It is monday morning (here in California anyway) and we have two days before the
debate. I am already stocking up on beer, chips, dips and buffalo wings for the debate.
I am taking a shot every time Romney lies, so I expect to be lit up within 20 minutes of
the start of the debate. It strikes me as a good time to take stock before
the debate as to where we are right now.
The presidency: It is Obama’s to lose right now. I really don’t see how Obama loses outside of
him making a really, really, really monumentally epic mistake. The type history writes about
200 years later, type of mistake and I just don’t see it right now.
The Senate: ahhh, here is where it is getting interesting. The GOP has starting moving money from
the presidential campaign to the Senate campaigns which suggest they have already given up on Romney.
Even here it is looking bleak for the GOP as they don’t look very good. Several sites such as 538 have
suggested that the Demo’s will hold the senate and maybe pick up a seat or two. That comes from
in part to Willard having such a terrible campaign, he is hurting the GOP enough to influence the senate
races.
The house: here information is tough to get. No one is really talking about the house makeup after
the election. Off hand, I would say that the GOP might retain control because so few house races are
actually in contention because of gerrymandering. But I personally think that the demo’s might pick up enough
seats to make the house pretty dam close to 50-50, this is good news. I don’t think the Romney effect (downward)
will affect the house as much as the senate races.
The supreme court: I think one maybe two justices retire soon giving Obama another couple of
appointments. The next opening will create a donnybrook in Washington because the GOP realize
how much is at stake if they give up that seat and so it will turn very ugly.
Overall, I don’t think the overall tone changes in Washington given how much money
flows into that place. Buying politicians seems to be the wave of the future. Just like
if you don’t have your own talk show, you are a loser, if you don’t own your own politician
then you are a loser. BTW, I am a loser on both counts.
after watching the debate, I believe Obama got his clock cleaned by Romney.
It was not pretty. James carville said it best: Romney looked like he wanted to be
at the debate and Obama didn’t. Obama looked like he wanted to be any where else in the universe
but there and he gave terrible answers to some pretty straightforward questions.
I am practicing saying President Romney, president Romney, President Romney and it sounds
worse every single time I say it. Bad night, really bad night for America.
I watched it, too, on CNN, and a little bit of the commentary that followed.
Romney looked good and was on his game. In one sense, the winner of the debate is the guy that end up seeing an increase in popularity as a result of his “performance”. In another sense, the winner is the one whose facts and arguments best hold up to scrutiny. On CNN, at least, the commentators fired off some information pertinent to both crafting favorable impressions AND crafting accurate/strong arguments, but their presentation made no distinction between the two - as if popularity and argument strength were two sides of the same coin, as if charisma on stage were really almost the same kind of thing as a strong argument. It seems pretty clear that Romney’s going to take a small (we’ll see how large a boost he actually gets) win in the first sense, and that’s mostly what everyone has been talking about so far. But who wins in the second sense? The fact checkers have already started flashing “FALSE”-s and “TRUE”-s, which can be helpful (as long as the fact checkers themselves are accurate), but whose policies and supporting arguments will work best for the country and its citizens in general, in the long term? I mean that’s the real issue here, but it’s drowned out by a storm of posture and personality analysis. All this commentary and technology integrated media… What a waste of resources.
Did you guys actually listen to Romney or just stare and be effected by mannerisms of his? I ask because of the utter lack of substance to everything he said.
is it substance that wins you a debate on television? no, not by itself. even if your arguments are extremely sound and have substance if they lack the right expression, and your performance as a whole falls short of the right emotional impact, you don’t really win.
Maybe Obama was just nodding at everything Romney said because he’ll be glad when he gets to resign. It’s probably the worst shit shoveling job in the universe right now.
No, there’s much more to it than that. He also said stuff louder, and moved his arms around more.
I wouldn’t say he looked scared. He looked tired and came across as under-prepared. Almost as if he had something else important that he had to do instead of several hundred hours of practice. Hmmmm, I wonder, what could Obama possibly have to do that might be important?
I wouldn't say he looked scared. He looked tired and came across as under-prepared. Almost as if he had something else important that he had to do instead of several hundred hours of practice. Hmmmm, I wonder, what could Obama possibly have to do that might be important?
Probably apologize to muslims. Or hide under tables avoiding Israel. Or just reading more about his hero Neville chamberlain. So many options.
Sorry to confuse you, ‘darklordabc’. When I replied to your earlier post, it was only because you expressed a view that was popular in the media which I felt it was worth arguing against.
You seem to have mistaken my response for me being snagged on your troll fishing line and are now wasting your time trying to bait me further. Good try, but a fail I’m afraid.
#malarkey is trending on twitter, and Biden schooled the wizzkid Reep on the facts that matter. It reminds me of Joe Friday: Just the facts, maam. See:
call the police. I am watching an old man beat a young kid up on TV.
yep, that just about covers it.
The problem with ryan is the exact same problem with Romney, nothing specific.
Basically a trust me, I know what I am doing
kinda of campaign without a single, solid look it up solution.
The american people want and need specifics and romney won’t give it.
That’s because there’s nothing the government can do. You are voting in this election for the candidate who won’t do certain things in the name of dealing with the collapse. Or at least says he won’t.
It’s not really much different elsewhere, in Western Europe there’s very little optimism about any political candidate, movement, party. You think Romney’s bad (and he is), you should see Ed Miliband. He’s like a pigeon on PCP.
