Assuming "conditions on the ground" mean things like unemployment and the economy, the answer is simple. The debates allow Americans to see who can best address "conditions on the ground." Considering that an election is a competition to see who can best address those "conditions," then it makes sense to see those as a pivotal part of the election process. The conditions, in and of themselves, aren't going to win an election. Convincing the public that you'll do something positive with them will.It seems to me ya'll are placing alot more emphasis on the debates vice the conditions on the ground than we are. Wonder why that is.
Obama 46%If the election were today I believe obama would lose...every poll that I get email everyday hes behind. He can turn that around by nov.
I agree with much of your post, the only hitch being one of the candidates has already been given the opportunity to enact positive results, not to say he hasn't to a slight degree, but somehow I doubt the average citizen is satisfied with the economy in it's current state.Assuming "conditions on the ground" mean things like unemployment and the economy, the answer is simple. The debates allow Americans to see who can best address "conditions on the ground." Considering that an election is a competition to see who can best address those "conditions," then it makes sense to see those as a pivotal part of the election process. The conditions, in and of themselves, aren't going to win an election. Convincing the public that you'll do something positive with them will.
Assuming "conditions on the ground" mean things like unemployment and the economy, the answer is simple. The debates allow Americans to see who can best address "conditions on the ground." Considering that an election is a competition to see who can best address those "conditions," then it makes sense to see those as a pivotal part of the election process. The conditions, in and of themselves, aren't going to win an election. Convincing the public that you'll do something positive with them will.
And it's up to Romney, in debates, to prove causation with regards to Obama and the negative aspects of economic recovery as he sees them. It's also up to Romney to prove, in debates, that he can do a quicker job in getting positive results.I agree with much of your post, the only hitch being one of the candidates has already been given the opportunity to enact positive results, not to say he hasn't to a slight degree, but somehow I doubt the average citizen is satisfied with the economy in it's current state.
I'll have to disagree, even though it's highly debatable whether or not Obama contributed to the painfully slow recovery, the sheer correlation may be more than enough to encourage a drastic change if not soley for change's sake. Romney has to effectively play armchair quarterback, which shouldn't be terribly difficult, especially given America's sudden fascination with the National Debt Clock.And it's up to Romney, in debates, to prove causation with regards to Obama and the negative aspects of economic recovery as he sees them. It's also up to Romney to prove, in debates, that he can do a quicker job in getting positive results.
There's a pattern of thinking on the Romney side that says, "If the average citizen isn't happy with the economy, then that's bad for Obama and good for Romney." That's not necessarily true in any respect. In order for that to be bad for Obama and good for Romney, Romney has to convince the public that Obama caused economic recovery to be slow and he to convince the public that he would do it better. This all comes down to debates and ads.
It depends on the mindset of the people. For some it will be, for others it won't. In general, for this election, I think it will be more of a "I support some of his actions and not others, but he's better than the other guy, so I'm voting for him."So you don't see a reelection as a referendum?
So you don't see a reelection as a referendum?
Obama is the likely winner, it will take several gaffes by the Obama campaign(which is highly unlikely) or the economy going into another depression before election time for Romney to win IMO. Obama will wipe the floor with Romney in the debates and I think that will swing a lot of people.
Debates are months away and you're playing the race card already? This has to be some sort of record.I'm not so sure Obama will clobber Romney in the debates. Remember, the debates aren't about logic, reason, or truth. If they were, I would expect Obama to absolutely destroy Romney. The debates are about emotion and manipulation. Romney's fairly skilled in using those. Since the country clearly is still very, very bigoted, I expect Romney has a good chance to manipulate that in some way and make him appear to be the good guy. You should never underestimate the gullibility or foolishness of the American public.
I'm not so sure Obama will clobber Romney in the debates. Remember, the debates aren't about logic, reason, or truth. If they were, I would expect Obama to absolutely destroy Romney. The debates are about emotion and manipulation. Romney's fairly skilled in using those. Since the country clearly is still very, very bigoted, I expect Romney has a good chance to manipulate that in some way and make him appear to be the good guy. You should never underestimate the gullibility or foolishness of the American public. Romney does have a chance against Obama in the debates.
Debates are months away and you're playing the race card already? This has to be some sort of record.