2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAfter last night, it looks like Romney could win ...
... an Oscar. I'm still trying to narrow down the categories; can't find the word "unctuous" in any of the requirements. But acting is, after all, basically a form of lying, and Mitt could qualify for a bunch of categories on the basis of the sheer volume, as well as the sheer brazenness, of his lies.
After all the goofy campaign speeches, the off-the-cuff malaprops, and the general cluelessness of the last 18 months seven years, perhaps he could garner a special award for "character actor most out of character". Mister "betcha $10,000", Mister "my horse gets more tax deductions than your small business", Mister "my job is not to care about those people", suddenly emerged, as if from some Dickensian visitation by the Ghost of Elections to Come, as a warm, fuzzy, God-bless-us-every-one softie who is soooooo deeply concerned about the little guy that, goshdarn it, he's just gotta win the Presidency so he can help those poor folks! It was almost convincing, and maybe some low-information voters bought it. But they were a lost cause anyway.
I can see from a quick scan of today's headlines that a lot of people didn't buy it, though. "Obama wins on facts" about says it all. But maybe Hollywood can deliver a nice consolation prize for the Mittster.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You've got me wondering - how low information is a low info voter? Like low info enough not to have heard the 47% tape? Anyone who knows of that knows Rmoney is trying to overcome it and probably wouldn't believe him.
flamingdem
(39,316 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Really he looked constipated, why I am the only one to bring that up I don't know. But, he seriously looked like he was in pain and had drank a case of Red Bull, ok maybe he had to pee. I don't know, but he looked like he was in pain. He had some seriously weird expressions through out the debate and he looked like he was about to cry several times. I wish we had screen shots of all those debate faces. And that is not to mention he lied, he lied a lot. He lied even after he was gently corrected. He even alluded to the facts once and then quickly got back on track to lie again, contradicting himself in the process. I don't know what debate the pundits were watching, but it clearly wasn't the same one I was watching.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)you could be right .
I was thinking Lasix like they use in horse races
Lasix has significant potential to alter and enhance racehorse performance.
How ironic the term
Is he out on the trail today? he looked jacked after 5 mins. in to debate or just........nutty
you are not alone
he should have a least kept the tan even though prime audience was not brown
do not want him in a national crisis or a world crisis calling the shots
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)regardless of what you have said for years or three minutes ago or whenever.
It is not acting -- it is Romnesia.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Acting and other performace based arts engage in what is known as 'willful suspension of disbelief'. There is not just consent on the part of the watchers, but active energy spent to buy into the story being told. So yelling lies at high volume lacks the all important will of the watcher to belive that story. A liar tries to sell you on something, an actor asks you to sell it to yourself. Almost everyone in today's culture can tell the difference at 20 paces. Benefit of mass media, that.
People are very much used to dishonesty and distortion of facts presented with utmost conviction by hucksters and salespeople of the less scrupulous sort. What Mitt did last night is what people watch out for in a person who is trying to sell them something. Nervous, loud, aggressive, free with the fallacies and short on details that can be varified. It is harder to sell people the Brooklyn Bridge than some think.
Then again, back when he was doing Broadway, Woody Allen said "Acting is shouting." So there you go.