CNN Poll: Most watchers say Romney debate winner According to a CNN/ORC International survey conducted right after the debate, 67% of debate watchers questioned said that the Republican nominee won the faceoff, with one in four saying that President Barack Obama was victorious. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/03/cnn-poll-romney-wins-debate-by-big-margin/
I seem to be the only person in the country who thought Romney didn't score a big win. Interesting. As I saw it, the only participant who actually did well was Jim Lehrer, the silent moderator. We hate it when the refs become the story in a football game or the umps in baseball. Same deal with debates. So often the mods make it about themselves and trying to show how clever they can be. Not this guy. He did accomplish the one job any member of the mainstream media is expected to do. He protected Obama. This was supposed to be a debate about the economy. Instead, we had long discussions of Romney's tax plan( the numbers don't add up)and his medicare plan (scary if you didn't already now medicare will go bust in a few years) and Obamacare(Romney made some good points but I've already forgotten them). What we didn't get was a discussion of how this is the worst economy in anyone's memory. Romney had one simple task to accomplish. He had to make the election a referendum on Obama's handling of the economy. I don't think he did it. He needed to come out with facts and figures on job losses, nonexistent growth, exploding debt, and why bailouts are bad policy. He should have excoriated obama for his class warfare rhetoric. Instead, the debate really centered on Romney's tax plan, whch won't be enacted even if he is elected. It's also Obama's sweet spot because it emphasizes the tax cuts for the rich class warfare angle. Obama had a somewhat more difficult set of tasks. First, he had to defend his sorry economic record, which became easier since it was not really ever discussed. Second, and more important, he had to convince voters that Romney was not an acceptable alternative to him. This is a time-honored political strategy used by pols with a lot of baggage. LBJ used it to devastating effect against Barry Goldwater in 1964. Nixon used it against McGovern in 1972. Bush 41 used it against Mike Dukakis. But Goldwater had made intemperate statements, so had McGovern, and Dukakis had let a vicious monster named Willie horton out on a prison furlough and Horton went on an horrific crime spree. Romney of course tortured the family dog and killed that guy's wife, but otherwise, has a pretty clean record. He didn't look like much of a monster last night. Obama had a very uphill battle to convince people that Romney was unqualified or crazy or off the rails. He tried but didn't really make the sale. So to me, both candidates failed to accomplish their objectives. Romney was certainly presidential, but that was hardly a susrprise. I thought Obama was pretty good on the tax and medicare stuff. I guess no one else does.
Your definately right on one point, while most people think Romney won the debate, he didnt put the hatchet in Obama's back, he didnt bury him, he needs to get that killer instinct and go for the throat next time when he is clearly winning.
Romney is not that way, it's just that simple. He is not the one who will go for the throat because he doesn't take those kinds of risks - and aggressive attacks are risky. He would prefer to be solidly cautious in his manner on offense. I thought he did a good job, as did the moderator, in respecting the Office of the President.
Who were those guys last night? Romney looked very good, Obama looked really tired. To all my Rep pals, you win this one for sure.
He is going to have to do it at some point, his only shot at winning is if he absolutely undresses Obama at some point.
I think he did so well because we was being who he really is, a moderate. A Moderate Mitt will easily defeat Obama if he can make his latest rendition of himself stick. It is not likely that this will happen tho.
Not sure I agree, my friend. A few more solid debates like this and he's in. Think about it. Who is going to change their mind if he solidly "undresses" Obama like you suggest? The people who want to see blood already despise Obama. The independents on the sideline have stated repeatedly in polls that they do not want disrespect, just solid points made. Romney did just that. If he gets aggressive, he risks alienating them on that. Anyone who is still undecided at this point can be swayed, obviously. But most of the country is decided and there is little that will sway the vast majority of them. To the Obama haters, you could put an aardvark (someone said this - apologies I cannot remember who) on stage and they'll vote in the aardvark. To the Obama lovers, Obama can do no wrong. Obama could get up there and say "You know what? I'll admit it, I was born in Kenya, a student of Marx and the chosen one to destroy the country" and these folks would still support him. Two mass extremes like that don't swing no matter what. There is a few percentage points out there of people, and that is the cautious go get.
AAA, you know we all highly respect your opinions but I'm wondering if you didn't hit play on a rerun of an Obama-McCain debate. I think what gave Romney the win was that Obama was just repeating his talking points. I didn't hear anything that wasn't previously said by Obama. But, Romney had an answer for everything Obama said and tossed out supporting numbers. And, he answered many of the attacks (and lies) that the Obama ads have been promoting. Obama kept just going back to the same lines. I don't know how many times Obama said Romney was giving a $5 trillion tax break to the rich and Romney explained that he was wrong. Then Obama sites a study and Romney sites rebutting studies. I just saw Romney as much more in command of the facts, the data and even knew Obama's policy better than he did. And, Romney seemed more presidential. Anyway, that's my take.
Pardon me for saying so, but I would abstain from making predictions on what you think Romney will do - your record isn't all that hot thus far. That's NOT intended to be an insult, just an observation. I don't profess to know what he will do. I just know that what he DID was right this time around. I read an interesting comment on a liberal blog today, made by a conservative there responding. The Liberal said "Mitt came out and presented opinions much different than what he has been running on, flip flopping again and it worked." The conservative replied "I have been following Mitt very closely now for 8 months. These have been his positions since before the primary. The only difference is that you, a liberal, have been getting his positions from the Liberal Media instead of from the horse's mouth. Now, Romney had a chance to get EVERYONE in a room and say "here is what I am for." And some of you guys think that the inconsistency lies with Mitt, when in reality you have been spoon fed lies for the last 8 months, and you're now shocked when you see that.