The real reason Obama didn't do well in the debates (or for the last 4 yrs)...

So many people are just unwilling to give Romney credit for winning the debate... they want to find some legitimate excuse why fearless leader Chairman Obama intentionally threw it...

http://startthinkingright.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/empty-chair_chairman-obamao.png?w=450

Well... here is what actually happened...

Obama, coming off his first debate earlier this year, thought he had done a good job of holding his own against Clint Eastwood...

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/images/clint-eastwood-feature-2.jpg

and although he lost that debate, he scored enough points by being able to stand toe to toe against Dirty Harry, that it swung positive momentum in his favor... so he got cocky...

Going into this debate... while he was doing his debate prep... he practiced against this guy that he thought would do a good job representing Mitt Romney... but really turns out to be a tall soft stiff...



so when he got on stage, he was shocked that Mitt Romney showed up... he just didn't know how to react... looked for the the teleprompter, which was nowhere to be found... and went into his standard empty rhetoric that usually gets him places...



But, that didn't work... and now, he's 0 for 2 in this current debate cycle...

which has upset even some of his most ardent supporters... like Chris Matthews... whose vibration signal didn't go off because he was in airplane mode...



So now his campaign is scrambling in defense mode, and he's going around the country trying to mock Romney for his debate performance... while the brains behind the operation are trying to use their campaign spin to send out misleading infographics to confuse you as to who really won...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SS1wz-LSE...AXQ/jBFcbKiFfHQ/s1600/empty+chair+graphic.jpg

but right now he needs Biden to bail him out... and argue the case that we should spend trillions to do things like expand rail systems...



or he's gonna be joining Michael Jordan and GWB over at Medinah...





or it could just be that Romney won the debate... nah...

Huh*larious.

AdamT said:

Huh*larious.

Click to expand...

I thought so, too...

See, unlike you, who, eventhough you're probably upset with Obama's performance, were right up willing to credit Romney with the victory... SO MANY of the liberals are unwilling to do so... and are playing the sore loser card... That's the real humor...

I don't blame Wes Welker and Rob Gronkowski for dropping passes in the SuperBowl... I credit the Giant receivers for making clutch catches and their defense for being able to get off the field, stopping us from playing our game...

We've endured weeks and months of Obama is gonna wipe the floor with Romney in the debates, and that the election is over...

We've also recently seen numerous posts about the incompetence of Romney's campaign as a reason Romney doesn't deserve to be president...

Well.. Romney won the debates, and Romney's campaign prepared Romney better for the big event... Obama and his campaign flopped... Where are the chorus of apologies? They're not to be found... its a host of lame excuses all around...

So, yes, I do think a light dark comical ribbing was in order...

I don't think either of them won. I watched the debate again just to be sure I didn't miss something. Yes, Obama spewed he usual rhetoric while Romney still failed to give us specifics. I don't think either of them have a concept of what 2 minutes is. But I bet if you got either of them alone, they wouldn't give you 2 minutes of their time to hear you out. Romney got more air time, but I don't think that was a win. It was more like a game of football being pushed up and down the field without reaching a touchdown.

classic tactic

When you are in front you dont want the voters thinking its a one horse race

The best thing for Obama's re-election chances is for the American vters to think it will be a close election.

This will bring more Democrat voters out to vote on election day

Romney is totally un-electable - thats why they selected him

You have a choice between one Obama failed Clown puppet, and an even worse puppet clown

Thats how the fascist US Corpocracy works

enjoy the slavery

helix2048 said:

I don't think either of them won. I watched the debate again just to be sure I didn't miss something. Yes, Obama spewed he usual rhetoric while Romney still failed to give us specifics. I don't think either of them have a concept of what 2 minutes is. But I bet if you got either of them alone, they wouldn't give you 2 minutes of their time to hear you out. Romney got more air time, but I don't think that was a win. It was more like a game of football being pushed up and down the field without reaching a touchdown.

Click to expand...

You are wrong - Obama got four minutes more time than Romney. That is five percent more time given to Obama to try and say something - anything - intelligent.

Romney used his time to give a clear outline of his goals - and correcting all the lies that Obama has spent hundreds of millions of dollars dumping on the public via his ads - and the providing the MSM with the information they need to refute everything Obama has ever said (of course, the MSM knew this all the time and will still be the water carrier for BO.)

Hopefully the public got a glimpse of the "real" Romney so they can use their own intelligence to make a decision.

It is instructive that you think Romney "got more time" because Obama said absolutely NOTHING during his FIVE PERCENT ADVANTAGE in time to do so.

Obama is an incompetent liar. All he has is lies. Nothing he ever says in anything but a calculated deception <== this is when he is not actually lying and these deceptions are provided to him by others.

Face it - Obama is just a very smart man. And worse, all his latent instincts are wrong for America. He is an absolute disaster for anyone who is not a leech on society, a closet socialist, or a power-hungry thug, or just a plain apathetic idiot.

Rokkitsci said:

You are wrong - Obama got four minutes more time than Romney. That is five percent more time given to Obama to try and say something - anything - intelligent.

Click to expand...

I went back and reviewed the amount of time each candidate spoke. Here is a link to the stats. Neither of them said anything intelligent IMO. If you want to believe Romney won, that's ok. I'm allowed to have a different opinion.

Doesn't matter if one got 4 minutes more time than the other....bottom line is Romney was clearly the aggressor and Obama failed to deliver or debate or defend or attack or anything.....he even looked like he was hanging his head in shame at times...not the way anyone wants their president to look...that hurt him.....and his supporters are in denial if they think it didn't.

With that said...I think the OP post is hilarious.

I have to disagree. I don't think Obama cared about this debate at all, and why should he? He's up in the polls, it was his anniversary, and there are three more debates to come. By the time the last presidential debate comes around, this one will be in the back of everyone's mind. Oh, and It was also the most generic topic, which will be covered again (domestic issues).
I agree, Obama wasn't aggressive at all. But to claim that he was "stunned" by Romney's debate presence is wishful thinking.

helix2048 said:

I don't think either of them won.

Click to expand...

Well... you're entitled to your opinion... it's wrong... but you're entitled to it...

In the end it really doesn't matter who you think won... most of the polls and pundits have it as a HEAVY win for Romney... one of the most decicisive wins in presidential debate history... from the candidate who was actually supposed to lose handily...

By the fact that he was on the ropes, and everyone thought the race was over, even the slight appearance of a split decision and everyone would still be talking about the election being over...

Instead, everyone is calling him President Romney after watching the debate... Don't be shocked to see that those polls which had 5-10 pt leads for Obama to have this race is either tied or slight edge to Romney, now...

helix2048 said:

I watched the debate again just to be sure I didn't miss something.

Click to expand...

Right... I didn't miss anything, and watched it once... I will go back and watch it again, as I do all presidential debates, a real fun part of history, that as a historian, it's always good to go over again.

But, you also have to recognize... most people aren't going to watch it a second time... first impressions are crucial, and the first impression was Romney is the leader... Obama is... there, I think... at least it was supposed to be him...

You might not have picked it up the first time... but nearly everyone who watched it did... and many others more didn't watch and are hearing about it that way from other people...

helix2048 said:

Yes, Obama spewed he usual rhetoric while Romney still failed to give us specifics.

Click to expand...

and what were you expecting, them to wash and fold your clothes while this was going on? the debate obviously wasn't going to change the nature of politics in the last several centuries... this wasn't a military coup... it was a us presidential debate... that's what goes on...

helix2048 said:

I don't think either of them have a concept of what 2 minutes is. But I bet if you got either of them alone, they wouldn't give you 2 minutes of their time to hear you out.

Click to expand...

Oh... that's what you want... Gore... to be listening on a beach to a focus group of voters about how he should do things?

The trouble is, that isn't leadership... leadership requires instantaneous decisive action, being on the spot in the moment... and that's what this was about... who was the more decisive and more judicious leader acting on the spot at that moment...

helix2048 said:

Romney got more air time, but I don't think that was a win. It was more like a game of football being pushed up and down the field without reaching a touchdown.

Click to expand...

See... the very fact that you thought that was the case ought to indicate why Romney won...

The fact of the matter is Obama got 5 more minutes of air time... but you felt Romney had said more... get it now? do you?

In 5 minutes less time, Romney made better use of his time, and made what he said count more, through the interuptions of a partial moderator and sudden distracting noises in the background...

People noticed...

Jtaw3 said:

I have to disagree. I don't think Obama cared about this debate at all, and why should he? He's up in the polls, it was his anniversary, and there are three more debates to come. By the time the last presidential debate comes around, this one will be in the back of everyone's mind. Oh, and It was also the most generic topic, which will be covered again (domestic issues).
I agree, Obama wasn't aggressive at all. But to claim that he was "stunned" by Romney's debate presence is wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

LMFAO... he should've cared about this debate, because he could've eliminated Romney by getting even a narrow split decision... by losing as heavily as he did, he may have actually changed the entire outcome of the race...

There aren't 3 more debates to come... there's a vice presidential debate next... where he has to rely on Joe Gaffe Biden to outdebate Paul Ryan, who is a shark policy nerd, with the pulse of middle america... that Obama, himself, has had trouble debating about the various pieces of legislation...

Then he will have 2 more chances... once on a mixed topic debate... and the other on foreign policy (which worsens daily for him)...

You may be right, though... but the last debate, people may have already made their minds up to vote for Romney by then...

I also have to question your decision to call this the meaningless debate topic... of Domestic issues... in an election which is as much a referendum on recovery, the state of the economy, and the job market as it is on anything...

The only reason Obama is claiming "stunned" is because he's in defense mode... and trying to cover up for how bad he lost... and he knows he lost... and is as worried about his campaign as ever before...

poor liberals. either they are making excuses for why Obama lost, or they are denying that he lost. no win scenario

helix2048 said:

I don't think either of them won. I watched the debate again just to be sure I didn't miss something. Yes, Obama spewed he usual rhetoric while Romney still failed to give us specifics. I don't think either of them have a concept of what 2 minutes is. But I bet if you got either of them alone, they wouldn't give you 2 minutes of their time to hear you out. Romney got more air time, but I don't think that was a win. It was more like a game of football being pushed up and down the field without reaching a touchdown.

Click to expand...

Hows the economy.... ? Obama is toast..

IndepCentristMA said:

Well... you're entitled to your opinion... it's wrong... but you're entitled to it...

In the end it really doesn't matter who you think won... most of the polls and pundits have it as a HEAVY win for Romney... one of the most decicisive wins in presidential debate history... from the candidate who was actually supposed to lose handily...

By the fact that he was on the ropes, and everyone thought the race was over, even the slight appearance of a split decision and everyone would still be talking about the election being over...

Instead, everyone is calling him President Romney after watching the debate... Don't be shocked to see that those polls which had 5-10 pt leads for Obama to have this race is either tied or slight edge to Romney, now...



Right... I didn't miss anything, and watched it once... I will go back and watch it again, as I do all presidential debates, a real fun part of history, that as a historian, it's always good to go over again.

But, you also have to recognize... most people aren't going to watch it a second time... first impressions are crucial, and the first impression was Romney is the leader... Obama is... there, I think... at least it was supposed to be him...

You might not have picked it up the first time... but nearly everyone who watched it did... and many others more didn't watch and are hearing about it that way from other people...



and what were you expecting, them to wash and fold your clothes while this was going on? the debate obviously wasn't going to change the nature of politics in the last several centuries... this wasn't a military coup... it was a us presidential debate... that's what goes on...



Oh... that's what you want... Gore... to be listening on a beach to a focus group of voters about how he should do things?

The trouble is, that isn't leadership... leadership requires instantaneous decisive action, being on the spot in the moment... and that's what this was about... who was the more decisive and more judicious leader acting on the spot at that moment...



See... the very fact that you thought that was the case ought to indicate why Romney won...

The fact of the matter is Obama got 5 more minutes of air time... but you felt Romney had said more... get it now? do you?

In 5 minutes less time, Romney made better use of his time, and made what he said count more, through the interuptions of a partial moderator and sudden distracting noises in the background...

People noticed...

Click to expand...

Actually Romney was predicted to win this presidential election long before the debates.

"Romney Win Predicted By Famously Accurate Election Model"


Romney Win Predicted By Famously Accurate Election Model

If an analysis that has correctly predicted the winners of the last eight presidential races is to be believed then Mitt Romney will be elected the 45th president of the United States in November, the Boulder Daily Camera reported.

University of Colorado political science professors have predicted the outcome of presidential elections since 1980, and have been right each time. They are forecasting Romney to win 52.9 percent of the popular vote compared with 47.1 for Obama, the Camera reported.

I wonder if it's impossible for Republicans to admit that *gasp*, Romney lied in the debate.
Bob Cesca: Mitt Romney Won the Debate. But Why?

And don't give me the speech.

I know Obama hasn't been perfect (though Republicans in Congress give him a pretty good excuse over the jobs issue). I'm undecided on whether I want to vote my principles and vote for Jill Stein, or vote for Obama. Since I live in California I think I can probably get away with voting for Jill Stein, but I really, really, really don't want Romney in office and I couldn't live with myself if he got in office so I may vote for Obama mostly because of that.

The debate expanded to include Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson (unfortunately Gary Johnson declined the invitation): http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/4/expanding_the_debate_exclusive_third_party

IndepCentristMA said:

LMFAO... he should've cared about this debate, because he could've eliminated Romney by getting even a narrow split decision... by losing as heavily as he did, he may have actually changed the entire outcome of the race...

There aren't 3 more debates to come... there's a vice presidential debate next... where he has to rely on Joe Gaffe Biden to outdebate Paul Ryan, who is a shark policy nerd, with the pulse of middle america... that Obama, himself, has had trouble debating about the various pieces of legislation...

Then he will have 2 more chances... once on a mixed topic debate... and the other on foreign policy (which worsens daily for him)...

You may be right, though... but the last debate, people may have already made their minds up to vote for Romney by then...

I also have to question your decision to call this the meaningless debate topic... of Domestic issues... in an election which is as much a referendum on recovery, the state of the economy, and the job market as it is on anything...

The only reason Obama is claiming "stunned" is because he's in defense mode... and trying to cover up for how bad he lost... and he knows he lost... and is as worried about his campaign as ever before...

Click to expand...

Fair enough, you're absolutely right about the VP debate and the probability that Joe Bidden will gaffe.
However, I never said that the debate topic was meaningless. I said that there are going to be future opportunities for the candidates to discuss the same topics, e.g. "domestic issues." These will come up again in the town hall meeting on the 16th, where the candidates will be asked questions on foreign policy AND domestic issues.

Also, who cares that Romney won the debate? Historically speaking, debates are not game changers.Political Scientists, historians, and statisticians all agree that if debates have any affect on the outcome of an election it is so minute that its almost untraceable. In fact, there are only three elections between 1952 - 2008 where specialists have agreed that the debates "might" have been a factor - 1960, 1980, and 2000. Even so, there were other factors involved. In the 1980 election,for example, there was only 1 debate between Carter and Reagan and it was a week before the election.
Oh, and to drive this point home, there are countless examples of Presidential candidates making HUGE gaffes in the debates and their approvals suffering no damage - Gerald Ford & his "Soviet domination..." comment in the 1976 debate is a great example.

So, you may ask, why is this the case? Why don't debates have much of any impact on the outcome of the election? Well, its because the people who watch the debates are typically voters that have already made up their minds. Regardelss of the outcomes, rarely do people change their minds.


...and Obama isnt claiming to be stunned either. I was responding to another post where the person claimed Obama looked stunned.

I've watched the debate twice. Twice and a half really. One of the viewings was with live commentary by Gary Johnson. These are my thoughts.

As "performance" goes, Romney did very well by comparison. He was interruptive at first and his PBS attack was foolish (IMHO) but otherwise, he was confident and well spoken. I'll need to understand his tax theories better before I can evaluate them. In principle, he seems to be saying that he will cut all tax rates by 20% and make this revenue neutral by eliminating deductions. I will be very surprised if deduction elimination will a) fill the gap and b) be acceptable to his GOP base.

Obama certainly seemed to be off his stride. He was almost too humble. I happen to agree with Al Gore's suggestion that flying that day threw him off. I used to fly extensively and I remember how wiped out I would be.

Johnson disappointed me by his reactions. The only thing he kept repeating was "no taxes" "no taxes" and he had no reaction to anything else. I was kind of disappointed since I planned to use him as my "protest vote".

I've said before, and I'll repeat myself. No matter which one is elected, the spending spree will continue and only some beneficiaries will change.

IndepCentristMA said:

The trouble is, that isn't leadership... leadership requires instantaneous decisive action, being on the spot in the moment... and that's what this was about... who was the more decisive and more judicious leader acting on the spot at that moment...

Click to expand...

Wow, I guess you really told me. Now I have a bruise on my chest from your finger poking. I'm not here to argue. At least I know where Obama stands. As for Romney, he has changed his tune too many times for me to like him. It's one thing to adjust your stance when you realize you are wrong, but you need to stand still at some point. That is what I am looking for in a leader. I'm certainly not voting for someone just because he spoke well. You can go to an AA meeting and hear someone speak brilliantly that they are recovered just days after their last drinking binge.

helix2048 said:

Wow, I guess you really told me. Now I have a bruise on my chest from your finger poking. I'm not here to argue. At least I know where Obama stands. As for Romney, he has changed his tune too many times for me to like him. It's one thing to adjust your stance when you realize you are wrong, but you need to stand still at some point. That is what I am looking for in a leader. I'm certainly not voting for someone just because he spoke well. You can go to an AA meeting and hear someone speak brilliantly that they are recovered just days after their last drinking binge.

Click to expand...

and as with the AA meetings... you don't judge them by what they say... you judge them by what they do... in staying sober and straightening out their lives...

similarly, I'm not voting for Romney by anything he says... I'm voting for him for what he does... which is turn fiscal nightmares around, create growth, balance budgets, make landmark legislative reforms, etc.

We've seen what Obama has said and what Obama has done... neither of them add up to much in the grand scheme of things...

helix2048 said:

I don't think either of them won. I watched the debate again just to be sure I didn't miss something. Yes, Obama spewed he usual rhetoric while Romney still failed to give us specifics. I don't think either of them have a concept of what 2 minutes is. But I bet if you got either of them alone, they wouldn't give you 2 minutes of their time to hear you out. Romney got more air time, but I don't think that was a win. It was more like a game of football being pushed up and down the field without reaching a touchdown.

Click to expand...

Give it up, you're not going to get the specifics that you want.

So RepubConservMA what's it like to work for Mitt Romney?

Hope he's paying you well.

IndepCentristMA said:

similarly, I'm not voting for Romney by anything he says... I'm voting for him for what he does... which is turn fiscal nightmares around, create growth, balance budgets, make landmark legislative reforms, etc.

Click to expand...

I keep asking for proof, so it looks like I had to find it myself. The Good Points in Romney’s Record as Governor of Massachusetts. Yep, I'm still not voting for him. There are some important (to me) issues I disagree with:

* Vetoed over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill.
* Vetoed embryonic stem-cell research.
* Fought to prevent private hospitals from being forced to provide emergency contraception.
* Vetoed a bill that would have changed the definition of when life begins.
* Harshly condemned the state supreme court's ruling that said the state constitution required equal marriage rights for gays, tried to get a gay marriage ban on the ballot, and invoked an obscure state law to prevent out-of-state gay couples from getting Massachusetts marriage licenses.
* Made the state pension fund more fiscally viable by forcing new state workers to contribute 65% more toward their health insurance than existing state workers were contributing (then-current state employees paid 15% of their health insurance costs--Romney increased the contribution to 25% for new state employees).
* Vetoed an increase in the state's minimum wage.

Click to expand...

There are some things he did that I applaud and he deserves some credit for the work he has done as governor of Massachusetts. However, he doesn't share my views on the issues I listed above.

One thing that really puzzles me is this:

* Balanced the budget in four years after inheriting a $300 million deficit, and did so without raising the income tax or the sales tax.

Click to expand...

This is not comparable to our national deficit. Romney still thinks he is going to magically pull money out of the air that doesn't exist to fix our economy. Obama hasn't fixed it either, I realize this. I think Romney is too ambitious thinking he can solve our deficit problems by not raising taxes. Balancing the budget doesn't mean putting a copy if it on your head and walking across the room without it falling off.

Jtaw3 said:

Fair enough, you're absolutely right about the VP debate and the probability that Joe Bidden will gaffe.
However, I never said that the debate topic was meaningless. I said that there are going to be future opportunities for the candidates to discuss the same topics, e.g. "domestic issues." These will come up again in the town hall meeting on the 16th, where the candidates will be asked questions on foreign policy AND domestic issues.

Also, who cares that Romney won the debate? Historically speaking, debates are not game changers.Political Scientists, historians, and statisticians all agree that if debates have any affect on the outcome of an election it is so minute that its almost untraceable. In fact, there are only three elections between 1952 - 2008 where specialists have agreed that the debates "might" have been a factor - 1960, 1980, and 2000. Even so, there were other factors involved. In the 1980 election,for example, there was only 1 debate between Carter and Reagan and it was a week before the election.
Oh, and to drive this point home, there are countless examples of Presidential candidates making HUGE gaffes in the debates and their approvals suffering no damage - Gerald Ford & his "Soviet domination..." comment in the 1976 debate is a great example.

So, you may ask, why is this the case? Why don't debates have much of any impact on the outcome of the election? Well, its because the people who watch the debates are typically voters that have already made up their minds. Regardelss of the outcomes, rarely do people change their minds.


...and Obama isnt claiming to be stunned either. I was responding to another post where the person claimed Obama looked stunned.

Click to expand...

No... Obama actually IS claiming he was stunned... that was his day after speech... I didn't know you had even commented on him being stunned... Obama himself and all the campaign surrogates have tried to claim he was stunned that Romney changed who he was for the debate, as their defense...

It's kind of one of these things you can't make the argument of... If you thought Romney was etch-a-sketch Romney, then how would you be stunned he changed who he was? Sort of like when they argue that GWB is the stupidest person on earth, but then say he masterminded 9/11 and lied about the whole Iraq War with some secret plot for Oil, can't have that both ways either...

Its just more flawed liberal attacks... like Obama would've beaten Romney if he was able to talk as long as Romney did (despite that he spoke for 5 more minutes)... Or, Romney was rude and interrupted the moderator, but nothing wrong with Obama telling the moderator he had 5 seconds before he was interrupted, and then proceeding to talk for 30-45 seconds more, or telling the moderator to move onto another subject...


I've seen these comments spread around about the ineffectiveness of the debates on the election... but, theres very little way to measure that... they do it by exit polls asking people what they based their vote on... That type of polling is inaccurate, because a) people lie, b) people forget sequencing of events when separated from them, c) youre asking them about decisions made from some point unrelated to other events... They could've made their mind up at the last minute, but what made them lean before making the final decision would've been another thing, d) subconscious things effect what we base our decisions off of that we wouldn't be able to identify or even understand themselves, e) wording of the question, f) order of the question, etc.

Another reason those other campaigns didn't have changes from the debates... they didn't have such a clear decisive winner...

There's no doubt that this election changed on that debate...

Obama was up by 5-10 pts in most polls... now today its +/- 2pts for each candidate...

I'm not saying that people will go to the polls in November and base their entire decisions off that debate... but as I said in an earlier post... as the result of this debate;

Liberals are upset with Obama, and if he doesn't show up at the next debate, they'll consider voting for 3rd party candidates...

Conservatives are either going to vote against Obama, vote 3rd party, or stay home... after that debate, a lot less of them are going to stay home...

Independents had been initially Romney, but were leaning heavily to Obama... now, they're either for Romney or actual undecided...


So Romney excited his base, while attracting the interest if not support of Independents... and Obama upset his base...

Which of those things is going to not effect the outcome on election day?

helix2048 said:

I keep asking for proof, so it looks like I had to find it myself.
The Good Points in Romney’s Record as Governor of Massachusetts.

Click to expand...

Ah... but rather than actually finding it yourself... you're taking it off a personal website of a right wing conservative... well done, there... :roll:

helix2048 said:

Yep, I'm still not voting for him. There are some important (to me) issues I disagree with:

There are some things he did that I applaud and he deserves some credit for the work he has done as governor of Massachusetts. However, he doesn't share my views on the issues I listed above.

Click to expand...

And your point? You're a self-identified liberal, trying to justify why you're not voting Romney to me... and having to work hard to do so... that alone speaks volumes to his worth as a potential president...

That list doesn't show half the things that I was impressed by with him as Governor of my own state... by bringing in a non-partisan business-like data driven, result oriented approach to governance... and by doing so he was able to:

> balance the largest budget deficit in MA history without raising taxes
> restore MA schools to 1st in the US with initiatives like, removing bi-lingual education, increasing vouchers, raising teacher testing standards, etc.
> turn around the trend of losing population and jobs to increase the size of the state workforce and dropping unemployment
> improve MA from 50th in the nation in job growth to 26th in the nation in job growth just 4 years later
> decrease the size of the state workforce, including firing and eliminating several useless 6-figure salary execs like Whitey Bulger's brother Billy
> get the largest construction project in US history under reigns and completed under cost and time estimates at the time
> create the world's only healthcare plan which increased coverage to nearly everyone without increasing costs on taxpayers
> toughen penalties on drunk drivers, requiring interlock ignition devices installed on repeat offenders and increasing mandatory sentences
> increase combat pay and other benefits for MA guardsmen and their families
> become the first governor in MA history to not pardon/commute a single sentence
> do nearly everything he said he would as a candidate, accomplishing something like 40 out of 44 campaign promises...
> accomplish these things by working collaboratively with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, despite an 87% opposition party legislature
> etc.

That's more than enough for me to sing his praises... and want for him to do the same thing with the divisive ineffective mess in Washington...

helix2048 said:

One thing that really puzzles me is this:

"* Balanced the budget in four years after inheriting a $300 million deficit, and did so without raising the income tax or the sales tax."

This is not comparable to our national deficit. Romney still thinks he is going to magically pull money out of the air that doesn't exist to fix our economy. Obama hasn't fixed it either, I realize this. I think Romney is too ambitious thinking he can solve our deficit problems by not raising taxes. Balancing the budget doesn't mean putting a copy if it on your head and walking across the room without it falling off.

Click to expand...

LMFAO @ you trying to give Romney advice on what balancing a budget means... that's even more precious than Al Gore making the altitude sickness defense...

Mitt Romney worked the balance sheets for his company and numerous other companies for about 25 yrs in business... then took the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee from being under budget to being the most profitable games of all time at that point... and then balanced the largest deficit in MA history... and continued to balance the budget all 4 years...


The reason that doesn't sound impressive... is because it is inaccurate... Romney didn't close a $300M deficit... he closed a $3B deficit... then a year later had created a $2B rainy day fund...

MA had a $300B economy... with a $30B budget (10% of the economy)... and he closed a deficit of $3B (10% of the budget, 1% of the economy), without raising the states' 5% income tax and 5.3% sales tax...

The US has a $16T economy... with a $3.6T budget (22% of the economy)... and a $1.2T anual deficit (33% of the budget, 7.5% of the economy)... but takes in an avg effective rate of 21% in taxes...

It's really not ALL that much different... The federal budget is definitely larger... but that also means more areas to potentially cut from... also there's more tools at the federal levels for his disposal to close the budget gap...

So given that in Massachusetts Romney balanced a 10% budget gap... with a 5% tax rate...
Id give him the benefit of the doubt to close a 33% budget gap (3 times as much), with a 20% tax rate (4 times as much)...


Also, Romney's approach is balanced... and given that the budget is $900B from what it was under GWB and that revenue is supposed to be only $100B from what it was when GWB left... the approach we need involves more cuts to spending than revenue increases...

As Romney said... with a period of growth... we will increase the amount of workers, and thus increase the amount of people paying taxes... and by doing so we'll broaden the base... if we broaden the base and get more people paying the low tax rates, and close loopholes to make sure there's still progressivity to the tax code, and everyone is paying their fair share, we can drive up revenue... without raising taxes on anyone...

But, it is imperative that we stop the rate of growth in spending... and do what we can to limit it... restructure the entitlment programs, whose spending is increasing exponentially... and cut the costs of operation for the government...

These are all things Romney did in MA, and that he will do as president... to get the budget on track to be balanced...

IndepCentristMA said:

No... Obama actually IS claiming he was stunned... that was his day after speech... I didn't know you had even commented on him being stunned... Obama himself and all the campaign surrogates have tried to claim he was stunned that Romney changed who he was for the debate, as their defense...

It's kind of one of these things you can't make the argument of... If you thought Romney was etch-a-sketch Romney, then how would you be stunned he changed who he was? Sort of like when they argue that GWB is the stupidest person on earth, but then say he masterminded 9/11 and lied about the whole Iraq War with some secret plot for Oil, can't have that both ways either...

Its just more flawed liberal attacks... like Obama would've beaten Romney if he was able to talk as long as Romney did (despite that he spoke for 5 more minutes)... Or, Romney was rude and interrupted the moderator, but nothing wrong with Obama telling the moderator he had 5 seconds before he was interrupted, and then proceeding to talk for 30-45 seconds more, or telling the moderator to move onto another subject...


I've seen these comments spread around about the ineffectiveness of the debates on the election... but, theres very little way to measure that... they do it by exit polls asking people what they based their vote on... That type of polling is inaccurate, because a) people lie, b) people forget sequencing of events when separated from them, c) youre asking them about decisions made from some point unrelated to other events... They could've made their mind up at the last minute, but what made them lean before making the final decision would've been another thing, d) subconscious things effect what we base our decisions off of that we wouldn't be able to identify or even understand themselves, e) wording of the question, f) order of the question, etc.

Another reason those other campaigns didn't have changes from the debates... they didn't have such a clear decisive winner...

There's no doubt that this election changed on that debate...

Obama was up by 5-10 pts in most polls... now today its +/- 2pts for each candidate...

I'm not saying that people will go to the polls in November and base their entire decisions off that debate... but as I said in an earlier post... as the result of this debate;

Liberals are upset with Obama, and if he doesn't show up at the next debate, they'll consider voting for 3rd party candidates...

Conservatives are either going to vote against Obama, vote 3rd party, or stay home... after that debate, a lot less of them are going to stay home...

Independents had been initially Romney, but were leaning heavily to Obama... now, they're either for Romney or actual undecided...


So Romney excited his base, while attracting the interest if not support of Independents... and Obama upset his base...

Which of those things is going to not effect the outcome on election day?

Click to expand...

Well, I disagree. I mean, political history is pretty consistent when it comes to the presidential debate. Sure, this election COUlD be an outlier where the debates have a huge impact but there would already be specidic indicators that haven't happened.

Also, I'm not sure which polls you're paying attention to (Rassmussen or We Ask America, perhaps?) but Gallup had Obama at 49% before the debates and Romney was at 44%, now they both have seen a 1% increase. Pew Research Center has Obama at 51% and Romney at 43%, Real Clear Politics still has Obama at 50% and Romney at 46%, and, as of right now, Obama has an estimated Electoral College vote of 251 and Romney's is at 181 from RCP. The New York Times has Obama at 51.7% and Romney at 47% with 327 estimated EC votes for Obama and 210 estimated EC votes for Romney. Then we factor the lowered jobs rate coming out today, which, whether you like it or not, will boost support of Obama.

Oh and The 76 election had a clear winner and it wasn't Ford, BUT his gaffe didn't do any harm to his base. Polls research shows that the outcome of elections is consistent with polls numbers BEFORE the debates... in every election, even in 60, 80, and 2000. Reagan, for instance, only got a small nudge in 80 but was winning before the debates anyway.


I'm sorry dude, Romney totally "won" the debate but i don't see it having any real effect on the overall election. I'm not saying he can't win, and I'm not saying that in the next 30 days there wont be some major shifts in the poll numbers. What I am saying, however, is that this debate didn't do anything major for either party. It may have given the Romney base some passion, but they were going to vote for Romney anyway. Now, Independent voters are within close range of each other BUT this was before the recent job numbers happened and they can easily swing back and forth a dozen times before the election for a number of reasons. This debate didn't do anything besides give a number of goofy Repubs some bragging rights. Oh well