jamiethekiller wrote:he's always been labeled a pussy and this is what we should have expected.

not sure if policy wins debates or just being the aggressor does.

You don't have to be the aggressor not to come off as sullen or tired. No vivavciousness to his performance at all last night.

Almost nothing on social issues or foreign policy, two areas where while not nearly as important as the economy to most voters, are areas where I believe Obama has an advantage, and that might change the post-debate narrative.

Romney did move decisively towards the center. I'm of several minds about this--is this the real Romney? Who can tell--he's a flip flopper.
Or, he's always been a pragmatist--look at his record as governor of Massachusetts. Or, he's been reading the polls, and most Americans don't want more tax cuts for the wealthy.

Foreign policy debate yet to come.

I think that was the real Romney, which is why he looked so much more comfortable. Obama's problem is he too confrontation-averse, not only in a debate, but also in governing. Unlike FDR, he doesn't love a good fight.

yeah, i ended up really confused with romney last night. seemed really contradictory with who i thought he was

thats bc he took policy stances that he wasnt taking three days ago.

"I'm an old campaigner, and I love a good fight."

"Judge me by the enemies I have made."

"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred."

~ FDR

drsmooth wrote:next you'll be calling for a parade to celebrate the 81-81 season

I think last night was a pretty big deal. Romney desperately needed something that would change the way people see the race, and he got it in a big way.

One of my good friends works for a cog in the VRWC, and he's saying this morning everyone in the office has a big hop in their step - after weeks of feeling mostly doom. A college roommate is a top staffer in a key state out West for the Democrats, and he was so fucking angry last night at Obama, going on and on about how he could've slammed the door, but instead it's a wide open race again. I dunno. I think stuff like that, plus how the media is going to cover the race for the next bit, can end up mattering a lot.

dajafi wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:I find myself angry at Obama. I'm sure this will fade. But that was #$!&@ and he's better than that.

Completely agree. He let a lot of people down last night.

Meh, he "let down" people who are going to vote for him anyway.

I really don't get the hysteria over these debates. Unless something absolutely epic happens, they have virtually no impact. Undecideds aren't undecided b/c they're following everything and can't make up their mind... they're undecided b/c they don't pay attention unless something is getting pounded into their heads. Those people were not watching last night, and the only thing they'll hear about is the FB or Twitter chatter.

The real question is: Did any of the conservative base hear anything last night that would've fired them up and stemmed any of the apathy problem? No social agenda, and the consensus is that Mitt moved to the middle. So who knows.

Obama could have essentially ended it last night, but he let Romney back in the game (just another reason to hate the "prevent" defense). How much does a debate matter? How many voters can be swung in the last 5 weeks of an election in such a partisan environment? Even if votes are changed, will it matter for Electoral College purposes? Can Romney keep Obama on the defensive? Will Obama be able to make expedient, flip-flopper hay out of Romney's new, more moderate stances?

My guess is that if the polls don't show a significant move toward Romney in the swing states (especially Ohio and Florida), it didn't matter. If they do, then game on.

No ones knows, but it should be fascinating to watch.

Honestly, I think that as long as Obama isn't awful (which he wasn't) and doesn't give any soundbites, it's a win for him. I mean, people are essentially excited because Romney showed something other than being a robot. Big deal.

On a related note, I just spent four days in Cleveland. I thought we had a lot of campaign ads here in Richmond. Holy shit, it was non-stop. There was an abortion one that I hadn't seen before (but apparently had been running in places like Missouri since late August) that blew my freaking mind. Here it is:

"There is something else you may not know.." CUTS TO SUPER CLOSE UP OF BUG EYED FACE.

CalvinBall wrote:"There is something else you may not know.." CUTS TO SUPER CLOSE UP OF BUG EYED FACE.

Seriously. If you think seeing it on your computer monitor is bad, I had a 46-inch flatscreen in my hotel room, and I was like three feet from the screen the first time I saw it. I think I had a mild stroke.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:The real question is: Did any of the conservative base hear anything last night that would've fired them up and stemmed any of the apathy problem? No social agenda, and the consensus is that Mitt moved to the middle. So who knows.

The base is over the moon right now. Someone took it to Obama in a big way.

To illustrate my point from a few minutes ago... this is what the undecideds who passively pick up campaign tidbits through FB or Twitter are seeing today:

Andy XXXXXXXX (typically an intelligent and vocal conservative)

My vote is that Big Bird moderates the next debate.
Like · · 47 minutes ago ·

Romney may have won, but by making a passing reference to PBS he might have hurt himself more than he gained... regardless of the pundit hysteria today.

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:The real question is: Did any of the conservative base hear anything last night that would've fired them up and stemmed any of the apathy problem? No social agenda, and the consensus is that Mitt moved to the middle. So who knows.

The base is over the moon right now. Someone took it to Obama in a big way.

I guess. I haven't heard any of the loud conservatives in my office talking about it yet, so maybe you're right. But those guys were voting for him anyway.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Honestly, I think that as long as Obama isn't awful (which he wasn't) and doesn't give any soundbites, it's a win for him. I mean, people are essentially excited because Romney showed something other than being a robot. Big deal.

On a related note, I just spent four days in Cleveland. I thought we had a lot of campaign ads here in Richmond. Holy shit, it was non-stop. There was an abortion one that I hadn't seen before (but apparently had been running in places like Missouri since late August) that blew my freaking mind. Here it is:

It's vital that we remember an unborn child is a life which must be saved . . . so we can forget about that life when it's poor, uneducated and without health insurance.

JFLNYC wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Honestly, I think that as long as Obama isn't awful (which he wasn't) and doesn't give any soundbites, it's a win for him. I mean, people are essentially excited because Romney showed something other than being a robot. Big deal.

On a related note, I just spent four days in Cleveland. I thought we had a lot of campaign ads here in Richmond. Holy #$!&@, it was non-stop. There was an abortion one that I hadn't seen before (but apparently had been running in places like Missouri since late August) that blew my freaking mind. Here it is:

It's vital that we remember an unborn child is a life which must be saved . . . so we can forget about that life when it's poor, uneducated and without health insurance.

And nevermind that Obama's position (much like that of anyone with a brain) was that if the child is born alive, then it is already entitled to Constitutional protection.

jamiethekiller wrote:Bucky for president.


still laugh that Mitt considers middle class 250k and below.

pres has defined it the same way as well

I agree? (on both counts)