Re-Evaluating Romney....

[Sallow]

Please let me know the last time one debate changed the trajectory of an election...

Thanks.

Reagan

Well, except it didn't.

Reagan already had a healthy lead on Carter (despite what revisionists say) before his one debate with Carter.

What killed Carter in the end was that he held up a lot of hope that the hostage crisis might be resolved before the election and then the Iranians screwed him.

Because Reagan made a deal.

 

[Merchant_of_Meh]

Well yeah, but we saw the exact same thing with Obama as well 4 years ago though. I don't see much of a different in that regard. He was pretty far to the left and then he came right back to the center in time for the run-in and the debates. The only difference I see here is that he did it sooner then than Romney did now.

I think four years ago, Obama was able to beat Hillary because Hillary misread the base's revulsion for the Iraq War. I also think the Base looked at Hillary and said, "Do we really want another 4-8 years of the Clinton Circus?"

Of course, you always pander to the base during the primaries and move to the center for the general.

The problem Romney has is similar to the one McCain had... the Base doesn't really trust him.

So while Obama could move to the center with a wink and a nod to the base, McCain and Romney had to constantly reassure them he was one of them. Key point, throwing them a bone with the Veep Pick (Palin and Ryan).

Now, for the record, moderate or conservative, I'm against Romney because he's a douchebag with a weird religion. He could agree with me on every issue and I still wouldn't vote for him because I don't like him as a person.

I would have more respect for him if he were conservative and consistantly conservative.

But the Mormonism was always the deal-killer for me.

Fair enough. I agree on those points.

I also am not terribly fond of Romney, but that's rather irrelevant. Can he fix the economy? Can he facilitate the process of putting people back to work? Can he restore our reputation with our global allies? That's what I care about.

He could be an even bigger douchebag then Douchey McDouchebagerson, but if he can say, at the end of his term, that he did the above and he did it well to the point where we as a nation are prospering again, then he'll be a success.

 

[Katzndogz]

When the AARP turns on obama, you know he's in trouble. Maybe they're reevaluating Romney too.

AARP objects to Obama invoking group's support during debate | Fox News

 

[Lumpy 1]

When the AARP turns on obama, you know he's in trouble. Maybe they're reevaluating Romney too.

AARP objects to Obama invoking group's support during debate | Fox News

I guess Obama figures he owns the AARP....and why wouldn't he?

 

[SniperFire]

'Obama came off even worse in his debate with Romney than he did in his debate versus Clint Eastwood.'


- Rush



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Oldstyle]

Poor Joe...still foaming at the mouth because Mitt Romney is a (gasp!) Morman. Because as we all know...when Mitt ran Massachusetts he passed all kinds of religiously extreme legislation. Oh...wait...he didn't do that! Well he probably has six wives! Oh...wait...he's still married to his high school sweet heart and hasn't ever looked at another woman. Then he's probably been waiting all these years to DO all that stuff just as soon as he becomes President! Right, Joe? (eye-roll)

 

[Jarhead]

Romney looked very polished and actually showed quite a bit of emotion. It's a shame that he moved this far to the center so late in the game though. If the voters had seen this type of Romney months ago, foot-in-mouth moments notwithstanding, he'd be doing much better coming into this month.

Most people only have seen what the mainstream media has chosen to feed them on Romney.

Anybody who didn't know that Romney was a moderate before tonight was just not paying attention.

Many undecideds are seeing Romney unfiltered for the first time.

That may very well be, but look at him back in the GOP primary debates. He was trying frantically to veer as far to the right as everyone else he was on stage with. I can't blame the media for that as all they did was broadcast the debates. I generally don't even listen to or watch the post-debate banter as it's all opinion and conjecture. My point here is that Romney is in seriously sharp contrast to the one we saw last night and while he's the better for it now, he would've been in an even better position if he had made this move to the center sooner.

Romney looked very polished and actually showed quite a bit of emotion. It's a shame that he moved this far to the center so late in the game though. If the voters had seen this type of Romney months ago, foot-in-mouth moments notwithstanding, he'd be doing much better coming into this month.

Maybe.

But here's the thing.

Mitt Romney has been running for President for six years. Probably been planning it longer than that.

So now we are getting Mitt Romney version 5.0, which looks a lot more like Mitt Romney version 2.0 (The one that ran as a moderate technocrat in 2002). It's like someone went in and erased versions 3.0 (Social Conservative Mitt) and 4.0 (Teabagger Mitt).

Well yeah, but we saw the exact same thing with Obama as well 4 years ago though. I don't see much of a different in that regard. He was pretty far to the left and then he came right back to the center in time for the run-in and the debates. The only difference I see here is that he did it sooner then than Romney did now.

It is not rocket science to realize that GOP debates are for the GOP nomination and anything close to a "center" style will result in an automatic loss. They were not fighting for independent votes...they were fighting for the right of center and conservative votes.

Now, after all these years, the media knows this about primary debates.

So not sure where you are coming from, but I believe you are wrong.

That being said, if one has been paying atnetion and did their personal due diligence about Romney...reading facts, not opinions....one would know that Romney is very close to center on most issues.

If he werent, he would never have been able to succeed with the Massachusettes legislature who was over 80% democratic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please let me know the last time one debate changed the trajectory of an election...

Thanks.

Reagan

Let's be careful here....Reagan lost the first one.

 

[DiamondDave]

Please let me know the last time one debate changed the trajectory of an election...

Thanks.

Reagan

Bingo

Carter was ahead in polls.. and when Reagan butchered him in the debate, well... we know what happened next

 

[Avatar4321]

You mean now you love him more than you did before?

Frankly, sorry, I don't change my mind about someone because he looked good in a stage-managed TV show.

Romney's record is so loud, I can't hear a word he's saying.

Yeah. Competency is a scary thing for some people You'll have the next four years to learn that it's good.

 

[Caroljo]

Please let me know the last time one debate changed the trajectory of an election...

Thanks.

Reagan

Well, except it didn't.

Reagan already had a healthy lead on Carter (despite what revisionists say) before his one debate with Carter.

What killed Carter in the end was that he held up a lot of hope that the hostage crisis might be resolved before the election and then the Iranians screwed him.

We could very well see the same thing happen in the next debate....Obama's going to have to answer for their screw-ups with the Benghazi terrorist attack! I read today that it's been proven there were 13 terrorist threats leading up to the attack....and our leaders did NOTHING! How's he gonna spin that????

 

[JoeB131]

Please let me know the last time one debate changed the trajectory of an election...

Thanks.

Gore v. Bush.

Except it really didn't.

the 2000 election was obscenely close the whole time. Gore actually did badly in the debates, because of his own petulant attitude in the first one and his stiff delivery.

He still won the popular vote.

 

[JoeB131]

We could very well see the same thing happen in the next debate....Obama's going to have to answer for their screw-ups with the Benghazi terrorist attack! I read today that it's been proven there were 13 terrorist threats leading up to the attack....and our leaders did NOTHING! How's he gonna spin that????

Your whole premise here is that your average American really wants us to still be dicking around in the middle east.

Seriously, Joe Sixpack is not getting as upset about Benghazi as you are. They know the Middle East is a hornet's nest full of crazy people, and they know Obama is doing more to get us disengaged from that craziness.

Most Americans are glad he got us out of Iraq and don't think we are getting the hell out of Afghanistan fast enough. They certainly don't want their kids coming home in Body bags to fight Israel's war against Iran.

 

[JoeB131]

Please let me know the last time one debate changed the trajectory of an election...

Thanks.

Reagan

Let's be careful here....Reagan lost the first one.

I think Pinhead was referring to 1980.

But as I pointed out in the chart I posted, Reagan was already ahead of Carter by the time Carter finally consented to a debate. The debate- which Carter had bent over backwards to avoid and had only one - was a desperation move on Carter's part.

being about 12, you weren't around back then. I was.

 

[Rinata]

Who knew?

I'm far more impressed with Romney than ever before..whew.

He was fully prepared, happy, relaxed , in full control and kicked butt in a very respectful manner.

I can honestly see Romney as the President of the United States and an honorable leader of the free world..

But Lumpy!!! Everything he said was the complete opposite of what he has been saying during the campaign. How do you reconcile that?? I swear I don't get it.

 

[JoeB131]

Reagan

Well, except it didn't.

Reagan already had a healthy lead on Carter (despite what revisionists say) before his one debate with Carter.

What killed Carter in the end was that he held up a lot of hope that the hostage crisis might be resolved before the election and then the Iranians screwed him.

Because Reagan made a deal.

Guy, I'm on the same page with you on the election, but PLEASE...

Just because you Want a crazy conspiracy theory to be true doesn't make it true.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the Iranians got out of the deal.

Not the "Arms for Hostages", that crap didn't come until about five years later.

The Iranians screwed Carter because they could, and because he had been dicking them around for a year and a half.

To their mind, this problem could have been resolved if the US had just handed over the Shah.

 

[Rinata]

Romney looked very polished and actually showed quite a bit of emotion. It's a shame that he moved this far to the center so late in the game though. If the voters had seen this type of Romney months ago, foot-in-mouth moments notwithstanding, he'd be doing much better coming into this month.

Most people only have seen what the mainstream media has chosen to feed them on Romney.
Anybody who didn't know that Romney was a moderate before tonight was just not paying attention.

Many undecideds are seeing Romney unfiltered for the first time.

So the footage of Romney we have seen giving speeches on the nightly news and interviews for the past few years was sabatoged by the MSM??? Really???

 

[Caroljo]

Did i say i wanted us in the ME??? No...I dont, we should be out of there NOW! I don't know where you got that i think we should still be there....

I said Obama has some explaining to do because he sat on his ass when he was asked for help! They requested extra security because of all the terrorist threats....we had AMERICANS at the embassy that needed to be protected. Why didn't we protect them? Why were their requests denied? THAT is what he has to explain.

 

[JoeB131]

Did i say i wanted us in the ME??? No...I dont, we should be out of there NOW! I don't know where you got that i think we should still be there....

I said Obama has some explaining to do because he sat on his ass when he was asked for help! They requested extra security because of all the terrorist threats....we had AMERICANS at the embassy that needed to be protected. Why didn't we protect them? Why were their requests denied? THAT is what he has to explain.

In 1984, terrorist blew up our embassy in Lebanon....

And it was found out Reagan didn't do all that much to make it more secure DESPITE the fact a whole barracks of Marines were blown up a year before. Mondale tried to stir up shit about it..

The country yawned.

They know the ME is a snake pit. They know Bush and the NeoCons did a lot to stir up the Hornets.

You'll get upset because you live to be enraged about Obama.

In the real world, we know the ME is a dangerous place, and it is what it is.

 

[Oldstyle]

The Obama camp's "narrative" about what Romney's plans are going to be has been an exaggeration from the start. Romney finally had a chance to call them on it in the first debate and you saw the result. Obama kept trying to repeat the same inflated numbers even after Romney had explained why they WEREN'T accurate because that's all he's got. Obama can't run on his own numbers because they are so gawd awful and he can't run against Romney's real numbers because Romney has a plan to fix the economy and it's glaringly obvious at this point that the President doesn't.

Romney didn't "lie" during the debate...he simply refused to let Obama and his surrogates like Stephanie Cutter tell the American people what HIS policies would be.