I was naive about the effect of the debate...

[JackN415]

I thought that nobody would be that frivolous in the choice of a president to take debate performance seriously. I thought people vote a person for leadership, competence, integrity, compassion, decency, and character...

I can vote for a mute, or a stutterer, or a cripple (like FDR), or generally a disabled person as long as that person has all the qualifications and is capable of handling day-to-day duty, making tough calls and decisions.

When we vote for a president, do we really expect him/her to really think of new ideas? to know and recall all the facts like Jeopardy champions? Or to rattle out statistics like an actuary? I'd rather have them not do it. Leave these things to the experts, the intelligentsia, the pundits whose jobs are to do these things. A president with his own expert idea or his own research result is dangerous, because he/she will be blind to own error.

The president job is to maintain a clarity of vision, to comprehend, muddle through, and make the right call from all these confusing, competing alternatives of policy and action that the advisers lay on the table, to achieve the objective and maintain a right course for the country.

Well, how wrong I was, seeing the gain Romney did, assuming the polls are accurate. So, some people do like to see verbal wrestling prowess as a top qualification for presidency.

But I'm more disappointed in the media, which went along with this as a bloodsport, just because they need to fill columns or do non-stop on-air talking.

That said, people do need to feel comfortable with someone who can communicate with them. No one ever mistook Reagan for an egghead like Clinton, or a sincere gentleman like Carter, but the Great Communicator didn't win the presidency for nothing. I was not an Obama supporter during the 2008 primary, but I did see and appreciate his ability to connect with people.

That connection is a bit tattered now to the "persuadable" independents because of that Debate. He just needs to mend it and reconnect with them.

Well, if it is a sport, then so be it. Make it 2 halves so that they can make half-time adjustment. Or intermission between rounds so that Obama can smell some salt or something

Disclosure: I was not interested in watching that Debate at all, thinking it would be boring to death. But I watched it a little and stayed on longer only because I wondered what Obama game plan would be. Until I realized that was it. Like watching a Night Shyamalan movie with no twist when the light was turned on and the film closing credit was rolling.

[Whisp]

1. get the fuck over it already. n/t

[JackN415]

5. the polls (if accurate) didn't get over. GOTV needed.

[theinquisitivechad]

2. Your concern is noted.

Start a blog. I'm sure others would be interested in your fascinating analysis.

[still_one]

4. Then why respond?

[theinquisitivechad]

8. Because if everyone took this approach

There would be no rebuttal of the inherent defeatism. Sorry but it's not permissible in my mind. We are each entitled to our own opinion.

[still_one]

10. The negativity and defeatism around here bothers me to.

[russspeakeasy]

3. yeah, I know. He'll never win with that guns and religion

statement..oh, wait a minute.
OUR PRESIDENT IS NOT A ONE TRICK PONY !

[mzmolly]

6. I was also.

And I agree with you on the media.

[Savannahmann]

7. You weren't alone

The Democratic Party, and the Campaign were with you, that it wouldn't matter all that much, perhaps a small tick in the polls, but really nothing more than minor blip. Even now, people swear that was the case, and the resulting poll numbers are a short lived bounce.

One of the many rules of battle are that you can not underestimate your enemy. We did. Sure some people shouted warnings that the Rethugs were serious, and dangerous. They were belittled and denounced as defeatist. Any time you go into a competition, no matter what kind of competition, you must consider your opponent serious. President Obama, and the campaign, strolled into the debate, and intended to stroll through it. Well we all know that it matters now, and with a little luck we won't forget that lesson again.

[JackN415]

13. This is anecdotal, but I think we lost only Repub-leaning voters.

I chatted with a number of "independents" and "don't-care-that-much." Those who were a bit conservative (center right) were the ones told me "Romney is not that bad," "Romney is OK,"... In other words, I think the polls may get the bounce from those who were already Repub leaning, but are now more affirmative in identifying with his campaign.

But some of these people (I chatted with) were not high-probability voters. They may answer the polls, but may not go to the polls.

[RepublicansRZombies]

9. Doesn't matter what Obama does or says at the next debate, according to the 1% media,he already lost

They are lying about him losing, lying about the polls, lying about everything all in an attempt to manufacture consent to steal another election.

Look at the Ryan/Biden debate. They can spin anything and their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Our real problem here is the media. They are using our public airwaves to lie and make themselves money, in violation of their FCC license.


WE have to do something about the lying media!!!

[JackN415]

12. Are there any voters left for him to lose? so may be he will gain some back.

[JackN415]

11. 3 TO's each side and half-time intermission will...

Last edited Sun Oct 14, 2012, 05:58 PM - Edit history (1)

give both sides a chance to adjust. For TV talking heads to have a field day with 1/2 time reports and analyses ad nauseam. For Ryan a chance to relieve himself from all that water drinking.

[ananda]

14. I thought Obama's debate performance was just fine..

.. considering what he had to deal with.

It's the constant spin that concerns me.

Then Biden clearly cleaned Ryan's clock, and yet the
constant spin says otherwise.

It's not the debate performances, folks, it's the
rightwing media that's the problem!!!

[JackN415]

17. Agree. I don't listen that much to TV talking head,

and I think it is enough to see Biden exposing the Republican position, without replay and slo-mo...

But we are a part of the problem. If the Nielsen ratings of these post-debate analyses are low, the shows would not be around.

[dems_rightnow]

15. Then why did you think they scheduled debates?

I you didn't believe that people would use them to assist in their choice for President, why did you think they even had debates?

[JackN415]

16. I'm not a historian...

but it's a chance for people to make side-by-side comparison what each candidate stands for.

However, I don't think Lincoln-Douglas debates were meant to be spun, filtered, colored, amplified, diminished, and analyzed to death by modern media revving on technology with massive bandwidth and instant speed. We humans are susceptible to influence by massive communication bombardment (otherwise, why there is Madison industry, and how Google, Facebook can be as big as they are).

I would think that overtime, the dazzling effect of one night performance will fade and people will come to their sense, go back home and not run after the circus. But we'll see.