![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
How Romney won the debate
Oct. 4th, 2012 07:16 pmHe used an old creationist debating technique know as the "Gish Gallop". It cannot be countered so Obama couldn't have "won" the debate even if he had pushed back harder. It won't be as effective in a town hall format (which the second debate is) but look for Romney to "win" the last debate too.
Here is an explanation of what it is and how it works:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139926/-Romney-Won-Using-a-Debate-Technique-Called-the-Gish-Gallop
If I were Obama, in my opening statements of the next debate I'd ask the audience at home to google the term "Gish Gallop" to understand what Willard is really doing. There is no way to "win" a debate with a known liar who lies repeatedly and so often that you can't keep up and correct it all. The best thing to do is to let people know exactly what is happening and encourage them to find out the truth for themselves.
Fortunately, that seems to be the tack Obama has taken. If there is any consolation for Democrats it's that because of the technique Romney just opened himself up for a slew of negative ads against him. The technique works best in forums that people see live and then go home and forget about a few hours later. ALL of Romney statements can be factchecked quickly and easily on the internet immediately following (and even during!) the debate even if the media refuses to do it. Jim Lehrer is worthless; firing him is the only thing I agree with Romney about.
Romney made two huge mistakes last night that haven't gotten too much play yet but will if the Obama campaign keeps hammering them on it: he said he wanted to get rid of Sesame Street and PBS and actually admitted to wanting to turn Medicare into a voucher system (he tried to say that last one in a more positive way but he can't back out of that statement now).
And Romney needed to do two things: show America that he was likable and win over women voters. He did neither. His bullying the moderator may have made him "win" and had teabaggers cheering but nobody actually LIKES him more for it. As for women, aside from losing the "Mom" vote by threatening to put ads on Sesame Street he came across as the Alpha Male bully who always interrupts you and talks down to you. I'm not a woman but I'm pretty sure they don't like that.
In other words, I'm still not worried about this election. If winning debates really mattered we'd currently be enjoying the second term of John Kerry.
Here is an explanation of what it is and how it works:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139926/-Romney-Won-Using-a-Debate-Technique-Called-the-Gish-Gallop
If I were Obama, in my opening statements of the next debate I'd ask the audience at home to google the term "Gish Gallop" to understand what Willard is really doing. There is no way to "win" a debate with a known liar who lies repeatedly and so often that you can't keep up and correct it all. The best thing to do is to let people know exactly what is happening and encourage them to find out the truth for themselves.
Fortunately, that seems to be the tack Obama has taken. If there is any consolation for Democrats it's that because of the technique Romney just opened himself up for a slew of negative ads against him. The technique works best in forums that people see live and then go home and forget about a few hours later. ALL of Romney statements can be factchecked quickly and easily on the internet immediately following (and even during!) the debate even if the media refuses to do it. Jim Lehrer is worthless; firing him is the only thing I agree with Romney about.
Romney made two huge mistakes last night that haven't gotten too much play yet but will if the Obama campaign keeps hammering them on it: he said he wanted to get rid of Sesame Street and PBS and actually admitted to wanting to turn Medicare into a voucher system (he tried to say that last one in a more positive way but he can't back out of that statement now).
And Romney needed to do two things: show America that he was likable and win over women voters. He did neither. His bullying the moderator may have made him "win" and had teabaggers cheering but nobody actually LIKES him more for it. As for women, aside from losing the "Mom" vote by threatening to put ads on Sesame Street he came across as the Alpha Male bully who always interrupts you and talks down to you. I'm not a woman but I'm pretty sure they don't like that.
In other words, I'm still not worried about this election. If winning debates really mattered we'd currently be enjoying the second term of John Kerry.
