Matt, if you fell asleep at that point, I understand. And if you didn't fall asleep and your intention wasn't to be one-sided, that's fine. That's how I read it I am just responding to what you wrote. However, I was watching CNN as well as well and saw the stats in the bottom left as well and they metioned some of Romney's drawbacks as well - as they usually do.
Next time, put them both. We good.
Rob
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Matt Ashburn <matt@mattashburn.com> wrote:
Rob,It wasn't intended to be one-sided. I typed when I had heard so far at that time, as I was watching CNN live when I typed last night's message. As I noted last night, more information would be forthcoming in the days ahead.Reuters, for example, has a quick fact-check run-down of some of the more popular topics: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/04/usa-campaign-check-idUSL1E8L42PA20121004?type=marketsNewsAgree that it's easy to second-guess with the benefit of hindsight, and it's important to look at what information was available at the time of the decision-making.Matt
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Rob <indianrob@gmail.com> wrote:
That's fine Matt. It is just tough to digest why almost every exsmple he used is twisted to mislead. Go research the issues. There were onky a few points that Romney was right on like the not planning properly with the banks. However the onky reason he now knows this is Hindsight. While Hindsight is "20/20", there is a reason it is called Hindsight.
You are a very intelligent guy - I wonder how you choose to not see both sides. Part of what you said was either biased or lacks experience/information. The rest you wrote are just reports on folks answering basic questions which have no room for elaborating.
Rob
Rob.
On Oct 4, 2012 10:52 AM, "Matt Ashburn" <matt@mattashburn.com> wrote:
Well said, KPW. Saying one candidate's presence, responses, etc were more effective doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of the candidate.Matt
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:36 AM, KPW <WKPW3@aol.com> wrote:
Let's say objective rather than unbiased. Sometimes I talk to people about political commercials and say that a Romney one is pretty good and then talk about an Obama ad. I get jumped on because I said that Romney's ad was effective, really good. I try to look at things analytically, from a strategy point of view. I look at both sides.
I'm glad that people on the listserv can talk about the good and bad and still support whoever they want. You can only improve when one knows what he/she is doing right or wrong. Don't you love politics!Thanks, Eric.KPW
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric <ericindc@yahoo.com>
To: ward5 <ward5@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 4, 2012 9:28 am
Subject: [ward5] Re: Who won the Presidential debate? What were the good and bad for each candidate from a purely analytical, unbiased point of view?
I don't think there is such a thing as an unbiased view. Nevertheless, I am supporting our President and I didn't think he did a very good job last night. Like KPW, I was a bit disinterested and had other things going on, but I didn't really see a solid response from Obama regarding the amount of money spent on the Green Initiative. Romney hammered that point home well. I will also be interested in the fact checking around the the Frank-Dodd legislation - Romney made an interesting point about smaller banks going out of business due to this. I am not sure about this cause-effect relationship, but I didn't think Obama responded well. Perhaps Obama is being far more strategic and giving Romney the rope to hang himself.
--- In ward5@yahoogroups.com, Matt Ashburn <matt@...> wrote:
>
> From an unbiased view, Romney was the clear winner tonight. He
> brought his A-game, looked and spoke presidential, and was able to
> come up with specific examples off the top of his head to make his
> point. At several points, Obama had some trouble responding with
> specifics to counter Romney's statements.
>
> A CNN poll of debate watchers indicate they the debate made 35% want
> to vote Romney, 18% Obama, 47% neither. 58% of that same poll group
> say Romney appears to be the strongest leader.
>
> Another poll of debate watchers indicates that now 57% believe Romney
> would handle the economy better, vs. 41% that stated Obama. When it
> comes to healthcare, 52% believed Romney will do a better job, 47%
> Obama.
>
> CNN's "Fact Check" team is also covering the debate, and so far have
> focused on jobs claims, finding that Obama's claim of creating 5
> million jobs was false, and that the net gain is actually just 150k
> jobs. I'm sure we'll see more fact checking in the days to come.
>
> Some perspective: It's rare that debates matter and end up actually
> determining the election, and there are several debates to go.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:46 PM, KPW <WKPW3@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Who won the Presidential debate? What were the good and bad for each candidate from a purely analytical, unbiased point of view?
> >
> >
> > KPW
> >
> >
>
__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (21) To Post a message, send it to: ward5@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: ward5-unsubscribe@eGroups.com![Yahoo! Groups]()
.![]()
__,_._,___
--
R. Ramson
3744 12th Street, N.E.,
Washington D.C., 20017
202-438-5988
"We must become the change we want to see" - Mohandas Gandhi-
(Together, for a Brighter Tomorrow)
--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment