Support NeoGAF

[el retorno]

I just watched the debate on delay. Haven't had a chance to read this thread yet. It was clearly a crushing win for Romney.

After all the shit poligaf has been talking for months about Obama being the 'best debater in a generation' and how Romney was going to get slammed etc... Methinks the following picture is appropriate:

who said this?

 

[speculawyer]

Speaking of, we were promised zingers, weren't we? The Romney campaign said he was going to bring the zingers. I can only think of one time that I actually thought, "hehe, that was a good one!" but I already forgot what the actual zinger was.

Romney started out with a good one . . . he said something along the lines of "Isn't so romantic for you to be spending your wedding anniversary with me".

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Yeah for what it's worth--and there's no telling if it will happen again--Paul Ryan's convention speech went over pretty well until the media looked over it afterward and was like "actually a bunch of this is just flat-out bullshit".

 

[Gotchaye]

See headline @ link below:

http://www.cnn.com/?refresh=1

That's the headline. The talking heads have to go beyond repeating "Romney won the debate".

Media analysis of it is pretty quickly going to get into things like this:

But Romney came off as the more energized candidate overall by repeatedly attacking Obama on red-meat issues for Republicans such as health care reform and higher taxes, while the president began with lengthy explanations and only later focused more on what his opponent was saying.

Yes, it's about Obama losing the debate. But it's simultaneously about taxes, which Obama is way ahead on (also increasingly ahead on health care reform). Obama has an enormous structural advantage in post-game analysis as long as the debate is generally seen as substantive.

 

[isoquant]

who said this?

That quote was from codhand.

The general sentiment though - that Romney was going to flail - was endorsed by most people in this thread.

 

[Captain Pants]

I think I'm done chicken-littleing. I'm going to leave it to the pros. Good night PoliGAF.

 

[Trakdown]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Fact checks are up! Not looking good for Mittens, but then, the fact checkers aren't going to dictate his campaign, so...

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Anyone have experience with Intrade? I know it was talked about on here earlier. Is it legit?

 

[RDreamer]

That quote was from codhand.

The general sentiment though - that Romney was going to flail - was endorsed by most people in this thread.

Nah, most people said he would probably win, since that seems to be the trend that the challenger wins, and the media wants to run with that. Most of us say that Obama is a good debater, sure, and that Romney has bumbled in the past, but we were mostly just saying that to concern trolls.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

That's the headline. The talking heads have to go beyond repeating "Romney won the debate".

Media analysis of it is pretty quickly going to get into things like this:

Yes, it's about Obama losing the debate. But it's simultaneously about taxes, which Obama is way ahead on (also increasingly ahead on health care reform). Obama has an enormous structural advantage in post-game analysis as long as the debate is generally seen as substantive.

It's a TV show and Obama "lost" in front of 50 million.

From what I read, it wasn't close.

Could be a issue for Obama going forward--not saying he'll lose but it could cause some friction.

 

[Cloudy]

I think people are overdoing the "Obama lost" thing just like they did with his convention speech. I feel Team Obama wanted to get through it with no gaffes and they did. Did they play it a bit "too safe"? Probably, considering the fact that the "moderator" let Romney dominate the debate with little follow-up.

I don't see how that debate changes anyone's mind if they really wanted to vote for Obama but it gives Romney a boost and stops the "loser narrative". Obama should have refuted the "cutting medicare" crap but Romney would just deny it over and over again. Not sure how you debate someone who will say anything...

 

[PantherLotus]

yea ok whatever The complete denial of reality here is stunning. Obama looked completely lost, and EVERY poll shows that.

Let me get this straight: you guys believe there is no way Obama loses this election (barring some colossal event/scandal/etc). Debates don't matter, the campaign doesn't matter, nothing matters - Obama is up, and will stay up. He's ahead in swing states, and will remain ahead in swing states.

Obama winning in of itself would be a reversal of previous trends: presidents with bad economies and 8% unemployment usually don't get re-elected. He's currently on the path to proving that trend wrong. Yet you guys cannot acknowledge that we could instead see another reversal of a trend: the candidate ahead at this point almost always wins.

This is the kinda post that people regret when things are said and done.

I dunno, getting Mitt to double down on Medicare vouchers by name seems like, in the long con, a much bigger deal than debate performance.

This was way underplayed. And now Romney's team is already admitting he was lying about his plan covering pre-existing conditions. This is only the first drip of the fallout from tonight. Drip drip.

Steve Schmitt just made a good point. After Kerry defeated Bush in that first debate, Dick Cheney wound up winning the momentum back to republicans by spanking Edwards in the VP debate. Does anyone believe Joe fucking Biden can spank anyone in a debate?

Uh, yes?

Just got back.

Romney may have won himself the presidency with that debate performance. Of course it was vague and unrealistic and full of doublespeak, but the typical American won't see any of that. To the layman, I can't see how that was anything but an absolutely dominant performance by Romney.

I think you might need a night to sleep on this.

As am I, after I play some WoW.

I'm trying to be honest, and figured this type of debate performance would jar some folks; not to make them chicken littles, but to at least be open to the fact that yes, Obama can still lose; he does not have a 100% chance of winning.

My final point is simple: I didn't see any killer instinct tonight. Does anyone believe Hillary Clinton would have sat back and allowed an opponent to throw shots at her like that? She would have defended herself and even if she lost, her supporters could at least defend the performance. Obama looked neutered tonight.

There it is! Holy FUCK man.

 

[giga]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Fact checks are up! Not looking good for Mittens, but then, the fact checkers aren't going to dictate his campaign, so...

I'm sure Obama's team are already making ads from the fact checkers. As I and others have said, everyone thought Paul Ryan's speech was brilliant up until we saw that it was mostly bull.

O ye of little faith.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

That isn't playing to win - its playing not to lose. Romney isn't going to drop any further, so he'll keep coming in swinging and humiliating a sitting president trying to brute force his was to victory. Three of these debates in a row delegitimise a sitting president and his standing no matter which way you slice it.

Eh, it's still playing to win. You maximize your chance of winning by not giving yourself an opportunity to lose. It'd be different if the polls were tied and Romney had a lot of paths to victory, but they're not and he doesn't. If the election were today, Romney would lose. The election isn't today, but the point remains: Can Romney change the polls up enough from the three debates to make that large of a difference? The answer is: Not unless Obama lets him.

 

[metalslimer]

It's a TV show and Obama "lost" in front of 50 million.

From what I read, it wasn't close.

Could be a issue for Obama going forward--not saying he'll lose but it could cause some friction.

You can think someone won a debate while simultaneously disagreeing vehemently with their stance. From the polls their are obvious a lot of heavy Obama supporters who though Romney won.

 

[Allard]

That quote was from codhand.

The general sentiment though - that Romney was going to flail - was endorsed by most people in this thread.

Most of us thought/were hoping Obama was going to actually debate his opponent, he instead used it as a place to talk contrasts in policy platforms and did little to actual counter any of Romneys "points" (Lies) but he also didn't supply any sound bites to use or get exploited. He didn't show up to debate which is why he 'lost' but I don't think what he did is going to bite him in the ass either. In fact depending on how the media goes his approach might even benefit him when a majority of Romney's comments are outed in much the same way Ryan's lies became a story for nearly a week leading into the DNC completely overshadowing just about everything at the RNC had besides Eastwood and a chair.

 

[Effect]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Fact checks are up! Not looking good for Mittens, but then, the fact checkers aren't going to dictate his campaign, so...

This what I hope and expected to happen. As said above as well. You can't talk about Obama losing the debate without talking about why he did and the why is 100% about Romney's lies. Something similar to what happen with Ryan should, I hope, be taking place over the next few days. Starting tomorrow morning.

 

[Mgoblue201]

That isn't playing to win - its playing not to lose. Romney isn't going to drop any further, so he'll keep coming in swinging and humiliating a sitting president trying to brute force his was to victory. Three of these debates in a row delegitimise a sitting president and his standing no matter which way you slice it.

Romney also risks being seen as too aggressive. In order to win, he'll have to improve his favorability. If the CBS snap polls are at all correct, then 56% of uncommitted voters (upon whom the election probably won't depend, since there are fewer undecideds) have changed their view of Romney for the better. That's good but not great, and it could easily subside in the next few weeks, assuming that the poll is accurate in the first place. The aggressiveness is most likely a function of trying to change the narrative of the race after a sustained period of dismal polls. I don't think he would've been so aggressive if he was within a point of Obama, because attacking a president who is generally well-liked by the majority of Americans can come across as bad form, especially if the attack is sustained for a length of time. I didn't see anything in the debate that suggests Romney is relying on his former strategy of attempting to paint Obama as a good guy who was simply in over his head, which might have worked if Romney's campaign hadn't been so incompetent in the past few weeks.

With that said, the narrative that emerges after the debate will matter greatly. Romney's performance could be seen as a Pyrrhic victory if he is perceived to have achieved it by lying or misrepresenting the facts.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think people are overdoing the "Obama lost" thing just like they did with his convention speech. I feel Team Obama wanted to get through it with no gaffes and they did. Did they play it a bit "too safe"? Probably, considering the fact that the "moderator" let Romney dominate the debate with little follow-up.

I don't see how that debate changes anyone's mind if they really wanted to vote for Obama. He should have refuted the "cutting medicare" crap but Romney would just deny it over and over again.

Ever since Obama became president, he's certainly taken on a less aggressive approach.

I wouldn't be surprised if he let Biden go off on Ryan while maintaining the "I don't really care about this" for his next two.

 

[pigeon]

That quote was from codhand.

The general sentiment though - that Romney was going to flail - was endorsed by most people in this thread.

It really wasn't.

 

[PantherLotus]

Look, I know people are freaking out. It's only time to freak out if you don't know math and can't read a map, and don't understand the cost of the following:

1. Romney lying about basically every established position he's taken
2. Actually using the words VOUCHER on tape
3. snubbing the right wing of his party.

Wait 'til you see what happens when the Tea Party realizes what he's done to them.

 

[Fenderputty]

I thought Romney did better than I expected he was going to. Mostly because I think Obama let him get away with verbal diarrhea though. I'm curious to see if fact checking has any effect on the general perception of the outcome. No, I don't think this was some homerun at all for Romney. I do think the polls will swing a little his way though.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Look, I know people are freaking out. It's only time to freak out if you don't know math and can't read a map.

No one is freaking out.

The press wants a closer race and this narrative will give them that.

 

[reilo]

Look, I know people are freaking out. It's only time to freak out if you don't know math and can't read a map.

Didn't you hear? Romney is going to flip Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Florida.

 

[Souldriver]

It really wasn't.

My general impression is that a majority of gaf indeed agreed that Obama would dominate Romney in the debate(s). Some were more convinced of that than others, but the general sentiment was there.

 

[kaching]

Romney started out with a good one . . . he said something along the lines of "Isn't so romantic for you to be spending your wedding anniversary with me".

That one was good, and actually his most humanizing moment. But I was thinking of another mid-debate, that apparently wasn't all that memorable after all, because I still can't remember it.

 

[PantherLotus]

More!

Look, I know people are freaking out. It's only time to freak out if you don't know math and can't read a map, and don't understand the cost of the following:

1. Romney lying about basically every established position he's taken
2. Actually using the words VOUCHER on tape
3. snubbing the right wing of his party.

Wait 'til you see what happens when the Tea Party realizes what he's done to them.

 

[Trakdown]

This what I hope and expected to happen. As said above as well well. You can't talk about Obama losing the debate without talking about why he did and the why is 100% about Romney's lies. Something similar to what happen with Ryan should, I hope, be taking place over the next few days. Starting tomorrow morning.

Well, and winning the debate doesn't matter; it has to lead to something. I know it's been a week or so, and that's basically a whole epoch on the internet, but I think people aren't remembering how horrible Romney's September was, and the fact that due to the flip-flopping (some of which happened in the debate tonight), they basically don't have a platform that's really solid. Every time it looks like they might, they have to reset, and tonight's debate performance was more of Mitt saying "This guy sucks" than "I have a better plan" and really getting into the meat of it. This also is part of Obama's campaign team's strategy; give the other guy enough rope to hang himself.

 

[el retorno]

I know I've said this before (a few times) but goddamn at Obama killing with women in CNN's undecided voter chart thing. This is why I'm not worried.

 

[Fenderputty]

Didn't you hear? Romney is going to flip Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Florida.

Basically this. I felt like Obama played it safe because of this though.

 

[richiek]

That isn't playing to win - its playing not to lose. Romney isn't going to drop any further, so he'll keep coming in swinging and humiliating a sitting president trying to brute force his was to victory. Three of these debates in a row delegitimise a sitting president and his standing no matter which way you slice it.

This needs to be reposted:

 

[jiggle]

somewhat related, or not
what's going on with gas prices?
it jumped from around $4.15/gal to like $4.55/gal in like 2 days (san jose)
is this happening everywhere?
even when the refinery exploded here a couple months back, it didn't go up this fast

 

[Thequietone]

Too much panic in this thread. You need to stop taking PD's drugs, the known side effects include panic, dizziness, talking in circles, and doom and gloom syndrome.

 

[Allard]

Basically this. I felt like Obama played it safe because of this though.

He did the same thing in 2008 debates even during the primaries. One of Obama's greatest strengths is his consistency on policy and letting people know exactly what they are getting. Its why the other party has gone to great lengths to attempt to distort it. They certainly succeeded in making him a 'boogie-man' with their base but have done very little to persuade others.

 

[Fenderputty]

More!

Look, I know people are freaking out. It's only time to freak out if you don't know math and can't read a map, and don't understand the cost of the following:

1. Romney lying about basically every established position he's taken
2. Actually using the words VOUCHER on tape
3. snubbing the right wing of his party.

Wait 'til you see what happens when the Tea Party realizes what he's done to them.

They'll vote for him regardless because he's not Obama though won't they?

 

[RDreamer]

More!

Look, I know people are freaking out. It's only time to freak out if you don't know math and can't read a map, and don't understand the cost of the following:

1. Romney lying about basically every established position he's taken
2. Actually using the words VOUCHER on tape
3. snubbing the right wing of his party.

Wait 'til you see what happens when the Tea Party realizes what he's done to them.

The right wing of his party is going to shut up about almost anything from now on. Mark my words. They're not going to be criticizing him on this stuff from this point.

 

[eBay Huckster]

This needs to be reposted:

I'm actually a bit infuriated that the only person to address this image in the past six hours has been troll-mode PD.

 

[GhaleonEB]

somewhat related, or not
what's going on with gas prices?
it jumped from around $4.15/gal to like $4.55/gal in like 2 days (san jose)
is this happening everywhere?
even when the refinery exploded here a couple months back, it didn't go up this fast

Not sure, but it's dropping nationally.

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=12

 

[Forever]

The right wing of his party is going to shut up about almost anything from now on. Mark my words. They're not going to be criticizing him on this stuff from this point.

Yeah they want the black man out of the White House and they're ultimately willing to tolerate just about anything to get that done.

 

[RDreamer]

What's on Mitt's schedule for tomorrow? Obama's going to Madison and probably going to do a nice speech on all this. That might catch some news.

 

[watershed]

Obama slept through that debate and its gonna cost him over the next few weeks till the next debate. He Looked tired and his points were unorganized. Even in the few moments where he criticized Romney without trying to be nuanced, he still fumbled the delivery.

The media were all ready to declare a Romney victory began but in this case no narrative is necessary; he won hands down.

 

[Gotchaye]

I'm actually a bit infuriated that the only person to address this image in the past six hours has been troll-mode PD.

I'm already on record as not being very worried, but the chart is at least somewhat misleading (now) in that we're not now interested in how likely it is that an upcoming debate will cause a massive swing, but in how likely it is that a debate that is perceived to have been a huge win for Romney will cause a massive swing.

Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you which debates were perceived shortly afterwards as having been very lopsided.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I'm already on record as not being very worried, but the chart is at least somewhat misleading (now) in that we're not now interested in how likely it is that an upcoming debate will cause a massive swing, but in how likely it is that a debate that is perceived to have been a huge win for Romney will cause a massive swing.

Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you which debates were perceived shortly afterwards as having been very lopsided.

First ones in 2000 and 2004, third one in 2008

 

[thefit]

Wow, I just realized fact checking has become a thing.

 

[pigeon]

I'm already on record as not being very worried, but the chart is at least somewhat misleading (now) in that we're not now interested in how likely it is that an upcoming debate will cause a massive swing, but in how likely it is that a debate that is perceived to have been a huge win for Romney will cause a massive swing.

Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you which debates were perceived shortly afterwards as having been very lopsided.

Technically doesn't matter. All we have to do is identify the largest swings in polls due to a single debate -- whether or not those were the ones considered to be huge wins, those are the worst-case scenarios to consider. The worst such bumps are about two points. That would throw Florida and Virginia into clear tossup mode, and lose North Carolina, but Ohio would still be untouchable.

 

[PantherLotus]

They'll vote for him regardless because he's not Obama though won't they?

The right wing of his party is going to shut up about almost anything from now on. Mark my words. They're not going to be criticizing him on this stuff from this point.

Yeah they want the black man out of the White House and they're ultimately willing to tolerate just about anything to get that done.

Here's the deal -- Romney's in a corner with this crowd, and I don't buy that they'll back him no matter what. I do buy "enthusiasm" which might reduce margins of loss, thought.

His real problem is that he has to go on the record during these debates either saying that he's for the DREAM act, which going by tonight's performance art he probably will; or he needs to say that he hates mexicans like he usually does.

This was always the cost of following Clinton's advised strategy of attempting to pin him down as too conservative rather than as a flip-flopper with no core. The Romney counter-attack appears to be fuck it, we'll flip-flop if you'll let us. I think Clinton is still right, and I think flipping like he did tonight is just another nail in the coffin of his terrible, terrible campaign.

Read: nothing changed. People are flipping out because this was literally the first time Romney won a single day since April. Enthusiasm gains will be negated for exactly this reason.

 

[Puddles]

Obama dropped 79 cents today on Intrade. He's at 6.61 now.

 

[markatisu]

Seeing some new Obama Facebook and web ads, starting to think he did not really give a shit about winning and was mining Romney for enough stupid to run more ads lol

Would not be shocked to see ads over the next few days surface with things Romney said

 

[XenodudeX]

Obama dropped 79 cents today on Intrade. He's at 6.61 now.

Oh noes!

79 cents? That's like, almost a dollar right there!

 

[pigeon]

Obama dropped 79 cents today on Intrade. He's at 6.61 now.

I know I was the one to post about this earlier, but now that the heat of the moment has died down it's worth remembering that Intrade has always been bearish on Obama because financial speculators as a demographic skew heavily Republican. So it shouldn't really be surprising that at the first sign of weakness profit-taking ensued.