I bet Obama lost the debate on purpose.
If Obama won the debate the interest in the next few debates would not be as high. Therefore the public would not be as distracted by the political theater this month and the beginning of next month.
Guarantee you Obama will do better next time, and KICK ASS at the last debate. Yes, Obama will win...I have absolutely no doubt.
It's all by design, folks. Politics is purely entertainment.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||10/09/2012|
I agree with you he will win; but the big premise of your thread's title is nuts. You sound like a tinhat.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||10/05/2012|
There's nothing wrong with being a 'tinhat', but I agree with R1 that it's wrong to assume he lost the debate on purpose. He did not.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||10/05/2012|
I'm sure he's got all of Romney's lies and flip flops memorized and he's going to throw them back in his face.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||10/05/2012|
And you know that how, R2? You don't know anything for sure unless you are Obama.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||10/05/2012|
That's like saying Viola lost the Oscar on purpose.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||10/05/2012|
OP, I hope (but doubt) you're not that stupid.
Obamney will win the election.
They both are tools of the big banks. Get a clue, OP
|by Anonymous||reply 6||10/05/2012|
The theory that makes more sense (read here on DL) is that it was to keep Mitt getting donations that would otherwise go to Senate and House races that are close.
And thereby improve chance of Dem gains in Congress, which Obama will desperately need.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||10/05/2012|
R7, do you think they care about YOU?
They want power, and you are just a pawn. Pathetic.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||10/05/2012|
R7, you may be on to something. It might just be crazy enough to work!
|by Anonymous||reply 9||10/05/2012|
FWIW I suspect that they did plan to let Romney go on and on and hang himself, giving them the ammo to call him a liar in every possible format to the end of the election. They probably were also cautious about Obama seeming angry, or obnoxious. I do suspect though that Obama was taken by surprise at how completely and forcefully Romney contradicted everything he has said over the past year and retreated, rather than risk doing something that might backfire (though I do wish he had turned to the audience toward the end and said something to the effect, "well, my fellow Americans, if you think the president should be a bald faced liar with no principals at all, Mr. Romney is your candidate".) What I can't imagine their having planned is that Obama would look so tired and bored.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||10/05/2012|
I truly believe that Obama DID NOT bring up the whole 47 percent video thing because he knew that Mittens was going to do a back flip and try to apologize for it and that would give Mitt the chance to show 58 million viewers how human he is. SO to some degree, I think Obama is playing his 11 dimensional chess game.
If he's anything, Obama is one kick ass politician and I don't think we have seen his endgame yet.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||10/05/2012|
lol you people who believe any such thing are truly delusional......lol lol lol
|by Anonymous||reply 12||10/07/2012|
I think it's possible that Obama took something, like a Xanax, to calm his nerves before the debate and it turned him into a zombie. But he's never been a good debater to start with.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||10/07/2012|
I think Obama got out there and was so shocked by Mitt's lies and half truths and flip flopping that he was just stunned.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||10/07/2012|
OP, I totally agree with you. It was quiet obvious.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||10/07/2012|
Obama didn't play chess. We'd be talking about a Clinton-style sweep today if he'd prepared properly for the debate, especially after Friday's jobs report. Instead it's now a toss-up.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||10/07/2012|
I don't know what to think. Was he sick? Is one of his children sick? Was Michelle diagnoses with breast cancer?
|by Anonymous||reply 18||10/07/2012|
That was my first thought, R18. Michelle looked haggard sitting in the audience.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||10/07/2012|
This crossed my mind as a strategy:
Give a lackluster but passable performance at the first debate to make this seem like more of a race than it is. A bit of tension and worry increases donations from the base, whereas an "Obama's obviously got this one in the bag" would mean low interest, low donations, low voter turnout, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||10/07/2012|
OP I totally agree. I was just saying this to a friend today!
Well, I do not think he tried to "lose" this debate on purpose...rather, I am sure it was a strategy created by his team. Lay back, let Mitt "attack". Perhaps he would even come off as a bit too intense & off balance (I don't think that happened, Mitt kept it together). More importantly let Mitt spew some facts and figures that would then be de-bunked by the media in the aftermath. Let the populace media do the work for you.
If you think this was NOT strategy then you truly don't know the state of politics these days. I've had the chance to be at several "thank you for your donations" luncheons where people like Hillary spoke. And she laid the truth OUT about how the teams strategize behind the scenes. His demeanor was planned. Also it can play to Obama's personality and experience (or lack thereof) with debates.
At the very least, the old saying is you never want to "peak early". So the President & his team are biding time in my opinion. (or maybe he's "Biden" his time...)
Frankly - I can't WAIT for the crazy to be let loose during the V.P. debates! I'm getting popcorn & soda and hunkering down for that one!
|by Anonymous||reply 21||10/07/2012|
I agree with OP. He didn't even mention the 47% comment.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||10/07/2012|
Let's get this clear-
There is no upside to mentioning the 47% until the last minute when Romney cannot retort. Third debate...final minutes. Otherwise, you're giving Romney a national platform for a political mea culpa.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||10/07/2012|
If Obama was purposely under-performing in the debate, then why is his camp being so nutty in trying to blame his performance on -
1). The moderator
2). The altitude
3). The false accusations that Romney cheated - when it turned out that the "illegal notes" where a white handkerchief!
4). Kerry - his debate partner - who purposely didn't push Obama in the practices so Kerry wouldn't screw up his chance to be appointed Secretary of State
Seems like a risky (and stupid) strategy by Axelrod and team (who are quite smart), since Romney has gained a lot in the polls in the toss-up states since the debate
It could be that Obama basically has surrounded himself with yes-men, isn't comfortable getting challenged and hasn't been challenged in the past four years, was ill-prepared, doesn't understand economic issues well and, overall, just basically sucked
|by Anonymous||reply 24||10/07/2012|
R23, are you serious? You think Obama should wait until the foreign policy debate to mention the 47%? Only if he truly wants to appear out of it.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||10/07/2012|
Ill-prepared for meeting an outrageous liar.
But don't worry, it won't happen again.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||10/07/2012|
Debating a repub is rather difficult these days. If you honestly describe their position you get accused of saying horrible unjust things about them.
Be honest: what is considered worse in today's semi-retarded society: espousing the positions of a Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or attributing those positions to Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan?
Obama is choosing to behave like an adult, which is almost impossible when engaging with Republs. He knows that, given enough rope, Romney will hang himself; in fact, Romney's singular talent is hanging himself with less than the minimum amount of rope.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||10/07/2012|
[quote]If Obama was purposely under-performing in the debate, then why is his camp being so nutty in trying to blame his performance on
Um, just who in "his camp" is doing this? I see a lot of ordinary people doing this but I don't see anyone, either officially or unofficially speaking for Obama, doing it. Let's name names, please. Or admit you're making shit up.
[quote]Seems like a risky (and stupid) strategy by Axelrod and team (who are quite smart), since Romney has gained a lot in the polls in the toss-up states since the debate
Not really. He got a modest boost, based on the early polls. That's not "a lot" and it remains to be seen how long that will last.
[quote]It could be that Obama basically has surrounded himself with yes-men, isn't comfortable getting challenged and hasn't been challenged in the past four years, was ill-prepared, doesn't understand economic issues well and, overall, just basically sucked
Your last sentence was reasonably accurate. Everything before it? No. See, for example, his debate with Republican Congressman from a couple years ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||10/07/2012|
Ah stunned because a Republican was telling lies and half-truths? I don't really think so.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||10/07/2012|
No one can ever fathom Obama fucking up. This is what bore the [italic]Obamabot[/italic] meme back in 2008. Cut the crap already.
I guess when Obama gave those embarrassing gifts to the Brits, that was all part of a secret strategy as well.
Obama has never played 'chess' in his life.
Obama couldn't sell his economic policy, in fact, he didn't even lay one out at the convention. Clinton came it and saved the day. Obama is not god, and he's a crap speaker, and a crap debater. Keeping these facts in mind, it was not shocking that Obama lost the first debate against Romney. HOWEVER -- what IS shocking is that Obama never called Romney out for being a liar.
The country is already voting, and the majority watched the first debate, and will not be tuning in for the next one. Losing the first out of three does not help Obama.
The next debate is a town hall. If Obama somehow manages to lose that one, the one that should be a slam dunk, Obama just isn't up for the job.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||10/08/2012|
Do you think that his bad job had something to do with Ambasador Stevens' death? Maybe he found out our CIA was involved? I'm sure that was the case.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||10/09/2012|
The Federal Aviation Administration is working towards putting the finishing touches on rules and regulations for widespread domestic drone use, and the agency expects as many as 30,000 UAVs will be in America’s airspace by the decade’s end. As Russia Today notes, given that the department has already addressed the issue of acquiring drones to give the DHS a better eye of domestic doings, though, those law enforcement operations in question could very well transcend away from legitimate uses and quickly cause civil liberty concerns from coast-to-coast. All drones will be equipped with Electro-Optical/Infra-Red sensors, as well as the technology to sniff out certain chemicals from thousands of feet above our heads. Have no fear though, since the "Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety" program is for your own protection, we are sure Janet Napolitano would suggest.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||10/09/2012|