Did Barack Obama Throw The Presidential Debate? Could He Know Something We Don't?

The debate will have little influence on the vote.

Romney got about a 2% bounce, which he will likely lose as more of his "great debating" depended on a loose association with the truth.

Obama is solidly in the lead, but Romney has a chance if the Republicans can throw out enough votes and rig the counting (as they have done so often).

I just hope in his 2nd term, Obama can throw out those Goldman Sacks and BushCo stooges in his government -- but I'm not holding my breathe.

I can't wait for this farce in this pretend Democracy to be over. If someone doesn't do something soon about the corruption -- where every candidate pays back their sponsors while in office -- something is going to break down.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

You make a good point. The country is so divided now, how can the two parties even work together any more? The Democrats have continued to move further leftward to a point where no conservative would consider making concessions.

sorry.. wrong button. unintentional mod edit.

reply to post by Eye of Horus


He sure picked a nutty day to be off his game....going before the entire country to show people the difference between him and his opponent. He must really believe the game is so set he doesn't even have to try. Someone brought up the mic moment he had when he was telling the leader of Russia that he will have more freedom to do as he wishes once he gets re elected. That is hubris like I've never seen.

reply to post by Hefficide


I had not had the opportunity to watch the debate prior to this thread or before reading how badly Obama did.

I've now seen it, and I have to say the characterization seems overblown to me.

Obama didn't do any worse than I expected. And Romney didn't do any better than I expected. So I do have some difficulty in accepting the premise that something else was in play here.

I think how this debate was perceived has much more to do with what expectations each supporters group had about the opponent's performance prior to the debate.

The Right expected the slick golden soaring tongue of Obama (read 'lies') and the Left expected the bumbling, unclear pronouncements (read 'rich out-of-touch stupid guy') of Romney.

Those expectations, set mostly by the media, produced the result we see now.

Obama isn't so slick in this format....and Romney isn't as stupid as the media would have us believe.

Very good point. If something bad were to happen such as another bubble bursting or economic collapse or war, etc... Who would be the one to get the blame???? If it couldn't be stopped they would make sure their opponent was in office when it happened. So they can take all the blame.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

You make a good point. The country is so divided now, how can the two parties even work together any more? The Democrats have continued to move further leftward to a point where no conservative would consider making concessions.

With all respect, I think the entire thing moved quite far to the right. I don't see any hippies or Abbie Hoffmans these days. From my own perspective, I was a right winger for most of my life. I didn't change. I just woke up one day to realize my own party suddenly thought I was a hippie commie because I was skeptical about Iraq and beginning to see that trickle down economics had created a financial drought.

~Heff

he was rusty
had to fly in that day

there is another debate

I expect a better performance

It was his wedding aniversary, have you ever seen the wrath of a woman who did not get what she wanted during her aniversary. Take that and then add in spending the day with Romney, and you have your answer.

reply to post by works4dhs

I neve thought of him as that impressive a speaker.

Me neither, everytime he's doing a speech or stating something that isn't written down in front of him hes like..... "uhhh uhhh Well when we get the uhh uhhh right soulution uhh uhhh we can uhhh uhh yeah."

I think something to do with cosmology, celestial mechanics, where Earth and our solar system are or the zone of our galaxy that we are entering or maybe an ET invasion or combination of the above, could change everything between now and the end of the year. As for falling off the fiscal cliff, we already know that is in the works. Stock up, people! The end is nigh! Well, remember, 2012 is not over yet and yes, the insiders may indeed be close to disappearing into their underground bunkers.

Seriously, I think it was his wedding anniversary and he didn't really want to be on stage dodging Romney's bullets on that particular night. I believe Obama will come out swinging next time and "win" the next one. Meanwhile, Ryan will look like another Dan Quayle in the VP debate, so Romney will have to make up for Ryan's childish performance.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
The debate will have little influence on the vote.

Maybe.

I just heard on the radio that Obama's camp has released a series of commercials using Romney's words from the debate - - comparing them to things he said in the past. Something like 30+ errors he made. (I was driving in freeway traffic - - this may not be exact).

Anyway - - they said the right had no ammunition to do the same to Obama - - because Obama didn't really say all that much. And what he did say was correct and consistent.

reply to post by Robert80


I've been married twice and can only imagine how much anger Michelle might have been holding inside and hiding. I've been in very similar situations ( as I think most of us have ) where work conflicted with the desires or plans of our spouse ( I spent 8 years managing a 24/7/365 business - and management had to work EVERY HOLIDAY. And "holidays" became a joke. Concert in town? HOLIDAY! Was Clay Aiken supposedly sighted at a local bar? HOLIDAY! ). Sadly, for me, box my ex's shared a trait with Michelle.. they were athletic and fit women.

In short, I bet Barry has cat like reflexes when it comes to avoiding thrown phones, glasses, vases, etc.

If your theory is accurate then it's troubling - regarding any POTUS ( if memory serves we've only had one bachelor POTUS )... if their wives pressure them about the job, it will reflect upon how well they perform the job.

Bill and Hillary had a good mix, it appears. But then it's obvious that they never had a traditional marriage anyway.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Romney had cue cards, a cheat sheet or got the questions before hand. Romney is a great liar. He is a tool.

I think BHO wants out of his current job. He already attained the Presidency - there's little left to prove by getting re-elected.

Remember some time ago when Michele was asked by the former French Prime Minister's wife how she liked being the USA's First Lady, and Michele replied, "it's Hell"?

And also consider that when BHO was appointed Editor of the Harvard Law Review he turned out to be the only Editor who never wrote a paper...the man is lazy...he's simply a typical "frat boy" - his absence from his daily military briefings confirms that point. He has no desire to keep this job for another 4 years.

The only thing keeping him in the race are the Liberal Media and those in power around BHO. His enthusiasm for the job is gone...he wants to lose...keep watching for slip-ups...like when he claimed that he had "two sons" - twice...the man wants out; guaranteed.

In fact, if you really like BHO, do him a favor and don't vote for him - let him retire from public life.

reply to post by Hefficide

Bill and Hillary had a good mix, it appears. But then it's obvious that they never had a traditional marriage anyway

.

They were simply BOTH hungry for the same thing. He got it...she almost did. "Like minds" think the same!

reply to post by Hefficide


I think the difference is Abbie Hoffman didn't speak for the entire Democrat Party. The New Left has been around but not necessarily as closely connected to the Democrat Party Platform. Now that Obama has made pro abortion part of the official party platform and Universal healthcare as well, there is no doubt that the Left controls the Democrats now. The Democrat Party has not gone right, but the Republican Party moved right again after a time of moving left(RINOS and all).

Ummm nooo... Obama lost because he has nothing to show for. Also, a capitalist ideology trumps socialist ideology easily. Only a dummy would think he lost on purpose. U just can't argue that the government needs to help the people and create a welfare state, when every time they do the mess it up. I'm not even a Mitt guy but Mitt understands capitalism so that's why he took Obama to school who has no work experience prior to be president..

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


What planet are u from??? Goldmansach is one of Obama's biggest contributor as well as Mitt. They both work for the same people. Are you seriously backing Obama? Hahahaahah This is all for show man. One puppet vs. another puppet. The right puppet is just better because he is a better salesman. Plus, Obama's socialistic ideology is flawed so it's easy to expose him and beat him in a debate. U just can't win justifying a welfare type ideology.

Originally posted by Robert80
It was his wedding aniversary, have you ever seen the wrath of a woman who did not get what she wanted during her aniversary. Take that and then add in spending the day with Romney, and you have your answer.

In essence I understand what you mean, but personally I believe a "true leader" would rise above the wrath of anyone....or he's in the wrong occupation!

reply to post by amfirst1


This map might tend to disagree with your blanket statement about capitalism.

I believe in capitalism on a fundamental level - the key concepts. The problem is that the key concepts have been hijacked and totally polarized by two factions and now doctrine and dogma has created a nearly inescapable trap for us.

Deregulation killed the free market. Think of it this way. You have a day off. You decide you want a full day so you go out to eat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner - all at different restaurants. In between meals you shop at five or six different stores. You go see a movie. Then you go home. You've done your part in things. You've consumed. You've "contributed"

But there is actually a pretty strong statistical chance that even though you went to ten different "shops" - they were ALL owned by the same "parent company". Thus all your money went into one pocket - and not many.

Or two pockets. Maybe three or four. But you see what I am getting at.

And now we're seeing this trend towards referring to any and all social programs as "socialism" This is disturbing. Often, when arguing this point on ATS I find myself tempted to say "You realize that, by your terms, the ULTIMATE in 'socialism' is jail and prison. Right? Are you saying that you'd gladly let the jails and prisons in your area release all of their inmates today? After all... they are living on the tax payers dollar...."

This polarized and absolutist division is created, contrived, and is used to manipulate us. It's almost like we're all on either "Team Hannity" or "Team Mathews" and both teams are so entrenched that they'll attack anyone who is not 100% on board - and with ferocity.

I am on "Team Common Sense" - and we don't win many games or have many fans. But we keep stepping up to the plate.

~Heff