If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Obama's campaign chief reflects on the "white knuckle" moments of 2012 like when he worried that Mitt Romney wouldn't say something stupi- or when they were concerned Gingrich might-or, okay, they knew the whole thing was a lock since Iowa   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 112
    More: Obvious, Mitt Romney, obama, Iowa, Newt Gingrich  
•       •       •

3886 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Mar 2013 at 1:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-25 12:27:25 PM
That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.
 
2013-03-25 12:37:01 PM

BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.


Let's not pretend that the first debate wasn't a farkup of epic proportions. Everyone was trying to whitewash during the entire debate that it wasn't that bad, and I was about the only one that called it right: up to a 4 point loss.
 
2013-03-25 12:41:28 PM

GAT_00: BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.

Let's not pretend that the first debate wasn't a farkup of epic proportions. Everyone was trying to whitewash during the entire debate that it wasn't that bad, and I was about the only one that called it right: up to a 4 point loss.


True, but the fact that Romney couldn't go for the jugular after that says far more than Obama having a shiatty night
 
2013-03-25 12:45:21 PM

somedude210: GAT_00: BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.

Let's not pretend that the first debate wasn't a farkup of epic proportions. Everyone was trying to whitewash during the entire debate that it wasn't that bad, and I was about the only one that called it right: up to a 4 point loss.

True, but the fact that Romney couldn't go for the jugular after that says far more than Obama having a shiatty night


Romney was doing a pretty damn good job of hitting him that night. He just wasn't as good in the other two and of course the President was presumably told to quit being Uncle Fluffy.
 
2013-03-25 12:50:41 PM

BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.



"you look tasty"

politics.mediapundit.net
 
2013-03-25 12:51:48 PM

GAT_00: BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.

Let's not pretend that the first debate wasn't a farkup of epic proportions. Everyone was trying to whitewash during the entire debate that it wasn't that bad, and I was about the only one that called it right: up to a 4 point loss.


Yeah, luckily there were two more debates, and another month of Mitt Romney being allowed to speak in public.
 
2013-03-25 12:55:51 PM

GAT_00: BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.

Let's not pretend that the first debate wasn't a farkup of epic proportions. Everyone was trying to whitewash during the entire debate that it wasn't that bad, and I was about the only one that called it right: up to a 4 point loss.


That's not quite how I remember it.  I recall quite a bit of criticism leveled against Obama.



i159.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-25 01:10:35 PM

GAT_00: Romney was doing a pretty damn good job of hitting him that night. He just wasn't as good in the other two and of course the President was presumably told to quit being Uncle Fluffy.


yeah but Romney could've dealt the death blow in the debate or the aftermath, but he didn't. Instead he kept going on with the far-right stances on everything, contradicted himself on everything and at every chance and it decimated him. He was his own worse candidate.
 
2013-03-25 01:13:47 PM

somedude210: GAT_00: Romney was doing a pretty damn good job of hitting him that night. He just wasn't as good in the other two and of course the President was presumably told to quit being Uncle Fluffy.

yeah but Romney could've dealt the death blow in the debate or the aftermath, but he didn't. Instead he kept going on with the far-right stances on everything, contradicted himself on everything and at every chance and it decimated him. He was his own worse candidate.


No he couldn't. Obama was still 70% likely to win the election according to Nate Silver. That's the lowest he got.

I know, I know, Nate Silver is gay and his numbers are all retarded, but honestly the only thing that debate did was make Obama work harder. It was the "Crime. Boy I don't know" of the election season.
 
2013-03-25 01:38:16 PM
"Well, once that election became a choice between President Obama's vision to move this country forward and Mitt Romney's policies, I always thought we were going to win that choice.

About all you need to know.
 
2013-03-25 01:38:32 PM

Lionel Mandrake: GAT_00: BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.

Let's not pretend that the first debate wasn't a farkup of epic proportions. Everyone was trying to whitewash during the entire debate that it wasn't that bad, and I was about the only one that called it right: up to a 4 point loss.

That's not quite how I remember it.  I recall quite a bit of criticism leveled against Obama.

[i159.photobucket.com image 480x332]


Go back and read that thread.  It's a couple thousands comments of "This isn't that bad, right?  This is still OK."
 
2013-03-25 01:41:58 PM
I've always cared about issues and substance.  And politics was always the best way to do that.

Had me up to that point.
 
2013-03-25 01:42:03 PM
One of the more punchable democrat faces I've ever seen

/democrat
//tell me I'm wrong
 
2013-03-25 01:43:13 PM
I'm more concerned that he claims he picked Gonzaga, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Louisville in the Final Four.  For having a boss so into Basketball, how does he pick a final four which are physically impossible?
 
2013-03-25 01:43:27 PM

GAT_00: That's not quite how I remember it.  I recall quite a bit of criticism leveled against Obama.

[i159.photobucket.com image 480x332]

Go back and read that thread.  It's a couple thousands comments of "This isn't that bad, right?  This is still OK."


I also remember a whole lot of hand-wringing on the left to the effect "Why didn't Obama hit back? This isn't the time to play nice" and etc. And yes, we were trying to convince ourselves it "wasn't that bad," but that doesn't mean we were pointing the fingers everywhere else.
 
2013-03-25 01:46:21 PM
They were worried that Santorum would get the nod, knowing he would crush them with his superior ability to relate to the common man, but once Romney locked up the node, there was no doubt that they could beat such a weak RINO.
 
2013-03-25 01:47:07 PM
i232.photobucket.com
Separated at birth?
 
2013-03-25 01:47:12 PM

GAT_00: somedude210: GAT_00: BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.

Let's not pretend that the first debate wasn't a farkup of epic proportions. Everyone was trying to whitewash during the entire debate that it wasn't that bad, and I was about the only one that called it right: up to a 4 point loss.

True, but the fact that Romney couldn't go for the jugular after that says far more than Obama having a shiatty night

Romney was doing a pretty damn good job of hitting him that night. He just wasn't as good in the other two and of course the President was presumably told to quit being Uncle Fluffy.


I like the theory, advanced by SNL at the time, that the night befor ethe debate a tearful Joe Biden came to obama and confided that he'd bet hsi life savings on the outcome fo the elction with some very dangerous men, and while he still wanted he and Obama to win, it was REALLY IMPORTANT that Romney cover the spread
 
2013-03-25 01:47:14 PM

Tiberius Gracchus: I'm more concerned that he claims he picked Gonzaga, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Louisville in the Final Four.  For having a boss so into Basketball, how does he pick a final four which are physically impossible?


He thinks outside the box bracket
 
2013-03-25 01:48:00 PM
In all honesty, Romney's biggest enemy has been himself. For most of his career. He isn't a likable human being. He is fairly honest about him coming to the table to give folks stuff, and that is exactly what he has done. With UMaine. With the Olympics. In Mass. He brings something to the table, and essentially puts it up for bid. The difficulty he had in the Presidential election is that he couldn't swing voters to realize that he wasn't offering THEM up for the highest bid. It was obvious, and folks realized it fairly certain. The Die Hards and the Idiot Brigade didn't WANT to believe, but enough folks realized that they'd rather have a guy in office that wasn't entirely up for sale, and voted that way.

Folks can scream and throw a hissy all they want, but in the end, folks voted for the guy that they thought would do the best job, for them. Romney made it fair clear that wasn't the bulk of America, and the only interesting part about that, wasn't that folks were indeed listening, but how many folks listened, and then put their hands firmly over their ears and said "LALALALALALALALALAAAALAAAA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" and voted for him anyway.
 
2013-03-25 01:51:09 PM

Graffito: [i232.photobucket.com image 664x274]
Separated at birth?


I was looking for "Lando's co-pilot" (what the FARK is his name? Looks like a tuna?).
 
2013-03-25 01:51:35 PM

rtaylor92: One of the more punchable democrat faces I've ever seen

/democrat
//tell me I'm wrong


I'd put Carville up there.

//maybe that's how he got that way.
 
2013-03-25 01:53:59 PM

rtaylor92: One of the more punchable democrat faces I've ever seen

/democrat
//tell me I'm wrong


You're not wrong. I know some people have hideous teeth, but there's just something awful about broad, tight-lipped smiles.
 
2013-03-25 01:55:36 PM

GAT_00: BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.

Let's not pretend that the first debate wasn't a farkup of epic proportions. Everyone was trying to whitewash during the entire debate that it wasn't that bad, and I was about the only one that called it right: up to a 4 point loss.


Sorry, I watched all three debates.  I don't see where Obama went wrong on the first one.  It wasn't a farkup.  Even if I were to admit it was, Maddow went on a week or so later with evidence that the incumbent has a pretty crappy first debate.

I had the local Fox News guy stuff a camera in my face a day after debate 1 asking what I thought of it.  And I told him the same thing I'll say now (and has since proven to be correct time and time again):  Obama's playing a long game.  When he has time to work on something, he doesn't really care about the little things or the short term.  It gives him time to think more about the situation, it rallies his supporters around him without making them rabid about it, and it causes his opponents to badly misunderstimate what is about to happen.

Debate #1 was about letting Mitt be Mitt, and that's what wound up sinking him.  If Obama went on the attack, he'd be a bully.  The GOP doesn't have a problem getting their message out, they have a problem with their message.  And even after what happened in 2012, they can't admit it.
 
2013-03-25 01:55:51 PM

GAT_00: somedude210: GAT_00: BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.

Let's not pretend that the first debate wasn't a farkup of epic proportions. Everyone was trying to whitewash during the entire debate that it wasn't that bad, and I was about the only one that called it right: up to a 4 point loss.

True, but the fact that Romney couldn't go for the jugular after that says far more than Obama having a shiatty night

Romney was doing a pretty damn good job of hitting him that night. He just wasn't as good in the other two and of course the President was presumably told to quit being Uncle Fluffy.


No, he wasn't. He was lying without the inconvenience of being fact-checked while the President was patiently waiting his turn to speak. For some reason, that was seen as weakness on the Presidents part and everyone sucked Romney's dick for a week or so talking about him "looking like a President", while they paid little attention to the bullshiat that came out of his mouth.
 
2013-03-25 01:59:21 PM
Funny, I seem to recall Nate Silver being the only barrier between liberals and mass suicide in the two weeks between the first debate and Joe Biden's utter annihilation of Paul Ryan. Does 'nearly killing ourselves en masse' not count as 'white knuckle' anymore?
 
2013-03-25 02:00:32 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: No, he wasn't. He was lying without the inconvenience of being fact-checked while the President was patiently waiting his turn to speak.


That is hitting someone good.  Of course Romney was spouting lies, but well spoken lies do pretty well with voters, especially if they want to hear those lies.
 
2013-03-25 02:02:23 PM

Dr Dreidel: Graffito: [i232.photobucket.com image 664x274]
Separated at birth?

I was looking for "Lando's co-pilot" (what the FARK is his name? Looks like a tuna?).


Nien Nunb.

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-03-25 02:05:08 PM

enry: Sorry, I watched all three debates.  I don't see where Obama went wrong on the first one.  It wasn't a farkup.  Even if I were to admit it was, Maddow went on a week or so later with evidence that the incumbent has a pretty crappy first debate.


As someone who saw all three debates as well - Obama fark'd up the first one.  I get that Obama is playing a long game (all you have to do is review his campaigns tactics against Clinton in the first election as proof) but if you can't see the almost disaster that it was - there is no hope for you.

/and referencing Maddow does not help your argument
 
2013-03-25 02:05:34 PM

Dr Dreidel: Graffito: [i232.photobucket.com image 664x274]
Separated at birth?

I was looking for "Lando's co-pilot" (what the FARK is his name? Looks like a tuna?).


Nien Nunb
 
2013-03-25 02:08:12 PM
Q: Since we're right in the midst of March Madness. Who are your final four picks and who's going to win the whole thing?
A:"Well, I'm crushed that the University of Montana was defeated in the first round. My alma mater. I have Louisville winning it all. I have Ohio State. Unfortunately, I picked Wisconsin, and they're already out of it. And Gonzaga, and they're out, too."
Q: So, the president has Indiana and you have Louisville.
A: "I have Louisville. Now, I am number one in my office pool right now. We'll see how long that lasts."

OH MY GOD!!!!
The President is paying attention to basketball during the sequester? Jeez, he should play a round or two of golf while he's at it. And then there's his wife. How dare she appear on the Oscars while we're in the sequester? Oh the Horror!! Well at least we know now where they got it all from, this Messina guy is incorrigible...

This has been today's version of Sarcasm Theater.... If you actually attack me with stats about how Bush took more vacations, and Obama's golf game average is roughly 29 games a year, or just slightly more than a single game every two weeks, you only have yourself to blame...
 
2013-03-25 02:09:44 PM

BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they some of them said all along it was going to be a really close race.


FTFY
 
2013-03-25 02:13:09 PM
There was just no way that a single debate was going to change the arc of the election,  Granted, had it been the start of a series of setbacks, maybe, perhaps, but there was just no way an organization as well run as Obama's and as poorly run as Romney's was going to sustain multiple events of this kind.  Romney was a dead man walking, and everyone with an ounce of perspective knew it.
 
2013-03-25 02:14:59 PM

Graffito: [i232.photobucket.com image 664x274]
Separated at birth?


abcnews.go.com i92.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-25 02:16:15 PM

Paul Baumer: There was just no way that a single debate was going to change the arc of the election,  Granted, had it been the start of a series of setbacks, maybe, perhaps, but there was just no way an organization as well run as Obama's and as poorly run as Romney's was going to sustain multiple events of this kind.  Romney was a dead man walking, and everyone with an ounce of perspective knew it.


That is my favorite part. Now that this is all over and we get to hear about all the background f up's in the Romney camp I shudder at the thought that this guy very nearly came close to winning.


dennisjudd.com
 
2013-03-25 02:19:20 PM

gingerjet: /and referencing Maddow does not help your argument


Explain
 
2013-03-25 02:20:59 PM

gingerjet: enry: Sorry, I watched all three debates.  I don't see where Obama went wrong on the first one.  It wasn't a farkup.  Even if I were to admit it was, Maddow went on a week or so later with evidence that the incumbent has a pretty crappy first debate.

As someone who saw all three debates as well - Obama fark'd up the first one.  I get that Obama is playing a long game (all you have to do is review his campaigns tactics against Clinton in the first election as proof) but if you can't see the almost disaster that it was - there is no hope for you.

/and referencing Maddow does not help your argument


Yes it was so bad that it dropped Obama all the way down to a 70% chance of being elected.
 
2013-03-25 02:21:55 PM

enry: gingerjet: /and referencing Maddow does not help your argument

Explain


Maddow is gay like Silver and therefore not credible. Or something.
 
2013-03-25 02:22:01 PM
Stupid is as stupid does.


With these guys...you'd just have to wait a few until they opened their mouths again.
 
2013-03-25 02:22:16 PM
I'm glad they waited until the end of the article to post his picture, because otherwise I would have been too terrified to continue after looking at what can only be described as a failed puppeteer or successful made-for-television mortician stereotype. There is no way that creature hasn't tasted human flesh before.
 
2013-03-25 02:22:26 PM

Lionel Mandrake: GAT_00: BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.

Let's not pretend that the first debate wasn't a farkup of epic proportions. Everyone was trying to whitewash during the entire debate that it wasn't that bad, and I was about the only one that called it right: up to a 4 point loss.

That's not quite how I remember it.  I recall quite a bit of criticism leveled against Obama.

[i159.photobucket.com image 480x332]


This.  Obama heard it, realized his mistake, then went both barrels on Romney in the subsequent debates.  He owned up to his mistakes and corrected it.

Romney wouldn't correct his mistakes even if his soul depended on it.
 
2013-03-25 02:24:34 PM

ArgusRun: Graffito: [i232.photobucket.com image 664x274]
Separated at birth?

[abcnews.go.com image 478x269] [i92.photobucket.com image 373x279]


abcnews.go.com25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-25 02:25:41 PM

GAT_00: BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.

Let's not pretend that the first debate wasn't a farkup of epic proportions. Everyone was trying to whitewash during the entire debate that it wasn't that bad, and I was about the only one that called it right: up to a 4 point loss.


I think it was a farkup in the sense that Obama wasn't prepared by his debate people for the possibility that Romney would disavow every position he espoused on the campaign trail.  They were prepared to debate Mitt Romney, but instead Generic Republican showed up and as we all know, Generic Republican tended to lead Obama throughout the campaign.  In many ways, Obama's strategy for the first debate made sense: Romney had been sticking his foot in his mouth on a regular basis and his positions were unpopular with the electorate so if Obama could simply play some defense and be factual about Romney's positions then he would win, so he wasn't prepped for being on the offensive and as such chose to disengage rather than make unforced errors.  In the last 2 debates, he was ready for Romney's BS and properly put him in his place.
 
2013-03-25 02:28:11 PM

enry: gingerjet: /and referencing Maddow does not help your argument

Explain


Because she's the libbiest lib that ever libbed a lib and therefore she's a poopyface and she's dumb and she looks like a man and I hate her.
 
2013-03-25 02:28:50 PM
While I never thought Obama was really going to lose, at the outset Obama was not in such a guaranteed position as many people now like to believe. Especially with the economy still doing so poorly at the time, and the disastrous first debate between him and Romney. Obama won overwhelmingly because the GOP ate themselves, particularly with social conservatism and economic proposals. Romney was also a disastrous candidate.

That said, I agree with the article from the other day (from the the Atlantic?) which pointed out that, though disorganized, the GOP could come back. While Ted Cruz gets all the attention, radical right candidates have been slowly disappearing just like the Tea Party, and Jon Huntsman has been playing a long game for the nod, positioning himself for when the inevitable move towards moderation occurs. And there are issues the GOP could use to bring themselves back. The most self-explanatory is obviously 2nd amendment rights. Another that could be undertaken would be overhauling Obamacare, NOTE: This is not the same thing as the frivolous votes to repeal Obamacare. I am talking about going after specific inefficiencies in the bill, and positioning themselves as fiscally responsible by getting rid of waste, and, perhaps, making it more efficient. It would be somewhat easy to sell this to their base by saying "Since we can't get rid of it, WE'LL be the ones to do it right." A tactic that has worked in the past.

Now, at this stage, it's not looking like they will try to do this for two reasons. First, they still have a very narrow, very divisive base that they have stirred up. Second, they are beholden to a lot of special interests that don't want to reform Obamacare, etc. However, a crushing defeat in 2014, or 2016, or both will change this. First of all, special interests will only remain interested in them if they are actually in power. Second, Reince Preibus' analysis of the last election was very accurate (despite the howling from the far right), which means that there are people in the party who are accurately understanding the problems the party faces and thinking of ways to fix them.

The Democrats will probably remain in power for some time, but it would be foolish to ignore the GOP completely and I would suggest keeping an eye on issues that may give them a toehold. I would also point out that the GOP usually does well in mid-terms (or has recently) so if the Democrat apparatus is not out in full swing this upcoming election, they may lose the ability to capitalize on GOP incoherence.
 
2013-03-25 02:30:30 PM

enry: GAT_00: BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.

Let's not pretend that the first debate wasn't a farkup of epic proportions. Everyone was trying to whitewash during the entire debate that it wasn't that bad, and I was about the only one that called it right: up to a 4 point loss.

Sorry, I watched all three debates.  I don't see where Obama went wrong on the first one.  It wasn't a farkup.  Even if I were to admit it was, Maddow went on a week or so later with evidence that the incumbent has a pretty crappy first debate.

I had the local Fox News guy stuff a camera in my face a day after debate 1 asking what I thought of it.  And I told him the same thing I'll say now (and has since proven to be correct time and time again):  Obama's playing a long game.  When he has time to work on something, he doesn't really care about the little things or the short term.  It gives him time to think more about the situation, it rallies his supporters around him without making them rabid about it, and it causes his opponents to badly misunderstimate what is about to happen.

Debate #1 was about letting Mitt be Mitt, and that's what wound up sinking him.  If Obama went on the attack, he'd be a bully.  The GOP doesn't have a problem getting their message out, they have a problem with their message.  And even after what happened in 2012, they can't admit it.


I was just annoyed by the "Denver is a MILE HIGH!" defense. I thought that was weak sauce. I've lived at 7,000 ft. in elevation, and while you get tired hiking, biking and playing basketball, you can still talk. He stumbled, he got over it, excuses were just poor form, IMHO.
 
2013-03-25 02:34:37 PM
I felt bad then and I feel bad now, still don't think the first debate went that badly for Obama.  The incumbent has to be very careful not to come across as arrogant in these things, especially an incumbent also dealing with  a crappy economy.  Be respectful to the private citizen standing up to power disagreeing with the polices of the past 4 years, anything else looks dictatorial.  I scored the content of the first debate as a solid tie and continued to do so after reviews weeks after the event, haven't re-watched it recently but has no reason to believe I'd change now.

As for optics, sure it made Obama look weaker and Romney stronger, it had to.  Simply being on the same stage as the sitting President was going to do that to any challenger.  I also suspect Obama had at least one or two zingers prepared that weren't able to be used when Romney took such a hard tack away from the Romney of the repub debates, everyone moderates coming into the general election but Romney did a complete 180 on some policies.  So the combination of Obama deliberately holding back at times, and losing out on a coupla retorts that he *was* willing to make, gave the appearance of a larger performance gap than IMO was truly there.

So I apologize to my fellow libs, I'm one of those who didn't jump on the panic bandwagon.  For that matter, I didn't feel Romney did as bad as others thought in the next debates (except for the crushing "proceed, Governor" moment).  Heck, even Palin wasn't as bad as historically remembered oh-so-far back in 2008.  Guess I'm just not the political equivalent of the West German olympic judge.

The only public opinion performance I agreed with was Uncle Joe's schooling of poor Young Master Ryan.
 
2013-03-25 02:35:35 PM

TimSTP: ArgusRun: Graffito: [i232.photobucket.com image 664x274]
Separated at birth?

[abcnews.go.com image 478x269] [i92.photobucket.com image 373x279]

[abcnews.go.com image 478x269][25.media.tumblr.com image 400x320]


Bingo
 
2013-03-25 02:36:32 PM

Mikey1969: enry: GAT_00: BunkoSquad: That's weird, because journalists are interested in the truth and not just driving rating and selling cars, and they said all along it was going to be a really close race.

Let's not pretend that the first debate wasn't a farkup of epic proportions. Everyone was trying to whitewash during the entire debate that it wasn't that bad, and I was about the only one that called it right: up to a 4 point loss.

Sorry, I watched all three debates.  I don't see where Obama went wrong on the first one.  It wasn't a farkup.  Even if I were to admit it was, Maddow went on a week or so later with evidence that the incumbent has a pretty crappy first debate.

I had the local Fox News guy stuff a camera in my face a day after debate 1 asking what I thought of it.  And I told him the same thing I'll say now (and has since proven to be correct time and time again):  Obama's playing a long game.  When he has time to work on something, he doesn't really care about the little things or the short term.  It gives him time to think more about the situation, it rallies his supporters around him without making them rabid about it, and it causes his opponents to badly misunderstimate what is about to happen.

Debate #1 was about letting Mitt be Mitt, and that's what wound up sinking him.  If Obama went on the attack, he'd be a bully.  The GOP doesn't have a problem getting their message out, they have a problem with their message.  And even after what happened in 2012, they can't admit it.

I was just annoyed by the "Denver is a MILE HIGH!" defense. I thought that was weak sauce. I've lived at 7,000 ft. in elevation, and while you get tired hiking, biking and playing basketball, you can still talk. He stumbled, he got over it, excuses were just poor form, IMHO.


I always figured it was due to preparing to debate the Romney from the election so far, and not the guy who actually showed up, and basically advocated for completely different things.  Obama didn't know how to respond to the sudden shift in what Romney claimed to stand for.

by the time Biden's debate happened, they retooled their answers and responses to properly account for both old and new Romney/Ryan stances.  The result was them destroying romney/ryan in the remaining debates.
 
2013-03-25 02:42:28 PM

Paul Baumer: There was just no way that a single debate was going to change the arc of the election,  Granted, had it been the start of a series of setbacks, maybe, perhaps, but there was just no way an organization as well run as Obama's and as poorly run as Romney's was going to sustain multiple events of this kind.  Romney was a dead man walking, and everyone with an ounce of perspective knew it.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

"But I have over 5000 ounces of perspective!!  Wha-happen??"
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report