=snip=

I'm mobile, so its a pain for me to do that.

I'm on mobile, too, but I used my desktop to create the post. I'm sure there's a way, but I've not figured out how to do it (i.e., posting links, cutting & pasting) using my mobile!

At any rate, Romney's "win" ensures that he has nowhere to go in the next two debates. The best he can do is maintain. If Obama at least gets a draw in the next debate, Romney is toast....

Plus, Romney has to keep being Moderate Mitt because if he turns into Severely Conservative Mitt, he'll (once again) reveal himself to a total flip-flopper.

Romney played his ace and played it well, but he has nowhere to go now. Once Obama shows up in the town hall debate, things will go back to being normal.

over to Moderate Mitt. The conservatives are likely to feel betrayed by Mr. Etch-a-Sketch. Granted, they won't vote for Obama, but they might decide to stay home.

(Am I mixing my metaphors? 'Ace,' 'house of cards'-- the same motif?)

At any rate, it's relative: Nitt's bar was set low, so because of that, his performance was better than expected, hence, he 'won.' But that does NOT mean he was 'good.'

To quote the greatest writer ever:
...it is a tale told by an idiot,
Full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Signifying nothing

Last edited Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)

The point of presidential debates is not to win one debate, or even three, but to win the presidency. Short of risibly gross ineptitude, a less than thrilling performance in Debate 1 does not diminish a candidate’s chances. And the president’s performance, while certainly not what his supporters were envisioning, was far from grossly inept, – neither tongue-tied nor gaffe-laden – but merely no better than Romney’s, and since Romney was supposed to lose, Obama’s being no better made it seem worse, or at least worse than it actually was.

campaign ads now and that would be the same Andrea M. whose disdain for all things Obamaesque is pretty fucking clear to most of us:

The short-term: who won? The long-term: who is now in a better position to win in the end? And while there is little argument that Romney won in the short term, the president’s team may have been working within a long-term strategy, the genius of which will only become apparent on November 8. This strategy depends a great deal on harnessing the power of narrative structure and gratifying the pundits, whose job it is to spin the story of Election 2012.

need to be right, damnit!

This crapola about 11 dimensional chess is delusional.

anyone to speak at all! Even the people in the Town Hall?

Romney shouted down Obama for 90 minutes?
Obama would have had to return the yelling/talking over to get a point in.
This may have been great TV but it would have been seen as tit for tat.

...I do know his team has played rope-a-dope with his opponents so many times before. There have been many times over the past 4-5 years where someone thinks that they bested Obama and it turned out Obama was playing them all along.

Is there some kind of long con going on here? I have no idea. But would I be surprised to find out someday that they had a master plan with these debates all along? Not really.

Personally i think the easiest explanation is that Obama went too soft on Romney but there is a team of brilliant strategists behind Obama and they always seem to be 20 steps ahead of where we think they are, so I do have a tinge of doubt that everything is as it seems right now.

I think their strategy for the first debate was to stick to the facts, stay low key, and not give the Romney team any sound bytes to use against us in ads.

What do you think he wanted to come across as consistent while being the President in trying times?

Do you think he wanted to highlight his opponent as a man who will say anything to get elected? To highlight Mitt as a politician who will day anything? (Which is what people claim to hate!)

If you can't tell my reply was snarky, sarcasm!

"And that was a truthful message. He didn’t lose; he failed to win in the short term. So in the next two presidential debates, he will be the underdog. Romney, going in as the favorite, will have to produce performances that are not only as good as his first, but better (since the excellent “new Romney” is the new old Romney). And if in either debate the President pulls off the gloves and plays to win, he will scored much higher than if he had raised expectations in the first debate. And the closer a debate is to the election, the more of an effect it is apt to have (if in fact debate performance, except of the most extreme kind, ever has any effect at all)."

This was not part of a master plan.

OBAMA FUCKED UP. ROYALLY. MAJORLY. BEYOND COMPREHENSION.

Not only did he possibly fuck up his election chances, the down ballot implications of Republican enthusiasm and increased fundraising hurts the overall cause.

Spinning this any other way is pure fucking nonsense.

He had a chance for a LANDSLIDE VICTORY UP AND DOWN THE BALLOT. Enough to CLAIM A MANDATE. Enough to possibly crush conservatism for a looooong time.

He MAY have squandered that. He deserves all the criticism he is getting as a result.

I dont want a 270-268 EV victory. I want to smash Romney and Republicans.

"He had a chance for a LANDSLIDE VICTORY UP AND DOWN THE BALLOT. Enough to CLAIM A MANDATE. Enough to possibly crush conservatism for a looooong time."
Unless you load 1/4 of Americans on a train to Auschwitz, Those with the conservative agenda/mindset will always be here and so will Conservatism.

It's no wonder people feel this way when the networks have been doing nothing for the last week + but blowing the dog-whistles of fear of losing.

need to get a grip. They're just a distraction to Winning. If they're not helping they need to get out of the way.

.

For real. You're just adding to the media's manipulation of the narrative and you're not helping the president. Not all of us think he sucked, by the way (why don't you go look up Ben Stein's video assessment of the debate, and he is against Obama being reelected). If you are in fact in support of Obama, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Now, get off the web, splash some water on your face and go stand in the corner until you can get a grip.

Just imagine if the Pres thought/reacted like this. Then, we'd have a real problem.

/dems/libs giving themselves a bad name.

I have been lurking and just had to speak up.

I know Ben Stein's views.. he had something to say about the debate that was positive for Pres Obama?!

I'm no fan of this guy, but for once, he surprised me. He compliments both candidates.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424666n

... all the negativity was getting to me.

here and in the media. Sometimes, I think that the hype is to get everyone on both sides working harder as well as keeping people interested in the news.

You can determine what you are not going to bother reading. I do.

Now the media is spinning Obama's horrible debate? LMAO...

Let me tell you something. You "support" people by BEING HONEST AND REALISTIC about their performance, not by blindly blowing smoke up their ass. That's what Republicans do. They ignore reality and say all is fine.

Any HONEST AND REALISTIC appraisal of Obama's performance is that he lost BADLY.

He LOST the first debate by historic proportions. It has HURT not only his chances but the down ballot as well.

This is not only backed up by the polls but by reality.

You want to be the few people living in denial of how terrible a debate that was, be my guest.

None of this means I'm quitting on Obama or not supporting him. It means I'm not going to subscribe to bullshit theories that this was some bluff or gambit planned out by Obama designed for some long term goal. It definitely means I'm not going to give him a pass when he blew a major chance at ending this race early. Only yes men, followers, and lemmings do that.

And I'm supposed to care about Ben Stein? How about the following folks who all slammed Obama's performance:

Ed Schultz
Michael Moore
Chris Matthews

just for starters...

I think I'll go with their appraisal over Stein's...

The polls do not reflect the crushing defeat that you are repeatedly claiming.

Last edited Wed Oct 10, 2012, 12:17 AM - Edit history (2)

Sir, I am not a Republican nor am I believing in shit. I am voting for a candidate that I know is capable of not only debating well but running this country.

But last I checked, he has a pulse and bleeds like the rest of us.

If you wish to spend the remainder of the election spouting off like a Republican about our President and his MASSIVE debate let down, go right ahead.

I'm going to continue to volunteer and get the word out on why he should be reelected, myself. I think we should save the hysterics until after the next debate, or perhaps, maybe after Nov 6th?

Speaking of hysterics, Chris Matthews should wear a tutu and carry a teddy bear around with him. He had a chance to spin it and to affect the narrative. Instead, he blubbered like a spoiled two year old.

Oh, and you missed my point about Ben Stein.

minuets of chumming the waters without a single bite. It took weeks of extensive training, a full time job with several coaches! to get him to that point. Yet he writhed, blinked, sweaty like a high school kid. A performance where when he loses the election..no movie directors will line up to hire him for any movies.

America doesn't have the time for a sitting President who needs so much training just to function in a debate. Much less a knee-jerker leader on the world stage.

I can tell Republicans didn't get anything of value out of their debate creation. All they have in their last couple week tactic is to demoralize voters who are as weak as Romney. Try to buy/scare-up as many early votes from the weakest as they can. New posters who want to tell us how we should feel about a President we have backed for many years. The President has had our back aswell, like family does- he is not a quitter.

You're going to win President Obama, we love you! everybody vote please

I think he did.

The media are indeed the spinners, the narrators, and they have to keep the story going. They are professionals and it is what they do in order to sell advertising.

I watched that "debate" live on the laptop via CSPAN. No narrators, no spin. And my take about the debate was very similar to Prof. Lakoff's.

I was also logged into DU at the time. The screeching around here began only after Tweety et al. started the drama, the narration, after the debate.

The future of our country is dependent on Obama winning. The future of people with chronic diseases or a history of pre-existing conditions younger than 65 and without health insurance is dependent on Obama winning. The future of our elections and total control of the government by corporations is dependent on this election. The future of the middle class is dependent on this election. So much is in the balance that it is nerve-wracking what's going on now....

It is certainly a valid point to make that Obama may be able to come back at Romney for some of the lies he told, but it was not playing chess to tank his numbers and receive a massive spanking in the media and give Romney an opening to win the election.

Actually, that was my second impression after the debate. During the debate my first impression was

Mormons are just not accustomed to coffee