Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
Barack Obama did much better in the 2nd debate than he had on the 1st (that's not saying much, I know), and this time managed to support his points and refute some of Romney's points about as well as Romney supported his own points and refuted some of Obama's. So IMHO the debate came out a tie, on those technical grounds.
Of course, I'm a conservative, and I believe Romney's points were much more VALID than Obama's. So for that reason I would hand him the trophy. Liberals see it the opposite way, of course, and they would hand the trophy to Obama for the debate.
But Romney had an advantage that Obama could not: He could point to Obama's clear record from four years of being President... and that record was not good, as Romney cheerfully pointed out. Romney was able to remind the audience that Obama had made many of the same promises he was making tonight, four years ago, and didn't keep very many of them, so why should we expect any different result if Obama is elected for the next four years?
But the bottom line is one that I pointed out earlier in this forum: How many voters will change their minds, as a result of what they saw in the 2nd debate?
As I said earlier, Obama was not able to do or say anything new. Everyone has seen him make many energized, articulate speeches. His debate performance was no better than those, and in some ways slightly worse as he stumbled and hesitated at times. He was able to make many promises and glowing descriptions... but Romney simply kept asking, "Why didn't you do that already, for the last four years? You had every chance!" And people will remember (with Romney's help of course) that they had heard all these promises before. No one is going to change his mind based on anything Obama did in the 2nd debate, because they'd already heard it all, nothing was new or different.
Romney, OTOH, was new and different... new and different from what people had heard about him for months, at least in Obama ads. This was true in the first debate, and is still true now, since Romney presented the same concerned, likeable, capable image as he did in the 1st. That was why he got such a big bump after the first debate - people were surprised and pleased that he DID seem able to handle a Presidency the way they want, contrary to what they'd been told. And in the 2nd debate, that impression was reinforced, regardless of what the other guy said or did.
So Romney seems a bright new figure, while Obama is the same old Obama, nothing new, no reason to change our impression. Two weeks ago Obama had a bad night, people were used to seeing him much more engaged and articulate. And in the 2nd debate, they saw what they were used to: Obama engaged and articulate. Nothing really new, no reason to change our minds about him.
So I predict that the bump Romney got from the first debate, will not go away. The people who were pleased (and surprised) after the first debate, will be just as pleased after the second. But Obama didn't change anybody's minds with his 2nd performance - it was no more than people expected. So he won't get a comparable bump, probably no bump at all, as more people realize Romney is for real.
As I said earlier, the election is Romney's to lose, and may have always been. And he didn't lose it in the 2nd debate. What Obama did, doesn't much matter. Even most Democrat-heavy polls were finding Romney slightly ahead last week, and they won't change after the 2nd debate they just had.
And if fewer Democrats vote on Nov. 6 (a turnout that is inevitable) than the lopsided numbers presented in those polls, then Romney's edge in the actual vote will be that much greater.
There's always the chance he could blow it in the third and last debate this Monday, of course. But I'm guessing his performance will be pretty much the same as it was in the 1st and 2nd debates... and so it will not matter what Obama does there either.
Romney by 6% on Nov. 7, and he will win Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and possibly Pennsylvania... sending him into the Presidency.
Of course, I'm a conservative, and I believe Romney's points were much more VALID than Obama's. So for that reason I would hand him the trophy. Liberals see it the opposite way, of course, and they would hand the trophy to Obama for the debate.
But Romney had an advantage that Obama could not: He could point to Obama's clear record from four years of being President... and that record was not good, as Romney cheerfully pointed out. Romney was able to remind the audience that Obama had made many of the same promises he was making tonight, four years ago, and didn't keep very many of them, so why should we expect any different result if Obama is elected for the next four years?
But the bottom line is one that I pointed out earlier in this forum: How many voters will change their minds, as a result of what they saw in the 2nd debate?
As I said earlier, Obama was not able to do or say anything new. Everyone has seen him make many energized, articulate speeches. His debate performance was no better than those, and in some ways slightly worse as he stumbled and hesitated at times. He was able to make many promises and glowing descriptions... but Romney simply kept asking, "Why didn't you do that already, for the last four years? You had every chance!" And people will remember (with Romney's help of course) that they had heard all these promises before. No one is going to change his mind based on anything Obama did in the 2nd debate, because they'd already heard it all, nothing was new or different.
Romney, OTOH, was new and different... new and different from what people had heard about him for months, at least in Obama ads. This was true in the first debate, and is still true now, since Romney presented the same concerned, likeable, capable image as he did in the 1st. That was why he got such a big bump after the first debate - people were surprised and pleased that he DID seem able to handle a Presidency the way they want, contrary to what they'd been told. And in the 2nd debate, that impression was reinforced, regardless of what the other guy said or did.
So Romney seems a bright new figure, while Obama is the same old Obama, nothing new, no reason to change our impression. Two weeks ago Obama had a bad night, people were used to seeing him much more engaged and articulate. And in the 2nd debate, they saw what they were used to: Obama engaged and articulate. Nothing really new, no reason to change our minds about him.
So I predict that the bump Romney got from the first debate, will not go away. The people who were pleased (and surprised) after the first debate, will be just as pleased after the second. But Obama didn't change anybody's minds with his 2nd performance - it was no more than people expected. So he won't get a comparable bump, probably no bump at all, as more people realize Romney is for real.
As I said earlier, the election is Romney's to lose, and may have always been. And he didn't lose it in the 2nd debate. What Obama did, doesn't much matter. Even most Democrat-heavy polls were finding Romney slightly ahead last week, and they won't change after the 2nd debate they just had.
And if fewer Democrats vote on Nov. 6 (a turnout that is inevitable) than the lopsided numbers presented in those polls, then Romney's edge in the actual vote will be that much greater.
There's always the chance he could blow it in the third and last debate this Monday, of course. But I'm guessing his performance will be pretty much the same as it was in the 1st and 2nd debates... and so it will not matter what Obama does there either.
Romney by 6% on Nov. 7, and he will win Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and possibly Pennsylvania... sending him into the Presidency.
