Who Won?
Well, Romney. It’s wasn’t the slam-dunk of the first debate, partly because Romney wandered a bit on the Libya and Islamic-extremist questions, but mostly because Obama was actually present and accounted for this time, focused intently on the man who is just about to succeed him as president of the United States. He clearly didn’t like being there any more than he did the first time around (or the second, for that matter), but at least he was focused. The prospect of hanging in a fortnight, as Dr. Johnson observed, does concentrate the mind. Obama’s mind was concentrated, which was an advantage, but voters got to see what he was really like, what he really has planned for us, which was perhaps less of an advantage. Instapundit has a good roundup describing the president’s performance: snarky, condescending, peevish, and small, with a little detour called “Wrong Again, Mr. President,” department of apologies by the president of the United States about America to the rest of the world.
Probably Romney’s single best line last night was “Attacking me is not an agenda,” but his more devastating responses centered on two large issues: the president’s record, which has been an unmitigated litany of failure, and his lack of a coherent plan going forward.
“Forward,” of course, is the president’s campaign slogan, and Romney adroitly turned that around: Yes, we need to go forward, but another Obama term would mean going back to the failed policies that brought you a $16 trillion federal debt ($5.5 trillion added all by his lonesome self in less than fours years), high unemployment, record deficits, record numbers of people on food stamps, high energy prices, etc., etc.
For his part, the president returned again and agin to two themes: 1. it was Bush’s fault (with Dick Cheney thrown in at one point to frighten the children), where by “it” I mean whatever problem is at hand, foreign or domestic: it’s all Bush’s fault, unless there was a success, in which case, the glory is all Obama’s; and 2. we can solve the economic crisis by asking “the wealthy” to pay a little bit more.
Blaming George Bush for anything at this point, four years on, is simply embarrassing, so I will pass over that. But it is worth spending a moment on the president’s aria about “the rich.”
I just don’t see it.
I wish you were right, but Obama’s knife-and-shiv knockout lines, and Romney’s refusal to use any of the similar in kind, made him look ineffective and unwilling to tear Progressivism’s throat out.
Obama’s going to win the turnout war again, especially now that we have the news that over 2600 people aged 112 or older have voted in North Carolina.
If Dems are getting away with that in North Carolina, what are they going to get away with in Ohio?
Obama’s knockout lines weren’t to win over independents, they were to embolden Democrats and Progressives and inspire them to ratchet up the By Any Means Necessary tactics.
Is this all an INFERIOR left wing troll like you has?…..sure sign you’re losing….I mean, you’ve LOST.
If the only hope for Obama are the dead voters and the hard core thugs of the unions, that’s OK with me.
If all the Freedom-loving Americans will vote, the zombie-vote of the subversives will be defeated.
I think you’re trolling.
But just in case you’re not, keep in mind that many independent voters are political centrists and they still LIKE Obama, for whatever reason. They need to be spoon-fed with the understanding that it’s OK for them to vote against him, even if they voted for him the first time.
I’d like to smack them rhetorically upside the head, but that’s why I don’t have the character traits to be a successful politician.
Everyone assumes I’m a troll, and I really can’t stop that. You want to see actual trolls, go read any Farrakhan thread on The Blaze and look for the people defending Screwy Louis and the Nation of Islam.
It’s more that the majority of people in my circles are under 30, and yes, they do want to see snark and kill-lines. They’re not undecided between Obama and Romney, they’re undecided between Obama and Not Voting. And it was up to Mitt to discourage them and make them want to Not Vote.
I wanted to see Mitt make Obama lock up and go speechless, enough to embarass the 30-and-unders into being ashamed to even THINK about attempting to re-elect Barack the Sun King.
They are undecided between Obama and not voting. And large numbers will decide on the latter. First, do no harm. They are in a common confused youthful state, namely discovering ever so slowly that the pack mentality of the Kool Kids Kulture of The Daily SHow, Bill Maher—ironic everything and sincere nothing—is no ground upon which to construct a life. Or a nation. They are disoriented and have not yet awakened to the implications of this dawning realization. Many never will, as the Baby Boomers have so disgracefully demonstrated. But many also will.
If they cannot quite yet bring themselves to completely betray their adolescent tribal allegiance to the Democratic Party by voting for the the caricature their tribe mistakes for the GOP candidate, they can stay home from the polls and sulk over the crual imperfections of the universe. They won’t be alone.
R & R are doing pretty well with young people. Guarantee you, they are a LOT more likely to vote than Obama’s choom squad.
They’re a lot of college grads who have never lived in a good job market, well not than when it affected them directly, it’s really sad when you think about it, this is the norm.
Your group of 30s and under may want to see the snark now, but that’s not what real adults want. They want to see someone that can maintain their cool under stress, someone who doesn’t snark just because someone does it to him. If you had been paying attention, Romney destroyed Obama several times, but did it like a gentleman… like a president.
I watched that debate pretty closely and I saw Mitt Romney flailing around like an idiot, agreeing with Obama at every opportunity, and getting scolded like a child by the president. What were you watching?
My lifelong liberal Democrat wife kept commenting at how small and petty Obama looked. His “knockout lines” were delivered in snark mode, which may satisfy the developmentally arrested perpetual adolescents in the Jon Stewart/Chris Matthews universe and among the Kos Krowd, but they don’t impress actual adults. “We have these things called aircraft carriers…that airplanes land on” elicited snorts and eyerolls from my liberal spouse. I think bubble dwellers cannot grasp that most of the nation does not mistake the put down wit of Jon Stewart or Bill Maher for wisdom. My wife, with no prompting from me, kept commenting on the facial expression being dubbed the “Punahou Death Stare.” She thought it looked weak, peevish, immature, childish. I think anyone who doesn’t live in the dream world of the pop culture Left will have had a similar reaction.
Very well put – both your comments Victor.
Thank you for that. I totally agree with your wife. One of the pundits said in advance that the third debate would be about “style.” I thought Romney came across as sincere, competent and statesman-like, while Obama seemed angry, too slick and sarcastic. He seemed bent on putting down Romney, rather than connecting with the audience. I also noticed Romney smiled a lot. I think some of the news media are dead wrong on their assessment about who won this debate.
Most people do not respond to these things purely as an intellectual exchange, so emotional responses are important — though even on the level of an intellectual exchange, I felt Romney was clear and concise, while Obama was rambling. A couple of times I actually thought he was going to forget what he was going to say (just something in his delivery) — as though he had memorized his lines, rather than having an integral understanding of the issues.
How could you marry a liberal Democrat? I don’t allow Dems to wash my car, mow my lawn, collect my garbage, teach my kids at school, or have their children come to my kids’ birthday party. It’s a matter of character.
You can sleep with a Dem for a good time, but don’t legitimize them by marrying them. And by all means don’t allow them to procreate. Remember, Planned Parenthood is a factory staffed by Dems to keep poor Dems’ population down. Is this really something we should oppose?
I don’t agree with you but I don’t think it’s fair that everyone jumped to call you a troll. You expressed an opinion, one free of personal insults and based on personal reflection and not what an ideological blog told you. That’s better than 99% of the arguments found online. Come on guys, let’s try to be above the rest and not jump to label those we disagree with.
People need to remember some history about “taxing the rich”. When the first income tax was instated, it was only on the wealthy. Then WWI came along, and it started reaching down into the middle class, and has stayed there ever since.
I think most people understand that the real money is down the scale, below the top percentile, but above the bottom half. All income taxes that raise serious money end up going for that segment. For the same reason bank robbers rob banks.
Correct. And this needs to be repeated until it finally sinks in. The Progressives have gotten away with that lie for far too long. “The rich”, the truly rich will find a way to protect their wealth. The ones that always end up paying are the average folks, “playing by the rules”. It should also be mentioned that the other means of extracting wealth, i.e. corporate taxes, payroll taxes, “fees”, fall on everyone. The corporate taxes provide a perverse incentive for corporations to lose money.
What really pisses me off is the idea that the solution to our fiscal problems always entails giving the government more money. No. The solution is drastically cutting the funds to government and cutting the size of government. The government has too much money already and that is what is causing a lot of our problems. Not only by starving the productive part of the economy of credit but by interfering with the private sector so that it does not grow and provide the minimum funds the government needs to function.
Romney had a great opp last night, and he screwed the pooch. Disappointing. Not that it matters this late in the game. Lackluster is what I would call it.
After four years of abject failures and terrifying scandals, a serious presidential attitude on the part of Romney is truly welcome. Yes, he is not announcing that he will lower the oceans.
And in fact we have enough of such prophets…
We just need someone who can (and wants to) work for and with America to make it great again, after four years of class-warfare, regulations that strangle the economy, and failures abroad.
I think you are right…
Though I’ll never stop wishing for a Gingrich Style, total evisceration in the most condescending and disrespectful way, because that hollow Fraud Obama absolutely deserves it, Mitt seemed to be above all of that last night, and proved he was the better man, leader and PERSON.
It’s lik my dad once told me:
Treat everyone like a gentleman, not because THEY are, but because YOU are”
Hard to do sometimes, especially when the other guy deserves a slap across the mouth.
For me, the best moment of the night was this (parapharasing):
Moderator: “Its 3:00 AM, the phone rings, Netanyahu is telling you his bombers are on their way to Iran. What do you do?”
Romney just shakes his head annoyed, holds up his hand and says: “No, that’s not going to happen. Never. Netanyahu is a better leader than that, I’m a better leader than that, we will be on the same page long before something like that could ever happen. its just ridiculous, irresponsible to even entertain that possibility. No. We’re not going there, move on”.
I saw no hint of a “politically calculated answer” in that.
He just said “NO” without spin or qualification.
He had calm, steady confidence in himself without apology, whereas Obama had anger and complaint his Greatness was not self evident to all.
I sympathize with your sentiments. But it wasn’t your or my vote he was humting last night. He was trying to (1) maintain the momentum he has built since the first debate, and (2) avoid saying something that could be seized upon by the Obama campaign and its corrupt media publicity arm to portray Romney as a warmonger, one of their most favorite of all GOP caricatures. He accomplished those goals. Sure, I’d rather see Barry publicly humiliated too. But I would rather see him defeated in two weeks.
I agree. Obama fired up his base, but he doesn’t need to go after them. He needs to convince the “undecided voters” that he’s the guy to pull it out and reverse the horrible last four years of abject… oops.
So we got the high school smartass routine. Anyone who hasn’t made up his mind probably watched the “Eighties called” and “Horses and bayonets” putdowns and thought “What an arrogant condescending jackhole. No freakin’ way.” If Obama scored with that performance, it will have been an own goal. Petty, snide and snarky is not Presidential.
Humiliate obambi in the voting booth on Nov6 in a landslide! ROLL TIDE ROLL!!
I agree with you. I have argued over at my blog that we have to view the debates not as individual events which can be scored, but as an integral part of the Romney campaign. The debates were the equalizers; they cancelled Obama’s advantage as incumbent, as the darling of the media, and as a dishonest and funds-rich campaigner. Romney was able to sell himself straight to the voters and the voters have responded.
I understand all the tactical analysis, but Romney had multiple opportunities to cream Obumbles last night and didn’t do it. No mention of selling out allies like Poland, nothing effective on Benghazi, nothing about CAIR’s access to the White House etc. Romney had a target rich environment and he could have rattled Obama, but he didn’t.
Romney needs to create more momentum and a sense of inevitability. I think he is ahead in a lot of places right now, but he hasn’t sealed the deal yet. His campaign better be right about the passive approach last night. I was nonplused, to put it mildly.
I am coming around to the view that the hyper partisans, such as myself, are wrong. We don’t need to “cream” the opposition. They are doing it to themselves. I am sick of the vitriol coming from the left including their leader. I am sure they are sick of the same thing from us. If we are going to accomplish things, we need to build a consensus without demonizing our opponents. Romney knows that and I pray that his gentler, kinder approach will be effective.
>> No mention of selling out allies like Poland
He did mention it.
You are right but the hard truth is,
all those things you mention will SCARE the Squishy Independents away…
At this point Romney has “The Base” and “The Intellectually Honest”, but he needs 7-10 % of the “stupid/frightened/lazy” to win, just like he said in that 47% speech….
And these turds need soothing benign language without harsh words or images, or accusations of bad character or devious intents, because its just too scary to contemplate.
Mentioning “terrorists invited to the Whitehouse” or “assault weapons to Mexican gangs” will force them to vote for the guy who says “shush-shush honey-pie…Dont listen…Daddy’ll snuggle you to sleep” and Romney knows that.
I think he’s honest enough to go AFTER the scum, once in office (CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, Solyndra scammers, Justice Dept. over Gunrunner, etc.) but its a losing hand to throw those cards around too much, right NOW.
Basically, the ones who CAN HANDLE those thruths, already know all about them. The ones who CANT handle that kind of knowledge, would run from the guy alerting them to it. Its human nature of a certain (pathertic) subset of our species.
Independent are in Denial about the Democrats…and will be for some time.
It sucks, but we have to wean them SLOWLY to the truth or else, like that skank Lindey Lohan, they’ll just relapse back to the same poison thats ruining them, and the country at large.
This election is a dead heat; no one is leading. It is notable to me that an Ohio Republican election official, in a safe district, just resigned promptly due to the pressure. From here to election day, mechanics, not policy, or popularity, will control the votes. I fear that we will see hanging chads, billy clubs, and boxes of misplaced ballots, in a dozen razor thin state races. Absentee ballots from dead people, or felons in prison will be counted and may control the outcome. A ton of political jobs are on the line. If the result favors Obama, we may not hear it from the media.
America is in a dangerous spot. Vote. It matters this time.
Agree fully with your last paragraph. Disagree with everything else!
You throw red meat to energize your base, not win over the wimps who remain “undecided”. To get those, many of whom last night were women(See NLCS and MN Football) you have to be “presidential”, knowledgable and above the fray.
Barry’s snark wasn’t aimed at those women, most of whom dislike satire and snarkiness, thinking it hurtful and rude. He was energizing his base, which is slipping away and considering not even voting.
As for razor-tight, you’re wrong. Last go-round in 2008, 10 million Evangelics sat at home because McScrewball told their leaders to shove it. Romney did not make that error and I believe you will see a tidal wave of Romney voters of which the MSM is totally unaware! Remember, they are even more supportive of Israel than the Jews and they recognize ol’ Muslim Barry’s true intentions toward Israel.
Romney truly pulled a magnificent “Reagan”.
And in the process, he most likely convinced the last of the un-decideds and many former Obama voters that it’s okay to make that change. Because before them sat a steady and reasoned man who would not blow up the world, who would lead through strength and who is more than ready for the Oval Office.
Roger, like you… I have for some time told people that Romney would win, and by more than a comfortable margin. And everything that I’ve seen and heard in my days of volunteering has reinforced to me the claim that Romney voters are determined and energized and that Obama voters are disappointed and dejected.
But between now and the election, we all have to pass the word, get out there and fight like we’re several points behind.
This one matters.
One of the biggest concerns Americans have is the “gridlock” in Congress. Mr. Obama’s snarky performance gave viewers a pretty big hint as to why there is gridlock. Mr. Romney’s performance showed viewers why he was able to work with a Democrat majority when he was governor of MA and also why he will be a better president than Mr. O.
Mr. O was playing checkers. Mr. R played chess.
I score this a Romney win. Obama brought his knife to the gunfight. Why would Romney encourage another media blitzkrieg by taking out his gun and using it unnecessarily?
This asking “the wealthy” “to pay a little bit more” trope is tiresome, ignorant and ineffective. Three unassailable points spring to mind:
1) I have never gotten a job from a poor person.
2) “The wealthy” are just like you and me: they put what money they have in banks, in retirement accounts, in investments, and, sometimes, in ostentatious display (which employs lots of people). No “rich”person outside of Scrooge McDuck maintains a vault full of dollar bills that he can swim in.
3) Yes, you could confiscate 100% of the income of every “rich” person (however defined) in America and it wouldn’t eliminate even this year’s deficit. But you could only do it once. What about next year?
Unless you are a mslsd racist, it’s hard to see why anybody would think obama won the debate.
1. Romney was more calm and controlled.
2. obama acted like a school boy who thinks zingers are a winning strategy.
3. Little of what obama said was true. He doesn’t accept the concept of truth.
4. Romney clearly pointed out the dominant fact about foreign affairs. America has lost ground in every single area of the world
5. Romney made it clear he is nothing like a war-monger.
6. Every time the debate went to the economy, obama’s total failure was again revealed
7. Romney made points with Jewish voters, half a dozen times at least
8. Romney made the smart strategic decision to agree that we need to leave Afghanistan. A lot of conservative will disagree, but that is what most Americans want. The decision avoided a minefield of problems for Romney. (note: it’s clear that Romney, love him or not, has the ability to change his approach when it’s called for. obama, on the other hand, is under the control of decades-old ideological blinders.)
9. Not getting into the Benghazi weeds was probably a smart move as well. Anybody who can be made to care already has enough information about that.
10. Romney put obama’s infamous “flexibility” comment on the table in a big way.
11. Romney came across as a man with a plan about China. Who else has? Americans aren’t worried about a trade war. They are worried about jobs. Romney now owns the China issue and it’s a big plus in his favor.
12. Romney also picked up some points by embracing South America. It was something few people have thought about, so it was a very astute observation, and one that also is a subtle play for hispanic support.
13. Romney’s closing line of “I can work with you” may not be what conservatives want to hear, but it was music to the ears of many voters in the middle. It was also a devastating way to say that obama is tempermentally unsuited to lead. The 100% committed ideologue is incapable of compromising about anything.
Sport analogy is often or regularly used in discussing politics, so here is my take in watching the 2012 presidential cycle and the three debates from up north of the 49 parallel. I prefer chess, the royal game, as the analogy when discussing politics with my students. Romney demonstrated to all the folks going to vote who understand the royal game that he is a grandmaster, and in his first debate he established the fact that he was playing with a kibbitzer from a village chess club.
To the chess aficionados it is as if Romney reached back to the golden era of chess in the late 19th and early 20th century, and showed the smooth, elegant, clean tactical and strategic style through the opening, middle and end game that were to be found in the games of such grandmasters as Capablanca and Alekhine. Romney basically destroyed Obama in the first game. And there was no need to humiliate this kibitzer posing as a grandmaster a second or third time.
And so after the first game, Romney simply played blind. Everyone with the least bit of understanding of chess saw the difference between Romney, the grandmaster, and Obama, the village chess player.
In the second game, people will remember that the referee ran an illegal interference on behalf the chess kibbitzer in a desperate attempt to level the game.
In the third debate, Romney simply moved his pawns en passant without engaging in any bothersome skirmishes with his opponent desperately attempting gambits to complicate the middle game. Romney just played the clock to the endgame, and at best the kibbitzer can claim a draw with a grandmaster instead of being trounced and checkmated with all his major pieces on board.
All the shrill noises from the left one is hearing come from those who do not know that checkers is not chess, and has no appreciation of what an en passant is as a grandmaster pushes his pawn forward down the file.
Salim Masnsur
Check and Mate!!!
I think part of the problem with Romney’s subdued performance last night was that he knew he did not have all the facts, i.e., the intelligence reports, compared to Obama. One obvious factual mistake & Obama can whack Romney big time to make him look like an idiot.
Also, many of those independent voters will vote for the nicest candidate.—–I kid you not, according to my political consultant friend. Romney & Ryan have been the nicest debaters.
Actually, Romney does have all the facts–he is getting the daily intelligence briefings now and has been since…I think shortly after Benghazi.
He did several things that I think made a difference in this debate–he could have gone after the Libya issue in a big way. The fact that he didn’t–that he chose to address the region and Al Qaeda in a broad, big picture way instead took away most of Obama’s debate prep & talking points.
He also remained calm and stable and almost serene. It reminded me a lot of the Biden/Ryan debate. After the fact, as that debate sunk in, Ryan’s calm demeanor and his solid responses sank home to viewers and as the days passed, Ryan emerged as the clear winner. I believe the same thing will come of this debate. As you listen to the soundbites being played today, Romney’s answers last night are sinking home. It wasn’t what conservatives wanted–it wasn’t a visceral take-down of Obama. But it was a calm, steady indictment of Obama’s policies across a range of topics, that left you coming away with a picture of Romney as competent and in charge, while leaving you with the impression that Obama is flailing about in search of a lifeboat.
Obama came out much more sure-footed last night, and I think Romney was smart to rope-a-dope. (Also, I think Romney was overwhelmed by such a target-rich environment last night that he couldn’t decide what to aim at, so was sort of shooting randomly.) He forgot to throw the knock-out punch at the end though: “Four years ago you declared a set of goals that, if not met, would mean a one-term presidency. You failed to meet even one of these goals. Resign. Get out of our way, and we’ll clean up your mess.”
For another view, see http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109004/how-romney-outsmarted-himself-last-night#comments.
I thought Romney won big because he looked presidential while Obama looked small and petty. Obama looked like a college student trying to explain why he failed his exams while Romney looked like the teacher lecturing Obama on what needs to be done to get a better grade. Romney is going to win and I think last night sealed the deal with a lot of voters, especially in the swing states. Romney showed that he had the strength and the character to be president, while Obama couldn’t make a case why he should be president.
Sorry, Roger. While I may agree with many of your sentiments, I disagree on the conclusions.
Obama threw red meat at his base and that made him look petty, small, beneath the office…TO US. To his base, it gave them energy for the final lap.
Romney doing a McCain imitation, refusing to hit key points, going into “prevent defense” and a “four corners offense”…trying to nurse a “lead” may make Romney look gentlemanly, but it won’t move the needle.
And, here’s the rub. When the other guy has the entire mass media apparatus covering up his misdeeds, lying, distorting and fronting for him…your ONLY chance to hit on YOUR points in front of 50+ million Americans at a time…is in the debate.
Romney whiffed on nearly every chance and he let Obama get away with distortions of his own. That’s not a great strategy.
I believe Romney did well to avoid a “red meat food fight”, which Obama hurled like Bluto in Animal House. The combination of the Propaganda and Lies Ministry and this is the marriage of Animal House to Animal Farm.
However, having NO answer to obvious scandals, distortions, and reckless policies is not fighting by the Marques of Queensbury’s rules…it’s not fighting at all. If you bring up the distortions in the debate (albeit in a gentlemanly fashion), then the media HAS TO cover it. If you let the distortions pass without comment, you allow them to stand as is…because the media isn’t going to do a thing about it.
Obama is a man so utterly useless on the economy, he can’t even get a single vote from his own party on a budget. He hasn’t passed a MANDATORY budget in his entire term in office. He doesn’t understand budgets. He has no concept of how to run a lemonade stand.
His hyperaggression and anger against American success is visceral. Any small business that makes $250,000…is a dirty, lousy, “rich” person’s pirate booty. “You didn’t build that” isn’t a request to share in success, it’s a spitting venom demand to hand over your money. Confiscatory taking is the beginning element of leftist rage against success.
And, Obama’s apology tour did more than trash America. It trashed our best friends and allies around the world. It weakened our base and strengthened that of our enemies.
Sitting on your hands while a man does that to your country is not an act of strategy. Or courage.
Romney got bad advice. He was told to “tone it down”. He nearly toned it down so much that he turned it off. It was too much softness for a guy who was glaring like an Ace of Spades flaming skull. I don’t very much like prevent defenses or four corner offenses. They stop momentum. I’m all for not getting into the red meat food fight. But there was a middle ground and Romney missed it. Sorry. Let’s hope we can pick up the pace for him by making EVERY lie and distortion of Obama’s ring from the rafters. There are plenty from last night. We NEED to make them go viral.
The entire Obama campaign — from the convention until the day after the election — has been focused on firing up their base.
How’s that working for them?
Well, we don’t know, do we? So don’t take chances. Agree, almost completely, with cfbleachers, though rather diffidently since I only saw the last 1/3. Bleachers may be overstating Romney’s milquetoast moments, but there’s little doubt Romney dropped the ball too often.
Mr Nice Guy vs Mr A-hole has to be sharply defined to get biggest bang for the buck, and you need an edge that cuts quick and deep. Otherwise the risk, as stated, is of appearing to channel McCain.
Note how Roger Kimball is compelled to speculate (made me think of that excuse about the thin air in Denver): “Perhaps it was a sense of compassion that kept [Romney] from hammering the points home.” More like bad advice and mediocre execution by a guy with years of experience sticking a wet finger in the air — which leads to lost ground that must be recovered in the time remaining.
It can be done, but those final ads are now crucial.
cfb, I agree with everything you say and you say it quite well. The only quibble is one that I suppose could be characterized as a matter of degree.
Personally, I would have relentlessly exposed, humiliated and held Obama to account for the entire world to see. For everything he’s caused, he more than deserves it. In fact, I think he should resign. As I recall, no one died in Watergate.
But I’m beginning to believe that such an approach at this stage of the campaign may no longer be necessary and might actually wind up hurting their efforts instead.
Which brings us to the obvious. If what I happen to believe is true, why is that not better reflected in the polls?
Because I have for some time now felt the polls to be suspect. Yes, even the ones we conservatives have come to trust. Not because there is something necessarily wrong with their sampling or with their models.
Simply put, I hold them all suspect because I believe that we now have an unprecedented number of people who have not, are not and will not tell the truth to the pollsters… for two obvious reasons, race and trust.
Still the bottom line remains the bottom line, for the sake of America and all our loved ones… this is one election we absolutely must win.
Even if the Obama administration gets away with things like Fast & Furious, the security leaks, Trooper-gate, GSA-gate, the Benghazi cover-up and our rapidly approaching fiscal train wreck.
Romney was not “given bad advice”. People started calling the campaign and asking why Romney didn’t clobber Obama over Libya, the campaign responded that this is how Romney wanted to handle it – “It’s all Romney”.
Frankly I believe it was a stroke of genius. I’m no fair weather Republican, and I’m embarrassed for those who are. I’m not so insecure as to need a stroke every time Romney speaks. He was not speaking to those of us who should already be firmly (did I say firmly?) in his camp – he was trying to cultivate the undecided and fence sitters. To hear you tell it, it would be better that Romney go out swinging in a ‘blaze of glory’. Folks who espouse exactly your theory of debate work for the other side and look what they achieved last night: a churlish small miniature wannabe faux president, a replicated manikin, the embodiment of mindless platitudes and failed policy. Good on them. I don’t want to be that, nor should you. Romney made strategic statements and gave Obama lots of rope – out came sequestration – a forced Obama error and ships that ‘go under water’. This will be a protracted problem for Obama. Yet another hole in his leaking ship.
So big deal Romney did not walk into another roundhouse. Scheiffer and Obama were waiting, had a strategy just like Crowley in the last debate. Talk about slow learners… I was hoping he’d avoid obvious punches for which the TOTUS could enlist the aid of a complicit media. Romney instead brought fresh ideas and concerns. Go back and listen to it. He fell upon the flat-footed left on the ‘apology tour’ and ‘Israel’ and turned national security into economic security, an area where he trumps Obama in every poll. He now owns the high ground on China, declaring that we already ARE in a trade war. A reality that has escaped the MSM and Obama, but not the average Joe in America. He stepped around the MSM again last night.
If you think he drew no blood then you missed a lot. He didn’t walk into a trap. He said Putin won’t see more ‘flexibility’ after the election, he’ll see more backbone. Yes, yes we will. Because it took backbone NOT to pulverize that putative excuse for a politician, the czar in chief, Obama.
Discretion is the better part of valor.
This will be a wave election in the end, and it started last night with no need to spike the ball.
I went back to read what I wrote…and it must have come out much differently than what I intended to say….somehow.
However, it STILL looks to my eye like EXACTLY as I intended it.
To summarize: There is a MIDDLE GROUND between throwing a red meat food fight (rob crawford correctly identifies the permanence of this tactic by the leftists) and playing a TOO SOFT prevent defense.
Key points that WILL NOT be exposed by the conspiratorial media…were lost, in the vapors of distortion and deceit. Again, if you are a rock ribbed Republican, great. It doesn’t matter that Romney played prevent defense. YOU aren’t the target in the swing states any longer.
And, when you have a 80million+ audience or a 60million+ audience, getting across points that are being DELIBERATELY kept from you otherwise…THIS is the place to make those points.
Being a good soldier and yes-man (or woman) has its place. However, when you are in an election that MUST be won, if Romney is in a room with a yes-man, one of them is unnecessary.
We can rah-rah after we win. Before then, we better examine the battlefield every day and if we make a mistake, we better man up to it and fix it, instead of whistling past the graveyard….and pretending that mistakes don’t matter. This is a close race by some accounts. Every mistake matters and correcting them instead of ignoring them…is the better course of action.
cfb
You will be proven wrong in 2 weeks.
How typical of the braindead USURPER to say about Romney’s Foreign Policy that it was ‘all over the map’ without even realizing that ‘all over the map’ is exactly where Foreign Policy takes place. Needless to say his moronic minions like Blabbermouth Shultz could not stop themselves repeating his stupidity like a bleating sheep. Maybe if the USURPER had been paying attention ‘all over the map’ instead of playing golf and playing at CELEBRITY then Benghazi might have been prevented or rescued. But Benghazi is just the USURPERS Iranian Embassy siege moment like that other one term LOSER Carter.
<>
Significant point by Mitt, but Obama has bought US the $16 trillion debt; it’s our burden, not Obama’s personal debt.
Socialists ALWAY ask the rich to “pay a little bit more”. And a little bit more, and a little bit more…; they never have enough of other people’s money.
Little wonder why socialists and Leftists are atheists and do all they can to banish the Judeo/Christian God and Teaching from our society. Scripture says “Thou Shalt Not Covet”; exactly what calling for taxing the wealthy at a higher rate does (proposed by Karl Marx). Covetousness is the core value of socialism, the class envy generated from it is fracturing our nation, dividing us so we can be conquored more easily.
How typical of the braindead USURPER to say about Romney’s Foreign Policy that it was ‘all over the map’ without even realizing the irony that ‘all over the map’ is exactly where Foreign Policy does take place. Needless to say his moronic minions like Blabbermouth Shultz could not stop themselves repeating his stupidity like a bleating sheep. Maybe if the USURPER had been paying attention and attending his Security Briefings about what was going on ‘all over the map’ instead of playing golf, fund raising and playing at CELEBRITY then Benghazi might have been prevented or at the worst rescued. But Benghazi is just the USURPERS Iranian Embassy siege moment like that other one term LOSER Carter.
The political establishment!
Who’s Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NXhoP5bQ2M&feature=player_embedded
The 2012 Debates – Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama and Romney Campaigns By MARK HALPERIN | October 15, 2012
http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/15/the-2012-debates-memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-obama-and-romney-campaigns/
although not as effective, “attacking me is not an agenda” is unmistakeable reproduction of there you go again.
I went into the deabte thinking that romeny was the challenger, but it was clearly as the front runner. not just for the way he played it, but moreso for the way obama went after him.
one candidate wanted to hold ground, the other wanted to retake what had been lost.
clearly, team romeny felt that in regards to benghazi, ‘if your opponent is hurting themsleves, get out of the way’.
everybody who favors a ‘robust’ military america was already on board. The only undecideds left where as equivalently modest as romeny sought to portray himself.
it is very clear that both campaigns believed the gallup number, romney +5/6, and right on schedule, rasmussen puts up romney +4 the following day.
yes, the state polling still favors obama, but a 4-6 pt national margin fixes everything. at, this point, given the msm’s past year of presenting obama’s reelection as a near fact, and how far romeny had to come, a popular vote victory is a bonebreaker for obama, even if he is reelected.
if romney wins by more than 2 pts, I generally assume that obama’s electoral victory is nil. the press will increasingly believe otherwise, supported by nate silver and his ‘secret sauce’.
watching obama lose is beautiful. imagining the length and depth of the recriminations from the libs(but not practical dems) and the media will be priceless.
obama’s greatest impact on the dem party, itself, was eliminating the DLC-the moderates of the party. it was a more centrist group, that flourished under the economic success of a democrat president. the conditions required to build it back will not occur for the next 6-8 years.
those chickens have come home to roost.
I hope you’re right, but even if Romney wins the popular vote by a large margin if Obama manages to retake the presidency by even a single electoral vote he is arrogant enough to trumpet it as a sweeping mandate and vindication of all his ideas, and him personally. It’ll be “I won” all over again and he will have absolutely no incentive to put forward anything Republicans in congress could even tepidly support. The first thing that would happen is that he would hold firm on taking the country off the fiscal cliff unless congress caved to his demands to raise taxes on “the rich”. I hope the house republicans have the balls to ride right over the cliff with him. After that, look for Obama to spend the next 4 years golfing and chilling with his favorite celebrities while enacting his agenda by executive order. Even if he gave an order granting amnesty to every illegal in america, do you think the senate democrats would actually vote to impeach him? of course not. If he over-reaches enough we may be able to make 2014 make 2010 look like a dem year in comparison and impeach him sometime in 2015. But if he manages to stay in office by any method, do not expect him to be at all humbled by the popular vote.
It was clear to me that Romney’s team had determined that Libya was a trap. They no doubt believed that Obama and his team had prepared extensively to leap on any attack Romney made on Libya. The likely rebuttal they had planned was “Why are you trying to politicize a national tragedy for personal gain? Have you no decency sir!?” Which would almost certainly have worked.
If so, then Romney’s attacks on other lines was strategically successful because it meant that Romney attacked on fronts Obama was not as prepared to defend (read Sun-Tzu…) and it means that Romney’s team likely believes that Libya is doing enough harm to Obama without Romney having to jump on board.
FWIW InTrade has Obama down over 35 cents since the debate. That’s an indication that those who are literally betting on Obama think Romney won.
I was wrong when I thought the debates wouldn’t matter. Romney was headed to a “close but no cigar” defeat prior to the first debate. The Lybia fiasco also bailed him out a bit.
But I’m still bothered that Romney still is not leading outright in states like Ohio. RCP polling data has Obama still up by a slim margin of 1.9.
I think Romney could have made more impression during the last two debates.
Quick Tip: Don’t believe the polls.
I think Romney took the position that when your’re ahead, let the opponent destroy himself. O’Dismal looked petty, petulant, and pevish while Romney look calm, cool and collected. Oh yes, and I dare say Presidential.
So Romney let the snarky comment about air craft carriers and bayonets roll off his back. And O’Dismal just looked small. Its a comment not worthy of the office. Only an Alinsky ackolyte would think that was a good idea to try to demean your opponent.
What we have is the rapidly shrinking President. He’s being buried under a blizzard of you didn’t build thats, his tax the rich screeds, his attacks of Romney as “rich”, and foreign bank accounts. He’s a phantasm flailing at strawmen and cartoon cuts out of his opponents. Romeny refused to take the bait.
“Attacking me is not an agenda” is good but not great.
But from the start of the primaries, Romney’s campaign has had very modest goals, they NEVER reach for the home run.
I thought it was the best debate for both men, and that Romney won by a few points, a little better than I thought he did last time.
Me, I wish he’d be much more aggressive, but it may be that his campaign staff figured out that’s just not Mitt Romney.
Obama’s knockout lines weren’t to win over independents, they were to embolden Democrats and Progressives and inspire them to ratchet up the By Any Means Necessary tactics.
That’s the theory, that the “low information voter” whatever their registration, if they cared enough to tune in, had to be wooed and not scared off or made to flip to the football game. And maybe Romney did that better than Obama. Let’s hope.
TREVOR LOUDON: AN URGENT MESSAGE FOR AMERICA
I recorded this video a couple of weeks ago. It is my message to America. In it, I attempt to explain the global implications of the upcoming US elections. This election is the most crucial in modern American history. It is not primarily about jobs and economics, it is about national security … READ MORE:
http://bwcentral.org/2012/10/trevor-loudon-an-urgent-message-for-america/
For me, Obama’s latest begging e-mail indicates that he thinks he’s behind:
“Not because of what losing would mean for me — Michelle and I will be fine no matter what happens.”
Oh thank goodness. I was losing sleep worrying if Barry and his family would be able to put food on their table when he loses the election. //sarc
He seems to pull in foreign donations with ease. Let him take his begging bowl to them.
I was waiting for him to say something along the lines of:
“… and by the way Mr. President, in this country we do not bow down to our leaders and our leaders do not bow down to the world’s other leaders.”
But it never came.
Based on his performance over the past four years, the President seems to suffer from an odd, almost pathological, disconnect between his rhetoric and his actions. His stated positions on a range of issues are often at sharp variance with what he actually does. He’s for energy independence, but then forces the closure of coal mines and halts the Keystone Pipeline. He’s a man who claims to believe in our free market system, but he never misses the opportunity to berate those who make it work. Perhaps the most glaring example of this habit occurred in last night’s debate when he said in his closing comments that if he were fortunate enough to win reelection, “I will always listen to your voices.” An arresting and remarkable statement from a man who jammed through the nightmare that will be Obamacare over the clear and unequivocal opposition of two thirds of the American people.
In Strasbourg, France
OBAMA 04.03.09: (godlike echo) “In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America’s shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”
This is the guy running around blaming our country to the Europeans, who wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for us. We have defended them. I call your attention to the cemeteries all over Europe again. They don’t have to have defense budgets because of us, because of NATO. They’re free to run their Western democracies, their socialism into the economic ground all they want. They’re free to implode economically like they are because we have propped them up. The Marshall Plan!
I won the debate by muting Obama each tme he spoke (blathered). Great night.
finally figured out why Romney didn’t engage on Benghazi and Afghanistan.
He knew that is where the criminals would have spent all there time strategizing how to get him in a gotcha moment, up to an including recruiting Schieffer to do their dirty work. And since the administration has access to all sorts of classified information that they wouldn’t have the least compunctions about selectively revealing, Romney would have been flying into a buzzsaw if he had gone after the Fraud on those topics.
So instead, he basically ignored the two topics most conservatives would have loved to see him engage on, and instead concentrated on being presidential.
Notice how the Fraud became more and more angry as the debate wore on, more petty, more vindictive. All his prep was wasted and he didn’t have any cue cards to tell him what to say to President Romney. That probably wasn’t Romney’s exculsive purpose, but it was a nice bonus that the Fraud revealed his true character when he wasn’t allowed to use the secret sauce his handlers had worked so hard to prepare.
Sweet
I am also convinced Romney will win big. The reason is simple:
Main Street.
These are the voters out there who are just as interested and motivated in this election, but rarely discuss it. Let alone partcipating in amateur punditry we see on news sites like PJ.
Main Street America is filled with voters like this. They are found in the barbershop, the doctor’s office, the restaurant, the garage mechanic’s shop – in short, every mundane setting you can think of.
You can sense an excitement building out there. The momentum for Romney is very strong. So strong, that I predict a Pennsylvania win for Romney.
If I am right, then that would mean the liberal media will have groans and palpitations long before California begins to count. The Romney landslide will be almost certain.
Redistribution of wealth wouldn’t be a bad thing if it actually benefited the working class joes. But in Obama’s administration, the elite ultra-rich have gotten richer, the underclass has been enabled to live unproductive, unfulfilling lives, and the working class has paid for it.
During the debate the station I was watching did one of those real time graphs showing you who independents supported as they were speaking. Anytime someone brought up reality and doom and gloom they were voted against. Anytime someone spit out lies and fluff talking points their support skyrocketed. If this is the mindset of your average American Obama clearly will win this since all he is, is fluff.
If you measure the debate solely on who got off the most attack lines, Obama won marginally, and most of the post debate polls reflected that. But once people have time to reflect, the real question they will want to consider is which of these guys will be a responsible and steady commander in chief, and on that question I think romney did very well.
This one is just about over. Undecideds break 2-1 for the challenger, and barring a major event, this should start showing up in the polls in about 7-10 days. No amount of turnout can alter a 3-4% victory. None. The only issue is the composition of the Senate. I think R coattails will get him 50-51 R senators.
Well the way I see it is that, the donkeys last time out, did a full court press negative attack on Palin and it worked. Predictably, they doubled down and foolishly devoted their entire strategy to repeating that success.
Only one problemo, it was no longer a surprise tactic, and the Republicans expected it….and bided their time until the debates allowed their ticket to be seen by the voters without the MSM filter/lens. Then the donkey Palinisation of RR, was clearly obvious and frivilous, made them look petty, and it blew up in their faces but they still proceeded through all 4 debates, stolidly, with this failed strategy…..
It seems the Republicans know these are not debates…..it’s like that gag show “The Joker Is Wild”….the points(zingers) don’t count….it’s all about image.
It would probably be appropriate next election cycle, to appoint Drew Carey as moderator for the TV debates.