Romney on the rise: Stakes enormous in second debate (Obama vs. Romney, Round 2 9PM EST 10/16) - Polidicks

[quote] [B]Washington (CNN)[/B] -- The expectations are very different for Obama vs. Romney, Round 2. And the stakes are enormous. Democrats are nervous. A race many of them thought was a lock just a few weeks ago is now a dead heat, the momentum with the other side. [URL="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/15/all-tied-up-ahead-of-second-obama-romney-showdown/?hpt=po_c2"]Poll of polls: Race all knotted up[/URL] Republicans are upbeat, seeing a chance to not only build on the battleground state progress made as a result of the first debate, but also possibilities to expand the fight into states long thought safe in the Obama basket, Michigan and Pennsylvania chief among them. The timing adds to the stakes: The Hofstra debate is three weeks to Election Day, so close to the finish that every decision about TV ad spending and candidate travel time is consequential. Admittedly mixing metaphors, a top Romney strategist described the race this way: "Jump ball, but with a little breeze at our back." [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/politics/romney-polls/index.html"]What's behind Romney's rise in the polls?[/URL] GOP pollster Whit Ayres listed this as his prime goal: "That Romney continues to look like someone independents would be comfortable having in their living rooms for the next four years. "If Romney becomes an acceptable alternative to independents, and he took huge strides in that direction on October 3, the election devolves back into a referendum on Obama," Ayres told CNN. "That's a referendum he can't win at least as of today." Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg makes a similar point in a strategy memo he distributed in advance of the debate. "The campaign has reached a tipping point," Greenberg wrote. "Voters are not looking for continuity but change that helps the average Joe." Then-Sen. Barack Obama was the face of change four years ago, but he is the incumbent now and Greenberg says his talk of progress the past four years in the first debate "lost the attention of independents and unmarried women. ...Romney got the opportunity to be heard as the voice of change." Another veteran Democratic sage, pollster Peter Hart, offers a similar warning to the president in a report on a recent focus group with a dozen swing voters in Columbus, Ohio. The reaction to Obama's first debate showing: "It left these voters both stunned and mystified, and it caused them to give Romney a second look." [URL="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/15/campaigns-fuss-over-debate-moderator-actually-asking-questions/"]Campaigns fuss over debate moderator asking questions[/URL] On the plus side for the president, Mitt Romney still has an empathy or connection gap. "Stepdad," is the term participants said best fit Romney if they had to imagine him as a member of their family. "Obama is the brother or the uncle, part of the family," Hart wrote. But many of these key suburban voters came away from the first debate questioning the president's resolve for four more years. "They need to see the fight, the inspiration, and the grittiness of Obama, which they perceive is just plain missing," Hart wrote. And the challenge for Romney? Hart suggests worrying less about making a personal connection with voters and more about showing them how his experience will translate into economic gains. "These Columbus swing voters are not ready to switch on the basis of one debate, but they are open to being persuaded if Romney continues to outshine Obama," Hart said. "The stakes are now even higher for the second debate." [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/14/politics/debate-preview/index.html"]Obama expected to 'come out swinging'[/URL] The always colorful Hart evokes the recent ninth-inning playoff collapse of the Washington Nationals to chastise Democrats who weeks ago began debating the second term Obama cabinet lineup: "There was a bit of premature celebration going on, and one must wonder if there is a parallel with this election," Hart wrote. The strong Romney performance in Round 1 has changed how voters set the odds for Round 2: 41% of Americans expect Obama to win; 37% expect Romney to prevail. That is according to a Pew Research Center survey, and the numbers are strikingly different from a Pew survey before the first debate in which it was Obama 51% and Romney 29% when voters were asked who would win. [URL="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/15/poll-voter-expectations-lower-for-obama-this-debate/"]Voter expectations lower for Obama in second debate[/URL] Romney made significant gains after the first debate, nationally and in key battlegrounds. "We've not lost any of the ground we've picked up," said the top Romney strategist. "The lead is growing in North Carolina, Florida and Virginia. Tight as a tick in Ohio." New polls also show the president with tiny leads now in Michigan and Pennsylvania, and the second debate will go a long way in shaping consequential resource decisions by both campaigns. Both Michigan and Pennsylvania have deep blue DNA in presidential politics, and the risk for Romney is steering money into one or both and running the risk of coming up just short not only in Michigan and/or Pennsylvania but also somewhere else. GOP pollster Ayres calls it a risk worth taking. "If you are Team Romney you expand the map," Ayres said. "Money flows with momentum, and there will be no shortage of it if he looks like a potential winner. Romney needs multiple ways of getting to 270 (electoral votes), and expanding the map significantly increases his chances." Top Romney advisers are waging a spirited internal debate on this question. "Tempting, but may be mirages," one top outside adviser told CNN. Another said polling conducted after the second presidential debate would be more determinative. The flip side of this is whether the Obama campaign needs to spend to defend states they just days ago believed were safely in their path to 270. "No big tricks," the outside Romney adviser said of the strategy for Tuesday's debate. "We like viewers getting to see them side by side." The same "Presidential DNA" test that makes many Republicans skeptical about making major investments in Michigan and Pennsylvania is the source of increasing optimism about the overall path to 270. Romney is now in dead heats or better with the president in Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. Obama carried all of those states in 2008. But all of them were Republican red for president in 2004, and all but Iowa in that list also voted Republican for president in 2000. "If you had told us a year ago that we would be three weeks out and in a jump ball race with a personally popular president and the outcome hinged on winning states that are traditionally GOP in presidential years, we would have taken that scenario in a heartbeat," the senior Romney adviser said. "Well, here we are. This is a great election." [/quote] [URL]http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/16/politics/debate-king/index.html?hpt=hp_c1[/URL] [URL]http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/politics/romney-polls/index.html[/URL]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/agyFs.jpg[/img]

My brain will rot if I have to look at Mitts face on TV for 4 years.

Go Mitt. He's going to destroy Obama once more, ushering in a new age of greatness followed by healthcare reform and other bullshit people care about. Regardless, I expect to see some shit flying again, though I'm still rooting for what's his face. This will be good.

This could be the one that wins it [img]http://puu.sh/1ftTh[/img]

If you seriously believe Mitt Romney will make a good president, you're a victim of republican rhetoric.

The people being swung by these debates must really not have a clue about the issues or policies.

I don't think I've ever been swung in anyway by a political debate. Mainly because the debates are rigged to be shit as the candidates aren't meant to address each other's points. I did enjoy the Prime Minster debates though, it was interesting having a third party in that I didn't know much about. Too bad Nick Clegg was full of shit.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;38060755]I don't think I've ever been swung in anyway by a political debate. Mainly because the debates are rigged to be shit as the candidates aren't meant to address each other's points.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, Obama is actually trying to debate, which doesn't help at all because all Romney has to do is say what he's prepared.

[QUOTE=Speedhax;38060670]If you seriously believe Mitt Romney will make a good president, you're a victim of republican rhetoric.[/QUOTE] If you seriously believe that Romney is going to bring policies wildly different to those of Obama you are mistaken.

[QUOTE=Speedhax;38060670]If you seriously believe Mitt Romney will make a good president, you're a victim of republican rhetoric.[/QUOTE] obama's not really a "good president" either

[QUOTE=smurfy;38060564]This could be the one that wins it [img]http://puu.sh/1ftTh[/img][/QUOTE] Ehh, percentage of the vote doesn't mean much in this case, Obama is still on top when it comes to the electoral college (at least I think that's it's called).

[QUOTE=Kalibos;38060953]obama's not really a "good president" either[/QUOTE] That's quite a daft thing to say given the fact that despite his presidency spanning over a time period of major economic recession, there has been a lot of good progress by him as well as the introduction of a much-needed improvement to the health care system. How do you justify your position? Keep in mind that you need to account for the state of the economy and that it was largely if not completely out of his control by the time he took the position of presidency.

murrica what are you doing

[QUOTE=SA Spyder;38061156]That's quite a daft thing to say given the fact that despite his presidency spanning over a time period of major economic recession, there has been a lot of good progress by him as well as the introduction of a much-needed improvement to the health care system. How do you justify your position? Keep in mind that you need to account for the state of the economy and that it was largely if not completely out of his control by the time he took the position of presidency.[/QUOTE] The fact that he will pay for the banks "too big to fail" insurance policy, but won't pay for a poor American's health insurance policy shows how absolutely disgusting Obama and the Democratic Party at large is.

[QUOTE=Kalibos;38060953]obama's not really a "good president" either[/QUOTE] Having rocks thrown at you or a .50 cal, your call america.

maybe obama won't be a fucking zombie this time around. I hope it's as interesting as biden vs ryan, biden made such a fucking idiot out of himself. 83 interruptions in 90 minutes. lmao.

I'm not saying Europe is judging America right now. But we definitely are.

[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;38061205]Having rocks thrown at you or a .50 cal, your call america.[/QUOTE] I like your analogy I'd take the rocks myself

[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;38061205]Having rocks thrown at you or a .50 cal, your call america.[/QUOTE] If someone throws the .50 cal at me I could possibly shoot back.

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;38061319]I'm not saying Europe is judging America right now. But we definitely are.[/QUOTE] I would be having fun if I wasn't afraid Romney is capable of decreasing global development not to mention he's certainly the one I would see more likely to start World War III.

[QUOTE=Amplar;38061286]maybe obama won't be a fucking zombie this time around. I hope it's as interesting as biden vs ryan, biden made such a fucking idiot out of himself. 83 interruptions in 90 minutes. lmao.[/QUOTE] Ehh, I think Biden did well in the debate - he might have interrupted Ryan a lot, but from what I've read it worked brilliantly on the undecided voters. Besides, he had a lot more substance in his arguments.

[QUOTE=SA Spyder;38061156]That's quite a daft thing to say given the fact that despite his presidency spanning over a time period of major economic recession, there has been a lot of good progress by him as well as the introduction of a much-needed improvement to the health care system. How do you justify your position? Keep in mind that you need to account for the state of the economy and that it was largely if not completely out of his control by the time he took the position of presidency.[/QUOTE] one of the things he originally campaigned on was getting his wall street buddies (like alan greenspan, that greasy cocksucker) out of his inner circle and that turned out just stellar

[QUOTE=Amplar;38061286]maybe obama won't be a fucking zombie this time around. I hope it's as interesting as biden vs ryan, biden made such a fucking idiot out of himself. 83 interruptions in 90 minutes. lmao.[/QUOTE] When you are dealing with easily swayed voters, or undecided voters, you really have to make it look like you are in charge. Biden's interruptions may have not worked for people like you, but it did for the majority of undecided people. He had more substance to his arguements as well. Paul Ryan was basically using politcal jargon to make it seem like he knows what he's talking aabout.

Problem is, for most Americans the economy means a lot more than foreign policy, so the debates won't have as large of a dent.

It's going to centre on the Middle East so I think Americans should be semi-interested.

[QUOTE=koeniginator;38059801][img]http://i.imgur.com/agyFs.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Sounds like something Andrew Ryan would say. Anyway, I don't think it will help get rid of the stereotype of America being stupid if Romney gets in.

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;38061319]I'm not saying Europe is judging America right now. But we definitely are.[/QUOTE] Me and my friends are planning an 'end of the world' party if Romney wins.

[QUOTE=Speedhax;38060670]If you seriously believe Mitt Romney will make a good president, you're a victim of republican rhetoric.[/QUOTE] I think he'll be exactly the same

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;38061535]I think he'll be exactly the same[/QUOTE] yeah, i'm so sure that the 2 likely supreme court nominees that the next president gets to appoint will be exactly the same :downs: