Obama and Biden - Debate Performances = Pyrrhic Victory?

A Pyrrhic victory (/ˈpɪrɪk/) is a victory with such a devastating cost that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately lead to defeat. Someone who wins a "Pyrrhic victory" has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll or the detrimental consequences negates any sense of achievement or profit.

What do I mean? Well, it seems that the general "feel" of his reelection campaign before the first debate was to demonize Romney as a rich, uncaring, corporate fat-cat who couldn't relate to people and was an elitist.

Then, the first debate happens, and instead everyone sees a sluggish, unsure, and over-matched President Obama against a forceful and confident Gov. Romney.

SO - with the previous strategy now costing them votes, and Obama's base utterly demoralized and disillusioned with Obama's performance, Biden is sent into his VP debate with one marching order: Fight Back!

And fight back he did - he interrupted Paul Ryan repeatedly - breaking the agreement set forth before the debate of how each participant would act - and treated Paul Ryan like the junior statesman he was. In fact, many attributed Biden's behavior as "having contempt" for Ryan.

But it was exactly what Obama's base wanted from the VP. They wanted some fight, some gusto, some life breathed into that which they've devoted themselves to.

Yet, there was no jump in the polls, there was no swing toward Obama. The press and the base loved it, but nobody else seemed to be reacting in a positive manner. Unexpectedly - team Romney called "foul" and played their victim card of being "bullied" by a campaign that is in disarray and grown desperate.

So it would seem that the 2nd Presidential debate would be a divining rod - it would signal if team Romney's attempt to play the victim card while at the same time looking ready for the Oval Office would work.

Team Obama would need to either change strategy, or press the leverage gained from Biden.

They chose the later. And in that - have they instead chosen to take a Pyrrhic Victory? Did they win the battle but lose the war? Did the press that readily supports Obama help?

Has the Obama Campaign, in their desperation to "win" a debate performance, done such damange to the undecided voter base that they've lost the election?

Some signs seem to point to this:

A Fox News focus group of "undecided" voters was a complete swing to Romney:

A Frank Luntz focus group made up mostly of former Obama voters say they now support Mitt Romney. "Forceful, compassionate, presidential," one participant said. "Confident and realistic," said another. "Presidential," another told Luntz. "Enthusiastic," another reacted. "Our next president," one man said. "Dynamo, winner," said one more. "He's lied about everything. He lied to get elected in 2008, that's why I voted for him. I bought his bull. And he's lied about everything, he hasn't come through on anything. And he's been bull#ting the public," one member of the focus group said.

Real Clear Politics

But that's Faux News... so no real surprise there... but wait? MSNBC - which NOBODY would attribute to leaning right:

MSNBC's Undecided Voter Panel Swayed by Romney

The Weekly Standard

And now, it's being leaked that the Colorado University Prediction - which as accurately predicted every Presidential race since 1980 says Romney has a "77%" chance to win the popular vote:

“Our model indicates that Governor Romney has a 77 percent likelihood of winning the popular vote,” said Berry. That number is significant, not only in its size, but because of the fact that only four presidents since the nation’s founding have won the presidency without capturing the popular vote, the last being George W. Bush in 2000.

Campus Reform

MSNBC's political site, while pumping up Obama's "win" puts the numbers, telling a different tale, at the bottom of all their articles:
Social Media polls and tracking show only a 34% intent to vote for Obama while Romney has moved to 38%, and Romney has a 52% "positive posts" and 48% "negative posts" to Obama's much lower 39% positive posts and much higher 61% negative posts... this is as of October 16th.

Image attached:



And worst of all, the press has exposed themselves. Not that there was a real attempt to hide it, but the "fix" is on by the media outlets that are now losing trust from their viewers at record levels. When the moderator gave Obama more time, and decided to throw in and back up the President's attempt to fabricate a new stance on the Libya debacle, she clearly forgets that EVERYONE watching knows how this went down and that the President, along with his entire administration tried to say this was a protest for weeks before admitting it was not.

So... all this is to say: Has Obama doomed himself in the election in his effort to try and reverse the unexpected tone set by Romney?

I'm sure the opinions and responses will be very inline with your political leanings....

But I've maintained - for a long time - that Obama is going to lose in a landslide. I base this entirely off of the premise that Obama has not lived up to any of the bold promises he made that swung MY vote for him in 2008 - and there are ZERO McCain voters from 2008 that are voting for Obama this year, while there are MANY Obama voters from 2008 that will vote for Romney this year.

This is not a prediction - its a fact - Romney wins by a landslide (10%) - an across the board victory in all meaningful catergoies except one.

Could you maybe change the title of your thread to "ROMNEY DAMAGE CONTROL"?

Let me get your logic straight here.

- Biden dominated Ryan
- Obama destroyed Romney
- Thus, it is a a clear win for the Romney/Ryan ticket.

I mean seriously, this is just sad.

hmmmm.candy interrupted romney 28 times and obama 9 times. candy gave obama 9% more time to speak. candy derailed romney when he brought up fast and furious. candy defended and LIED about obama's statement concerning the terror attack in benghazi (even anderson cooper said so). No wonder obama won the debate.

you are voting for a political ideolgy, when will people learn that these debates mean nothing as does being a better public speaker mean that you will be the best president. It's all a load of crap and surely people could just sit down and have a read of a party's policies instead as i bet 9 times out of 10 they will show that speaker to be talking rubbish.

reply to post by lewman


You sir, are the voice of reason. I thank you

RE; the 2nd debate...i concur that Øbama had the magic when speaking about social issues...

he should have stayed on as a long term Senator (like Ted Kennedy did) and his merit would have increased expoentially over the years... he just cannot cut it as a chief execuitive...he's under water & drowning


Romney is a CEO type, the nation needs a nuts & bolts business manager in charge to reel in the Fed. the Banker elites, etc and to create a groundswell of growth & activity from the Main Street masses initiating growth & jobs despite the government interventions


I like how Romney called out Øbama on his 'memory' that he called the Benghazi riot an " act-of-terror "
the next day in a Rose Garden press release... Mitt had him swear more than twice that Øbama called the Benghazi affair a terrorism act as soon as the next day --- when in fact it was 2 weeks later that the administration confessed it was a planned terror attack after all

see the steve quayle link:
www.newswithviews.com...

"BENGHAZI TERROR COVER-UP"

The assertion that Nakoula’s Youtube video triggered the attack is, of course, a political deceit. The Obama Administration’s crown jewel in this re-election campaign has been Obama’s support for the execution of bin Laden. Underlying that narrative is the notion that Americans are safer as a result. No single story line appeared stronger in support of Obama than that one. If Americans were to come to the realization that al-Qaeda operatives could take out an American Ambassador in Libya, that realization could cause them to waiver in their view that Obama’s overall foreign policy had effectively isolated al-Qaeda, leaving it in an ultimate state of extinction. It would also raise anew questions about the prudence of U.S. foreign policy toward Libya, where American military backing of the ouster of Gadafi led to control over that nation by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Oh, and Romney was the one that breached that unspoken wall...
to paraphrase: Illegal immigrants could possibly gain citizenship through military service
if he were elected and could fashion an immigration plan of action

This reads like the skit from The Daily Show.

Chaos

On

Bull$h*t

Mountain

Mitt Romney stood up to BHO's bullying tactics in the same manner as Paul Ryan did to J Biden - with dignity and courage - neither of whom backed down a single inch to those lowly political bullies who resorted to Rahm Emanuel/David Axelrod "Chicago bully tactics."

Romney and Ryan won their respective debates on those grounds alone.

They will win the election by a landslide and deservedly so......................

Originally posted by HostileApostle
Could you maybe change the title of your thread to "ROMNEY DAMAGE CONTROL"?

Let me get your logic straight here.

- Biden dominated Ryan
- Obama destroyed Romney
- Thus, it is a a clear win for the Romney/Ryan ticket.

I mean seriously, this is just sad.

Do you understand the thread title? I am not contesting who "won" the debate... I am suggesting that in winning the debate, they've lost the election.

Enjoy your empty victories.