New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

I was right.

It definitely wasn't the "big Romney win" it was spun as. Or else the other debates were disasters for Mitt that went un-noticed.

Easy bet that if you go back and read Dick Morris or Karl Rove's "analysis" of the first debate?....the OPPOSITE is what the truth is. :)
 
The "scoring" of that first debate, was bizarre. The traditional way that one would've been "scored" is that the Fox/red media would've called it a big win for Mitt. The blue media would've called it a win - perhaps just a narrow one - for Obama, and the MSM as is the MSM's wont these days, would've whimpered it a "tie".

This time though...Fox and the MSM didn't know what to say until the blue media called it a HUGE! loss for Obama. Then..Fox and the MSM were more then willing to run with that angle. Funny thing is....even Fox never made much of an effort at pimping a Mitt win. They focused almost entirely on the angle that Obama lost.
 
You mean the general election 1 month and two debates after the first one? How does that tie directly back to declaring Obama the winner of that first debate? Isn't it possible to lose a debate (whatever that means) and still win the election?

I am not seeing the evidence to back up the claim in the top post.
 
Didja click on the first link in my top-post? Presidents are elected in the Electoral College. Doesn't matter what national polls or the profeesional commentariat say after a debate. Willard had problems with specific demographics in specific states before the debates. He didn't fix those problems in any of the debates. 11/6 proved it.
 
yep, me too.

It was a clear win on substance, just disappointing on the bloodletting end of things.

He made up for that in the latter two
 
Have you ever heard of the phrase, "Win the battle, lose the war"? Maybe that applies to Romney and the first debate.

The North won the civil war. Does that mean that they won all of the battles? Or, does it mean the northerners can now rewrite history to say so?
 
bdtex said:
I've heard of it. Imo,it does not apply to Romney and the first debate.
Click to expand...


And we know that because you said so.

All people have biases; all. Most of the posters on this site are so wrapped up in their biases that they lose all objectivity. Obama won, so their opinions are reinforced. In your case, you think it justifies your opinions of Obama and campaign history. For NCMusicman, it justifies his belief that Obama stole the election through fraud, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top