Symmetry required it: 2012 american general election thread #2

ha i had no idea that movie had comedy poop eating, the chances of me viewing it just rose from never to maybe on a plane or w/e

wait i thought DJP was joking

that scene is as dumb as the rest of the movie tho.

"Governer Romney, the first question is for you: what is the output of '10 PRINT "HELLO" 20 GOTO 10'?"

xp: don't worry JF, that reference won't ruin the movie

there's no way a movie like that involves poop eating, maybe he got it confused with Bridesmaids?

okay lol

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_layzipFhGq1qdoxxuo1_500.jpg

doody

I think Romney's debating ability is being underestimated. He's got a lot of experience, and as long as he stays on track (off-the-cuff remarks or curveball questions at a town hall might be his downfall) he'll do pretty good. Obama's got a record to defend, and debates are generally about cheap shots and soundbites than long explanations of the reality.

Yeah I feel like the debates are always built up by both sides into these "Now we'll see..." moments, and they're mostly usually not very interesting.

Plus, how much does it matter anyway? Kerry gave Bush at least one real solid ass-kicking, and I don't think it had any particular effect.

sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

every time romney offers a position, obama should remind folks of the 18 other positions he's held on the same topic over the past few months. this is already a "thing" w/ romney and i don't think it would be a bad idea to make it the central fact about him.

I love how Bush's expression after Kerry starts writing things down while Bush talks ("Shit. I better try that too.")

in the nyer article about bubba and obama, there's a bit where clinton suggests that it's better to paint romney as a psycho right winger than to portray him as a 'flip-flopper' (hate that phrase) because undecided voters might think that romney could return to his moderate roots once he was in office.

ah, i see.

this is why i'm not bill clinton (among other reasons).

expectations on the debates for romney will be very high, it will be a boring draw, race won't change

conservative belief is that obama is pretty dumb and an empty suit; if you get someone to just stick it to him live he'll collapse, mitt romney somehow won't do that, blame and recrimination all around.

republicans going back to the jeremiah wright well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n-ELYhHdQw4

debates sealed the deal for reagan in 80, tight race before that, landslide after. gore performance (and snl mocking of same) in 00 hurt him though i'm not sure it impacted polls (still i remember that dui revelation hurt bush in closing week so i'm guessing he got a little bump from debate performance?). debates helped kerry down the stretch, though not enough obv. also carter in 76 and kennedy in 60 obv.

That's why they wanted Newt to debate him, in the misguided belief that Gingrich is a mega-intellect whose debating skills would blow Obama out of the water. xxp

I would have loved to see an Obama/Newt debate tbh

I'd like to bet Mitt Romney $10,000 he won't put on this blue suit:

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040727/040727_kerry_hmed_4p.grid-6x2.jpg

http://cdn.static.ovimg.com/episode/223647.jpg

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6400000/The-Cowardly-Lion-the-wizard-of-oz-6449515-496-475.jpg

^^^ Newt Gingrich. "C'mon, put 'em up! I'll debate 'cha wit one paw tied behind my back!"

debates sealed the deal for reagan in 80, tight race before that, landslide after.

― balls, Monday, September 10, 2012 3:39 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

some other stuff happened after the debates too, as always its hard to tease out cause and effect, interesting post http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/09/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign

gore performance (and snl mocking of same) in 00 hurt him though i'm not sure it impacted polls (still i remember that dui revelation hurt bush in closing week so i'm guessing he got a little bump from debate performance?).

― balls, Monday, 10 September 2012 19:39 (8 minutes ago) Permalink

IIRC, most polling had Gore winning the debates

my conception of the 1980 race is that people wanted to vote for Reagan and it took them until the end of the election to go "ok, he's not an idiot, I can vote for this guy without shame." No such revelation in the works for Mittbot.

and.... that link completely obliterates what I thought lol

ya its weird u always hear abt reagan storming from behind to win it

crazy that carter had that huge a 'lead' at the start of the year - residue from ppl rallying around the president in the aftermath of iran crisis? also wow that race was not nearly as tight as i'd been led to believe, competitive for a stretch near the end but...not really. would love to see jack anderson numbers, also curious what happens if 1) kennedy doesn't challenge carter or 2) kennedy wins nomination somehow. totally curious about the book mentioned there.

Meantime

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/birtherpalooza_canceled.php?ref=fpa

One theory could be found on the Facebook page of Linda Bentley, an Arizona tea party activist who had been promoting the event. A visitor to her page wrote that it had been doomed because Arpaio was unwilling to take his probe even further and investigate the president for murder.

“The REASON the EVENT by Sheriff Joe & his Cold Case POSSE was CANCELLED is because the Sheriff & others are TOO DUMB to SEE the MURDERS Barack Obama had his Security Adviser John Brennan commit on Obama’s Gay Lovers in Chicago,” the visitor wrote.

that is one hell of an intimidation tactic, hunting down someone and killing people on top of them

chicago style politics

I was skimming through J. Hoberman's The Dream Life yesterday (for a signing that never happened), and he mentioned somewhere that the Labor Day Gallup Poll in '68 was Nixon 43, Humphrey 31, and Wallace 19. The final result was Nixon 43.4, Humphrey 42.7, and Wallace 13.5. Obviously a unique election, with no direct bearing on this year at all. But it does show there can be significant movement after Labor Day.

Guessing Humphrey didn't get much of a bounce from the '68 convention...

its just one poll tho

(xposts) to be fair, having your Gay Lovers murdered is considered a good conservative alternative to marrying them

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OXTGFskDxls/UE48nCtOB4I/AAAAAAAAGkk/OCYW2Ic3ucE/s400/3c00b414fb7111e1ab4c22000a1d0350_7.jpg

gangster

re lag∞n's link: I haven't read much evidence refuting Gary Sick's (and the early Hitchens) case for an October Surprise re the Iranians.

From reading Elizabeth Drew's book on the '84 race I see evidence that Mondale's making Reagan look like querulous and doddering in the first debate chipped slightly at RR's lead -- two points. He still lead by almost double digits.

Other than that I can't remember a debate after 1980 that didn't cement impressions about the loser (Dukakis: coldfish; Dole: lol old; Gore: prick).

Really? 2004 didn't, unless I guess the impression being cemented was Kerry is not the dundering idiot the guy who actually won was.

idiot no dundering yes

you forgot Poland

you could easily frame the dubya debates as events that cemented poor impressions about him, it's just that they weren't enough. (or were enough in gore's case, again, half a million more people votes for him)

general polarization makes the debates (and the conventions) less and less important as time goes on. Kerry 'won the debates' it just didn't affect much.

xp

people voted*

gore won the people votes, lost the Scotus votes

they musta thought he was a prick in the debates