Both sides are downplaying their chances of having a great debate. Romney and his people are talking about how Obama has been here before and is a great and seasoned debater. Obama is talking about how Romney really won his parties nomination via debates and that Romney has been spending a ton of time mock-debating. Personally, I think both will perform pretty well, but I certainly am not expecting any knock out blows. Both sides have some flaws that could be attacked, but with all the nastiness already bantered about, it will be hard for either side to pull out a clear win. More likely, those on the right will think Romney won, those on the left will think Obama won, and those in the middle will think everyone lost.
I think Obama can't win, but he will be declared the winner by acclaim by the media. Seriously. His record is indefensible. Personal attacks against Romney can't win an actual debate, though they can (and have) shape public opinion. Romney should throw him a curveball by asking, "are you better off now than you were 3 years ago?" Note I wrote 3 on purpose. Obama has a stock answer for 4 years ago that is weak but again acclaimed by the media as sufficient. If I were him, I'd ask "is some video of me speaking and taken out of context really more important an issue than your foreign policy crumbling to pieces before our very eyes?" We'll see.
nice post. I dont think that there is anything that obummer could do or say to change the minds of his followers or the main stream press. He has that Jim Jones thing going on..
Wow, just goes to show perspective is everything. I see the Romney supporters as blind and unwilling to listen to reason. Those who still support Romney after all the flip flopping and lack of compass Romney has shown are so filled with Obama-hate that nothing could ever affect their support. And even though I am an Obama supporter, I do not blindly support everything he has done or said. If I were Romney, I would talk about the Afghanistan surge being a failure. Most, even on the left, are unhappy with this. If I were Obama, I would talk about his accomplishments and future plans, and stay away from digging on Romney too much. Romney will have to attack, but if Obama can manage to stay away from turning negative he will look more presidential. Whereas, as Denny pointed out in another thread, simply by being on stage with the president Romney will appear presidential.
Hmm, I dont think that even the most hard core R (self included) is blind, just very pissed at the stuff obummer has done and very tired of the press giving him a free pass. Look back at how the press ass fucked any R for anything the 8 years before. any small thing and they were all over Bush. In hind sight, a lot of you guys are going to regret votes spent on this guy.
Obama's accomplished an 8%+ unemployment rate, grew the debt bigger than GDP for the first time since WW II, added more debt in his first 3 years than Bush did in 8 years (and he was spendy!), about 5 million homes have been foreclosed on during his watch, etc. I don't think he wants to brag about his "accomplishments." These are things Romney can put the president on the defensive with and for which no answer is truly acceptable. Think about it.
Also note, I don't call Obama names. He's the president and, in fact, MY president. He seems like a very smart and good man with a beautiful wife and kids. I'm happy he's made $millions and can live a great life and provide for them. My gripes are solely with the socialist attitude and programs a lack of leadership on the really big issues (even ObamaCare he was on the sidelines while Pelosi and Reid wrote the bill and negotiated the bribes for votes to pass it). I think he's been adversarial with the capitalistic forces that make us a rich and prosperous nation. And I think he's spent an awful lot of money with the claim it would provide certain results and those results not met but in fact the situation made longer and worse. I happen to be a fan of Clinton and his presidency, and I had hoped that the 2010 election might be a 2x4 across the head of the guy who's been stubborn as a mule. If it had woke him up, we might be experiencing the kind of recovery we did under Clinton and republican congress.
Although overall, there is a slight left bent to the media, I don't think the news for the most part gives the left a pass while fucking the right. I think the news gives both sides too much of a pass not because of leaning left, but because being probative into almost any political subject repulses viewership. Just look at how the media was not willing to fully criticize how the Bush presidency lied to the public to attack Iraq. The media wants sound bites and short easy to digest stories. There are more probative media, but those almost always have more of a political leaning to them. As far as saying the right wingers are blind, that missed my point. What I was trying to highlight was that perspective matters. Those on the right see those on the left incorrectly, just those on the left often view those on the right incorrectly. I have legitimate and well thought out reasons for supporting Obama, even if I do not agree with him on everything. And I assume you have reasons for supporting Romney. Difference is, I'm right and you're wrong. (At least in my mind).
FWIW, I don't support Romney. I'll be voting for this guy: http://www.examiner.com/article/gary-johnson-reaches-double-digits-ohio
Both sides will say their guy did great, and the other guy did horrible. Both sides will claim they 'won' the debate, but the right will say the "media" claimed Obama won because they're in his back pocket (and Fox news will say Romney won). Both sides will make gaffes, misstatements and have some water cooler moments/memorable comments. And in the end, the love you give is equal to the...wait, I mean in the end it won't matter for shit.
If you have a preconceived notion about who is going to win and already believe what you want to believe about the other candidate (i.e., he's "lead the country" in the wrong direction or will just "continue Bush style economics" if elected, then no, you don't need to watch).
The only people who need to watch are the ones that won't watch - the uninterested, uninformed voters. barfo
To be honest, Romney has no shot of getting me to vote for him, however, Obama does risk losing my vote.
It's funny because it's true: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/28/the-medias-top-10-post-debate-story-lines/
But really though? When has Romney ever been a good debater? If Rick perry can make you look stupid while pounding you for hiring illegals to cut your lawn, Obama will wipe the floor with you. Romney has never been good at debating: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it." ~ Mitt Romney (saying whatever he can to be president) [video=youtube;a9IJUkYUbvI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI[/video]
