HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Rmoney WANTED Obama To At...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:33 PM

Rmoney WANTED Obama To Attack Him, But Obama Outsmarted Him

I know there's been much discussion on why Obama didn't hammer Rmoney with the 47% thing and all the other "red meat" gaffes Rmoney has made over the past few months. Place me firmly in the "Obama was right NOT to bring those things up" camp. Not only am I pretty sure that Rmoney had rehearsed, canned "zingers" for all of them, I'm now pretty much convinced that Rmoney was actually BAITING Obama, hoping he'd bring them up.

As I was watching my recording of the debate a couple days after the fact, I noticed that at the end of the debate, Rmoney got desperate and hung a slow-breaking curve over the heart of the plate, just daring the President to take a cut at it. Towards the end, Rmoney repeated one of Ted Strickland's lines from the Convention. When discussing budgetary priorities, he said something to the effect of, "Where you put your money is an indicator of where your loyalties lie." Ted Strickland used that line as a segue into a zinger about Rmoney's offshore accounts, but I'm convinced Rmoney said it on purpose, hoping Obama would seize on it in the exact same way, thus opening the door for one of his pre-rehearsed, canned "zingers." But Obama didn't take the bait.

Now, I suppose Rmoney MIGHT have said it, honestly believing it was a great line to attack Obama, and not knowing how the exact same line was used at the Convention. And I suppose there's a possibility that Obama let the slow, hanging curve go right over the plate, not realizing he'd let a pitch right in his wheelhouse go by. But what are the chances that either one of those are true? Do we REALLY think that no one in the Rmoney campaign watched the Democratic Convention, and that his use of that phrase came out of the blue? And do we HONESTLY believe that Obama just didn't catch the fact that he said it, and that it matched up perfectly to something Ted Strickland said just a few weeks ago?

No, I believe that Rmoney was HOPING that Obama would respond with the Ted Strickland line about his offshore accounts. And I think Obama outsmarted him by NOT responding the way he'd hoped. But for all the people who are upset that Obama didn't bring up all the controversial ammunition he has against Rmoney in the first debate, I have this one question: How many people who would tune in to watch a Presidential debate do you think DON'T ALREADY KNOW about all those things? Do you REALLY think that someone would watch a debate, and an hour into it go, "What?!?!?!? What's he talking about? Mitt Romney said WHAT?!?!?!?" All Obama did by NOT bringing them up is fail to give Rmoney a chance to explain them away (which I'm sure he spent about 50 of his 55 preparation hours preparing to do).

69 replies, 6656 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 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rmoney WANTED Obama To Attack Him, But Obama Outsmarted Him (Original post)
ChoppinBroccoli Oct 2012 OP
CaliforniaPeggy Oct 2012 #1
NYC_SKP Oct 2012 #2
msanthrope Oct 2012 #59
rhett o rick Oct 2012 #68
ProSense Oct 2012 #3
andym Oct 2012 #4
Tx4obama Oct 2012 #5
flamingdem Oct 2012 #6
LiberalFighter Oct 2012 #10
TheDebbieDee Oct 2012 #7
Tx4obama Oct 2012 #8
Cha Oct 2012 #17
jonthebru Oct 2012 #26
coalition_unwilling Oct 2012 #45
Skittles Oct 2012 #40
MotherPetrie Oct 2012 #9
geek tragedy Oct 2012 #14
jsmirman Oct 2012 #38
jonthebru Oct 2012 #27
Summer Hathaway Oct 2012 #33
Raine Oct 2012 #35
Doctor_J Oct 2012 #61
Baitball Blogger Oct 2012 #11
Julien Sorel Oct 2012 #23
Tx4obama Oct 2012 #28
krawhitham Oct 2012 #30
MADem Oct 2012 #32
Raine Oct 2012 #36
jsmirman Oct 2012 #39
uponit7771 Oct 2012 #12
Tx4obama Oct 2012 #20
magical thyme Oct 2012 #46
Trekologer Oct 2012 #50
NYC_SKP Oct 2012 #60
geek tragedy Oct 2012 #13
alcibiades_mystery Oct 2012 #15
Cha Oct 2012 #19
anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #21
patrice Oct 2012 #37
magical thyme Oct 2012 #48
regnaD kciN Oct 2012 #16
Lugnut Oct 2012 #18
grasswire Oct 2012 #22
jonthebru Oct 2012 #24
Fearless Oct 2012 #25
Tx4obama Oct 2012 #29
Mothdust Oct 2012 #31
Raine Oct 2012 #34
graham4anything Oct 2012 #41
bowens43 Oct 2012 #42
mattclearing Oct 2012 #47
quaker bill Oct 2012 #43
Doctor_J Oct 2012 #44
magical thyme Oct 2012 #49
Doctor_J Oct 2012 #55
magical thyme Oct 2012 #58
Doctor_J Oct 2012 #62
magical thyme Oct 2012 #63
OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #51
Doctor_J Oct 2012 #53
SomethingFishy Oct 2012 #57
rhett o rick Oct 2012 #69
porphyrian Oct 2012 #52
still_one Oct 2012 #54
Capt. Obvious Oct 2012 #56
inchhigh Oct 2012 #64
robinlynne Oct 2012 #65
Kltpzyxm Oct 2012 #66
robinlynne Oct 2012 #67

Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:42 PM

1. I think you're right.

Obama outsmarted Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:42 PM

2. Yes. A handful of us at DU saw this immediately.

Others are still debating it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:26 PM

59. Yes. Yes we did. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:18 PM

68. I agree. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:47 PM

3. Mitt suckered a lot of people, and

there were a lot more waiting for the opportunity to yell Obama sucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:49 PM

4. No doubt that Romney had the zingers ready for being called out as a liar

But the President's best way to beat down the lies was to use humor against Romney, which would have prevented to some extent direct counterattacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:57 PM

5. Yes, and I'm sure that Romney thought Obama would bring up the 47% issue too, but ...


but Obama didn't so Romney had to go onto FoxNews the next day to do his walk-back (with 2 million folks watching) instead of doing it on debate night (with 70 million folks watching).

There were several times during the debate when Romney was talking President Obama had a 'cat ate the canary' grin on his face while looking down at his notes. I think president Obama caught onto the moments that Romney was trying to bait him and then Obama refused to play along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:00 AM

6. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:11 AM

10. Agreed.. I think too many failed to see what might be happening.

All this time Rmoney was talking about zingers. Why tell everyone and your cousin your plan? By Obama sticking with getting his message and plan out with the largest possible audience he will have at one time he gets a huge advantage. Meanwhile, Rmoney lied and lied and lied and lied during the whole debate. As well as tell everyone he is getting rid of Big Bird.

I did not see Obama appearing as being tired, disinterested or anything negative. If anything, he was probably doing everything he could to avoid blurting out a comeback. And looking like the cheshire cat. There is a time to have a broad smile and sometimes if one knows they know the secret it might be better NOT to have that smile. Chris Cizzilla should stick his head up his ass. I'm referring to the article the asshole criticizing Obama in the WP. Zitzilla has never won an election or been responsible for helping to win one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:01 AM

7. I think President Obama and his team had canned responses to Rmoney's anticipated stances.

But Rmoney didn't take any of the positions that he was expected to take. That is, Rmoney LIED about his positions and back-pedaled way more often than expected and President O didn't have any responses for this.

I think that the next 2 debates will be harder for President O because now he will have to remember responses to Rmoney's expected positions as well as responses for each of Rmoney's anticipated lies...........

Also, let's not forget that our President has a full time job, being President! Mitt Rmoney is a long-unemployed Mama's boy with low self-esteem issues that's made a career of running for President.

One last thing: Ten or twenty years from now, whenthe events of the last 4 weeks are written about in detail, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that President O, VP Biden and secretary Clinton have spent several hours a day burning up the phone lines, trying to prevent WWIII from breaking out in the middle-east.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #7)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:05 AM

8. The next Obama-Romney debate: Obama will be awesome and Romney will suck


Their next debate (their 2nd) will be a 'town-hall' and president Obama is awesome at those,
Romney not so much because he doesn't connect to people.

And their 3rd debate will be on Foreign Policy (not domestic issue like the first debate)

Upcoming debate details here: http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #8)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:34 AM

17. Thanks Texas! The last one is going to be in Boca Raton

where mitt was caught on tape Dissing 47% of our Population including me!

Bob Schieffer moderating! Will Bob let mittLies steamroll him? you betcha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #8)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:10 AM

26. Undecided voters will be the audience at one of them

Those are all people unable to frickin' make up their minds, what a stupid idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonthebru (Reply #26)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:26 AM

45. SNL on Saturday ran a mock ad that skwered so-called

 

'undecideds'. IMHO, someone at this stage calling him- or herself 'undecided' plans to vote for RMoney but is too ashamed to admit it publicly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #8)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 04:06 AM

40. if I have learned anything about Obama

it is he never stays down for long

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:11 AM

9. Sorry but I don't buy this premise.

 

The perception in most quarters is that Obama blew the debate and you're saying he did it *deliberately*?

I sincerely hope not.

Seriously, these after-the-fact rationalizations of Obama's poor performance are depressing and IMO seriously divorced from reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:23 AM

14. The polls showing Obama lost must be skewed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 03:02 AM

38. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:15 AM

27. I don't need any analysis.

At the moment of the debate I knew that Rmoney was lying a blue streak and Obama was laying low allowing him to dig his own grave...

Rmoney was frantically tacking his ship towards the center by changing the story he and his campaign were pushing all these months. We have known this was going to happen, just not when.
Obama did not blow the debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:29 AM

33. Obama didn't "blow" the debate

He simply sat back and watched Romney blow his wad - in front of millions of voters.

It was a show that the President, along with many of us, enjoyed immensely.

The debate lasted ninety minutes. The words Romney spoke in that hour and a half will be used against him from now until election day.

Over, and over, and over again.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:47 AM

35. First of all Obama didn't lose, he debated smart the only way to debate when you're

debating a habitual liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raine (Reply #35)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 03:07 PM

61. So if Rmoney comes out next time with another batch of lies,

the president should just err.. and ummm... and look down at the podium for another 90 minutes? Try to talk about their common ground?

Like I say, the denial is breath-taking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:13 AM

11. Whether it was intentional or not,

I do believe that Obama threw Romney off his game. If it's true that Obama was not prepared for the debate, then we may have seen the best of all possible outcomes.

Where I think Obama truly benefited from this event, is that it raised the level of urgency among Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 01:57 AM

23. So Romney is surging in the polls...

but Obama "threw him off his game." Romney was on his last legs. Money was beginning to dry up, people had given up on him, he was becoming the butt of jokes, and Obama "threw him off his game" by allowing Romney to kick the shit out of him, and bring the election back to life. It was a masterstroke so Byzantine that no one but the brilliant Obama and his brilliant followers understand it. Or ever will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Julien Sorel (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:19 AM

28. You have to look at the big picture


First of all Romney is NOT surging in the polls. Romney got at the most a couple point bounce. What goes up will soon come down.

Secondly, the worst thing Obama could have done was knock Romney out in the first debate.
If Romney had been demolished in the first debate then the next day the majority of Romney's BIG MONEY donors would have dropped Romney like a hot potato and then they would have started putting all of their money on the down-ticket Republican candidates - we do NOT want that to happen.
As it is now the GOP big money donors are still wasting their money on Romney.

Also, NOW the Obama supporters have been reminded that this is not going to be a landslide (it never was going to be) and WE will all need to work hard to get everyone out to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Julien Sorel (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:21 AM

30. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Julien Sorel (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:28 AM

32. Obama's approval is up to 54 percent in the right leaning Gallup polls. But hey, whatever.

You're apparently invested in your Doom and Gloom scenario.

Big Bird won that debate. Jim Lehrer lost.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-approval-rating-gallup-debate-romney-2012-10

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Julien Sorel (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:56 AM

36. "surging in the polls"??? he went up a point or two that is not surging and Obama is still ahead. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Julien Sorel (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 03:04 AM

39. I have to agree. But, I'm moving on

they are spending their money well - they had an ad calling out Mitt's 5 trillion dollar lie (and they used the Andrea Mitchell clip, lol) after the first inning of the ALDS Game 1 last night.

They played it a second time later in the game.

Good audience for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:20 AM

12. STOP IT!! STOP IT!! You do NOT ...NOT let a lie stand in front of 70 million people...

...it'll take twice as long to fix the basis of lies than what ever damage could've persisted for not addressing them.

Obama DID address some of rMoneys more overt lies but things like 716 billion in "cuts" to medicare are damaging and depending on our lazy ass'd MSM to fact check is NOT the way to go...

They are the same MSM that helped the Bush admin lie us into war...they're not that smart.

Regards

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 01:07 AM

20. Romney told 27 lies during the debate.


I think it was wise of President Obama not to hit him on every one of them during the debate.

The newspapers and talking heads and fact checkers and ad makers post-debate are doing a good job calling attention to all of the lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #20)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:37 AM

46. wasn't it 27 lies in the 1st 37 minutes?

or something to that effect?

There is no way Obama could have kept up with the lies and gotten his own message out.

He did the minimum of what he needed to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:36 AM

50. That also gives Romney 70M viewers for his defence

Calling Romney out directly would allow him to claim that Obama is distorting his positions. Romney then gets to play the victim card.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:55 PM

60. Nah. Not that many undecided people were watching, for one thing.

And, taken in the larger context of all the ads and all the debates, this will have been pretty insignificant.

However, what I'd really like to have heard Obama say a time or two, right after a bald faced lie, is, "Oh, Really?" and just leave it at that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:22 AM

13. Ugh, please. Obama realizes he stunk the place up. So should we. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:26 AM

15. Part of Obama's strategy worked, part of it didn't work

Obama's very obvious refusal to invoke 1) the 47% statement, 2) Mitt's offshore accounts, and 3) Mitt's taxes was - i suspect - just as you say. It was a deliberate refusal to let Mitt explain each of these things on stage, with an ancillary benefit of refusing him his zingers. This strategy was also meant to make Obama look less negative, probably a strategy to turn toward a positive restatement of the first term as the final month began. That second part of the strategy didn't quite work, largely because of Romney's aggressiveness, which made the attempt to ignore Romney and present a positive case to the nation seem weak.

So, the "conversation" and turn to the positive fell flat, but the refusal to allow Romney maneuverability on the three major sticking points was actually very well done, and required tremendous patience and discipline. The fact that Romney went pathetically shuffling on to Hannity to give his pre-arranged apology for the 47% comment the next day was proof positive that the Romney camp was surprised and angry not to have been able to do that during the debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:37 AM

19. Precisely!

"So, the "conversation" and turn to the positive fell flat, but the refusal to allow Romney maneuverability on the three major sticking points was actually very well done, and required tremendous patience and discipline. The fact that Romney went pathetically shuffling on to Hannity to give his pre-arranged apology for the 47% comment the next day was proof positive that the Romney camp was surprised and angry not to have been able to do that during the debate."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 01:21 AM

21. Yes that sounds right.

And the spinners were able to turn the looking down into more than it was.

Despite these things, I still think Obama looked more presidential and dependable, and Romney didn't necessarily win the 'alpha' battle as most pundits were saying.

Being an overcompensating jackass and having a bit more energy aren't enough to make you the alpha male, any more than making the most noise and flailing more kinetically in gymnastics make you the better performer.

Obama did seem to overestimate how much denying Romney his zingers would unsettle him though. Romney upped his game on audacious, facile bullshitting to Gingrich/O'Reilly levels. In hindsight Obama would have been better to counter responsively on a few more points, without bringing up the three expected ones you list.

And as Bill Maher said regarding the eye-contact, "{don't be too gracious to} look at Mitt like he's a nut".


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:58 AM

37. Strongly agree! I wasn't here that night, but I watched with friends and was pretty surprised

when I got a phone call and a couple of texts with people moaning about how horrible it was. It probably appeared to the uninformed to be more "even" than I wanted it to be, but it was no way near "horrible".

My impression was that the President was about not letting Rongny set the agenda and Mitt reacted to that with a nearly wild rush of stuff, anything and everything, and failing to get a reaction from the President, then at least in order to dominate the time. He only looked "better" in comparison to low expectations for him going in to the debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:44 AM

48. Exactly. Further, Romney got a 2-3 point bump at most and

this was the 1st of 3 debates. And it was a format that favored Romney over Obama at best, put them on a part at worst.

The next is a Town Hall, which is a format that tends to favor Obama over Romney at best, puts them more on par at worst.

Romney has a penchant for being dismissive and rude to the 99% or the 47% or whomever. He will need enormous discipline to not talk to ordinary people as if he's addressing "the help" at best, and being downright rude if any of them dare to question him.

I'm hoping and praying that he lacks that discipline. It's a very different situation than standing at a podium, trying to lure a black man into prepared traps and dissing the moderator by first talking over him and then telling him you're going to fire him.

Personally, I'm hoping to see many, many people with children trick-or-treating in Big Bird costumes holding signs, "Will Work for Food." Nice reminder of the candidate who "likes to fire people" with perfect timing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:32 AM

16. Maybe, BUT...

...you then need a better debate strategy than letting your opponent lie through his teeth and not challenging him for fear of prepared zingers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 12:37 AM

18. I've paid close attention to the President and the way he operates.

He's a very patient man. It sometimes annoys me but it's a better approach. The President's team and the public was warned by the Romney people that Mitch was preparing "zingers". Why they would issue a heads-up makes no sense unless you consider that it might be a set-up.

I don't think the President was prepared for bald-faced lying by his opponent. He was furiously taking notes which is why he was looking down so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 01:29 AM

22. here is the proof of your argument

The $5 trillion tax cut.

Obama did introduce the $5 trillion tax cut.

What was Mitt's response?? A zinger, supersize. "I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut!"

He went kinda nuts with this denial. Off the wall.

I think it flabbergasted Obama. Nobody expected a total denial.

And that's how the WHOLE evening would have been if Obama had raised all of the issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 01:59 AM

24. He also used the exact wording

He also used the exact wording that Biden used about the middle class being buried which I feel was a taunt tossed out to get the President to respond. President Obama did the right thing even if it wasn't what he expected.

Also Rmoney felt he needed to use some of those rehearsed speeches so he went on Hannity the Pinheads show and disavowed his 47% belief.

The one retort that Obama could have used but obviously wasn't prepared for was the Reagan statement (shaking his head "There you go again." That would have brought down the house and made a great point.

We cannot let this Rmoney person even close to the Presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:09 AM

25. It is possible.

What ever the case, the end result must be used to our advantage. And it seems to be doing alright so far. Romney is getting a lot of negative coverage for his "win".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #25)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:20 AM

29. Yes. And also see Comment #28 :) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:21 AM

31. obama is a very smart and calculating man

So I believe his debate behavior was. intentional, even if we don't all get it immediately. However, there is one problem - early voting. Significant people already voted prior to the first debate. And who knows how many more have voted since., and will do to prior to the next one ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:36 AM

34. Absolutely agree with you, Obama played three dimensional chess and played Mitt like violin. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 04:40 AM

41. I posted about 30 threads on how Obama won the debate by winning the election 11/7/12

 

Obama roped the dopes again
Obama does play chess 9 steps ahead (the Bush's famously played at least 3-5 steps and Obama outdoes the Bush's every time, witness Jeb not running this year because of it)

Obama football analogy spot on- it's 42 to 0 late in the fourth quarter, even if the other side scores 3 or 4 tds its still a win for Obama

Obama baseball analogy- once the winning team(Obama) has a 10-0 lead and is pitching a no-hitter, once that first hit happens, matter little if there are six more hits after, with a ten run lead, the other team would have to score 9 to make it close and if they only score 3, who gives a shit anyhow, its 10-3

golf analogy- Tiger Woods leads by 7 on the 18th hole, and every other player already finished who is in 2nd to 20th place.Do you think Tiger is going to go +8 on the final hole?
lol

I just can't decide if Mitt is Clubber Lang or Drago in Rocky 3 or 4.
Drago killed Apollo Creed, and Obama, oops, mean Rocky destroyed Drago. Red Sonya didn't know what hit her husband.

And I do know- i was thoroughly ashamed of some DU'ers(IMHO) debate night and in the days since. Totally ashamed.

But I also realize some of those posters might have been plants to demoralize as is and has always been done.
And I am totally ashamed of Ed and Rachel and the others who threw Obama under the tracks.

And I have only love and admiration for Al Sharpton and Joy Ann Reid both on MSNBC, who were the only two who got it right on tv. Congrats to both of them. May she move up in the pundit world and get more air time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 05:36 AM

42. Obama outsmarted him by losing, interesting strategy......

I am so sick of seeing so many here try to spin Obama's abysmal performance into a win.

yes mitt lies about everything but that's irrelevant to the low information voters..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #42)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:39 AM

47. Abysmal?

So basically Obama was terrible, and stupid people will vote for Mitt because he lied and they don't know any better?

That's just not the debate I saw. I saw a President who was actually describing how government works, and a petty nit-picker who pretty much said whatever he felt like.

This whole "low-information" voter meme is flawed. People don't have to know the intricacies of policy to be able to tell when someone is pandering to them and giving you a bunch of pie in the sky nonsense.

Mitt tried to say he's going to give everyone everything they want, add a bunch of military spending, all without increasing the deficit. Most people find that unbelievable, low-information or not.

He sounded like the king of fantasyland, no matter how much the MSM tries to tell me he won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 06:44 AM

43. Rmoney wanted an argument

Obama for the better part refused to give him one. That part was fine.

Obama's optics were not as good as they could have been. Looking at the opponent would have given the visual impression that he was engaged and listening. I am sure he was engaged and listening, but looking away, or looking down while taking notes does not give the same visual impression.

Obama's answers and responses were not as crisp as they needed to be. It sounded like he was struggling. He had the facts and good answers, but his delivery seemed halting and less than forceful. Part of this I am sure is due to Rmoney going off script to deny pretty much everything he has run on for more than a year. This required calibration of the language to a new and probably unexpected set of facts. This takes a moment and probably accounts for why his delivery seemed a bit tenative.

Obama was ready to argue with supply side fairy dust. Rmoney presented him with magical tax reform that while saving no one a nickle somehow stimulates the economy producing jobs. To the extent it does any of this, it does it by military Kenyesianism, basically blowing up the debt to purchase $2 trillion dollars of defense goods and laying off Big Bird to "pay" for it (which might work over a few thousand years).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:10 AM

44. Wow. The denial is breathtaking

he got trounced, and took a major hit for it. This was not only easy to see while it was happening, but the polls were clear. And no amount of ads that most people will fast-forward through anyway is going to offset all of that disaster.

Stop lying to yourself about what happened. It is not good for the cause

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #44)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:51 AM

49. I don't consider a 2-3 point bump a major hit, and there are 2 more debates

This round, Obama did the minimum of what he needed to do. Only the bare minimum, and he appeared "off his game" and no he didn't counteract every single Romney lie (what was the count? 27 in the first 37 or so minutes?) but:

1. he didn't make any huge gaffes
2. he did get his message out
3. he didn't take any of Romney's bait.

However, this debate format favored Romney, his personality, his style and his deceitful character. And as the challenger, Romney was expected to "win" regardless.

The next format is Town Hall and tends to favor Obama.

Not sure what the 3rd format is, but the location is where Romney dissed the 47%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #49)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:52 AM

55. 2-3 is very big at this point

1. he didn't make any huge gaffes


His performance was one long gaffe.

2. he did get his message out


Really? I must have missed how the GOP and Bush ran up this deficit. How Rmoney is a tax evader and thief. How Willard has done a 180 on every issue since he governed MA.

3. he didn't take any of Romney's bait.


he took a lot of Rmoney's shit though

THE OP IS NONSENSE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #55)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 01:49 PM

58. 1. bs.

2. his message wasn't attack Romney and his message wasn't blame Bush. His message was direction for the country.

3. The small part of the debate I was able to watch, he did not take Romney's shit. He refuted it directly and immediately.

I would have liked more energy, but as I've written elsewhere, he came off as exhausted, especially compared to coked-up Romney. The 2-3 points was national polls, not state, and mostly rightwing pollsters (Rasmussen etc.). Nate didn't give him that kind of hit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #58)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 03:13 PM

62. The apologists have got me surrounded

He refuted it directly and immediately.


Most of the 3D Chess adherents are saying that he didn't and that not doing it was a good thing. Now you're saying he did do it.

This is the problem with taking ridiculous stances. Eventually you end up attacking YOUR original point, and hoping no one notices.

As for

2. his message wasn't attack Romney and his message wasn't blame Bush. His message was direction for the country.


Americans saw a president being berated and unable to counter with truth OR emotion. The performance was dismal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #62)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 03:33 PM

63. and now the Gallup 7 day tracking poll is out, and Romney's

big bump is totally erased.

Obama finished 9/30 with a 50-45 lead in the Gallup 7-day rolling average.

He entered the week before the debate with 50-45, from 10/1-10/3.

Post-debate, they were tied at 47-47 from 10/4-10/6.

By 10/8, the 7-day rolling has them back at 50-45, which means that Sunday's daily tracking poll was a very, very good day for Obama and a piss-poor one for Romney.

The front page analysis of Romney's lies, good jobs news on Thursday and the good deficit news on Friday far outweigh a single weak debate showing.


I didn't see all of the debate because my teevee fritzed out. I saw Obama refute the 1st big lie or 2. He wasn't forceful; he seemed tired to me and grappling with articulating his points. My understanding is he refuted many of the biggest lies, but not all 27+ lies. There simply were too many to give the time to.

To quote Newt Gingrich, in reference to Romney, "You simply can't debate somebody who is being dishonest. You simply can't."

In the meantime, Obama has seen himself on video. Nothing like seeing yourself on video to light a fire under your tail. Apparently his practices alternated between weak and strong. 1st debate we got weak Obama. Now that he's seen weak Obama, I expect he'll know what he needs to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #44)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:40 AM

51. Show me the "major hit" in the polls...

...and when you don't find it, stop making a mountain out of a molehill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #51)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:48 AM

53. Well, at least we've gone from "He outsmarted Rmoney!!11!1!1" to ""molehill"

a 3 point setback a month out is very significant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #44)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 11:53 AM

57. Forget it man.

At this point Obama could nuke Iran and DU would come up with a hundred reasons why it's a good thing.

It's frightening that the left is now as willfully blind as the right.

Obama lost the debate. Whatever the reasons, he performed poorly. Instead of fixing the problem people want to claim that there is no problem. That sounds an awful lot like the way the Republicans do things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #44)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:21 PM

69. "Took a hit for it", from who? The corporate media? If he would have bickered back, then Rmoney

would have been in the drivers seat. Dont wrestle a pig in mud. Rmoney was the pig trying to get Obama to wrestle in the mud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:41 AM

52. . n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:49 AM

54. That may be, however, Obama did NOT strongly point out the lies and contradictions that romney was

saying. In fact from what is being discussed, he looked like he wanted to be somewhere else.

He messed up. To deny that is being in denial. We just have to look forward, not back, and aggressively point out all the lies and contradictions, along with issues like jobs, the Supreme Court, healthcare, social security, medicare, and getting out of wars started by the republicans is what we will do


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:55 AM

56. CHECKMATE ROMNEY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 07:15 PM

64. Genius

I see Romney is up by 4 now in the latest Pew. I wonder if Obama is smart enough to get Romney up by 10.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChoppinBroccoli (Original post)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 07:30 PM

65. I don't think Obama was really present. Something was going on. I don't know what.

He did not outsmart anyone. simply hogwash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #65)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 08:01 PM

66. you obviously

don't know how to play 11th dimensional chess

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kltpzyxm (Reply #66)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:39 PM

67. sarcasm, I hope.....

I felt like maybe a family member was dying, or a war was about to start somewhere we all knew nothing about....

that he was just absent and uncomfortable. He ran off the stage with Michelle. The girls were not there at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread