Talk Elections

I saw the debate last night - Romney was well-prepared, Obama clearly didn't want to be there - can't blame him, mind, it was his anniversary - and it's pretty clear that Romney "won".

More to the point, the media's been itching to move on from the stale "Romney's finished!" narrative and on to a much more exciting "it's a close race now!" one - even if Romney hadn't turned in a better performance, just holding his own on stage with the President would give him a decent bump and some favourable news cycles.

The debate was "do or die" for Romney, and he saved his campaign, but let's not act as if this is some amazing game changer. If Romney had lost the debate, he'd be finished, as is he's still in the race. That's undeniably good news for Romney, but I don't think it changes the fundamental picture of the election.

Republicans and Democrats, relax. Republicans - Romney had a polished performance, but didn't have any "Reaganesque" quips, and, Democrats -  Obama had a flat performance, but didn't make any gaffes and didn't lose any voters.

I'm rambling a bit, but I can't really handle the chaos around here today. ;)

2012 board after the debate:

()()()

I haven't seen people overreact this much to a single ultimately irrelevant event since Sarah Palin was picked as McCain's running mate.

McCain unleashing Sarah Palin certainly was relevant, just in ways we could have never imagined when he picked her. :P

Heh, fair point. I think I'm going to tune out politics until the dust settles.

Actually such overreaction to an irrelevant event occurred just the day before with that non-issue "tape" that was "released" (after being out for five years).

Think of it this way. A two point boost would be at the higher end of the expecations game. It's enough to cut Obama's national lead but he still leads. It's enough to secure Romney in North Carolina and probably enough to flip Florida and possibly Virginia. However the landscape would still favour Obama and would still be less favourable for Romney than it was this time last month at the end of the RNC.

Any bounce has to last. But first we have to see if there is one.

Like Kerry had to do, Romney will have to keep the pressure on Obama and beat him again in the second debate. If he lets Obama back in it, Obama wins because he still have a built in advantage.

Just to tune in from Old Europe, and France in particular, our media seldom speaks about the election for now, and this morning they did to tell that Romney had won the first debate and repeat that CNN poll 67-25. It's clear though that they want the public here to believe it is a close race, and will only communicate on "game-changing" moments, real or putative.

Last time they speaked about it was the whole Romney insulting 47% of the population thing.

Ah and they also only ever talk about nationwide polls, which reinforces the illusion of a tight race for the French electorate used to winning by popular vote. For us, a 49 to 46 race, which I believe is more or less the state of the race nationwide today, seems to be a quite close race.

I don't know... usually when you have to say something's "not a game-changer," there's at least some validity to the claims that they are.

Well, game changer is a vauge term.  I agree wholeheartedly that everything is being blown completely out of proportion.

In a way this was a game change in that the situation has changed.  Romney's campaign is no longer in danger of collapsing and Obama doesn't look quite as unstoppable.  On the other hand, the fundamentals of the race are the same.  The economy sucks but is slowly recovering, Romney is unlikabe, Obama is very likable, etc..  Obama still has the advantage overall. 

Right now, Republicans are bordering on getting overconfident and close to believing that the election is over because of one debate, while ignoring that there are other debates left. Obama isn't going to do the same thing twice, especially not with almost two weeks to the next debate.

I would actually say that Voters have been looking for an viable alternative to Obama all year, and Romney has now given voters hope for an alternative.  The pieces have always been in place for a Romney victory, but no one was sure about the leader to put them all together.  Romney appears to be someone "who can Save America" and the polls next week will show Romney tied or leading Obama in the swing states. 

As long as Romney keeps up his A game for the next month, he will win the election.

1+.

Obama thought "I'll give him this one but he better enjoy it because i'll kick his ass in the next 2 debates"

Why is this stickied?

CALM DOWN......WE AREN"T GOING TO CALM DOWN!

Nah, but seriously. Obama had a bad performance, but internal polling shows that he didn't lose any support, which is what Romney has to do at this point to win(peel off support from Obama).

Great night for Romney though, he breathed new life into his campaign and there is now absolute no chance of a blowout.

It's over, Romney will be the next president. Better come to terms with it now than be heartbroken early Wednesday morning when Ohio is called for Mittens.

Michael Moore's twitter account needs to calm down...lol (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/4/picket-michael-moore-obama-what-happens-when-u-pic/)

Moore does have a point. Sure Kerry has experience and even won Presidential debates. However, he isn't a good fit for Romney and I doubt he was able to study Romney the way Portman has studied Obama. Romney clearly was better prepared last night. I doubt Kerry has been able to get Romney's aggressive style and likely Kerry hasn't been as blatant at stretching the truth. Obama didn't seem prepared for Romney to say things like his tax plan doesn't cost $5T or his health plan will cover pre-existing conditions. You can tell from Team Obama's reaction today, focusing on these 'fact checks' that they didnt have Obama ready to do that kind of fact checking in the debate itself

One thing is for sure. If Romney lost last night it was over. he would have lost donors, enthusiasm. He was toast. Now he is back in it.

Er...that makes no goddamn sense.

Why didn't they hire an expert for debate prep and not John Kerry?

Yeah, seriously. This has absolutely no right to be stickied, not any more than some random "Romney's ahead now!" post would be. Can a mod bring the down the Professionalism Hammer on this one?

As to the point, yeah, it's true that this isn't revolutionary, but the comparative performances were a great surprise in one of three often very important events. I'm not terribly surprised that a 2012 election board hence has a lot to say about it.

It's absolutely absurd that this is stickied.

If Romney doesn't gain in the polls as a result of these debates it will be a very bad sign for Romney after such an effort.

lol

God bless this thread.

The common emotion of the Mittens pack around here is probably one more of relief than excitement. So there is no reason to calm down on our side. We are calm ... cool as a cucumber. Cheers.

I support this thread being stickied solely on account of the thread title, which should apply always on this board.


I think that's the more reasonable reaction, but I daresay you're not the typical Romney supporter... at least on here. ;)

My whole point here was that Mitt saved his campaign, which is (obviously) good news, but it's not like he turned the election around dramatically.

Kerry was the expert.  

BTW:  This thread does need to be sticky, if for no other reason to prevent the panic.  

I thought I logged onto US Election Atlas, not Democratic Underground.

Yep, uselectionatlas.org, not democraticunderground.com. If you are looking for the latter, you know where to find it.

This thread being stickied is a good example of why this place is not as good as it was 6-8 years ago. Who did this and what is the reasoning?

I think there has been a lot of overreaction to the debate from both sides. It's just one debate....

Also LOL at the complaining about this thread being stickied. Those people are the ones who really need to calm down! At first I was confused why it was stickied but now I am just being amused by the reactions to it.

I completely agree with Oakie here... but again I'm not sure why it was stickied... but frankly, i have more to do than waste my time caring about such things... unlike some it seems.

Mods get to sticky whatever they damn well please and you ingrates can find somewhere else to play if you do not like it.

Why are you so upset? Because America might soon have a president who is ready to turn around America? I can assure you that when America does well, Britain benefits.

I'm not upset. I just think that you peons need to learn your place.

On reflection I prefer 'kulak'.

Typical leftist arrogance, Al?  :)  I must admit that I enjoyed watching the liberals head's explode, but let us keep it in perspective.

In all seriousness, this was a very good performance by Romney, and a total disaster for Obama, in strict terms of the debate.  It may not move the numbers a great deal, and could be of even limited impact because of the jobs numbers tomorrow.

I approve of this thread.

America already has that, he just needs to beat his challenger that wants to kill Big Bird and plunge us into recession like Europe.

So much for being servant to the proletariat!

I hope you're not implying that Al is a liberal....

I have no idea what he meant by that comment

In the American sense of the word, yes.  Bennite in the UK sense.

I don't know where to start.

and I'm more confused.

Preferably on the west side of the Atlantic.

Don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to (say) Bernie Sanders as "liberal".

In America, Bernie Sanders is considered highly liberal.

Very liberal, in the American sense.  We have a slightly different language over here.

The authorities are telling us to "calm down". That means it would have been right to panic.

Then the American sense is wrong.

Not on the west side of the Atlantic.

Americans are not about to have their language dictated to them by foreign prescriptivists.

It means you're using a word incorrectly, similar to if you decided to call the color red "blue" and then claim that's the "American way".

Which is something the MSM actually do...

Can we panic now?

Not until we see the ARG and Zogby numbers to complement those.

In America, liberal is a term for socialist and socialist is an epithet. It's ridiculous, but we know that's just the way it is.

No, WAA is a crappy poll.

Rasmussen is good, but has a slight Republican lead. 

A good rule of thumb is look at Rasmussen, add 2 points to the Democrats.  Also, look at PPP and subtract 1 point to from the Democrats.

That said, I expect Romney to carry FL and think VA is possible.  Using that rule of thumb, Obama is at +3 in Ohio.

No, calm down.

Why is this stickied?

Moderators can do as they darn well please.

It is the American way.  Why else are Democratic states "blue" states when going by the international partisan connotations of the color they should be red?

Politico, Al is showing his good side.  Despite himself, he has grown somewhat fond of some of the Americans he has come to know on this site (not me of course, but some), and I think he feels a pang of sympathy for them as we all get flushed down the drain of racism yet again.  It is nice of him to care about some Americans, and to have developed the awareness that perhaps we're not all bad.

Wait... what?

Yellow, I think. Which is a very appropriate colour for the Democratic Party, all told.

 

That chap from Bristol with an upper class accent who renounced his peerage who bombed in my English politics class when we met with him for an hour. There is more in this world than Wales you know.  :P

Yes... it's just that Al is no more a Bennite than he is a Liberal (except in the dumbest, most catch-all variant of the American application of the word).

I think he might have proclaimed himself a follower of the former Viscount Stansgate at some point.

BTW:  This thread needs to be stickied. 

Nope

You do a great imitation of one.  :)

Nope

Congrats.

[/accolade]

()