind it? It’s really quite a beautiful painting. So realistic it almost appears photographic.
It is a shutterstock image. A photograph which you can purchase a license for if you wish to download it. There is a large file which could probably be printed out at 14×19 or maybe larger if you wish.
Jim
It is a photograph. Available from a stock image company. Mouse over the image and right click to see where it comes from.
I was the first member of my family on either side to attend and graduate from university, and so far the only one that has travelled outside the USA except to some Islands nearby or at the behest of the United States Military during wartime. I attended Bible College and later an international university with a lot of people like Obama, who were actively working against those of us who were there to get an education. Most of them were loudly claiming that their campaign of peeing in the University President’s trash can or setting the Commons on fire was “for the good of us all.” Those of us who were working two jobs and taking 24 credits every semester would have preferred to decide for ourselves what our own good was. Watching this election and listening to my American family and friends (I am American but live in Canada) brings abck those days, and I bet I’m not the only one who hopes that when Obama flounces off to Hawaii, he takes the last lingering stench of The Sixties with him.
Let’s ask another question…
Does The change in Obama from debate 1 to debate 2 mean that he is listening to the pundits. Listening very hard.
Oh for a candidate that didn’t care about polls, opinions, editorial but was the right person because their convictions and character were what was needed to lead a nation. Not just a puppet massaged by polls and pundits.
Maybe that’s why the pundits like him, they shape him to what they want.
just some random speculations
I saw that the president was more engaged, but still petty and petulant. He is used to getting his way and doesn’t cotton to anyone standing up to him. We are seeing the real Obama, or Soetero, whatever his name really is. His pathetic cries out to Candy to interfere for him SHOULD have undone anything anyone saw as a resurrected Obama. He still cannot stand on his record and needs interference to keep the focus off of it. What a sad empty suit of a president. Empty chair, empty suit, empty brain of anything except self-pity, loathing for others, and self-importance. We cannot be rid of this guy soon enough!
MSM spin is a glass of water in the middle of the night, to put my minions back to sleep.