Skip to main content

View Diary: Romney lost because Obama beat him: Updated (151 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If you listened to what he said going into (6+ / 0-)

    ...the first debate, he basically said that he was goIng to present his vision / plan, and let the voters decide. I honestly don't believe it was anything more than simply that Obama didn't expect to have to call out a fellow statesmen for brazenly lying and flip-flopping on key issues. I really do believe it was nothing more than Obama was "just being polite" ... too polite, and he even stated this in a radio interview severals days later. A diary was even posted with a link to the interview, if you want to listen to it: (President Obama: "I was too polite with Romney in the first debate."
    ) So I think we already have the answer.

    He made a judgment call. Was it the right one or the wrong one? Who knows. 

    Now, you can suggest that if he had done far "better" in that debate, it would have given us a better shot at the House, but you need to also weigh the fact that if Romney had not had that surge, a lot more money might have been funneled to the down-ticket races (away from Romney) ... and thus, who knows the outcome of that? The Senate races might have faired different, not that "more money means victory," because that myth was just blown out of the water. 

    But thrn, on the other side, Obama's choice to not call out Romney in that first debate spurned some down-ticket Democrats to do what Obama had not, which also led to Romney himself feeling boldened to lie with even greater boldness, like with his "Jeep production moving to China", and also him lying about "let GM go bankcrupt" both of which resulted in the CEO's of those companies speaking out against Romney and calling him on his lies. So, we then had free PR from those companies' leasership. The media narrative of "Romney lies" became the theme song that spelled his death knell and whose to say if it had played out differently that a greater good is served or that a more clear distinction would have been made. The apparent "loss" in that first debate caused some serious soul searching, at all levels, within the Democratic, I believe, and maybe that was needed. Obama is human, and he too, maybe had some learning to do, which would help him in his second term, learning that might pointedly help him deal with the GOP Obstructionism. Remember, he had a Democratic House in '08, and this clealry did not solve all problems, though clearly this made some things easier. But then, fillibuster reform would make a difference there. And further, we, as a party, have much to learn, and maybe, not winning back the House in '12, will spurn us to really attack the '14 cycle with a unifying purpose and mission, so that we are not complacent. Again, what's the greater good? At least, that's how I look at it. 

    In any case, it is what it is: Obama made a judgment call, namely, to not call out Romney during that first debate. And now we need to take the House in '14! 

    •  1st debate kept money away from 'R' Senate races (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shinobi9, elektra

      I suggested this before, but the right's reading of Romney's first debate just might have kept big money behind him a little longer, diverting money that was all set up to go to Senate races.
      I don't suggest that the President contrived for this scenario, I'm just saying that's how it worked out. I'm pretty sure it was Divine Intervention, like Sandy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site