Hit Mitt not enough for Obama win ...

[JackN415]

In a nutshell, the article argues that it is not enough for Obama to say: "Looks, Mitt is bad". Obama must also say:"why I am better".

http://www.nj.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2012/10/hit_mitt_not_enough_for_obama.html

Everything was going great for Barack Obama until about 9:04 on the night of Oct. 3, when Mitt Romney startled everybody by refusing to live up to his caricature as The Worst Candidate Ever. Romney's late-game comeback -- an unexpected assertion of presidential competence in front of 67 million viewers -- robbed Obama of his momentum and forced the president's team to make a subtle yet significant change to their closing argument in the critical last two weeks of the 2012 campaign.

Instead the pressure is now on Obama to prove himself, and oh-so-late in the game. That led his campaign on Tuesday to release a detailed, bullet-point plan for his second term -- a formal agenda his team long resisted despite appeals from the likes of Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and James Carville and army of basic-cable liberals who said the president needed to spend less time cutting down Romney and more time elevating himself.

I have to say that I had the same sentiment. I was frustrated that Obama did not take up the talking points served on a silver platter for him by Bill Clinton. Just come out and say how decent a job it has been given the circumstance and say he wishes much better and is committed to much better results ahead. Leave it to other Dems to blame Republican obstructionism. Just assume a no-excuse, the-buck-stop-here-attitude.

I don't know whether the Obama team has the "not-invented-here" syndrome and doesn't want to appear too dependent on Bill Clinton (granted, the Big Dawg's stature is huge and one must be careful not appear to be in his shadow), but they can sculpt their own messages and programs with unique flavor along the same line, which is the obvious truth and reasonable idea.

I was shocked to see how Obama could have lost that much momentum after the 1st debate, but I realized after talking with a number of colleagues that Romney helped himself a great deal by rebuilding his image. The common message I heard was "Romney is not bad,...Romney is OK". And it was those Republican-leaning people beginning to support him - not Obama's loss that makes a tighter race. Obama's negative attack is no longer effective, because once people believe in a candidate, they dismiss negative ads. A permanent gain, almost irreversible for Romney.

But the potential for Obama and Dems is even bigger than those Republican leaning people. The key is GOTV! I got a lady friend and 2 of her friends to do early voting yesterday, only one of them ever voted before.

I am confident that there are many 1st time voters that will make many dumb and out-of-touch pollsters eat crows after Obama's win.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Funny, all I've heard from the Rmoney/Ryin' campaign is , "Obama is a Failure"

and not a single detail on any policies they might have.

[JackN415]

7. Going negative with lies is the trademark of republicans (swiftboating), but...

that is a given strategy for them.

Obama team's negative attack works also - for awhile, but not enough for a very small sliver of middle of the road that may go 50-50 both sides. Precisely because Republican's negative attack is effective that Obama must defend by bolstering the point about country's on the road to recovery, and what will be like after full recovery.

You wouldn't believe it until you talk with one that swallowed hook, line, sinker the line that median income is down, more people in poverty under Obama,... forgetting the 2008 crisis triggering the worst recession in decades.

There are 2 types of people: one type is like Lee Iacocca, or Jack Welch repeating the deception that they know full well false to serve their purpose, and the type that truly believe it, not as a convenient pretext for something else (such as racism). Only when talk with one of type 2 that you know they exist. The good news is, some can be convinced otherwise.

[OldDem2012]

2. I'm CONCERNED that you're CONCERNED. nt.

[budkin]

3. This sounds like you wrote it a week after the first debate

Things have indeed reversed after that. Not as much, but enough. Yes Obama will win, and no, people don't like Romney.

[JackN415]

6. There are enough people out there liking Romney that Obama

must spend large resource combating with Romney in swing states.

I only quote the article. I didn't write anything, other than agreeing with those points.

This is what I thought about debate in general:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021538363

Finally, I do know a couple people who are conservatives, republican leaning, who are likely vote for Romney, but they are no where near the caricatured RWers, extremists, racists, or ignoramus portrayed in media.

They were not enthusiastic about Romney before, but they fell less negative of him after he reinvented himself.

[fugop]

4. What a crock.

Obama has spent plenty of time talking about why he's the best choice for our country. If you missed it, then you haven't been listening.

[JackN415]

9. I listened. Just not as impressed.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

5. Sigh

When are people going to stop pearl clutching over the first debate?

Seriously move on with your life.

[JackN415]

8. you misunderstood. I never give a damn about the debate...

But I only want to investigate the fact, the reality that there was a measurable increase of Romney's support.

We aren't like Republicans living in alternate reality here.

Obama never lost any base support over a stupid debate.
It was that Romney did himself a favor of gaining his own support.

How else to explain the race suddenly becomes more competitive, and stayed so regardless how well Biden and Obama did?

That's the reason that I argue that: 1- realize Obama potential with GOTV, and 2-stop the tipping of the last 1, 2% over Romney, should do the job.