[goldstategop]

I agree - and when your opponent is more likeable than you are - negative campaigning reaches a point of diminishing returns.

Obama has not the given the country a reason why it should vote FOR him.

He missed three opportunities to give it that reason. And right now Mittens can play it safe and run out the clock.

[nathanbedford]

Halfway through the debate when it became abundantly clear what Obama was doing, it occurred to me that Romney is protecting a lead. That means that Romney does not think he is one or two points behind in Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, it means that Romney's internal polling is telling him that he is ahead. One does not play it safe if one is behind or if one is tied. Tied is not enough too coast with because it is too risky when one faces the power of the president's incumbency.

Romney's internal polling gave him the confidence to debate the way he did. All Romney wanted to do was make tonight a non event. Only a winner passes up an opportunity. A winner says, why take the risk?

I have no doubt that Romney knows he is sitting on a bankable lead at least in Ohio and probably as a backup in Wisconsin and Iowa and he gets over-the-top either way because he has already sewn up Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado.

If these assumptions about the subsidiary states Florida North Carolina Virginia New Hampshire and Colorado are true, Obama is not in a position to stop Romney with just one state because Romney has 261 electoral college votes, he must run the board. He must win Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and one of either Nevada or Iowa. Considered in this light, Obama's task is daunting indeed, especially for someone who is feet are stuck in tar and cannot get above 47%.

Consider in the light of geography, Romney's strategy is more than reasonable.