Skip to main content

Presidential debate prediction

I'm two for two thus far in my debate predictions. Due to the success the Romney team had at lowering expectations for the first debate, along with the fact that history has repeatedly told us that the challenger typically "wins" the first debate over the incumbent president, I felt that in the public's eyes, Romney would be seen as the ultimate victor at the debate two Wednesday's ago. With polls showcasing that Romney running mate Paul Ryan was favored to get the better of Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate and that he was likely asked not to spoil the momentum by being overly aggressive and potentially saying something that could backfire - likely being told to play things rather conservatively, I gave the edge to Biden in last Thursday night's Vice Presidential debate. While I personally feel the first presidential debate was a draw, polls show that the public largely feels Romney won said debate and that Biden was the victor last week.

That brings us to tomorrow's debate - the second of three between President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney. I give the president the advantage for a couple reasons. Notice the differences in format in the first two debates. In the first presidential debate, moderator Jim Lehrer asked extremely general questions. The Romney campaign has been more vague than horoscopes, so this played to Romney's advantage. In the second debate, moderator Martha Raddatz asked much more specific answers. This played right into the hands of the Obama/Biden team. With tomorrow night's debate being in a town hall, where people will ask the two candidates questions, I think this format favors President Obama. The guy was a community organizer and regardless of how angry far-left liberals have been at him for continually trying to reach out to Republicans, he has repeatedly done so. The guy likes confrontation about as much as Mitt Romney likes specifics. So, given the fact that this debate won't call on the president to be extremely aggressive and that it will be more about talking to actual people about his accomplishments and plans as opposed to just tearing down his opponent, I think this style of debate suits him far better than the first one did. On the other side of the aisle - Mitt Romney, unlike at the first debate when he interrupted Jim Lehrer more times than a newborn cries, he'll be unable to interrupt the people asking him questions without coming across as an even bigger jerk. The left can spin Romney interrupting moderator Jim Lehrer as much as they'd like and the right can spin Joe Biden interrupting Paul Ryan as much as they'd like, but if Romney were to continually interrupt average, everyday people asking him questions, there'd be absolutely no way the right could spin their way out of that. The second reason I give President Obama the advantage tomorrow is once again, due to the expectations. While expectations were much higher for the president than Mitt Romney in their first debate, that won't be the case tomorrow night. According to a CBS snap poll, 46% of undecided voters felt that Romney won the debate, while only 22% felt Obama did. Many Democrats and Independents were disappointed with the president's performance, while many Republicans and Libertarians were almost giddy with Romney's. Chances are that, in light of the candidates' performances at the first debate, Mitt Romney will likely be seen as a slight favorite heading into tomorrow night or at the very least, have even odds of winning the debate. As it's done in the first two debates, that will likely make a difference in how the public perceives how the two candidates performed.

Due to the format, I don't believe that Mitt Romney will hurt himself a great deal and that at debate's end, both parties will come forward and declare that their candidate won (or perhaps draw in the Republicans' case). In snap polls, however, I believe that Obama will wind up being declared the winner - not by too significant a margin, but by 3-9%. That result likely wouldn't shift the race all too dramatically, but would place a complete halt to the Romney momentum, raise Democrats enthusiasm once again and potentially win over some swing voters.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"