Oct
23
2012

The morning after the third debate: first impressions.

Judging from the reaction that most of my colleagues are seeing, there are a lot of angry Lefties that are baffled at how their guy isn’t being lauded and cossetted and praised to the skies and resuming his mantle of inevitability; after all, did Obama not win last night?

So it’s going to be a fun rest of the week, I’m thinking.  Lot of bitterness and spite going to be going on, out there.  And damned little of it from my side, which is how it should be: we’re the good guys, after all.

Moe Lane

PS: Do you know what the really funny part will be? Watching the Left watch the polls tighten… and then loosen up again.

Written by in: Politics | Tags:
|

12 Comments

  • Jbird says:

    I thought Romney laid up and played for the tie, which he sorta got, more or less. There is so much there that has gone wrong that Romney should have pounded him all night long, but didn’t. I was disappointing in that, but I assume that the strategy was designed to avoid any earth shattering blunders.

  • NotSoBlueStater says:

    Jbird: We have to believe that everything was focus-group tested in advance, and that agreeing with the president worked better than attacking him. Simple truth: Undecided voters probably don’t care about Benghazi. Is that really sad? Yes.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368 says:

    Romney has successfully gotten the narrative to do you want four more years of this guy’s economic policy. He doesn’t want to spend any of the last 14 days discussing foreign policy so he laid it up, clinched, waited for a vulnerable moment like the apology tour and then pounded home the economic message.

  • Rob Crawford says:

    Who actually “scores” debates? I’ve never bought the “win” vs. “lose” excepting tantrums and out-and-out acting like an ass. So… Obama lost the first one, Biden lost the second one, and the other two were just the candidates speaking without (mostly) an idiot mediator between them and the audience.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368 says:

    Last night Chris Matthews was incredible. Called Americans racist for not supporting Obama – 8 minutes in. Said “Could you imagine, McGovern refusing to engage Nixon on Vietnam”? Uh, McGovern went down to a historical defeat; don’t think Romney is interested in that advice. Side car: there is absolutely nothing inherently noble about losing. Losers are the guys who sit around and watch the other guys pass ObamaCare. Then when the losers complain about the process excluding them, the other guys says, “I won”.

  • HeartbreakRidge says:

    or, lefties will seize upon a point +/- as proof of the big comeback, only to see Romulus Prime continue his march upward.

  • Spegen says:

    I don’t think this debate will do anything to the polls. The preference cascade already seems in motion, Obama would have had to win in epic fashion, he didn’t, and he seemed to know it.

  • acat says:

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334144.php
    .
    Romney didn’t need to go after Obama, being too aggressive will alienate the squishy-headed dunces he needs to peel off of Obama… last thing Romney wants is to give Obama a sympathy angle! “The rich white guy beat me up!”.
    .
    I’m hoping that Chris Matthews joins Dan Rather and Helen Thomas in journalistic irrelevance … he’s only one scandal or another couple seriously over-the-top statements away at this point.
    .
    Mew

  • Lady Penguin says:

    PS: Do you know what the really funny part will be? Watching the Left watch the polls tighten… and then loosen up again.

    You are absolutely one of the most clever writers I know. Loved the wordplay you have in your PS comment.

  • Kay B. Day says:

    What mattered to me was the establishment of credibility as commander-in-chief. Obama came off as snarky and his talking points were stump speech rehashes.

    Romney came off as calm, informed and confident. I correctly predicted that Romney would win the fact-check, persona and sound bite sectors.

    Romney’s closing was remarkable. I snipped it from the C-SPAN site just to rewatch it because I actually experienced a moment when he finished. I’ve only done that with one other candidate in my whole life–seeing Marco Rubio at a luncheon early on in his Senate race when he was down in polls (to the loser Crist). Rubio brought a crowd of women to their feet and I realized if all goes well, he may be pres some day.

    But for me, Romney simply captured the persona of commander-in-chief better.

    As an aside, as soon as I heard the bayonet claim by Obama, I knew I’d be hearing from one of my favorite U.S. Marines about that matter.

  • Darin H says:

    Romney played for more women’s vote – men are either committed to Romney, were watching football or watching baseball (I don’t have ESPN and not a big MLB fan, recorded the debate and watched it, with some skipping, this morning).

  • HeartbreakRidge says:

    I think Romney also correctly recognizes the war weariness even among people who supported going into Afghanistan and Iraq. Wonder what the gender split is on that?

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com