David Wong controls cracked.com, a site I frequent, but that he has seen it fit to kick me off of, and then libel me as justification for kicking me off. When it's jokes, funny pictures and the like, I can usually sneak around for a while before my latest ID is banned (and, many of my jokes and funny pictures are featured on cracked.com's main page).
When it's politics, however, and especially when it's politics where I can use actual facts to contradict Wong's BS, make-believe propaganda, my posts are immediately deleted.
So, I'm memorializing them here. It's a good place to do so, since no one will read any of it here. If anyone does, though, it's some real fascist bullshit, which is why I continue to be a thorn in his side.
Random Guy Writes
Watching the polls, campaigning really doesn't seem to make that much of a difference. All the speeches, ads, slip ups, ect., only seem to make marginal differences, maybe a point or two. I'm really curious, why would this debate make such a huge difference? Is it like the temporary bump each party gets after their conventions or is this a permanent thing?
David Wong (actual name, Jason Pargin - a thing he states in his profile at cracked.com) Writes
The last huge game-changing debate was Reagan vs Carter, because Carter's campaign portrayed Reagan as a crazy, dangerous zealot, but then in the debate, Reagan came off as a charming, witty, kind old man. The conventional wisdom since has been that country was in the middle of a horrible recession and a string of foreign policy embarrassments, and that the voters were looking for permission to vote for someone else, but Carter had made them afraid of doing it. Reagan eased their fears. The polls swung his way, and never swung back.
Now I'm not drawing a parallel with this campaign - as a speaker, Romney is no Reagan, and the country's situation isn't like 1979. But Romney's approval ratings skyrocketed after that debate - Obama's didn't fall. It's entirely possible that in all of these states that have been hammered for six months with ads about Romney being a cold, factory-closing monster, that simply hearing the real guy speak normally and intelligently eased their fears.
That's just speculation, it's impossible to know and approximately 0% of political pundits predicted this.
stuff 1979 now
looming increase in outlay for pointless war
in Afghanistan check check
tension in the middle east centering around Iran check check
gas prices at unusually high levels due to monopolistic
market check check
poor economy check check
unemployment at previously unprecedented levels check check
I don't know. Seems to me that the situation in this country is a lot like 1979. In fact, it's more like 1979 than any other year that has come since 1979. Except Reagan debated Carter during the year of the election, just like every other presidential debate, which was 1980.
And, the folks at Time Magazine notwithstanding, the biggest debate win in presidential history was Ford v. Carter where despite one of the greatest, in terms of how ridiculously stupid it was, gaffs in debate history ("The Soviet Union doesn't have dominance over Eastern Europe."), Ford picked up 10 points in the polls and almost snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Time was tracking "who did you think won the debate?" and even most people who won't be changing their vote because of the poor performance by the president still give the nod to Romney when faced with that particular question.
Just like in '76, '80 and '92, the incumbent is facing reelection during an economic downtime, because while this may not technically be a recession any longer, GDP growth is low and unemployment is high (19% sustained unemployment and 55% sustained underemployment - them's depression era like numbers). Unlike those previous 3 elections, the incumbent is now facing a known political entity (Reagan was somewhat known in GOP circles, but I don't think anyone knew just how astute he was and how well he understood the issues, regardless of if one agreed with the positions he took on any of them...in 1980, anyway, before the Alzheimer's took hold of him in any serious manner), who also happens to be a political nincompoop.
I say this not to support Obama or sully Romney in any other way, but he is a stiff, uncomfortable, and poor campaigner. Any GOP candidate with a modicum of charisma and political savvy would be already leading Obama by 10 points, minimum.
The debate was an excuse for people on the fence where Romney was concerned to jump over it. No one is happy with where the country is right now, but they were less excited with the prospects of voting for Romney. His performance in the debate simply provided the nudge they needed to get over their anxiety about a Romney presidency.
The next debate is the Foreign Policy debate, and this is the one where Obama will lose the liberal base if Romney performs half as well in that one, the one I predicted he would win in the first place (though I never predicted he'd do anything but get his ass kicked in this last one) as he did in the one which just took place, and if that happens, Obama is a one-term president for sure.
Incidentally, blaming the president for a failing economy, except perhaps in the case of Bush 43 (since his policies did kind of lead to the recent economic downfall), is kinda stupid. Presidents have little direct effect over the economy, but they are a symbol of the country and the one people tend to blame for their economic woes, regardless.
It's a big hurdle to overcome, and one that's never been overcome before. This is where everyone finds out just how soft the polling numbers were up until now and just how hard President Obama is going to have to work to win back something that very few people are excited to see him win.