Oh, I'm a Rightie, through and through, and make no bones about it. ;D But I'm also trained in the fine art of stepping outside one's own shoes and into the consumer's. It comes in real handy, too, when the subject is politics (product category), candidates (products), their messages (communication strategies), and a specific, targeted audience (undecideds). Folks forget that undecideds decide national elections. And, no, they're not all "low-information" people, as the Left likes to assume. There are plenty of "shoppers" in that crowd, who aren't particularly thrilled with their first purchase of Obama, a product that hasn't lived up to expectations. Shoppers are wondering if/why they should make a repeat purchase or give the competitor's brand a try.

What did you think of that video clip I posted (somewhere), assessing the monkey business that's been going on with the polling? http://on.wsj.com/RHcPLR I'm seriously considering just sticking with Gallup and Rasmussen, going forward.

It's not. It's tax reform.

Now, see, that's what I like about you -- your non-partisan nature. Heh.

LeaningBlue [22] -

Rockefeller Republicans -- now there's a term I haven't heard for a while. Heh.

michty6 [26] -

You're right, The Onion pretty much hit it out of the park on that one. Life imitates art, and all of that...

[30] -

Amazing how all of that "liberal media" also put the debate in Romney's column... or maybe it's all just a lie... heh...

David [32] -

OK, that Gish Gallop thing was funny...

LeaningBlue [43] -

That bit about abolishing the BLS could be quite prescient. I hope not, but I could see it happening from today's GOP.

michty6 [46] -

I've been contemplating the whole "revenue-neutral is bullshit" thing, and will be writing an article about it soon, I think...

akadjian [53] -

Fixed italics (I think).

-CW

The Laffer curve nonsense was in there too, but it's not what I was calling "not entirely crackpot". Taxes, even low taxes, do cause some distortion of the economy. There's a valid question as to how taxes should be structured so as to minimize this distortion.

"...The TPC model has an important limitation when it is used to consider the impact of such large reforms as Romney’s plan. It assumes that any tax reform would not help the economy. In this sense, the TPC model is consistent with the models used by the official revenue estimators at the U.S. Treasury Department and the Joint Committee on Taxation. But those models are intended primarily to analyze the impact of modest changes to the tax code, not fundamental tax reform...."
http://american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not-a-tax-hike-on-the-middle-class

Ah yes. The old Laffer curve argument. If you tax someone at one hundred percent then they will have no incentive to work.

Why you don't hear this argument from conservatives much anymore (accept when they're trying to confuse people who don't know any better) is because even this tired chestnut doesn't really support their arguments for lower taxes anymore.

Why? Because once you lower taxes far enough, revenue decreases even if you're growing. And this seems to be the point we're at.

But economics does not matter to the core conservatives anyways. They've just always used it to justify the following:

1) More tax cuts
2) More deregulation
3) Less government

All of these are important to the conservative movement solely because they are important to the corporate donors who sponsor the Republican party (and some within the Democratic party as well).

Less taxes = more profit for wealthy owners.
Less regulation = more profit for wealthy owners.
Less government = less ability to regulate and tax.

It's quite simple really. Trickle down theory again and again and again.

Now there was a time when it was easier to buy this sales pitch that if you help the producers you will help the entire country.

But we've been following this philosophy for 30 years now. Under both Dems and Reps. Does it appear to be good for the country?

I would say not so much. Oh, it's great if you happen to be at the top. But nowhere else.

-David

It's semantics. If a plan really were revenue-neutral by decreasing rates and removing deductions or exemptions, I wouldn't want to call it a tax cut -- the plan as a whole, that is. But Obama didn't either. He said it was a $5T cut that was supposed to be offset by something-or-other that doesn't add up unless a substantial part of the offset lands on the middle class.

The other thing he has claimed is that it will not add to the deficit.

This is the part I don't believe. Why? Because he hasn't really said how he's going to accomplish it.

He didn't absolutely spell it out, but it seemed pretty clear to me. He said something about growth. That is, voodoo economics: the claim that tax cuts will cause so much economic growth that they increase tax revenue.

If the tax cut was really revenue neutral why even bother with it?

Theoretically, marginal tax rates are what affect the incentive to work. If you can cut rates and cut an equal amount of deductions, you can get the same revenue with less drag on the economy. The theory behind the claim isn't entirely correct, but it isn't entirely crackpot either.

Apparently this is the conspiracy theory du jour.

"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers," - Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric

Nutty ...!

Yup.

Is it really a tax cut for the middle class when you cut rates but eliminate the mortgage and health care deductions?

More like a shell game.

-David

You could cut EVERY SINGLE deduction available to high income earners and it would not be enough. Calling it revenue neutral is laughable. Anyone with half a brain knows that he is just saying this because his old line of 'tax cuts for the rich will spur the economy' was deeply unpopular. So he has polished the turd up a little with this 'revenue neutral' phrase. If you don't think the rich are still getting their tax cuts under a Romney Presidency I have some shares in Enron I'd like to sell you.

If the tax cut was really revenue neutral why even bother with it? Basically he is revamping the entire tax system just for a laugh? As if this is the most important thing needing to be done just now??

It's fantasy-world nonsense of the highest order.
It's what a CEO taking over a company tries to sell to the shareholders because telling them that he plans to fire the employees and strip the companies assets would scupper the deal. Unfortunately, as Wed night (and many hostile takeovers) show, it is very effective because people buy into the bull shit.

I know. Rather it's the part where he's lying.

He does have a trillion dollar tax cut.

He's been very specific about that. 20% across the board. This makes "I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut." a lie. Because that's the amount of his tax cut over 10 years.

The other thing he has claimed is that it will not add to the deficit.

This is the part I don't believe. Why? Because he hasn't really said how he's going to accomplish it.

He'll have to cut $480 billion a year and/or eliminate deductions to raise this money.

The CPC used some assumptions in their estimate to figure out what these were. Why? Because the Romney plan was missing the detail.

Now the other reason I don't believe Mr. Romney is simply because conservatives have never paid for a tax cut.

Here, you'd be correct in saying I don't believe Romney. But when he says he is not going to enact a $5 trillion tax cut, he is lying.

-David

Yeah, there's a reason for that: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/49285872#49285872

A sharp reduction in unemployment rate was spring loaded last month in the labor force participation drop. Here's why: Say you have 3 officially unemployed in a labor force of 12. Then 2 leave the labor force because they haven't found work and their benefits expire, or they just give up. Now you have 1 in 10 unemployed. The rate goes from 3/12 = 25% to 1/10 = 10%. Bada bing.

What's funny is watching the right-media's reaction: They, the purveyors of bullshit, get bullshitted by a number that matters (that's the "B" in BLS, by the way), and all they can do is howl, because, in the words of Paul Ryan, voters will change the channel if they try to wonk it through. They should have seen it coming and set the groundwork.

Now watch: along with firing Bernanke, repealing KillerCare ("ObamaCare" is so yesterday, hence my suggestion for new name), and killing Big Bird, will come cries for abolishing the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But with that quote, the center was actually making the point that Romney's tax plan cannot remain revenue neutral without also including such offsets as raising taxes on the middle class:

We also emphasize that the various goals of tax reform are achievable, but there are tradeoffs among revenues, lower tax rates, and progressivity. For example, if Governor Romney eventually specifies a full tax reform proposal that is not revenue-neutral and/or that raises taxes on some forms of saving and investment, there is no a priori reason why that full-reform proposal would have to raise taxes on middle-class households. [emphasis added [by Media Matters, not by dsws] ]

In both cases, however, TPC realized that Romney's tax plan as proposed would raise taxes on middle-income Americans.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/04/foxs-debate-fact-check-on-romney-tax-proposals/190373

Just because you don't personally choose to believe him doesn't mean he's "lying," David.

BTW- Where is this "retraction," Chris1962?

Following the uproar by Team Romney over this bogus "report" — arrived at by handily taking guesses at which loopholes might be closed — the Center put out another document on August 8th, saying that if Romney put all deductions on the chopping block that "there is no reason why that full-reform proposal would have to raise taxes on middle class households." It was reported by evil Fox News, which included a quote from the Center's president, Donald Marron, who said, "I don't interpret this as evidence that Governor Romney wants to increase taxes on the middle class in order to cut taxes for the rich, as on Obama campaign ad claimed."

"I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut."

He's stated he wants to cut taxes across the board by 20% and that he will make this up by closing some unnamed loopholes. Sure ... and I've got a bridge I want to sell you in Brooklyn.

BTW- Where is this "retraction," Chris1962?

I did see this excellent chart which shows who would get the biggest tax breaks under the Romney plan. Surprise ... it's people making more than a million dollars

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3296

-David

What "lie"? Obama is the one who keeps citing the Tax Policy Center study, neatly neglecting to mention that the Center later issued another document, retracting its original claim. So if anyone's "lying," it's O. I believe it's called lies through omission.

Agreed. And by all means, I'm not saying that all of this was Obama's strategy, but a couple things I would bet on:

1. He decided to refuse to take the bait and get into it with Romney because the right would have played the "angry black guy" card.

and

2. He was playing not to lose.

That said, I think Romney surprised him with his sudden shift to the center. His comments about how much he likes regulation and how his lie about not offering tax cuts and his sudden care for the middle class all seemed to catch Obama by surprise. I hope he raises his game in the next debate.

-David

I agree. Moreover, while it's generally not a good idea to attribute to strategy that which can be explained by a "fail," I'm not completely sure it wasn't Rope-A-Dope.

Did you listen to the President's "Some other guy [other than Romney] was on the stage" speech this morning?

On substance, I think Obama may have won because Romney told a number of lies which might bite him later.

1. As long as there was no big game changer, Obama wins the debate. I believe this was their strategy. I think long term all anyone will remember from it is Big Bird and Jim Lehrer.

2. The strategy Romney used during the debate is called the Gish Gallup. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139926/-Romney-Won-Using-a-Debate-Technique-Called-the-Gish-Gallop

3. If there really was a liberal media (that is, a coordinated media effort to support liberals along the lines of FoxNews), Democrats would never lose.

:)

-David

It's hostile takeover 101 - say anything you need to get the deal secured then move in with your real agenda, sell the assets off and screw the company. Except now the company is America and the people he wants to screw are the poor and middle class.

MR: "need a new accountant" and "Big Bird"

Best cognitive dissonance moment inflicted on the opposition: "I like Obamacare."

Damn. Now the opponents are going to have to make up a new "clever" derogatory term for it.

Okay. In a nutshell, MR was anxious, tight, and aggressive. The NPR comment was probably a release of some of his anxiety caused by internal dissonance.

Not in that article, but the biggest tell for me was one shot of him while the President was speaking, where he was blinking, tight faced, at a rate of more than once a second.

You heard it here first!

Rather than me commenting, you can read this: ...

Your comment would be more interesting to read than clicking on link. I hate clicking on links. That's not why I'm here.

First, I wasn't joking last week when I said I watch debates with the sound off. You often get a very different perspective. Rather than me commenting, you can read this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/04/body-language-expert-romney-hyperactive-obama-measured-in-debate.html

Second, reading what MR said, this is a 2.0. He was the channeled ghost of Nelson Rockefeller. The effective ads so far have been 47 and Bain. Now there's a whole campaign's worth of "Who's the Real Romney?" ads in what he said last night vs what he's been saying. Not to mention what his party might think about it.

The only place the old Gordon Gekko-channeling Romney appeared was in telling the dean of NPR journalism he was going to shut him, as well as his pal Big Bird, down. Precious.

Sorry, I couldn't see! :)

The only people who think more strategically than Team Obama, it seems, are Team Obama supporters!

:-)

Now, THAT's what I'm talking about! Well done!

Here's my analysis: CEO Romney showed up last night and mopped the floor with Obama.

Here's the good news for liberals: Obama will come out swinging like an animal in the next debate. And the next debate, as I understand it, will be a Town Hall setting, which O is comfortable in and good at. So liberals have something to look forward to.

If we know anything about Obama and his election team it is that they are very good and very strategic. I agree with you on this - this is the only thing I can take from last nights debate - that playing it cool/calm, letting Romney flip-flop/make up complete fantasy-world plans and not attacking Romney at all (eg. bringing up the 47% video) were all part of this plan.

I expect to see many campaign ads and videos out there dissecting all the ludicrous fantasy stuff that came out Romney's mouth - where as Obama didn't give Republicans any material to work with. I would just have rather he dissected it during the actual debate rather than after! But Romney gave them so many good lines to use, especially on Medicare. I can only hope that this is their strategy - I guess we will see!

The failure to bring up the 47% video (or not even mention ONCE during the entire debate the word 'Bain') baffled me. He did not attack Romney's record at all. But having thought about it, I think this was very clever and they were just out-manoeuvring Romney by thinking 1 level above them: Romney would've expected 47%/Bain to come up and prepared a nice sounding response to these claims. By not bringing them up the Obama team avoided giving Romney the chance to explain himself in his terms to the American people, which is probably what Romney would've wanted. Now they can continue to define Romney using these adverts, which have been shown to be very effective.

He won't decrease taxes if it means increasing the deficit--of course he could decrease taxes while claiming ignorance about how they will blow a hole in the deficit but the 1% must have been dismayed that their tax cut is now longer ironclad.

This is just one example that Obama could jump all over in the next couple of debates and Romney won't know what hit him! Oh, wait ...

Look for Vice President Biden to jump all over it and then some!

That was very well stated.

Every once in a while I find myself disagreeing with Joe Biden.

It is performances like Obama's last night - which harken back to similar performances throughout his first term - that make me think that the Democrats most certainly did NOT get this presidential ticket in the right order back in 2008. And, that's me being extremely kind to Obama in that the order of the ticket isn't the only problem.

The only thing I can think of that could possible account for the complete and utter failure of President Obama to challenge the nonsense of the Republican cult of economic failure and of his challenger - who, by the way, Etch-A-Sketched himself into a few glaring contradictions last night - was that he was trying to give Romney enough rope to hang himself. But, then again, he's tried that before and he must know it's not working.

Look for Vice President Biden to save the day!

Are you unable or just unwilling to present your own analysis of the debate?

CBS's post-debate poll showed Romney's likeability going up 30 points, to 63%.

CW
For those who like to see calm confidence, they'll probably approve of Obama's performance...

Yes he calmly stood there while Romney spouted a bunch of nonsense from la-la land - miraculous tax cuts (that aren't tax cuts), a magical healthcare plan (that doesn't exist in detail), magestical military expansion (unpaid for), deregulation (that is also regulation!) and gutting of Medicare (that isn't really gutting Medicare). He might just as well have promised free flying Unicorns for everyone, since Obama would've let him get away with it. The average uniformed voter would've loved this: we get tax cuts and healthcare and a big military! Wow, this Romney guy sounds too good to be true (because it is too good to be true - it's from cloud cuckoo land).

There were only a couple of times that Obama actually pointed out how nonsensical and ludicrous what Romney was proposing - but doing so in a calm manner didn't really get the point across about how ludicrous and crazy his proposals are. He needed to get more agitated to demonstrate how crazy, illogical and unbalanced Romney's proposals are.

There are a few saving graces for Obama:
- His campaign team is very good and they will pick apart the Romney magical fairy world he created in this debate in the coming weeks.
- He already had a big lead so a swing towards Romney will still see him in the lead (at least in the battlegrounds)
- He definitely won the Medicare argument. About his only 'win' of the night (sorry CW, but people look at 'wins' and 'losses'!). This should serve him well in Florida.

But Obama missed a huge chance to put the nail in Romney's campaign - he let him get away with some ridiculous nonsense and let him get back in the game.

speaking as perhaps the only undecided voter in the room, i will confirm that romney had a MUCH better debate than obama did. i still disagree with romney on virtually everything - heck, romney disagrees with himself on virtually everything. but in the debate room, he was the one in charge; not the moderator and certainly not the president.

But, where Romney failed to move the needle at all was in his "likability," which certainly wasn't increased by his performance. He talked over Jim Lehrer and broke the debate rules--which was contrasted by President Obama's always cool demeanor.

Romney tried to move to the middle but abandoned several positions--who knew he really liked Obamacare--he just seems to want to change the name back to Romneycare?

He won't decrease taxes if it means increasing the deficit--of course he could decrease taxes while claiming ignorance about how they will blow a hole in the deficit but the 1% must have been dismayed that their tax cut is now longer ironclad.

He gave President Obama talking points to use in the coming days. I predict the poll numbers will twitch for a few days, but since Romney possibly increased his "unlikability" quotient it will probably hurt him in the end.

So, what kind of a debate did you see?

The golden rule of the advertising industry: Always look at things through the eyes of the consumer, not your own. ;D I could tell from your article that you were watching the debate as a liberal. Watch it again as an "undecided." You'll see a very different debate go down.

I'll be interested to read what the fact checkers have to say tomorrow.

Chris1962 -

Yeah, seems like the public and the pundit world agree that Romney "won" tonight. I always write these before looking at other reactions, and am almost always astonished when my reaction is far different than everyone else's...

We'll see whether it changes the horserace polls in the next three or four days, that'll be the true test of tonight's impact.

-CW

Didn't you notice any blatant "Etch-A-Sketch" moments where Romeny seemed to disavow what he has been saying on the campaign trail?