Bludgeon wrote:You could almost argue that Obama's "victories" in the 2nd and 3rd debate did as much to hurt him as his loss in the first debate.
argue anything at all. But ... why?
Come on, Bludgeon. Show at least a smidgeon of self-respect here. We know you're not an idiot; but when you post this silly partisan nonsense it makes you look like one.
The first debate was pretty much a disaster for Obama. We get that. But he's clearly won the subsequent debates, including last night's.
No, Romney didn't do badly enough to cripple his campaign or anything like that, and the debates may not have given Obama a huge boost in the polls. But it's pure nonsense to claim that Obama's victories (not "victories") in the last two debates did anything to hurt
his campaign. The only question is whether and how much they helped
Claiming that the last two debates "did as much to hurt him as his loss in the first debate" only detracts from whatever else you might post here. Are you sure you don't want to walk back that comment?
Cripes, Kurt. Honestly how do you "win" a presidential debate? They're not really debates in the classical sense; and who won or lost is not scored by a debate judge. Some media company runs a poll and produces a popular opinion about who "won". Even these polls have samples, so who's to say? Maybe CBS has the sample D+9 like half the media polls in the states and nationally. Which is irrelevant. I guess you could say "Obama clearly won the media polls about the debate amid those whom the polling agencies claim are a representative sample." But what's that worth really? In these terms, I don't care who won *any* of the debates.
Yet the significance of Romney's victory in the first debate is palpable, and I would define that as a victory in other terms.
Re the first paragraph, I suppose you can score debates like that if you want to, I don't personally find it to be a valuable endeavor.
I would put it like this: strategically, what is the political impact of a candidate's tactic in said debate? Scoring points in a debate is arguably outside the purpose of the presentation. It's votes, not points, you want. So it's a question of what kind of impression you're leaving on the public. What the voters care about is the character of the person they will be looking toward to repair our damaged economy after this election. So...
Liberals wanted Obama to 'put up a fight' in the last two debates; the Obama campaign obliged, I suppose to keep the base from panicking. But these sophomoric antics did him no favors with the middle electorate that matters. They just tune it out the same way they tune out their naive 20-year-olds on an election year. What works for kids (and the perennially childish), does not work for sober adults with a rising cost of living, working harder for a lower standard of living. They're looking for somebody with the character to do the job, and they're not to allured by a president with the temerity to play a teenager.
I would characterize Obama as losing the second two debates in the tactical sense. Instead of Romney having to work to raise himself to the stature of the president, the president threw his advantage away on purpose to try to lower them both. It's irrelevant to me how "low" Mitt Romney may be in the mind of the average lefty; but it's significant to me to note that, however low that may be, the president (at liberals' behest) lowered himself right down there. In what way that's meant to improve the prospects of his campaign, I'd be glad to hear.