EPTFor example, he provided Obama with a lot of ammunition to use in future debates and campaign ads, by pretty much flip-flopping on everything on his campaign platform, which might come back to bite him in the long run. The Mitt Romney in the debate was running as the moderate governor of Massachusetts, but that's not who he has been running as throughout the primary and presidential campaign. He really wants to go "etch-a-sketch", but in this day and age with the increasing use of social media and video... it may backfire, because you can't really pretend you didn't say something before. There's too much proof. It's too easy to take clips from the debate, and then contrast them with contradictory stances from before. We'll have to see how this plays out, but count me as one of those who is slightly skeptical that this is overall a net good for Romney.
First 2012 Presidential Debate - Page 2
| Blogs > xXFireandIceXx |
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
For example, he provided Obama with a lot of ammunition to use in future debates and campaign ads, by pretty much flip-flopping on everything on his campaign platform, which might come back to bite him in the long run. The Mitt Romney in the debate was running as the moderate governor of Massachusetts, but that's not who he has been running as throughout the primary and presidential campaign. He really wants to go "etch-a-sketch", but in this day and age with the increasing use of social media and video... it may backfire, because you can't really pretend you didn't say something before. There's too much proof. It's too easy to take clips from the debate, and then contrast them with contradictory stances from before. We'll have to see how this plays out, but count me as one of those who is slightly skeptical that this is overall a net good for Romney. | ||
|
xXFireandIceXx
Canada4296 Posts
On October 05 2012 11:56 Funnytoss wrote: I feel that you really can't determine who "won" or "lost" a debate based purely on next-day reaction. For example, although most of the media gave the debate to Romney based on style points, I'm not sure his strategy was for the best. For example, he provided Obama with a lot of ammunition to use in future debates and campaign ads, by pretty much flip-flopping on everything on his campaign platform, which might come back to bite him in the long run. The Mitt Romney in the debate was running as the moderate governor of Massachusetts, but that's not who he has been running as throughout the primary and presidential campaign. He really wants to go "etch-a-sketch", but in this day and age with the increasing use of social media and video... it may backfire, because you can't really pretend you didn't say something before. There's too much proof. It's too easy to take clips from the debate, and then contrast them with contradictory stances from before. We'll have to see how this plays out, but count me as one of those who is slightly skeptical that this is overall a net good for Romney. Neat analysis. New Obama video on the debate | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On October 05 2012 00:59 xXFireandIceXx wrote: Yup. Romney certainly did not explain what it is he actually wants to do. It seems like he's asking for a blank cheque here. Romney repeatedly explained what he wants to do. he gave specific goals, and set broad guidelines for how to achieve those goals, which is no more or less than any candidate has ever done. further, what exactly is Mitt Romney supposed to do? the debates give him only so much time, he can't explain in full detail what his plans are, especially when the details will have to be hammered out by negotiations with Congress. asking Romney to be more specific is a way of tricking people who don't know what they're talking about and couldn't understand the specifics even if Romney did explain them, which he has before. Obama knows this and runs with it, despite it being a clearly dishonest tactic. basically: Romney has given us a broad guideline and specific goals and metrics that we can judge him by. he has also, at other times, gone into greater detail. the reason Obama lost the debate wasn't because he was uninterested, lethargic and disheartened. he was lethargic, uninterested and disheartened because his ideas are terrible, and he lost the debate because for the first time in God-knows-how-long, he was in an honest-to-God debate with someone who knew what the hell he was talking about. Romney straight schooled Obama on the battle of ideas, which led to Obama being schooled on the battle of perceptions. he became disheartened as soon as Romney started tearing him up. On October 05 2012 11:56 Funnytoss wrote: For example, he provided Obama with a lot of ammunition to use in future debates and campaign ads, by pretty much flip-flopping on everything on his campaign platform, which might come back to bite him in the long run. he didn't flip-flop on any position his campaign has held. what happened is that your caricature of Romney was proven wrong. you just mistake the caricature that you've created in your own mind as the real Romney. blame the media. | ||
|
xXFireandIceXx
Canada4296 Posts
On October 06 2012 09:24 sc2superfan101 wrote: Romney repeatedly explained what he wants to do. he gave specific goals, and set broad guidelines for how to achieve those goals, which is no more or less than any candidate has ever done. further, what exactly is Mitt Romney supposed to do? the debates give him only so much time, he can't explain in full detail what his plans are, especially when the details will have to be hammered out by negotiations with Congress. asking Romney to be more specific is a way of tricking people who don't know what they're talking about and couldn't understand the specifics even if Romney did explain them, which he has before. Obama knows this and runs with it, despite it being a clearly dishonest tactic. basically: Romney has given us a broad guideline and specific goals and metrics that we can judge him by. he has also, at other times, gone into greater detail. the reason Obama lost the debate wasn't because he was uninterested, lethargic and disheartened. he was lethargic, uninterested and disheartened because his ideas are terrible, and he lost the debate because for the first time in God-knows-how-long, he was in an honest-to-God debate with someone who knew what the hell he was talking about. Romney straight schooled Obama on the battle of ideas, which led to Obama being schooled on the battle of perceptions. he became disheartened as soon as Romney started tearing him up. he didn't flip-flop on any position his campaign has held. what happened is that your caricature of Romney was proven wrong. you just mistake the caricature that you've created in your own mind as the real Romney. blame the media. But Romney's claim of Medicare providing care to all who need it ALREADY before the Affordable Care Act was false. And his budget the rich, apparently he promised no new taxes on anyone. How exactly is that possible? | ||
|
xXFireandIceXx
Canada4296 Posts
On October 06 2012 09:24 sc2superfan101 wrote: Romney repeatedly explained what he wants to do. he gave specific goals, and set broad guidelines for how to achieve those goals, which is no more or less than any candidate has ever done. further, what exactly is Mitt Romney supposed to do? the debates give him only so much time, he can't explain in full detail what his plans are, especially when the details will have to be hammered out by negotiations with Congress. asking Romney to be more specific is a way of tricking people who don't know what they're talking about and couldn't understand the specifics even if Romney did explain them, which he has before. Obama knows this and runs with it, despite it being a clearly dishonest tactic. basically: Romney has given us a broad guideline and specific goals and metrics that we can judge him by. he has also, at other times, gone into greater detail. the reason Obama lost the debate wasn't because he was uninterested, lethargic and disheartened. he was lethargic, uninterested and disheartened because his ideas are terrible, and he lost the debate because for the first time in God-knows-how-long, he was in an honest-to-God debate with someone who knew what the hell he was talking about. Romney straight schooled Obama on the battle of ideas, which led to Obama being schooled on the battle of perceptions. he became disheartened as soon as Romney started tearing him up. he didn't flip-flop on any position his campaign has held. what happened is that your caricature of Romney was proven wrong. you just mistake the caricature that you've created in your own mind as the real Romney. blame the media. | ||
| ||
