Abc News/washington Post Poll: Obama Leading Romney Ahead Of First Debate

[SteeleJoe]

If this one debate gives Romney a lead in ANY swing state he currently trails in, I'll lick my hat.

I believe the phrase is "eat my hat", but I can understand you not wanting to take any chances after Obama's poor performance last night.

I know what the phrase is. It's just that nobody actually does eat their hat and I don't want to be a big fat liar like Romney is about Medicare, Obamacare, and preexisting conditions.

I can't bring myself to watch Fox News now. They must be having a wild gloat-fest at the moment. Again, wait for the polls. The Obama base ain't going away.

Then you had better stay away from ALL news channels for awhile because ALL of them are hammering Obama on his lackluster debate performance.

You do know what "gloat" means, right? Reporting the debate victory/Obama's poor performance does not meet that definition.

[SteeleJoe]

At this time I'm watching the Stewart Show piece on the same thing. I like Tucker Carlson's retort (at least the small bit they showed), "This wasn't reported on 5 years ago, I know because I reported on it". I don't know what the rest of his thought was but that's what Stewart does best, takes snippets out of context and gets a good laugh out of it.

Heh. I'm going to try and find a clip of that

[koheesti]

I sure wish this election was over already and we could all be wondering what dress Michelle will be wearing to the ball.

Or Obama if those rumors about his life in Chicago before he became famous are true.

http://www.liveleak....=0a9_1347510838

In which you tell us a bunch of silly right wing anti-gay rumors that Obama used to haunt the Chicago gay bathhouses. I used to live in Chicago. Nope. BTW, most gay men (or "deviants" as your link describes them) don't wear dresses.

Thank you. I've been asking your informed opinion on this rumor for almost 3 weeks and you finally commented. As a gay man who lived in Chicago you would certainly have better insight into the truth of this rumor. I didn't think much about the rumor myself before you wrote this in another thread:

"Obama didn't INVENT same sex marriage, and believe me gay people knew all along he was the best president in U.S. history for gay civil rights."

Jingthing, on 2012-09-11 19:26:56 OTB

It got me wondering, how would gay people know that? But now that you have cleared the air, that it is all just a rumor. I guess there must have been something else that made gays know that Obama was their man from the very beginning. Anyway, I doubt that Romney will ask him about it in their final debate. Although, I bet that would fluster Obama.

[koheesti]

I believe the phrase is "eat my hat", but I can understand you not wanting to take any chances after Obama's poor performance last night.

I know what the phrase is. It's just that nobody actually does eat their hat and I don't want to be a big fat liar like Romney is about Medicare, Obamacare, and preexisting conditions.

I can't bring myself to watch Fox News now. They must be having a wild gloat-fest at the moment. Again, wait for the polls. The Obama base ain't going away.

Then you had better stay away from ALL news channels for awhile because ALL of them are hammering Obama on his lackluster debate performance.

You do know what "gloat" means, right? Reporting the debate victory/Obama's poor performance does not meet that definition.

True, the other channels are more like in a state of mourning and can't be much fun to watch for Obama supporters either.

[koheesti]

At this time I'm watching the Stewart Show piece on the same thing. I like Tucker Carlson's retort (at least the small bit they showed), "This wasn't reported on 5 years ago, I know because I reported on it". I don't know what the rest of his thought was but that's what Stewart does best, takes snippets out of context and gets a good laugh out of it.

Heh. I'm going to try and find a clip of that

It's the current video on http://www.thedailyshow.com/...

Oh the Spew-Hannity

Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson expose an explosive 2007 video of Barack Obama echoing the racially-charged sentiments of notorious black liberation theologist George W. Bush. (05:03)

[uptheos]

True, the other channels are more like in a state of mourning and can't be much fun to watch for Obama supporters either.

I would think that the democrat party and supporters are in a state of shock, they surely couldn't believe they were watching the USA's Commander in Chief in action. Seemed more like a beaten up GI Joe.

[Jingthing]

What will be shocking, IF it happens, is if Romney starts to show a lead in the swing state polls, the only states that are in play. Here's a spin for you. Obama base people will start to feel they really do have to get out and vote because it's less of a landslide scenario than before, thus assuring the victory.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[SteeleJoe]

What will be shocking, IF it happens, is if Romney starts to show a lead in the swing state polls, the only states that are in play. Here's a spin for you. Obama base people will start to feel they really do have to get out and vote because it's less of a landslide scenario than before, thus assuring the victory.

Uhhmm...I think the indicators were/are there for, I'm pleased to say, an Obama victory -- but when was it ever realistically a landslide scenario AT ALL, let alone more than it is now? (that is to say, what suggested that there was such a thing and what suggests that scenario now, albeit less so than before?)

Edited October 4, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[koheesti]

According to a CNN nationwide poll, 67% believe that Romney won the debate. That the FIRST time anyone scored over 60% since they started this poll in 1984. That's impressive.

While nearly half of debate watchers said the showdown didn't make them more likely to vote for either candidate, 35% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney while only 18% said the faceoff made them more likely to vote to re-elect the president.

More than six in ten said that president did worse than expected, with one in five saying that Obama performed better than expected. Compare that to the 82% who said that Romney performed better than expected. Only one in ten felt that the former Massachusetts governor performed worse than expected.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/03/cnn-poll-romney-wins-debate-by-big-margin/

[Jingthing]

What will be shocking, IF it happens, is if Romney starts to show a lead in the swing state polls, the only states that are in play. Here's a spin for you. Obama base people will start to feel they really do have to get out and vote because it's less of a landslide scenario than before, thus assuring the victory.

Uhhmm...I think the indicators were/are there for, I'm pleased to say, an Obama victory -- but when was it ever realistically a landslide scenario AT ALL, let alone more than it is now?

Some people were starting to talk about a possible landslide. I think now not so much.

[Ulysses G.]

I really think it's 'game on'..........Obama blew it big time today, I couldn't believe I was hearing and looking at an American president. His whole body language and facial expressions were that of a loser.

Exactly right. You have to give credit to Chris Christie. He really called it this time. "This race will be turned upside down after the debate. "

[Jingthing]

The psychology may have changed, but again, wait for the swing state polling.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Too bad Hillary didn't find this in 2008.

That 5 year old video was widely reported on...uhmm 5 years ago.

The transcript of the video released 5 years ago was of Obama's prepared remarks. This part is where he went off on his own without a teleprompter and as anyone who was watching last night's debate can't deny, Obama is a mess when he has to think then speak.

This just a sampling of the coverage at the time:

"Senator Obama today said the Bush administration has done nothing to defuse what he calls a quiet riot among black Americans, a riot he suggests is ready to erupt. Obama said African American resentments and frustrations are building, especially, he said, because so many blacks from New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are still displaced 21 months after Hurricane Katrina. Obama warned against conditions similar to those in Los Angeles 15 years ago.

"Not only do we still have the scars of the riots and the quiet riots that happen every day, but how in too many places all across the country, we haven't even bothered to take the bullet out."

Obama was speaking at a conference of black clergy at Virginia's Hampton University."

From FOX News

Addressing the Hampton University Annual Ministers' Conference in Hampton, Virginia, Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., discussed poverty and implied the Bush administration has been ignoring serious issues of poverty and hopelessness in the U.S. — what he termed "quiet riots."

The man angling to become the first African-American president in history pointed out that 19 months after Hurricane Katrina — and 15 years after the Los Angeles riots, "the homes haven't been built, the businesses haven't returned, and those same communities are still drowning and smoldering under the same hopelessness as before the tragedy hit."

From ABC

'Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said in a speech yesterday that "quiet riots that take place every day" in impoverished communities around the country create conditions that lead to violence such as the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

"Most of the ministers here know that those riots didn't erupt overnight; there had been a 'quiet riot' building up in Los Angeles and across this country for years," Obama told a conference of ministers at Hampton University in Virginia. "If you had gone to any street corner in Chicago or Baton Rouge or Hampton -- you would have found the same young men and women without hope, without miracles, and without a sense of destiny other than life on the edge." '

Washington Post

Actually, none of the above addresses the video in question. The video isn't about rioting. The video has Obama saying that local gov't has to match federal funds by 10% (feds give $100, local must give $10) and that 9/11 was so bad the gov't said NYC didn't have to pay. And that hurricane Andrew in Miami was so bad, the gov't said Miami didn't have to pay. But with Katrina, the gov't is making "N'awlins" pay and that must be because of racisim. He also gave a special shout out to his pastor Reverend Wright, who was still unknown at the time the speech was made.

[SteeleJoe]

What will be shocking, IF it happens, is if Romney starts to show a lead in the swing state polls, the only states that are in play. Here's a spin for you. Obama base people will start to feel they really do have to get out and vote because it's less of a landslide scenario than before, thus assuring the victory.

Uhhmm...I think the indicators were/are there for, I'm pleased to say, an Obama victory -- but when was it ever realistically a landslide scenario AT ALL, let alone more than it is now?

Some people were starting to talk about a possible landslide. I think now not so much.

Some people? I assume you mean people of some kind of credible authority on such things who could cite some supoorting facts, and not just wishful thinkers at the water-cooler or on Obama support websites or something...

I missed it. My impression was that everything has always pointed to a relatively close race -- but I don't claim to have been all that assiduous in my following of the events of the last few months or to be especially informed on this campaign so...

[koheesti]

True, the other channels are more like in a state of mourning and can't be much fun to watch for Obama supporters either.

I would think that the democrat party and supporters are in a state of shock, they surely couldn't believe they were watching the USA's Commander in Chief in action. Seemed more like a beaten up GI Joe.

I would never compare Obama to a GI Joe. Maybe to Barbie's boyfriend, Ken, but not GI Joe.

[keemapoot]

Jeff Greenfield's postgame analysis is interesting:

After the debate debacle for Obama, we’ll find out if we have a race

http://news.yahoo.com/after-the-debate-debacle-for-obama--we%E2%80%99ll-find-out-if-we-have-a-race.html

[Ulysses G.]

I can't bring myself to watch Fox News now. They must be having a wild gloat-fest at the moment.

They don't need to gloat. Romney won too decisively for that. Ok Hannity is gloating, but the rest of the gang are just pleased.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[SteeleJoe]

Actually, none of the above addresses the video in question. The video isn't about rioting. The video has Obama saying that local gov't has to match federal funds by 10% (feds give $100, local must give $10) and that 9/11 was so bad the gov't said NYC didn't have to pay. And that hurricane Andrew in Miami was so bad, the gov't said Miami didn't have to pay. But with Katrina, the gov't is making "N'awlins" pay and that must be because of racisim. He also gave a special shout out to his pastor Reverend Wright, who was still unknown at the time the speech was made.

You mean to say that the currrent video is NOT of the speech in Hampton?

[SteeleJoe]

I can't believe I'm discussing that video. I withdraw the question; I am not convinced of the claims that the video in question is new information but I'm not going to try and research (especially with a sh***y 3G speed) so I'll not fight you on it.

Edited October 4, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[Ulysses G.]

Actually, none of the above addresses the video in question. The video isn't about rioting. The video has Obama saying that local gov't has to match federal funds by 10% (feds give $100, local must give $10) and that 9/11 was so bad the gov't said NYC didn't have to pay. And that hurricane Andrew in Miami was so bad, the gov't said Miami didn't have to pay. But with Katrina, the gov't is making "N'awlins" pay and that must be because of racisim. He also gave a special shout out to his pastor Reverend Wright, who was still unknown at the time the speech was made.

You mean to say that the currrent video is NOT of the speech in Hampton?

The media used prepared talking points by the Obama campaign to analyze the speech. The new video has everything that Obama said in an exaggerated accent and it was very different from what he said to the general public and it does not make him look good.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

Sorry to say his constant looking down was as basic an admission as I have seen.

Maybe it's just me but the "constant looking down" can at least in part be attributed to the fact that he had a pen in his hand and was making notes.

Now whether *that* is a sign of weakness is a whole other discussion.

[Ulysses G.]

This is a positive for Romney -- at least to some arguable degree -- at a time he needed one. On it's own, is it enough? Obviously not.

No it isn't, but no one thought that one debate would win the election (although a few have come close to it in the past). What it did is change the momentum in Romney's favor and dispelled all the false propoganda about him being a bumbling fool or a mean, uncaring aristocrat. No one could turn in a debate performance like that without being very, very bright and being very knowledgeable about the issues.

Obama is going to bone up for the next debate, but he still has a dismal record that he can not defend. This is still a very close race.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[koheesti]

I can't believe I'm discussing that video. I withdraw the question; I am not convinced of the claims that the video in question is new information but I'm not going to try and research (especially with a sh***y 3G speed) so I'll not fight you on it.

Nothing to fight about really. I believe the video was released the other day not for what Obama was saying, but how he was saying it. Obama has gone into "black preacher mode" before, but this isn't black preacher, it's more "southern, uneducated black" which doesn't make him sound like the genius he has been made out to be. So I think the stated reason for releasing it was just a smoke screen for the real racially motivated reason. It's like when I post photos on Facebook of some beautiful architecture someplace where I'm travelling but in the foreground is a hot woman in a mini skirt. The architecture is the stated reason for the photo, but one glance will tell you my reason for taking the photo was otherwise.

Edited October 4, 2012 by koheesti

[uptheos]

Can someone please tell me exactly why a third party won't work in USA?

[Jingthing]

Can someone please tell me exactly why a third party won't work in USA?

Well, maybe someday it could but in the recent hyper polarized political environment, where would it be positioned? Left of the democrats? Right of the republicans? Probably not. Probably center. So any third party would just end up giving the election to one of the two parties so most people would feel that is a wasted vote.

[koheesti]

Can someone please tell me exactly why a third party won't work in USA?

IMO, because a 3rd party would automatically split the vote of one of the other parties, gift wrapping victory for the other guy. In presidential elections, there is no run-off between the top two candidates if no one surpasses 50%.

In 1992, Clinton won with a mere 43% of the vote to Bush's 38% and Perot's 19% was made up mostly of conservative votes. That means 57% voted AGAINST the winner. That doesn't happen often.

In 2000, Ralph Nader sucked votes from Gore and without him Gore would have easily won and Florida never would have been close.

For these reasons, a lot of people are reluctant to vote for a 3rd party for fear of helping the other guys out. Sadly, a lot of Ron Paul voters are clueless and would rather have Obama remain president so that they can feed their own egos over how principled it makes them feel not to vote for Romney. Me, I voted for Ron Paul in the Florida primary out of principle but if he were running as a 3rd party candidate in November I would vote for Romney because he has a realistic chance to win. As our system is now, any vote NOT for Romney helps Obama, and any vote NOT for Obama helps Romney. Now, if we had a run-off when a candidate didn't get at least 50.1%, I would vote for Ron Paul, because as long as the non-Obama vote tops 50%, he wouldn't be handed the presidency. And I think a lot more people would be willing to vote for the candidate they want, more than the candidate they think has a chance to win. In a run-off, we get a choice between the top two vote getters, and in this year's case, that would probably be Romney and Obama. THEN the egotistical Ron Paul voters could feel OK about voting for someone else.

Edited October 4, 2012 by koheesti

[Jingthing]

You're right. A semi successful 3rd party run on the left, right, or center would just take the election from ONE of the major party candidates.

I guess there are scenarios where it could work. Such as two really horrible candidates (many would say we have that now) and a 3rd guy who is super famous and super rich and probably centrist.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Things are looking up for Romney these days. Between the video surfacing of Obama doing his Malcolm X imitation, Joe Biden admitting the middle class has been "buried" since Obama took office and a major debate win there is a lot to celebrate.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[koheesti]

Things are looking up for Romney these days. Between the video surfacing of Obama doing his Malcolm X imitation, Joe Biden admitting the middle class has been "buried" since Obama took office and a major debate win there is a lot to celebrate.

And Romney even used Biden's own words in the debate, That had to sting just a little.

"

The people who are having the hard time right now are middle- income Americans. Under the president's policies, middle-income Americans have been buried." - Mitt Romney

[TheWalkingMan]

Things are looking up for Romney these days. Between the video surfacing of Obama doing his Malcolm X imitation, Joe Biden admitting the middle class has been "buried" since Obama took office and a major debate win there is a lot to celebrate.

Malcolm X imitation? lol That 2007 video, which was reviewed back in 2008 and is being rerun in 2012? The one with the chatter about investing in minority business which was something similar Bush 43 said in the aftermath of Katrina? Obama and Bush 43 were both channeling Malcolm X? I guess stranger things have happened.