2012 Debates

[RandFan]

Not at all. But for him to have two or three successful news cycles, he first needs to have one. That's part of my point.

One I acknowledged and you seemed not to have noticed.

If you were to place your bet based on the odds as they are now and hold the election now, sure, it would be a stupid bet. That, however, is not reality. The reality is that the elections are some weeks away and at the moment Romney appears to have a very decent upward trend due to a single (relatively) good performance. If he's able to repeat that performance and maintain the current trend, by the time the elections roll around, that bet may not be so bad. And that is why people are "getting wet" over "a single good news cycle".

I don't think you understand statistics. If it's not a good bet then, well, it's not a good bet. That's the end of that story. Could this be a reason for hope? Yes. I never said it wasn't. My point is this is not enough to warrant claims that Romney is likely to win or to get overly excited. That's it. That's all.

Personally, I'm hopeful that Obama will win, but I don't agree with your attempt to cut off at the knees anyone on the Right feeling a bit excited by his debate performance. They have every reason to feel that way.

"Feel"? This is a skeptics forum not a love it. And I'm NOT I'm not cutting anyone off at the knees. I'm just facing facts. If that hurts people's feelings they ought not be in this forum.

Now, there is nothing wrong with finding something in the polls to give one hope. But it's delusional or dishonest pretend this means Romney has a very good chance of winning. See the difference? 30% chance is NOT a very good chance. It's an okay chance.

• The movement in the polls is a reason to hope.
• The movement in the polls is not a reason to think Romney has anything more than a 30% chance to win.

And BTW: You have not, as far as I can see, acknowledged that the odds are based in part on a long term trend. You far too easily dismiss that. At the end of the day a 30% chance of rain doesn't mean you should cancel your golf game. Even if that chance increased from 25% the day before.

 

[SezMe]

? To me, Virus is representative of people who live in Australia and know little to nothing about America. (points at "location" entry). I don't respond to him because there's no point; it would be tantamount to me going over to the Aussie politics thread and shouting about "Labour". He doesn't vote, he doesn't live here, and therefore he doesn't matter.

I disagree to some extent. Yeah, he doesn't have a vote so in that sense he doesn't matter. However, we live in a tightly connected world and opinions such a his are not sealed off at the border so may play into the international election zeitgeist. Also, many USA citizens, military and civilian, live overseas and may well be influenced by attitudes such as his.

Finally, I'm hard pressed to believe that Virus is representative of any large group of people anywhere. As he presents himself here he is wholly and completely unable to see shades of grey. To do nuance. To be moved by data. I just don't think most conservatives - most people, actually - are that bad.

 

[MattusMaximus]

That's close.

More accurately, however, the Right really didn't want Romney in the first place, and only took him because they thought they had to. Sure, it's "beat Obama at any cost," but that cost is high.

And then (and still) it looked like he wasn't going to.

Now, all of a sudden, there's actually a reason to think he might have a chance. And the Right suddenly discovers they love the guy after all.

That, plus the Democrats historically have gone absolutely to pieces at the first sign of trouble. Maybe you don't remember, but it used to take almost nothing before they'd all scream The Sky Is Falling!
That's what we're seeing here. And I still contend it's transient. Taken in isolation, that debate was really just not that interesting.

This ^

Some of my Democratic and liberal brethren just need to nut up.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I agree with you. I don't understand the level of confidence I see here.

The "confidence" being displayed here and elsewhere by conservatives is little more than psychological warfare. They are trying like hell to scare the crap out of the Democrats/liberals (or, more accurately, they're trying to get them to scare the crap out of themselves) so that we start wringing our hands in dismay, whine and kvetch endlessly, and so on.

If we waste our time bitching about our lot in life, that's less time we'll spend getting out the vote and advocating for President Obama. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So, for my Democratic/liberal brethren: suck it up. Our guy had a poor performance in the debate (not my assessment, but that's how a lot of people saw it), and we need to rally and move on.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I guess another way of putting this is that anyone who is excited by Romney's debate performance isn't seeing it as a good performance at the end of a long string of poor performances. They're seeing it as the beginning of a last-second comeback. If you enjoy sports, you know how exciting that glimmer of hope can be.

Good analogy. Well said.

 

[not_so_new]

The "confidence" being displayed here and elsewhere by conservatives is little more than psychological warfare. They are trying like hell to scare the crap out of the Democrats/liberals (or, more accurately, they're trying to get them to scare the crap out of themselves) so that we start wringing our hands in dismay, whine and kvetch endlessly, and so on.

If we waste our time bitching about our lot in life, that's less time we'll spend getting out the vote and advocating for President Obama. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So, for my Democratic/liberal brethren: suck it up. Our guy had a poor performance in the debate (not my assessment, but that's how a lot of people saw it), and we need to rally and move on.

Nice post and yes, I agree.

 

[Ziggurat]

My favorite take yet on the debate:

“It’s party time, chumps.”

 

[elbe]

The "confidence" being displayed here and elsewhere by conservatives is little more than psychological warfare. They are trying like hell to scare the crap out of the Democrats/liberals (or, more accurately, they're trying to get them to scare the crap out of themselves) so that we start wringing our hands in dismay, whine and kvetch endlessly, and so on.

I perceive a lot of the confidence as an inability to understand how people can like Obama (and, likely, vice versa). People get a little too invested in their ideology.

 

[Meadmaker]

Thinking about the first debate, and seeing the reaction to it, I think something very good happened there. Obama was universally chided for a bad performance, but what was bad about it? The answer is that he let Romney get away with a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Romney told his story, and Obama didn't connect with telling people why it was baloney.

In the week since, there has been a new pattern emerging in the news. When it comes to economic issues, Obama has to persuade people that Romney's plan is unworkable.

Why is that good?

Because this is the real meat, the real substance, of the campaign. When it comes to debt, taxes, and related issues, Romney says we can have it all and not pay for it. Obama says........something, but it includes a high income tax increase.

When it comes to health care, Obama has a plan. Romney mumbles and says that whatever the good idea is it isn't Obamacare, which was a great idea when passed by Massachusetts Democrats but......something....or.....whatever.

These guys are actually talking, and they're talking about real issues. They try to evade when the real issues are uncomfortable for them, but the issues are real.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Thinking about the first debate, and seeing the reaction to it, I think something very good happened there. Obama was universally chided for a bad performance, but what was bad about it? The answer is that he let Romney get away with a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Romney told his story, and Obama didn't connect with telling people why it was baloney.

Maybe I'm really cynical, but I don't think that most people care about

In the week since, there has been a new pattern emerging in the news. When it comes to economic issues, Obama has to persuade people that Romney's plan is unworkable.

Why is that good?

Because this is the real meat, the real substance, of the campaign. When it comes to debt, taxes, and related issues, Romney says we can have it all and not pay for it. Obama says........something, but it includes a high income tax increase.

When it comes to health care, Obama has a plan. Romney mumbles and says that whatever the good idea is it isn't Obamacare, which was a great idea when passed by Massachusetts Democrats but......something....or.....whatever.

These guys are actually talking, and they're talking about real issues. They try to evade when the real issues are uncomfortable for them, but the issues are real.

I think that you're hopelessly optimistic. I doubt that most Americans are really aware of how much Romney changed his stances during the debate (I've seen almost nothing about this in the Biased Liberal Mainstream Media) and I don't think that most Americans have thought through the practicality of the differing plans. The debates are all about who seems "presidential". Unless Obama's team starts airing commercials demonstrating Romney's flip-flops, the only good that will come out of the debate will be for Romney.

 

[RandFan]

...the only good that will come out of the debate will be for Romney.

Strikes me a bit Dunning-Krueger like overconfidence to me. I've no idea how someone can categorically state something that due to chaos is impossible to model beyond some degree of error. If you simply meant to say that it is "probable" then I strongly disagree but at least it would be rational.

 

[SezMe]

The "confidence" being displayed here and elsewhere by conservatives is little more than psychological warfare. They are trying like hell to scare the crap out of the Democrats/liberals (or, more accurately, they're trying to get them to scare the crap out of themselves) so that we start wringing our hands in dismay, whine and kvetch endlessly, and so on.

It seems to me that if one is to believe that, then exactly the same thing could be said of the liberals just 10 days ago. We're you engaged in psychological warfare before the debate when boasting that Obama was a shoo-in? If not, what's the difference?

 

[RandFan]

It seems to me that if one is to believe that, then exactly the same thing could be said of the liberals just 10 days ago. We're you engaged in psychological warfare before the debate when boasting that Obama was a shoo-in? If not, what's the difference?

It's a fair point. But to be equally fair, before the debate the odds of Obama winning based on electoral college math were in the 80% ball park. Now the odds of Obama winning are down to around the 70% mark. You can see that the difference between 80/20 vs 70/30 isn't that much to crow about, right? Don't get me wrong. It's momentum and that's is critical in such a contest but it's not as if the odds after the debate are diametrically oppose to the odds before, right?

 

[NotJesus]

Bill Clinton reacts to the first debate:

 

[Meadmaker]

Unless Obama's team starts airing commercials demonstrating Romney's flip-flops, the only good that will come out of the debate will be for Romney.

I agree, and that's the point. Before the debate, Romney wasn't getting any traction and Obama went with a non-aggressive strategy during the debate, and it didn't work.

Now, he has to talk about the real substance of the campaign. The real substance of their tax plans is that Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. Romney wants to cut taxes for everyone. That's a pretty big difference with real consequences. Everyone wants low taxes, so Obama really has to start getting out the message that high taxes are justified.

On spending, Romney wants more defense spending, and won't say what he wants less of, except Big Bird. That's a real issue. Romney wants to spend more money, at least if you look at the specifics. How does that work, unless there's a tax increase.

Back to taxes, Romney wants deductions cut, but which ones? When it comes to the big ticket items like home mortgages, property taxes, child credits, personal exemptions, all of those things help the middle class much more than the rich.

What the debate, and the post debate polling, demonstrated was that if you let Romney yammer vaguely, he'll win. He can promise less work for more pay just as well as the next guy. It's time to force some real talk.

I hope that's a good thing. What I mean by that is that I hope the American people would actually listen to real talk instead of 9 second sound bites. Obama has to do it. We'll see if he does.

 

[RandFan]

I agree, and that's the point. Before the debate, Romney wasn't getting any traction and Obama went with a non-aggressive strategy during the debate, and it didn't work.

Now, he has to talk about the real substance of the campaign. The real substance of their tax plans is that Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. Romney wants to cut taxes for everyone. That's a pretty big difference with real consequences. Everyone wants low taxes, so Obama really has to start getting out the message that high taxes are justified.

On spending, Romney wants more defense spending, and won't say what he wants less of, except Big Bird. That's a real issue. Romney wants to spend more money, at least if you look at the specifics. How does that work, unless there's a tax increase.

Back to taxes, Romney wants deductions cut, but which ones? When it comes to the big ticket items like home mortgages, property taxes, child credits, personal exemptions, all of those things help the middle class much more than the rich.

What the debate, and the post debate polling, demonstrated was that if you let Romney yammer vaguely, he'll win. He can promise less work for more pay just as well as the next guy. It's time to force some real talk.

I hope that's a good thing. What I mean by that is that I hope the American people would actually listen to real talk instead of 9 second sound bites. Obama has to do it. We'll see if he does.

Good post. I agree.

 

[AlBell]

I agree, and that's the point. Before the debate, Romney wasn't getting any traction and Obama went with a non-aggressive strategy during the debate, and it didn't work.

Now, he has to talk about the real substance of the campaign. The real substance of their tax plans is that Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. Romney wants to cut taxes for everyone. That's a pretty big difference with real consequences. Everyone wants low taxes, so Obama really has to start getting out the message that high taxes are justified.

On spending, Romney wants more defense spending, and won't say what he wants less of, except Big Bird. That's a real issue. Romney wants to spend more money, at least if you look at the specifics. How does that work, unless there's a tax increase.

Back to taxes, Romney wants deductions cut, but which ones? When it comes to the big ticket items like home mortgages, property taxes, child credits, personal exemptions, all of those things help the middle class much more than the rich.

What the debate, and the post debate polling, demonstrated was that if you let Romney yammer vaguely, he'll win. He can promise less work for more pay just as well as the next guy. It's time to force some real talk.

I hope that's a good thing. What I mean by that is that I hope the American people would actually listen to real talk instead of 9 second sound bites. Obama has to do it. We'll see if he does.

Expect more blather from Obama about Forward: Hope and Change.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Thinking about the first debate, and seeing the reaction to it, I think something very good happened there. Obama was universally chided for a bad performance, but what was bad about it? The answer is that he let Romney get away with a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Romney told his story, and Obama didn't connect with telling people why it was baloney.

In the week since, there has been a new pattern emerging in the news. When it comes to economic issues, Obama has to persuade people that Romney's plan is unworkable.

Why is that good?

Because this is the real meat, the real substance, of the campaign. When it comes to debt, taxes, and related issues, Romney says we can have it all and not pay for it. Obama says........something, but it includes a high income tax increase.

When it comes to health care, Obama has a plan. Romney mumbles and says that whatever the good idea is it isn't Obamacare, which was a great idea when passed by Massachusetts Democrats but......something....or.....whatever.

These guys are actually talking, and they're talking about real issues. They try to evade when the real issues are uncomfortable for them, but the issues are real.

Excellent post!

 

[MattusMaximus]

It seems to me that if one is to believe that, then exactly the same thing could be said of the liberals just 10 days ago. We're you engaged in psychological warfare before the debate when boasting that Obama was a shoo-in? If not, what's the difference?

I was partly guilty of that, of course. But as Randfan said, I had/have a helluva lot of evidence on my side. Romney supporters have mostly bluster, though polls have shifted in his favor of late.

 

[ravdin]

My favorite take yet on the debate:

“It’s party time, chumps.”

Saw it already and it's full of awesomesauce. This version is much shorter than the original debate and it's equally informative!