Mitt is Bombing

[jackstar7]

Sadly, people often think the debates will determine the outcome, but even their value has been compromised.

Perhaps someone will moderate an informed and worthwhile debate, but I think it's giving too much credit to the media to actually expect it.

 

[cybrsage]

Sadly, people often think the debates will determine the outcome, but even their value has been compromised.

Perhaps someone will moderate an informed and worthwhile debate, but I think it's giving too much credit to the media to actually expect it.

I do believe you could be right. We will see this year. I am an optimist.

 

[OrByte]

imho the only thing that determines the outcome is the advertising

why do you think so much $$ is being spent in advertising?

imho debates/conventions are things to avoid if you are running for election, too many easy ways to screw up.

 

[Fern]

Sadly, people often think the debates will determine the outcome, but even their value has been compromised.

Perhaps someone will moderate an informed and worthwhile debate, but I think it's giving too much credit to the media to actually expect it.

I think debates have been key in many Presidential elections, even if for 'superficial' reasons.

- Although I was too young to watch it (if I was even alive then), many have said Nixon lost to Kennedy because he looked like shiz on camera compared to Kennedy, and he sweated like a pig from the heat under the klieg lights.

- I think Reagan won because of the debates, and a lot of that was from his quips and one-liners.

- I think Bush 43 beat Gore because of Gore's performance in the debates; he looked arrogant and dismissive of Bush and once walked over to Bush's podium looking as though he was trying to intimidate him. It really turned people off.

Fern

 

[Fern]

imho the only thing that determines the outcome is the advertising

why do you think so much $$ is being spent in advertising?
-snip-

Yes, advertising can be very important. Particularly so if one candidate is terribly underfunded. That can be fatal to their election chances.

OTOH, both of these guys have a ton of money, whether their own campaigns' or PACs. So I don't see either having an advantage, at some point people tune out the ads and the law of diminishing returns kicks in. (I suppose someone could run awful ads that turn people off. In such case the ads could be said to be determinative, but that's different than a lack of funding for sufficient ads.)

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

Yes, advertising can be very important. Particularly so if one candidate is terribly underfunded. That can be fatal to their election chances.

OTOH, both of these guys have a ton of money, whether their own campaigns' or PACs. So I don't see either having an advantage, at some point people tune out the ads and the law of diminishing returns kicks in. (I suppose someone could run awful ads that turn people off. In such case the ads could be said to be determinative, but that's different than a lack of funding for sufficient ads.)

Fern

That's my impression of what's happening here (Iowa). We've been so saturated for so long that people are just tuning out. About the only thing they're consistently accomplishing is increasing disgust with both parties.

 

[mshan]

Stephanie Cutter, recently on Morning Joe, said:

1) they thought turnout would be similar to 2008 (Nate Silver's take on potential 2008 turn-out scenarios: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/5780/) and they have already invested a lot in the GOTV ground game, particularly in states like Ohio where I think she said they have put in 4x advantage in ground game (Romney was presumably just counting on massive voter suppression), and

2) they will get outspent by alot ($500 million?) in fall campaign, but they have sufficient funds to implement the plan they had already put in place.

 

[jackstar7]

I think debates have been key in many Presidential elections, even if for 'superficial' reasons.

- Although I was too young to watch it (if I was even alive then), many have said Nixon lost to Kennedy because he looked like shiz on camera compared to Kennedy, and he sweated like a pig from the heat under the klieg lights.

- I think Reagan won because of the debates, and a lot of that was from his quips and one-liners.

- I think Bush 43 beat Gore because of Gore's performance in the debates; he looked arrogant and dismissive of Bush and once walked over to Bush's podium looking as though he was trying to intimidate him. It really turned people off.

Fern

Perfect examples of the uselessness of the debates. If they are just media showpieces and not an actual debate of ideology and policy, then they are the most pretentious reality programming, but nothing more.

We deserve better.

The media should provide it.

 

[K1052]

I'm not too familiar with Paul Ryan the politician, but I heard that one way he made his name was by keeping a high profile in the media and getting letter and opinion pieces published in WSJ and other conservative places.

Has he aquitted himself on the debate stage yet? It's one thing to thunder away at an absent opponent with a bunch of half truths in front of an adoring crowd, it's another to face a rhetorically experienced and debate tested VP like Biden. Yeah, Biden might throw a gaffe or two out there, might give them a sound bite, but if he wins the debate I don't know how much that will matter.

Ryan cites his House experience as qualification that he can take on Biden effectively. I'm not sure that it really equates all that well to live national debates but it's better than a lot of people who end up on that kind of stage.

I think their age disparity is fraught with danger for the Republicans if Ryan tries to handle Biden too roughly. He's pretty aggressive and it could come off all wrong to elderly voters.