Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7434
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:13 pm    Post subject: 1st Presidential Debate Reply with quote

Was surprised we didn't have a thread going already;

Comments?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4137
Reputation: 238.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Me too ...

I tuned into the debate in the second hour, and found myself thinking that this was really a debate, not the pseudo-debate that politicians usually construct. I mean, the two men were involved in a discussion without any cheap shots. It seemed remarkably civil, and while Romney seemed more animated and aggressive, he wasn't being offensive.

I watched for about 20 minutes before I started opening windows and getting mentally involved in something else, while keeping my ears perked. Finally, I went on to other things, thinking the taste was enough to know that Obama had played defense throughout and that there had been no real knockout line.

Some time later, I checked the commentators, and was amazed at how it was being reported. I thought Romney won, but I would, wouldn't I? But the commentators were ecstatic or raging. Chris Matthews' grimaces of pain were a joy to watch.

But the commentators keep a sharp eye on the body language and look for subtle clues, and at that level, it was a drubbing. But how could it not be? What kind of case can Obama make in front of the whole nation? His stimulus has clearly failed. His foreign policy was being shredded at Benghazi as the convention took place. (That's not just partisanship -- that's the way historians will likely record it.)

Obama's problem is that he can't use the 'message' of his campaign -- which is a divisive and negative one -- not to Romney's face, and not while being watched from the living rooms of the nation. Obama's approach is no longer that of the Transcendent President ... the One who would take America beyond the racial divide, the One who embodied, within himself, both white and black, and who mystically had made himself into an accomplished and stylish man, above it all.

Now he's the class warrior, who talks all the time about tax cuts for the rich ... and, even more reprehensible ... stirs up racial emnities hoping to deflect attention away from the $trillions in debt and the sad fact that, whoever wins the election will take over an economy in a worse state than the one George W. Bush left for Obama!

How is Obama going to look good, defending his record?

=========================

The real significance? I think that Obama's bubble went pop during that debate.

Now you hear journalists using the metaphor of the Emperor wearing no clothes ... now, some are paying the role of the innocent child, drawing attention to the Emperor's nakedness. Americans saw the two men, side by side, and one of them had all the ammunition he needed, and more, while the other had nothing very effective to offer, just tired over-used excuses and preposterous personal attacks. Chris Matthews said he went into the debate 'unarmed'. More truthfully, Obama couldn't find a way to use his weapons ... when he tried the gross exaggerations he'd been using on the stump, he was challenged by Romney, who had the facts at his fingertips. And ad hominem attacks were out ... the voters don't likely think ridiculing Romney for putting his dog carrier on the roof of their car .... once again ... is constructive. They want to know when there's going to be jobs for the kids, again, and when the spending is going to return to normal ... etc.

The next debate will be interesting from the point of view of seeing how Obama will respond. He has a difficult problem because his record is so poor, and yet he must defend it convincingly or lose. I don't think he has a way out.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7434
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

I tuned into the debate in the second hour, and found myself thinking that this was really a debate, not the pseudo-debate that politicians usually construct. I mean, the two men were involved in a discussion without any cheap shots. It seemed remarkably civil, and while Romney seemed more animated and aggressive, he wasn't being offensive.


This summarizes my thoughts exactly;
A debate about issues and a discussion about policy without rhetoric.

It really showed how much the entire Obama mystic was nothing more then a well delivered catchphrase which is why I expect Tuesday to be littered with mud as it delves quickly into the gutter.

The President cannot win on his record, and with his record its hard to take any policy he lays out that seriously.

Which is why this has to return to rhetoric very quickly for him to turn this around.

Bugs wrote:
The real significance? I think that Obama's bubble went pop during that debate.


Yeah,
I wasnt expect that much of a drubbing.
The President didnt lose, he got destroyed.

Who would have thought that Tuesday would be so important to his campaign even a few weeks ago?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4137
Reputation: 238.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On to the next debate.

If you recall, in the last 'town hall' debate, CNN was accused of 'planting' questions with ringers in the audience.

In some cases, the questioners were committed workers for Democratic candidates. One of Edward's supporters made abortion a big issue, and other 'plants' were exposed as committed Obama supporters misrepresenting themselves.

The stakes in this debate will be ultimate. If Obama is weak, or if he overplays his hand like Biden did, this election will turn into a landslide ... which I predicted awhile back, just so you know.

Why? I thought at the time because Obama's record is so bad. He has managed to find ways to bribe key parts of his constituency. Poor blacks in Baltimore got cell phones, for example. Or auto workers got a real sweet deal through the auto bailout. He gets some payoff for this -- but he can't do much with this stuff in a debate.

Everywhere else, he's been a failure. The economy, foreign policy, jobs ... plus he is stirring up racial and class animosities. They are already trying to run out the clock so that the Benghazi scandal doesn't reveal any more before the election.

All in all, it's hard to have much faith in Obama. Every emergent event in the news just seems to add to the feeling that everything is spinning out of control, and its getting worse and worse.

Beyond that, I now realize (thank you Joe Biden) that another Democrat handicap is that they hate Republicans so viscerally that they can't take them or their policy ideas seriously. How do you respond to someone you think is a immoral lunatic? It doesn't seem to occur to them to parse the arguments of the other side in a calm, Ryanesque manner.

I suspect that Obama doesn't have a really good idea of how to respond. Sure, he should try to project a stronger image, but how do you do that, in concrete cases? For Obama, his back is to the wall, but think of how easy it will be for him to become frustrated, condescending, and/or arrogant under the pressure of it all.

Obama lost about 90 electoral votes as a result of the last debate. It would be hard to imagine him losing another 90 when Tuesday night's dust settles -- but he could easily put Romney in the lead in electoral votes with a mediocre performance.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7434
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The second debate was interesting;
I would score it as a tie perhaps a slight edge to Obama.

I found the entire situation a little off;
Crowley fact checked Romney on the spot over Obama's comments regarding Libya but did not in situation where Romney was correct (domestic oil production, etc) and the President was not.

The four minute speaking gap between the President and Romney is also something that is within the moderators realm to control and it wasn't.

When are we going to see a debate moderated by someone from Fox News?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4137
Reputation: 238.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I confess, I am not great at declaring a winner or a loser on this. The reason is that so much of the media judgement comes from body language and general demeanor.

Here's Dick Morris' take on it ... which seems to be to be plausible. Admittedly, he works for the Republicans, but he gives reasons. The real verdict will be delivered whyen the poll results come in.

Quote:

Romney won the second debate

By scoring big on the economy, gas prices, and Libya, Romney continued his victorious string of debate wins. He looked more presidential than Obama did and showed himself to be an articulate, capable, attractive, compassionate leader with sound ideas.

Obama came over as boorish and Biden-esque. He did not learn from his Vice President's mistakes. When a president gets into a bar room brawl, he loses his dignity and his aura, key assets for an incumbent. Romney was polite but firm. Obama seemed quarrelsome, frustrated, nasty, and cranky.

But the key reason for the Romney win was substantive:

1. Romney made very clear the case against Obama's economic record and Obama's rebuttal about 5 million jobs was pathetic.

2. Romney injected the China issue, big time, and tapped into a strong public sentiment on the issue.

3. Romney made the effective case that Obama is anti-oil, coal, and gas and that this has doubled gas prices.

4. Romney was very effective in differentiating himself from Bush-43 and in establishing that, unlike the GOP of the past, he was for small businesses not big businesses

5. Romney rebutted the attacks on him over Chinese investments.

6. Romney explained his tax plan well and to everyone's satisfaction.

7. Obama erred in trying to make us believe that he always felt Libya was a terror attack. We all heard him blame the movie.

Obama scored points over the 47% statement by Romney, immigration, and by his response to the accusation that he went to Vegas after the murder of the Ambassador.

But this debate goes to Romney. It seals his momentum and will lead to a big win.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion.....z29ZgVlwxU
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4137
Reputation: 238.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two days later, and I am coming to the conclusion that Romney has won.

For one thing, Gallup has Romney 48%-47% amongst Registered Voters ... call it even, the signfiicance is that Romney is gaining. But amongst Likely Voters, the split is 51%-45% ...

And the trends seem to have continued after the second debate. Obama may have won on points, as Cosmo says ... but Obama seems to have, at best, survived another round.

I think this is Obama side's problem. His last campaign was almost a religious experience for a lot of people. You can understand blacks feeling enraptured, but a lot of whites did too. In varying degrees, Americans took a leap of faith with Obama. After all ... they were coming off of this ...


Link

[The heart of the message starts from about 3.25 in ... see if you're not moved.]

Now Obama is dividing America ... class against class, race against race, and upping the ante as his campaign grows more desperate. Probably 8% or so have abandoned Obama through his term ... but, until now, he has held 47% very stubbornly throughout ... you have to say, these are people who still have faith in Obama's dream ... at least, they want to believe it. But, as the campaign has grown more divisive, Obama's favourable/unfavourable ratings have fallen, while Romney's have risen. (Now they're essentially tied.)

From now on, Romney will win by taking support away from Obama ... Not easy. For illustative purpses, say a third of that support is blacks and Hispanics who aren't going to go Republican, no matter what. Not in this election. Then there's another big chunk of white Liberals, many who were drawn to Obama because he seemed to embody wonderful ideals, and even represented, in his body, the unity of the two races.

The debates are making the difference. People are seeing that the Obama administration is alternately rude, soporific, arrogant, thin-skinned and huffily lethargic. Biden and Obama are showing themselves to be stupidly flip with the public. Obama compounded it by lying in the second debate. (Does anyone really believe that Obama defined the embassy attack as a terrorist operation in the Rose Garden?) People may be decorous, and avoid the term 'liar', but people know.

That's why 'winning on points' doesn't have much relevance. People know they're both lying, or at least shading the objective truth. They watch how the participants act. Yes, Romney is robotic, yes, he's stiff and patrician, but he's one of where it's all working one who feels he has to 'give back' as they say in Amurica ...

Romney may have money, and have manicured nails, but he redeems himself with some 'class'. He misses opportunities, no doubt, but he still makes most of his points, and he's aggressive without being offensive. He shows strength of character, in a lot of people's eyes, I am sure.

This is a long way of saying that when people who decide to vote for Romney admit to themselves that that's what they're going to do, it's like a bubble going 'pop'. They aren't going to change their mind. They 'lose faith' in the Obama team, it's that simple. They ask themselves -- am I going to trust these clowns to ensure my future prosperity? Or the guy with all those facts and figures?

Not everyone will agree, but some few percentage points of Obama's support will chip away ... and will probably only partially register with the pollsters ... people will go to the polling stations undecided, and vote for Romney.

So, I am predicting that Romney will be the next President of the United States of America ... you can bet money ...

Comments?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4137
Reputation: 238.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm reflecting on the 3rd Presidential Debate, on foreign policy. I tuned in, expecting to see the Libya issue explored further, and for the debate to go down from there.

It didn't turn out that way at all.

Romney's thinking on these issues seems nuanced and pragmatic. You get the feeling that he is sensitive to others, and looks for solutions that maintain peace and order ... and that he would maintain America's role in the world, as its central imperial power.

I was impressed at how he didn't take the bait to demagogue these traditional parts of America's recent past.

I was a little shocked by Obama. He seemed to be intent upon diminishing the difference between himself and Romney on all the issues -- all with rhetoric. He went after straw man Mitt ... degrading Romney's qualifications, lauding his own ... until Romney got a zinger in ... "Attacking me is not an agenda."

People on the left have no respect for Conservatives ... they think that conservatism is where you end up if stupidity and greed are what drives you ... It gets worse, as you go to the left. Obama, you can see, holds Romney in contempt. He doesn't understand his appeal ... but, also ... Obama now looks like he knows he's going to lose.

That's the new element. Obama no longer looks for a counter-argument, he's responding with attacks. He looks slighter, more gaunt, tired, maybe cornered. The voodoo stare was Bidenesque. He looked desperate.

I think Romney has won the election. Obama reduced himself to a sad cartoon. The air has gone out of the bag. My prediction is that, as voters get closer and closer to the voting booth, a few percent of Obama's supporters will gulp, and vote for Romney ... and a like number, maybe more, will not vote at all. Obama has revealed himself to be exactly the opposite of what he once pretended to be ... The 'transcendent figure' that would carry America over the racial divide ... now, he's now a divider, a guy who stirs up racial antipathies as an electoral strategy, little better than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton ...

He's desperate. But it's too late.

Comments?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4137
Reputation: 238.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two days later ... more signs of the recognition of defeat in the eyes of the Democrats and their supporters ... can you imagine their feeling of horror as they realize ... the ad hominems aren't working anymore! We could LOSE!

This article appeared in the New York Times, and its generating a bit of chatter.

Quote:
How Bill Clinton May Have Hurt the Obama Campaign

When the histories of the 2012 campaign are written, much will be made of Bill Clinton’s re-emergence. His convention speech may well have marked the finest moment of President Obama’s re-election campaign, and his ads on the president’s behalf were memorable.

But there is one crucial way in which the 42nd president may not have served the 44th quite as well. In these final weeks before the election, Mr. Clinton’s expert advice about how to beat Mitt Romney is starting to look suspect.

You may recall that last spring, just after Mr. Romney locked up the Republican nomination, Mr. Obama’s team abruptly switched its strategy for how to define him. Up to then, the White House had been portraying Mr. Romney much as George W. Bush had gone after John Kerry in 2004 – as inauthentic and inconstant, a soulless climber who would say anything to get the job.

But it was Mr. Clinton who forcefully argued to Mr. Obama’s aides that the campaign had it wrong. The best way to go after Mr. Romney, the former president said, was to publicly grant that he was the “severe conservative” he claimed to be, and then hang that unpopular ideology around his neck.

In other words, Mr. Clinton counseled that independent voters might forgive Mr. Romney for having said whatever he had to say to win his party’s nomination, but they would be far more reluctant to vote for him if they thought they were getting the third term of George W. Bush. Ever since, the Obama campaign has been hammering Mr. Romney as too conservative, while essentially giving him a pass for having traveled a tortured path on issues like health care reform, abortion and gay rights.

[....]

For a while this summer and into the fall, the Obama-Clinton strategy seemed to be working flawlessly. That’s because, almost inexplicably, Mr. Romney continued to run as if he were still contesting the Republican primaries. But in recent weeks, starting with the first debate, the challenger has made a brazen and frantic dash to the center, and Mr. Obama has often seemed off-balance, as if stunned that Mr. Romney thinks he can get away with such an obvious change of course so late in the race. Which, apparently, he can.

The bottom line here is that one can over-think this whole notion of framing your opponent. [....]
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.....mpaign/?hp


What surer sign can there be that they recognize they will lose? Already, they are searching for a scapegoat.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7434
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

I think Romney has won the election. Obama reduced himself to a sad cartoon. The air has gone out of the bag. My prediction is that, as voters get closer and closer to the voting booth, a few percent of Obama's supporters will gulp, and vote for Romney ... and a like number, maybe more, will not vote at all.


Last week when I reviewed some of the more creditable pollsters I felt for the first time that a Romney victory was possible, however I am still of the belief that he needs to win two of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Michigan and I just don't see it.

I think that its possible Romney wins the popular vote but loses the White House.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4137
Reputation: 238.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know what is developing ... this Benghazi mess is probably directly the result of Obama's actions, one way or another. He may be able to keep the proof out of sight for another few days, until after the election ... Krauthammer says there's effectively a news blackout on the Libya fiasco which is disgraceful and worse. Another old veteran said "Nobody died in Watergate" ...

Put it this way ... Obama is probably impeachable. Much depends on whether the political environment welcomes it ... and for that, the economy has to show some life ... by which I mean most centrally the return of good jobs in growing industries. If that happens in the next six months, then Obama can be redeemed. But if employment stays at this level, or gets worse ... and if the American public gets impatient ... he could face impeachment.

If interest rates go up ... let's just say, I don't like his chances.

Let's grant that the Democrats' ground game can add a couple of percentage points to their vote, in the end ... is it also not true that perhaps another 2% will go into that voting booth and say to themselves ... do I really want four more years of this, and maybe worse? And vote Romney? And why 2%? Why not 5%? Which would make it a landslide.

Well, that's our issue, isn't it? I say, yes, that it's predictable that the poll results will lag the actual Romney vote by some such measure, while you remain skeptical. And that's what makes horse races.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7434
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find that Conservative voters (everywhere not just in the US) tend to be underrepresented in national numbers.

However, while a few % points wins you Florida & potentially Ohio
My concern is being down 6 - 9 in Michigan, 4 - 10 in Pennsylvania, and 2 - 6 in Wisconsin is too much for that MoE to be overcome.

Romney appears to be in a position to make it close; but he also needs to take home potentially two of the above three to win it.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4137
Reputation: 238.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For a different tallying of the electoral college votes, this discussion between Karl Rove and Gerald Trippi ... they take an average of all the state polls over a two week span and then classify each state into one of five categories, depending on how secure the support is for each party ... They have put Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin in the toss-up category, while Tennessee has been put in the 'Romney' column. Michigan is a new addition to the toss-up set.

They put Obama's vote as 184 in the bag, so to speak, and likely to win another 37. Romney now has 180 om the bag, and another 26 leaning his way. That means the totals are now 221 electoral votes for Obama, 206 electoral votes for Romney, and 111 up for grabs.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c....._race.html

Another clue ... Obama has pulled teams out of a couple of states, sending them to formerly considered solidly blue states like Pennsylvania. He is spending his resources in a defensive pattern. Romney is supposed to have $millions more in donations saved up.

Yeah, there will be this storm ... but, somehow, I suspect both sides will get all the media time they want, as long as they have cash.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7434
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The way that I see it;
Baring something out of the ordinary:

Safe Romney:

Alabama (9)
Alaska (3)
Arkansas (6)
Georgia (16)
Idaho (4)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (8)
Mississippi (6)
Montana (3)
Nebraska (5)
North Dakota (3)
Oklahoma (7)
South Carolina (9)
South Dakota (3)
Tennessee (11)
Texas (38)
Utah (6)
West Virginia (5)
Wyoming (3)

Likely Romney:

Arizona (11)
Indiana (11)
Missouri (10)

Safe Obama:

Delaware (3)
Dist. of Columbia (3)
Hawaii (4)
Illinois (20)
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (11)
New York (29)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
California (55)
Connecticut (7)
Maine (4)
Washington (12)

Likely Obama:

Michigan (16)
New Jersey (14)
New Mexico (5)
Oregon (7)

Romney: 191 Locked and Loaded
Obama: 207 Locked and Loaded

Leaving:

Florida (29)
North Carolina (15)
Virginia (13)
Colorado (9)
Iowa (6)
Minnesota (10)
Nevada (6)
New Hampshire (4)
Ohio (18)
Pennsylvania (20)
Wisconsin (10)

Which we can consider "in play",

Then based on my level of comfort in those remaining states, I am fairly comfortable ceding:

Florida and North Carolina to Romney

and

Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to Obama

Leaving us at:

Obama: 263
Romney: 235

With 270 needed for the win;

As I see it, Colorado, Ohio and Virginia all being too close to call, but Romney needing Virgina and Ohio, whereas Obama can simply win any two of three.

It is going to be interesting and seemingly close, but I just don't know what to think at this point but my leaning is still that Obama takes Virginia and Colorado and Romney wins a very close race in Ohio but my hope is that Romney can take all three.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4137
Reputation: 238.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem is, most of the data you use was collected at least three days ago, probably between October 15th and October 26th. Even ignoring bias, it's impossible to deny that during this whole period people were moving towards Romney, and when this Beghazi mess started bubbling out from between the Obama teams' fingers ...

A shift in opinion is going on.

Don't we know that Obama's support is crumbling, the only question being, will it crumble fast enough? ... if 2% or 3% of Obama's former supporters are gravitating toward the Romney camp every week now ... it changes everything. Romney should win comfortably, swamping all these 'firewall' strategies.

The significant thing, to me, is the rate at which the 'crumbling' is taking place. Those are the trend lines that we ought to be examining ... how fast is opinion changing?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


1st Presidential Debate

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB