Originally Posted by Hands Sandon
Like it or not, some voters aren't so much interested in what is said, but how it's said. That's what threw Obama in the first debate. Wait till we see how this debate effects the numbers, and also keep in mind that the election will be decided by the electoral college, in other words who wins what states, not the popular vote count. That said Obama bill get a boost from this debate and the next which will see him win both.
1. If the President remains down by 6 in the popular vote, he will lose. Period. Bush was up by 4.5% at this point in 2004, and only won by a few points. Remember, the undecided votes almost always break heavily for the challenger. Ironically, the one exception was 2004, where the incumbent got nearly 50% (probably due to the war on terrorism at the time, but that is just my opinion).
2. Obama will not a get a boost, because he didn't convince undecided voters. This is what you fail to understand: Obama may have "won" the debate, but that doesn't necessarily mean votes.
3. With regard to #2: There are several reasons why his media-pronounced "win" will not change the polls much, if at all:
- Poll groups on Fox (Frank Luntz) and MSNBC both showed many more undecided voters going for Romney.
- The CNN flash poll is misleading if we only look at who "won" or "lost." The strength of the candidates on issues is the real story. Romney defeated Obama by huge numbers on the economy, taxes, foreign policy and skills to manage the budget. We're talking 20-30 point margins in some areas.
You see Hands, liberals like yourself are pleased because you think Obama "won" based on his improved performance, energy and attacks. What you fail to understand is that even if he "won" (which is highly debatable), he didn't get any votes. In fact, Romney is the one who convinced undecided. That means the incumbent helped himself with the base, and the challenger didn't hurt himself while getting the middle. That equals a big win for the challenger. To really "win," Obama would have needed a Reagan like night. He didn't have one.
Originally Posted by muppetry
Right, but it is just a matter of depth. Go deep enough and they won't reach. Conventional munitions cannot penetrate more than a few hundred feet of rock.
I don't know what the exact numbers are. It is just my understanding our bunker busting capabilities are significant. We might be able to destroy the entire operation, but we'd likely damage it. That's one reason why I think any military option must be larger scale than just a targeted strike. Iran needs to feel real consequences and be prevented from retaliating. In other words, attack, or don't.
I think that is a contrived argument. He was talking about the attack and he said that "no act of terror will....". By saying that he did not "specifically refer to it as terror" - what exactly do you mean? Referenced what in general? What else do you think he was talking about?
I agree that the subsequent inconsistencies regarding the announcements of who was behind it deserve some explanation, but this is just contrived semantics. And so yes - I disagree with the moderator - the fact that she defended Obama and then somewhat retracted still does not give her current opinion any more authority than anyone else's.
No, the explanation you just gave was contrived. Read the entire context of the statement. The President was NOT referring to this incident specifically. He was talking about terrorism in general. He only obliquely referred to it as terrorism. The proof of this is in the conduct of the administration in the subsequent two weeks. Jay Carney immediately refused to call it terror. Hillary blamed the video. The President went to the U.N. and blamed the video. Susan Rice openly said on 5 talk shows that it was NOT a pre-meditated attack! How the hell can the President call it terrorism and then, a week later, have the UN Ambassador say it was not even pre-planned? How do you explain the President refusing to call it terrorism under direct questioning in a talk show, when the day before Clinton called it terrorism?
I mean, really. This is a positively unreal situation. Some explanation? Some? The dishonesty and/or incompetence here is mind boggling.
Originally Posted by muppetry
I still think that one has to separate that speech from the contradictory messages of the following couple of weeks. Firstly, the speech was given in the immediate aftermath of the event, and the detail that it contained was appropriately confined to a summary of the event. Secondly, it would have been premature to speculate on the causes, but that didn't matter; it was an act of terror whether it was in response to the video or it was a planned operation, and so Obama had no issue with assigning the "act of terror" label.
The legitimate issue that Romney started on, but got deflected from, was the subsequent release of details on the provenance of the attack, and I don't disagree with your comments on that except to say that it is not yet clear to me whether there was a motive related to the election - primarily because it makes no sense to think that strategy would have worked for long enough to be effective.
As for Biden's comments on Iran, I don't see the inconsistency with Israel's position. Indicating a line that cannot be crossed without incurring military intervention is not inconsistent with saying that Iran does not have the capability yet, and that intelligence will give us advance warning.
And, finally, I do not see a connection between the failure of intelligence to predict the attack in Libya and the likely ability to track Iran's nuclear progress. Different kinds of intelligence entirely.
1. Uh, yeah, it really is inconsistent. One favors a public declaration of a "red line," and the other does not. It's totally inconsistent, regardless of whether or not they have the capability. What are we going to do, lay down a red line after they've crossed it?
2. On the surface, yes. But it shows the possibility that the highest levels of government did not accurately perceive threats, which is significant. The embassy was attacked multiple times in the last 6 months, and yet the security teams were reduced. And we're surprised about a terror attack on the anniversary of 9/11? The intelligence might be different, but the decision making process is the same--at least for now. Either way, I don't feel too goo about our assessments of a nations' WMD programs. Do you?
Bergermeister: Here is Deceiving Headline Making it Seems Like Obama is Winning the Election*
*Wait, I guess I should mention that Romney has increased his lead to 52-45 in today's gallup poll. I also should mention that Romney cleaned Obama's clock on individual debate issue polling. And I probably should also mention that undecided voters are flocking towards Romney. And women.
Originally Posted by trumptman
It isn't an argument being put forward. It is what happened. The remarks are clearly broken into two parts. It doesn't have to make sense to you but that is what Obama did. He wasn't just giving a speech about what happened in Libya. He was recounting what he was doing during the attacks because they also happened on 9/11. Multiple sources have confirmed this understanding including the moderator who said she basically jumped on him for poor word choice.
He mentioned the two together because it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate any other even occurring on 9/11 from 9/11 itself. It is our Pearl Harbor. Sure younger people don't remember it but it was an indelible event for most Americans and anything that happens on or around it is going to be mentioned with it.
Now the deeper point, contrive or not, moderator bias or not, is that Obama is playing such horrible defense here that there really isn't much that can be done other than distract from it and that is what Crawley was doing. Even Obama was along the lines of "go on..." because when your BEST CASE scenario is admitting your administration allowed the deaths of American ambassadors in an Islamic country but a terrorist group ON 9/11, then you are really in a pretty crappy position. You're stuck arguing that the other guy is terrible for noting your mistake and that is exactly what Obama was arguing.
I'm incompetent but it's bad form to note it on this day in this way. That is Obama's argument and it is an absurd one.
Well put. Obama looks terrible on this issue. In fact, without Crowley, Romney probably would have scored a knockout victory in this debate. She saved him, and admitted later she was wrong.