'Cause, Scuba, you are one of my favorite DUers. That's quite the compliment coming from you!

... chess at the 420th level.

Thanks for the compliment. One of my favorite DU'ers is Lefta Dissenter because she puts herself at risk of being arrested every single day to protect our right to free speech.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10845593

Geez Louise... it was a total fuck-up. Obama knows it. The campaign knows it.

We have recovered most, but not all, of the ground surrendered, which is great.

But no, there was no master plan to drive off a cliff.

This was not a master plan:



"Let's take an election we have won and intentionally flirt with losing."

No. Nobody does that, and with good reason.

elors degree in Speech. I thought he won the debate. You can argue with me but I won't change my mind since I would consider myself highly educated and experienced.

However, if you just like propoganda without support, Romney won.

If you weigh facts over pompous behavior, Obama won.

my take on the first debate is that romney disqualified himself, because all he brought was lies. you can't win a debate if you can't bring the truth.

and it weakens your case.

Better to stick to facts and let the other person get called on their crap by the media.

the room until they hear it themselves. If they're not totally wacked out, they can't help but notice the lack of response.

Once at my company, we were told when having to listen to lines of bullshit, just politely respond with 'That's incredible! Unbelievable!' The boor will think they're being complimented because they aren't in the moment and don't understand the other meanings of the words. Can be used either way...

So they can learn to say "Incredible! "Amazing!" "Duplicitous!" "Prevaricating!" instead of
"NO SHIT????"


(Old Aggie joke)

Several universities and one of them was an branch of A & M. They were pretty sharp in biology, chemistry, computers and all the agricultural stuff, not as dumb as some would claim. But that was before things got out of hand. I know economics students in universites who are being directed to conservative studies only.

I agree with you, DR
DBH

I think you just won this round of the debate for me DBH :0)

Including my Father who is a registered republican, Although he hasn't voted for a republican presidenial canidate for 20 years. We all agreed that he lied so much and was overbearing and obnoxious throughout the whole first debate.

Dem's da rules. Evidently today's punditocracy did not come up through schools that had debate clubs.

No measure of an election debate means anything other than improving your electoral position.

Everyone here thinks Obama won the debate if it was a formal debate, but it wasn't and who ever thought it was?

It's a campaign debate, and the judges are a pack of idiots — persuadable voters. And winning meaning doing a set of things, whatever they are, that move voters toward you instead of toward the other guy.

It isn't pretty, but everyone knows going in what the nature of the game is, and the idea is to win the game that is being played.

events , don't you get a different picture?

Round one Obama let Romney stick his neck way, way, way out.

Round two, now that everyone knows Romney is a liar, suddenly everything he says is questionable, and the President ate him up for lunch.

Round three, Romney's head is still way way out and Obama chopped it off like a chicken neck.

Obama was debating a three round debate. He didn't lose anything. He set up the opponent for checkmate. plain and simple.

Just sayin'.

These are not "real" debates. They are part of the political advertising campaign for each side. Yes, of course Obama won if we score the debate according to the content of the candidates' answers. But since the purpose of the debates is to influence the electorate, Obama clearly lost because the reaction of the voters was that he lost and Romney won. It doesn't matter that we know Romney lied and behaved like a total a**hat. The voters felt otherwise.

When Nixon and Kennedy debated, those who heard the debate on the radio gave Nixon the win; those who watched on TV had him losing by a large margin. Perception is everything in politics, because the voters vote according to how they interpret what they see and hear, not according to how some debate expert says the debate should be scored.

The fact that the media loves a brawl and a brawler and therefore gave Romney the win in big bold letters certainly influenced the public perception, too, as did the hair-on-fire freak-out committed by our own side's pundits, like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. But the American public also likes "feisty" behavior in a debate. When Gore debated W, W came across like an idiot, but the media and the public gave him the win anyway, because, as the media said, W came across as "feisty" and "combative," while Gore came across like a patronizing know-it-all. Anyone examining the content of their answers in a dispassionate, rational way would have given Gore the win and W a big red "F" for "fool," but the content didn't matter. All that mattered was the public's reaction--and the media's reaction, to the degree that it helped shape the public’s reaction.

I thought that on content Obama was clearly superior to Mitt, and I found Mitt's hyperactive behavior and nastiness in the first debate repulsive. He seemed to be on something--probably chugging Redbull or some such thing before the debate.

But even I found Obama's physical presentation odd and disappointing. I couldn't understand why he kept nodding as Mitt lied his butt off, and I kept wishing he would look up instead of constantly staring down as he jotted notes. Yes, of course, he was jotting notes, and that is why he was looking down, but the reality of the situation was simply irrelevant. What mattered was that it appeared that he welt crestfallen and defeated, and that his constant nodding was acknowledgement that Mitt had the right of it in every instance.

except the part that Obama didn't win. Romney appeared to win but he lied about everything. That isn't winning. The polling is all skewed and that big jump Romney had wasn't real--he had a blip. Part of why people think Obama lost is because the polling showed Romney had big gains. He didn't. SO, if that same debate had happened, but the media reported the truth about the resulting polling, "Romney got a little blip that probably won't last" then the conversation would have been that it was draw--but Romney lied his ass off. All damage to Romney and his credibility. Still no damage to the President except that he wasn't aggressive at the debate.

Of course WE are disappointed in that debate, we wanted him to be a LION and he wasn't. But we weren't the votes he was trying to get. He was trying to keep Romney from turning the independent voters against him. Romney did not succeed in doing that.

The President walked out of the debate with no damage, no lies, only a lackluster performance, almost as though he chose not to debate Romney's lies. If you buy the polling and the media spin then, yeah, you might believe he lost. But the polling was flawed badly and so the media round-the-clock shouted out the bad polling numbers as proof of a loss.

I appreciate your enthusiasm but as a debater you surely know facts do not necessarily win out over fiction.. maybe in academic they do but not for certain in the "other" world where people refuse to believe in Global Warming but think Demonic possession is real and cant name three Supreme Court Justices but can name the Three Stooges!

I too have a degree in Communications and spent 40 years in advertising...believe me, I know, facts do not always win over bullshit.

Take it from me..

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!!

I have a BS Degree and decades of experience at it!

And the idea that President Obama allowed Mitt to spew all kinds of lies without response with the idea that somehow the general public would know them to be lies or that he could later set the record straight..is hard to accept...

Obama did well in the second and third debate and that is what renewed his chances...which I think are very good..

I think when Romney shushed him and he saw how Romney was bulldozing the moderators, that Obama made a choice to step back and not be disrespected like that. It only would have weakened him.

Obama knew the news the next day would pick apart the lies so he just did his own thing.

Of course he would have loved a knock out in round one. He was probably ready for that in many ways, but Romney's performance was pretty crazy and Obama couldn't pin him down.

So he stepped back.

He never toots his own horn. He never gives himself credit. He is not a boastful man. Half of America has no idea of all the good stuff he does because he plays a quiet game and just gets things done. I'm not surprised he didn't build himself up, he never does. But even I wish he'd fought back more.

But he chose not too, and I believe he was going to let the press out the lies instead of spending all of his time calling romney a liar.

Many facets to this topic, but Obama has been allowing Romney and the Repubs to say a looooooot of stuff that is easily proven untrue. I think he is allowing them to brand themselves as liars.

i am going to present the evidence from the candidate himself, who said he did not do well on the first debate.

I will leave it at that.

only seem to have won for his bravado, certainly not on the context of what he was saying. It was easy to see through, he's a flim flam man.

And 23 red states are buying.

...because you're one of the posters on DU who always think the worst of the President and his actions.

If it hadn't been for the first debate, the vast majority of Americans would never have known what a major flip-flopping liar Mitt Romney really is. That was a win all by itself.

Just my opinion, but the only way anyone could believe Mitt Romney won the first debate is to agree with the MSM and the right-leaning pollsters who backed his lying bullshit.

I keep telling people...it is one debate in three parts.

I am sure Obama had two plans for that night. One for a real debate and then the plan to stand back if Romney started lying and flipping.

Once he saw the lying and flipping his job was done in many ways. He had the sense to get out of the way and get ready for round two and then prep for a knockout in round three.

But Romney is a slick salesman. If he was selling a used car that night he would have sold it....but it still would have broken down the next day and been returned.

I'm not so sure. Before the first debate, Rove and Co. thought they had no real chance to take the Presidency, and would instead be concentrating on the Senate, pouring massive amounts of money that they would divert from the Presidential campaign. With Obama's surprisingly weak performance, Rove now realized that they had a chance for the Presidency and decided not to divert the money for the Senate campaign. Then, Obama outperformed Romney at the next two debates and the extra republican campaign money had already been committed and could not be used for Senate races. My theory is that Obama purposefully underperformed the first debate, thus giving republicans hope, and then shut the trap on them. Just a theory, and admittedly very risky plan, but plausible in my view.

But when ROmney started lying and flipping I think Obama just stepped back and let him go. His performance in the next two debates was spot on. He had those same abilities during the first debate but chose not to use them. Obama is a cool cool cucumber. He was in total control of himself at the first debate.

The dialogue after the debate did hurt him, and he was probably sorry he didn't turn it up a notch, but he truly did allow Romney to just keep laying on another layer of lies. I noticed that night that the less Obama refuted him, the more carried away Romney was getting. Obama gave Romney the control (did you notice how the moderators where ridiculed for letting Romney speak over them? They'd try to interrupt but Romney just kept going. It makes them look powerless and out of control. Obama had the sense to stay out of that trap. Romney would just keep on talking and then the President looks a fool. You can't debate a steamroller, you just look weak. Ask the moderators about that. Romney really hurt their careers because he made them look useless.

"Let's take an election we have won and intentionally flirt with losing."
If that is true that's one hell of a strategy ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021709599

while criss-crossing the country, day after day after day. He has made ME dog-tired just looking at his schedule and watching his voice croak at the crescendo moment of his speeches as he entreats America to not let the crazies take over.

K&R

I always like your posts so nice to have your input!

will be a force to be reckoned with on many, many levels. Think "Transformative".

he's letting them set themselves up for a good housecleaning.

When Coke replaced it's age old formula, it was the closest thing to rioting in the streets we've ever seen over something so trivial as a soft drink. After some weeks of revolt, Coke introduced "Coke Classic" and marketed both the new formula alongside the old formula.

That worked out quite well for them in hindsight and there was a lot of speculation that they planned it that way.

Some senior Coke guys was quoted "We're not that smart and we're not that dumb".

I think O is a super chess player and I think the first debate has ultimately played to his advantage. At the same time, a stellar performance in the first debate (like in #2 and #3) would have crushed Romney in his tracks. Had O killed in the first debate it wouldn't have surprised me to see Romney find some rationale to cancel at least one of the following two debates.

So, yeah - in hindsight, lots of good wholesome republican lying material for future use but I think Axelrod and the whole O gang would say, in response to the hypothesis that they took a beating on purpose in that first debate..."we're not that smart and we're not that dumb".

I think the same goes for letting repubs run wild trampling on voting rights just to make the case stronger in the future. We'll see a lot changes in the second term, especially if we see two new justices that have their heads screwed on straight. And we'll make progress.

I think things are pretty good but I don't want to be cocky. Let's see if I've learned how to do this link thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=209324

What I'll add is that a lot of Romney & Mandel signs started showing up a couple weeks ago in the expressway medians and entrance ramp areas. Technically, at least in Ohio, stuff like that in public areas can be considered litter and there's no problem with "cleaning it up". I was out this morning and noticed they're almost all gone...happy that someone took out the trash.

usually have two signs up, one for each direction. They don't have any signs at all this year. I think that is very telling.

That he was hanging back intentionally. Perhaps he didn't intend it to come off in quite the way that it did. I do think he underestimated Romney's morphing into something else in front of our eyes. As with me, he was somewhat taken by surprise Romney's suddenly found positions which were completely contrary to his prior campaign statements.

But in reality I think that the democratic strategists should have prepared the President for exactly that kind of Romney slimming. Maybe Obama was busy being President and didn't really do his full homework for the debate. But as you explain it turns out to have been a master stroke intended or not.

He got out of the way.

Romney tipped his hand early when he shushed President Obama. He intended to try to overpower Obama, make him look foolish and weak, and he showed he was very willing to disrespect the Office of the President. Obama knew early on that Romney's goal was to make him look weak and powerless in Romney's assault.

The best way to avoid a full-frontal attack is to sidestep the blow as much as possible and pivot around for the next attack.

That is exactly what Obama did, he sidestepped the blow.

Their comments were that he was a bully, not presidential.

The only people I know personally who were impressed with Romney's aggression and 'strength'were racists.

They loved the idea of seeing that uppity black man put in his place.

Anyone who loved the way Romney behaved has got some serious problems, or admires conservative methodology.

First time my partner had heard me yell (almost five years together!).

I certainly hope that's what he has in mind.

I also agree that he won the first debate...a liar can never be considered the winner.

they are just a liar.

I think President Obama came to the debate prepared for the "teabagging" Willard and "Moderate Mittens" showed up. The chutzpah Willard showed that night lying and flip flopping was astounding. What was even more astounding was how the horserace-crazy corporate media took style over substance and used it to fit a narrative that "Obama lost". I don't think it was "rope-a-dope"...I think President Obama was caught off guard with how blatant Willard's lies were. If you look at the substance Obama won going away, but it's the "gotcha" moments that the media was craving for. Inversely President Obama would adjust and his "Procede, Governor" line in the second debate is, in my book, the ultimate turning point in this campaign...and polls show that as well.

The big thing the Bishop had going for him was nearly $1 billion of outside spending...a lot of it flying around this weekend. He thought he could lie and with the ensuing media blitz he could bullshit his way like he did in his "corporate" life. He was a salesman closing a sale and saying whatever he had to to get it done. The media...seeing this as bloodsport and through their own filter saw all the big money flying around (how could they miss it...some of it ended in their bosses pockets) saw all the advertising and assumed that meant support. Look how eager stenographers like Chuckie Toad were to "expand the map"...it makes them more "relevant". It became a circle jerk between Willard's flailing campaign and corporate media...one that, mercifully, is winding down...

I'll look at a second term for President Obama after the votes are counted...while confident I am still very concerned about the voter suppression efforts going on and hope the OFA ground troops have delivered as we're led to believe...

Cheers...

by lying? That was all spin and the Democratic media pundits went along with it. Obama was advised beforehand, and all of the Left's pundits agreed, that his number one goal was to not hurt his likability. That's the way he played it, and when Romney hung himself in front of millions of viewers by uttering lie after provable lie, Obama thought, naturally, that he he had won. Which he did.

Did Obama intentionally give his opponent enough rope to hang himself? I don't know. I don't think he intended to lose the first debate as a strategy. I do believe that allowing Romney to go out on a huge limb has, in the long run, worked in the President's favor.

Now that we know the polling was bad, it really does put it in a different perspective.

i have been saying this for months.... ultimately tie the whole thing back to ALEC.. i really do expect the DOJ to move early second term...

in fact if you remember a while back a number of big name companies withdrew from ALEC... i'm betting they heard footsteps in the night, over their shoulder...

anybody remember Watergate... we are ripe for another scandal, this whole money connection, especially with someone like Willard, may prove to be the straw that broke the camels back..

after all this election has confirmed what OWS exposed... OWS may be the "weathermen" of the new generation.... let's hand them the torch!!

He has also shown himself willing to take the poo-flinging and heat that comes from seemingly unpopular moves only to discover he was manuevering opponents into a smaller and smaller corner and exposing their extreme ideas and lies. I also thought he was deliberately holding back and allowing the flood of lies to come forth. Yes, it was a gamble, but the man is willing to risk big things to make big change. It has been working and will have the final pay-off come next Tuesday! GOBAMA!

subconsciously bought into the conserative 'tough guy' routine and want the Democrats to do the same. It is not what a person who believes in democracy does, but demagogues have ruled the airwaves so long, it's been normalized.

They call Obama and Democrats spineless for not getting up and yelling and cursing and throwing a fit. Obama won that debate in substance, but the media kept encouraging the bully routine because that's who owns the networks. A lot of cranky, wealthy, authoritarian bullies who make the reporters dance to the tune they order. Or else. In that respect, I've given up getting mad at those lower on the totem pole at the networks. It's like whipping the help, going up to the fast food clerk who doesn't agree with their boss, but it's a cheap thrill.

But the overpaid shills of this same group of bullies, such as the O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh lackeys, are in tight with the media owners (Mittens = Bain = Clear Channel + Murdoch = Newscorp) and know they are doing the bidding of fascists and revel in their Orwellian jobs to distort American politics and bring the government to its knees so that it can no longer protect the citizenry from corporate theft and religious bigotry.

They are arrogant and proud of the numbers of people whose minds they have owned by lying to them. Beck even mocks his followers, saying anyone who takes his opinions seriously is an idiot because he's just an entertainer, a rodeo clown. For this he gets around $10M annually, sometimes more. The others get similiar salaries and help forge GOP talking points.

That's not how democracy is played, it's about ideals, learning and working things out. Because if your believe in equality, you have to respect at least by process, those who are misled.

Purity = Zealotry does not allow for the free exchange of ideals and working things out. There is no respect for the other point of view. It is the first step for totalitarianism and shouting people down, and bitter accusations without truth or logic, are the tools of demagogues, as we've been treated to for over twenty years on radio and television.

Very good OP, Don, thanks.

Can you tell me anyone anywhere who said they wanted Obama to "yell and curse and throw a fit"?

needed to show his anger. They were disappointed he didn't come out saying 'fuck you' on certain issues. Really.

Seriously, When did anyone want him to "curse or swear or say Fuck You?" People wanted him to show some aggression and some passion like he did in the second and third debates..and I was one of them..

And he did show anger IMO when Romney started that bullshit about Obama abandoning the people in Libya.. and I thought that was good! It wasnt cursing and swearing but it was anger..anger I felt he needed to show,,.not over the top.. but there to show he really cares... and is a flesh and blood person...with deep feelings and convictions,.. and I liked it..

Seriously what the hell kind of person would not get angry when charged with something like that?

You know fresh, anger is contagious and when he shows it toward Romney that sends a signal to the audience saying "This is a big deal" and the audience catches that and many will pick up on that and begin to feel the same way toward that awful charge Romney made..

That is not Obama's style, and it's not the temperament we need from the man who has the launch codes, can maneuver us into an illegal war, or shut up opponents with brownshirt tactics.

As far as Obama showing a measure of anger, unlike Romney and Bush and other repukes, he reserves that for those who are being hurt, have sacrificed and are suffering. The idea of making this all about personality is not what we are voting for.

I didn't vote for Gore in 2000 because of his wonderful style or ability to dance as some mocked him for, but his convictions. I didn't agree with his conceding the election, because it wasn't about him. He was a moment in time, and saw the writing on the wall. And the potential for violence was very real and he knew the system was in trouble from top to bottom.

Those who call for rash reactions, often don't know the cost of war as I'm sure you do. Obama is not in this for himself, and he has made this campaign about the USA, not himself. He truly believes in all those old fashioned ideals, even if he can't get his way. I hope we do our share to get progressives elected to help him accomplish our goals.

For far too long we have focused on the excitement of the presidential races and let slide the day to day politicking in states and communities. This is the year round ground game the GOP has whupped us on. They organize in churches and get fealty from handing out business contracts. It's the essence of demagoguery and practices of patronage, but it works.

Democrats don't want to run a government like that, and they want no credit for doing the right thing. Perhaps our idealism blinds us to fascism. Obama has done some wildly unpopular things in the face of not our dearest held dreams, but the harsh political realities.

We cannot afford to savage our own in the face of such a group as the GOP and their backers represent, because they have definitely got a plan to dismantle all democratic (small d) organs of government that stand in their way, Apathy, also, favors fascism.

Nice talking to you, as you've been thoughtful on this thread.

I am really in agreement we have to stop admiring bullying behavior. And start appreciating scholarly and calm discussion of issues. And value obeying the rules of debate and being more formal with that and quit trying to be entertained. For a true democracy we need to think for ourselves, not be entertained.

I don't think PBO planned to face a kinder, gentler Romney in the first debate. I don't think he lost as badly as the apoplectic talking heads would have one believe. It might not have been strategy at work but it sure was eye-opening. PBO saw just how far Mitt would go to reinvent himself.

...by the last couple of days before the election, then I gotta say, that's a pretty terrible master plan.

We gained nothing by Obama "throwing" that first debate. In fact, any ground gained since seems to be off of unrelated flubs by Romney, good jobs reports, good handling of other situations... not much really about what Romney said in debate one.

That aside, I'd love it if political debates were won by the person who told the truth the most, but that just isn't the case. If the vast majority of the people and media were swayed more by the other guy than by you, you lost.

THAT aside, even president Obama and his staff admitted he performed very badly and lost that debate.

Look, I'm a STAUNCH Democrat. I love President Obama. But I don't see any way he "won" that debate and seeing who I honestly think are very smart people on this site say that President Obama's stilted, rambling, wishy washy performance was some masterful ruse is probably the single most baffling thing to come out of this whole election.

dumped all over him.

I think you might be right I never really thought about it that way.

1.) I doubt Obama planned it, he reacted instinctively when Romney went to balls-out lying, you could see it. Better to let the fool run than try to improvise at what is, after all, his game: making stuff up, thereby sinking to his level.

We see that sort of trolling here all the time. It's not pretty.

1.a) For the first debate, not knowing the opposing strategy, he had to prepare for a real debate, hence would not be well prepared for what happened, and wisely chose to live to fight another day.

1.b) To claim he won the first debate would again reduce him to Romneyism, again dragging him down to that level, again putting tactics ahead of strategy.

2.) But he didn't look nervous either, he was paying close attention and taking notes, interpreted by the media as being "passive", because they live in a world where noise is all.

3.) And lastly, since he set up the ass-kickings administered in the next three debates (including the VP), he was right, strategically, even if he lost the tactical engagement.