"Never interrupt your opponent when he is setting himself on fire"

[cliffordu]

The Obama debate strategy, from what I can glean.

Perfect. All the panick peeps ought to remember what he did to the Clinton machine in 2008.... Just by being his quiet nerdy self.

[lonestarnot]

1. K & R!

[BumRushDaShow]

2. I keep saying this

It's an old strategy of stepping aside and allowing the opponent to use his own momentum to hurl himself into a wall or expose himself in a vulnerable spot.

[flamingdem]

9. Aikido, no? nt

[lame54]

60. Except it didn't work in this case

[1-Old-Man]

3. That's a poor excuse for not coming out swinging.

Obama's best defense against Mitts lies was not to assume the audience would figure it out later.

[shraby]

5. google the Gish Gallop and that will answer your problem

[Mopar151]

6. Please see my thread on the "Clampett Defense"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021482427

[rhett o rick]

7. "Never wrestle with a pig in mud, the pig will love it and you will only get muddy."

If the audience is so stupid not to see thru Romeny's bullshit, the game is lost anyway.

[Ilsa]

20. Yeah, there are plenty of stupid ones

hopping on to the RMoney express now.

I was at a county fair and observed a lot of idiots carrying around (juggling with popcorn and candied apples) RR yard signs. If they had half a brain, they would have picked them up from the tent on the way Out of the fair.

[MADem]

53. They were always there--just too ashamed of the Mittwit to mention it.

He doesn't have any new supporters, they are just more vocal.

[robinlynne]

23. In reality, the GOP only has to get close. They count the votes in our country. they

don't need to actually win. They just need to get close or appear to get close. as in 2000, 2004.
We would need a huge lead, which is what we had. You need to factor in a lot of election fraud.

[rhett o rick]

28. Dont you have Democratic monitors for the vote counting? nm

[robinlynne]

29. 80% of US votes are counted by computer. noone can see the vote counting. The software

is privately owned by right wing corporations.

Monitors are great, but not for vote counting by machine. I've monitored. We stand behind glass, several feet away while cards are scanned by a computer. Besides county workers, the only people allowed in the room are Diebold employees.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. What State are you in? Each State runs it's own elections.

Not all States use the equipment yours uses, nor uses the methodolgy your State employs. Specifics matter very, very much.

[robinlynne]

50. Yes. That is true. And 80% of Amreican votes are counted by computers. my state uses paper ballots,

BUT they are scanned by optiscan machines owned by ES&S, formerly Diebold. I have seen the entire process, up close and personal. The only people allowed in the room with the computers are county employees, who should be there,...and several Diebold technnicians. My state is California. People are just not aware of the growing electronic privatized voting in our country.

Instead of the OCunty owned software or state owned software everything was privatized under Bush. Obama did nothing to change the scenario. bush appointees are still sitting in charge of our federal election regulation. google EAC. 2 empty commissioner seats, and 2 Bush appoiitees, republicans. Then google th4e FEC. no commissioners at all.

Dems ignore this reality and say get out the vote. This is not how democracy works. Each person gets one vote, and the votes need to be counted IN PUBLIC with citizen oversight.

[pasto76]

12. I had the thought then, and many have echoed it since then, Obama was stunned by Mitts bullshit

you cant have a debate against fantasy. He was ready to win a debate. Not a "zinger" contest. Stay tuned for #2 and #3, it's going to go very poorly for mitt. Even if he gets more bizarre and "wins" one or both, he will pay for it the day after, like he did this week.

[Sugarcoated]

18. Exactly.

It's why it's impossible to "debate" with just about any partisan Republican. In order for there to be an actual debate, it has to start from the same reality. Throw in the speed lying technique, and strategy changes. And it will.

[cliffordu]

41. Your argument was used against Obama in 2008

by plenty of folks.

The results speak for themselves.

[CJCRANE]

4. I call the panick peeps

"demoralizers".

Some do it deliberately, others just get caught up in the emotion.

[Doremus]

11. Demoralizers is putting it mildly. I logged on here during the debate to

find out how he was doing and some of the thread titles were atrocious.

WORST DEBATE PERFORMANCE EVER!!!!
We are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO going to lose!!!!
WHAT THE HELL IS HE DOING? MITT IS CLEANING HIS CLOCK!!!!
(paraphrased)

People don't stop and think before they post.

[Indpndnt]

27. Nailed it.

[flamingdem]

8. - Or "D" is for Douchebag

Brought to you by the Letter D!



No matter how subdued the POTUS seems his brain is doing the right thing.
Now many people have seen the douchiness of Romney in high relief

[OldDem2012]

10. It's also a time-honored military strategy that allows your opponent...

...to wear himself out on your defenses before you launch a devastating counter-attack.

Good example: Stalingrad, 23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943.

[cali]

13. I don't get this delusional crap about the debate.

I mean really, you think the Obama team wanted the headlines to be all about Mitt's decisive win? You think the President wanted to come off as listless and passive? Really? His body language alone in the debate spoke volumes. And it wasn't about some sort of trap. Romney is getting a bounce in the polls from the debate. You think the President wanted that?

[Curtland1015]

14. Agreed. The "give him enough rope to hang himself" thing is a fair strategy...

...but it wasn't "brilliant" and Obama certainly didn't pull it off perfectly.

He stammered, his points meandered, he sounded like he was on the defensive pretty much the whole time.

I don't think it was a disaster, and I'm sure we can gain some good spin out of it. But to say it was some master stroke is a little... odd.

In my opinion.

[bigtree]

15. rass and that clarion poll? that's hardly evidence of a bounce

gallup tracking shows a shift in support and a slight drop within the margin of error.

Until folks belittling people for defending the president's performance against the prevaricating asshole --like you -- show some actual harm done, the hypercriticism is your own delusion. Pointing to biased and obscure individual polls is just dishonest, misleading, and desperate (I guess to cover for your baseless hyperventilating)

[cali]

17. Gallup. And I suggest waiting until the middle of the week to see just how much of

a bounce mitt gets. There's no doubt that he has gotten bounce.

[bigtree]

21. yet, it's irrelevant

the challenger has a tradition of a slight bounce in the first debate; all sorts of reasons for that.

Moreover, this campaign is about more than one debate. The positive news today and yesterday will likely erase any negative effects from the debate.

This ongoing grousing about the debate (and belittling folks who don't feel the performance was as bad as reported) just looks like ass-covering by critics for going off half-cocked. It's just an inane and self-defeating exercise, right from the start of the hand-winging.

[treestar]

22. Now you're invested in the polls going against the President

Why do Democrats work so hard not to win?

And defend the Rs for their sleazy tactics and domineering in bad ways? Because that's what you end up doing. Valuing Mittwit's sleazy lying performance, that showy type of tactic, is what you end up doing and telling us you admire.

[lunatica]

16. Obama knew exactly what he was doing

He's always been willing to be criticized for something initially. He knew before we did that Romney was on a steamroll of lies and that to try to call him on it would be less than useless. This isn't the first time he's said nothing at first only to come back later and land the killing blow.

Remember how he never said anything in response to Trump's constant birther crap? Then remember how he shredded Trump at the Correspondents dinner using the birther crap?

Stay tuned. Obama is going to shred Mitt.

[Kalidurga]

19. I don't care if it was a deliberate strategy or not. It is playing out as if it was...

Just like I believe Clint Eastwood was punking the GOP, but it doesn't matter if he was or not, the effect was exactly the same as it would have been if he was. I happen to think it might be a little of both. No one could predict that Mitt was going to threaten to fire Big Bird. No one could predict 27 lies in 32 minutes, that was the best illustration of rapid fire lies anyone can show. I did expect Mitt to lie of course, my prediction was in the ball park of 10-15, he had to top Ryan's speech by a bit, but not by a lot I think it's some kind of competition. Anyway, I do think that something happened that day that got Obama super tired and he did look like he could have passed on the debate that night, he was meh. But, I do think they had a rope a dope strategy or death by a thousand cuts, or look Mitt doused himself with gas, should we give him a match?, strategy. In any case, the headlines the day after proclaiming Mitt a liar haven't gone unnoticed. Big Bird is taking Mitt on and the unemployment numbers, jobs numbers, and consumer confidence levels look good. I think Mitt lost the war.

[Glitterati]

24. Mitt lost the war before the debate

All the debate did was give him a dead cat bounce.

[BumRushDaShow]

30. Bingo!

If anyone thinks that after a 90 minute circus act of speed lying, bulldozing facts, and bullying the moderator, somehow there will be this giant swing in his direction, they are delusional. Despite his entreaties to his base (because he couldn't get it out to the rest of the public) that he was "sorry" for the 47% remark (and that was the last thing that they wanted to hear), people don't easily forget that he came out many times and doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on dismissing the "government leaches" before going on his "apology tour", and to this day, his running mate continues to repeat the same "WelfareFoodstampsLeachers" meme.

[porphyrian]

25. Is it bad form to light a cigarette off of a self-ignited opponent?

People always used to steal my lighter.

[mikeytherat]

39. Not at all - reduce, reuse, recycle!

Don't let that flame go to waste.

mikey_the_rat

[Whisp]

26. :)

tyvm (said in Andy Kaufman's voice)

[BumRushDaShow]

31. Here ya go!

http://free-loops.com/671-andy-kaufman.html

[doc03]

32. Oh come on his strategy was to stand there and get lectured by

his opponent and not defend himself. Romney even called him Boy and
a Liar right to his face in front of 50 million people and he said nothing. Did you catch that?

[cliffordu]

34. I caug what he did the the Clintons in 2008.

Same sort of tactics. Worked beautifully.

[graham4anything]

33. YUP! +a zillion

[bushisanidiot]

35. I agree!

He gave mitt more than enough rope to hang himself with
And mitt grabbed it p greedily as if it was the last cookie on the plate and a hungry 47% person was behind him in line

[cliffordu]

36. Kicking cause the panic peeps are still at it.

[GoneOffShore]

37. Need to kick harder.

And just discovered a new polling site.

Another aggregator - http://pollyvote.forecastingprinciples.com/

Buck up everyone.

[jsmirman]

38. When the success of your strategy is defining your opponent - allowing him to redefine himself

and to recast the election as a contest about defining you?

No. No. No.

All of our early dollars, all of the early success was built on defining Romney as an out-of-touch, heartless, clueless plutocrat.

We all said that was the great success of the pre-October 3rd campaign. There were threads and threads and threads about it.

To allow that strategy's impact to evaporate in a single night? That's not strategy. That's terrible.

I'm about moving on, but I'm definitely not about bullshitting ourselves about what happened in this recent past.

[cliffordu]

40. And I do think the media is making many of us

hysterical.

[jsmirman]

42. I am not

hysterical.

I've had my moments this last week of being distraught (I was enraged the night of the debate), but I am far from hysterical right now.

I'm the person who made a trader's call today that buying on intrade at 61% was, at minimum, an excellent short-term buy.

Only thing on that is that I don't know where the person got Obama trading at 61% from. He's above 62% right now, and I don't know how to get it to display the daily tracking chart.

I'd bet that he moves to 64-65% at some point between now and Thursday afternoon, for my money.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Nobody Has Been More Stalwart In The Defense Of The President And Putting The Best Spin On Things

But the president hurt himself in the debates. I didn't think he did that bad but I'm hopelessly biased. Anyway it doesn't matter what I think. It matters what a plurality or majority of voters think. He went into the debate a 4-1 favorite and came out a 3-2 favorite if you follow the betting sites. That's a huge shift.

[jsmirman]

44. He was

terrible.

It was a ridiculous performance.

But if he was a stock, you would say that "the fundamentals are still good" and if you were trading him, you would say that he was about to benefit from a short term correction to an overreaction - which it looks like has already started.

I used to do this for a living, and when I say for a living, I mean I crushed the shit out of the market for three straight years before I "retired."

This is the perspective I am looking at this stuff through.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. I'm Looking At Muhammad Ali's Rematches With Joe Frazier, Ken Norton And Leon Spinks For Inspiration

.

[cliffordu]

46. Was it during the Tech boom??

[jsmirman]

48. I did not trade bullshit internet companies - I traded options on real companies

with real products and real strong underlying fundamentals.

People got wealthy on a wish and a prayer - we killed it by being right. Again and again and again.

And I even called the market top and got out.

The only thing that period did for me was increase the movement of overreactions and reactions, and add to the pool of "stupid money" in the market, both of which were great for trading options.

[cliffordu]

49. So you speculated and got rich.

What did it do for anyone but you?

[jsmirman]

55. 1) I don't consider knowing what you are doing "speculation" and

2) where the hell do I claim anything different?

What is the purpose of your post?

Other than the fact it allowed me to spend the next ten years trying to help the world, and other than the fact that I rejected a successful Wall Street career because it did nothing for the world and nothing for my soul, nothing.

Other than the fact that it allows me to help Dem candidates, animals around the world, and has allowed me to help people in need, including some people right here on this forum (and I detest that you've made me reference that) - well, actually, it's done quite a bit for many people besides myself.

It's pretty much gone at this point, but it's virtually all been well spent.

Meanwhile, what is your problem?

I took the money of people who were trying to do what I was doing, but were doing it worse. And frankly, because I traded overreactions that I knew were contradicted by fundamentals that would reassert themselves in a timely manner, I was basically always long. So what on Earth is your point?

[cliffordu]

56. Nothing. There is no point to be made.

You took money from less sophisticated people. Rubes, in a carney sense. Maybe that's the point.

Something to be proud of, to be sure.

I also admire you rejecting a successful wall street career because it did nothing for your soul. Was this before or after you made enough to retire?

And I know you detest any reference to what earthly good trading stock or maybe food futures do for people, because all it really amounts to is betting on higher prices for the people who EAT the food.....

Middlemen shoving paper from point A to point B over and over again to reap a little out of the middle.

Just a taste, because all you were doing was taking "Stupid Money"

But I have no real point.

[jsmirman]

57. What is this vendetta, which includes things fabricated out of whole cloth?

Food futures? Are you kidding?

Everything I've said would lead one firmly away from the idea I traded *any* commodities and, indeed, the idea that I traded "food futures" (not really what they are called, but whatever) is absolutely ludicrous.

The middle? People shorting options (they were the other side of almost all my trades) are now some sort of "innocent middle"?

And all this to make an attack against someone who says the President's fundamentals are good?

What's your game here?

[jsmirman]

58. And I made less than minimum wage on Wall Street if my hours were calculated

I made money *after* working on Wall Street, and now I have to get back to work.

I quit Wall Street to be a writer, traded on my own account because I was interested in it and had acquired skills and knowledge during my time on Wall Street, traded very successfully for three years, and quit as I realized the market was about to get impossibly choppy, but more importantly, because I realized I was a trader, not a writer.

I was well set up to have a comfortable, if overworked existence at a Wall Street firm, but I left because the work was not satisfying.

But I don't know why I'm telling you this, because you just seem interested in being a jerk.

[cliffordu]

59. I'm interested in what

people who trade on wall street or at the commodities market actually do and what they believe they do.

And in reference to my 'food futures' comment - "Food": corn, soybeans, oil, hog bellies....

[Turbineguy]

51. And it's sibling rule:

"In a 'Who's a Bigger Asshole?' contest, always let the other person win!"

[budkin]

52. Yeah that worked out great. If he pulls that again it's over.

Seriously. People want someone who will fight.

[cliffordu]

54. Same thing everyone said about him in 2008 and

every single one of them were wrong.