Debate Game Changer

[heatmaster]

The debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney which occurred in Denver could be the game changer of the 2012 election, just as the first confrontation between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960: Romney failed to play by the Obama play book, which had depended on the scenario that Romney would somehow be the stereotype that the Obama campaign had painted him during the months and months of negative ads, which had cost them $150 million: Romney had been portrayed as a mean spirited elitist, a latter day Gordon Gecko: but Romney came across as a affable, polished and passionate and Obama denied the cocoon of the left-wing media and his handlers, came across as amateurish and small in stature:  those folks at Obama headquarters’ must have felt like throttling Romney for making them look like liar’s.  The campaign will be punctuated by two more presidential debates and one vice presidential face off: there will be plenty opportunity for Obama to regain his footing in either or both the Hempstead (October 16) and Boca Raton (October 22) face-offs, as well as the Al Smith dinner on October 18: but Obama was knocked off his script in Denver, which could turn out to be his “Waterloo” and Romney was seen as the person he truly is, by millions of voter’s  and not the stereotype he had been portrayed by the Obama machine: the result is that the President’s credibility could have been sufficiently damaged, as to render all further campaign ads slamming Romney as ineffectual:  the critical Independent voters could have been swayed by Romneys' arguments. There is one other caveat that the reader’s of this piece should be mindful of, according to Karl Rove; in every election except 2004, the independent voters have broken for the challenger.  So here is a map of my projected outcome of the 2012 presidential election as of November 7.

Romney-Ryan 301
Obama-Biden 237

[Hash]

Hands off cock.

[Oakvale]

who are you and what is this

[heatmaster]

The contribution by Wolfentoad 66, comes from what I suspect, is someone who fervently's hopes and believes all hope is lost for Mitt Romney: obviously the person to whom I address this buy's into the believe that no one watched last night's debate: I'm not going to address the substance of what was discussed in the debate, but on those merit's alone Romney clearly came out on top: it was the style, as well Romney, the real one...not the one portrayed by Obama and his minions portrayed in there 30-second spots, but the Romney on display in Denver, the one who was seen as passionate, in command and easily more affable and now seen as the guy, you would like to sit down and have a beer with: Obama didn't have a teleprompter, his handler's and an adoring press corps who kow tow to him, as they have for the last four years and being challenged by Romney annoyed and un nerved the president: it seem's the Obama crew are sore losers and are looking for opposition research on the Governor: but I think the well is pretty much dry there, they have thrown Bain capital and everything but the kitchen sink at Romney and the guy is still there, like the energizer bunny: as I said before, and not wanting to sound repetitive, but as Karl Rove, Dubya's top political major domo has stated, that in every presidential election, with the exception of 2004, that independent voter's tend to break for the challenger and considering that Obama has a indefensible record that he can't or is unwilling to defend, Independent's it can safely be said saw that debate to, and as  Frank Luntz's focus group illustrated, the independent's were that more favorably disposed to Romney, but many reader's reading this, I suspect agree with my analysis, the exception being those rabid hard core liberal-left Democrats, who are unwilling to relinquish the comfort blanket of there talking points, but that's fine, live in denial; so Wolfentoad, the stats you quote are only good, at least until the final verdict comes in on November 6; but I'm beginning to believe that Romney has a better than even chance of emerging as the winner, especially if he continues to do as well in the next two debates as he did in Denver, but time will tell, my bet Romney by a whisker in the popular vote, but the electoral vote be similar to Nixon in '68 or Kennedy in '60. You heard it here first.

[Oakvale]

who are you and what is this

[HagridOfTheDeep]

¶

[wan]

The debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney which occurred in Denver could be the game changer of the 2012 election, just as the first confrontation between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960: Romney failed to play by the Obama play book, which had depended on the scenario that Romney would somehow be the stereotype that the Obama campaign had painted him during the months and months of negative ads, which had cost them $150 million: Romney had been portrayed as a mean spirited elitist, a latter day Gordon Gecko: but Romney came across as a affable, polished and passionate and Obama denied the cocoon of the left-wing media and his handlers, came across as amateurish and small in stature:  those folks at Obama headquarters’ must have felt like throttling Romney for making them look like liar’s.  The campaign will be punctuated by two more presidential debates and one vice presidential face off: there will be plenty opportunity for Obama to regain his footing in either or both the Hempstead (October 16) and Boca Raton (October 22) face-offs, as well as the Al Smith dinner on October 18: but Obama was knocked off his script in Denver, which could turn out to be his “Waterloo” and Romney was seen as the person he truly is, by millions of voter’s  and not the stereotype he had been portrayed by the Obama machine: the result is that the President’s credibility could have been sufficiently damaged, as to render all further campaign ads slamming Romney as ineffectual:  the critical Independent voters could have been swayed by Romneys' arguments. There is one other caveat that the reader’s of this piece should be mindful of, according to Karl Rove; in every election except 2004, the independent voters have broken for the challenger.  So here is a map of my projected outcome of the 2012 presidential election as of November 7.

Romney-Ryan 301
Obama-Biden 237

Lay off the crack. Romney sure can lie on national televison

[5280]

The contribution by Wolfentoad 66, comes from what I suspect, is someone who fervently's hopes and believes all hope is lost for Mitt Romney: obviously the person to whom I address this buy's into the believe that no one watched last night's debate: I'm not going to address the substance of what was discussed in the debate, but on those merit's alone Romney clearly came out on top: it was the style, as well Romney, the real one...not the one portrayed by Obama and his minions portrayed in there 30-second spots, but the Romney on display in Denver, the one who was seen as passionate, in command and easily more affable and now seen as the guy, you would like to sit down and have a beer with: Obama didn't have a teleprompter, his handler's and an adoring press corps who kow tow to him, as they have for the last four years and being challenged by Romney annoyed and un nerved the president: it seem's the Obama crew are sore losers and are looking for opposition research on the Governor: but I think the well is pretty much dry there, they have thrown Bain capital and everything but the kitchen sink at Romney and the guy is still there, like the energizer bunny: as I said before, and not wanting to sound repetitive, but as Karl Rove, Dubya's top political major domo has stated, that in every presidential election, with the exception of 2004, that independent voter's tend to break for the challenger and considering that Obama has a indefensible record that he can't or is unwilling to defend, Independent's it can safely be said saw that debate to, and as  Frank Luntz's focus group illustrated, the independent's were that more favorably disposed to Romney, but many reader's reading this, I suspect agree with my analysis, the exception being those rabid hard core liberal-left Democrats, who are unwilling to relinquish the comfort blanket of there talking points, but that's fine, live in denial; so Wolfentoad, the stats you quote are only good, at least until the final verdict comes in on November 6; but I'm beginning to believe that Romney has a better than even chance of emerging as the winner, especially if he continues to do as well in the next two debates as he did in Denver, but time will tell, my bet Romney by a whisker in the popular vote, but the electoral vote be similar to Nixon in '68 or Kennedy in '60. You heard it here first.

Not gonna lie, I am biased as an Obama Supporter, but Romney's theoretical victory would be the opposite: He would win by a whisker in the EC, but by a comfortable amount in the PV. Also, I understand Romney's hope is not lost, but Colorado is not going to Romney. Either is Ohio. He could win NC, VA, WI, or Iowa, but not Colorado or Ohio. I, along with most people, thought Romney would win the debate. However, it is unlikely he will win the Debate on Foreign Policy. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion he would get the Electoral Vote similar to 68 and 60 for Romney. What states would he win to get that. Like it or not, Obama still has a Huge Electoral College Advantage, though Romney could still squeak by narrowly. I am also NOT a far-left Liberal Hack. Not even close.

Being a hack goes both ways. Nobody believes a word you say, wait until the actual election.

[heatmaster]

The map I posted outline's my theory: but the idea that Romney can't or won't win either Ohio or Colorado is truly preposterous: the polls currently in those two states are misleading, and now that voter's vision are not likely to be colored by the Obama attack ads aired purely to drive up Romney's negatives won't be taken as seriously; over 67 million voters saw the real deal on Wednesday night and my guess Romney was a surprising revelation to an awful lot of voters, there's an old saying, you live by the sword, you die by the sword; what I mean Obama was born by the media and could die by the media; unlike 2008, Obama has a record to stand on and can ill afford to indulge in negative ads, that kind of behavior was tolerated by voters in both 1988 and 1996, when Bush and Clinton ran, but in those two elections, the economy was running along quite smoothly: but when you have 43 consecutive months of over 8% unemployment rate and anemic growth and all you can say, is how bad your opponent is and not even spend half your time explaining your record or outlining plans on how to address the greater concern in voter's minds, then the result is exactly what happened in Denver and Obama and his campaign have only themselves to blame: I think Romney will play another joker on Obama in the town hall event as well as Boca Raton, which venue I imagine will concentrate on foreign policy: but here again Obama's record is not a good one and the dismal returns for apologizing to the world has enabled America's adversaries, the Benghazi attack demonstrates my point. The map I posted posted is a projection of a possible outcome, but if the returns continue to diminish for Obama, I might be be doing a kindness to Obama in the size of his share of the EV I divvied out for him, his EV share could possibly drop well below the 200 mark, but this electoral  scenario is all speculation, the election contest is a story which is being written and it's outcome will depend on events and time.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

And another person for the ignore list! Learn to properly pluralize words next time.

Also, how do we know the debate-Mitt wasn't a lie and the fundraiser-Mitt was the true one?

[heatmaster]

Well there's an old saying, "you can fool some folks, some of the time, but you sure as hell, can't all of the folks, all of the time"; this ties in with was drilled into me, "nothing rings more true, than the truth" and I think the average Joe, with half of the I.Q. of Obama, who watched the debate, ain't gonna be fooled: I think the problem for most Democrats and the Obama campaign seem to have contempt for the voter's....there philosophy seems to be, don't believe your lying eyes, believe our untruths and vote for us, or else get lost. So unless the Obama campaign can figure out whose voting for whom and discard Romney votes, then there is a problem. Now on foot of the bad debate performance, the jobs report comes out, and miraculously, the unemployment rate "drops" from 8.2% to 7.8%, wow! it's truly amazing and all because of the fact 114,000 more jobs were created and according to my sources you would need 150,000 jobs to be created, just to break even! Because Romney won the debate and so decimated Obama and turned the value of $150 million of negative ads that Obama was running to dust and forced the Obama people to update there assertions that Romney was planning to raise taxes on the middle class, by admitting that was not the case after all: but now Obama is calling Romney is a liar, talk about sour grapes: I would love to be the fly on the wall in David Axelrod's office in Chicago, bet the language is flying around that office, you could see Axelrod on the shows on the morning after the debate, you could see there was barely disguised fury, all his work gone down the drain, because Mitt exposed Obama's lies and came across not as the caricature that team Obama portrayed, but instead you saw somebody who was likeable and affable, "how dare he do that": Romney overturned those negatives and replaced them with very good positives. Now if I were a Obama strategist, that is a problem and a major headache that needs to be addressed and quickly too!, the question that begs to be asked what? Well that's Obama's problem.  

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

cool story bro

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

half of the I.Q. of Obama

Going off an estimate of Obama's IQ, that's mental retardation.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney which occurred in Denver could be the game changer of the 2012 election, just as the first confrontation between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960: Romney failed to play by the Obama play book, which had depended on the scenario that Romney would somehow be the stereotype that the Obama campaign had painted him during the months and months of negative ads, which had cost them $150 million: Romney had been portrayed as a mean spirited elitist, a latter day Gordon Gecko: but Romney came across as a affable, polished and passionate and Obama denied the cocoon of the left-wing media and his handlers, came across as amateurish and small in stature:  those folks at Obama headquarters’ must have felt like throttling Romney for making them look like liar’s.  The campaign will be punctuated by two more presidential debates and one vice presidential face off: there will be plenty opportunity for Obama to regain his footing in either or both the Hempstead (October 16) and Boca Raton (October 22) face-offs, as well as the Al Smith dinner on October 18: but Obama was knocked off his script in Denver, which could turn out to be his “Waterloo” and Romney was seen as the person he truly is, by millions of voter’s  and not the stereotype he had been portrayed by the Obama machine: the result is that the President’s credibility could have been sufficiently damaged, as to render all further campaign ads slamming Romney as ineffectual:  the critical Independent voters could have been swayed by Romneys' arguments. There is one other caveat that the reader’s of this piece should be mindful of, according to Karl Rove; in every election except 2004, the independent voters have broken for the challenger.  So here is a map of my projected outcome of the 2012 presidential election as of November 7.

Romney-Ryan 301
Obama-Biden 237

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico are all swing states.  You don't think Romney will carry them even after the debate?

[heatmaster]

I see no movement in the polls as far as those states yet, but should either Michigan or Pennsylvania or both, are put into the toss-up category, but they they don't seem to be on anybody's radar as of yet; realistically if Michigan or Pennsylvania move towards Romney, well then that's a game changer, as for New Mexico, I think that state may move, should the narrative of the Romney-Obama contest changes, but I'm not oblivious to the fact that if Obama or Romney wins, the result will be close like 2004, 2000, 1976, 1968 or 1960 - take your pick: I have noticed no one has posted maps to counter or support my position.

[Donerail]

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico are all swing states.  You don't think Romney will carry them even after the debate?

Except they're not.

[Orion0]

I am 100% sure Romney will lose Ohio and Colorado, 95% sure he will lose New Hampshire, and 75% sure he will lose Virginia. Other State look a bit more winnable, however.

For all your arguments about not being a hack, anyone saying 100% on Colorado or Ohio at this point is either trolling or a complete hack. A lot can happen in the coming weeks.

[heatmaster]

You are right, Michigan, New Mexico and Pennsylvania are not swing states - yet! and probably won't be, what you seem to have not digested, is I never said they were swing states, as I write this piece, read my previous piece again and get back to me: what I will say once again, if the dynamics of this race and polls suggest likewise, then my theory goes as follows, the polls will be tell there own story; this election contest is now up in the air and those Obama supporter's who populate this forum better get used to it: who ever wins this election, be it Obama or Romney will do so by an extremely close margin, in both the electoral and popular vote and that's the way it is, whether you like it or not and those Obama hacks who can't accept that fact, my heart bleeds for and cry me a river: Do you remember what happened in 2000, prior to that famous debate between Bush and Gore, where Gore was sighing and eye rolling his way out of an electoral slam dunk and now in this election cycle, a cocky and lazy Obama showed up in Denver, and was greeted by a Mitt Romney who was not a caricature of there wildest imaginings, but rather inconveniently someone who was in command of the facts, showed passion and clearly intimidated Obama into silence with the truth: now these opinions might not sit well with those Obama "hacks" (of course you Obamamites don't like the reality of this situation and will deny black is white that you are not "hacks" - but it's like the individual who says it ain't about the money, then you know it's about the money).  As I said this election is now up in the air and that's the way I like it, at least it gives Romney a shot and another thing, I thought as Joe Biden claims, that you Obama Democrats buy into this fairness idea, or maybe I'm wrong, except when it comes to debates and elections.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

who are you and what is this

[heatmaster]

Hi, let me introduce myself, the handle is Heatmaster, a proud Republican, who used to be a registered Independent: but you should know this: I tend to shoot from the hip, because I call it as I see it and the I see this 2012 contest as a barn-burner, finally Obama is gonna get a run for his money, so break out the soda's & popcorn and enjoy the ride

[Hash]

stop trolling & go away.

[heatmaster]

No way Tyd Om Te Trek (are you a Obama troll? LOL), I'm gonna keep on trolling and I'm here to stay, annoyed Obama hack....ain't free speech great! What kinda handle is Tyd Om Te Trek? and why can't you engage in an intelligent debate? and telling me to stop trolling and go away, is that the best you can do? As if I will, right!