Are we in agreement that Obama HAS to do the following things in the next debates?

[Ken Burch]

Fight back?

Call Mitt out on his lies(since not calling him out was an utter failure in the last debate)?

Defend the honor, value, and sense of responsibility of "the 47%"?

Explicitly defend the idea that not everything in this country should be about making the rich richer?

[Duer 157099]

1. I can agree to that

Fingers crossed

[Voice for Peace]

2. I'm hopeful but not going to lay my expectations on him and set myself up

for disappointment and anxiety.

[treestar]

3. We all agree?

Is this a required list, so we can find one he failed on, so as to have something to complain about?

Why don't we also do a what Mitt must do to win, so we can find him to have lost if he doesn't do it?

[Ken Burch]

9. I asked if we agreed...I didn't demand it.

The prez did NONE of those things in the first debate...and that's why it's now clear that that debate was a total failure. He handled that debate like Dukakis or Kerry would have...that's why Mitt has done nothing but gain since then.

The point is...Dems only win when we fight...the first debate proved, once and for all, that the "give him enough rope" strategy can never work for any Democrat anywhere.

[MineralMan]

4. I'm in agreement with the idea that the President

is getting expert advice on what to do in the next debates. I'm not an expert, so I won't offer any of my own. If you're an expert, then you should get in touch with the campaign. Heck, it might be lucrative for you.

[Ken Burch]

10. He got horrible advice for the first one...and he's still got the same advisors.

What that debate proved is that not fighting and not defending your base are always strategies that will lead to failure for Dems.

[renie408]

18. And you know this...how?

You are using the same paradigm- that of the MSM- to determine the President's debate performance. You are doing what I was doing last week, and assuming he lost because THEY told us so. If the strategy had worked, and there is still no saying it didn't since the polls are starting to head back in Obama's direction, we would all be sitting here saying how brilliant they are.

Once I calmed down I realized that all those people that jumped off the Obama bandwagon were never really on it to begin with. They were sitting around just WAITING for a reason to vote for Mitt Romney and his lying-with-eye-contact satisfied them. Given that, who knows WHAT Obama could have done to 'win' the debate?? Same thing with tonight. Who knows what will be considered a win? I thought Joe Biden knocked it out of the park and there were STILL people, supposedly non-partisan people, who called it for Ryan.

[MineralMan]

21. That is what you say. I don't know who his advisers were then,

and who they are now, nor do I know their strategy. I know nothing about political debates and how to prepare for them. If you do, then I suggest you contact the campaign again.

[renie408]

16. What he said.

[unblock]

5. agreed to all but he shouldn't explicitly mention the "47%".

that would only set up an easy escape for rmoney.

he can still talk about people who pay plenty in taxes, just not income taxes, e.g., but not make it so obvious that rmoney can then just thank him for the opportunity to "set the record straight".

[Ken Burch]

12. Couldn't he at least say "the non-rich are just as responsible as the rich...and usually more so"?

Saying that couldn't help Mitt. People who back Mitt's notion that the wealthy are the natural rulers and the natural moral arbiters are always going to be right-wing anyway. There's no such thing as an progressive economic royalist.

[unblock]

23. yep, plenty of ways to do it. really, just steer clear of the actual 47% figure.

[Romulox]

6. He needs to outline a broad set of VALUES and PRINCIPLES. The policy wonk stuff is useless. nt

[Ken Burch]

13. And "People matter as much as Profit" needs to be one of those values.

n/t.

[Romulox]

15. That could be THE over-arching theme. It would be very effective, imo. nt

[msongs]

7. and quit caving = no more he and romney have "similar" positions on things nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. He never said ...

he and romney had similar positions ... What he said was we agree that this or that is a problem but we differ on the solutions; this is what romney said he was going to do, this is what I have done and want to extend.

[Ken Burch]

17. And the "we agree on the problem but not the solution" is a useless thing to say.

Actually, Obama and Romney DON'T agree on the problem.

Obama believes(rightly)that the problem is that this set-up leaves too many out in the cold.

Romney believes it doesn't leave ENOUGH people out in the cold. Romney wants human sacrifices to the god of prosperity. He wants MORE layoffs...MORE wage cuts...MORE outsourcing...MORE inequality...

Obama needs to make it clear that Romney is NOT on the side of the people, or of this country...that Romney is, quite frankly, a total upper-class bastard...Gordon Gekko on steroids.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. No ...

We are not in agreement.

IMHO, President Obama must:

1) state his case and draw clear distinctions between him and romney.

2) state his case and draw clear distinctions between him and romney.

3) state his case and draw clear distinctions between him and romney.

And look "Presidential" while doing it.

The fact is ... there are no "undecided" people out; everyone that definitely will vote already has made up their minds, and so have those that that fall into the Likely to Vote category. And thos that will drop in to the polls on election day, won't be watching the debate.

Editted to amend:

I fear the only ones out there that are persuadible to change their vote or not vote based on the President's debate performance are Democrats.

[Ken Burch]

14. None of what I said contradicts the state the case/draw clear distinctions thing.

The things I laid out only HELP that position.

The only votes Obama can gain between now and the election are from people who disagree with Mitt's entire worldview.
He can't ever get votes from people who think the rich SHOULD be running this country.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Again ...

I disagree.

Those that disagree with romney's entire worldview, already will be voting for President Obama ... nothing to gain there. What President Obama really is fighting is Democratic defection ... so maybe you're right; since we, as of late and like the gop, seem to place more importance on style points and appearance than substance ... President Obama should just call romney and the whole gop "lying bastards."

[RedCloud]

20. He should say, "Barring continued GOP obstruction of our government, I promise to..."

That way a major can of worms the GOP does not want opened, gets opened.

[rock]

22. No, we're not

As I was quite satisfied with Obama's performance, and since he won the debate and as he was quite presidential (as Mitt was not who appeared to be a slobbering psychopath) I'm hoping for the same performance. OK, he did appear a little tired, and I wouldn't mind if he gets a little extra sleep.

[We People]

24. Jeffrey Feldman's "Frameshop" article has interesting angle and advice

Feldman describes how Romney failed to achieve a "breakout performance" during the GOP primaries, and how it affected what he was trying to do in the first presidential debate - something I haven't seen discussed anywhere else. Whether this dynamic is that important or not, I find it interesting; Feldman is convinced that it's important and lends some advice at the end.

What happened after Romney’s performance in the first debate reminds me of the dynamic that unfolded in the GOP primary. In fact, without statistics or data to cloud my certainty, I will just come out and say that it is the same dynamic: the polls are not reflecting the state of the race, but are merely rewarding a single breakout performance by a candidate perceived as challenging the front-runner.

<snip>

Obama needs to stop viewing the next debate as a policy forum and start seeing it as a stage he can stand on to hit all the buttons about why Dems find the Republican party of October 2012 to be so incredibly offensive, annoying, and outright dangerous to the future of this country. And he needs to hit them hard.

There are many things a candidate can control in an election, but an issue like this breakout performance dynamic is bigger than any candidate or campaign. It cannot be ignored, but must be recognized, dominated, mastered.

<snip>

...Can you imagine–can you even imagine how loudly people will cheer and for how long if Barack Obama turns around and gives Mitt Romney a piece of his mind after all the lies and obstruction the GOP has dropped on this country during his administration?

As the kids like to say: ZOMG!!

http://jeffreyfeldman1.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/bring-it-mr-president-the-breakout-performance/

[AsahinaKimi]

25. I would like to see him a bit more

aggressive. Biden did great and I hope Joe gave the President a hand.

[KurtNYC]

26. Even if he wins some here will hand wring over Fox News saying he lost, was too aggressive, etc

Every attack on his performance will be repeated here and worried over and obsessed about until the third debate.

What should count is the huge difference between someone leading in the correct direction versus a guy who grew up in the Nixon Whitehouse, outsources jobs, says anything, and has no soul.

My list:
- mention Sensata and Mitt's love for Chinese factories
- reminds us again that Mitt has yet to release even one year of final tax returns as he said he would
- tie Romney / Ryan to Bush -- same policies, BTDT, saber rattling, foot shooters