Inevitable? Debatable.

Thursday, October 04, 2012

I missed it, but by all accounts, including a 67-25 CNN poll result, Mitt Romney trounced Barack Obama in the first Presidential debate last night. It was particularly fun to see leftish Slate admit as much.

Part of the problem was that Obama got on the wrong side of what the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza calls the "fine line between sober/serious and grim/uninterested." He seemed to be taking on the same persona that worked for him in 2008 when he was an untested leader and was eager to prove he was ready for the job. "But now that he has been in the job for four years, Obama's demeanor came across far less well." The Chicago Tribune throws Obama what might be the ultimate insult, describing him as "that guy at the meeting who's surreptitiously checking his email."
As icing on the cake, the following speculation by Ann Althouse on the sudden, pre-debate "tightening" of possibly skewed polls, made me smile:
I think they adjust the skew to get the result that suits the propaganda purpose, and they're temporarily making the race look tight to make the debate seem super-important. (That's good for CNN's ratings, so there's a commercial, nonpolitical reason too for poll fakery.) Then they can make a show of breaking the news that Obama got big debate bounce.

-- CAV


Mike N said...

In 2008 Obama ran on intentions and wowed the brain dead. Now he has to run on results and even the zombies can see there is no blood coming from this straw.

Cheap Lazy Ba$tard said...

Judged as theater, Romney's performance was certainly superior to Obama's, who seemed to be tired and to have difficulty focusing - not a winning presentation.

Judged on facts, Obama abused the truth far less than Romney, who apparently shook the hell out of his etch-a-sketch campaign persona just before taking the stage. He repudiated most of the narrative he has been spinning throughout his campaign up until this debate.

It is hard to know what to say about a candidate like Romney who should have been required to fill in a captcha box to "prove you're not a robot" before being allowed to debate.

Steve D said...

I don't think Obama has a chance, so in fact I do think the outcome of this election is all but inevitable; to the extent of course that this word can apply to humans. It would take a super human effort now for Obama to win. How much it matters in the long run though, is an open question.
I watched only a small segment but unfortunately in the part that I watched, it was hard to tell the socialist guy from the capitalist guy. Which one of them is for the free markets again?

Gus Van Horn said...


Some zombies see through him now and are running away. Some will stay home. Some will still want him.


Even if Obama were not a liar (or were less of one than Romney), his collectivist political philosophy alone disqualifies him as a Presidential candidate. I have lots of problems with Romney, but he is at least not hell bent (out of evil or stupidity) on implementing an ideology that would destroy our country if practiced consistently.

Oh, but I just remembered "You didn't build that." Sure, not part of the debate as far as I know, but if that isn't abuse of facts, I don't know what is.


I'm not sure it's a lock that Obama will lose -- we were far gone enough as a country to elect him, after all -- but this debate is heartening.


Steve D said...

I'm not sure I would call a soft socialist beating a hard fascist in a debate, heartening. (Perhaps you should use a softer word here?) But the fact that Obama won the first election by pretending to be more of non-fascist that he actually is; is somewhat encouraging. But the fact that Romney had to pretend to be more socialist than he actually is, to win the debate; is not.
As far as being a lock goes, technically you may be right (people can change on a dime). But history is against Obama.
The one and only reason I can think of to elect Romney is that there is an outside chance that he might balance the budget (or come close to this) and thereby delay the fall of the fourth Rome…that gives the good guys more time to change the culture and puts pressure on the barbarians.
And I’m also really not sure how to measure how far gone the country is. I don’t think you can measure it politically or economically, maybe morally?

Gus Van Horn said...

What heartens me is, as you said, that a Romney victory buys time, but not necessarily just from whatever attempt he might make to balance the budget.

Steve D said...

Yes, but if we don't get our debt under control soon, national collapse will happen and it won't matter anyway

Gus Van Horn said...