Skip to main content

View Diary: Reality and the post-debate responses (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Way to miss the point (0+ / 0-)

    by actually denying reality.

    Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance

    by Joe B on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:08:08 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Are you referring to me? (0+ / 0-)

      If so, explain to me what I've posited that I did not support with some evidence or rational argument. Seriously. You really think that lying incessantly and rudely interrupting everyone is a debate win? Really? That's sad. What the hell reality do you live in? If that's the case we might as well just turn politics into WWE wrestling matches.

      I'm so sick of hearing other progressives pretend Obama got crushed. Sure, he should have pushed back harder on the lies, but most intelligent people can understand when something has been rebutted and can recognize when already refuted remarks are being repeated. I understood Kos' point just fine, thank you. My point is that in the reality of what happened in the debate, there was plenty to point out in critiquing Romney's performance that wasn't made until days later, when the narrative had already been set in the public's mind. There is a way to acknowledge a loss without crying or irrationally throwing your candidate under the bus or running around screaming about a falling sky. There's also a way to manage a loss without unreasonably ceding a debate to a guy that lied his way through it while being an asshole. You know, thing's like saying, "Yeah, Obama could have done better [sending a signal to Obama], but he remained calm and reasoned while Romney flailed about and interrupted incessantly. Not very presidential. Oh, and let's talk about Romney's slew of lies." Boom. Obama knows to do better, reality is acknowledged, and we can still CRITIQUE THE REALITY THAT THE OTHER GUY SUCKED TOO, IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

      Blogs: http://mediadeconstruction.com/ Twitter: realsteveholt

      by steveholt on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:21:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We are not pretending that he got crushed, he did! (0+ / 0-)

        And it wasn't because we said so, it was because they viewers thought so overwhelmingly. The snap polls demonstrated this clearly.

        I am afraid that you are not engaging with reality on this.

        Ok, so I read the polls.

        by andgarden on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 08:57:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. Snap polls are not scientific polls. (0+ / 0-)

          It is you that is taking the narrative baked by the MSM and megaphoned on here for the weeks that followed and repeating it to make it reality. Essentially, the MSM, took unscientific snap polls and screamed
          "Romney won" unopposed by our own pundits. There are interaction effects between media narratives and scientific polls because the first nationally representative sample wasn't until two days after the debate was over and the narrative had solidified. It is you that is just repeating a fictional account to the point that it has become true in your mind. Re-watch the debate, and do it with a clear head, knowing that the election's over and it doesn't matter now. And just watch.

          Listen, I'm not opposed to critiquing President Obama when he deserves it, and there are plenty of areas where he deserves it. For instance, he was not forceful enough in requesting a large enough stimulus, allowed the health care debates to get way out of hand before joining the fight, and when he did, he was timid. My point is that although I think Obama is a great president, I have a laundry list of complaints with Obama and am not afraid of saying when he's wrong. On this, he's not...you and everyone parroting the "he got crushed" meme is just taking a lazy person's route to analysis. Any rational, informed person watching the debates who knew the issues would say Romney won on style and Obama won on substance. That's the reality of what happened in the debate without any of the hyperventilating Kossacks or profiteering pundits screaming "Game Changer!" nine thousand times. And that should have been our messaging after words.

          "Yes, Romney won on style, but he lied a lot and didn't offer any plan. Obama won on substance. Further, I thought Romney was a little rude at times." You see? That is an accurate, reality based assessment based on the debate itself. Not critiquing the president's posture, or where he looked, or how much energy he showed. That's small-minded theater critiquing that makes modern television journalism a joke and should have NO place in discussing the policies that affect us all. Period. If you truly believe that what matters in political discourse is how forcefully someone shouts their lies, then it is you, not I, who is no different from the blowhard pundits on the right.

          An informed understanding of polling data would tell you that the inability of separating debate effects from post-debate narrative means you only have a partial view of what the population's actual take away from the debate itself was. In other words, you don't know what the "reality" was in the public mind on the debate alone, as there's no comparison in which Obama was defended by the left. As I said above, Biden/Ryan would provide more insights as an approximate point of comparison, because the style dynamic was similar, but conservatives, even those that acknowledged that Ryan lost, pushed back by saying Biden was rude and Ryan looked presidential. Of course, not really true of Ryan, but it helped stem the damage a bit, and the national polls (the scientific ones, not the snap polls) showed Biden winning, but only by a thin margin.

          The reason I think this matters, as I stated above, is what the hell will our discourse look like when shouting down people, lying incessantly, and refusing to provide any policy details at all is considered an objectively landslide win in a debate?

          Blogs: http://mediadeconstruction.com/ Twitter: realsteveholt

          by steveholt on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 09:17:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Let me clue you in on something: (0+ / 0-)

            The snap polls merely confirmed my own reaction. I didn't need Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, or anyone else to tell me how the debate went (in fact, I didn't watch them). I already knew.

            Ok, so I read the polls.

            by andgarden on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 09:31:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site