Time: Obama appealed to low-information voters by losing first debate to Romney. “The Obama campaign discovered that these people who say they’re not interested in politics who do not like the Republicans who do not like the Democrats, who do not like Washington, you know what they do like? They like Barack Obama because they sense something about him that he’s not really a part of it. So even that first debate, which we all thought was a debacle, a lot of those people thought ‘Well, I liked that because he’s not playing that game. He’s not playing gotcha. He’s not saying nasty things.'” The Gilligans of the world elected one of their own. Yikes.

Leave a Reply

28 Comments on "Time: Obama appealed to low-information voters by losing first debate to Romney"

Notify of

Dan
Member
Dan
December 21, 2012 5:46 am

If they hate Washington, Republicans and Democrats and are so disengaged and removed from all that is political – then how in the hell did they even know n0bama bombed out in the 1st debate? Damn Time – I did not realize you were so desperate to put words on blank pieces of paper. You too make a great lining for a bird cage. 🙂

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
December 20, 2012 10:38 pm

Time: Obama appealed to low-information voters

His only hope was to appeal to those that were too stupid to know what was going on.

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy
December 21, 2012 12:44 am

Thank you public education & the welfare industrial complex.

flashingscotsman
Member
December 21, 2012 10:35 am

Obama was appealing to low-information voters from his beginnings in politics. Maybe if we had fewer low-information voters? Or didn’t allow them to vote?

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy
December 22, 2012 5:19 pm

Welfare should disqualify you from being able to vote. Of course today, you cannot even be expected to have an ID to prove who the hell you are when you go to the polls. Buit like I said before, I went to a college hockey game the Saturday before the election, & watched dozens of people go to Will Call, & they provided ID to prove who they said they were before getting their tickets. Go figure.

drb
Member
drb
December 22, 2012 6:47 pm

High school kids have to show ID to take the SATs

StrinaM
Member
December 20, 2012 3:58 pm

You know the thing Obama isn’t apart of? Reality. Neither is TIME apparently.

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
December 20, 2012 10:35 pm

Nor Ms Crowley.

Kip Hooker
Member
December 20, 2012 3:24 pm

So basically they are saying that stupid voters like Obama because they think he’s just as dumb as they are. Well that makes about as much sense as anything else these days does.

Ruben
Member
Ruben
December 20, 2012 2:34 pm

Many On the Right’s relationship with the divine: Trust in God.
The Entire Left’s relationship with elections: Trust in fraud.

Progressive Hemrrhoid
Member
Progressive Hemrrhoid
December 20, 2012 2:08 pm

As I’ve said before, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

jcrowley1985
Member
jcrowley1985
December 20, 2012 2:09 pm

Exactly, they’re the reason Ron Paul lost.

CO2Insanity
Admin
December 20, 2012 3:27 pm

Yes, Ron only had stupid people in small groups.

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
December 20, 2012 10:06 pm

And individuals.

jcrowley1985
Member
jcrowley1985
December 20, 2012 2:00 pm

Makes sense that the two Corporate Greed controlled main candidates would appeal to low information voters since those who are well informed supported Ron Paul.

sa_rose
Member
sa_rose
December 21, 2012 10:21 am

Who do you thinksupported ROn PAul in his political career? Give you a hint, it wasn’t the cows in his district.

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
December 21, 2012 11:35 pm

No, it was the bull!

Kip Hooker
Member
December 20, 2012 3:16 pm

@John

Stop being greedy and giving the government an excuse to continue with their corporatism.

BTW . . . Ron Paul is tired of supporting you.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/we-are-already-over-the-cliff-were-just-wondering-how-were-going-to-land

Fenster314
Member
Fenster314
December 20, 2012 2:25 pm

I’ve read Paul’s “Revolution” book and it just strikes me as garden variety libertarianism – IOWs, he saves his greatest animus for the government. “Corporate greed” is a by product of government being able to keep the big company’s front feet in the feeding trough through regulation, contracts and back scratching which in turn keeps the pols in power.

So what is it that you’d like to do? Break up the big corporations to implement a real free market? To get government control of the market reduced so that dinosaur companies like GE and Comcast can be taken out by smaller more efficient competitors or what?

jcrowley1985
Member
jcrowley1985
December 20, 2012 2:37 pm

Those are all good ideas. Bottom line is to take away the government red tape that hinders new businesses from starting up. Globalization is another problem. Exporting all jobs creates no hope for people in this country to find stable employment. Maybe fewer taxes on businesses of all sizes would encourage employers to keep jobs here. It’s not just with exporting internationally, we need to encourage businesses to stay local or at least regional.

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
December 20, 2012 3:20 pm

Globalization is here to stay. Adjust. Secondly, not ALL jobs are exported. Hyperbole gets you nowhere. Just an excuse to not work. Pathetic whiny leach.

Kip Hooker
Member
December 20, 2012 3:25 pm

I’m not sure how he figures L.F. is against globalization anyway. I don’t think he at all understands what is meant by free markets.

flashingscotsman
Member
December 21, 2012 10:31 am

An employer should be free to base his business wherever he likes, but it WOULD be nice if over-taxation and over-regulation didn’t drive employers overseas.

That’s one of the few things that worked in my favor in my career as a heavy equipment operator. It’s terribly difficult to build an airport overseas and ship it over here.

poppajoe49
Member
poppajoe49
December 21, 2012 11:34 pm

Same with an interstate.

flashingscotsman
Member
December 22, 2012 10:53 am

Bingo. Now, a bridge? They might be able to ship in some components, but it still has to be assembled on-site. So I at least felt safe from overseas competition.

Of course, in the non-union construction world, there was a lot of LABOR imported, but most of what I did was government contract, and the compliance inspectors kept illegal workers to a minimum.

Kip Hooker
Member
December 20, 2012 3:20 pm

” It’s not just with exporting internationally, we need to encourage businesses to stay local or at least regional.

“We” . . . well that is a loaded word for you to use. Since you don’t contribute to anything you can’t be counted in the group of taxpayer or consumer. So I guess by “we” you mean the government. In which case you are again completely wrong and in variance with the Austrian perspective and that of your hero Ron Paul. We don’t need to do anything when it comes to encouraging employers. We need to get out of their way and let the market driven by the consumers take care of the rest. We’ve all had enough of your corporatism John . . . so don’t speak for “we” until you’re contributing something to the system other than demands upon it.

PsychoDad
Guest
December 20, 2012 1:55 pm

OMG. OMG. OMG. Here, Time, here’s a hanky. Wipe off your chin.

flashingscotsman
Member
December 21, 2012 10:26 am

Time, get up off your knees. It might be cold, but I’m not buying your story that it’s frost on your lips.

wpDiscuz