It wasn't the debate that killed Obama's lead
It was the media coverage of the debate. And a lot of the blame can be placed squarely in the lap of the liberal media, whose recriminations were far more vitriolic than anything faux news could have conjured up. If the situation had been reversed, faux would have been praising their candidate to the skies.
People think what they are told to think. Very few are capable of any kind of sustained critical thinking.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||10/11/2012|
Um, no, not really. It was CLIPS from the debate showing Obama with his head down as Romney was yelling at him. He looked like he was pouting.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||10/10/2012|
I agree as well. I think that they should have acknowledged that he should have been more aggressive but defending his reasons for behaving as he did AND should have acknowledged that he was probably stunned at how bold-faced Romney was lying.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||10/10/2012|
Thank you, OP!!!! I said as much just now in another thread! We need to bombard the mediawith complaints. Use every means, twitter, telephone and e-mail. If enough pepole raise hell they will listen.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||10/10/2012|
"It wasn't the debate that killed Obama's lead It was the media coverage of the debate"
|by Anonymous||reply 4||10/10/2012|
The media failed to challenge Romney's assertions. He lied. He switched positions and was a craven opportunist. Obama screwed up. But the media wants this to Define Obama when the lies should be defining Romney. Obama has a solid record of accomplishment. We need to start trending "Romney is a liar" on twitter. There are alternatives to the mainstream media nad we heed to fully take advantage of them.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||10/10/2012|
I pretty much agree. Even if one didn't watch the debates, you get the impression from the media that it was a disaster and that Obama was totally schooled. You don't hear that Romney totally lied over and over again.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||10/10/2012|
I agree, OP. While the Pres. certainly lost the debate in an epic manner, it is the press that has kept the loss in the forefront of the voters' minds. But, that's their job I suppose. Being that it was the worst debate loss, according to the American people, in recorded history. So, I guess it is newsworthy, but for how long I don't know. The media keeps going back to it. Maybe the Ryan/Biden matchup will change the focus.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||10/10/2012|
I agree 100% -- and Andrew Sullivan is making matters worse.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||10/10/2012|
I agree with OP. Unfortunately, the left-leaning media will over-correct after the next debate by declaring Obama the clear winner no matter what happens.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||10/10/2012|
None of you know shit about how the media works.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||10/10/2012|
Obama performed poorly in my opinion. He was very passive and seemed bored and annoyed to be there. Like it or not, politics include theatricality and he let Romney show him up. Romney lied, but appeared energized and focused.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||10/10/2012|
I know plenty of people who didn't even watch the debate but have a clear sense of who the "winner" and "loser" were based solely on what they heard in the media. And that's how elections are decided, unfortunately.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||10/10/2012|
Someone posted here, before the debate, that, no matter what, The media will pick Rommey as a winner to make a big drama of it. Second debate, they will pick Obama as a winner to make a bigger drama out of it
|by Anonymous||reply 13||10/10/2012|
They need a plot and have contracted Ryan Murphy.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||10/10/2012|
'Twas beauty who killed Obama's lead.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||10/10/2012|
OP, and others here might as well blame Twitter in real-time, because it was an instantaneous reaction how bad Obama was. It was not a post-reactionary media that drummed up the abyssal performance by Obama.
I know a lot of people are old on here, and probably don't even know what Twitter is. The public branded Obama as the loser of the debate. Not the "liberal" media. Stop making excuses.
Obama stood there and let Romney lie for an hour and half and said nothing. The media doesn't have that kind of power.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||10/10/2012|
The media's completely OTT, hysterical reaction is absurd.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||10/10/2012|
[quote]The media failed to challenge Romney's assertions. He lied.
They did that in two seconds.
People are either being willfully ignorant, or they didn't even watch the debate coverage.
This is all Monday morning quarterbacking, hell, this is almost two Monday mornings quarterbacking.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||10/10/2012|
With cable news, Twitter and Facebook, an entire year of campaigning, TV ads and conventions can be undone with a 90-minute debate seen by 70 million viewers.
Issues, truthfulness and character don't mean anything any more--it's all about style and bluster.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||10/10/2012|
The media wants a horserace. It's all about ratings. That's why they love this narrative. Before the debate Obama was clearly in the lead, which wasn't dramatic enough for them.
If Obama can get back on track with defining Romney, I think the polls will stabilize and move back the other direction. Liberals have to stop freaking out and get back on message.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||10/10/2012|
[quote]“When you give conservatives bad news in your polls, they want to kill you,” he said. “When you give liberals bad news in your polls, they want to kill themselves.”
|by Anonymous||reply 23||10/10/2012|
This is why concern trolls are regarded as mostly idiotic assholes with little grasp of politics, public opinion or the media. "Oh no!!! Our candidate isn't perfect every single second!!! We're gonna lose now!! The sky is falling!!!!"
Lather, rinse, repeat (10 times hourly) and the (uninformed, mis-) perception becomes reality.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||10/10/2012|
R11 nailed it.
How many excuses are you guys going to come up with for Obama's lousy performance? Accept he did a shitty job.
Plenty of people have been calling out Romney for his lies. But the general public never listens to content unless it's war or raising /lowering taxes. They look at STYLE.
Obama lost this one on his own.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||10/10/2012|
So the media should lie about what they honestly think about a debate? Is that what you are saying? The media should concoct a viewpoint to encourage an opinion?
Then why the hell do we need the media at all?
|by Anonymous||reply 26||10/10/2012|
I agree with R11 completely as well. It was Obama's debate to lose. Anyone running a successful campaign knows image is just as important as substance. We learned eight years ago how one man's "Yee Haw" played over and over again can dismantle a campaign. What OP is saying is nothing the Obama campaign was not aware of.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||10/10/2012|
I do not believe for one minute that a debate caused millions of voters to change support from one candidate to the other.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||10/10/2012|
Did you believe that one speech by Bill Clinton at the Dem convention (that nobody watches) caused millions of voters to change support from Romney to the Obama?
We're back where we started: it's a tie.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||10/11/2012|
twas the low spark of high heeled boys.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||10/11/2012|
R29, you prove my point. It wasn't just Clinton's speech or Michelle Obama's speech that made the difference. It was the media's non-stop coverage of these speeches.
The average person thinks what he is told to think. People want to belong, and therefore they conform to the opinions of the people around them. If they are told repeatedly that a particular candidate is better, they start expressing that opinion as well because they think "everyone can't be wrong, so I must have been mistaken".
|by Anonymous||reply 31||10/11/2012|
What's the solution, R31? Ban Fox and MSNBC? Have the FCC crack down on any news outlet that broadcasts what they think could be slanted reports? Eliminate internet blogs? Give registered voters lobotomies? You're not being realistic.
If this stuff didn't exist, people would go for simple answers over delving into issues. And it's always existed in one form or another. How it affects the voting public is more about laziness than conformity.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||10/11/2012|
Well, r32. Those "equal time" regulations that Reagan trashed back when could be re-introduced.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||10/11/2012|
[quote]So the media should lie about what they honestly think about a debate?
For the record, I don't buy the OP's explanation/excuse. Obama lost, period. However, in response to your question, what I want from the media is that they focus on the substance rather than the politics. What was the most important story to come out of the debate: the specific answers to the questions or that Obama had a bad day and Romney won it?
If you focus on substance, then Obama didn't do badly at all. If you focus on optics, on attitude, on the horse-race aspects, then Romney gets it. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out that Romney won but, dammit, is it really all that difficult to actually discuss the actual responses to the questions?
|by Anonymous||reply 34||10/11/2012|
Huh? So let's see, all newspapers that have editorials that slant right should be matched with those that slant left -- equal numbers of each only. No candidate can have more TV ads up that his or her opponents, it must be equal. Blah blah blah.
It's never been equal and it never will be.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||10/11/2012|
R29, we don't need laws to solve the problem.
The Liberal media should just think a little about how they position their criticism of their own members. The Right is very good at doing this.
I think R23's quote was very apropos:
“When you give conservatives bad news in your polls, they want to kill you,” he said. “When you give liberals bad news in your polls, they want to kill themselves.”
|by Anonymous||reply 36||10/11/2012|
All Obama had to do to was not fuck up too very badly, to not act as though he would rather be clipping his toenails, and to speak unhesitatingly and with some small degree of confidence - as though he cared about the issues or the election.
It was hardly a tall order, and against a very dim and roundly vulnerable opponent. Obama failed and yet somehow it's the media's fault for doing exactly what they always do (take the easy, surface route of analysis)?
|by Anonymous||reply 37||10/11/2012|