2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Chris Matthews is having a complete meltdown on national television. Tomato-red face and everything.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Listening to the debate, the President doesn't sound as good of a debater as he did in 2008. He sounds to be not nearly as well rehearsed as he did against Sen. McCain.

IMHO that is not rehearsal but the difference between a challenger being able to stick to theory and an incumbent having to defend the particulars of a record. The only incumbent I have ever heard able to do both things at once was Clinton (but he's a freak).

Romney needed to come out strong and he did -- he was great for about 30 minutes, and Obama's "optics" (body language etc) were poor. But Romney was hollow on the deficit and he went down hill after that.

They both had really weird head movement. Obama looked like he had just stepped in something, and Romney had a manic budgie thing going on. Maybe it was just because they were in closeup, but they both kinda creeped me out.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Chris Matthews is having a complete meltdown on national television. Tomato-red face and everything.

Thanks for the tip.

Why do the networks cover the spin room? It's so dumb.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

best comment I've read tonight:

Hope Obama has a big dinner planned, because Romney just ate his lunch

LOL

Chris Mathews was a close second: "What was Romney doing? Winning"

 

[aparch]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Just checking into the thread to say this:

Romney is a moron for wanting to cut PBS. I didn't know 0.012% of the national budget was such a financial drain.

 

[Pirateasaurus]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

IMHO that is not rehearsal but the difference between a challenger being able to stick to theory and an incumbent having to defend the particulars of a record. The only incumbent I have ever heard able to do both things at once was Clinton (but he's a freak).

This is what i was thinking. Romney can rattle off all of his plans and act like he has all the answers but he has no idea exactly how any of them will work on a national level. Obama has been there and back and probably realizes that this will never be so simple or efficient.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I thought Obama laid a major egg tonight. Horrible "performance."

It surprised me that the president's campaign admitted as much. Last time, he was all about oratory style. Now he's trying to run on his record, probably not advisable right now.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

My opinion of who "won" this debate is filtered through my prejudices. However, judging by the weeping and wailing and keening on MSNBC, Romney mopped the floor with the guy (there should be a law against me enjoying them so much). If the libstains on MSNBC can't work up any enthusiasm for Obama, you know he stunk up the joint. "Tingles" may need hospitalization after this one.

I'm howling at the notion that "mean old Mitt Romney" took over the debate and didn't allow Lehrer to call the shots and "took the fight to Obama." Well, isn't that the general idea?

 

[Foxton]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Well, if that's the standard, which result would be shifted if voter ID laws are enacted? Please be specific, or it apparently doesn't count.

Who said it was the standard? It's the justification for dismissing the need to spend millions of dollars and waste time across the country trying to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.

There are roughly 600 cases of voter fraud going to the courts currently here in MN. There are some 2,000 cases being considered by district attorneys in this state. All of these cases come directly from the 2008 election.

Prior to the recounts during the US Senate vote here in MN, Senator Norm Coleman held a lead over now Senator Al Franken. With each recount, somehow significant quantities of Al Franken votes were found in heavily Democrat voting districts. Interesting.

Oh, and take a guess as to which districts these people have been charged with voter fraud.

And then think about by how many votes the filibuster for Obamacare passed. Voter fraud has had a clear and visible impact on the future of this country.

Ah Franken, didn't he verbally rape some republican idiot? Yup.

http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=98276584

The Ramsey County Attorney's Office said Monday it is investigating about 180 cases out of 500 that were brought forward by Minnesota Majority, which recently completed an 18-month study of state voter and criminal conviction lists. Charges were brought against 28 felons for allegedly voting or registering illegally in 2008. But another 267 reports were found to be "inaccurate" after an initial review, according to Ramsey County Prosecution Division Director Phil Carruthers.

Deputy Hennepin County Attorney Pat Diamond said his office is still looking at 216 allegations flagged by Minnesota Majority, out of 451 that were brought forward by the group. No charges have been brought as a result of the report, though a handful of other individuals have been charged with fraudulent voting.

Both prosecutors said they are using several extra investigators to look at the rest of the reports.

According to a report released two weeks ago by Minnesota Majority, 1,359 names of suspected ineligible felons were forwarded to these two counties for investigation.

But local and state officials say the group's reports are likely inflated and hard to verify because of difficulties determining whether the suspected felon voters had their voting rights restored, if they knew they were ineligible to vote, or if they were actually the people whose names appear on voter rolls.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

This is what i was thinking. Romney can rattle off all of his plans and act like he has all the answers but he has no idea exactly how any of them will work on a national level. Obama has been there and back and probably realizes that this will never be so simple or efficient.

You and I may know that, but do the casual voters who tuned in and saw one candidate seem confident and another who kept stuttering and looking at his shoes?

If I knew nothing else about this race and tuned in tonight, perception might lean towards Mittens.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

LOL, now Biden is up to bat!?!

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

You and I may know that, but do the casual voters who tuned in and saw one candidate seem confident and another who kept stuttering and looking at his shoes?

If I knew nothing else about this race and tuned in tonight, perception might lean towards Mittens.

If you watched it in a bar with the sound off you would think Romney won, absolutely.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

LOL, now Biden is up to bat!?!

Everybody will be expecting him to sit on a whoopee cushion.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

If you watched it in a bar with the sound off you would think Romney won, absolutely.

Again, it doesn't matter whether we can go in and dissect the comments and figure out a technical winner. Too many won't ever hear those results.

IMO, Obama looked like an amateur and was on his heels all night.

 

[state of hockey]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

If there is a debate to lose, it is this one. Big whoop.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Romney needed to come out strong and he did -- he was great for about 30 minutes, and Obama's "optics" (body language etc) were poor. But Romney was hollow on the deficit and he went down hill after that.

After stumbling on his responses to the deficit question, I thought Romney's closing statement was remarkably succinct and driven home, regardless of truth. He came off as the most 'honest' he has in all of the past 18 months.

 

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

People are getting way to hyped up over this in the post debate analysis. A decent debate with a lot of long winded talking points but I'm watching CNN and they're acting like its Kennedy-Nixon. Geesh, I thought they both stuck to the script, no annoying sighs, eye rolling or zingers and really nothing new. Obama needs to cut to the quick better and Romney needs to hope his plans do actually have the specifics he's alluded to. Beyond that if the standard was Romney not making a fool of himself on stage I personally wasn't expecting that to happen.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Romney's biggest gaffe came when he equated Obama's last four years to one of his sons trying to cover up a fight or some other incident. Basically implying he's just a stupid little kid lying his way out of a mess. That's not going to sit well for sure.

Obama still sounded too professorial at times. He's playing too much defense.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Again, it doesn't matter whether we can go in and dissect the comments and figure out a technical winner. Too many won't ever hear those results.

IMO, Obama looked like an amateur and was on his heels all night.

Plus, most of us don't watch these things. We rely instead on the media to give us a sense of who "won" or "lost." The stories on the morning news shows and to a lesser extent tomorrow's front pages will decide how millions of Americans will view the outcome. Little things mean a lot in debates: Bush I looking at his watch, Gore sighing and invading Bush II's space (I still wish he would have kneed him).

Truly, these events are a poor way of selecting out leader. Presidents don't make key decisions on a stage, in front of a live audience. They do so in the privacy of the Oval (or the cabinet room), with all sorts of advisors offering viewpoints. And any president worth his salt delays any decision on anything as long as he can. Keeps his options open as long as he can.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Romney's biggest gaffe came when he equated Obama's last four years to one of his sons trying to cover up a fight or some other incident. Basically implying he's just a stupid little kid lying his way out of a mess. That's not going to sit well for sure.

Obama still sounded too professorial at times. He's playing too much defense.

Sitting on a lead? Never a good idea. Didn't work for Houston against Jim Valvano and NC State, won't work here.