posted
You think the current poll showing is mainly due to the conventions, Senoj? It seems to me as much if not more due to various statements Romney himself has made, or been shown to have made (apologies, embassy attack, 47%, Chinese factories, etc.). We'll see to what extent the Obama campaign can keep that negative momentum going.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] You think the current poll showing is mainly due to the conventions, Senoj?
The polls were starting to ratchet/stabilize midway between the libya incident and the 47% video. Then, after then, it's just been grimmer and grimmer.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] You think the current poll showing is mainly due to the conventions, Senoj?
The polls were starting to ratchet/stabilize midway between the libya incident and the 47% video. Then, after then, it's just been grimmer and grimmer.
I don't much see it. Maybe if I squint, I can see a leveling off prior to 47%, but I think a simpler explanation is that the conventions changed something, possibly permanently, in the race and we're seeing the persistent effects of that. That said, there's no real way to disentangle any of these effects; Andrew Gelman and John Sides (both of whom I view as top notch quantitative political scientists) have estimated the impact of Romney's 47% comments at about 1%, but to some degree it's simply an unanswerable question about what it is that has increased Democratic enthusiasm.
What I think has been established (although I could be wrong about this, and if someone shows me contrary evidence I'll retract) is that the movement in the polls hasn't been due to 'conversion' in the sense that people who previously were leaning toward Romney are now leaning toward Obama. Instead, it's due to an increase in the number of Democrats or Democratic leaners who'd always favored Obama, but who now say they are definitely voting in November. In other words, the consensus likely voter model for the 2012 election has shifted from looking like 2010 to something more like 2008.
<edit>The Pollster estimate shows a more pronounced flattening out post-convention, followed by about a 1% movement post "47%". At least for the moment; I've found that their poll fusion algorithm has a frustrating lack of temporal consistency.</edit>
posted
I know three people who, as a direct result of Romney's 47% statements, are voting for third party candidates. I think there's definitely been fallout for him, taking form mostly as people splitting the vote.
[edited to add] They were solid Romney supporters beforehand. I forgot to mention that. Also, I'm not entirely sure of this post's relevance to the conversation. So, I'm going to leave it, and back quietly away, and hope that if I accidentally derailed something, people will just ignore me. XD
[edited again to add] I'm never posting drunk again. I had to delete another post because I quoted instead of edited. Lesson learned.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Barack Obama wants you to know that he’s a really not so great as a debater.
As part of his week-long effort to lower expectations ahead of Wednesday’s first Obama-Romney debate in Denver – an obligatory ritual even the campaigns find tiresome – the president informed a crowd of 11,200 here Sunday night not to expect too much.
“Governor Romney is a good debater. I’m just okay,” said Obama, who is not known for his humility in competitive activities ranging from golf to cards to elections.
posted
You left out the most important piece of the article!
quote:Obama will spend the next two days in seclusion at a lakefront hotel in nearby Henderson, Nev., prepping for the showdown with advisers David Axelrod, Anita Dunn and Ron Klain, along with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who is playing Romney in mock-ups.
I find that irrationally hilarious. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, I wonder if they gave him briefing/training notes with tips on how to be more like Mitt Romney. That would make for amusing reading.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not surprising. Romney is trying to lower expectations to make it so the act of breathing correctly is considered a victory and Obama is trying to keep them on the same level.
This is all inside baseball. It's all about controlling the press so they'll call a certain kind of performance a stunning upset or a smashing victory or stunning defeat. It all depends on the perception of victory going on. None of this matters for the purposes of actual people.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I wonder how much of that is from Palin holding her own against Biden being considered a big victory because everyone thought she'd be crushed.
I'm not really sure why else they'd be playing this game.
Well, to be fair, as Lyrhawn points out, expectations were kept dismally low. And in fact, at least according to multiple (sometimes unsourced) accounts of the preparations for the event, Palin had simply had a list prepared of probable topics and memorized her answers- then all she had to do was some very simple interplay where she appeared to be considering Biden's points and reacting to them. It was clear, from where I sat, that everything she said during that debate had been scripted.
Which process isn't really that different from the way that Obama will prepare, except that Obama is actually capable of responding to some of the things that Romney will say in an intelligent way. You notice, if I recall correctly, Palin never actually directly addressed anything that Biden said during the debate with any degree of critical thought. It was less a debate then the recitation of pre-prepared comments.
In a way the really horrifying part of that whole fiasco was how easy it was for Palin to fake the whole thing. And how willing, in the end, the advisors were to let her do it. That they arrived at such a decision speaks to how deeply unprepared they were for the whole campaign.
It was also a losing battle for Biden from the beginning. He's an expert in foreign policy, and it was ridiculous that he would even have to debate someone who appeared to have a high school level understanding of geo-politics (generously). He was going to look like a bully or a cad, and if he didn't, he would appear to be condescending.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the Palin-Biden debate was less a debate and more a joint press conference.
Most debates usually hew more toward that format than an actual, you know, debate. But I thought, despite received criticism, that 2008 was actually a small step in the right direction.
Moderators were allowed to push past the canned 90 responses and 60 second rebuttals to a free wheeling discussion of the issue where they could ask directed questions to bring up salient points and force the candidates into confronting certain issues. Sometimes the candidates pivoted to their stump speeches, sometimes they answered off the cuff. The town hall debate was probably best of all for getting them to engage each other.
So I have high hopes that this won't be another press conference, but I could be wrong. Romney is given to terse, brief responses wrapped in platitudes and policy statements. Obama tends towards longer professorial answers. We'll see how those styles clash and whether the moderator can wheedle any specifics out of either of them.
I'm just hoping they finally confront each other with the blatant lies they've both been telling about each other.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm almost positive Romney's coaches (not that he listens to them), are trying desperately to hammer out any possibility of him speaking off the cuff in any way. He's so unsubtle about doing this, he even admits that he isn't being direct and won't answer particular questions at all.
Plus, and this is just my personal opinion, Romney's major liability is not knowing or particularly caring what people's problems actually are. It makes him deeply unappealing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read that Romney is practicing attack zingers to hurl at Obama to try to get him off message and to break his infamous calm demeanor.
But I think it's far more likely that Obama gets Romney to say something damaging. Romney simply has too difficult a balancing act between sating the far Right and showing he cares about the middle class and underprivileged. Simply put, he's found it incredibly difficult in the past to do both without getting into trouble.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think it might help if he actually cared. I don't go in for a lot of the crap about a lot of Republicans not caring. But Romney? I actually think he doesn't care.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When you're drunk you post political commentary?
I don't think you're doing it right.
This seems sound... But then I consider how much more entertaining both the RNC and the DNC would've been had each of the speakers had six shots of something before-hand. And your argument is lost in the sheer awesome of that hypothetical.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've read that Romney is practicing attack zingers to hurl at Obama to try to get him off message and to break his infamous calm demeanor.
But I think it's far more likely that Obama gets Romney to say something damaging. Romney simply has too difficult a balancing act between sating the far Right and showing he cares about the middle class and underprivileged. Simply put, he's found it incredibly difficult in the past to do both without getting into trouble.
I'm honestly expecting Romney to take on the press, he format, and the moderators - it worked for Newt, and hey, he has nothing else to lose.
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it worked for Newt in a setting filled with attendees at a Republican primary debate. I could be mistaken, but I think it's safe to say that what appeals to that group isn't going to fly as well in a general election crowd...nor do I think an impassioned series of statements is going to play to Romney's strengths.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got a campaign fund request from Romney in the mail last night. His letter says I am one of America's most notable republicans. The man is screwed in November.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
we stay subscribed to pretty much every republican mass mailer. It's loads of entertainment. The push poll 'questionnaires' are seriously the funniest thing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romney really took recent criticism to heart. Here he is spewing all sorts of specific quantitative data in his OPENING REMARKS.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
He might sound better on first impression, but I'm not picking up on any specific ideas. Just vague promises. Obama can dish those out, too.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, I AM hearing a bunch of specifics. But if this is nothing but them directly hitting each other's ideas, Romney has that down pat so far.
Obama's hits are falling flat.
He keeps saying almost the right thing, but not quite. Way too cautious.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish the President didn't look so pissed off. I can understand it; nonsense is fcrustrating. But is doesn't help.
Where does Gov. Romney think the states are going to get all this money to do the things that he wants to leave to the states?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally agree with Lyrhawn. Romney is really smooth compared to Obama. I didnt think it possible, but I find myself agreeing with Romney more. For example, what WAS Obama doing when he kept saying Romney supported 5 trillion dollar tax cuts? Romney must have denied it ten times but Obama would not let it go. So far, my vote is for Romney (for tonight anyway).
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: I totally agree with Lyrhawn. Romney is really smooth compared to Obama. I didnt think it possible, but I find myself agreeing with Romney more. For example, what WAS Obama doing when he kept saying Romney supported 5 trillion dollar tax cuts? Romney must have denied it ten times but Obama would not let it go. So far, my vote is for Romney (for tonight anyway).
This is the problem with highly popular televised debates. They can flat out deny things to each others' faces and it looks really convincing to people at home.
But how many of those people actually do fact checking later?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: For example, what WAS Obama doing when he kept saying Romney supported 5 trillion dollar tax cuts? Romney must have denied it ten times but Obama would not let it go. So far, my vote is for Romney (for tonight anyway).
The impression I got was that he was calling Romney out and saying that his campaign didn't match his debate position.
If that was his position, though, he did a really poor job getting it across. What he actually accomplished was sounding like a broken record.
That said, Romney did the same thing, albeit more smoothly, with his deficit neutral point on tax breaks. I'm glad Obama called him out when he talked about deficit neutral and tax breaks for the middle class in the same point. If you're keeping it neutral, the breaks need to come from an increase.
Then Obama rambled on for another minute or so without getting called out by the moderator, but that's another issue.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering how obstructionist the republicans have come across, Romney's talk of bipartisanship leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
On the controversial issues, I'm not at all convinced that they would have accepted anything Obama brought to the table.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I feel like this is Clinton's DNC speech all over again.
Clinton said everything clearly and understandably. Obama said all the right things, content wise, but the delivery was disjointed and awkward.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's Obama's speaking style. It's stuttery, or as you say, awkward. He makes a point, but he's not a smooth talker like Romney, Reagan or Clinton.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: Considering how obstructionist the republicans have come across, Romney's talk of bipartisanship leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
On the controversial issues, I'm not at all convinced that they would have accepted anything Obama brought to the table.
Blaming Congress is a losing issue. It's not fair, but if he'd tried that, Romney would have said "A leader gets it done."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: That's Obama's speaking style. It's stuttery, or as you say, awkward. He makes a point, but he's not a smooth talker like Romney, Reagan or Clinton.
It wasn't nearly to this degree four years ago.
I think some of what the CNN commentators is saying is true. Obama didn't expect Romney to come out swinging like that, and he was frustrated and annoyed.
And it came out in his performance.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. Normally Obama's speech is syncopated, yes, but tonight it was stumbling and awkward. Romney in sharp contrast, was in rare form. He didn't even need his zingers!
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the zingers he did use were pretty sharp.
Also, his jokes were funny. That's new.
I'll say this: I was wrong. Romney didn't get smoked like I thought he would, mostly because Obama was either unwilling or unable to hammer away at the inconsistencies in his plan.
The next debate will be very interesting. Obama needs to bring his A+ game.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't watched it all yet, but I agree. Some of Romney's biggest problems, he substantially addressed on a political level. He didn't come off as distant and unpardonable and unconcerned as he has many times in the campaign-when he mentioned that people were hurting, I actually believed he meant it as he was saying it, which is more than I could usually have said.
I was surprised and disappointed that Obama permitted him so much of the momentum, too. Romney was figuratively leaning forward throughout. Didn't notice much in the way, again, of actual details in Romney's plans and felt Obama did a poor job highlighting just how problematic Romney's governing philosophy of 'set objectives and limits, and address the means of attaining or avoiding them as they come up, not in the campaign' really is. He had a big opportunity there and blew it, I think.
I was wryly amused to note that Romney's closing statement was almost entirely an appeal of doom if Obama, so pick me, but politically I'm not sure it will matter.
I remain contemptuous of the format we permit ourselves, even as I was as usual proud at least of our *attempt* to require our leaders to stand up and account for themselves to each other and to us.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems to me--and the take I am hearing from many commentators--Romney was dominant in the debate, showing himself to be everything he needs to be: passionate, knowledgeable, with accurate facts readily on hand, able to respond meaningfully, precisely, and forcefully to every point Obama tried to make, correcting Obama's errors effectively. (For example, when Obama claimed businesses were given incentives to relocate overseas, Romney replied that despite all his years in business, he had no idea what Obama was talking about; what Obama said was not the case. Obama had no reply to that.) Obama was stammering a lot, seemed to be looking to the moderator to bail him out several times, and was clearly on defense; while Romney was on offense all the way. Obama without a teleprompter is not a great debater. Romney is. Obama looked down and around a lot, very seldom meeting Romney's eyes; Romney was constantly looking straight at Obama. It was like Obama was being scolded and lectured, and knew it. FNC showed a reaction focus group of about 40 people, more than half of whom said they had been tending toward Obama, that overwhelmingly had decided in favor of Romney as a result of this debate. This same group was said to have responded in favor of the eventual winner in 2008.
It may be that Romney's red tie also made exactly the right psychological statement.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: FNC showed a reaction focus group of about 40 people, more than half of whom said they had been tending toward Obama, that overwhelmingly had decided in favor of Romney as a result of this debate. This same group was said to have responded in favor of the eventual winner in 2008.
Just cut to it already and make your prediction that Romney's going to win, so that you can be wrong again, and we can get on with our lives.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Polls in the coming days will have much to say on the prediction, but should Romney and Obama mimic yesterday's performance again in their next debate, and perhaps if (though they usually don't matter) Biden lets loose with some major gaffes, it would certainly be at the least less unlikely.
Romney has worked hard to look bad these past few weeks, but he's far from a goner indeed.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
