Skip to main content

View Diary: Reality and the post-debate responses (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Willard was constantly trying to (0+ / 0-)

    sell to the GOP base that he was going to win, when his own polling told him that he had an uphill climb in the electoral college.

    As the base became more confident of victory, he became more conflicted and I think that's what showed in debate 3.  He knew that although he had been combative and delivered his points fairly well on the economy in debate 2, he blew it on the actual questions that were asked and especially on Benghazi.  He was very uncomfortable after that debate.  At the Al Smith dinner, he was incredibly defensive and feisty in his jokes whereas Obama was supremely relaxed, self-deprecating and confident.  I knew right there that Romney was not going to have a good debate 3. I think what contributed to his downfall in debate 3 was that he simply didn't know his stuff and the aggressive Obama ate him for lunch. Romney didn't have a clear strategy for debate 3.  He was trying to make up for his over-aggressiveness in debate 2 with a softer demeanor and also present a Presidential approach (i.e., the prevent defense) to the audience.  It definitely worked with the pundits but bombed with the audience. He missed out on substance and got called out for it by the public.  After a decade of war, a majority of Americans value competence on national security.  Willard didn't demonstrate that, and Colin Powell drove the point home in his endorsement shortly thereafter (probably the best endorsement I've ever come across...until Chris Christie).

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:24:30 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site