On Wednesday, on the first contest of the 2012 Presidential Election, Romney won, Obama lost.
After the debate, 67% were with Romney, 25% with Obama. How and why the winner won the debate? There may be plentiful reasons, not only one. Let’s seek some of vital reasons:
- He handled the format: For better or worse, moderator Jim Lehrer mostly let the applicants sort out the controversy themselves, basically broaching wide subjects and enabling the applicants fight it out on their own conditions – with almost-endless rebuttals. This structure privileged Mitt Romney. His strategy went into the controversy with an attack attitude (as most applicants who are behind do), and by enabling all those rebuttals, Lehrer provided Mitt a chance to perform. He did. Obama was not as focused on fighting, which works less well when there is so much back-and-forth.
- Obama appeared frazzled: He did not have an Al-Gore-sighs time, but Obama was clearly not having local plumber on stage. His head was down when Romney was discussing, his reactions were stopping at times, he often nodded her head (as if displaying approval) or smirked when Mitt Romney was discussing, and he even admitted some factors to Mitt Romney on issues like lack reduction and not being a “perfect” president. None of these were by themselves huge minutes (as Gore’s sigh was), but the totality recommended an applicant who was not really comfortable. And he was not.
- The state policies of preemption: Mitt realized going into the controversy that he was going to be assaulted for increasing taxation on the middle-class (according to an oft-cited study) and favoring the rich, so what he did was preemptively guarantee that he would not increase taxation on the middle-class, duplicating that over and over and indicating that it’s Obama who would increase taxation on the middle-class. He also made a point to highlight the poor (think: “I’m not worried about the very poor”). By setting the conditions of the tax cut controversy, Mitt Romney balanced out the profits that Obama might have been able to make on a class issue that forms suggest Obama is successful.
- Obama did not get his big discussion factors in: If you would have informed us before the controversy that Obama would discuss the auto bailout and Osama bin Packed only once and would not discuss Bain Capital or Romney’s “47 percent” feedback at all, we would have informed you were insane. Yet that is exactly what occurred. Obama seemed susceptible with not interesting too much with his rival, but the controversy was all about interesting with one another, and Obama did not even sign-up the biggest strikes on Mitt Romney.
- The Hopes were low: There happens to be reason the strategies spend so a while decreasing aims for the debate; objectives matter. And forms revealed that, going into the controversy, the American public, by a large edge, expected Obama to win. With the bar relatively low for Romney, it was that much easier to clear. It is not to say Romney did not have a excellent controversy. He did. But applicants will always be evaluated on a bend, and Romney defeats the bend.
- Mitt Romney prevented a stumble: Romney’s strategy has been colored by the periodic gaffe which shows the applicant to be out of touch or simply uncomfortable. There were a couple questionable minutes on that depend (Big Fowl, anyone?), but the GOP nominee’s performance was mostly gaffe-free. Without a “47 percent” or “I’m not worried about the very poor” time, Mitt allowed for the post-debate research to focus on other things, which is what he needs. At this time Romania also immediately organized this routine event. Presidential election held in 2019 will be the determination of the fate of Romanian people in the next 10 years. Is this new president will provide Invatamant in every place, or also provide a uniform water supply throughout the region.
Romney’s growing Latino problem: Two new forms launched Wed revealed Obama taking at least 70 % of the Latino elect – strengthening an unpleasant pattern line for Conservatives.