Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 5 of 62 pages
This is what happens when you rush a kid up from Double-A. He might give you a hot couple weeks, but he'll be exposed eventually.
Rough night for Barry O.
Demeaning nicknames are not a convincing argument, whether they're "Barry" or "Dubya."
How is "Barry" demeaning? Obama went by that name for the first 35 years of his life.
I'd score it maybe a a close Romney win, but he didn't run up the score and Obama didn't make any mistakes.
I think that maybe it stops Romney's slide, but I'm just not seeing where it's anything beyond a blip.
I thought Obama did a really good job of lowering his expectations for the next debate.
Romney 70 Obama 30 seems a little high, but 60/40 too low. Call it 65/35.
That's your idea of "objective" analysis? Romney wiped the floor with Obama, and even the MSNBC types are admitting it. As for the "Romney slide," the polls had already tightened by 2-3 points this week.
PBS gets $445M in federal funding. Huge savings there. Huge.
I'd say first impression - 70-30, but seriously - if there's even the slightest press question about things like disavowing the tax plan that Romney has been trumpeting for 2 years, it drops to 60-40 or even 50-50.
I feel like I'm stuck at the ####### bar without a drink watching my accountant debate my lawyer.
350. SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:19 PM (#4253219)
Weird visuals. Don't know who's "lying" more, but so far Romney's wiping the floor with Obama.
351. Lassus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:20 PM (#4253221)
I just turned it on and SBB's opinion is not really what I'd want to place a bet on. Anyone else?
352. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:23 PM (#4253224)
Romney wiped the floor with Obama in the first 15 minutes.
(And now Obama is all but begging Lehrer to switch topics. Turns out the economy is a sore subject. Who knew?)
353. Lassus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:24 PM (#4253225)
Ah, well, I'm convinced now.
When it's not worth the trouble to take a serious look at whether you can afford to spend $445M on a non-essential program that has other funding sources, you find yourself running up trillion dollar deficits pretty quickly. Everything is either too small or too big to cut - or to even hold the line on - to hear some tell it.
Mitt Romney’s operating system has clearly been updated to ass kicker mode. He drew out Barack Obama’s thin skin and petulant side. He wouldn’t look at Romney. He stumbled. He took more time than Romney because he stumbled over his uh’s and um’s.
The professor got beat by the Governor. Where the heck did that come from?! James Carville says Romney looked like he wanted to be there and Obama did not want to be there. Yep.
Yes, 20 minutes in, I was shocked that partisan certainty had set in. Please note I admitted I was wrong an entire 20 minutes later, something I know you have a hard time spotting.
We're really in deep doodoo as a country when a Democrat is crowing about having cut education programs.
CBS News Poll of uncommitted voters shows 46% pick Mitt Romney as debate winner. 22% say it was Pres Obama. 32% call it a tie.
Poll shows 56% of uncommitted voters say their opinion of Romney has changed for the better. 13% say that about the President.
— Mark Knoller @markknoller
This was a more decisive win for Romney than Reagan had over Carter.
Is there any possibility that that legislature was poised to enact something fundamentally different - single payer, perhaps - and that the plan that gets Romney's name was the conservative option of two possibilities?
I think the "winner" depends on the post-debate coverage, per the research. I think it's likely that Romney comes out with a win, but it's not worth a whole lot to win a debate.
You know, I remember Kerry having a real decisive win in his first debate against Bush. And in the next debates ... well, you remember. Boring draws.
Yes, it was "decided" that politicians would use more of other people's money to bribe potential voters.
I remember in the 2008 debates Obama being smooth, confident, and articulate (albeit without really saying anything). Either he didn't prepare or Romney throws him off his game somehow.
Another factor: McCain was horrible in the 2008 debates. Boring and took no chances, didn't try to land any real blows, until possibly the third debate. Tonight, in contrast, Romney took some shots, and he looked far more confident and in control, and when he says things like "I've been in business 25 years, I have no idea what you are talking about on this deductions issue" he makes Obama look like the community organizer he was.
Of course, Obama has never been great without the teleprompter.
. Certainly Obamacare wasn't going to boost the economy, so Romney was right that Obama fiddled around with pet leftist agendas rather than actually trying to help the economy.
It's so "leftist" that it's a Republican idea,
And the teleprompter thing...seriously, every President since they were invented uses it. Bush used one. So did Reagan. So did Clinton. I'd rather my President spend his valuable time formulating policy and making policy decisions rather than painstakingly memorizing some speech we all know he probably didn't write anyway just so nobody on talk radio can ridicule him for using a teleprompter.
I appreciated that Obama at least reference the fact that health care expenses increased at the slowest rate in 50 years under "Obamacare," a term he has apparently embraced now.
it was presented by Republicans as an alternative to an even worse idea (single-payer).
But the teleprompter issue goes to the heart of the matter:
If Obama really is the smartest guy in the room, and he really has a strong knowledge of the major issues facing the U.S. economy, he should be able to articulate forceful points and rebuttals without needing to read them off a teleprompter. Instead, he stammered and stumbled and filibustered like a kid who didn't do the assigned reading. It was an embarrassing performance.
Nah, not unless you think style is the "heart of the matter."
Tonight might be a big deal, or it might end up being nothing, but it was a strange debate. I've been watching presidential debates since the '80s, and I can't recall someone looking either as uninterested or unprepared as Obama appeared tonight.
"Yes, it was "decided" that politicians would use more of other people's money to bribe potential voters."
Places in this country where poverty is high and most of the population is non-white generally have abysmally low voter turnout. So if this is the real goal of liberals/Democrats/whatever...it doesn't work very well.
I was serious earlier: if anyone can point me to the 18 education programs Obama cut in his first term, I'd be grateful.
Ah, but, if you administer the bribes through public programs, you can force those public employees to join and fund organizations loyal to the Democrats. So you win voters AND you get to publicly fund your party's political campaigns.
Where the heck did that come from?!
As for "Romney's slide," the polls had already tightened by 2-3 points this week.
Yes, but one of the talking heads said that Kerry gained 9 points in the polls between that first debate and Election Day.
No, I value substance much more than style, but Obama failed at both.
Kerry crushes Bush in the first one.
Gore beats Bush in the first one.
Perot destroys Clinton and Bush in the first one.
Dukakis beats Bush in the first one.
Mondale beats Reagan in the first one.
Did they have Mitt choose the data sample for CNN?
This is a PDF, btw.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, it looks like the CNN Snap Poll Panel was made up all of over 50, white southerners. Very strange.
Well, minorities are almost all decided in favor of Obama. If you were to ask me your classic undecided voter, I imagine a middle aged rural white person (i.e., illiterate hick).
Romney played the game the way he should have been playing since July. Pivot glibly and shamelessly. That's professionalism right there, and exactly why his campaign seemed so sloppy and unprofessional up to this point, though they may have been constrained by party dynamics.
Calling for the refs is unprofessional, a loser's game, and the Obama people surely won't stick with that.
They have to come back swinging. If they do, they can make the debate hurt Romney by forcing him to explain the gaps between what he said and what he said the week before. But it's up to them to do that. Right now the debate is obviously a plus for Romney. How big? How long-lasting? Who knows?
What Obama needs to do is not call Romney a liar but force him to keep walking his positions. So Romneycare was great? Does he recommend every state pass it? Will he look at the TV and say Kentucky should pass Romneycare? If Romneycare is great, then what should a president do if some states can't or won't pass something similar? Just let those people suffer? He needs to walk Romney into his own traps.
But I give Romney credit. They faced the McCain dilemma--we're in a position where we don't see a good avenue to win. Instead of 1) hoping things would turn as he had been or 2) throwing a wild bomb like McCain, he pivoted. Now it's up to Obama's team to figure out how to counterpunch.
So the D side has a terribly ineffective "bribery scheme" and the awesome power of unions on its side. How can they possibly lose?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 3.6414 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed