jamiethekiller wrote:obama shoulda got his hair cut

pacino wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:My biggest take away from all this is that if you keep repeating a talking point ("apology tour," "five trillion dollar tax cut"), and then come into a debate and repeat it again, you are setting yourself up to lose. The other side has too much time to set up snappy responses. And if you come in and DON'T do your talking points - like Romney in the first debate - you throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing, and confound your opponent, who has lots of snappy answers prepare for all of your talking points.

Romney did a great job of not lazily repeating talking points in the first debate, confounding Obama.

Tonight: not so much.

Still don't think it matters a lick (because I still think the first debate is the most important, and the one on foreign policy is pretty much always the least important), but there it is.

I think this has been pointed out many times before but Kerry won the first debate with Bush. Not sure where you're getting the "first debate is most important" idea from

he won every debate and it didnt matter at all. the only thing people remember are edwards mentioning cheney's lesbian daughter.

mozartpc27 wrote:

pacino wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:My biggest take away from all this is that if you keep repeating a talking point ("apology tour," "five trillion dollar tax cut"), and then come into a debate and repeat it again, you are setting yourself up to lose. The other side has too much time to set up snappy responses. And if you come in and DON'T do your talking points - like Romney in the first debate - you throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing, and confound your opponent, who has lots of snappy answers prepare for all of your talking points.

Romney did a great job of not lazily repeating talking points in the first debate, confounding Obama.

Tonight: not so much.

Still don't think it matters a lick (because I still think the first debate is the most important, and the one on foreign policy is pretty much always the least important), but there it is.

I think this has been pointed out many times before but Kerry won the first debate with Bush. Not sure where you're getting the "first debate is most important" idea from

he won every debate and it didnt matter at all. the only thing people remember are edwards mentioning cheney's lesbian daughter.

It's basically just my intuition on the relative importance of the first debate (it's the one with the most build-up, the most surprises... after you've seen it once, the second two are more of the same). The importance of the first debate is the importance of first impressions.

Also, pac is right re: 2004.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:Still wish Obama would point out that Romney's positions du jour--basically all agreeing with his--are seriously at odds with the set of Dubya flunkies he has working for him. Neocons don't generally turn into realists.

Obama would look small if he said "He hired all these Bush guys to advise him." I'm guessing independents are tired of Obama referencing Bush and the failed policies of the previous 8 years. He doesnt need to go there to win this debate.

JFLNYC wrote:Iran getting a nuclear weapon is the greatest world threat?

jamiethekiller wrote:so what are you going to do to fix that