So I've been puzzling over this collapse in the Obama campaign over one bad performance.
If you take the entirety of the season, to me it's like a guy pitching a one hit ball game and still losing.
Anyway, I remember a psychology study I once read;
It basically said if you have a low opinion of someone before or when you first meet them, and you end up liking them, you end up liking them MORE.
And the reverse is true: if you have a high opinion of someone before or when you first meet them, and you end up not liking them, you end up liking them even LESS.
So Obama may not have done himself any favors by having such a long streak of publicity wins; and strange as it sounds, all the gaffes Romney made made his resurgence that much easier.
Human psychology -- not much better than chimps.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I made another 50.00 donation to Obama's campaign.
Another way of looking at this:
It is a mark of Romney's weakness as a candidate that he is not crushing an incumbent who has not delivered on a return to prosperity. (Whether he could have done in the face of objective conditions and a House of Representatives determined to thwart him is, politically speaking, irrelevant).
Obama is forced into the position of arguing that it could have been worse (true, but uninspiring), that it's getting better (true, but very slowly and unevenly) and that given another four years he could actually deliver.
From a purely political standpoint, Romney should be able to routinely pummel Obama like a punching bag. It shouldn't be a race. Yet it is.
Jim
Romney scares the holy bejeezus out of me. Especially after last nights debate in which he bascially agreed with Obama and then tried to say he would do the same things....only better! He was really advocating reinventing the wheel.
And why would King Mitt want to be president other than the Koch brothers told him to and for the ego trip? Why take the pay cut?
I just can't believe the race is this close. do people not research the issues anymore? Oh wait...we don't have to. If a Kardashian or Honey Boo-boo says someone is okay then that's all society needs to give them the thumbs up.
"...politically speaking, irrelevant)."
That drives me nuts. It's only politically irrelevant because people are chimps.
Before the crash happened, but when I was sure it was going to happen, my guess was that it would take a minimum of 7 years to start to come out of it -- based on things I'd read, based on my own experience with fads.
Here's the thing. I never once thought that who was President would MATTER in the LEAST.
It was going to take time, no matter who was President -- I guess I figured everyone knew that.
Chimps, I tell you.
In a campaign against an incumbent president, attack is always easier than defense. Obama is president of the United States. He has to weigh every word. The outcome of world events can depend on what he says. The stock market rises and falls according to what he says. It's easy for Romney to sit back and say "I would've done this and you should've done that" because he doesn't have to take any responsibility; there are no consequences. And Obama can't attack Romney effectively on HIS record because he has almost no record to attack.
Yeah, but it was the President in office in 2008 who did matter in creating the issues, yes? Or was Bush/Cheney irrelavent then too?
I think it does matter who the President is on these issues, I guess I don't understand why you would say it is irrelevant. Pray do explain. Thanks!
$50? That isn't even a good dinner out. But then, Obama is toast and you are wasting your money.
I figured it was the madness of crowds. And the damage couldn't be delegated away.
Of course, policies are important -- many of the seeds of this were laid in the Clinton and Bush years.
No matter who wins the White House the economy will probably be better in a couple years.
I don't really believe with the Congress we have that much will be done either way.
The problems have to work themselves out over time. No magic wands.
Anonymous 5:55
An administration can enact policies that crater an economy much more easily than a president can enact policies that will cause that economy to recover.
It's easier to derail a train than it is to put it back on the tracks.
Jim
This election seems to be behaving similarly to the Carter Reagan election. In that one there was a group of independants that knew that they did not want Carter but were not sure that Reagan was acceptable. After the debates they decided that Reagan was acceptable and decided heavily in his favor. The pattern was very similar to the post first debate gains f Romney.
I expect that it may get worse before ot gets too much better. The governments have been using up there bullets by runnng up debt and expanding money supply. They are running out.
The economis will not really recover in the long term until all debt levels have been brought down to the norm. The question is will the price and pain be sooner or later.
The difference to me is Obama nailed Bin Laden; the helicopter crashed, but they had an extra.
I think it's more like Kerry/Bush. Not everyone was happy with Bush, but enough stuck with him because they believed the lies about Kerry.
Post a Comment