According to a Patch FlashPoll of influential Connecticut political insiders Monday night, President Barack Obama barely edged out former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the final presidential debate of the 2012 campaign at Lynn University in Boca Raton, FL.
As expected, the Blue Nutmeg and Red Nutmeg surveys’ results were largely partisan. All 14 Democratic respondents declared Obama the winner, with 10 of them saying Obama won by a wide margin. Among Republicans, 9 of the 12 thought Romney won, although most (7) thought it was by a slim margin. Three Republicans had a “neutral” opinion on the matter.
The foreign-policy debate, moderated by CBS News anchor Bob Schieffer, was marked by pointed exchanges, although the sit-down affair was decidedly less tense than last week’s stand-up town hall-style debate where the candidates seemed to stalk each other around the stage.
The consensus among Democratic respondents to the survey, which was conducted between 10:30 p.m. and midnight Monday, was that the president’s view of military spending and his strong support of Israel would stand out in the minds of liberals and swing voters.
‘Horses and Bayonets’
The signature moment for Obama, according to many of the Democrats, was his rebuttal of Romney’s assertion that the military has fewer surface ships than it did before World War I.
“"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed,” Obama said. “We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines.”
Republican respondents to the survey, though, thought Obama’s comment was less than endearing.
“Overall I think conservatives will look at the president’s performance as rude and condescending,” one Republican respondent said. “He mocked Romney’s knowledge of how the military works when he was wrong himself (with his bayonet comment) … I think Romney did no damage in this debate, and he looked presidential.”
“The president again proved himself to be rude and to confuse facts from the fiction of his talking points,” another Republican said. “ He can only attack and speak about the small things to distract voters from the truth of the last four years, of his leading from behind and from his failed foreign policy.”
“The president was very aggressive in tonight’s debate,” a GOP respondent said. “I did not like his demeanor.”
Yet another Republican respondent put it even more bluntly.
“These last two debates, (the president) has continuously interrupted both Gov. Romney and the moderator and has acted like a child. Our third-grade students have more common courtesy than our president,” he said. “It is unbecoming of any adult, let alone our elected leader. He should learn to raise his hand when he has something to say that is clearly out of turn.
“He feels it’s OK to interrupt just because he disagrees. It’s a clear sign of the type of person he is, and a window into the behind-the-scenes leadership he’s engaged in for the last four years ….”
‘Romnesia in Full Effect’
Democrats, however, lauded Obama’s performance, and noted that Romney seemed to agree with many of the president’s positions.
“Romney was off tonight,” a Democratic respondent said. “Obama called it when he suggested that most of the time Romney was agreeing with his policies but just wanted to say them louder.”
“(This was) Romnesia in full effect,” a Democrat said. “This was not the Mitt Romney that’s been running for president the past two years. Debate record: Obama 2, Romney 1.”
-----------------------------------------
Patch’s surveys are not a scientific random sample of any larger population but rather an effort to listen to a swath of influential local Republican and Democratic activists, party leaders and elected officials in Connecticut. All of these individuals have agreed to participate in the surveys, although not all responded to Monday night's questions. Surveys were conducted between 10:30 and midnight on Oct. 22.
Patch will be conducting Red Nutmeg and Blue Nutmeg surveys throughout 2012 in hopes of determining the true sentiment of conservatives and liberals on the ground in Connecticut. If you are an activist, party leader or elected official and would like to take part in weekly surveys that last just a few minutes, please email Regional Editor Corey Fyke at corey@patch.com.
Red Nutmeg Roster: Mark Gill, Kevin Dombrowski, John Rodolico, Mike Cherry, Mimi Peck Llewellyn, Fred Camillo Allyn Jr., Fran Lowell, Julia Cronin, Bob Beaver, Mark Zacchio, Thomas Harrison, Britta Lerner, Lisa Bigelow, John Shaban, Ward Mazzucco, Dan Carter, Harry Thomas, Don Patterson, Harold Cummings, Brian Motola, William Nicholson, Mark Kalina, Adam Weissberger, Christine Vincent, Jack Scavone, Laura Roberts, Andy Powell, Anthony Candelora, Michael Doody, Rose Angeloni, Vin Candelora, Abbe Smith, Denise Hall, Peter Martin, Steven Adler, Burke Doar, Jay Sarzen, Meredith Trimble, Phil Dunn, Frank Morse, Todd Cusano, Marti Stiglich, Malvi Lennon, Jeff Ingram, Aaron Jubrey, Lisa Boccia, Jason Buchsbaum, Vinny Toscano, David Freudmann, Ric Hossak, Beverly Miela, April Holinko, Tony Lent, Jason Perillo, John Anglace Jr., Ross Mandell, Nathan McKay, Dorry Clay, Wendy Bury, Stephen Bessette, Christopher Davis, Chris Fryxell, David Reed, Sharon McLaughlin, Janet Wieliczka, Jeff Gutman, J.P. Sredzinski, Robert Yamin, Joe Cavo, Mark Boughton, Shay Nagarsheth, Michael McLachlan, Norbert Fay, Dan Steward, Kathleen McCarty, David Lewis, Alan Wilensky, Tim Herbst, Suzanne Testani, Susan LaFrance, Paul Lavoie, Diane Pomposello, Kristin Ingram, Stacy Geist, Jay Berardino, John Szewczyk, Jeremy Renninghoff, Pat Dinatale, Ed Bailey, Scott Kaupin, Patrick Droney, John Kissel, Tom Kienzler, Greg Stokes, Peter Tesei, Livvy Floren, Fred Camillo, Steven Warzoha, L. Scott Frantz, Frank Szeps, Bryan Perry, Ed Munster, Eloise H.P. Killeffer, James M. McLaughlin, Valerie M. Saiz, Nancy Haase, Charles Haberstroh, Avi Kaner, Michael Rea, Lisa DiLullo, Mike Digrego, Michael. S. Casey, Pam Staneski, Tom Jagodzinski, Matthew Galligan, Timothy Becker, Mark Tweedie, Cheri Pelletier, Darren Cunningham, Sean Askham, William Stokesbury, Brian Ladouceur Jr., Cathy Durdan, Paul Henault, Len Cahill, Phil Williams, Phil Sengle, Vincent Cimino, Charity Folk, Stephen Walko, Daria Novak, Diane Carney, Linda Davis, Leora Levy, Aundré Bumgardner.
Blue Nutmeg Roster: Wendy Howard, David Peña, Daryl Worobow, Linda Merlin, Michael Freeman, Neal Bobruff, Edward Haberek Jr., Dorry Clay, Corey Sipe, Don Maranell, Dee Dee Martin, Nick Kapoor, Susan Koneff, Alan Vaglivelo, Kelly Plunkett, William D. Saums, Michael Graner, Rebecca Graebner, Kenneth Koe, Stephanie Calhoun, Dave Holdridge, Sheri Cote, J.W. "Bill" Sheehan, Cheryl Larder, Andrea Kanfer, George Peteros, Tony Silber, Roy Fuchs, Mary Beth Thornton, Nancy DiNardo, Richard W. White, Karen Cheyney, Michael Doyle, James McLaughlin, Allison Dodge, Laura Williams, Drew Marzullo, John Blankley, David Rafferty, Anthony R.J. Moran, William Satti, Rich Martin, George "Bud" Bray, Dan Pickett, James Albis, Jack Stacey, Sharon Hightower, Peter Kochenburger, William Ryan, Mark LaPlaca, Toni Moran, Andrea Epling, James Ezzes, Jonathan Steinberg, Jan Rubino, Rick Field, Bob Pagoni, Josh Freeman, James Maroney, Richard Smith, Kim Rose, Richard Roy, Paul Davis, Robert Hoffman, Kathleen Devlin, Francis Devlin, Ted Graziani, Tracey Kiff-Judson, Mike Pohl, Josh Howroyd, Dave Dumaine, Ryan Barry, Mike Farina, Doreen Richardson, Darleen Klase, Bill Herzfeld, Brandon McGee, Al Simon, Kevin Cavanagh, Alan R. Mordhorst, Phil Sylvestro, Bill MacDonald, Frank Farricker, Tom Gugliotti, Jeff Blumenthal, Peter Mahoney, Marie Herbst, Thomas DiDio, Michael Winkler, Ethelene DiBona, Jennifer Wolfer, Dolly Mezzetti, Joe Mezzetti, Jeff Tindall, Hal Schwartz, Kevin Coyner, Craig Nussbaum, Catherine Zamecnik, Jane Scully Welch, Leon Karvelis, Barbara Reynolds, Bob Schrage, Mark Lewis, Gayle Weinstein, John Hampton, Lisa Heavner, Helen A. Garten, Tricia Evans.
I hear that trolling the internet at that hour is the very latest in ED treatment. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
@ Hansa Junchun. Rosa Delauro was recently seeking support from monetary donaters. I don't begrudge anyone from making money but she made twelve million dollars in these past five years? I've copied a recent post of mine below: "A letter from DeLauro’s campaign manager asking supporters for donations says DeLauro “is fighting against a Tea-Party agenda that is working to dismantle what we have achieved and block us from progress moving forward." http://rosadelauroexposed.wordpress.com/ Wayne Winsley Election Income: $54,359.96 Rosa Delauro Election Income: $1,055,477.60 (Over $1,000,000.00 more than Winsley) Yup, keep the checks going to her.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1843960658001/did-us-policy-or-anti-muslim-film-spark-mideast-violence/ I know, it's FOX, but I don't think they interviewed lookalikes. :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5snPZc8R8E
This statement of yours :But there is a discussion to be had about paying for someone elses tax breaks. I wonder how you make determinations of what is fair? I listen at the spin/rhetoric and just cant understand how the people who wanted 'change' in washington, and cooperation, embrace this blatant demogoguery. But, how does one calculate what is fair, without knowing the source of income--or the person's history, their family size, and the region they live in. A doctor living in Fairfield County making 260k with 3 kids and tons of student loans is getting a break from the occupy wall street guy who camps in a tent and protests, without the slightest desire to work or pay taxes. The doctor paying 33 federal, 6.25 state, soc sec, car tax and property tax--is portrayed as needing to pay more---while the occupy guy is paying 0 and that is his fair share to society? Again, while I understand the politicians put this b.s. out there, how can people decide this is how we want to shape our society? Where pursuing careers that benefit society are demogogued as 'stealing from the poor?" etc....and where we have elevated the status of those who sleep in parks in protest? Is the tax code now intended to motivate accomplishing nothing? are the democrats honestly trying to have doctors reconsider their pursuits from healers to protestors? What is fair? and how can you say that the doc is getting a break paying all those taxes?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/mitt-romney-orange-bronzer-univision-face_n_1900387.html
I love posts like this.
Apparently he either thinks he is posting to no one, or no one he cares about.
But you know what---who cares? Clinton had all sorts of shades of grey in office. Does it matter?
But I think that my pont is more relevant politically, which is to walk out considerably shades darker than usual, when speaking to a Hispanic audience.
http://RosaDeLauroExposed.wordpress.com/
1) "we all live on the same earth in the same nation..." I agree we need to find some positive basis for national unity, to push aside the partisan horn-locking and start cooperating on a larger national vision of what our country can be, to create the feeling and reality that we are rebuilding the country together and that we all have a role and place in our newly re-prosperous nation, even a common future together. 2) "how about we recenter the conversation from the middle being the economy on out." The hardest thing to get past in our national dialogue on economics is the enormous amount of free market ideology that keeps people committed to abstractions rather than a historical look at how countries have got rich. The invisible hand and other aspects of market ideology are simple, elegant, and of common sense plausibility. But in the complexities of billions of actors over years decades and centuries, we see there has been a definitive role for state interventions in all sorts of ways, such interventions ranging from genius to disastrous. The American personality, formed on the frontier that disappeared a century ago, is a libertarian individualistic view of self-reliance. Admirable, encouraging of many personal strengths, but inadequate to the comprehension of past economic development and present challenges.
Here is something I have thought of many times. Probably the smartest thing about setting up Social Security was it included right from the start the tax earmarked for it. Nobody likes taxes, in the same way that nobody likes to pay high prices. Individuals spend, we assume, based on perception of benefit and value. And if made to pay the price, we consider much more carefully where we put our money. Imagine if the $1 Trillion annual military spending were another line item on your paystub deductions! Imagine if every dept were a line item! Then people would really have to think, is our money better spent on multiple permanent wars around the globe, or on building the infrastructure that will bring prosperity to our nation? The checkstub would run a few pages, but perhaps if the biggest chunks of spending were laid out in tax proportions the national conversation would be more sober and informed and close to the heart/wallet.
Tax breaks should only be given for good reasons of public benefit, such as attracting a new factory or R&D lab, or for investments towards something that society has, through the political process (the tricky part), determined to be a national goal or priority. The problem with using tax breaks as a "stimulus," as Stephen mentioned above, is that private spending is no more inherently stimulating of economic activity than public spending. In fact, private spending, to the extent it is consumerist, is biased towards imports and thus only exacerbates our trade deficits and erosion of economic strength. A final note on taxes. It is common to hear them called theft and that taxes are inherently evil or at least a necessary evil. I think tax money wasted is a terrible thing but tax money well-spent is an excellent thing, a function of a healthy society properly managing their affairs. So although fairness in taxes is something we need to strive for, efficacious spending of taxes is at least equally as important in the long-term prosperity and legitimacy of the system.
Absolutely the political system has been so bought out by large economic interests who actually are pretty content with things exactly as they are, which is why there is so much inertia keeping our problems unresolved. For example, defining corporations as artificial persons with the same rights of political speech/spending as "real" persons is absurd. Corporations are potentially immortal agglomerations of huge amounts of power and wealth and self-interest, without any of the emotional-human commitments to the country like raising children here, retiring here, etc. Another way of looking at it is to remember this revealing statement: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 “We sell iPhones in over a hundred countries,” a current Apple executive said. “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible.” That's fine as a company policy, but it shows Apple is NOT a citizen of the USA.
Yeah, my brief response.....
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/1-trillion-for-defense/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll Wednesday, October 24, 2012 “The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 50% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 46%. Two percent (2%) prefers some other candidate, and two percent (2%) are undecided.” “This is the second straight day with Romney enjoying a 4-point advantage.”
And you have the, the almighty gall, to praise this incumbent arch-criminal and mass murderer's lemoncello? What's the matter with you?
I don't recall Rasmussen polling the ALCS. On top of everything else I find small and petty about you Sully, you're a Yankee hater??? You're not ALSO a digruntled Red Sox or Brooklyn Dodgers fan are you???
Leading Republican endorses Obama, excellent video, watch and listen. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57539893/colin-powell-endorses-barack-obama-for-president/?tag=AverageHero;HeroImage
Wow, whatever are you implying with that statement? As if it wasn't plain as day. Keep clutching your pearls, conservatives. I'm hoping that we eventually evolve beyond the kind of crap you are insinuating here. And please refrain from the usual neocon tactic of acting shocked-shocked! that I'm construing it this way. Your Karl Rove playbook is obvious.
I hope that kind of reaction is never witnessed, but it has in the past numerous times and I'm not naive enough to rule it out in the future. Keep "Hoping" lady.
Don't even try mentioning NPR--they sway right and have done so since the Bush administration in a desperate attempt to remain valid. Don't mention WPKN...it's a small market completely funded by listeners, and isn't a player. Don't mention ANY television station outside of MSNBC. Because that is the ONLY 'Liberal' news outlet there is. The big 3 are purposely noncommittal. The rest are Fox-wannabees, following the 'If it bleeds, it leads' mindset, fueling the ridiculous Armageddon mentality that the neocons beat the drum for. Perhaps people vote 'D' in this state because we have a higher education rate than other parts of the country.
Q.E.D.
Ahh, yes...the old "If people were only as smart as we are" argument. Narcissists vote for narcissists.