First Debate is Not a Game Changer.

[wellendowed1911]

Now while all the GOP are beating their chest over Romney's performance here's an interesting article I am quoting from a person by the name of Susan Estrich:

Walter Mondale won his first debate against Ronald Reagan in 1984.
John Kerry won his first debate against George W. Bush.
Mitt Romney won his first debate against Barack Obama.



When you win you get lots of congratulations. When you lose, you get lots of advice. President Obama, I am certain is getting lots of advice. The expectations for Romney will be higher in the next debate. Obama will be more passionate, more assertive and more engaged.



I totally agree with her assumption- Mondale and Kerry were both in similar positions as Romney- Mondale had the advantage to attack Reagan on the economy(UE was still high, inflation etc). Kerry had the advantage of attacking Bush on the economy and the very unpopular Iraq war- but we see the results of those 2 elections.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Now while all the GOP are beating their chest over Romney's performance here's an interesting article I am quoting from a person by the name of Susan Estrich:

Walter Mondale won his first debate against Ronald Reagan in 1984.
John Kerry won his first debate against George W. Bush.
Mitt Romney won his first debate against Barack Obama.



When you win you get lots of congratulations. When you lose, you get lots of advice. President Obama, I am certain is getting lots of advice. The expectations for Romney will be higher in the next debate. Obama will be more passionate, more assertive and more engaged.



I totally agree with her assumption- Mondale and Kerry were both in similar positions as Romney- Mondale had the advantage to attack Reagan on the economy(UE was still high, inflation etc). Kerry had the advantage of attacking Bush on the economy and the very unpopular Iraq war- but we see the results of those 2 elections.

Pssst, WE! Don't look now but the polls indicate the debate was a "game changer".

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Now while all the GOP are beating their chest over Romney's performance here's an interesting article I am quoting from a person by the name of Susan Estrich:

Walter Mondale won his first debate against Ronald Reagan in 1984.
John Kerry won his first debate against George W. Bush.
Mitt Romney won his first debate against Barack Obama.



When you win you get lots of congratulations. When you lose, you get lots of advice. President Obama, I am certain is getting lots of advice. The expectations for Romney will be higher in the next debate. Obama will be more passionate, more assertive and more engage


I totally agree with her assumption- Mondale and Kerry were both in similar positions as Romney- Mondale had the advantage to attack Reagan on the economy(UE was still high, inflation etc). Kerry had the advantage of attacking Bush on the economy and the very unpopular Iraq war- but we see the results of those 2 elections.

Obama is an empty suit. His poor debate performance wasn't a fluke; it was simply the best he could do. There's a reason Obama is completely reliant on a teleprompter; without it, he's nothing.

[LovingKayla]

Of course the first debate is not a game changer.


But the next 2 that cream him across the floor will be. America is finally seeing what a complete idiot this guy is. It's awesome.


Lemme ask you something guys. How many folks have you personally signed up to vote? PERSONALLY. Or do you just come to the mud pit and eat whatever new sludge nipples posts, and attempt to insult men far your better?

Me? I get 246 sign ups alone. All real folks. Can I tell them how to vote? Of course not, but I know how they will. We've been working for years to take this guy out of power. The race is almost won. You will fail... but you don't have too. Cut loose of a marxist. My God what are you thinking? This is American and I'll be damned if let this guy have one more second in washington. We dont hate other Americans, but we will never bow to the likes of Obama and his marxist ways. Not ever.


The really bad part for you far lefties is the fact, we come to the battleground with honor and you come throwing small animals and rubbing shit on everything. (yes you do, look it up.)

we don't have to agree but anyone still supporting this jackass is either so blind, to be beyond help, or complicit. If you are complicit, then you are no American.


PS. Certain posters like WTF, Nipples, Timpage, etc, I am not talking to you. You may, of course, respond, but I'm uninterested in what you have to say. I usually skim through whatever you write anyway because I can't find the ignore button. I sure wish you'd put me on ignore. When you read in here it's like throwing a ribeye to a dog who swallows it in one gulp. He never tastes the awesomeness by actually chewing it. So drop off your insults and be gone. And for goodness sake, come up with some better insults. It's like you guys have never been taught how to argue or insult someone. It's embarrassing for you.

[Whirlaway]

Romney just needs to keep talking about Obama's failed policies; Obama's only fallback position is "I need 4 more years."

[TheDaliLama]

Obama lost because of his record.

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Obama lost because of his record.

Keep telling yourself that.

I can't wait to see what you blowhards say after the second debate.

[Yssup Rider]

and Obama needs to call Bullshit on Romneys fantasyland policies.

[LovingKayla]

Originally Posted by markroxny

I can't wait to see what you blowhards say after the second debate.

OH God I know RIGHT!!. Nipples, I have some special lettuce for you that day. Poor bunny hasn't had his juice this morning.


BTW I am saving the screen shot of what you just said. But lemme guess... When Obama loses, you all will just do the standard "we shouldn't be looking behind, (because we had our asses handed to us) we should be looking forward.... the next time Romney Rocks the house with you.

But being a fair person, if Obama's aide in his ear can somehow beat romney, (because Obama can not do it alone.) I will post a we lost thread. (did you all see the news when his staff asked if he could have a teleprompter during the debate? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA





Just because Romney is going to win does not mean he gets a free meal ticket from the Right. His feet will be held IN the fire. I bet he wins by more than 5 points.

[I B Hankering]

.

[Whirlaway]

Got that right ! Romney isn't a conservative; but with the right pressure from the public, key Senators, and the TP dominated House, he can be forced to govern as one.

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

...........

Just because Romney is going to win does not mean he gets a free meal ticket from the Right. His feet will be held IN the fire. I bet he wins by more than 5 points.

[ChoomCzar]

.

[ChoomCzar]

Media's Obama Narrative Collides with Reality

By Rosslyn Smith


It's been a week since a 90-minute debate shifted the narrative of the 2012 election. I had been trying to think if there was a comparable example of when a live television event had had such a profound effect upon what had been a widely accepted truth. When I read Toby Harnden's report of how Obama stepped off of the Denver stage believing he had won, it dawned on me.
According to Harden:

In an extraordinary insight into the events leading up to the 90 minute showdown which changed the face of the election, a Democrat close to the Obama campaign today reveals that the President also did not take his debate preparation seriously, ignored the advice of senior aides and ignored one-liners that had been prepared to wound Romney.
The Democrat said that Obama's inner circle was dismayed at the 'disaster' and that he believed the central problem was that the President was so disdainful of Romney that he didn't believe he needed to engage with him.

Had I witnessed such an equally profound and erroneous disdain before? Yes, in the American media's obsession with the strength of Saddam Hussein's army in 1990 and their utter disdain for the competence and integrity of the American military, particularly its senior command structure. In his post-combat press briefing, General H. Norman Schwarzkopf singlehandedly demolished a decades-old media and Hollywood narrative that senior military commanders were uniformly knuckle-dragging dolts and martinets. Ever since that briefing, the American media has tended to be respectful of the intelligence of members of our military -- not because their antipathy has necessarily lessened, but because they realized that their audience would no longer accept their characterization.
Last Wednesday can be seen as the moment when two of the narratives currently beloved by the American media gave way to reality. The first narrative was that Barack Obama is a man of exceptional intelligence and political skill. Obama is an entirely mediocre politician whose only exceptional skill has been the ability to make gullible liberals feel virtuous by finding him to be such an outstanding fellow. The second narrative was that successful businesspeople are uniformly greedy and cruel misers with narrow interests, pedestrian minds, suspect motives and limited leadership skills -- unless, of course, they support the progressive agenda, at which time they all become wise visionaries.
The facts had always suggested something quite different abut Romney. His charity and civic-mindedness are well-known to all who look at him without blinders. Over his very successful career as a consultant, Mitt Romney was often faced with situations in which he had to marshal facts to convince clients that short-term sacrifices would pay off with long-term gains. As a venture capitalist, he probably also had to squelch a great many fools in order to turn companies around, for it is close to axiomatic that leaders of failing companies have overestimated their own management and leadership skills while antagonizing talented underlings. The shrinks even have a fancy phrase for it: the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[F]or a given skill, incompetent people will:

1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill

The interesting thing about Dunning-Kruger is that the research suggests that recognition of one's own incompetence does not necessarily lead to measurable improvement in skill. Clueless or self-aware, the idiot often tends to remain an idiot.
When you consider all the incompetent executives that Romney helped ushered out of the way for the good of the enterprise during his career, is it at all surprising that he completely had his way with Obama?
I suspect at this point that the real question is whether the media itself can learn. In 1991 they quickly abandoned a narrative of hapless military leadership after millions had witnessed General Schwarzkopf's briefing. Will last week's narrative-busting debate cause a similar revision? Will the media finally see Obama as a pedestrian politician of undersized skills and Mitt Romney as an exceptional problem-solver?
Or are the media so in love with their own narrative that it is now close to impossible for reality to intrude?
As I read some of the more hysterical reactions, I suspect that the media itself has a profound Dunning-Kruger effect problem of its own. It is sad to think the best we can expect is that a few members will become aware of how hapless they sound, even as they continue to deliver the same old Obama-praising claptrap disguised as news.

[ChoomCzar]

Why Obama Will Lose All Three Debates

By Monty Pelerin


President Obama had a terrible debate last week. Supporters and opponents were shocked that he could be so off his game. They shouldn't have been. That they were indicates that they don't understand Obama's serious, likely insurmountable re-election problem.
Obama supporters and detractors expect the old Obama to show better form in the next debate. But that is not going to happen! It cannot, because Obama's critical problem is not correctable.
Obama's Real Problem
The media seemed more surprised by Obama's performance than Romney's. It was Romney who was the surprise and exposed Obama's Achilles heel. Daniel Henninger observed (my emphasis added):

... no one expected or predicted that Barack Obama could be so pushed off his game or look so flustered in a contest of articulating ideas.

Obama's problem, to put it politely, is his looseness with facts. He is the quintessential "sound-bite" president. Truth for him is whatever he chooses it to be, whatever is necessary to turn things in his favor. His self-aggrandizement and arrogance, coupled with a hero-worshiping media, has enabled him to such an extent that it is possible that he no longer believes there is truth other than what he wants it to be. That is his problem, and it has been reinforced for most of his life.
Obama created his own fantasy bubble. He began by inventing history in two so-called autobiographies. Challenging anything in his self-created Alice in Wonderland world brought automatic charges of racism and other attacks from his defenders. After years of living in his bubble, one wonders whether Mr. Obama even knows objectivity or truth. This psychopathology was reinforced by admirers to the extent that Obama has made it a key tool in his political arsenal.
Until last week, it barely mattered. No one called him on it. Then Mr. Romney jumped into Obama's bubble, bursting it in front of millions of viewers. Obama was run over by a blizzard of facts, few of which he even tried to counter. Romney's buzzsaw approach was respectful but relentless. All Obama could offer were empty campaign slogans and other platitudes.
Slogans and false claims may work with Kool Aid imbibers. Non-worshipers, however, are capable of differentiating between hard data and BS. The head-to-head conversation between these two candidates was not filtered through the media. It was devastating for Mr. Obama.
Opinions and judgments were changed and formed during this debate. Obama was not a beneficiary of this flux. For viewers with any objectivity, in order to believe Obama, you had to resort to a variant of Groucho Marx's sensory question: "Do you believe what you just heard or what the media is telling you?"
The debate was a debacle for the president. He was reduced to the empty chair used as a prop by Clint Eastwood. His body language and his style can be improved, but not his facts. Reality is what it is and not what he claims or wants it to be. Obama is unable to stand up to a principled, respectful, prepared opponent wielding facts and truth. Romney's courage and performance were impressive, but they could not have been successful without the truth on his side.
Truth may be suppressed for a while, but it ultimately breaks out. Two former presidents observed its importance in the role of governance:

A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -John F. Kennedy

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts. -Abraham Lincoln

John McCain was correct regarding President Obama being better-prepared for the next debate. He will have improved energy and cosmetics. These improvements will matter little. The next debate will be just as devastating.
Imagery no longer cuts it for Obama. He needs to improve his facts, but they speak for themselves, and Romney will make sure they do. The facts are devastating to Obama. He cannot distort them when someone confronts him. Mr. Romney lives by facts -- a practice necessary to be successful in business. He will come to the next debate with at least as many as he exhibited in the last one. If he brings the temperament of a golden retriever and the instincts of a pit bull, Obama may not show up for the third debate.
To understand how hopeless President Obama's case is, one need only understand economic conditions. Romney does, and he has the skills to communicate these issues. Obama cannot deal with the facts, as they all go against him. That is his problem, and it is insurmountable so long as Romney counters his false claims.
DirectorBlue puts Obama's problem into perspective with a devastating comment and chart:

As Investors Business Daily puts it, President Obama's case for reelection rests on five economic claims, every single one of which is false. Every. Single. One.

So long as Romney sticks with these basic facts, Obama is helpless. The next debate is "town hall style." It may provide a bit more protection for the Liar-in-Chief, depending upon the ground rules. That remains to be seen.
In a one-on-one conversation, Obama is toast! Even with a teleprompter, the facts destroy him.

[Whirlaway]

And he will lose the election because of it.

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Obama lost because of his record.