Not only does he have a chance, the media has a vested interest in pronouncing a comeback and keeping the election alive. That coupled with the fact that Obama has to come through tonight after the last debate's poor showing and that Mitt is ripe to be called on his constant lying, and the danger isn't in expecting Obama to be crowned the loser but in expecting too much out of tonight from him.
My astrologer says the stars are with Obama and he will win the debate tonight. Obama: Leo with Aquarius ascending. Mars in Virgo. Mercury in Leo. Venus in Libra will be the deciding factor.
I checked my stool carefully this morning and my psychic concurs....Obama will win.
He will lose on Fox no mater what and the best he can hope for on CNN is a draw.
Obama will eat shit
Your breasts smell, R15.
Please. The media hasn't been on Obama's side since 2008.
Obama will win, but you're only kidding yourselves if you think the mainstream media (aside from MSNBC) is going to bend over backwards in praising his performance.
The most you will get is "Yeah, he won, but Romney held his own in some key areas" type of analysis.
Democrats and progressives assume that critical thinking and logic can win elections. They are wrong. You simply can't assume, in American politics, that some things are so obvious, some failures so great, that pure common sense will do your work winning the argument for you.
You have to take the position that you can't assume any past epic fail is great enough or painful enough to beat the Rightwing of the Republican Party and set it back to a permanent minority party.
I know to an outsider that must sound like a damning indictment of my country, but it's the best answer that I have.
Republicans win elections, on the local, state, and national levels, that they have no business even being competative in if the past (even recently so) results of their governance is the litmus test for future chances at elective office.
The only answer I can find is that Movement Conservatism is able to come back because Movement Conservatism has not been discredited, debunked, and demolished by the other side.
Not if Candy eats him first.
Obama's Weak Ego-Structure
by NORMAN POLLACK
The New York Times’s coverage of Mr. Obama’s performance in the first debate, which supporters and opponents alike have characterized as ill-prepared or lackluster, and which he in his Denver speech and his staff sought to excuse as the surprising persona of Mr. Romney, misses a central point.
Focusing not on which candidate, if either, I may prefer, but on Mr. Obama’s personality traits, I find the debate revelatory: Mr. Obama cannot take criticism; he surrounds himself with staff designed to bolster a weak ego-structure; his vigorous nodding in the debate indicated not so much sulking as it did a deflation, a drawing inward; he is not used to going man-on-man with another, as was the case with Mr. Romney. If I am correct, several questions arise. Why the closing down within himself, his intolerance toward personal criticism, his thin-skinnedness–all in contrast to Mr. Romney’s evident comfort in feeling at one with himself, directness, looking Mr. Obama in the eye?
I mentioned weak ego-structure, itself taking greater significance by the way Mr. Obama has thrown the cloak of the state secrets doctrine around his government and employed the Espionage Act against whistleblowers. Transparency in government is at a new low. Defensive walls, personal and structural, have been erected, and on the former, which concerns us here, explanation has to lie in family circumstances and Mr. Obama’s clear difficulties in relating to authority.
More than any president, Republican or Democrat, perhaps throughout American history, Mr. Obama gravitates to men of power and, equally significant, thrives on becoming immersed in the trappings of power. Harding, Hoover, Reagan, Bush Two, have all enjoyed closeness with business leaders, yet none via ambiguous psychological attachments. Obama has not been so fortunate. And what passes for bipartisanship in the political realm and accommodation in the economic is the steady need for reassurance, of being praised and even liked. Mr. Romney had a more supportive upbringing.
These traits do not necessarily have a one-to-one correspondence with ideology. Human personality is not politically coded; those with solidary family ties may become social Darwinists, those poorly resolving intrafamilial ties may be highly compassionate. But in Mr. Obama’s case it is imperative that, absent Axelrod’s manipulations and Rhodes’s crafting of liberal rhetoric, we see the man removed from the artificial pedestal on which he has been placed in order to evaluate his record dispassionately. This is hardly a plea for Mr. Romney’s election, but it is to say that because to his base Mr. Obama can do no wrong, his policies, such as on banking regulation and job creation, may have discrepancies equal to or greater than those charged to his opponent.
At least in Mr. Romney, you get what you see–and one is then free to make a determination.
I'm sorry, but it is absurd to argue either that the media "has it in" for Obama or didn't accurately call the last debate. Obama lost, and he lost because of his failure to call Mittens on his bullshit; for an example of how to do that well, you need look no further than Joe "Malarkey" Biden, who completely ass-pounded Ryan at their debate. Also, Obama did quite well in the '08 debates, so there's no reason to think he's "bad" at it.
[quote] What [R4] said -- Obama can pee in his pants and pass out on stage, and the media will call it a draw because O proved himself "so human."
Let's hope he doesn't decide to test that theory.
"At least in Mr. Romney, you get what you see."
Exactly. Ten pounds of shit poured into a five pound bag.
Candy Crowley has requested that a chocolate fountain be set up in her dressing room.
How can you "get what you see" when you see a different version every time you look?
Yeah, but Romney's performance wasn't as "masterful" as the media indicated. He came off like a pushy insurance salesman to me. Then when Biden used the same tactics as Romney he was portrayed as drunk or unhinged.
I'll be too nervous to watch the debate. I'll tune in afterwards to see what the MSNBC panel says.
I looked into the heart of an artichoke. It didn't tell me shit.
R16, I just posted this on another thread, it might help, but I'm with you - too nervous to watch.
[quote]I found the media extremely biased - not saying Romney's "win" consisted of total bullshit and pretending that Biden didn't win the VP debate.
THIS. Thank you, R8.
The right wingers are asking the same question as to how Romney will get a break from the liberal media. They say that Obama must come out winning, so the media will spin it.
I love r28.
I just hope he doesn't say with a heaping of fake bravado that he's in this because he really cares about people and he's in it to level the playing field!!! Biden lost me when he finished with that idealistic compassion and fairness shit.
It's bullshit and everyone with a brain knows it. Don't make us hear it again. Stick with what you're going to DO. You'll never level the field so don't pretend you can. If you could, you'd give up your premium health plan and join the commoners.