[quote]Airtruth wrote:
If Obama planned this it was a great tactic.
[/quote]
No offense but that is silly, just silly.
That was no rope-a-dope. If it was he would have killed the closing statement. His closing statement was a “room temperature bowl of oatmeal.”
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[
The most egregious dissembling of the night, in my opinion.
He still absolutely won the debate, and he still deserves to be called the winner. Obama achieved this odd combination of aloofness and exasperation. He was remarkably passive. He frankly doesn’t deserve another term if he can’t put some minimal kind of effort into this whole thing. He doesn’t even seem to know or care as much about his own reelection as Bill Clinton does.
[/quote]
He quite frankly has the body language of a man WHO DOES NOT WANT to be re-elected. [/quote]
THIS is the thought that brought me shock and awe somewhere after the first half hour.
To me, Obama’s body language said “this shit’s not fun anymore, I don’t even want this stupid job”.
I honestly didn’t understand why Obama had his eyes glued to the floor for half the debate. Really weird.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
It sounds like Romney killed it, and Obama choked, but can it happen again ? Can Romney continue this wave of appearing presidential ? And will Obama pick himself up, dust himself off, and go at it again ?
Romney made progress, because people can now see him as a potential president, while the boy-God Obama bled, showing why people may cease to believe in him.
I have said this time and time again, Obama’s weakness is his temper and his ego. Get him pissed, and he falters. Question his awesomeness, and he stumbles. Obama is weak when he is not being oiled up and lubricated by the MSM, so these debates are where Romney can gain ground. It will be up to Mitty to do that.
[/quote]
Sometimes you win a battle and lose a war. Observations of comments on the internet I see democrats supporting Obama more than ever while acknowledging the debate mishap, and republicans raving about Romney’s debate win. They’re not going to change, but the swing voters seem to observe Romney did well. However, they all feel like he won a DEBATE. Debate in essence a mental sport appears as a game. In a time when unemployment is sky rocketing people don’t want to play games. Most of those voters all say it seemed like Romney was just telling them what they wanted to hear. If Obama planned this it was a great tactic. Romney looks like a used car salesman with a gold watch telling you a shiny new mustang with no engine runs great.
[/quote]
This is the biggest crock of shit that I’ve read in a long time. Here’s the rule that the real world lives by.
You do your best job in the debate in order to appear the winner. By doing this you may attract supporters to your side who may eventually vote for you and give you the win. There is absolutely no upside to looking like a weak lethargic candidate. None…GOT IT?
Romney won last night according to republicans, democrats and independents. Hence, some of those who may not have planned on voting for him before may very well decide to vote for him now. I watched one focus group where half of the Obama supporters decided, because of the debate to now vote for Romney. I realize that is not representational nation wide. However, it all adds up to a great night for Romney in the short and long term. Any effort to demean his victory bodes poorly for those attempting to sell it as good political commentary.
I know you are smarter than this. If you honestly believe any of the crap about some great Machiavellian plan where Obama purposely tossed the debate to somehow look less like “a used car salesman” (where you got that one I will never know) then I’m just flat out surprised by your analysis.
I agree one debate may not decide the election as it did in 1980, but then again it just might.
But for now just bite the bullet your guy lost last night and that is pretty much that!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
If Obama planned this it was a great tactic.
[/quote]
No offense but that is silly, just silly.
That was no rope-a-dope. If it was he would have killed the closing statement. His closing statement was a “room temperature bowl of oatmeal.”[/quote]
More like a rambling piece of crap. A High School student trying to get elected as student body President would have done better. My jaw dropped when I heard him spit that rambling mess. I was both thrilled and surprised that he blew it that bad.
Obama hits back after debate dip and accuses Romney of not telling the truth
President turns on Romney for ‘dancing around his positions’ as he seeks to revive fortunes following lacklustre Denver display
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
LOL!
Thanks, Zeb!
I think Joe is one of the last of the “Old-School” politicians.
Loving the “stump”…smoozing…kissing babies (and mommas)!..Shaking hands…wheeling and dealing…
Ryan is…well…a “Wonk”…and is proud of it.
Now…both are very shrewd politicians…but in different ways.
Mufasa
[/quote]
What I want to convey to my conservative friends on this board is that wonk’s do not play well on television. That is not to say that Ryan will not bring his “A” game. He does have a personality and it is a good one. But I don’t want anyone thinking that standing there and rattling off fact after fact is going to win you a televised debate. Now if that is mixed with emotion and stories about his Mom needing social security…we have a winner!
Edit: But he better not be viewed as mean spirited or bullying Biden with his facts and figures.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
If Obama planned this it was a great tactic.
[/quote]
No offense but that is silly, just silly.
That was no rope-a-dope. If it was he would have killed the closing statement. His closing statement was a “room temperature bowl of oatmeal.”[/quote]
More like a rambling piece of crap. A High School student trying to get elected as student body President would have done better. My jaw dropped when I heard him spit that rambling mess. I was both thrilled and surprised that he blew it that bad.[/quote]
If I raise my kids to be dumb enough to delude themselves into thinking that was a rope-a-dope I will fucking shoot myself.
If that was a rope-a-dope obama should be a movie actor, as he’ll be a fuck load better at that than leading.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, and remember Eastwood’s putting questions to an empty chair? I’ll be damned if it didn’t turn out the be most fitting image for last night’s debate. The media has, until recently, played softball with this administration. In the end, they didn’t do him any favors. When it was time to face the questions head on, you might as well have dragged that same chair up on to the stage.[/quote]
And someone comes up with this timely photo-shop.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Al Gore has suggested that Obama may not have had time to acclimate to the altitude. Jesus.
As for me, and this is wild speculation, I can’t help thinking that Obama is subconsciously unsure of whether or not he actually wants another term. I think he went into this job with an unrealistic sense of what it actually entails. He isn’t a natural politician a la Bill Clinton, he is often criticized on the Hill for failing to schmooze, he obviously doesn’t like answering questions about his decisions.
I’m finding it hard to come up with a better explanation for his recent triple-crown of mediocrity: the convention speech, the 60 minutes interview, and now the debate. Most people–even the staunch detractors–have said all along that, love or hate his policies, he’s a charismatic guy, charming, etc. There was charisma last night, but it was all sitting stage right.[/quote]
You might be on to something. It is the hardest job on earth, and I don’t think he realized that along with glory comes hard damn work.
A bunch of people are railing about why he didn’t bring up the 47% issue. My take is that if you don’t think romney has a responce (good or bad) ready and raring to go, you are insane. Why on earth would obama bring it up and give romney a chance to a) solidify his base that already agree with him and b) possibility (small chance but still) turn it into a homerun.[/quote]
While I’m sure Romney had a retort ready, I’m still pretty surprised Obama didn’t bring it up. It didn’t play well with voters, and I’d think that makes it a no-brainer for a politician. But it looks like there wasn’t much brain involved in Obama’s prep anyway.[/quote]
As I said last week Obama thinks of himself as already being perfect. Hence, whey would anyone who is already perfect actually need to practice.
Arrogance has a price!
Will he learn from this performance? I’m sure that those around him will push him harder next time in preparations. But, if the next debate is on foreign policy he is still going to have his hands full as the world around him is exploding and he just doesn’t seem to know what to do. [/quote]
I have to say Zeb, you were dead on in predicting this one. I didn’t think Romney would be able to step out of his wooden persona, but he seriously delivered. I’m tempted to believe he might have said to hell with Mormonism and pounded a Red Bull before the debate. [/quote]
Lol! I would seriously have loved to see a camera catch him backstage, can tipped up, surprise looking out of the corner of his eye like a kid with his hand stuck in the cookie jar. I could see RedBull actually using that one on TV commercials too in the drubbing Obama took…sort of a Truman/Dewey paper moment except with the embarrassment factor. Course that means Mitt has to win first.
[quote]Foreign policy will I think be trickier. Unlike economics, it’s far from his strong suit, and in fact in my view he’s said some unbelievably dumb things.
But of course the playing field has tilted against Obama considerably in the last two weeks. It will certainly be interesting.[/quote]
Foreign policy worries me much more than this debate did, because as you said he’s said some unbelievably dumb things. Also, I feel that unlike business and economics, foreign policy is “mushier” or more prone to ideology–in other words, the winner depends mostly on your view of how we should appear…and there are a lot of different answers to that one. Everybody sorta accepts Romney as a guy with economic experience, so they’re more prone to listen to him on that…even if they don’t like to admit it: everybody knows he’s got business chops even if they hate him for being rich. That means that even though they might not admit it, many people will still give him a chance to speak his mind because they know he’s got chops. Not so with foreign policy.
My feeling is that IF, and it’s a pretty decent sized if, Romney can build on the momentum he got from this debate and not let it ebb away in 2 weeks, he has a much better chance at appearing the winner in the second debate: look presidential and confident, speak confidently, hold your own. If the bump he got here proves transient, he’s going to have to hit another homerun in the 2nd arena to appear the winner, which will NOT happen IMHO.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Al Gore has suggested that Obama may not have had time to acclimate to the altitude. Jesus.
As for me, and this is wild speculation, I can’t help thinking that Obama is subconsciously unsure of whether or not he actually wants another term. I think he went into this job with an unrealistic sense of what it actually entails. He isn’t a natural politician a la Bill Clinton, he is often criticized on the Hill for failing to schmooze, he obviously doesn’t like answering questions about his decisions.
I’m finding it hard to come up with a better explanation for his recent triple-crown of mediocrity: the convention speech, the 60 minutes interview, and now the debate. Most people–even the staunch detractors–have said all along that, love or hate his policies, he’s a charismatic guy, charming, etc. There was charisma last night, but it was all sitting stage right.[/quote]
You might be on to something. It is the hardest job on earth, and I don’t think he realized that along with glory comes hard damn work.
A bunch of people are railing about why he didn’t bring up the 47% issue. My take is that if you don’t think romney has a responce (good or bad) ready and raring to go, you are insane. Why on earth would obama bring it up and give romney a chance to a) solidify his base that already agree with him and b) possibility (small chance but still) turn it into a homerun.[/quote]
While I’m sure Romney had a retort ready, I’m still pretty surprised Obama didn’t bring it up. It didn’t play well with voters, and I’d think that makes it a no-brainer for a politician. But it looks like there wasn’t much brain involved in Obama’s prep anyway.[/quote]
As I said last week Obama thinks of himself as already being perfect. Hence, whey would anyone who is already perfect actually need to practice.
Arrogance has a price!
Will he learn from this performance? I’m sure that those around him will push him harder next time in preparations. But, if the next debate is on foreign policy he is still going to have his hands full as the world around him is exploding and he just doesn’t seem to know what to do. [/quote]
I have to say Zeb, you were dead on in predicting this one. I didn’t think Romney would be able to step out of his wooden persona, but he seriously delivered. I’m tempted to believe he might have said to hell with Mormonism and pounded a Red Bull before the debate.[/quote]
Okay…okay first rule of T Nation PWI threads. Never ever give credit to anyone!
Sheesh SM…I though you were aware of this. I’m embarassed for you right now.
No, seriously thank you very much once in a while I get it right.
[quote]Foreign policy will I think be trickier. Unlike economics, it’s far from his strong suit, and in fact in my view he’s said some unbelievably dumb things.
But of course the playing field has tilted against Obama considerably in the last two weeks. It will certainly be interesting.[/quote]
I don’t recall Romney with any major foreign policy gaffes. Refresh my memory please.
As for the foreign policy debate, ask yourself this, who would you rather be stepping onto the debate platform?
A sitting President with a record to run on who seems practically cluelss on foreign policy with the middle east erupting and a number of other horrible mistakes too numerous to mention in this post…
Or the challenger who can stand next to him and jab him over everyone of his obvious errors. Granted, Romney is not Henry Kissinger on foreign policy but he is (as proven last night) a very sharp guy who is not intimidated by Obama.
I know who I’d rather be walking into that debate.
With that said I don’t think we will see a drubbing like we did last night. Obama has realized perhaps for the first time that everyone isn’t going to kowtow to him like the lap dog media and the yes men that inhabit the White House. And I think he’ll put the work in because he wants to avoid another tremendous beating.
Either way all Romney has to do in the foreign policy debate is once again look Presidential and merely cast aspersions on Obama’s handling of the many world wide crisis. If he does that and avoids any major gaffes he walks away a winner.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
So it was a spelling error? Wow, that is a petty way out. What about when you called it the first debate? Were you not implying that there was a second?
Just say it already- “I was wrong”
jnd[/quote]
If you want to see petty look in the mirror.
I stated that Gallup was the finest polling service of its time (and still is). AND you could not refute it.
I stated that Gallup had Reagan behind before he debated Carter. AND you couldn’t refute it.
I stated that Reagan gained the lead after that debate. AND you couldn’t refute it.
I stated that Reagan held the lead and never once dipped lower than Carter after that debate. AND you couldn’t refute it.
And I just checked what I posted and yes I called it the first debate not thinking that it was the only debate. But I remember that it was the only debate it is a matter of record. So it was the first and last debate.
But if you want to claim victory on that tiny oversight I’m good with that. (applause)
If that’s all you have after being proven wrong so many times…well I hope you feel better now.
Getting back to the point as to why I brought up Reagan/Carter was because I predicted (perhaps accurately) that Romney could do the same thing in his first debate as Reagan did in his come from behind win in his first (and last) debate with Carter.
That is the issue that you need to address. Your hero got a royal butt kicking last night.
But…you didn’t watch it huh?
LOL
[/quote]
Professor Zeb (aka, master internet debater)-
Thanks for finally admitting that you were wrong. That wasn’t so difficult now was it? I’ll bet that you feel a little relieved now. It’s OK to be wrong and it is even healthy to admit it.
My hero is Tony Iommi and as far as I know he safe somewhere hopefully kicking cancer’s ass.
And just for the record, I never watch debates- too high school for me. I prefer to pay attention to the numbers. The numbers rarely lie if you know how to read them.
jnd
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Al Gore has suggested that Obama may not have had time to acclimate to the altitude. Jesus.
As for me, and this is wild speculation, I can’t help thinking that Obama is subconsciously unsure of whether or not he actually wants another term. I think he went into this job with an unrealistic sense of what it actually entails. He isn’t a natural politician a la Bill Clinton, he is often criticized on the Hill for failing to schmooze, he obviously doesn’t like answering questions about his decisions.
I’m finding it hard to come up with a better explanation for his recent triple-crown of mediocrity: the convention speech, the 60 minutes interview, and now the debate. Most people–even the staunch detractors–have said all along that, love or hate his policies, he’s a charismatic guy, charming, etc. There was charisma last night, but it was all sitting stage right.[/quote]
You might be on to something. It is the hardest job on earth, and I don’t think he realized that along with glory comes hard damn work.
A bunch of people are railing about why he didn’t bring up the 47% issue. My take is that if you don’t think romney has a responce (good or bad) ready and raring to go, you are insane. Why on earth would obama bring it up and give romney a chance to a) solidify his base that already agree with him and b) possibility (small chance but still) turn it into a homerun.[/quote]
While I’m sure Romney had a retort ready, I’m still pretty surprised Obama didn’t bring it up. It didn’t play well with voters, and I’d think that makes it a no-brainer for a politician. But it looks like there wasn’t much brain involved in Obama’s prep anyway.[/quote]
As I said last week Obama thinks of himself as already being perfect. Hence, whey would anyone who is already perfect actually need to practice.
Arrogance has a price!
Will he learn from this performance? I’m sure that those around him will push him harder next time in preparations. But, if the next debate is on foreign policy he is still going to have his hands full as the world around him is exploding and he just doesn’t seem to know what to do. [/quote]
I have to say Zeb, you were dead on in predicting this one. I didn’t think Romney would be able to step out of his wooden persona, but he seriously delivered. I’m tempted to believe he might have said to hell with Mormonism and pounded a Red Bull before the debate. [/quote]
Lol! I would seriously have loved to see a camera catch him backstage, can tipped up, surprise looking out of the corner of his eye like a kid with his hand stuck in the cookie jar. I could see RedBull actually using that one on TV commercials too in the drubbing Obama took…sort of a Truman/Dewey paper moment except with the embarrassment factor. Course that means Mitt has to win first.
[quote]Foreign policy will I think be trickier. Unlike economics, it’s far from his strong suit, and in fact in my view he’s said some unbelievably dumb things.
But of course the playing field has tilted against Obama considerably in the last two weeks. It will certainly be interesting.[/quote]
Foreign policy worries me much more than this debate did, because as you said he’s said some unbelievably dumb things. Also, I feel that unlike business and economics, foreign policy is “mushier” or more prone to ideology–in other words, the winner depends mostly on your view of how we should appear…and there are a lot of different answers to that one. Everybody sorta accepts Romney as a guy with economic experience, so they’re more prone to listen to him on that…even if they don’t like to admit it: everybody knows he’s got business chops even if they hate him for being rich. That means that even though they might not admit it, many people will still give him a chance to speak his mind because they know he’s got chops. Not so with foreign policy.
My feeling is that IF, and it’s a pretty decent sized if, Romney can build on the momentum he got from this debate and not let it ebb away in 2 weeks, he has a much better chance at appearing the winner in the second debate: look presidential and confident, speak confidently, hold your own. If the bump he got here proves transient, he’s going to have to hit another homerun in the 2nd arena to appear the winner, which will NOT happen IMHO.[/quote]
If the media would do its job on Libya and Fast N Furious…
Nevermind, no use in dreaming.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
But of course the playing field has tilted against Obama considerably in the last two weeks. It will certainly be interesting.[/quote]
See, I honestly think Obama had to win this one. Because I don’t see any chance for him to come out looking good in a debate heavy on foreign policy. The way his administration handled their responses to recent events has even the mainstream media suggesting political ass-covering. It would appear that this administration hoped the turned down requests for security wouldn’t surface. That the actual nature of this attack could be kicked down the road. Like–oh, I don’t know–after the election!
This upcoming debate is the one Obama needed a win, a buffer, before going into. Think he was off, nervous, defensive, and stammering this time? I predict cringe-worthy meltdown over Libya. And with Univision’s recent reporting on Fast and Furious, I can’t imagine that not coming up. I honestly think their someone might need to arrange a suicide watch over at MSNBC after this next debate…
Edit: Honestly, I mean it…it’ll be cringe-worthy. Ever see someone you vehemently disagree with take such a drubbing you feel pity for them? I was just short of that feeling this time. Seriously, I think it’ll reach that level for the next debate. You almost want to say, “Ok, enough. I get the point, you’re right. Let him go home now to lick his wounds.” Libya and Fast Furious are going to shutdown any game he might find between now and that debate. He needed this win. He was supposed to have this win. There is outright panic in the halls of liberaldom right now, with the nature of the debate coming up. I repeat, Obama needed a point on the scoreboard to get him through the swamp he’s going to walk into during the following debate. [/quote]
LOL at suicide watch for MSNBC. I can only imagine…
I don’t agree with you though. I think that Romney is much weaker on foreign policy than the economy and that Obama’s handlers will push his prep at least in the “damage control” department. It would be fantastic to see a total meltdown, but I don’t think it happens. Not that Romney CAN’T hit him hard, because the tools are lying all over the arena and Romney is prepping hard, but I see foreign policy as a topic Mitt is much more likely to stumble on.
Quick thoughts:
Romney knows how to debate, and he knows how to win. He may not win, but he knows how to.
This debate should put to rest the idea that Obama is the greatest speaker/orator/debater since [fill in the blank: Lincoln, Cicero, Demosthenes, Churchill]. He’s not. He’s never been. He’s no slouch at giving a speech, and he is a bright guy. But he’s nothing special. It’s always been a projection of what his sycophantic supporters so desperately want him to be. But he doesn’t exhibit the mental dexterity of a Bill Clinton or the wry and timely wit of a Ronald Reagan. Off-teleprompter, he is - graing on a curve because of the position he is in - below-average.
Obama actually got to talk around 4 more minutes than Romney. And still lost.
Obama appeared to try and score points by saying Romney isn’t very detailed in his policy prescriptions - given that Obama won in 2008 on glittering generalities and was one of the vaguest candidates in memory on policy, this seems an odd attack.
Obama has thin-skin, and it showed. He is peevish, and yet can be intimidated (not the sense of violence, but in the sense of being overwhelmed by a bigger personality), and can be made to appear small. And the media bubble he has existed in has insulated him from becoming tougher and ready for someone who can throw a punch. No wonder Pelosi hit the mute button.
Obama will do better next time. But the next debate is foreign policy, and like Jewbacca said, events there are making it very hard for him to explain how great he has been.
Romney was very impressive - command of the facts, command of the subject, sounding leader-ly, but appearing affable and personable - even finding common ground with the president. That will travel well with moderates and independents.
I thought Romney would perform better than advertised, but I was shocked at the outcome.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I honestly didn’t understand why Obama had his eyes glued to the floor for half the debate. Really weird.[/quote]
raj:
I don’t agree with all the “nobody-to-prop-him-up” or “he never had to work” stuff that’s been posted here.
I honestly think something was wrong with the President. Physically? Mentally? Both?
Only he knows; but something just wasn’t right…and he paid for it with good ‘ole Fashioned Chicago Pistol Whippin’…
Mufasa
Hahaha. I wish Beans, I wish.
I pretty much agree with Zeb regarding the foreign policy debate requirements for Romney, and I 100% agree I personally would rather BE Romney heading into it. But, I think that criteria only holds if he keeps building momentum from this point on. As I said, I think that if he allows the bump he gets here to dissipate, he needs a resounding win again…and I don’t see lightning striking twice.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I honestly didn’t understand why Obama had his eyes glued to the floor for half the debate. Really weird.[/quote]
raj:
I don’t agree with all the “nobody-to-prop-him-up” or “he never had to work” stuff that’s been posted here.
I honestly think something was wrong with the President. Physically? Mentally? Both?
Only he knows; but something just wasn’t right…and he paid for it with good ‘ole Fashioned Chicago Pistol Whippin’…
Mufasa[/quote]
100% Agree.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t recall Romney with any major foreign policy gaffes. Refresh my memory please.
[/quote]
I was thinking of the blithe appraisal of the Israel-Palestine conflict as unsolvable from the fundraiser video, the Russia is our greatest geopolitical enemy comment, the promise to brand China currency-manipulator, etc. Minor things like the gaffe-riddled visit to the UK and Israel, though I don’t personally believe they matter at all.
None of it is in and of itself terribly damning, but in the right hands things like these are serious weapons in a debate. Particularly the China-bashing. I don’t think many people see it as a big deal, but relations between Washington and Beijing are FAR more important than anything happening in the Middle East and every expert opinion I’ve read has cautioned against that kind of empty threat (empty because it accomplishes basically nothing).
Re: Obama’s pros and cons, it would take me a long time to lay out my position on his foreign policy. The short version would be that there are some serious strengths and some serious weaknesses, the freshest of which falls in the latter category. I do believe he has a much better chance of winning a debate in that arena.