Who Won Last Night’s Debate? My View.

It’s rather interesting: in all four debates, no matter who was debating (Romney or Ryan versus Obama or Biden) or who the moderator was, somehow the Democrat was given more time four times out of four.

Now, I remember that Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” that many people thought was very, VERY deliberate.  But here’s the thing: that was a one-off moment.  If Janet Jackson had done four Super Bowl halftime shows and had a “wardrobe malfunction” every single time, I don’t think most people would conclude anything OTHER than that it was very, VERY deliberate.  And for that very reason I can assure you that Obama-Biden getting more time in every single debate four times out of four was a very deliberate and intentional nod by the media to the Obama campaign.

I suppose there is ONE other possibility; and that is that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden are rude, nasty rat bastards and they simply interrupted their opponents and then kept talking and talking.  But that doesn’t explain why Obama got more time when everybody agrees the man was ANYTHING but aggressive.

And then you add Candy Crowley feeling that urgent need to take Obama’s side in that second debate and, well, when it comes to bias you ought to get the picture in crystal clear, high definition format.

As we enter tonight’s debate, we find that Bob Schieffer literally wrote the book on Ronald Reagan.  The title – Ronald Reagan and the Supporting Players Who Helped Him Create the Illusion That Held America Spellbound ought to convey the arrogant liberal tone of the hit piece.  And Schieffer is also on the record for obsessing over what he demagogues as the GOP obsession.  So it’s not like he’s fair or objective anything.

So Romney starts out with that disadvantage of being a Republican right from the starting gate.  But nothing the media did stopped Romney from using the first debate to mop the floor with Obama’s face.  I mean, when you win a debate by fifty freaking points, you ought to be able to samurai-slice your opponent’s head off his shoulders at the end of the evening.

In the second debate, CNN’s post-debate poll said that Obama won the debate.  But if you actually looked at that poll, Romney won OVERWHELMINGLY on who would better handle the economy, who would better handle health care, who would better handle taxes, who would better handle the deficit and the debt, the answer was Romney across the board.  So unless you don’t care about the economy, or jobs, or debt, or health care, and all you want is a debator-in-chief, Romney won that second debate, hands-down.  And the clearly biased moderator couldn’t help Obama then, either.

I didn’t see  such a post-debate breakdown on issues in this third Obama-Romney debate.  But I do know that, like the second debate, a hardly overwhelming majority believed Obama won according to the CNN poll.

Frankly, I can see that.  Obama was considerably more aggressive, and “somehow” managed to get more time to talk, too.

Romney also could have been better, and after that pathetic first debate we all know that Obama could have been a whole hell of a lot worse.

I’ve got a theory on the debates that seems to fit the facts: namely, the guy in the biggest trouble is the one who comes out the most aggressively.  When Obama came out in debate #1, he had an overwhelming lead in both the national and the swing-state polling.  And Obama apparently decided he didn’t need to show up.  That debate changed the political universe such that in the second debate, it was Obama who was behind and damn he needed to come out and perform or the Romney landslide from debate #1 was going to roll right over his presidency.  The polls didn’t budge, and if anything Romney’s momentum had increased to the point where he went into debate #3 with a six-point lead according to Gallup.  For the record, that Gallup Romney lead is THE most dominent since 1968.  And so sure as shooting, a desperate Obama came out aggressively and ready to be nasty.

I submit that Romney could have won the debate and lost the election if he had focused on being “more aggressive.”

Why would I say that?  Well, there’s a movie I remember called “Poltergeist 2.”  The evil ghost is the Reverend Henry Kane.  He had convinced his followers that the world was going to end, buried them in a cave, and then wouldn’t let them leave to see if his prediction had turned out right such that they all died in their little hell-hole.  That’s basically how Obama wanted to present Mitt Romney: in the guise of, “If you elect my opponent, he will push the nuclear button and start World War 3 and kill you all.”

Romney did not fall for that trap.  He stayed away from being the warmongering ogre that Obama falsely tried to depict him as being.

What Romney DID need to do he accomplished: he presented himself as a man whom the majority of Americans could see as commander-in-chief.  He had to show that he knew enough to be commander-in-chief; he had to show that he wasn’t a warmonger; and he had to appear presidential.  I would argue that he succeeded on all three fronts.

What did Obama have to do?  He had to shatter Romney’s momentum.  And while the next five days will decide rather than me, I submit that Obama failed to do that.

And so the winner is Mitt Romney.

There were other things: Obama’s nastiest and I would say most petty line of the entire evening was when Obama lectured Romney:

“We also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s  changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on  them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Well, the Marines still train with and use the bayonet (as I did as a soldier in the Army):

It’s too damn bad that Obama was too damned ignorant and self-absorbed to send some bayonet-equipped Marines to Libya so they could have saved the lives of our ambassador and the three other Americans who were murdered.

Aand you know what?  Our soldiers still do plenty of horseback riding too, it turns out (and see also here).  Well, and here:

Which is another way of saying pretty stupid fricking analogy, Obama.  And given that Obama himself was so completely IGNORANT of the military as president that he once repeatedly used the term “corpse man” to refer to a Navy medic, I don’t think his asanine arrogant tone has much virtue.

Obama claimed that he didn’t have anything to do with sequestration, that it was all Congress’ idea.  But Bob Woodward – you remember the award-winning journalist who brought down the Nixon administration? – says wrong, Barry Hussein:

“At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he were going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. ‘A couple of weeks ago,’ he said, ‘my staff said to me that there is one more possible’ enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, ‘Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?’ Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good. It doesn’t touch Medicaid or Medicare, does it?’ It actually does touch Medicare, they replied. ‘How does it touch Medicare?’ It depends, they said. There’s versions with 2 percent cuts, and there’s versions with 4 percent cuts.” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, pp. 326)

Jack Lew and Rob Nabors both work for the Obama White House.  And sequestration was all their – and therefore all Obama’s – idea.  It’s just so fitting that the lying weasel-in-chief would try to disavow that.

In another highly contentious moment, Obama was the liar and Romney was the truth teller.  Romney was correct about his statement that he did in fact argue that the government should have a role in helping the auto companies in bankruptcy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

12 Responses to “Who Won Last Night’s Debate? My View.”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    The key word is fewer dumb! dumb!

  2. Anonymous Says:

    The key word is fewer dumb dumb!

  3. HL Says:

    I have hope Romney is going to win, and I am praying to that end.
    Again Obama was exposed for the lying, hypocritical, bullying THUG that he is in last nights debate.
    I think the White House is going to need a spiritual cleansing when these evil people are forced to vacate!

  4. preacher boy Says:

    Now, if all of us who agree–a vast majority of we who try to keep up with what is going on–will be sure to vote and get everyone we can influence to do so as well, we can get the liar-in-chief and his band of thugs back to Chicago where they can give it’s mayor fits.

  5. SpectreKaos Says:

    You’re, plain and simply, a biased idiot. AND, too bad, your man is going to LOSE!

  6. Anonymous Says:

    Amen! Obama is ill-mannered and ill-bred and a terrible President. He reminds me alot of Richard Nixon. You are right-Romney showed grace under pressure and refused to take the Hate-Bait Obama was dishing out last night! Kudos Mitt!

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    SpectreKaos,

    I’ll just take a moment to mock you.

    First, YOU DON’T THINK YOU DON’T SCREAM TO THE WHOLE FREAKING PLANET HOW BIASED YOU ARE?!?! And yet you clearly think it’s just an awful thing that I might be biased. Because in addition to your being biased, you are a complete hypocrite.

    As to being an idiot, the fact that you’re rooting for Obama ALONE is all I need to know that you are a pathologically stupid dumbass.

    And as to who is going to win and who is going to lose, I can’t say. But things are very much looking Romney’s way, particularly when you realize that when you have polls such as 47-47 in Ohio, those 6% undecideds historically go heavily against the incumbant.
    http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm:

    With most current presidential polls of likely voters showing 9 percent to 10 percent undecided, the question of where the undecided votes go becomes of paramount importance.

    To answer this question, I compared the final Gallup polls with the actual results in every race in which an incumbent president was opposing an insurgent since 1964. This included the Johnson-Goldwater race of 1964, the Nixon-McGovern race of 1972, the Carter-Ford race of 1976, the Reagan-Carter-Anderson race of 1980, the Reagan-Mondale race of 1984, the Clinton-Bush-Perot race of 1992, the Clinton-Dole race of 1996 and the Bush-Kerry race of 2004.

    In these races, the undecided vote went heavily for the insurgent and the incumbent lost vote share between the final poll and the election, even when the incumbent was winning the contest easily overall. Six of eight presidents seeking reelection performed worse than the final Gallup poll predicted, while one finished the same (Reagan in 1984) and one gained votes (Bush in 2004). Seven of the nine insurgent candidates did better than the final Gallup survey predicted.

    • In 1964, Johnson lost 3 points to Goldwater at the end.

    • In 1972, Nixon lost 1 point to a third-party candidate.

    • In 1976, there was a 4-point swing to Carter.

    • In 1980, there was a 3-point swing to Reagan or Anderson.

    • In 1984, there was no change between the final poll and the results.

    • In 1992, there was a 1-point shift away from Bush. In that contest, there was also a 5-point swing away from Clinton to Perot at the end.

    • In 1996, there was a 5-point swing away from Clinton and to Dole or Perot.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/04/18/undecideds_usually_break_against_the_incumbent_277921.html:

    our analysis of 155 polls reveals that, in races that include an incumbent, the traditional answers are wrong. Over 80% of the time, most or all of the undecideds voted for the challenger.

    The 155 polls we collected and analyzed were the final polls conducted in each particular race; most were completed within two weeks of election day. They cover both general and primary elections, and Democratic and Republican incumbents. They are predominantly from statewide races, with a few U.S. House, mayoral and countywide contests thrown in. Most are from the 1986 and 1988 elections, although a few stretch back to the 1970s.

    The polls we studied included our own surveys, polls provided to us directly by CBS, Gallup, Gordon S. Black Corp., Market Opinion Research, Tarrance Associates, and Mason-Dixon Opinion Research, as well as polls that appeared in The Polling Report.

    In 127 cases out of 155, most or all of the undecideds went for the challenger:

    http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/09/democrats_arent.php:
    a staggeringly high number of Democratic incumbents are … sitting below that magic 50 percent number.

    That number should send shivers down the spines of Democratic strategists. In 2008, when Democrats coasted to victory across the board, 32 House Republican incumbents were under the 50 percent mark in the last poll of the cycle, and 14 of them lost — a 44 percent mortality rate.

    What’s fascinating about the last three articles is they were all written in October 2010 and predicted doom for the Democrats. They were RIGHT; the Democrats saw the worst defeat in over seventy years in 2010.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/10/07/the_democrats_dead_cat_bounce_107476.html:

    When dealing with incumbents, it is much more important to look at the incumbents’ number than the challengers’ number, since undecideds usually break against the incumbent.

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/democrats-259908-percent-republican.html:

    An incumbent running below 50 percent is considered potentially in trouble; an incumbent running behind a challenger is considered in deep doo-doo.

    Unlike Obama, Mitt Romney has actually crossed the 50% threshold. No one who has crossed that threshold this late in a presidential race has EVER lost.

    But, hey, dumbass, you don’t obviously don’t need facts or anything; you’ve got your worthless dumbass opinion instead.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Anonymous,

    I, of course, was hoping Romney would tear the throat out of Obama, and found myself rather frustrated that Romney (who proved he could in the first debate) declined to spike a lot of balls in Obama’s face. But a lot of talking heads are saying that Romney was hoping to attract more women – who for some mysterious reason don’t like pissy jerks (such as the way Obama acted most of the night).

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    HL,

    If you mean by “spiritual cleansing” an “exorcism” where they go in and chase all the demons out, I completely agree.

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    preacher boy,

    My prayers are fairly simple: I’m praying that God will give Romney and Ryan wisdom and discernment, that He will EXPOSE Obama, and that He will give the American people the wisdom to vote for the man who AINT Obama.

  11. HL Says:

    Yes, Michael, that is EXACTLY what I meant.
    You know in Revelation 3 where our Lord Jesus says He is going to spew the lukewarm out of his mouth? THAT is a perfect description of how I FEEL about Obama and Democrats at this point.

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    HL,

    Well, Democrats ARE very biblical people. For example:

    “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the LORD” – 2 Chronicles 19:2

    A wise man’s heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man’s heart directs him toward the left. — Ecclesiastes 10:2

    You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right. — Psalm 52:3

    But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

    Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

    You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools – Romans 1:22

    For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth – Romans 1:18

    In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4

    Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

    For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. — 2 Tim 4:3-4

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: