Analysis: Obama Wins On Points Romney May Have Done More Damage

Arutz Sheva ^ | 17/10/12 | Dr. Amiel Ungar

[Eleutheria5]

This time, as opposed to the first debate which I read hours later, I did masochistically stay up until the middle of the night Israel time for the debate, and it helped me get to synagogue services on time.

If I was scoring this as a debate or a fencing match in terms of who got in more hits, the debate was a victory for President Barack Obama. In terms of inflicting more damage, I am not certain who the victor was.

Barack Obama was interested in reinforcing the major thrust of his campaign - that Romney, as a member of the privileged rich, is uncaring about the average American, and he got this point across in various ways.

Romney's strategy reminded me of the techniques that Arthur Finkelstein employed in the 1996 campaign of Binyamin Netanyahu against Shimon Peres. I was obviously for Netanyahu, but night after night, we would get the same ad of the glass breaking, revealing Peres marching hand-in-hand with Yasser Arafat.

I got tired of that commercial and the entire tenor of the campaign and wanted to see Netanyahu attack on a range of points. Like any political partisan, I felt that I could see better and beyond than the inept campaign.

I now recognize this technique when I hear commercials on the radio, when the same advertiser is back with the same message a few minutes later in a somewhat abbreviated commercial.

By the end of the 1996 campaign, Netanyahu had made up a huge deficit and was narrowly elected Prime Minister.

What Romney basically did was to stress the points that he feels will turn this election, and he did so again and again: The state of the economy as compared to Barack Obama's campaign promises in 2008...

.....

[Thebaddog]

In 08 Obama used the mantra, Windsolargeothermal, as one word for more times than it had meaning. It never got challenged and he won without any vetting whatsoever.

[muawiyah]

I could hear Romney's mental giggle when Obamugabe said he made a rosegarden speech the next day where he said the attack in Libya was terrorist in nature.

EVERYBODY KNEW IT WAS A LIE.

The problem here is everybody who paid any attention at all to current affairs over the last month remembered it differently ~ and Obamugabe made himself seem to be unbalanced by doing it.

[gov_bean_ counter]

If by winning on points Ungar means making up crap faster than the opponent can rebut, then perhaps yes.

Points on fact? Not so much.

[Gaffer]

Americans, I think, finally realize that the man up on that stage trying to best Romney was not a President.

A president has a record of accomplishment - or failure. Obama could not act as President in the capacity of substantively citing anything he’s done, because he’s failed on every count. Accurate recitation of his factual record is bleak, grim and miserable.

The BS “I’m the President and she works for me” crap aside, the only things he had to say were tear downs of Romney’s plans (as his handlers see it).

His own plans? Meaningless tripe he’s drug up and rehashed from his 2008 campaign. Ultimately, drastically less substantive than anything in Romeny’s plans.

So, who was up on that stage with Romney? Just another slick talking empty suit CANDIDATE with no substance...nope, NOTHING Presidential there

[RochesterNYconservative]

If Obama said it was an act of terrorism from the beginning, why did he and Hillary spend $70,000 on an “apology” video to Muslims, and had an American citizen arrested for this video? Then sending Jay Carney, Susan Rice, and Hillary to lie for him. I just wish Romney mentioned the 70K apology video and asked when the American people are going to be reimbursed for it.

[ilgipper]

This narrative ‘won on points’ is so demonstratively incorrect, I hate it when people try to use it. Obama didn’t even show up in the first debate. This time, he showed a pulse and tried to go on the offensive. He failed, but simply by beating expectations from the first debate, he somehow ‘won on points’. I think he helped with his base be showing he cares about winning. On substance, he was not good, and points are scored with substance and winning debate points, he did not do that too many times last night.

[snarkytart]

This narrative ‘won on points’ is so demonstratively incorrect, I hate it when people try to use it. Obama didn’t even show up in the first debate. This time, he showed a pulse and tried to go on the offensive. He failed, but simply by beating expectations from the first debate, he somehow ‘won on points’. I think he helped with his base be showing he cares about winning. On substance, he was not good, and points are scored with substance and winning debate points, he did not do that too many times last night.


This is great post! So very true and I'm tired of the "won on points" nonsense.

[meyer]

I’m just not seeing Obama winning on points or on any measure. Nearly every accusation he muttered was a lie. He reiterated his most recent talking points over and over again, just like the first debate, but more forcefully and in a higher-pitched voice.

He was the intellectual weakling attempting to look strong. And it showed.

Romney took it to him and defeated him soundly. I rewarded him with a final campaign donation.

[RayChuang88]

Here's the thing that will hurt Obama in a few days:

1. The whole debacle in Libya is now back on the front page news again--and you know how fast the Obama people want to get that out of the way, given that four Americans--including the ambassador--are dead.

2. Bringing up the whole ugly debacle of Fast and Furious means the news of those illegal gun sales that may have caused hundreds--if not thousands--of deaths in Mexico from armed drug gangs (not to mention the death of at least one US Border Patrol agent) is another thing the Obama people want to get away from really fast.

The final debate--on foreign policy--will be interesting on how we deal with China, especially with China deliberately suppressing the value of the Chinese yuan to get an advantage on trade. And we may see some debate on how Europe's continuing sovereign debt issues will affect trade between the US and Europe. And how increasing Islamic militancy could end up affect a huge fraction of the world's oil supply and its enormous economic implications.

[fortheDeclaration]

Well said.

[apillar]

In the first debate we had “Sleepy Obama” in this one we had “Grumpy Obama”. So which one of the seven dwarves will he be in the final debate, Bashful? Dopey? Happy? Sneezy?

[pburgh01]

I predicted this yesterday, the media claiming a pyrrhic victory for Magic Negroid..not that I am some swami. I had a 5 point prediction on what would happen up to election day. Now kiddies get ready, really get ready. Watch the polls magically swing back to Obama the next 2.5 weeks. Be ready for it. They want to dispirit you. Like an abusive husband who comes home, brings flowers and makes love to his abused wife, the MSM will tell you , “Well America our God Obama heard you and he will do better the next four years, oh boy did he hear you, and he still loves you even though you are petulant.”

[chris37]

Obama did win on points, Obama is a damn liar.

[linn37]

No mention yet of how Romney clobbered Obama on the energy issue? For me that was one of the highlights.

[from occupied ga]

I think, finally realize that the man up on that stage trying to best Romney was not a President

Some americans - maybe. But the truth is as Romney stated, that 47% of the country is on the dole in one form or another, and by far the bulk of the 47% will vote for whoever promises them the most loot from the rest of us. H. L. Mencken said:

The state, or, to make matters more concrete, the government, consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting "A" to satisfy "B". In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods.

The 47% see this as a good thing. They are used to receiving and indeed feel strongly that they're entitled to the "stolen goods" provided by the rest of us via the armed robbers of government. Or to put it another way, if you rob Peter to pay Paul, then you can count on the unconditional support of Paul.

[Daffynition]

[vekzen]

What points did Obama win:

He lied about Libya. He lied about drilling permits. He got pummelled on the economy. He stuttered and stammered. Romney came out unscathed despite facing a biased moderator and biased questions. Romney won. O and the media lost.

[9YearLurker]

Romney should have nailed and explained the basis for the lie that Obama and his admin/campaign have been using all week by referencing the specifics of that one sentence. Instead, he went with a question and doubt that was a big hanging softball for Candy.

Also, as whenever the auto companies come up, Romney gets into his ‘yes, I advocated bankruptcy but that’s what you ended up doing yourself—and it was the right thing to do’ mode. That ends up leaving Romney endorsing and praising what Obama did. Absolutely incredible.

Romney ought to tie the fact that Obama took the companies through bankruptcy with that he violated contract law and used crony-capitalism powers to coerce bondholders to give up their standing and to give a great big sweetheart deal to the unions, while also assuring that they didn’t take a necessary haircut through the bankruptcy process and therefore the companies are still not competitive. Oh, and in the meantime, he forced the closing of all those dealerships across the country that happened to be owned by conservatives.

This gives him an opening for all kinds of anti-leftist and anti-corruption points. But no, he didn’t do that at all.

Finally, in another example, we’ve got the energy discussion and A123, one of Obama’s biggest pet/donor ‘green energy’ companies, having filed for bankruptcy this week—taking down all of the borrowed money from China that Obama gave them with it. But Romney didn’t raise this issue or link this point at all.

Why not?

[9YearLurker]

Yep. They even swung some of their +Many Democrat polls to +Many GOPer polls to exaggerate the swing. Get ready for the whiplash recovery to Obama-biased results.