2012 Election

[chingon]

A draw might be acceptable to both candidates.

Because this is low theater, a draw is impossible, against the rules like baseball. Proof? The last debate was a draw by any reasonable measure, but the echo chamber of meaningless bullshit had to create a "narrative" to keep the chatter alive.

[grovester]

A draw might be acceptable to both candidates.

Because this is low theater, a draw is impossible, against the rules like baseball. Proof? The last debate was a draw by any reasonable measure, but the echo chamber of meaningless bullshit had to create a "narrative" to keep the chatter alive.

Low theater indeed, the debates are a reality show, anything to keep the hype alive.

[phxcat]

The one are where I think Obama destroyed Romney (or where Romney may have hurt himself) was with Hispanics. Romney showed that he just doesn't get it, and his use of the term "illegals" probably was the biggest gaffe in the debate. It will be interesting to see what effect that has on the Latino vote. Romney is already not getting it, but it is not nearly as Democratic as it could be, and there are a lot of Latino voters in the swing states. I also think that he showed a lack of understanding on the issue of equality in the workplace for women. He basically equated hiring a woman for the cabinet with Obama pushing the Lilly Ledbetter Act. I also kind of winced at the comment about how women need more flexibility because they are the ones who have to go home and cook for the kids, pick them up from school and what not. While that is often the case, that comment seemed like a 1950's solution to a 2010's reality.

[chaglang]

The "binders full of women" line has taken off:

http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/

[KCMax]

I thought Obama wiped the floor with Romney. In the first ten minutes, I thought Romney was cleaning up again. He seemed clear, confident, just like the first debate. Obama seemed like he was lecturing people. Then something changed. Romney seemed rattled, defensive, whining about the debate time and rules. He interrupted a lot - apparently the focus group on CNN hated that. Obama was much more assertive and seemed Presidential, especially on the Libya question (which is a huge liability for him).

Obama attacked Romney a lot. He had a great answer talking about how Romney's tax plan doesn't add up. Romney gave nonsensical answers on gun control (its single parents faults?) He got a good jab on Obama for not introducing an immigration bill, but otherwise gave a poor answer on immigration. His answer to the Bush question made no sense (he is different than Bush in that he'll look for more oil? Because Bush wasn't an oil man?) The response to the women question was embarrassingly awful ("we had binders full of women!")

I will admit that any conservatives that think there was some conspiracy to help Obama are going to have a lot of fodder. Some of the questions were huge softballs for Obama (the question on women, the question on gun control, the question about Bush/Romney) and Candy Crowley fact-checking Romney was over-the-line (and kinda inaccurate - Obama did technically say "terrorist attack" the next day, but he didn't really couch the Bengazi attack as a terrorist attack if you look at the context).

This feeds right into the media narrative - Obama has stopped the bleeding, we have a race on our hands, everyone watch the third debate! And the fact the two candidates got really testy will help the media promote the third debate too.

[shinatoo]

Romney lost the women's vote last night. Getting aggressive with the female moderator and arguing the rules is a huge mistake to make. How long has that guy been married?

[KCMax]

The "binders full of women" line has taken off:

http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/

[NDTeve]

Romney lost the women's vote last night. Getting aggressive with the female moderator and arguing the rules is a huge mistake to make. How long has that guy been married?

In your unbiased opinion.

[bobbyhawks]

I will admit that any conservatives that think there was some conspiracy to help Obama are going to have a lot of fodder. Some of the questions were huge softballs for Obama (the question on women, the question on gun control, the question about Bush/Romney) and Candy Crowley fact-checking Romney was over-the-line (and kinda inaccurate - Obama did technically say "terrorist attack" the next day, but he didn't really couch the Bengazi attack as a terrorist attack if you look at the context).

I can absolutely see how conservatives will think this. To be fair, Candy fact checked both ways on that issue, but the damage had already been done to belittle Romney. Romney's follow-up point that it took two weeks before official recognition of the terror attack was confirmed by her. I'm sorry, but if a journalist is told someone is lying when the journalist knows the statement is not true, I see no problem with them putting someone on the spot. I wish there was more of that, frankly. Romney's problem was that his political ambiguity sensors were not finely tuned. Had he not specifically said "act of terror," then she would have had nothing to say, but those are the exact words used by the president. Obama also phrased his words to be properly ambiguous in his defense and suckered Romney into a semantics game that was unwinnable without looking a little pompous.

I also agree that some of the topics seemed like very pro-Obama topics, but then again, we have heard them argue about the economy, the deficit, and foreign policy for months. Conspicuously absent have been issues that have laced every election for dozens of years... abortion, gun control, how you align with similar party predecessors. The economy is pretty important, but I think you are cheating America if you ignore certain issues that a candidate would like to gloss over or skip past like gun control, abortion, women's rights, immigration, gay marriage, affirmative action, religion in government, etc. Most of these issues would be seen as Obama softballs. We forget that two men are running in this race. Both men are trying to get a job, and for one side to own the narrative to the point where things that are off message are seen as softballs is a bit odd. I understand why, but I do think it is less slanted than some would have you believe. One could say that Benghazi was a softball to Romney, but he faceplanted on that one in comparison to what he should have done. Obama's advantage is that I can't think of any Romney softballs he is not prepared to argue. Romney has a number of things that he wants to avoid because a focus on the economy in general is the easiest path to victory.

[KCMax]

On another note:

Duggar family to stump for Todd Akin

[KCMax]

So on Romney's tax plan, he says he will reduce overall rates on income and corporate income taxes, but remove these loopholes. So middle class people will pay less taxes and corporations will pay less taxes too which will stimulate the economy. But the plan is revenue neutral (right?).....so who is paying more taxes? Rich people? Isn't that pretty much Obama's plan too? I don't really get how you can say you're lowering taxes, not cutting spending by much (and massively increasing the defense budget), and yet remain revenue neutral.

OTOH, I am pretty disappointed Obama hasn't really outlined anything he would want to do for a second term. I thought this would be the perfect time to do so - big audience, and it would leave Romney unprepared, and he really seems to stumble when he's unprepared. But Obama kinda dropped the ball, or at least his plan was to attack Romney more than provide his own substance, which was a bit disappointing. Seems like he could have really thrown off Romney with some really centrist ideas, maybe challenge the next Congress to pass something.

[shinatoo]

Romney lost the women's vote last night. Getting aggressive with the female moderator and arguing the rules is a huge mistake to make. How long has that guy been married?

In your unbiased opinion.

If it wasn't biased it wouldn't be an opinion.

[chaglang]

OTOH, I am pretty disappointed Obama hasn't really outlined anything he would want to do for a second term. I thought this would be the perfect time to do so - big audience, and it would leave Romney unprepared, and he really seems to stumble when he's unprepared. But Obama kinda dropped the ball, or at least his plan was to attack Romney more than provide his own substance, which was a bit disappointing. Seems like he could have really thrown off Romney with some really centrist ideas, maybe challenge the next Congress to pass something.

Agreed. Maybe he's waiting for the last debate so Romney won't have time to come up with a response? Seems like outlining a plan of his own would be an easy segue into attacking Romney for a lack of specifics.

[KCMax]

The last debate is supposed to be foreign policy only, although I guess we've seen both candidates stray from the question asked quite a bit.

[bobbyhawks]

The last debate is supposed to be foreign policy only, although I guess we've seen both candidates stray from the question asked quite a bit.

I put the over under on how quickly Romney brings up the economy at 25 seconds. I don't blame him, though.

[KCMax]

The last debate is supposed to be foreign policy only, although I guess we've seen both candidates stray from the question asked quite a bit.

I put the over under on how quickly Romney brings up the economy at 25 seconds. I don't blame him, though.

Yea, I expect him to be on that China issue a lot. I bet he brings up Bengazi again pretty quickly.

[zlohban]

Did President Obama say anything about how he was going to address the jobs gap?

[zlohban]

My original theory that Obama spent to much time building an evil straw man instead of promoting himself may soon be proven. The four debate schedule has backfired on the president. Instead of defining his next four years in office, the debates have defined Romney as a plausible alternative all the while making him look presidential.

More and more leaks keep opening up in Obama's election map. The dam is about to burst.

From MPR: Jill Biden, the wife of Vice President Joe Biden, will campaign in Minnesota next week. ....Meanwhile, the Obama campaign has made several stops in the state.

If the electoral map makes it almost impossible for Romney to find a winning path, why is Obama spending so much time in democrat strongholds? Why did Romney break the Gallop 50% threshold before the President? This is not going as planned.

Instead of Grant Park, President Obama is apparently going to have his election night event at McCormick Place…the Chicago convention center that is separated from the city by multiple ribbons of concrete and rail yards and poorly serviced by mass transit. This place makes Bartle Hall look........well bustling.

[chaglang]

These debates are diminishing returns for Romney. He got a big boost out of the first one, and if that settled a lot of independent voters in his camp and it still didn't put him in the lead, I don't know if there are enough voters left for him to woo. Obama looked strong the other night. My guess is that if he can win the next debate the way he won Tuesday night - between 8% and 17%, depending on the poll - he can start to move away from Romney again.

I wouldn't base my electoral map on where Jill Biden is campaigning. Minnesota has over a 96% chance of going Democrat, but it's also the state that gave us Michelle Bachmann. No harm (or newsworthiness) in sending the wife of the VP.

If you look at the regional breakdown of the Gallup poll, Obama is +4 or +5 in the Northeast, Midwest, and West. Romney is +22 in the South. That's nice for Romney if he's running for Jeff Davis's old job, but he's not. I do not know why people even pay attention to national polls, when it's the state polls that matter because of the EC. To put it another way: if Obama had just peaked above 50% for the first time and that was how his regional breakdown looked, I would not be excited. Go +22 in the Northeast and West and you can win an election. +22 in the South just means you have a pulse and are on the GOP ticket.

FWIW: according to Nate Silver's projections, the likleihood of Romney winning crested on Saturday and Obama has started to slip away from him again. It's a far cry from the lead Obama had at the beginning of the month, but the trend is not in Romney's favor.

[aknowledgeableperson]

FWIW
RCP had the Electorial Map at Obama 251 v Romney 181 on Oct 7. Now it is Obama 201 v Romney 191.
Since the first of Oct for the Senate races it has gone from 48 Dem v 43 GOP to 45 Dem v 43 GOP.