Posted by inkdskn on 10/17/2012 1:51:00 AM (view original):
I don't see how anyone could think Romney 'won' that debate. In terms of issues/answers, all he ever really says is, "The economy's ******, I know how to create jobs, don't worry about the specifics of my tax/budget plan, I know how to balance budgets, I've done it before, trust me." That's his answer to seemingly every question. In terms of poise (which a lot of people use to determine these things), he seemed much more at odds with the moderator, and seemed increasingly frustrated when it was time for a new question when he still wanted to say more. He was fine when he had the floor, but seemed like a dick during many transitions to new questions/Obama's turn to speak.
It's not like he was terrible, but he seemed like a one trick pony (bad economy, I can fix it, trust me). Not many people are happy with the current economy, but it seems like his whole strategy is to say "the status quo sucks, trust me, I can fix it," which is retarded. Economies are not simple functions of simple variables that can be fixed immediately; if they were, a bad economy would never be an issue, since we'd know how to change it. He's asking the American people to blindly trust him, and never says much beyond that, which is a poor strategy, imo.
I'd bet my entire bank account he's not too thrilled about tonight's debate.
I addressed part of this a couple weeks ago.
His tax code fixes haven't been very specific because if you get too specific in a time when there are numerous elections nation wide, you FORCE candidates on either side to make a choice NOW, and run on those issues.
Then they can't negotiate openly at the bargaining table and find middle ground, they are already locked into their campaign promises which will ultimately be on one side or the other of any specifics that would be offered today.
There are plenty of areas we can cut deductions. MOST of them are targeted at the guys making 200K or more per year. But you go into negotiations with no preconceived barriers. He has demonstrated his ability to get things done when he was a Republican governor in a state where 80 something percent of the legislators were Dems. He managed to work with all of them and got a lot of good things done for the State he was running. How is that not important to the discussion?
He keeps hammering about his experience because that's what will help the economy. He pointed out tonight, that when Reagan inherited a higher unemployment rate (over 10%) he grew the jobs much faster than Obama has during these 4 years. He has balanced the MASS budget each of his 4 years, and turned around the SLC Olympics pretty quickly.
Again I think when you are reviewing applicants for a very important job, experience and past successes are important things to consider. At least they are to me.