Andrew Sullivan: Obama Lost The Election

Andrew explains.

http%3A//andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/did-obama-just-throw-the-entire-election-away.html

There are two more debates so I think everyone is predicting results a bit early.
He is the very definition of a drama queen, reacting to every single campaign event with oversized emotion. "The private sector is doing fine." OMG, Obama's going to lose! Democratic primary: OMG, Obama's going to win! 1st Debate: OMG, Obama's going to lose! He's exhausting ... and at this point, his prognostication skills are in serious question.
Andrew Sullivan is a gay Catholic apologist. He is that anomalous person who is both brilliant and stupid simultaneously. He is for intellectual entertainment only.
I haven't read the piece yet, but I have the following question, OP: Does Sullivan point out that the polling sample was heavily skewed towards older voters and whites?
2012%20Poll%20Troll
no of course not.
Der-raaaah-ma!
Drama
Thank you 2012 Poll Troll!!!
Saying outrageous things is the way these punditry drones keep their gigs going. That's all it is. If he was rational and level-headed nobody would care and he'd get no attention.
This reminds me. Bill Maher is having Ann Coulter and the GOP on his show Friday so I won't be seeing it. Andrew is usually on Maher at least once a season. Don't know if he will be around this cycle or not.
r8 is right
Folks? He isn't going to lose. This is a campaign, everyone take a deep breath. The President is leading in the battleground states and while Romney may surge, in politics time, we have a decade before the election. Things will change and Obama will be reelected. You heard it here first.
Sal%20the%20Medium
R11 what about Romney's spike among women voters?
^^ which poll showed this spike, and who exactly were they polling? be specific.
Romney erases Obama advantage among women in new poll
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/09/romney-surges-in-new-poll-makes-across-board-gains-on-heels-debate/
So according to Andrew, just because Obama had a terrible debate night, the fact that unemployment is coming down,from 8.1 to 7.8, job growth is very slow but going up, the stock market is at it's highest levels in years, the deficit has been reduced by a couple of trillion dollars and government spending is at an all time low, Medicare has been giving a longer life thanks to $716B cuts imposed on providers like big pharma, with no harm to seniors, college loan repayment is tied to earnings now, children have healthcare who didn't have it, people can't be dumped from getting health insurance because of preexisting conditions, some of our trade agreements are being renegotiated to correct imbalances that favored other countries, the American automobile industry, which was teetering on the brink of extinction is now thriving, regulatory policies have be instituted in the financial services industry with more to come, and we have a President who has brought justice to the world's most vicious terrorist, a President who won't be bullied by other countries, who is respected around the world, who never embarrrasses us with ignorance and buffoonish behavior, this President, according to Andrew Sullivan, is going to lose an election to two empty suits who use scare tactics, lies and distortions to veil the fact they want to go back to the bad old days of Bush and get us in a war with Iran. etc.
They are talking about the Pew poll, which has already been discredited by some sources.
2012%20Poll%20Troll
R15, I think I'm going to diagram that sentence. Amazing.
FOX NEWS r14? Really?
Wel they must have been polling old ladies in nursing homes because I can't imagine women voting against a Pro-choice President who signed the Lily Leadbetter Law for euqal pay, and who has stood strong for women's rights. Next they will have a poll saying Romney is closing the gap with Gays because they think Paul Ryan is hot.
(It would make more sense to say they think Obama is hot, because he is and I do
R18 when you google Romney Female voters that is what comes up.
Another troll post screaming an outlier's self important opinion. No story here. Is Sully still trolling the online Poz sites? He needs to be kept in perspective.
that should tell you something, r20.
I would be interested in hearing Poll Troll talk about how the Pew poll has been discredited. Meanwhile -- someone's citing a FoxNews poll as credible evidence that Obama will lose the female vote? Seriously? Because Obama didn't have snappy comebacks, and hordes of women immediately thought, 'Well, that big handsome Mormon Mitt will certainly fight for equal pay and rights for me instead'???
[quote]I would be interested in hearing Poll Troll talk about how the Pew poll has been discredited. R23, from what I can tell so far, here is the problem with the Pew poll: They polled 400 in the South out of 600 overall, only 12% were minorities & 0% were Latino.
2012%20Poll%20Troll
Thank you for explaining that skewed result, PT. Wow.
I don't know if Sullivan is right or wrong, but he doesn't seem very measured in his responses.
Sullivan has been screaming about Obama for 3 years.
Milky Loads judgment is always in question considering his viral status. He's a hysterical moron who is largely ignored.
He is upset because it apparently flies in the face of his Newsweek cover story.
I think you mean Sullivan has been CREAMING about Obama for 3 years.
[quote] Meanwhile -- someone's citing a FoxNews poll as credible evidence that Obama will lose the female vote? The Fox News article is citing the same Pew poll that Sullivan is making a fuss about. All of this hysteria is over one poll that is likely an outlier. Meanwhile, yesterday's Gallup tracking poll puts Obama ahead by 5, and today's Rasmussen tracking poll has Obama and Romney tied.
Romney didn't gain 12 points from the debate However, the best indication so far is that he did gain 5 points For example, the Gallup polls leading into the debate had Obama up by 5. They typically average seven days of their daily polls to get their rolling average. They did a special release of data three days after the debate that said that the two candidates were ties in those following three days If you look at a number of swing state polls done after the debate and you compare the results of that poll to the results in the state by that same polling firm, you see, on average, a five point swing So it isn't 12, it is 5 That being said, 5 points is a lot
Why bother freaking out over a poll that measures the popular vote? Obama's got the electoral vote locked up and always has.
[quote] For example, the Gallup polls leading into the debate had Obama up by 5. And the current Gallup poll has Obama up by 5 again (50-45). Which means, according to Gallup, that any bounce Romney got out of the debate has disappeared.
R33, Romney is taking states now that O was owning by nearly double digits a few weeks ago.
Mary!
UM. NO.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/oct-8-a-great-poll-for-romney-in-perspective/%23more-35748
If Obama had trounced Romney it is possible that Obama's base might have become complacent and not bothered to vote. I almost think he did a very smart thing by doing a passable job yet "losing" the debate. He didn't kick the man who was down, or come across as smug or invincible. But having had a loss, his base will be interested and rooting for him, moderates will think he was justified in hammering Romney (if he chooses to do so), and conservatives will have plenty of time to lose interest in their candidate again. "Fighting back" is much better than being the "angry black man." I think it could have been a shrewd move.
I don't think it was deliberate, but I think the results might be the same, so overall it is a good thing.
DAY-UM!!
I don't know about you all but Obama didn't win the debate, so I'm voting for Romney, the man who will destroy the country and my livelihood. Take that, Obama!
Sullivan is kinda nutty but he has a point - its too many polls showing the same thing and PPP and Pew are very respected. Don't know what to say ... looks bad ..
Meanwhile, the freeper invasion continues on DataLounge....
R42, PPP is already basically saying that Obama will go back up in their next poll in a few days time. 75% of today's PPP poll was taken in the two days after the debate before the Jobs Report. And the Pew poll's problems were discussed earlier.
2012%20Poll%20Troll
R42, which other polls "show the same thing"?
Well - there's the daily trackers, PPP, Pew and two others last weekend, forget the names. They all show movement in Romney's direction. Also - hasn't the Obama campaign been kinda quiet lately - they are probably trying to analyzing data, etc., to decide how to respond.
"Movement" is hardly the same as winning, or even having a lead, R46.
This guy on Daily Kos says it better than me. This is rings true to me. "Obama was 49 to 46 among white women in the previous poll. He's losing 57 to 38 among white women now. And you can see in the details that most of the damage was among white women with less than a college education. There Romney was leading 49 to 45. Now he's leading 63 to 31. "These are the low information voters. These are the white ladies who work and don't follow politics online because they probably don't sit at computers while doing their jobs. The probably don't watch the news very often because after busting ass all day and taking care of kids, who wants to? The debate watch number was huge...60+ million. More than any debate in the 2008 cycle. It isn't unreasonable to say that for millions of these women they got their first look at Mitt Romney outside of ads and media coverage. And he made the best of that opportunity. Meanwhile, our guy was somewhere else so there was nobody to call Mitt Romney on his lies and bullshit."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/09/1141972/-Seriously-people-The-polls-are-skewed-sigh
That idiot on Kos is a notorious malcontent who would rather bitch about Obama on any given day. A lot of the Kos krew live for being "more liberal than thou."
Kos does have a point in that the less educated don't read the newspapers or watch the news, so the debate exposure had a big effect (probably not as big as he'd like, but big). The only thing we can do to combat that is donate to help pay for TV ads that might reach the same population. Or volunteer to go door-to-door to reach same.
Jim Lehrer, moderator of last Wednesday’s presidential debate, missed a golden opportunity. He could have asked these men any idiosyncratic questions he wished—questions that not only would have elicited revealing answers, but couldn’t have been censored and couldn’t have been rehearsed in advance. Indeed, in that unique setting (live TV, with 67 million people watching), Lehrer was the only man on earth with the power to pull this off. True, had he done it, his career in broadcasting would have ended, and he likely would’ve been sued by the RNC. But on the positive side he would have gone down in history as the rogue journalist who, in front of a national television audience, asked the candidates questions that were halfway interesting. Here are 10 questions Jim Lehrer could have asked: 1. What was the most difficult class you took in college? Good question. Gives them a chance to come off as pleasantly humble. If they say Organic Chemistry, we know they’re not lying. If they can’t recall even one class that gave them trouble, it’s not going to ruin them, but they’ll come off as inattentive or evasive. 2. What trait or talent does your opponent possess that you most admire or wish you possessed? Wouldn’t we all like to know this? Mitt might say he wished he could debate or play basketball as well as the President, and Obama might say he envied Mitt because, as a Mormon, he gets to wear magic underwear. 3. With the exception of your wife or mother, what woman has had the most profound effect on your life? Tough question, especially being sprung without warning. That’s why it would be fascinating to hear their answers. 4. Who are your favorite writers? They better have some, otherwise they’re going to sound uninformed, uninquisitive and uncultured….positively Palinesque. 5. Who are your favorite singers or musical groups? We’d all like to know this. Wouldn’t it be shocking if Obama said he liked the Carpenters and Eagles, and Romney admitted to being a fan of Lil’ Kim? 6. Do you believe that, even with its atrocious human rights record, we should continue to give financial aid to Ruwati? A trick question meant to test their honesty. There is no such country as Ruwati. Would these guys admit to having never heard of the place, or would they try to bullshit us? 7. (to Obama) Not counting Abraham Lincoln, who is your favorite Republican president? It’s Obama’s opportunity to answer with Dwight Eisenhower. 8. (to Romney) Not counting Harry Truman, who is your favorite Democratic president? This one could really hurt Mitt because he’s never followed politics, and doesn’t know who’s who. Moreover, shifting gears like this is alien to him. He must be careful not mention Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton, who were neither Democrats nor presidents. 9. What’s the last thing you did that you’re ashamed of? Granted, this bombshell could bring the whole shebang to a screeching halt, but it would be interesting to see them struggle with it. 10. What part of the Bible seems the most far-fetched? If Obama answers “None,” he’s clearly lying. If he says it’s Adam and Eve or Noah’s Ark, he risks alienating those Christians who don’t already think he’s a Muslim. As for Mitt, he’d be forced to admit that the Book of Mormon takes precedence over the Bible, finally bringing the topic of religion into the open. Not good. These questions would not only be a mild exercise in psychodrama, they would force Obama and Romney to provide the American public with some genuine insight. If the point of the debates is to offer a close-up glimpse of the candidates, then why not do it right? Why not ask questions the public really wants to hear? Are we more interested in the candidates giving their well-rehearsed, well-oiled views on Dodd-Frank, Simpson-Bowles, and deficit reduction, or would we rather hear them respond spontaneously to the oddball questions above?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/09/10-questions-jim-lehrer-should-have-asked/
The scariest comments out there in the press are the mentions about how he actually thought he had done well in the debate when he left the stage. Really? I'm tired of all of the excuses - it is the moderator's fault, it is the altitude in Denver, Kerry didn't push him hard, Romney lied The bottom line is that Obama (for once) needs to take some responsibility here He didn't prepare well. His performance was for shit Identifying and admitting the problem is part of fixing it. If all of his advisers are telling him (and the world) that it wasn't him, he won't prepare well for the next debate
In other words R51, you wish the debate would have looked like the multiple interviews Obama has done with People magazine, the View, etc Stupid idea but at least he would have been prepared
Maybe Obama should have made up lies and steamrolled the moderator, would the pundits have made the same conclusions about him as Rmoney?
[quote]The bottom line is that Obama (for once) needs to take some responsibility here You really are a fucking asshole. Just an absolute fucking asshole. Even during the debate, he took responsibility. He admitted to not having been perfect. He's even said it in interviews, so WTF is wrong with people like you who watch the GOP lie about everything and never take responsibility for anything -including the God damned economy which they were blaming Obama for within days of him taking office- lying about Obama never having taken responsibility? They GOP even thinks Obama has been "apologizing" for this country, that's how fucking warped you people are. You watched a party not take responsibility for eight years, then when the new guy came in, that shit party unloaded their own failures onto him, so don't mention Obama not taking responsibility considering what we witnessed prior to him entering office. You're just disgusting.
Obama's first words to his team offstage were that it was on him.
Why aren't Democrats and liberals demanding that Obama and Company make debating the #1 priority right now? Remember, how Repubs publicly scolded Romney last month and told him he had to get his act together and do several things to keep from losing. Where is the Democratic accountability toward Team Obama to ensure that they are not blowing off more debates and have a winning debate preparation plan that is nothing like the plan they had for the first debates? Moreover, why aren't more debates demanding that Obama clear his schedule and make debates his ultimate priority? Repubs know how critical the debates are, that is why Romney started practicing in July and brought in some of the nation's best debate coaches. Dems know Obama stunk last week, but seem to be impotent when it comes to demanding evidence that it will not happen again.
i love r55.
[quote]Why aren't Democrats and liberals demanding that Obama and Company make debating the #1 priority right now? Because he is President of the United States. He has a job which requires most of his attention with crises in Libya, Syria, Spain and Greece. "Ummmm...Mr President...look, we know the whole Syrian thing is important and Turkey business is, you know, worrying but can you just take a couple of dates for debate prep?" Computer says no.
r59 is right.
If Obama loses and he causes the Congress to go Republican, Democrats should officially expel him from their Party.
You should be muzzled, idiot r61. You really are THAT stupid (or bad at trolling).
Is he even a citizen? Deport him.
[quote]If Obama loses and he causes the Congress to go Republican, Democrats should officially expel him from their Party. The hint is "their", really. If you're going to rabble-rouse, you need to make others think you are part of the rabble.
I am siding with the poster who said that Obama needs to take more responsibility This quote from a New York Times article (so I believe it is true) demonstrates the issue [quote]Mr. Obama made clear to advisers that he was not happy about debating Mr. Romney, whom he views with disdain. It was something to endure, rather than an opportunity, aides said. He was not happy about debating Romney???? What did he think was required to win reelection? Did he think this was a coronation? Well, i certainly feel so very sorry for our president. How terribly difficult and monotonous it must be to have to actually work to get reelected. I can hear him now - "Why can't I simply do another interview with People magazine or go on the Kelly & Michael show? Can't we just raise more money, ask people to go door to door and make calls on our behalf and be done with it?" Arrogance kills and the (at least temporary) death of Obama's campaign is the manifestation of that axiom.
stfu. you AND andy.
Well Anderson Cooper said Obama was not taking responsibilty for his poor performance during his KEEPING THEM HONEST segment the night after the debates. He showed clips of Biden and one of Obama's advisor's talking about the debates and Anderson said they were intentionally trying to mask Obama's poor peformance.
[quote] Well, i certainly feel so very sorry for our president. How terribly difficult and monotonous it must be to have to actually work to get reelected. Fuck off, freeper troll. You're hardly one to talk about hard work. While Obama is leading the fucking country, you're sitting in your underwear, posting from your mother's basement.
R68, get over yourself. Because I have donated money to Democratic campaigns (including Obama) and because I have voted for a number of Democratic candidates (including Obama), I have the right to criticize the party and its candidates I feel sorry for those of you who insist on falling in line and attack anyone who fails to do so, whether it is Cory Booker, former President Clinton, Senator Feinstein....and the list goes on. It is a bullshit way to run a party or a country And your comment on me is so off-base that I laughed out loud. If you only knew....
[quote]I feel sorry for those of you who insist on falling in line and attack anyone who fails to do so If you're going to attack the President, the least you can do is base your attack on something approaching reality. Your attack was so badly off base, so out of touch with reality, that it was laughable in its silliness. You deserve the reaction you're getting.
Fuck off, freeper troll. You're hardly one to talk about hard work. While Obama is leading the fucking country, you're sitting in your underwear, posting from your mother's basement." Once again R68, don't be such an ass. Obama is hardly the first US President running for re-election who had to "lower himself" to debate a less-worthy candidate. For once Andy Sullivan is spot-on and Obama has no one but himself to blame.
What R70 said.
[quote]You deserve the reaction you're getting. And you deserve President Romney
What r68 said.
[quote] Because I have donated money to Democratic campaigns (including Obama) and because I have voted for a number of Democratic candidates (including Obama), I have the right to criticize the party and its candidates I'm getting tired of the trolls with their "I donated to Democrats" "I voted for Democrats" bullshit, followed by outrageous lies and over-the-top attacks on Obama and the Democrats that come straight from the GOP playbook. You're not fooling anyone. Your bullshit may work on some other sites, but it doesn't work here.
there are random pumas here, STILL harboring a grudge that hillary didn't get the nom.
and%20i%20say%20that%20as%20someone%20who%20LOVES%20her
Milky Loads belongs in a hospice at this point. His fatalistic mentality isn't exactly a secret.
R76, The PUMAs would have delivered Hillary both Arkansas and West Virginia but not Indiana. Obama won Ind. without Ark. and/or W.Va. Doesn't matter much. The PUMAs don't matter. What can be discussed is whether Hillary would have been a better Democratic Party president than Obama. I have questioned that. But it doesn't do any good.
I was referring to the three states' electoral votes. Arkansas: 6 West Virginia: 5 Indiana: 11
R78
[quote]And you deserve President Romney Because you're an idiot with a grudge who's making shit up about "arrogance," I "deserve President Romney?" Okay.... So tell me, what color is the sky in your world? Out here, it's blue.
Sullivan has never really pissed me off as much as he has some other DLers but he has always been a drama queen. This is no different, he's just running around shrieking about this when he should probably STFU.
I wonder if he think he helps Obama's case when he runs around like this.
Sully does not say Obama lost the election. He says Obama is in trouble, and here's how he recover. I don't think things are as bad as Sully presents them, but he's not unreasonable,
So who wrote the headline?
R84 - Sully's headline is "Did Obama throw the whole thing away". The OP wrote a different and misleading headline.
Sully really is a hysterical queen. I seriously doubt it is helpful for Democratic voters to read such a negative, the sky is falling freak-out. It doesn't help the situation. It cause panic in some supporters and they will tune out. He should have handled it the way Rachel Maddow has. No hysterics. Just continue reporting the facts and put things in perspective. On her Friday show, she did a very long segment taking us back to political history. The only candidate who has ever "won" a debate against an incumbent was Bill Clinton. Every other incumbent has lost his first debate. I really wish some Obama supporters were more mature.
I just hope they vote.
Obama sunk himself with that Trayvon Martin quip. What head of state says something so stupid? He inserted himself into a case when all of the facts weren't in. I know lots of people he turned off with just that comment alone.
No one knows what you're talking about, freeper/R88.
Yes, they do know. When he made that statement about Martin looking like his son, if he had one, everybody was like "huh?" He also showed what a moron he is in the debate. We've got his ticket punched. Love that he's cool about gays but the American people are responsible for the betterment of the cause. There is no denying the charm of homosexuals. Only ugly people don't get gays b/c no gay would want nothing to do with them.
r88 now you've shown your true colors. Asshole.
R88 makes a good point about how presidents shouldn't inject themselves into court cases -- remember when Nixon declared the Manson Family guilty, and Charlie waved the LA Times headline at the jury? Well, maybe you don't, but the feeling then and now is that the President should keep out of those things.
Yes, that statement was uncalled for. Now had Martin not been a good looking kid, would he say that? Also, Treyvon was better looking than anyone Obama could put out.
omg, such a freeper invasion!! ^^
You may laugh, but when he's worked up to that special pitch of hysteria his ass muscles will milk you so hard you'll shoot such loads as never before!
Andrew, did you include those you polled under the dick dock?
anon
Asking if he lost the election is not saying he lost the election. But you knew that, didn't you?
[quote]Obama sunk himself with that Trayvon Martin quip. LOL... Omigod... are you still obsessing about something that nobody even remembers, much less cares about now? [quote]What head of state says something so stupid? Since it wasn't even remotely "stupid," I'm not sure what point you think you're making. [quote]He inserted himself into a case when all of the facts weren't in. No, actually, he didn't, as even a cursory look at what he actually said would clearly show. [quote]I know lots of people he turned off with just that comment alone. So you know some more morons like yourself? And I'm supposed to be impressed? You really should stop posting before you make yourself look even dumber.
[quote]And I'm supposed to be impressed? How did you possibly get the impression that he was trying to impress you? How self-centered of you.....
R88 is a racist asshole.
Piers Morgan called him out by name and mocked him and other pundits for their collective hysteria after the debate. He called Sully "the voice of doom" and said "grow a pair, the lot of you."
I'm sick of Sully being portrayed in the media as a "big Obama supporter". Anyone who's read his column a few times or seen him on Maher knows he will be pulling the Republican lever in November (as usual).
damn
Piers has been kissing Romney's ass for months, R101, so I'm not sure why he's calling anyone out.
BUMP
AIDS dementia.
Sully never said Obama lost the election.
[r106] I should hope that instant karma provides you with something similar.
Your%20mother%20is%20a%20nasty%20sow%20who%20whelped%20you%20to%20punish%20the%2
L O L - D R A M A
Obama has actually mentioned Andrew Sullivan, so that it is one of the blogs he monitors. I think it's good that Andrew went nutty on that. Maybe it helped dear leader's backbone gel a little.
"dear leader"? Fuck you, freeper.
Why is it so few people on DL can read? Sullivan was asking whether Obama had blown the election due to his poor performance at the first debate. He was not saying Obama had lost the election. And he was asking a very pertinent question. A question that disturbed me as an Obama supporter similarly to the way it disturbed Sullivan And we were not alone. Exhibit A: Chris Matthews who almost suffered a stroke on the air he was so distraught by, in Bill Maher's words, Obama's failure to show up at the debate. And, as was said above, people making clear to Obama that he blew the first debate made him a much stronger candidate for the balance of the election.