(AP Photo/The Denver Post, John Leyba)
Ready for a counter-narrative about President Obama's universally panned performance in the first debate? In her article, "Was Debate #1 a Pyrrhic Victory?" Robin Lakoff, professor of linguistics at the University of California- Berkeley, offers this radically different analysis as to what President Obama was really up to last Wednesday.
He didn’t lose; he failed to win in the short term. So in the next two presidential debates, he will be the underdog. Romney, going in as the favorite, will have to produce performances that are not only as good as his first, but better (since the excellent "new Romney" is the new old Romney). And if in either debate the President pulls off the gloves and plays to win, he will score much higher than if he had raised expectations in the first debate. And the closer a debate is to the election, the more of an effect it is apt to have (if in fact debate performance, except of the most extreme kind, ever has any effect at all).
Furthermore, the narrative-spinners now have their desired narrative arc wrapped up and ready to go. Today’s message: Romney’s the one. But by October 17th (or October 23rd) that could undergo a satisfactorily surprising metamorphosis to: It was the President all along (as we’ve been telling you). The narrators will look smart. This will make them feel good. That in turn will create in them goodwill toward the candidate, which can’t hurt his chances.
The President's joke is on those analysts who see debates as decontextualized, not as part of a stream of pre-election events: the speeches, the conventions, the zingers, the gaffes….each of which, obviously or not, lends meaning to everything that precedes or follows. Romney’s "47%" gaffe continues to echo because it fits into a context created by Ann's Cadillacs and Mitt's $10,000 bet. Obama’s misstatements fade away fast because they don't fit into any such prevailing narrative. Likewise, this debate will acquire meaning only as the first of three, and the one furthest from the end-game, and will have persuasive effect only as a point of comparison with what comes later. In this way, when the game is over, Obama’s performance in Debate 1 may very well be seen as the turning point today's pundits are calling it -- only it will be seen then as the turning point that Obama's brilliant strategists created to make his victory inevitable.
So, liberal wishful thinking or one of the most elaborate set-up jobs in American political history? (The latter idea is catching on, BTW) As Lakoff herself points out, context is everything.
Leave a Comment:
Mr. Jones...(sigh)...are you serious?! It's definitely wishful thinking. I am 100% convinced that a Romney Presidency would be an unmitigated disaster, and I hope that the President tears Romney apart in the next two debates. I also see Lakoff's "scenario" as a pointless pipedream.
Yup, a desperate liberal fantasy. "Yeah, it is better to lose a big lead in the polls -- yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!"
Kent, this is beneath you to promote.
I wonder if he will even notice that there aren't many salutes for what he has run up the flagpole...probably not.
Do you seriously believe what Lakoff wrote was an explanation of how Romney fell into a well laid machiavellian trap that Obama set for him?
That has nothing to do with what she is saying. Click the article and read it. The only genius plan that Lakoff is talking about concerns presenting a consistent narrative about who Obama is, and who Romney is. Romney's debate performance falls very tidily into their narrative for him. She is not saying their campaign strategy counted on Romney doing what he did, or that Obama intentionally threw the debate, or any similar fantasy.
Read what the Lakoff has been writing about the cognitive science of politics. (eg: The Language War) She is saying that Obama's narrative is coherent, consistent and fits with a long held narrative the electorate has of him. What Romney did also falls into a narrative for him that the Obama campaign has been repeating since January.
She is not writing about setting up Romney in the debate. And she does not dispute he won it. She is showing how Romney provided lots of evidence re-enforcing the narrative of panderer/ used car salesman, and that this is what has a lasting impact on voters.
Has nothing to do with wishful thinking about Obama, and everything to do with what factors people use to make decisions about character. She shows in her book how this use of narrative can lead people to make incorrect judgements (the OJ Simpson trial), so she is not saying that Obama's team is necessarily virtuous or their cause simply because they are focusing on long term narratives.
If you want to take exception with what she is saying, challenge her assertion that these narratives matter. If you say, swing voters won't care what he said in the primaries, or that Romney's behavior fits into some positive narrative that can be convincingly presented to the voters in the next 28 days, then you have a basis on which to argue with her. Nothing wishful about it. The perspective is correct and predictive about political behavior or it isn't.
But arguing against some tricky plot that Romney unsuspectingly fell into? You are debunking a proposition that Lakoff never made.
All Romney did or can do in the debates is lie and attack...lie and attack. Being rude, condescending and domineering may make people think he won but once people (besides the "let's make it a horse race" media and pundits) find out just how much Romney lied, he will only be seen as a bully, still the same man who cut off a students hair for fun, just another loud mouth.
lie and attack...lie and attack cause how can you debate a liar?
There are a multitude of strategies for dealing with a Romney type presentation.
I don't see much point of spinning the debate. Either the polls a dozen days after the debate show a lasting positive effect for Romney or they don't. If they do, then there is no point in debating the debate. Obama and his team lost.
Lakoff's point is that if by November 6 Romney's debate performance caused more long lasting damage to his narrative than he gained in short term benefit, then he lost.
Though I am sympathetic to this line of analysis, I don't see that it is an especially provable point, or reliably measurable point because by that time you cannot isolate the impact of the debate performance. If Romney's numbers 9 to 12 days are nearly as strong as they were after the debate bump, then the skeptics of Lakoff's argument have a strong case.
I wonder how much debates really matter. We've been doing them for over fifty years. A lot has happened in fifty years, advances in technology, including what I'll call campaign technology.
It's kind of like the Olympics. Over the years, training methods for athletes have benefited from this progress—frame-by-frame analysis of tennis and golf swings, jumping postures, etc. I'm not a big televised sports fan. In a real sense, like, I imagine, many here, politics is my sport and the one in which I take a rooting interest. (I mean, come on. How many Baltimore Ravens actually come from Baltimore? Is there any meaning to rooting for the “home team?”)
So now Olympic athletes beat each other by hundredths of a second, or tenths of a centimeter. To me, the debates have evolved in the same way. They are so rehearsed and prepared it's hard to land a knockout blow. Further, I can't think of anytime in the past when somebody actually and decisively “won” a debate. I can however, remember when they lost. “There you go again” may have been pretty effective, but so was “You're no Jack Kennedy.” But Dan Quayle when on to become Vice-Prezidant anyway (I kid Dan).
And I'm not even addressing the fact that what were once called debates were actually joint press conferences with deceptive “rules” that gave candidates cover to say whatever they wanted with little opportunity for rebuttal from the moderator or the opponent. (Conversely, find a video of Sorkin's The Newsroom imagined ideal debate.) What I am saying is that the perception of most debates relies more on style than substance, a perception that recedes quickly. It's not only like the Olympics; it's also like the movie The Matrix—great while you watch it...And then? I've asked many fans of that movie to tell me what actually happened. Nobody can.
Recently, columnists have been referring to a long-held belief by political scientists that campaigns don't matter. If the voters like you and think the economy is good or improving, you win. If not, you lose. And that's how important I think debates end up being.
Kindly forgive me for invading your conservative fantasy with these facts.
It is mathematically impossible to do all three simultaneously, and Romney knows it.
So he lied during the debate.
The debate was the first time Romney said all three Ayn Rand lies in the same venue, but he intentionally did not say all three during a single response to distract viewers. That indicates he has been carefully coached about how to repeat this lie.
This kind of economic fantasy was made popular by a communist author named Ayn Rand after she migrated here from Russia. She wrote fantasy novels Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead where actual math is replaced by magic that makes all her stuff unreadable for anyone that is intelligent.
Captain-Alzheimer's-the-racist-debate-moderator from PBS finally stopped Romney and asked him "did you really mean to say that" when Obama started staring at the podium in disgust.
I suspect news organizations would have said Obama lost the debated if he turned to Romney, said "liar", and asked him to explain how he plans to do all three of these at the same time.
Because the average journalist don't do algebra for a living.
Checkmate.
Your move.
Obviously, someone isn't paying attention.
Oh how I wish this were true. And I know that BHO, as much as anyone, can play the long game.
But still: My vote is for wishful thinking. Please tell me why I'm wrong.
There's a difference between pacing one self for the long run and purposefully under performing. As noted below, there were Olympic players disqualified for purposefully under performing as to gain a later advantage. The Olympic committee did not see it as ethical then, neither would I here.
But, I think you are correct...it is only "wishful thinking."
Romney said the following during the debate.
It is mathematically impossible to do all three simultaneously.
Proof that Romney lied.
Hope Lyin' Ryan can explain what he will do after Iranians drop a nuke on Romney to stop him from bombing them now that they have long range missiles and atomic power plants.
No, Romney explained. Three ways to reduce deficit according to Romney: 1) raise taxes to increase revenue, 2) cut spending to reduce outgo, and 3) grow the economy which will grow revenue.
Romney said he would focus on the last two.
1) Raise taxes? Excuse me? Which ones? Not the rates, surely. Grover wouldn't like that. The magical unspecified "deductions?" Name one. Just one.
And hey, George here. 3) I'll grow the economy, too. Better than anyone. Vote for me. Trust me.
You can take 2) to the bank, and the bank will laugh.
.
I don't know, setting up or playing the system?
Romney in the debate was exactly opposite of Romney up to the debate. Romney may be counting on the debate being the first exposure to Romney, and the fact that people hear a lie and then in the retelling the lie while disproving the lie cements the lie as truth in the non critical mind.
And in listening to TMS podcast I hear Romney telling the generals and admirals no discussion of terrorism in the '08 debates.
I'm thinking Romney is trying to set up Obama again, Romney positioning his words in preparation to flip 180 degrees and say exactly the opposite in the next debate.
Problem for Romney is the President is now well aware to the degree will change position, and that kind of Frat Boy trick only works once.
.
Here's something that all Americans must understand about Romney. The guy exhibits traits of what is known as a "cocktail personality" -- and that's a dangerous thing for all of us.
You see, an individual with "cocktail personality" possesses the chameleon-like capability of recognizing strengths and weaknesses in other individuals' personalities and adapting to them in a way that not only accelerates, but grossly intensifies the "merging" he desires with his victims.
To achieve that pathological "merging" the individual with cocktail personality will say and do whatever he deems will achieve his devious ends.
Cocktail Personality is a psychopathology commonly seen in "cyberpaths" and sexual predators and sociopaths.
Romney exhibits all the characteristic "cocktail personality" behaviors. And he's the guy you want to trust as president?
He's a congenital liar. And yes--he's a true sociopath.
And it's worth noting--they taught me this one in counselor's school--that personality-disordered individuals such as you've just described are far more adept at "reading their quarry" than their intended victim.
Anyone who's had experience with these sorts had no trouble recognizing those characteristics in the former Massachusetts governor.
And really, it's irrelevant to the scenario whether the President was playing a "deep game" or was simply caught off guard by the lies. There wasn't really anything new that Romney presented; most of it was recycled Republican Party talking points. Mr. Obama may have been bedeviled by expectations and overrated his opponent.
Mr. Obama: "I'm just wondering if you're planning on breaking the record number of lies from last time with this performance."
I may not agree with the intentionality of this analysis, but it is correct from a campaign point of view. Obama did nothing wrong you can point to. (Attitude? Aggressiveness? How subjective can you get?) He made no gaffes, no visual to replay over and over.
So entering the second and later debates, the narrative will be whether he acts differently. Any change may be viewed as "fixing" whatever was wrong before. So suddenly, Obama seems stronger, energized (or whatever) and he is the hero to his party for a bounce in the polls.
I think such a scenario could wind up playing out (pressure will now be on Romney to perform because it's perceived that he's capable of such performances now), but I'd pray to Whatever Is Possibly Up There that that was not the strategy going in. I understand the value in lowering expectations so you can surpass them, but we should never have lowered expectations for either what our Commanders in Chief do, or what they are capable of doing. There's too much at stake to manipulate Americans like this if indeed Lakoff really thinks that was the plan.
I'm out. No way I buy this. The trajectory has changed too much, too deeply, Down ballot the Pelosi gavel ceremony is on hold, and the Senate is back in play. The American people are not smart or engaged in large numbers, only we are. The strategy of "not being rude" might be smart, but what Obama did was allow Romney to lie loudly to alot of people. Now Biden is under much more pressure, as is Obama.
What a crybaby. My God. Even if this is not intentional (dangerous, but not impossible) the politics of it are right on.
This was one event, people, among thousands where Romney has screwed up bad. I can understand the rethugs thinking/wishing they are saved, but what is wrong with you whining Dems? Romney is NOT QUALIFIED to be POTUS, and everyone knows it. The last 4 weeks of this campaign will make mincemeat of him and his sidekick.
Show some faith, people, and rock the vote. President Obama is going to win big and we'll have 4 more years to try and fix this mess the rethugs left us...
Wishful thinking, but two exceptional debate performances in the remaining set will make it so.
Prof. Lakoff: from your lips to God's ears. The theory sounds reasonable, now they just need to execute.
I think Joe is going to show how it's done "old school" this Thursday.
Just stop it. Please. Just stop.
The denial is as bad as any I've seen from wingnuts. Really disappointed.
Understand what happened. Then take it out on the people who are responsible. First, let the people in charge of prepping know what you think. Then take your anger out on the people who are truly responsible for the outrage: the media and Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and the forest of dickweeds known as the GOP.
But for god's sake, stop with the bullshhit that this was some sort of win. It's not even too clever by half. It's just stupid.
Hey, I get it , you're not happy with the debate. Now it's time to let it go and move on. If I was new to this blog and read your posts from the past two days, I would assume you were a Romney supporter who was trying to sway liberal voters. Calm down. Everyone makes mistakes.
You seem to be extremely bright. Bright enough even to read the 3rd paragraph.
i still disagree with you that looking good while lying wins a debate. because of this alone i say the president won, and i think that the negative reactions of the MSNBC staff and liberals in general to this debate are what solidified the common wisdom that Romney won.
Look, I'm not saying Romney won a debate. That wasn't a debate. This is about getting votes. Period. It's not a debate.
There is no doubt what happened: Romney lied, his lies went unchallenged, ignoramuses think forced, feigned lying with conviction shows leadership, and Romney getting away with the lying unchallenged changed the election. Not understanding that is simply denying the reality of it. I've mentioned it before and I'm tired of it, but go watch the two Charlies Rose shows after the Wednesday "debate" and watch him and other media mediocrities fawn over a fake alpha male. It's sickening, but to not understand that that is what animates our pathetic media and enough of our pathetic citizens is again denying reality.
Wake up to the reality in which we live. It's not a pretty one. It's actually pretty damned ugly.
I think Obama was thrown off guard by Romney's incessant lying. Like most of those in the know he was shocked by the blantany lying and didn't know how to handle it as he was set to debate the known Romney and not this made up Romney. You can't debate a liar and the moderator should have taken control rather than be intimidated by Romney. It was like Romney told everyone to 'shut up'... and they did.
Yes, of course he was. But he shouldn't have been. That's been discussed ad nauseam. Should have been prepared for it. Oh well, the damage is done and it's time to train fire on the real villains in this bad play.
Quit whining and DO SOMETHING about it. Go out and make some calls. Knock on some doors. Contribute some money. YOU are the problem, not a President that has more to do than hang around trying to keep you on his side. He is COUNTING on you. Try and help instead of doing the rethugs job and demoralizing Dems.
This was one event of many. Stop trying to make it the whole race. Jeeze.
Jeeze, you sound like Ann Romney.
Look, jackass. I was right and just about everybody else was wrong. Hell, I even underestimated the amount of damage that was done. Understand that. Unlike a goodly amount of Democrats, I don't take shhit off of people when I was right, and they were wrong.
You don't know what I'm doing for the campaign.
I'm not even going to pretend with you. You don't seem bright. Your advice has been ignored.
JFC.
I'm being eye raped by Faux !News fantasies.
Make it stop!
Romney repeated this Ayn Rand fantasy during the debate.
OMG.
Only people that failed algebra are stupid enough vote for Captain Mitt.
Is there something in there that everybody here doesn't already know?
While Lakoff's "scenario" may make the political chattering class happy; frankly I'm more than a bit aggrieved by the fact that "the librul media" wasn't pointing to the lies, lies, and more lies told by Mr. Romney during the debates! I get that "fact-checkers" were doing their thing; I also get that politicians lie - but PinnochoRomney has been allowed to get away with lie after lie after lie and no one really calls him out on it!
I'm especially concerned by those that claim "superior moral conviction" - because their "moral convictions" must obviously not include lying as something one should shun on "moral" grounds! When (& why) did WE start believing that lies are not something that should be called out? And why does anyone believe that a liar is someone that can be "trusted" to do what is best for the "public good" or what is best for this nation as a whole?!?
We shall see.. I'm putting my pocket change on Pigasus! (I'll still hedge all my nickels on horseshet speculation)
This is BS. You never deliberately allow an opponent a free shot. You could easily not use all your ammunition, you could easily not be aggressive on purpose, but you NEVER totally tank. I refused to watch the first night and watched the tape on Thursday nite. I thought Obama's performance was about a c or c- and Romney's a b or b+. Not what anyone for the Pres wanted to see, by any means but not a game changing life force threatning blitzkrieg, either.
Romney is still Romney. 47%, 2 cadillacs, an elevator for his cars, kill Big Bird, voucherize Medicare, privatize Social Security.
We'll see what happens in the time between now and the next debate.
Here's what's already happened:
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama
All because a liar and a bully was allowed to stamp about with fury unchallenged. All the 47%, all the "let them go bankrupt," all the exposed lies, all the "Bush on steroids, " etc.
Down the drain.
I love that link!
Go play in traffic and see if you can catch one of those big heavy metal things.
@DISGUSTED. Man you are hilarious. You are like the kid who sucks at everything yet still gets crazy angry when he loses. You're stomping around like the hilarious kid who cries and blames the whole world for everything that went wrong. You wanna talk about the 47% comment??? How about Barry's little pow wow with the Russians on how he will have so much more power after he doesn't have to worry about re election. How about the hypocrisy of Barry for standing up for that waste of space sandra fluke and completely ignoring ed schultze blasting laura ingraham as a slut. What about him trying to intimidate businesses from not telling their emplyees that they are going to lose their jobs just so they wont be upset before election day? Damn you are stupid. Barry is the perpetuator of lies. Transparent administration????? HA! What about executive orders to keep the truth covered up of what really happened with Fast & Furious???? What about the moron repeating Obamacare isn't a tax even right after the Supreme Court upheld it's constitutionality on the account that it is indeed a TAX. Open your eyes and pull your head out of your butt. Retort.........I DARE YOU!
Then again there is the fact that Romney can not help but lie. In letting him lie you give him rope to hang himself. The fact checkers had a blast after the first debate and in today's world the internet and its access to the reality (hidden behind all those right winged blogs that google puts on the first dozen pages) of the situation, liars are exposed rapidly.
Nobody hears the fact checkers. 70,000,000 watched. Maybe 7,000 or 70,000 look at what the fact checkers say. And the fact checkers were so busy making it balanced that even if the idiotic "undecideds" would have bothered to check, they wouldn't be able to tell who the liar was.
If BO thought Mitt was lying he needed to call him on it, and back it up. BO didn't know the material, was uninterested, and had his record to attempt to defend. No matter how well BO does in next debates, the damage is there and it's a lasting impression.
You are an idiot.
Obama knows the material. Obama knows the truth. What he was unprepared for was a Gish Gallop. He had never run up against someone so unconcerned with lying so much to so many with so much feigned conviction. What he was unprepared for was a corporate boardroom personality with raw, vicious, transparent, empty, aggressive, unprincipled ambition on display. That it fools the irresponsible and stupid in this country is sad. It's difficult for a principled man to confront that. He should have been prepared for an amoral dickweed. He wasn't.
Nothing changes the fact that Mitt Romney was a lying sack of shhit. Nothing in this world changes that.
Well I reckon I am part of the 47% that will vote for Obama no matter how well Mitt lies.
Yep, me too, Paul. Some people really admire a quality liar and when they've got somebody on their team that is magnificent at lying, they find that a reason to beat their chest. Me? I never learned to admire liars. No matter how well they do it. Liars just kind of make me sick to my stomach. And the people who admire that sort of thing because they're on their team are even more nauseating. Lying certainly shouldn't be a reason to vote for a guy. Only real morally suspect people would do that.
Nope, just can't go with the guy who's a liar and only offering up the ideas that caused the mess we're in in the first place. Gotta go with the best man with the best plan and the men who has integrity.
That'll be Barack Obama.
Great that you 47%ers are voting for Obama - but that's only what Mitt expects since you don't take personal responsibility for your lives. I, on the other hand, am part of the other 53%. I'm the guy whose eyes Mitt thinks he can pull the wool over.
Not a chance.
Obama 2012. Forward.
Oh hey, I'm actually a 53%-er, myself! I just got carried away by the moment. But I'm doing just what Mitt-for-brains would expect: taking responsibility and voting for the man who would do the best job for the country.
GObama, 2012.
Time to kick some liars in the balls.
Right. The problem is, it's damn near impossible to find the balls of a missionary on a French beach.
Well, that is a problem isn't it? Seems a lot of that tribe of chickenshhithawks didn't have any balls when it comes to really putting themselves on the line.
Maybe we'll just have to settle for kicking them in the mangina.
That says it all Will, thanks for helping me make my point. You are making this easy......kind of like Obama did.
This is a nice theory, and should make us feel good, but there is no way of knowing if it is the truth until the next debate, and I don't mean the VP debate. The next head to head match will be very important.
That said, Romney better come out and mop the floor with Obama or he will be declared the loser by our fickled pundit class.
Except it's not a head-to-head "debate." It's a town meeting format next and then a "debate" on foreign policy.
I'm an Obama supporter, and even I don't buy this spin. If Obama were the challenger and not the incumbent, I might (and I do emphasize might) be more willing to consider the argument. But when you're a sitting president, everything that happens in the country and the world is potential fodder to be used against you and, with limited exceptions, you have little control over those events. Therefore, screwing around with the outcome of something that is within your control is crazy. If his campaign folks advised him to use such a strategy 30 days ahead of the election, they should be sued for consultant malpractice.
No, the President just allowed dozens of opportunities to counterpunch slip away. No secret plan, no stealth tactic. The only thing I'll say about the first debate is that it's over. Time to move on and do it better the next time.
Wishful thinking, unquestionably. Has the narrative already changed too much for Obama to change it back? I wish and hope not.
No
Spin, spin, spin - time is better spent in working your neighbor's doors - getting votes on your recommendation and hope that President knocks two out of the park!
I have argued ever since the debate that Romney basically "shot his wad" on the first debate. He did well, but can he sustain it? He has no where to go but down. The President on the other hand has lots of room on the upside. I don't think it is just "wishful thinking" but rather logic. If the President takes to heart the reaction to his performance, and comes out swinging (to the extent he ever does!), he will look stronger and more in control and will beat the low expectations. I also think that the format of the second debate favors the President - the town hall format is less formal and leads to more specific questions (unlike the open ended ones Jim Lehrer asked). Remember Sen Obama vs McCain and how comfortable Obama looked sitting on the high stool, awaiting a chance to answer, vs McCain wandering around the stage? I suspect you will see that same "cool" Obama this time around too.
Interesting take on these debates in todays newspaper . "Break up the debate monopoly" by:Lane Filler of newsday.
I had a slightly different take on the conspiracy theory - "he was takin' one for the team".... Right before the debates there was a lot of speculation that donors would abaondon Romney and move all the money to down ticket races.... haven't heard that once since the debate. He was so far ahead he could take one for the team, still be ahead with a 75% chance of a win (on 538) and prevent the downticket from being flooded - Just Maybe??????
Hmmm - perhaps. Pretty risky though - then again Obama took a risk with Detroit and won. I trust that he and his campaign do know what they're doing. They've surprised me in the past.
Just stop trying to rationalize it. What you saw with your eyes is what happened. Obama let a bully get away with it. He just wasn't prepared for the onslaught of sliminess. It took his breath away, and he didn't have the words to call the lie on the sprint to the middle. Team Obama just seriously screwed up.
Is the President going into the 2nd debate as the underdog ?.....I think the theory is reaching.I think they might have liked a good win under their belts.I can not imagine a situation where his campaign team would have him loose a debate on purpose especially as he was doing well in the polls.It was time to consolidate & try to put it even further out of reach.
even though it does feel like wishful thinking, I think there might be a point in this claim that Obama's performance at the first debate was a sham. He's an experienced speaker and he seemed intent on doing some very greenhorn mistakes, not looking at the camera, etc. I think you'd either have to think that Obama lost his mind (and all indications since is that he did not), or he did everything intentionally.
They's a whole passel of folks who didn't watch the 'debate', and won't turn in Thursday, neither. Bein' as there's also football, and the Bingo, and all.
Oh, and who is it agin, what's running this time? Another one of them Bush people?
Uh-oh. The veep debate will be competing with Jeff Dunham on Comedy Central and a new episode of Project Runway on Lifetime. Ain't no way the low-information voters will tune into the debate...
So, Romney needs another plan or another personality to come forward. He should try the Thurston Howell, and look down on President Obama like he was skipper. It's worth a shot. You know the one about the "He's a a nice fellow, or I like Big Bird but, he has to go." He degrades everybody, he can't help himself. He thinks he's a King. It's the same way he treats women, and a lot of his Republican friends are the same way. They look down on women, and God will have none of that. Noone sticks baby in the corner.
Weren't some badminton teams kicked out of the Olympics for attempting to throw a competition (debate) so they'd have better position in the following rounds (next debate)?