C'mon, you're going with hacks like Karen Tumulty when you declare Romney a winner in the debate

[bigtree]

_____________

This lady got a front page headline article to say that Romney 'gained traction' in the issue of the economy.

Let's get real here. There have been NO credible polls to gauge ANY result of the debate, and if she (or anyone else) claims Romney 'gained traction' on any issue raised, they're talking straight out of their asses.

You don't get to claim some big impact from the debate just by reading tweets and projecting your own bias. The impact of the debate will be correctly measured by the degree that it either solidified votes already committed to either candidate or gained others from the 'undecided' column. The burden right now is on Romney to either peel away Obama votes or gain some from whoever is still making up their minds.

Assuming those folks actually tuned in, we still won't see any real impact (if any) until some polling is completed. 'Gaining traction' is an illusion promoted by apparent political psychics to try and substitute their own bias for actual voter sentiment. It's phony analysis and hack reporting.

Oh, and the headline below that one was bullshit as well. 'Game changer' it read, or something to that effect. It was actually a quote from Rubio, the republican Romney supporter from Florida. That's just not credible, or objective reporting. That's going to be the bulk of it though, as oh-so-smart writers fall all over themselves to tell us just how important and relevant an expression on the President's face was in the debate; and just how transformational and arresting the craven opportunism that Romney bled onto the stage last night turned out to be.

Without actual polling, it's all just crap.

Btw, are folks complaining from the left, here and elsewhere, about the esoteric and superficial points of each man's performance really satisfied in reducing themselves to the level of the hacks who immediately declared Gore a loser because he 'sighed' in his debate against Bush? Really?

[eridani]

1. Rmoney got by with constant lying

Not getting called on it is a win of sorts.

[bigtree]

3. if it's substance that's being judged

Romney loses in a decision; when all of the facts are revealed in the coming days.

Besides, how can anyone gauge the actual effect of the debate without measuring its actual impact on actual voters that BOTH men (usually alternately) need to either keep or gain. That's a question which can certainly be speculated on, but it must be measured in polling (and ultimately by votes) to make it fact.

Many critics last night and this morning are falling victim to their own hubris about what voters heard in the debate, or believe they heard.

[eridani]

7. Politcal junkies like your typical DU denizen care about substance

The general public--not so much.

[bigtree]

8. the voters Romney needs, for example, comprise a narrow slice of the electorate

I can't see the majority of those folks who say they haven't made up their minds being influenced to vote for Romney because he looked excited. I don't see Obama supporters fleeing from their candidate because someone thinks he looked 'tired,' either.

What's really being breathlessly discussed is the impact on the folks who report this election; more than it's about actual voters looking in on this debate. The 'undecideds' just aren't a homogenous or expansive factor. They'll likely split down the middle and that favors the President in his swing-state lead. We're talking real economic incentives that are compelling support for the president, at this point. That means substance. I don't think that economic anxiety and concern of theirs is just erased and overcome by a glib Romney performance. It's not as if most voters' minds in these critical states aren't already settled on just who Mitt Romney is standing for in this race.

Let's try and distinguish between the television show last night and the state of the campaign, so far. Romney didn't come close to connecting those disparate lines.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Try Gary Younge, in The Guardian

(a long time American correspondent for them, who is liberal):

Romney gets off the ground in a presidential debate light on zingers

Republican candidate manages to stay competitive with aggressive performance against a tired President Obama

In the end there were no zingers; no knockout blows; no major blunders. But there was a winner: Mitt Romney. After several reboots and roll-outs he finally, finally found his voice. He wasn't likeable, but he was believable. Gone were the gaffes, the stiff, wooden persona and the excessive caution. He came out fighting and he kept on swinging.

Fluent, strident, confident – he made his case.

Barack Obama on the other hand appeared nervous, distracted and unprepared. After four years in the Oval Office, he'd lost his voice. Gone was the charisma, the optimism and the eloquence. Defensive, halting and verbose – he looked tired and that made his presidency look tired. Both campaigns set low expectations, but only Obama met them. If you were watching without knowing who was the president, you wouldn't have guessed it was him.

Poorly moderated and often wonkish, the debate frequently got swamped in the kind of detail that few could follow and with charges and counter-charges that few could immediately verify.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/04/presidential-debate-romney-winner?intcmp=122

Read it all; his conclusion is that it was a 'game changer' only in that Romney has consistently failed until now. He thinks it won't be enough for Romney, probably. But he says "he is still in the game", which looks true.

[bigtree]

4. of course, he's talking about the pundit's 'game'

. . . not the actual presidential contest.

Sure, Younge and others might well be the 'game changer' Romney needs, and, he may well have succeeded in getting them to shake their poms. That's still quite a ways away from convincing (or unconvincing) the actual voters each man needs, respectively.

So. Romney convinced a Guardian reporter. How quaint.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. You did say 'in the debate' in your title

So, if you want to talk about the debate, we'll talk about reactions to the debate. If you want to talk about who's likely to win the presidential contest, then alter your title, or give up on this thread and start a new one.

[bigtree]

9. welll, if you want to view the debate as some disconnected sideshow from the actual election

. . . I'd agree.

[WinkyDink]

6. I don't consider Ed Schultz a "hack."

[bigtree]

10. I don't think Schultz (or any other of the reporters) speaks for those voters Romney needs

. . . voters who either haven't made up their minds or voters who might be swayed away from supporting either man. Not when they give credit to the glib opportunism that Romney portrayed last night and act as if someone concerned with the state of our nation should be impressed.

[bigtree]

12. does your mom know you're upstairs using her computer?

. . . almost time to get ready for school. Scoot, now!

[nc4bo]

13. Such a GOpiglet you are. bye. nt