Yes, Romney played a really strong politician. A politician is suppossed to be loose on the anwsers to not be pinned to any speciifc stance.
Kind of like fortune tellers saying things about you/your past/future. They tell you a very vague generic thing that can be matched by 90%+ of people out there, because the human mind can fill in the blanks of it best correlates to them.
I think the Romney strategy worked well - keep trying to say that certain issues should be decided by the states, and avoid as many real answers as possible; just attack what's happened over the past 4 years, often using dubious figures. On the issue of government regulations - rather than saying what I believe he wants - fewer regulations, he basically said "regulations are good. Some need to be eliminated, we need some new ones, and some are outdated." No shit, Romney. Now, answer the question.
Do you think Obama has never been in a nationally televised debate before? Is that what you are saying here?Not in front of 60+ million people, I'm perfectly aware of how he stumbles off-message but this was the first time a lot of people who normally get their Obama fully filtered saw it for themselves.
Yeah, and it's funny how in the "liberal biased media," even MSN, literally every single pundit I saw, and I listened to many across different channels, declared Romney the winner. Yet in 2008, when the general public thought Obama won his debates with McCain, Fox News pundits said McCain won it. That should tell us something right there about who is biased.
Let them gloat for now. Their candidate did well last night.
Except that fox news didn't admit 1+1=2 in 2008, now did they?You can be bias and still ackowledge that 1+1=2. The fact that they admitted the obvious doesn't make them any less bias.
Except that fox news didn't admit 1+1=2 in 2008, now did they?
Biases aside, given how the debates went last night, do you really doubt what I said?
Romney did one very important thing last night; he managed to PRESENT himself as being a lot more Presidential than the President.
Presentation is key folks.. In times of difficulty, people look to men with alpha male qualities, rather than those that appear weak and confused as Obama did that night.
I disagree that Romney presented as presidential. I think he came off as the better politician, but he didn't show any signs of being a statesman.
He won the debate, but I don't think he presented himself as a credible candidate for POTUS. Specifics and conviction would have helped him in this regard.
You said:Never said they were any better. Comparing two types of apples doesn't make one an orange.
We are speaking about magnitude. Two apples are still both apples even if one is rotten. That deosn't automatically mean both are rotten. You are fighting against clearly documented trends at this point. Not sure why you can't admit that the right tends to let their bias cloud their judgment in a much more significant amount.You can be bias and still ackowledge that 1+1=2. The fact that they admitted the obvious doesn't make them any less bias.
I disagree that Romney presented as presidential. I think he came off as the better politician, but he didn't show any signs of being a statesman.
He won the debate, but I don't think he presented himself as a credible candidate for POTUS. Specifics and conviction would have helped him in this regard.
I have a feeling the polls will say otherwise. Hopefully not permanent damage, but even if Obama kills it with the foreign policy debate, most Americans really don't give two shits about foreign policy at this point in time other than maybe ending the wars, but even that is second fiddle to the economy.I think he won the debate as well, he was more polished was more streamlined. Issue is did the content of what he said resonate with anyone not already voting for him?
I dont think either Mitt or Obama won or lost anyone because of the debate.
The reason fox said McCain back then was because it was pretty close.
This wasn't even close, it was one of the most historic debate beatdowns in history. It was historic.
I didn't watch it because both guys are backed by the same corporations and will continue on the same path.
People getting too involved in my team vs your team debates really need to re-evaluate everything they think they know.
your obama lost because his ideas and policies don't cut it. When Jim Leher tried to throw the obama a life line the romney hog tied Leher with his own rope. The Democrat party would have been better off with the empty chair.
I have a feeling the polls will say otherwise. Hopefully not permanent damage, but even if Obama kills it with the foreign policy debate, most Americans really don't give two shits about foreign policy at this point in time other than maybe ending the wars, but even that is second fiddle to the economy.
You said:
We are speaking about magnitude. Two apples are still both apples even if one is rotten. That deosn't automatically mean both are rotten. You are fighting against clearly documented trends at this point. Not sure why you can't admit that the right tends to let their bias cloud their judgment in a much more significant amount.
I agree I think Mitt will see a poll bump for sure, but I suspect as the %47 video comments wore off he would have seen that anyway.
My overall takeaway was that America is fucked, this is the best we can do, these two clowns.
Yeah, and it's funny how in the "liberal biased media," even MSN, literally every single pundit I saw, and I listened to many across different channels, declared Romney the winner. Yet in 2008, when the general public thought Obama won his debates with McCain, Fox News pundits said McCain won it. That should tell us something right there about who is biased.
Let them gloat for now. Their candidate did well last night.
Ba, ba, banksters! Occupy will rise again!