Well, I sort of watched the debates: flipped back and forth between it and a couple of baseball games. And I've read a few reactions. Mine is that Romney did extremely well, in terms of optics. He was smooth; smoother than Obama. On the facts, nothing new was introduced, but Romney managed to make his spin more compelling. For example on "death panels." The term wasn't used, but he made effectiveness research sound like nothing more than government takeover, which it isn't. But Obama's explanation, if more accurate, wasn't delivered as well. Romney lied several times, clearly, about his tax plans, about Obamacare; but Obama let it all slide, basically.
So I give it to Romney; not on substance, but on style. And since substance doesn't seem to matter to the teabagger crowd, I'd say it was a net gain for Romney. I'd go so far as to say if the election were only about this debate, Obama loses.
[Image source]
I think the most effective and telling debate would have been between Romney and clips of his comments from the past 18 months.
ReplyDeleteObama wouldn't have needed to attend.
Jim - they could do the same thing with Obama.
ReplyDeleteCare to provide examples of Obama changing positions the way Romney did, SeaSpray?
ReplyDeleteHere's a starting point for the assignment, SS.
ReplyDelete