• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What has happened to Obama's campaign?

Glowpun

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
President Obama apparently trounced Romney on Tuesday night's debate. But here it is three days later and the Gallup poll shows Romney 7 points ahead. What has happened? Aside from the Republican extreme right wing, don't voters know what they will get themselves into if Romney becomes president?

Romney claims he is different from GW Bush. But if you look at Bush's policy record and compare them to what Romney wants to do, there really is no difference! How blind can the low info voters be! :(
 
President Obama apparently trounced Romney on Tuesday night's debate. But here it is three days later and the Gallup poll shows Romney 7 points ahead. What has happened? Aside from the Republican extreme right wing, don't voters know what they will get themselves into if Romney becomes president?

Romney claims he is different from GW Bush. But if you look at Bush's policy record and compare them to what Romney wants to do, there really is no difference! How blind can the low info voters be! :(

6/7's of Gallup's interviews were done before the debate. We don't what type of effect, if any, it had yet.
 
President Obama apparently trounced Romney on Tuesday night's debate. But here it is three days later and the Gallup poll shows Romney 7 points ahead. What has happened? Aside from the Republican extreme right wing, don't voters know what they will get themselves into if Romney becomes president?

Romney claims he is different from GW Bush. But if you look at Bush's policy record and compare them to what Romney wants to do, there really is no difference! How blind can the low info voters be! :(

Obama was lured into thinking Romney's campaign was impotent because Mitt didn't quickly respond to Obama's lies about him up til now. So, Obama felt comfortable spending his millions of dollars of campaign funds on promoting a false image of Romney. This false image was discovered by the American people during the first debate and that was when the Obama team realized they'd wasted all that ad money. People could see for themselves that Mitt Romney is nothing like the ugly caricature Obama painted him to be.

What's happened is the voters realized they'd been lied to by the Obama team and they discovered that Mitt Romney really is a great person and a great business person and a very good public servant and a great American.

That's what happened to the Obama campaign.

I'll tell you something else.

After the first debate Obama claimed, with great affected consternation, that the Romney he faced in the first debate was a different guy than he expected.

My opinion is that Obama said this to avoid being nailed for lying about Romney for almost a year.
 
I think "trounced" is a wrong word. I think Obama won the 2nd debate, but not by a huge margin.

If you want to use that word, use it to describe what Romney did to Obama in the 1st one.
 
President Obama apparently trounced Romney on Tuesday night's debate. But here it is three days later and the Gallup poll shows Romney 7 points ahead. What has happened? Aside from the Republican extreme right wing, don't voters know what they will get themselves into if Romney becomes president?

Romney claims he is different from GW Bush. But if you look at Bush's policy record and compare them to what Romney wants to do, there really is no difference! How blind can the low info voters be! :(
Well they certainly know what they'll get themselves into if they vote for Obama.
 
President Obama apparently trounced Romney on Tuesday night's debate. But here it is three days later and the Gallup poll shows Romney 7 points ahead. What has happened? Aside from the Republican extreme right wing, don't voters know what they will get themselves into if Romney becomes president?

Romney claims he is different from GW Bush. But if you look at Bush's policy record and compare them to what Romney wants to do, there really is no difference! How blind can the low info voters be! :(

Romney comes across as a lot smarter than Bush. He is certainly more articulate, at least. He has a history of being able to make money, and of personal generosity. He gave away his inheritance (not that he needed it anyway) and gives more to charity than he has to pay in taxes. He has a history of putting financially failing entities back into the black, which is something sorely needed just now.

Romney also has a history of being able to work with the opposing party, which is another thing that is sorely needed and that Obama lacks.

But, when it comes to political ideology, Obama is not a lot different from Bush, and Romney is not a lot different from Obama. Once the dust settles, the election is over, and life goes on, I don't expect any major changes as a result of this election.
 
FWIW, after the last debate, Intrade has Obama dropping to 60% and Romney rising to 40%. These are the closest odds I've seen since the race began.

At this point, all the major vague promises have been made and I don't think there are any more "undecided" voters left. You've already chosen sides or, like myself, are abstaining by voting 3rd party.

We're now down to the pettiest stuff. The extreme negativity. The out of context "gotchas".
 
Obama was lured into thinking Romney's campaign was impotent because Mitt didn't quickly respond to Obama's lies about him up til now. So, Obama felt comfortable spending his millions of dollars of campaign funds on promoting a false image of Romney. This false image was discovered by the American people during the first debate and that was when the Obama team realized they'd wasted all that ad money. People could see for themselves that Mitt Romney is nothing like the ugly caricature Obama painted him to be.

What's happened is the voters realized they'd been lied to by the Obama team and they discovered that Mitt Romney really is a great person and a great business person and a very good public servant and a great American.

That's what happened to the Obama campaign.

I'll tell you something else.

After the first debate Obama claimed, with great affected consternation, that the Romney he faced in the first debate was a different guy than he expected.

My opinion is that Obama said this to avoid being nailed for lying about Romney for almost a year.

So Mitt hasn't told any lies about Obama? Are you new to politics as well as DP?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Romney comes across as a lot smarter than Bush. He is certainly more articulate, at least. He has a history of being able to make money, and of personal generosity. He gave away his inheritance (not that he needed it anyway) and gives more to charity than he has to pay in taxes. He has a history of putting financially failing entities back into the black, which is something sorely needed just now.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think being a better orator makes someone "come across as a lot smarter". Last I checked, Dubya is the only president to ever graduate from two Ivy League schools. People that think he's stupid solely for factors like a southern/Texas accent and not being a poignant speaker are really ignorant. Bush was just as successful of a businessman as Romney was, so I think they're both good in that aspect.

Romney also has a history of being able to work with the opposing party, which is another thing that is sorely needed and that Obama lacks.

That one wasn't Bush's fault. For all the crap about Republicans being the "party of no" this term, the Big Tenters were stalwart in trying to marginalize Bush and any ability of his to finalize law. Therefore, I can't say for certainty that he was adamant against working along both aisles.
 
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think being a better orator makes someone "come across as a lot smarter". Last I checked, Dubya is the only president to ever graduate from two Ivy League schools. People that think he's stupid solely for factors like a southern/Texas accent and not being a poignant speaker are really ignorant. Bush was just as successful of a businessman as Romney was, so I think they're both good in that aspect.

I'm not sure, but I believe his southern Texas accent was more of an affectation than anything. He was a Yankee ivy leaguer in reality. As for not being a good speaker, that does come across as being less intelligent.

You'd have thought he'd at least have learned to pronounce "nuclear" in his eight years with his finger on the trigger, but that may have been an affectation as well.

Or, maybe I'm wrong and he's a smarter guy than I give him credit for. It's really his starting two wars and financing them on the national MasterCard that ticked me off more than his inability to speak clearly.

That one wasn't Bush's fault. For all the crap about Republicans being the "party of no" this term, the Big Tenters were stalwart in trying to marginalize Bush and any ability of his to finalize law. Therefore, I can't say for certainty that he was adamant against working along both aisles.

Actually, the comment about working across the aisle was more directed at Obama than Bush.

But, neither one has a great record in that area. Maybe it's just gotten to the point than no one is going to be able to get any sort of bipartisan agreement. If that's the case, then we're really screwed.

but, if anyone is going to be able to work with the opposing party, I'd bet on the former Republican governor of a Democratic state.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not sure, but I believe his southern Texas accent was more of an affectation than anything. He was a Yankee ivy leaguer in reality. As for not being a good speaker, that does come across as being less intelligent.

To an extent, I'll cede that. I don't know if I'd use it as a major criterion, however. But hey - that's just me.

Or, maybe I'm wrong and he's a smarter guy than I give him credit for. It's really his starting two wars and financing them on the national MasterCard that ticked me off more than his inability to speak clearly.

Yeah, the Iraqi war isn't exactly his bright point. Most people believe that he just caved to pressure to live up to daddy's war which, in my mind, actually was justifiable. Invading a major world capital to coup a leader that was fiercely secular and had no real ties to radical Muslims was a real black smudge.

Actually, the comment about working across the aisle was more directed at Obama than Bush.

Ah, my bad. That's a fair assessment, although in Obama's case I can really understand why Congressional Republicans tried to do all they could to stop him.

Mostly it comes off as him acting butthurt that he doesn't have his supermajority these days.
 
Romney…has a history of being able to make money…. … He has a history of putting financially failing entities back into the black, which is something sorely needed just now.

Romney also has a history of being able to work with the opposing party, which is another thing that is sorely needed and that Obama lacks.

But, when it comes to political ideology, Obama is not a lot different from Bush, and Romney is not a lot different from Obama. Once the dust settles, the election is over, and life goes on, I don't expect any major changes as a result of this election.

It seems that you are contradicting yourself here.

Certainly, the nation's biggest and most compelling problem at this time is economic. What could make a bigger difference, at this time, than that of having a President who, in your words, “…has a history of being able to make money…”, who “…has a history of putting financially failing entities back into the black…”, and who “…has a history of being able to work with the opposing party…”, as opposed to a President who has utterly failed in these areas?
 
It seems that you are contradicting yourself here.

Certainly, the nation's biggest and most compelling problem at this time is economic. What could make a bigger difference, at this time, than that of having a President who, in your words, “…has a history of being able to make money…”, who “…has a history of putting financially failing entities back into the black…”, and who “…has a history of being able to work with the opposing party…”, as opposed to a President who has utterly failed in these areas?

Oh, I hope you're right.

You just have more confidence in the president's (any president) ability to solve problems than I do.

With a dysfunctional Congress, getting this nation back on track is going to be a tall order.
 
Oh, I hope you're right.

You just have more confidence in the president's (any president) ability to solve problems than I do.

With a dysfunctional Congress, getting this nation back on track is going to be a tall order.

I would have to say that that is where “…has a history of being able to work with the opposing party…” comes in.
 
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think being a better orator makes someone "come across as a lot smarter". Last I checked, Dubya is the only president to ever graduate from two Ivy League schools. People that think he's stupid solely for factors like a southern/Texas accent and not being a poignant speaker are really ignorant. Bush was just as successful of a businessman as Romney was, so I think they're both good in that aspect.



That one wasn't Bush's fault. For all the crap about Republicans being the "party of no" this term, the Big Tenters were stalwart in trying to marginalize Bush and any ability of his to finalize law. Therefore, I can't say for certainty that he was adamant against working along both aisles.

Obama graduated from two Ivy Schools-Columbia and Harvard Law. But I don't think Obama is any smarter than W and is certainly not as smart as GHWB, Clinton, Nixon, or Romney

here are many different forms of intelligence. I knew chess grandmasters who were almost incoherent in public speaking exercises.

and I knew three Rhodes Scholars whose ability to get a date was almost non existent and two of the three were women I'd rate very pretty.

Bush's ability to understand people and get along with them was genius according to former Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis
 
Obama graduated from two Ivy Schools-Columbia and Harvard Law. But I don't think Obama is any smarter than W and is certainly not as smart as GHWB, Clinton, Nixon, or Romney

here are many different forms of intelligence. I knew chess grandmasters who were almost incoherent in public speaking exercises.

and I knew three Rhodes Scholars whose ability to get a date was almost non existent and two of the three were women I'd rate very pretty.

Bush's ability to understand people and get along with them was genius according to former Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis

I don't think you are in a position to actually assess intelligence. Certainly your opinion is a tad biased considering your visceral hatred and far right ideology. Bushie obviously had people talents and his good ol boy act played well with a lot of people. If it wasn't for Chaney's arm stuck up his ass, he might have actually done some good. As it stands he presided over the biggest clusterf**k in recent memory.
 
There's a saying that a man's intelligence is measured by the degree to which he agrees with you.
 
I don't think you are in a position to actually assess intelligence. Certainly your opinion is a tad biased considering your visceral hatred and far right ideology. Bushie obviously had people talents and his good ol boy act played well with a lot of people. If it wasn't for Chaney's arm stuck up his ass, he might have actually done some good. As it stands he presided over the biggest clusterf**k in recent memory.


the only reason why you call me far right is because you are far left. I went to the same college BUsh did People i know well worked for Bush including some of his top attorneys. People who clerked for the Supreme court

they said he was very bright. I think I am in a far better position than you are to assess his intelligence.

Chaney-LOL and you are talking about intelligence

Carter and Obama were the clusterFk presidencies
 
President Obama apparently trounced Romney on Tuesday night's debate. But here it is three days later and the Gallup poll shows Romney 7 points ahead. What has happened? Aside from the Republican extreme right wing, don't voters know what they will get themselves into if Romney becomes president?

Romney claims he is different from GW Bush. But if you look at Bush's policy record and compare them to what Romney wants to do, there really is no difference! How blind can the low info voters be! :(
"Trounced". "Getting themselves into". No, your lean isn't obvious. :roll:
 
I don't think you are in a position to actually assess intelligence. Certainly your opinion is a tad biased considering your visceral hatred and far right ideology. Bushie obviously had people talents and his good ol boy act played well with a lot of people. If it wasn't for Chaney's arm stuck up his ass, he might have actually done some good. As it stands he presided over the biggest clusterf**k in recent memory.

And you aren't biased? :lamoBush had his issues with the economy but its more about what he didn't do rather than what he did that contributed to the economic collapse. You can thank Bill Clinton, Bwaney Fwank and his colleagues for the housing crisis debacle.

Watch what happens to the stock market on November 7, when Romney receives 270+ Electoral College votes.
 
the only reason why you call me far right is because you are far left.

Probably, but we should note that some people have not reached the point of seeing economics, social issues and foreign policy as definate entities. When there are only two sides to a coin, all others are far.
 
the only reason why you call me far right is because you are far left. I went to the same college BUsh did People i know well worked for Bush including some of his top attorneys. People who clerked for the Supreme court

they said he was very bright. I think I am in a far better position than you are to assess his intelligence.

Chaney-LOL and you are talking about intelligence

Carter and Obama were the clusterFk presidencies

Nonsense. I call you far right because you display all of the characteristics of the far right. You spout far right memes, you cannot bring yourself to be objective about anything the dems have done. You display a neo-cons complete misunderstanding of the rest of the world. YOur economic opinions demonstrate the callousness, the condencension, the stale disproven fiscal policies, that the far right find so near and dear to their hearts.

As for me being far left - you mistake my contempt for your positions and perspective for adherence to far left ideology, when in fact I am a centerist liberal who prefers common sense consensual problem solving to the partisan garbage of the teapublicans.

I hold out zero hope either of us changing our views from these little exchanges. Perhaps the most telling difference between us, is that I have experienced poverty, losing it all, struggling to feed and clothe my family and I rose above it. I tend to give all people the benefit of the doubt and beleive that a helping hand can make the world of difference to suffering folk. You take the perspective that all those mired in poverty are their because they are lazy, don't take responsiblity for their own lives and simply want to live at the government's teat. you focus on the unrepresentative minority for an overall cynical and negative perspective, I focus on the majority for an overall optimistic perspective of human nature and the desire to make a better life.
 
Nonsense. I call you far right because you display all of the characteristics of the far right. You spout far right memes, you cannot bring yourself to be objective about anything the dems have done. You display a neo-cons complete misunderstanding of the rest of the world. YOur economic opinions demonstrate the callousness, the condencension, the stale disproven fiscal policies, that the far right find so near and dear to their hearts.

As for me being far left - you mistake my contempt for your positions and perspective for adherence to far left ideology, when in fact I am a centerist liberal who prefers common sense consensual problem solving to the partisan garbage of the teapublicans.

I hold out zero hope either of us changing our views from these little exchanges. Perhaps the most telling difference between us, is that I have experienced poverty, losing it all, struggling to feed and clothe my family and I rose above it. I tend to give all people the benefit of the doubt and beleive that a helping hand can make the world of difference to suffering folk. You take the perspective that all those mired in poverty are their because they are lazy, don't take responsiblity for their own lives and simply want to live at the government's teat. you focus on the unrepresentative minority for an overall cynical and negative perspective, I focus on the majority for an overall optimistic perspective of human nature and the desire to make a better life.

Far right? WTF is that?

I see 2 positions....and the first one is the correct one

One's on the side of individual freedom and a minimum of state control and power.

The other side is on that people are retards. They aren't smart enough to run their own lives, so for their own good, the elite, the thinkers, need to make more and more rules to control behavior.
 
Back
Top Bottom