General discussion

Romney campaign already conceding first debate

Romney memo seeks to lower debate expectations

Washington (CNN) - If it wasn't already clear that Mitt Romney and his allies are trying to lower expectations heading into next Wednesday's debate against President Obama in Denver, the campaign is now making it official.

In a memo about the debates distributed to campaign surrogates and provided to CNN on Thursday, longtime Romney adviser Beth Myers outlines a series of reasons why the president is likely to emerge as the winner of the first debate.


The debate is five days away and they're already lining up their excuses, LOL, and this first one is going to be on domestic policy, which Romney claims is his strong suit.

I have my DVR set; this is gonna be goooooood.......
Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: Romney campaign already conceding first debate
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Romney campaign already conceding first debate
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Wouldn't you say that you've already

picked the clear winner in each debate? Why bother recording or watching? You won't be alone. I'm sure there are plenty who will be cheering Obama and booing Romney without even listening to what's being said. Wink

- Collapse -
Re: listening to what's being said

In the latest Scientific American a interesting study was described (page 77 of the October 2012 issue, as it is distributed here). In the famous September 26, 1960 debate between Nixon and Kennedy, Nixon was the winner according to the people that followed the debate on the radio (because of his more presidential voice) and Kennedy was the winner according to the people who followed the debate on the TV (because of his more presidential look and behaviour).

In a 2007 research program 72% of outcomes for the Senate and 69% of the outcomes for the gubernatorial elections were predicted correctly, only based on the appearance of the candidates.

So the conclusion of the author (Michael Shermer) was that the crucial questions are: who looks more competent and who sounds more competent.
What they say is irrelevant.

If he's right, I think Romney has a handicap. But that might be a prejudice.

Kees

- Collapse -
Of the Nixon Kennedy debates

I remember it being said that it was television and it's need for special makeup that was the difference.

- Collapse -
That too

Nixon's bad makeup and his tendency to perspire visibly hurt him among those who watched on television.

- Collapse -
Re: debate

That article said about Nixon: had been campaigning right up to the debate and had been hospitalized for a knee infection that had left him with a 102-degree fever and looking pale and haggard, worsened by his notoriously heavy five a'clock shadow.
While Kennedy: was well rested and tan from campaigning in California and radiant "like an athlete come to receive his wreath of laurel", as noted by a journalist.

It must have been an unequal competition that night.

Kees

- Collapse -
So, make all Presidential Debates in Future

be done only on radio? That might not be such a bad idea. People then would actually have to listen to what they said instead of counting foot shifts, uncomfortable looks, rolling of eyes, coughs, staring pointedly at the other person, or off into the distance, removal of smirks and grins, etc.

Actually listening to them and hearing what they say. What a novel concept.

- Collapse -
You can just "listen" with a TV also,

Give me your e-mail address and I will send you instructions.

- Collapse -
Watching the debates on TV might be the last chance

to not have one's viewing interrupted by political ads.

- Collapse -
will we even see Obama

behind all his teleprompters?

- Collapse -
Not if you just "listen"

Of course if you want to use your overly active vivid imagination....anything is possible.

- Collapse -
I'm sure the reverse will be true too

I just think this is rather telling, coming from the Romney campaign itself.

Bush succeeded in lowering expectations so much that he got points just for showing up. Romney is going to find out that debating the president is different than debating idiots like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry.

- Collapse -
From what I understand

these debates are going to be quite different from previous ones....

The question will be posed...each person has two minutes to respond.....and then it is a free-for-all for the next ten minutes between the two to get in their licks and points. BO won't be able to spin off like he does with reporters into a large dialogue that eats up the clock and lets him off the hook......he'll be brought back to the topic over and over.

You're right, Josh........this is gonna be goooooodddddd..........

- Collapse -
That's funny,Axlerod released an almost indentical memo on..

the debate but CNN didn't see fit to report that? Could it be that they're pushing for "their guy" ? Wink

"Just as he was in the primaries, we expect Mitt Romney to be a prepared, disciplined and aggressive debater," Obama adviser David Axelrod wrote in a memo Friday, adding that debates "generally favor challengers."
Axelrod went on to list several other advantages Romney supposedly has -- the Republican nominee got plenty of debate practice during the primaries, and he's "unencumbered" by the responsibility of being president.
"Maybe this is why the Romney campaign has so confidently predicted for months that he will turn in a campaign-changing performance such as Ronald Reagan's in 1980," Axelrod wrote.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/28/campaigns-launch-into-expectations-game-ahead-vital-presidential-debate/#ixzz27mrvl6RU

- Collapse -
The real question is;

Will it really matter how good either of them do, especially Romney, if many of the dumb stupid voters we've seen in "man on the street" type interviews over the years on various shows are out there en masse voting, instead of leaving it to those who actually have researched both candidates, beyond some tickle up the leg, etc?

- Collapse -
If all someone's research is based on political ads

and news media coverage, they'll know very little about either. I do suspect that the great majority of voters who chose Obama the first time around fully intended to vote him in for a second time from the beginning. Very few are looking at his promises versus what was delivered. While I'd never cite percentages, Romney was probably correct that there were quite a number of votes that would have been wasted effort to chase. He was being honest. Obama also has many voters that would be a dead end to try and win over but either didn't mention them or get caught doing so.

- Collapse -
FWIW

I suppose the it will be the League of Women Voters that sponsors the debates again this year. Maybe it's time to allow someone else to do the show. There actually is a League of Men Voters. An obvious choice maybe. I don't think they've done a poor job or been unfair but it does seem that, since gender issues have become so contentious again, some spreading of the wealth might be worth considering.

CNET Forums