HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 67 million viewers vs. 3 ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:22 AM

67 million viewers vs. 3 million viewers. And we wonder why Obama never mentioned the 47%

Last edited Sat Oct 6, 2012, 04:43 AM - Edit history (2)

I can't believe there are people out there with Journalistic credentials who still can't figure this one out.

That apology that Mitt gave on Thursday night on Sean Hannity's show - that was the one he probably practiced for 2 weeks to use at the debate when Obama mentioned the 47% video tape. It was probably the #1 practiced speech that Mitt worked on for 2 weeks leading up to the debate - how Mitt will apologize ever so humbly to the public; how he'll stand at the podium in front of the cameras being broadcast to tens of millions of viewers with the President a few feet away and give his (mitt's) most remorseful, most repentant 'I'm sorry' with Obama looking a bit like a bully.

That 47% video tape has been killing Mitt in the polls, it was a serious game changer that took an already lagging candidate and made him weaker. Yet for 17 days Mitt never apologized and in fact several times right after the 47% video was released he actually SUPPORTED what he said. Mitt probably held off apologizing because he wanted to wait until the debates when he would have the biggest audience watching him. I'm sure Mitt was just imaging how a simple tear welling up in his eyes could win over millions upon millions of voters, many whom are still undecided.

And we all scratched our asses and wondered why Obama never once mentioned the 47% video during the debate.

Well here's why.

This is how many people watched the debate on one of the many many channels that showed the debate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/presidential-debate-ratings_n_1940066.html?utm_hp_ref=media

About 67.2 million people tuned in to watch the first debate of the 2012 election cycle between President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, according to final Nielsen ratings released on Thursday.

The ratings combined viewing figures on Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox News, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, Unvision, Telemundo, Current TV and CNBC.


This is about how many people watch Sean Hannity each night:



Do you think Obama was going to give Romney center stage in front of 67 million people to make his apology and possibly making Obama look bad in the process? If anything Romney looks even more stupid because he had to go to Sean Hannity and bug him to let him go on his show and give the response that he never had a chance to give at the debate. Romney would have been smart to just never apologize for what he had said but now he looks even worse because he waited 17 days.

Yes, I do agree that overall Obama was off during the debate but I think Obama was just going to lay low and let Romney keep shooting himself in the foot with all the same lies & distortions he's been spewing since he got the nomination. Wednesday's night debate was about Domestic policies including the budget and jobs - something which Mitt technically should have more knowledge & experience. Next debate is foreign policy and I think that's when we'll see Obama outshine Romney easily.

It's a chess game. Mitt may have said 'Check' during the debate but 'Check' doesn't win the game. Three days after the debate I think Obama scored the 'Checkmate'



85 replies, 15805 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 85 replies Author Time Post
Reply 67 million viewers vs. 3 million viewers. And we wonder why Obama never mentioned the 47% (Original post)
LynneSin Oct 2012 OP
ProSense Oct 2012 #1
davidpdx Oct 2012 #15
Tumbulu Oct 2012 #47
Kalidurga Oct 2012 #2
Cha Oct 2012 #3
ywcachieve Oct 2012 #81
Cha Oct 2012 #82
WCGreen Oct 2012 #4
Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2012 #5
littlemissmartypants Oct 2012 #6
littlemissmartypants Oct 2012 #7
Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2012 #8
Kahuna Oct 2012 #18
Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2012 #22
dmr Oct 2012 #9
LynneSin Oct 2012 #10
station agent Oct 2012 #11
YOHABLO Oct 2012 #42
marybourg Oct 2012 #24
dixiegrrrrl Oct 2012 #26
YOHABLO Oct 2012 #44
BlueMTexpat Oct 2012 #12
Kablooie Oct 2012 #13
WinkyDink Oct 2012 #14
Kahuna Oct 2012 #19
YOHABLO Oct 2012 #45
SunSeeker Oct 2012 #33
OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #46
librarylu Oct 2012 #78
Kahuna Oct 2012 #16
malaise Oct 2012 #17
Monk06 Oct 2012 #20
Stargleamer Oct 2012 #21
DearAbby Oct 2012 #29
SunSeeker Oct 2012 #38
DearAbby Oct 2012 #65
SunSeeker Oct 2012 #67
Stargleamer Oct 2012 #60
DearAbby Oct 2012 #64
Stargleamer Oct 2012 #71
Fumesucker Oct 2012 #23
BlancheSplanchnik Oct 2012 #25
GoneOffShore Oct 2012 #27
cry baby Oct 2012 #28
NMlib Oct 2012 #30
ciking724 Oct 2012 #63
NMlib Oct 2012 #84
JackN415 Oct 2012 #31
Doctor_J Oct 2012 #32
SunSeeker Oct 2012 #35
LynneSin Oct 2012 #36
ncav53 Oct 2012 #34
ncav53 Oct 2012 #37
warrior1 Oct 2012 #39
goclark Oct 2012 #56
spanone Oct 2012 #40
former9thward Oct 2012 #41
LynneSin Oct 2012 #50
TeamPooka Oct 2012 #70
handsofthedevil Oct 2012 #43
flying-skeleton Oct 2012 #48
Julien Sorel Oct 2012 #49
LynneSin Oct 2012 #51
Julien Sorel Oct 2012 #53
cheriemedium59 Oct 2012 #52
Democrats4All Oct 2012 #54
goclark Oct 2012 #55
MotherPetrie Oct 2012 #57
lunatica Oct 2012 #61
MotherPetrie Oct 2012 #72
Justice Oct 2012 #58
lunatica Oct 2012 #62
LynneSin Oct 2012 #68
Major Hogwash Oct 2012 #73
klook Oct 2012 #59
fightthegoodfightnow Oct 2012 #66
George II Oct 2012 #69
crazy homeless guy Oct 2012 #74
Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2012 #75
Iggy Oct 2012 #76
LynneSin Oct 2012 #79
Iggy Oct 2012 #83
patricia92243 Oct 2012 #77
madrchsod Oct 2012 #80
Safetykitten Oct 2012 #85

Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:42 AM

1. Exactly! In fact,

the media appeared stunned by the whole thing. Between the jobs data conspiracy theories and explaining Mitt's sudden attempt to Etch-A-Sketch his despicable comment, the fallout from failing to sucker the President into giving him a stage to apologize is hilarious.

It would have had an impact during the debate. As you implied, he would have been able to capitalize on an apology in front of more than 60 million people, in his own words, with Obama appearing petty for bringing it up.

Instead, Mitt was so desperate, he failed to realize that an apology on Fox wouldn't have the same impact. The media then had to deal with the fallout, which turned into a debate about Mitt's credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 06:12 AM

15. Exactly

Far fewer people heard his fake apology on Fucked News than in the debate. If the debate had 60 million people watching, he probably got about 1/5th of that on his nutbuddy's network.

Obama not bringing the 47% denied Romney an out on national television.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 09:54 PM

47. Yes yes- great OP and great 1st comment! (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:44 AM

2. Excellent analysis..

I think Obama did what needed to be done. I think he will meet people's expectations in the next debate. This isn't the same as doing better, I don't think he has to do better. But, people wanted to see the Obama they see when he does his stump speeches. That would have been the wrong one to send in after the Gish Galloper. Yes, it was hard to watch Romney Gallop through a debate and run over a moderator in the process. But, it played almost exactly how it needed to be played. I wouldn't change a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:59 AM

3. Oh you just know mitt wanted to apologize

at the debate or why would he do it right after when the tv pundits said he'd won?

Mitt got shafted by Pres Obama not bringing it up and no one knew what was even happening At the Time. Maybe a few..but, that 47% was sure questioned a lot..as in why didn't PBO even mention it?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:04 AM

81. This thing is, President Obama is playing chess, while Romney is playing checkers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ywcachieve (Reply #81)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 04:11 PM

82. And, I thought Romney was playing

with his marbles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:59 AM

4. Great point, LS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 03:08 AM

5. When your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, you don't try to take his gun away. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 03:13 AM

6. Bravo

my hero, Bernardo de La Paz!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 03:14 AM

7. Excellent catch

brilliant and thank you. LMSP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 03:36 AM

8. "And we wonder why Obama never mentioned the 47%"

I never did. I assumed Obama knew it as one of Romney's "zingers".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:17 AM

18. I never wondered either. Prez didn't bring up 47% or Bain for a very good reason.

There were other things Obama didn't mention also not to give mitt a paltform to spew out bull. For every topic you can think of that Prez could have but didn't mention, think about how mitt lied about taxes and healthcare and wonder no more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kahuna (Reply #18)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 12:39 PM

22. I mention elsewhere that Mitt pulled a stunt you see in local elections....

Get out there and act like you are the victim of outrageous charges every time your opponent says something you have been saying all along.

"Tax cut? I don't have a tax cut for the rich! You keep saying that!"

It was amazing to watch. The kind of thing you would expect in a campaign for mayor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 04:45 AM

9. You know that 67.2 million is probably much higher if you factor in

CSPAN, and the Internet streaming.

Yea, I can see Mitt & his camp getting all excited in anticipation of embarrassing the President over this.

I don't doubt there were other issues Mitt was going to pounce on. I'm sure he was well rehearsed on any number of issues.

My son text me that night saying Mitt was baiting the President and Obama wasn't falling for it.

I think my son was right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmr (Reply #9)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 04:52 AM

10. I watched on Cspan streaming

I still haven't figured out TV in my house since I got rid of cable. I can't get my HDTV antenna working and wondering if I can just go without.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #10)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 05:03 AM

11. So did I

Been without a TV for two years now. Internet has more content worth watching than I'll ever need and C-SPAN is great for the live political stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to station agent (Reply #11)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 09:25 PM

42. I Have Been Watching the Korean Channel .. far more interesting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #10)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 01:30 PM

24. If you haven't already done this, go to:

www.tvfool.com and find out what kind of antenna you really need, then order the best reviewed one of that type from Amazon. I'm 45 mi from my city and I wound up with a recommendation for what's essentially an 8 x 10 piece of plastic taped to the wall behind my tv and it works perfectly. Who knew there was a transmission antenna way out of town in line of sight to me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #10)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 03:36 PM

26. going without tv gives me far more time to access better info. via internet.

We use Netflix dvd rental and use internet. Everything that is "current news" can be found on the internet, there are so many live streams and follow up video.
I actually have more time to find stuff because I am not watching tv.
Oh, and have not seen an advertisement for ages, now THERE's a giant plus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #26)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 09:30 PM

44. And Miss-out on the Jersey Shore Finale? Shame

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 05:29 AM

12. It is extremely difficult to "debate" in any meaningful way

with an Etch-A-Sketch candidate who believes that serial lying is an accepted or acceptable debate tactic. Before the debate, people wondered "which" Mitt Romney would actually show up. On Wed we saw the answer - someone who repudiated nearly everything he had previously said on the campaign trail - or anywhere else for that matter.

While I'm not sure whether Obama's failure to mention the 47% or other things that I personally would have liked to see addressed during the debate was a conscious tactic, he certainly did the right thing by not giving Romney a huge forum for putting his own spin on it or anything else, for that matter, other than the lies he had prepared. After all, who really knew that Romney would actually apologize as he did? He's a walking contradiction, even to himself.

There are still plenty of us who believe that if one takes away points for outright lying, for overbearing and bullying behavior and for discourtesy, there is no way that Romney "won" the debate - even on the night itself. He certainly didn't succeed in what he needed to do, which was to make himself more "likable" and credible.

Yes, Mittens may have been more "spirited" and "vigorous" than the Prez was onstage, but does any thinking person actually want a rude and lying bully in the Oval Office? Again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 05:57 AM

13. So instead he told 67 million viewers he's going to blow away Big Bird.

Clever, clever man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 06:10 AM

14. There was a variety to the critiques of O's performance. Some did not include this topic.

47% or not, the President might have perked up, picked his head up, and AT THE VERY LEAST corrected the "$716 billion from Medicare" lie. THAT was an important subject to GET OUT THERE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #14)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:20 AM

19. True that. Even understanding why Prez didn't touch certain topics, his demeanor could have

been stronger and more polished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kahuna (Reply #19)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 09:35 PM

45. Not the Real Romney... Not the Real Obama !

You can't help but think that there's some strategy being played out by both candidates, hence Obama's passive demeanor. I don't believe how anyone can be an independent undecided voter this election. If you haven't made your mind up by now, you're a misinformed .. IDIOT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #14)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:10 PM

33. EXACTLY! I'm still steaming about that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #14)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 09:47 PM

46. If the President had presented a forceful demeanor do you think Romney....

...would have felt encouraged to rant and rave the way he did? Obama had to make Romney believe he was weak and incapable of responding to all of the crap he was spewing. By enduring short-term pain, how much additional ammunition did the Obama team gather to fire at Romney for the remaining 4-5 weeks?

Of the 67.2 million viewers who tuned in for the debate, how many do you think never heard ""the 47%" and/or the "$716 billion from Medicare lie"? How many times has "the 47%" been mentioned by the Obama Campaign and the media? How many times has the "$716 billion from Medicare lie" been mentioned? How often do you think they will be mentioned between now and Election Day?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 07:49 AM

78. He did

Mitt repeated it after it was repudiated.

I wish the false information on green companies going bankrupt had been addressed but at least we got to hear about Corporate Welfare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:01 AM

16. I posted that repeatedly the day after the debate. Obama purposely didn't want to give

mitt a platform to address those remarks, or to lie about Bain. If PBO had given mitt an opportunity to address them, his attacks would become moot and ineffective. I even tweeted Lawrence O'Donnell about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 11:20 AM

20. Never thought of that. It would require that Obama's team crunched the numbers and anticipated


Romney doing a walk back at the debate but that is not an unreasonable assumption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 12:22 PM

21. An apology by Romney doesn't make Obama look bad

sorry, I just don't see it. Rather if Obama had simply reiterated that Romney said that he thinks 47% of Americans refuse to take responsibility for their lives, and consider themselves victims it would have made Romney look bad. Then once Romney apologized, Obama could then have stated that Romney truly is an Etch-A-Sketch, who says what he does depending on what kind of audience he is talking to. And no, Romney, Mr. "No apologies" wouldn't have cried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stargleamer (Reply #21)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 06:36 PM

29. Why do you need a "Louie Gomert" "YOU LIE"

moment? I didn't need the President to point and yell YOU LIED, it was self evident. I am not brain dead, everyone and their brother was watching the debate to see if President Obama would smack down Romney...that tape was there on the dais with Romney, and people were listening to Romney debate the Romney in the tape....Obama didnt really have to be there to point and say "YOU LIE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #29)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:31 PM

38. Obama should have looked Romney in the eyes and said: "The American people are entitled to the truth

and what you just said does not even come close."

How Obama let Romney get away with the lie that Obama cut $700 billion from Medicare is just beyond me. 67 million were watching. I still haven't gotten over it. And it's not like Obama didn't know Romney was going to say this. Romney and Ryan have been saying this lie on the campaign trail for weeks.

There are presidential ways of calling out a lie. You don't have to resort to Louie Gomert's crassness. Further, this is not a State of the Union speech where you are supposed to let the President make his case without comment. This is a freaking debate. You can't let your opponent lie about you like that and leave it unchallenged. People will assume (and have) that it is true.

Man, if Obama does not call Romney on this horrific whopper at the townhall debate, I really think he is giving this election to Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #38)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 03:28 PM

65. If you go back and you look at tapes of Obama debating H.Clinton.

you will see the exact same debater you saw the other night. It is no biggie for a sitting President to do poorly in the first debate. I thought it went well...he didn't have to pull an upset, just keep the status quo.

No gaffs, no real soundbites, just another debate... Imagine what the Right wing media would make of a black man attacking a white man calling him a liar...Really think about this...the very group Obama NEEDS to peel away from Romney are WHITE BLUE COLLAR WORKERS...how do you think they would take the image of a passionate Obama calling Romney on his lies? IMPRESSIONS....I believe Obama played this well...Biden will do the heavy lifting...with the Budget Wonk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #65)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 03:45 PM

67. From your lips to God's ears.

I appreciate you trying to talk me down off the ledge. I am looking forward to Biden tearing the smarmy Rand freak a new one. You better be around to save me if he doesn't!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #29)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:10 AM

60. I didn't need a "YOU LIE" moment

I just needed Obama to challenge Romney from trying to reinvent himself as someone who gives a shit, which Romney was able to do in the minds of millions of Americans, because Obama didn't challenge him. Romney got way with deceit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stargleamer (Reply #60)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 03:16 PM

64. For what purpose? Why do you need Obama

to point out the obvious? You know Romney lied, would it have more weight if it were verified? For me that is a waste of time...the only people who loved Romney, marking his territory like a predator animal, the base. They didn't hear what he said....When he argued that Dodd Frank was really weak and he wanted to replace it with stricter regulations...they should be shitting diamonds... They wanted a vicious attack dog, that was why we had the "anyone but Romney" bullshit primaries...they were trying out the attack dogs...They hate Obama, they want him Humiliated...to them it's personal....I wanted to hear what Obama had to say.

Romney ended up debating Romney in that 47% tape...anything he says is suspect...add with that his relish to off BIG BIRD...his goose is cooked...ease up. Nothing has changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearAbby (Reply #64)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 09:45 PM

71. Well when InstantPolling shows that those who watched the Debates. . .

tended to better regard Romney as the person he's trying to portray, i.e. one who cares, then yes of course Romney's deceit only works to improve Romney's chances. Challenging that deceit by referring to Romney's quotes works to mitigate this misperception of him. It's not all that "obvious" as you point out to many of the more uncertain voters in this country that Romney is as bad as he really is, and not challenging such deceit was a HUGE mistake on Obama's part. There was so much available--especially direct quotes from Romney himself--to help voters see just how uncaring Romney truly is. It's true that some of them may have already heard Romney's comments from his Boca Raton speech, but perhaps not all of them, and even for those who had already heard them it would have gone a long way to counter Romney's bullshit, if Obama had reminded them that this is the way Mr. Romney truly is by re-iterating these comments. Not only do people forget as they go about their daily business, but also repetition emphasizes crucial points. Now Romney's surge in the polls just shows that the "obvious" wasn't so obvious to a portion of the electorate.

All Obama had to say after Romney started in the first part of the debate discussing some down-on-her-luck person he met was, "Oh, and how would she feel, Mr. Romney, if she discovered that there's a good chance she's one of the 47% of Americans that you don't worry about, that you feel aren't taking responsibility for themselves, that you believe view themselves as victims?" and "you truly are like an Etch-A-Sketch, Mr. Romney, as one of your Republican challengers in the primary debates put it--you change your position based on who your audience is."

Please don't think I'm blaming Obama himself--I think Plouffe may have given him bad advice, and Kerry wasn't aggressive enough as a debate partner in the role of Romney. Also, Al Gore may be right that Denver's altitude affected The President.

On a brighter note, I think maybe you're right that Romney's goose is still cooked, as there is still some chance that Obama can win in Iowa (a lot of people there already voted), Colorado (up by 3 points), Wisconsin (up by 2 points), New Hampshire and thus win the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 12:46 PM

23. Fox viewers for the most part aren't going to view Mitt apologizing as a positive thing..

That's definitely one demographic that doesn't want to apologize for anything ever.

So Mitt trampled his own dick once again, this time with his base.

He might as well staple the damn thing to the bottom of his wingtips at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 03:13 PM

25. I give this thread FIVE Cowbells!

You nailed it, for sure LynnSin!

When you mentioned how SHmITt must have been peeing his pants waiting for that squeeze-a-tear moment, my FIRST thought was of a real, true psychopath I once got sucked in by. He got great glee out of lying and suckering people. He knew the effect of a well-placed tear--he spelled it out for me in a plan he once described.

That was a story that would be longer to tell than it's worth; but yeah, psychopaths definitely plan out their acts for the most emotional hookage. Pre-meditated, as they say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 03:46 PM

27. Thank you Lynne - You nailed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 04:03 PM

28. Hadn't thought of it that way...makes sense. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 07:07 PM

30. The one thing I wish were different

Is Obama's body language. Apparently he wasn't aware of the split screen. How is that possible? This campaign is on top of everything! Seems so strange that Obama didn't look more on top of it .....even with the barrage of lies coming at him .....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NMlib (Reply #30)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:48 AM

63. Former VP Al Gore, on the CurrentTV post-debate coverage

suggested that PO's appearance may have been due to the fact that he flew into Denver at 2:00 p.m. on the day of the debate and may not have had time for his lungs to adjust to the high altitude. I thought this very credible because my late husband I took our youngest two children skiing near Denver several years ago, and we all spent the first day in bed from altitude sickness. I understand that Romney had more prep time in the area than PO.

I also saw PO looking down on the split screen, but I also saw him writing the whole time he was looking down. You have to consider that this was the very first time he was hearing this new Romney being presented, so naturally he was making good notes on which to counter. He did not seem at all intimidated or timid, it was just mind-boggling that Romney flipped the way he did. How do you debate someone who completely misrepresents his positions. I just figured PO felt, like I did, it was a waste of time and energy to debate this person. It was like that arcade game Whack-A-Mole, utterly ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ciking724 (Reply #63)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:29 AM

84. completely agree

I live in NM .....people get winded.... sad that general public can be so fickle. Saw Pres O live in Northern New Mexico four years ago ....energetic charismatic .....he's gotta bring this to the TV next time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 07:19 PM

31. I think Obama team wanted him to take the high road...

 

really, President Obama could have appeared petty, stooping himself to the kind attack that should have reserved for (sorry to say this) "attack dogs," if he had mentioned that types of things like 47%. I'd rather not see him do that.

Frankly, I thought before the debate that the President should engage Romney strictly on ideas, policy and facts, absolutely avoid anything personal or appear to be personal (ad hominem). I thought he should be respectful to the opponent, but firmly disagree and state his case to the people. He was OK on the part of being calm, cool, but off on the part of being astute, giving firm response, and rejecting Romney's non-sense and lies.

I empathized with President Obama because I went through something similar. I was so tired to argue with my ex during my divorce negotiation because there was so much delusion, twisted facts, and distorted reality that I didn't even know where to begin, and decided it was not worth my time and effort. I just let all the blah blah past through and responded only on the executable clauses .

Remember, Pres Obama has the risk of "angry, aggressive black man" image. Had their demeanors were swapped, had he behaved like Romney, many would have thought he were a pompous, obnoxious, aggressive (black) jerk, while President "Romney" would have appeared to be a man of reason, who had chosen gentleman silence in the face of irrational attack.

I hope he will close the deal in subsequent debates. Don't get bogged down in Romney lies and crude cheapskate tactics. Just tell Romney that "I disagree with the Governor on these points...because (give short, succinct, simple explanations)" and "I believe this is the right path for our country...(make his simple point)." Just be respectful to the audience intelligence and have faith in the American electorate.

He will never convince those hellbent on making him one-term president to vote for him. (Just like Romney not worrying about the 47% who would not vote for him - he made the mistake of lumping these into the 47% who don't pay income tax). Pres. Obama should just focus on giving his message to the people, including those who would not vote for him, that his vision and policy is the best for America. (Just like in his ads).

Just kidding, but may be Obama should invoke G H W Bush's matra "stay the course..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 07:42 PM

32. Ridiculous

the president could have smacked down his walk-back in front of those 50 million people, called him out on his elitism and pandering.

The debate performance sucked, but the president survived it, mostly because Rmoney is a loathsome liar and panderer. Can we please stop trying to polish that turd?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #32)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:17 PM

35. I totally agree. We need to acknowledge that not calling Romney out for his lies was a mistake.

And make sure Obama does NOT make that mistake at the next debate. Unfortunately, the next debate won't have 67 Million watching, the number will drop off as the debates go on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #32)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:17 PM

36. Not at a debate. Would have made him look like a bully

If Mitt pulled off the 'Mr Sincerity act' it would have made Obama look bad.

Plus the dumbass went ahead on Hannity and did his apology there to an audience that probably AGREED with Romney's comments about the 47%. Not a good move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:15 PM

34. I agree

I think that's a great point, although I think he should subtly mention it in the next debate. Say, "I care about 100% of the American people" or something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:27 PM

37. Also

Also if Obama mentioned 47%, the tax returns, Bain, etc., all of that would have probably been drown out by the overarching narrative that he lost the debate, which means that months of building up these attacks would go down the drain and make Obama look petty. I think Obama played it smart. The only thing he should have done was pushed back more on the lies and appear more upbeat and passionate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:33 PM

39. I never thought for one moment that Obama lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrior1 (Reply #39)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 11:59 PM

56. I didn't either



I went to a Debate Party.

I was the only person in the room that wasn't upsett with Obama for not being "strong enough" and not jumping all over every lie Rmoney said ~ loyal Democrats in the room but there could not understand Obama's GroundGame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:36 PM

40. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:41 PM

41. If Mitt wanted to bring up the 47% he had plenty of opportunity in the debate.

He did not have to wait for Obama to bring it up. There were a dozen times in the debate he could have worked it in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #41)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 10:59 PM

50. He wanted someone else to bring it up

The guy spent 2 weeks working on his zingers but zingers only work if someone else says something first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #50)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 07:42 PM

70. yup and Obama left it as something he talks about "behind closed doors" not in public

lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 09:25 PM

43. Sigh.

Obama needs to take every chance he gets to bury this pathological liar. I was so disappointed in his debate performance. However, I enjoyed watching Chris Matthews blow a gasket and I enjoy Chris a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 09:55 PM

48. Good Point indeed

What a GREAT point !! What a BRILLIANT point !!

Now please explain why Obama did not refute ALL the other Romney LIES !!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 09:56 PM

49. It was a triumphant performance!

Never mind those poll numbers in swing states showing Romney in the lead or gaining ground since the debates. Obama was, as always, the superbrilliantawesomechessgrandmaster. And when he does mention the 47% in the next debate, and does better, that, too, will be a sign of his superbrilliantawesomechessplaying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Julien Sorel (Reply #49)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 10:59 PM

51. Next debate is foreign policy and it still won't be mentioned

I expect to see a very different Obama the next 2 debates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #51)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 11:36 PM

53. Next debate is foreign policy and domestic policy.

The third debate is foreign policy.

And we'll see whether the 47% is mentioned. And which Obama shows up. It's a town hall format, which will make it harder for Romney to dominate things, and it's almost impossible for Obama to do worse, but we'll see. It's sad that the only time he demonstrates fire is when he's in trouble. Sad and destructive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 11:16 PM

52. I thought the same thing!

And after the first initial shock that Obama didn't fight back during the debates, the main comment by the news pundits was all about Romney and his lies. So in the long run it became more about the crap Romney tried to talk about vs Obama's debate performance. Not to mention the Big Bird issue..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 11:43 PM

54. Boxing match strategy

I think playing this like a boxing match strategy, going 3 rounds, taking the punches from your opponent so you can let him have it in the later rounds is a big gamble. A gamble that was not needed especially when he came in with such an upper hand in the race. Leaving your supporters baffled for two weeks and slipping in the polls does not seem like smart politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 11:55 PM

55. Checkmate for my President!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 12:29 AM

57. Nice try. I don't buy it. Obama had the chance to wrap ALL of Mittens' lies around his neck.

 

But instead, Obama just let Mitt spew and spew, offering only weak challenges and, even worse, stating several times that he AGREED with Mittens!

Please stop fooling yourself -- Obama blew it and all the rationalizing his debate performance away doesn't change that fact. He let Mittens steamroll him.

To excuse Obama's lack of mention of the 47% as a superior chess move does not fly with me. Obama should have raised it, and beat Mittens over the head with it relentlessly and called him on his lies when he lied about it.

Obama did none of that. To say I was disappointed in his debate performance is putting it mildly. I may be a Democrat, I may have gone to an Obama rally, I may have donated all the money I can to his campaign, but I am not going to fool myself that Obama didn't blow the debate. He did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #57)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:20 AM

61. Too bad Obama doesn't have you to tell him what to do

I'm sure you would have it all sewn up for him.

Can you find the time to actually support him? Or have you given up and now assume Mitt is our President?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #61)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:37 PM

72. I do him the compliment of NOT MAKING EXCUSES FOR OBAMA when he fouls up.

 

When he debates a serial liar like Mitt Romney, I expect Obama to call Romney on his lies, not give his stump speech -- and instead of addressing Romney's lies, what Obama gave during that debate was a recitation of his stump speech. I should know - I've heard it live.

Maybe you are forgiving of Obama throwing the debate away - but I am not.

These rationalizations and excuses and fantasies about third dimension chess do not reflect the reality that Obama badly flubbed the debate.

It's really interesting that you automatically accuse anyone who doesn't blind herself to that fact, a Romney supporter. Are you saying that Obama supporters must either blind themselves to reality or be seen as turncoats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 04:09 AM

58. What people should ask is: why did Mitt bring it up when he had 67 million people to talk to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice (Reply #58)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:22 AM

62. It was probably discussed quite a bit

But it would have probably made Mitt look even worse if he brought it up. Sometimes one can't play the contrition role unless the subject is broached by another.

Should he have slipped it in while he was pointing angrily at Obama while telling his umpteenth lie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice (Reply #58)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 04:01 PM

68. Mitt wanted the zinger. He wanted that 'There you go again/You're no Jack Kennedy' moment

Instead Mitt gave us hit on Big Bird.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #68)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:00 AM

73. Great analysis. Yup, Mitt went after Big Bird like there was no tomorrow.

Last edited Mon Oct 8, 2012, 03:34 PM - Edit history (1)

It was unreal that Mitt said that he would balance the budget on the back of Big Bird by firing him.

I wonder if Mitt lives on Sesame Street in his imagination.

Mitt never released all of the official records for the 2002 Olympics.

When Mitt was Governor of Massachusetts, he made his staff use their own private hard drives, and then he had them remove them when he left office, so that no one knew what him and his staff talked about in their e-mails or had saved on all of their computer's hard drives.

Now, while running for President, Mitt won't release his federal income tax forms.

What is Mitt hiding, anyway?

I've never seen anyone like him before, someone that constantly hides the records of what he did when he was working somewhere, like for the Olympic committee.

Did Mitt steal money from the Olympic committee to pay for his run for Governor?

There's something dark and ominous about a guy who hides all of his business dealings and information like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 07:56 AM

59. Your assessment makes a lot of sense

and it's not inelegantly stated.

Brilliant analysis, LynneSin, and I'm looking forward with you to rounds 2 and 3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 03:30 PM

66. Interesting

You are probably right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 06:43 PM

69. There's a reason why Obama got through all the primaries victoriously and.......

....then went on to beat McCain as the first African American to become elected President:

HE AND HIS CAMPAIGN ORGANIZATION ARE F-ING SMART AND THE BEST STRATEGISTS!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 01:38 AM

74. Many good points...


but I don't think O'Bama expected Romney to come off as clean sounding as he did. I think he may have under estimated Romney's ability to deliver a clean and concise message while lying through his teeth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 03:01 AM

75. Mitt going to FOX "News" is like running home to be mothered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 05:54 AM

76. NICE TRY- No Cigar

 

Huh? first of all, there are what? TWO more debates coming?

Rmoney's 47% comment will likely come up in the next debate-- which is Town Hall format,
where people in attendance ask questions of the candidates.

the comment didn't come up in the debate last week, simply because it wasn't brought up,
and it didn't fit in with the pre-prepared debate subjects-- which BTW, the candidates
approved-- well before the debate.

I'm wayyy more interested in WHY Obama ignored Rmoney's debate statement (stated
at least three times) "You spent $90 Billion dollars on incentives for green industries-- in one
year".

Obama's response: crickets...........

Why was that, I wonder? I can make a good guess as to why.

Unfortunately, in the interest of political expediency, Obama lost an excellent opportunty/teachable
moment-- to explain to the American people just why tax incentives for our green/alternative energy
industries are needed/important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #76)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 07:57 AM

79. He's already blown it with the 47% video

Geez now he's gonna look like George Constanza from the Seinfeld episode "The Comeback" ESPECIALLY if he tries to apologize again. Now it's almost 3 weeks later and Mitt is looking awfully stupid even attempting to apologize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Reply #79)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:18 PM

83. Rmoney's Apology Not Accepted

 

right.. I think he really blew in that little presentation to his millionaire pals in FL.

Not sure if Obama needs to bring this up in the debates..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 06:28 AM

77. I assume Romney will somehow work an apology into the second debate. I hope the Prez will

mention that it took him 17 days to do so - after Romney "stood by" what he said - many times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 08:04 AM

80. agree and it was`t only the 47%

he also exposed what mitten`s wife was afraid of..he`s not stable enough to handle the job

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynneSin (Original post)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 10:37 AM

85. Oh dear, this is just so wacky, it's satire.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread