Editorials & Other Articles

swag

(26,490 posts) Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:32 AM Oct 2012

Why Obama Didn't Mention the 47 Percent Video (David Corn)

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/why-obama-didnt-mention-47-percent-denver-debate

The Obama campaign does have an explanation. When I asked a top campaign official why Obama had made no mention of Romney's 47 percent remark, he said,

Not that we won't talk about it again. We will. But [what's] most compelling [is] hearing it from Romney himself. We've got that on the air at a heavy dollar amount in key states. And it's sunk in. Ultimately the president's goal last night was to speak past the pundits and directly to the undecided voter tuning in for the first time about the economic choice and his plans to restore economic security.

Despite the pundit reviews noting that Romney performed better than Obama, is it possible that Obama's low-impact strategy worked—or didn't fail? Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama super-PAC, has released a memo based on a "dial group session" pollster Geoff Garin held in Aurora, Colorado, during the debate; the participants were "weak Democrats and independents who voted for Obama in 2008 but who remain open to switching in the upcoming election." The results were mixed:

Compared with the beginning of the session, there was a doubling in the number of respondents who said that Obama has good ideas for improving the economy. While Romney also improved on this dimension, 63% of respondents said at the end that Obama expressed good ideas for improving the economy, compared with 27% who said the same about Romney in the debate…

. . . more

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why Obama Didn't Mention the 47 Percent Video (David Corn) (Original Post) swag Oct 2012 OP

Showdown The Blue Flower Oct 2012 #1

This reason isn't adequate. . . Stargleamer Oct 2012 #2

When will Democrats give up this "appearing weak to win" strategy? yurbud Oct 2012 #3

The Blue Flower

(5,444 posts)

1. Showdown

Reply to swag (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:03 AM

Oct 2012

I just finished David Corn's book about Pres. v. Congressional R's. Highly recommend it.

Stargleamer

(1,990 posts)

2. This reason isn't adequate. . .

Reply to swag (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:34 AM

Oct 2012

It was obvious from Romney's first comments in the debate that he was trying to pass himself off as someone who cares, which is pure bullshit. Obama shouldn't have let him. Obama should have countered in their first exchange with with "What do you {Romney] think that woman would have felt if she had known that there's a good chance that she's one of the people you don't care about? That there's a good chance--1 in 2--that he thinks she's one of the people who doesn't "...take responsibility for herself"?

After the debate, depressingly, according to in "instant poll", the number of people who believed that Romney cares went from about 30% to 60%. The electorate is gullible, and this is why Obama should never have let Romney off the hook. It was the time then, to do it, not now after Romney says he was wrong.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)

3. When will Democrats give up this "appearing weak to win" strategy?

Reply to swag (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:10 PM

Oct 2012

Republicans win over low information voters with their bluster of undeserved confidence and certainty.

Reply to this discussion