The loser mentality

[old timey villain]

As much as it pains me to say this, the Red avatars on this forum could take a few tips from some of our more pro Romney posters.

Romney has been the underdog for basically the entire campaign, but they didn't give up hope that their guy could back from behind. Well now he has done that, and it may be fleeting, but I've learned a lot about the psyche of some of the Democrats on this forum because of it.

A lot of you, not all but a lot, seem to have given up. You've rolled over and decided that Mitt has this in the bag and it's too late to change anything. Ignoring the other fundamentals that still prove Obama is the favorite.

So are liberals just more inclined to feel like losers, because we lose all the time? And do liberals lose all the time because we don't stand our ground when the going gets tough? Frankly I'm disappointed in the Democrat hysteria that has permeated this forum since the debate. As someone else has said many times, Calm Down!

[JFK-Democrat]

Actually Obama didn't really lose the debate that bad, but once the liberal chattering class started to voice feelings they should have kept private then the flood gates opened. If they had pushed back about all the lies Romney told the outcome would've been different.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

To steal a line from E.J. Dionne "when Conservatives get bad polls, they want to kill you... when liberals get bad polling, they want to kill themselves"

It's probably the closest thing that encapsulates my irritation with the Obama supporters since the debate... and it could be what brings the president down. As has been explained in polling-related articles for most of the week... Romney got an immediate burst of support after the debate, but MOST of that was from wavering conservatives coming home, but the reason why the polls have shifted (in some cases dramatically) since Wednesday night is because the GOP enthusiasm went up, Democratic enthusiasm dropped and because of that they aren't being engaged under many LV screens.

There's a reason why the RV and approval numbers for the president are at least OK...

So as I wrote before, Democrats have to stop thinking they've lost because someone we don't like politically is leading in polls... so what? There's 4 weeks to go and the dynamic is very fluid and could shift back. So pull heads out of arses, realise how important this is and that it's worth fighting for.

[cinyc]

Actually Obama didn't really lose the debate that bad, but once the liberal chattering class started to voice feelings they should have kept private then the flood gates opened. If they had pushed back about all the lies Romney told the outcome would've been different.

The highest percentage of CNN snap poll respondents ever thought Obama lost the debate on debate night - before the spin.  Frank Luntz' focus group almost unanimously gave the debate to Romney - before the spin.  And the highest percentage of Gallup respondents ever thought Romney won the debate 72-20 - a 52-point gap that was even higher than the 42-point gap between those who thought Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush won the town hall debate in 1992.  Yet Obama didn't lose the debate that bad.  Sure.  If only the liberal chattering class had denied what most Americans saw with their own eyes and ears!

[Ogre Mage]

For the record, I still think Obama will win and the meltdown many Democrats are having now is embarrassing.  I seem to recall a similar panic in Sept. of 2008 when it appeared McCain had taken the lead.

For some historical context, Obama is far from the first incumbent President to fall flat in his first reelection debate.  In 1976 Ford uttered the mega-gaffe "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe."  Reagan also bombed out in 1984, so much so that afterward there were questions about senility.  Carter was reportedly a mess in 1980 and Bush II laid an egg against John Kerry in 2004.  

[Ty440]

There is  reason Obama is still a heavy favorite on betfair, Intrade and all the offshore online betting sites, when you see Obama dip below 50% on some or most of those sites THEN  you panic.

As it is Obama is still the odds on favorite to win ,remember Gingrich soaring over  Romney twice in the polls during the primaries?

[LastVoter]

Biden will dispell these fears.

[President von Cat]

Yeah, I refuse to panic right now. Blue avatars should feel free to gloat; you deserve it after having to deal with the downs and downs of the past three months. But I think that blue avatars, despite the momentum shift, recognize that they would rather be in Obama's shoes than in Romney's right now.

Obama's got a 53% approval on Gallup, and an average October rating of ~50% - a bullish sign.

The arc of the unemployment rate now largely resembles the one of Ronald Reagan's first term, in that it peaked in the 10% range and fell down into the 7s by election day.

There was virtually no way Obama was going to win the first debate. Even if he brought his A game, Romney still would have performed as well as he did, and challengers usually win by standing toe to toe with the incumbent. Romney will never be better prepared than he was for the first debate, and even if he is great again it will only be "par for the course" - and already baked into the media narrative. By contrast, Obama has much to gain by showing up guns blazing for debate two, because we all know that the media will now jump to the "back from the dead" narrative in order to make the race more interesting.

[J. J.]

Well, I've been one of the people telling everyone to calm down.

Look, it was very good performance for Romney and a disaster for Obama, and it probably gave Romney a boost, but that alone didn't totally destroy Obama.

That was the Battle of Yavin.  Luke Romney destroyed the Death Star, but Darth Obama escaped.

[President von Cat]

No, that was the equivalent of Romney stealing the plans to the Death Star. (nerd)

[Antonio the Sixth]

As much as it pains me to say this, the Red avatars on this forum could take a few tips from some of our more pro Romney posters.

Romney has been the underdog for basically the entire campaign, but they didn't give up hope that their guy could back from behind. Well now he has done that, and it may be fleeting, but I've learned a lot about the psyche of some of the Democrats on this forum because of it.

A lot of you, not all but a lot, seem to have given up. You've rolled over and decided that Mitt has this in the bag and it's too late to change anything. Ignoring the other fundamentals that still prove Obama is the favorite.

So are liberals just more inclined to feel like losers, because we lose all the time? And do liberals lose all the time because we don't stand our ground when the going gets tough? Frankly I'm disappointed in the Democrat hysteria that has permeated this forum since the debate. As someone else has said many times, Calm Down!

The reason we are better than Romneyites is precisely because we are realistic. OK, a few of us completely freaked out, but most of us are just genuinely worried because the facts point in that direction.

[J. J.]

No, that was the equivalent of Romney stealing the plans to the Death Star. (nerd)

No, it stopped and reversed a trend.  Endor is still a few weeks away.

[後援会]

So are liberals just more inclined to feel like losers, because we lose all the time?

Are we talking about politics or personal lives here? Because I would at least disagree with the former.

[Beet]

So are liberals just more inclined to feel like losers, because we lose all the time?

Are we talking about politics or personal lives here? Because I would at least disagree with the former.

Are you serious? The last Republican President, Bush had nearly five solid years of a friendly Congress, world stability and personal popularity, where the only major disaster, from a political standpoint gave him a huge boost. The last Democratic President to have that was FDR. Kennedy-Johnson if you count 2 in 1. In my lifetime, I've never felt there was a time when things were 'going our way' that wasn't overshadowed by overwhelming worry (such as with the economy in early 2009).

[後援会]

Are you serious? The last Republican President, Bush had nearly five solid years of a friendly Congress, world stability and personal popularity, where the only major disaster, from a political standpoint gave him a huge boost. The last Democratic President to have that was FDR. Kennedy-Johnson if you count 2 in 1. In my lifetime, I've never felt there was a time when things were 'going our way' that wasn't overshadowed by overwhelming worry (such as with the economy in early 2009).

I'm flabbergasted by this. I honestly am. Your justification that Bush was some horrible apocalypse for leftists is that...he was personally popular, Congress liked him for five years, and 9/11 didn't  him as much it could have. That's absolutely ridiculous. GWB had no great right-wing policy triumphs. The Bush Tax cuts are moribund. NCLB is going to get canned. MMA is probably doomed. And none of these were even particularly right-wing (except the former). At least Obama will leave behind...Obamacare.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

W, in hindsight, was nothing compared to what was offered up by the GOP this year... mind you considering the degree to which you worry Beet?

[opebo]

In their bones everybody knows the president's first win was an amazingly unlikely event.  Look people, you all live in america, don't you know your home at all?

[Brittain33]

The highest percentage of CNN snap poll respondents ever thought Obama lost the debate on debate night - before the spin.  Frank Luntz' focus group almost unanimously gave the debate to Romney - before the spin.  And the highest percentage of Gallup respondents ever thought Romney won the debate 72-20 - a 52-point gap that was even higher than the 42-point gap between those who thought Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush won the town hall debate in 1992.  Yet Obama didn't lose the debate that bad.  Sure.  If only the liberal chattering class had denied what most Americans saw with their own eyes and ears!

cinyc, there's a difference between Romney being more successful in the debate and Obama bombing it so badly he should lose election. Romney was energetic and credible, which he needed. Obama phoned it in, which meant Romney had the chance to prove himself, but he didn't actually do badly or say anything harmful to his campaign.

It was a missed opportunity for him to prevent Romney from seizing the opportunity. Which made the race competitive. But didn't mean that Obama himself disqualified himself for the presidency like Bush did in debate 1 or Ford did in his debate. The gap between "he didn't bring his A game" and "OMG, Obama is a disaster, run for the hills" is what we're talking about here and is perfectly consistent with everyone recognizing Romney did better in the debate.

[Insula Dei]

Are you serious? The last Republican President, Bush had nearly five solid years of a friendly Congress, world stability and personal popularity, where the only major disaster, from a political standpoint gave him a huge boost. The last Democratic President to have that was FDR. Kennedy-Johnson if you count 2 in 1. In my lifetime, I've never felt there was a time when things were 'going our way' that wasn't overshadowed by overwhelming worry (such as with the economy in early 2009).

I'm flabbergasted by this. I honestly am. Your justification that Bush was some horrible apocalypse for leftists is that...he was personally popular, Congress liked him for five years, and 9/11 didn't  him as much it could have. That's absolutely ridiculous. GWB had no great right-wing policy triumphs. The Bush Tax cuts are moribund. NCLB is going to get canned. MMA is probably doomed. And none of these were even particularly right-wing (except the former). At least Obama will leave behind...Obamacare.

No, your reading comprehension sucks, Beet is saying that no Democratic president in his lifetime has had such an easy ride as W. got, at least between 2000 and 2005. He connects this with the idea that liberals somehow 'always lose', but then Beet has always liked looking at the world in the worst possible light.

[Beet]

Ugh. "who loses more" on a thread entitled as it is, is not something I want to debate. I will just say this.

ACA is a Republican idea, from the 1990's, as has been brought up many times. Left-wingers such as George H.W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, Chris Bond, and at least 16 former GOP Senators supported the individual mandate prior to Obama embracing it. Obama was a latecomer to the game. He didn't start supporting it until 2009. The Republicans made it look a lot less bipartisan than it was because they stubbornly refused to support it on partisan grounds. But as recently as 2009, Romney wrote an op-Ed advocating pretty much the same plan. He says his Massachusetts plan is different from ACA, but he's wrong. He says Romneycare didn't raise taxes, and didn't take from Medicare ("well we didn't have Medicare in Massachusetts, har, har, har"). But Romneycare's funding came from Medicare. It came from getting the federal government to increase Medicare payments to Massachusetts. So yes, it did come from Medicare, and it was funded through federal taxes.

[Sbane]

In their bones everybody knows the president's first win was an amazingly unlikely event.  Look people, you all live in america, don't you know your home at all?

You don't live in America though....

I think your "analysis" is only valid in Ohio and maybe Florida of the swing states. If Obama loses in VA, CO, NH or WI, there are going to be other factors at play. The biggest being the deficit, the economy and the feeling Obama has nothing new to offer. The third I think could be the deciding factor if Obama doesn't show up in the debates.