Tuesday, October 16, 2012

The debate tonight...

My take:

Obama's performance is largely irrelevant. I actually think his performance in the first debate was irrelevant too. The reason is that Americans have 5 years of experience with Obama. They know him well, for better or worse. Another 90 minutes of chatter won't change anybody's mind about Obama. Obama could announce a cure for cancer tonight, and I wouldn't vote for him. Obama could announce that he signed a compact with Satan tonight, and his supporters would still vote for him. It doesn't matter what he says. We have formed our opinion about him.

Romney's performance in first debate was hugely important. Even many Romney supporters had actually heard very little of him actually speaking. I didn't pay much attention to the Republican primary debates, and I'm a political junkie. So to the vast majority of the public Romney was the guy in the campaign commercials and the guy they saw for 10 seconds on the nightly news.

So 70 million people tuned in to listen to what he had to say. Unfiltered. They liked what he said, and they liked him. That is what has turned this campaign upside down, and what may well elect Romney president.

Undecided voters rarely decide for the incumbent. They know the incumbent, and have largely decided not to vote for him. They are undecided because they don't know the challenger. If they like him, they'll vote for him. If they don't like him, they'll sit it out and not vote.

Tonight these undecideds will watch, but I think that most of them have already decided to vote for Romney.

The Dems and the media will spin tonight as a Huge Obama Comeback, no matter what he does. He could send in one of those lifesized cardboard cutouts of himself and the media would still say he won.

But the voters won't care. They have pretty much made up their minds, when they saw Romney and heard what he had to say.

I suspect Romney will win on Nov. 6th. 


  1. Have you ever actually won a case? The reason I ask is because I'm beginning to suspect that you're a piss poor lawyer. You lack the gift of persuasion. You have never persuaded anyone on here of a single point, not even using ad hominem attacks. Your standard line of argument is to accuse the other side of being a lying sack of shit, or just plain stupid. I bet you think you're pretty slick with this, but as a means of persuasion, it fails. It only convinces me that you are out of ideas. It sounds more like a small child with no emotional control throwing a temper tantrum than a serious adult with a serious point. You do yourself a disservice.

    Oh sure, there were people who already agreed with you, but that's not persuasion. I suspect that you know that you're a crappy lawyer, which imparts a feeling of inadequacy. Your rich parents paid a lot of money for their son Aaron to go to George Mason, one of America's most expensive law schools, and yet suck at your chosen profession. Your parents could have saved a lot of money and sent you to truck driver's school to get a CDL license. You'd probably be better at that. No shame in honest work, Aaaron.

    I can understand why your inability to persuade would lead to feelings of anxiety and hopelessness, which then manifest themselves in aggression. Let's face it--you chose the wrong career.


  2. You didn't go to George Mason or it isn't expensive? Correct me.

    I guess everything else is true, though right?

    And when are you going to answer my question. Have you ever won a case? I'm going to require proof, which is fine because you would never require me to take anything on faith.


  3. You didn't go to George Mason or it isn't expensive?

    You need to look up the cost of George Mason. Let's quote from the University website: "Tuition at George Mason is wonderfully cheap, and it is undoubtedly a selling point for potential students." Also, in my case, I paid for my law school tuition. By working full time while I was a student.

    Perhaps you should pull your head out of your ass and do some research before you open your mouth. It will get the shit-taste off your tongue.

    I guess everything else is true, though right?

    No. The example given was just an indicator that you really have no clue what you are talking about. On any subject. You are proudly ignorant, and don't bother to inform yourself in even the most rudimentary manner before speaking.

    The question "have you ever won a case" marks you as someone whose entire knowledge of what lawyers do is informed solely by television shows and bad movies. Only a handful of lawyers are litigators, and would thus have cases to win or lose. I have been a litigator, and I have won every case I handled, mostly collection claims for a technology company.

    But I didn't win the cases by being "persuasive". No one does. Anyone who thinks that lawyers get up and spin brilliant rhetoric to bamboozle their way to courtroom victories is ignorant of the way law is actually practiced. I won by providing evidence that my client's claims were valid. That's how cases are won.

    But most lawyers never have a "case", because they don't litigate. Many of the best lawyers never see the inside of a courtroom, because that's not what they do. They handle corporate organization, licensing, draft wills, create trusts, advice clients on how to fallow the laws, handle real estate transactions, and thousands of other things that require an understanding of the legal system. Asking any of them if they have won a "case" would get you laughed at. because it is a stupid question that only an uneducated fool would ask.