Difference Between Obama/McCain and Obama/Romney (Debate 3)
After each Obama/McCain debate, the pundits came on and immediately suggested that it was at best a tie, and more probably that McCain had won. Then the flash polls came out, even while these same folks were on the air, showing clear wins for Obama. The pundits, looking somewhat sheepish, retreated, deferring to the rather clear verdicts offered up by sometimes unanimous flash poll results.
This year, a similar dynamic is in place, with one exception. Obama - in debates 2 and 3 - clearly cleaned Romney's clock. The pundits get on immediately afterward and hem and haw and suggest at best a tie, but more probably a slight Romney win. Then the flash polls indicate a clear Obama win. Not a single flash poll after debate 3 that I saw suggested a Romney win (I'm obviously not counting crazy internet polls - but even most of those were lopsided Obama). Not a single one.
But here's the difference, the crucial difference. Whereas in 2008, these yappers had at least the sense and decency to defer to unanimous polls, this time around they just continue their ridiculous narrative even in the face of the data. It's really rather remarkable. But we should understand this: it means their narrative is out of tune with people's perceptions. Certainly, they can shape the response, but you can only twist a person's own perception so much before 1) you're just wrong and 2) people stop listening.
With the display I've seen and heard this morning, we're reaching that point rapidly.
= new reply since forum marked as read
