You are here: Home » General » Mismatches
Think the Cardinals didn’t show up tonight? Well, Mittens was pretty much in the same boat.
CBS: Obama 53-23
CNN: Obama 48-40.
At this point, we’ll get a good lack at the hack gap. When Obama got similarly beaten after the first debate, liberals immediately went into hand-wringing mode. Conservatives, conversely, will mostly pretend that this didn’t happen, containing the effects.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorney
Sarasota Law Firms
Need Cash? Sky Loans can
help you! quick and easy money loans.
Bridging Loans
Paul Campos, Above the Law 2011 Lawyer of the Year
Erik Loomis, HNN Cliopatria 2011 Best Series of Posts
For administrative, advertising, or other inquiries, please e-mail here.
I don’t think the Cards showed up since Game 4. (5-0, 6-1, 9-0) Collapse is too kind.
Game 6 in particular was a pretty embarrassing on the defensive side, although I was glad Carpenter was able to duck away from that ball hit to first base.
They need group therapy or heavy drinking or heavy drinking in group therapy.
The Cards overachieved big time this year. They have nothing to feel bad about. A World Series appearance would’ve been as flukey as when they won it all after going just 4 games over .500 in the regular season.
Agree they overachieved this year; if they’d won this series, of all 10 teams that made it into the post-season, the two with the worst and second worst W-L records during the season would have faced off in the Serious. As it is, the two with the worst and second worst Pythagorean expectation are the ones still standing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_expectation
In any event, the Cards’ll be back soon: with all those fire-balling pitchers, they look awfully like the immediate-post-Bonds Giants with Cain, Sanchez, Lincecum, Baumgardner etc.
Two worst divisions in baseball represent!
One day, MLB will just allow the Yankees to buy the World Championship with a sealed bid, and Brien will be happy.
You can imagine Brien on a chess game: “It’s not fair that Black won! White had a lot more pieces left at the end of the game! Stupid rules, that allow for checkmate!”
The point being of course, that checkmate is the object of the game, and it doesn’t matter how many pieces you have left if you’re checkmated. Similarly, the object of a baseball season is not to pile up the most wins–the object is to get into the playoffs, and win them. Teams like the Tigers and Giants, with strong starting pitching, tend to do well in the playoffs, and both these teams were built to have exactly the results they are having.
“Teams like the Tigers and Giants, with strong starting pitching, tend to do well in the playoff…”
Except for when they lose in the LDS round, like the Nationals, or the 2011 Phillies and Rays, etc.
Seriously, one of these days everyone will stop pretending the playoffs are anything but a pure crap shoot. Really, they will.
Does anyone deny that? I think everyone admits that they’re a crap shoot (with potentially weighted but not fixed dice), poor way to determine the “best team,” but that they’re often good baseball and great fun.
Yes, yes they do. In general it takes two forms: people arguing that such and such good team is really in trouble because of X thing that will go wrong in the playoffs (the Yankees and hitting with runners in scoring position this year, for example), or fans like rea who push back against it when someone takes issue with the notion that winning playoff series proves one team is the best.
Brien — Do you maintain that the Yankees are a better team than the Tigers right now, in the month of October? Not in June or July. But right fucking now.
A better team? Yes, of course. Playing better since October 13th? No, but that’s rather the point.
Yeah, that Yankee lineup in October was awfully impressive — Ichiro, Swisher, Cano, Texeira, Ibanez, Chavez, Martin, Gardner and Nunez. An over the hill castoff from the Mariners with a subpar OBP batting lead off, an over the hill platoon player batting fifth, an injury prone player who was good in 1999 or so batting sixth, a .200 hitter batting seventh, a guy with 3 regular season at bats since April batting 8th, and a nice AAA player with speed and a terrible glove batting 9th and playing ss. I don’t care how many games the Yankees won in June and July, their lineup was simply not good at the end of the season with the slumps, age, injuries and lack of depth (no right- handed bat on bench) all taking a toll.
Reading these threads it has been pretty clear that some people think that they correctly identify the ‘best’ team. Because the definition of the best team is whichever happens to win according to the arbitrary rules you put in place. So, no, I don’t believe those people are acknowledging that it’s a crap shoot.
This may be all redirected Yankee hatred, but from my perspective it just looks really silly.
…the Yankees went 20-11 (a 104 win pace) from September 1st through the end of the regular season, and scored fewer than four runs in just 9 of those 31 games.
With 12 of those 20 wins coming against the Red Sox, Blue Jays and Twins.
Well if we’re going to play that game, then we get back to the point that the Tigers won just 88 games in a division with three 90 teams. Wheeee!
90+ loss teams, that is.
We can bicker all day, but I really can’t understand how you could have watched those games and looked at the lineups that each team put out on the field, and thought that the Yankees were the better team. They were better over the course of the 162 game season of course, but a lot had changed since their hot streak in June and July, and they were simply not that good come October.
Well sure, if you selectively apply qualifiers only when it bolsters your point, we certainly could bicker all day. As for watching the games and what not, I’m fairly certain that you didn’t watch very many Yankee games in September, based on your apparent ignorance of how well Ichiro, Cano, and Swisher, at least, were playing up until October 10th rolled around.
What I find most peculiar is that the vast majority of players and coaches in every sport care more about winning championships, than having the best regular season record or best statistics. They, more than anyone, are aware of the fact that performing best in the latter doesn’t give them a free pass to the ring/crown/trophy. When asked about the greatest of all time for their given sport, the refer to the ones who won championships. They may acknowledge the individual or team greatness of those who were consistent competitors but never won the prize (like the Buffalo Bills), but they still usually reserve the highest respect for those who win when it counts. You can often hear them refer to a great player with the caveat that “but he never played well in the big games” as a negative on that player’s greatness. It’s almost as if they truly believe that winning playoffs and championships is a a key indicator of a player/team’s greatness. Maybe they have all been brainwashed and bribed by the leagues to conceal their contempt for the rules, but they sure are consistent on the value of playoff performance, leaving the complaints about fairness to the fans.
It would be absurd to leave the New England Patriots team whose one loss happened to be the Super Bowl off a list of the all-time great NFL teams.
Red Auerbach payed his players a playoff bonus because it was the only reason to make them give a crap* about the bullshit tournament that extended their year.
*Probable exception for Bill Russell.
I don’t understand why people always want to substitute the opinions of competitors for objective analysis. Of course players want to win it all. That’s their job. That they want to win the Superbowl doesn’t mean that the team that does win it is by definition the best team in the NFL that year, however.
That they want to win the Superbowl doesn’t mean that the team that does win it is by definition the best team in the NFL that year, however.
But they are more often than not the best team in the NFL at the end of the season. The Giants last year and the Packers the season before were clearly the best teams in the playoffs, despite their no so great regular season records. Same thing with the Tigers. Right now, in October, they are a better team than the Yankees, especially with with Jeter’s injury and A-rod and Granderson riding the pine.
You know, when I thought that I couldn’t hate the Yankees any more than I already did, I started reading Brien’s pissy whines about how awful the playoff system is. And somehow now I hate the Yankees even more than I used to.
Yankees fans whining that the playoff system is stacked against the fucking Yankees – a team whose owners have ability to buy whatever players they want whenever they want to – is just pathetically sad.
So what if they playoff system isn’t as “fair” as it might be – the fact that the Yankees can outspend any other team on the planet is also unfair. The fact that Yankees fans think that BECAUSE their team is rich enough to buy and sell every other team in the league they deserve to be the champions every year just makes me laugh harder with every playoff game the Yankees lose.
Pleased to be pointing to where I said the system was stacked against the Yankees.
Irony of ironies, you know who pushed for a 4 team playoff through much of the 1980s? Steinbrenner of course. His teams were consistently above average but didn’t win a division once during the Mattingly years. But for much of that time the AL Worst winner had a much lower win total that the top 3 or 4 teams in the AL East. So naturally Steinbrenner thought a 4 team playoff, ignoring divisions was the way to go.
Now his successor would prefer the previous 2 team format. Funny that.
Teams with strong starting pitching do well in the playoffs…unless they don’t. Teams that happen to get good starts out of their starters in the playoffs regardless of how well they did in the regular season do well in the playoffs. It’s basically a crap shoot, especially in the LDS
I like a witty non-response as much as the next guy, but it helps when they don’t totally elide the point so directly.
Brien — Are you still embarrassed by the Yankees’ 2000 championship, when they sneaked into the playoffs with 87 wins because they played in the weak AL East? Those 87 wins would have left the mighty Yankees in third place in the central and the west that year.
I’m not sure why you’ve proven my point simply by buying into the notion that the Yankees had anything to do with this just because Scott couldn’t come up with any other defense of divisional play, but yes: the 2000 playoffs do provide another piece of evidence that the World Series winner is not by definition the best team in baseball.
Though those Yankees were at last the 5th best team in their league, and would have gotten in under the current rules (though not under the four team make it rules then), while the Tigers were the seventh best team out of 14 in the American League.
The point is that you are coming across as a sore loser by refusing to accept that the Yankees’ defeat was the result of anything other than an allegedly inequitable system, without any regard for the fact that the Yankees have benefited from the very same system in the past, among the other inequities which benefit the Yankees year in and year out. Sorry, but it strains credulity for Yankee fans to complain about inequities in the system.
Well said, Sherm.
I don’t think I said anything about the Yankees without being prompted. I do think that I pointed out that the A’s got absolutely hosed by the system, however.
Brien – give it up. H8ers gonna h8. As someone said once, you’re never as good as you look when you’re winning (cough Tigers cough), and you’re never as bad as you look when you’re winning (cough Yankees cough). The Tigers won fair and square, you haven’t said otherwise. But that doesn’t make them the better team, unless the better team changes daily based on last night’s box score.
Er, losing (cough Yankees cough).
For representing the worst division in baseball, the Tigers did not have problems with the most awesomest division evah
I’m not familiar with the history Brien has on this site, so I don’t have any way of judging the basis for the attacks on him in this thread. That aside, on THIS thread at least, he’s not posting any comments that are in any way wrong.
I mentioned above Bill James’ Pythagorean expectation number. Just so people understand, that number shows that the Tigers actually OVER-performed during the season (albeit by barely one game), and that the Giants over-performed by FIVE games (albeit still justifying a 2-win edge over the Tigers, tho obviously in different division and league contexts).
As I understand Brien’s point, he’s standing on the notion that the season-long context is where we should go for the “best team” assessment (whether on the basis of most wins, or of highest Pythagorean expectation number). In all fairness, I don’t know if that’s EVER been the case, since before there was a World Series, and for many decades after, there was no inter-league play at all, and even these days inter-league play is a minor component of the regular season.
Brien’s other point is clearer: that the outcome of any given post-season series derives entirely from chance, and that a team’s ‘progress’ through the post-season comes down to a series of either 3 or 4 roles of the dice. I do think that overstates reality.
This post-season is now the third one in succession where it’s (superficially) very easy to argue that the team that goes on to win the WS is definitively — by Brien’s definition — not NEARLY the “best team”.
[Even that premise isn't compelling: if one runs the Pythagorean expectations for 2010, one finds that the Giants actually substantially UNDER-performed during that season ... though it's certainly true of 2011, given the Cardinals actually OVER-performed a mediocre W-L record (by 1).]
What IS consistent over the past 3 seasons is that the team that wins it all is either “the” one that finished the season most strongly, or was among them. In 2010, the Giants, most particularly Tim Lincecum, were struggling until the beginning of September, whereupon their pitching, most particularly the same Lincecum, dominated and carried them into the playoffs. In 2011, the Cardinals surged very late, barely gaining a playoffs spot on the last night, and by an unlikely set of occurrences some unquestionably beyond their control. And this year: the Giants, counterintuitively, only asserted control of their division AFTER losing their best hitter for the season, acquiring an old and historically unremarkable second baseman with only 40% of the season remaining, and enjoying the good fortune of their only serious intradivisional rival actually playing worse following a big multi-player trade that, one its face, appeared utterly inconsistent with that outcome. Meanwhile, the Tigers spent most of the meat of the regular season trailing (the White Sox) within their own unarguably mediocre division (despite that the White Sox, like the Dodgers, made a series of late season trades that superficially seemed to make them stronger).
I posit that what all this taken together suggests is that at some point after MLB started extending eligibility for post-season play beyond simply regular-season play, the point was reached where the regular season became TOO LONG a context for judging which team is “best”, and that, since that point was reached, the ‘new’ definition of “best” for MLB is this: which team is best positioned to win in a given set of short series’.
That’s why Detroit, with both an actual and a Pythagorean expectation number that’s clearly the worst among all ten teams that gained the post-season, is properly favored to win the Serious. And that’s also the most reasonable explanation, beyond sheer luck, as to why their opponents are the Giants – the single most likely team to beat them in a short series.
So, I think Brien is MOSTLY right, but not completely: it’s NOT a matter of blind luck, since you have to get there in the first place, WHICH ABILITY NO LONGER CO-RELATES WITH BEING THE “BEST”, and on top of that, you have to arrive there with a team that’s particularly suited to taking advantage of the sort of opportunities that present more often in a short series than they do in over the course of the regular season.
The big question, of course, is: who do the wingnuts root for now? I remember two years ago it was Pelosiville vs the Heartland, then last year both teams were from the Heartland. But this? Pelosiville vs UAWtown? What kind of metaphor are they supposed to make out of that?
It’s almost touching that you think the main association wingnuts have with Detroit is the UAW.
Well, they do love them a “blacks vs. gays” storyline. It’s NOM fantasy world series.
Well, one of these two teams had a former player come out as gay, and it was not the Giants.
Wow, union thugs, Black Panthers, and the gay agenda! The Tigers get the hat-trick! No, wait, a grand slam…or would this just be a triple?
A triple crown.
With a twist.
My reading so far suggests they have taken the opposite tack: Romney apparently kicked Obama’s arse, and anyone who doesn’t think so is a libural stooge or has been tricked by the lamestream media.
Being able to construct your own reality must be very freeing.
Exactly. The hack gap is nonsense.
Republicans are convinced of one or more of three things:
1. They won.
2. They won, but people (LSM, Democrats) refuse to acknowledge it.
3. They won, but the win was stolen from them.
Democrats recognize a lost opportunity when it’s lost and a poor performance when it’s delivered.
No one should recognize delusional message discipline as a superior virtue.
Uh, I don’t think that you know what the term “hack gap” means.
I will admit that when I was first exposed to the term “hack gap” I thought of it in an “arms race” or “trade” context – the “other side” having more of something and “our side” having to play catch up.
Pretend what didnt happen? It’s a good thing there were only two presidential debates, I have to say.
CNN reports that their own poll, 48-40, shows a tie.
Are there any more questions about what would have happened if Obama had only used the bully pulpit?
And that’s a heavily GOP-leaning poll….
Yes. And the CBS poll is much more telling because it was undecided voters only.
I don’t care how well they screened the responders, THERE ARE NO MORE FARKING UNDECIDED VOTERS LEFT!
FSM, if only the campaigns would stop spending millions of dollars running all the stupid ads.
You don’t have to use all caps. When efgoldman speaks, people listen.
I thought that, too, until the lowest-information voter in the household informed me that she was waiting for the second debate to see if Obama screwed up again.
I have stopped banging my head against my desk now.
I predict a revival of the Obama ate a dog meme.
Three headlines from The Daily Caller that were next to each other in my reader:
And the Mickey Kaus contribution:
Oh, just for the hell of it, one more from Tucker’s toads:
Yeah, vital. Doesn’t mean we don’t have fewer of them than we did.
My god, how would we ever have another parade without the horses?
There’s a Gay Pride March joke in here someplace …
(and I think there were no DADT questions in the debates, though Obama did bring it up in one of them).
Obama clearly won, because Mitt agreed with him almost all night.
The line about horses and bayonet’s was a killer. Also the lines about aircraft carriers, subs, and the game of “Battleship.”
Zinger-zee-zing-zing!
Oh, if only President Obama had said, “And you can’t hire any more Knight’s or Hessian’s either, Governor, to help fight the wars you and your Bush NeoCLOWN team want to get us into. Wars today are fought by America’s young men and women.”
Mitt looked tired, angry, and vacant.
And WTF was that with Syria being Iran’s path to the sea?
Maybe Donald Trump told him that Atlantic City was America’s only path to the Atlantic?
Shorter Mitt : “When I’m President, regarding foreign policy, I’ll do what Obama’s doing – only more Caucasian.”
WIN!
Let’s see what Cup O’ Schmoe’s gang has to say. After all, it’s the Villagers most highly rated TV show.
No surprise – Schmoe’s fellating Mitt again.
And now for something really important.
Who should I root for, the Tigers or the Giants?
I tend to go for the AL team. But, DAMN!, how can you NOT root for the spunky Giants?
Well, since either Miggy or Prince come the closest to Hank Greenberg, and the Giant’s don’t have Willie Mays, I guess I’ll root for the Tigers.
Basically, Romney’s argument is that Obama isn’t on Israel’s nuts enough and he isn’t trying to be an internet tough guy to everyone in the Middle East.
I’d root for the Giants. Maybe they’ll come back from a 4-0 hole this time.
Zinger-zee-zing-zing!
I didn’t watch it, but the best had to be when Mittster repeated from earlier in the year, that Syria was Iran’s gateway to the sea.
Mr. Benen helpfully provides a map.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/23/14642377-flunking-geography-101?lite#__utma=238145375.332114427.1351011306.1351011306.1351014304.2&__utmb=238145375.1.10.1351014304&__utmc=238145375&__utmx=-&__utmz=238145375.1351011306.1.1.utmcsr=%28direct%29|utmccn=%28direct%29|utmcmd=%28none%29&__utmv=238145375.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc|msnbc%20tv|rachel%20maddow%20show|rachel%20maddow%20show=1^12=Landing%20Content=Original=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Original=1&__utmk=170151267&__utma=238145375.332114427.1351011306.1351011306.1351014304.2&__utmb=238145375.1.10.1351014304&__utmc=238145375&__utmx=-&__utmz=238145375.1351011306.1.1.utmcsr=%28direct%29|utmccn=%28direct%29|utmcmd=%28none%29&__utmv=238145375.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc|msnbc%20tv|rachel%20maddow%20show|rachel%20maddow%20show=1^12=Landing%20Content=Original=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Original=1&__utmk=170151267
Have this one:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/23/14642377-flunking-geography-101
Last night was great news for Republicans.
My highly scientific poll of “wingers on Facebook who went to the same high school as I did” shows lots of whining about how rude Obama was during the debate and sputtering about how Obama did too go on an apology tour.
From this, I conclude that Obama clearly crushed Romney in the debate.
Obama should have said “Governor Romney, I apologize that you got the impression that I went on an apology tour.”
Don’t forget the Lions, whose minds were also apparently on the debate rather than the game at hand.
Specifically the running backs.
On Sully’s page, he posted a blurb by Kristol saying that Romney not only won the debate but is definitely going to be our next President. I have never been more confident of an Obama win.
Are you really endorsing the view that the reaction of liberals to the first debate — as opposed to the debate itself — was what hurt Obama politically?
Well, it can certainly amplify rather than mitigate the effects of a shitty debate. Not every single person was actually watching the thing.
Fundamentally, yes.
Obama did poorly. But rather than contain the damage by talking about, say, how smart Obama was up there and what nonsense Romney was spouting and that debates are for serious policy discussion, etc., liberals did their usual woe is me routine, thus reinforcing the narrative and creating a cascading effect that seriously hurt Obama’s support.
As Republicans show repeatedly, what actually happens doesn’t matter. It’s how you control the narrative.
This is obviously correct.
Dave Weigel compared it to The Phantom Menace: You left the theatre disappointed and wishing it had been somewhat better, but after talking to your friends it turned into the worst piece of shit anyone has ever turned it. The effect of this mindset can maybe be overstated, but it does make a real impact.
Imagine two undecided voters: one of whom is opposed to Obama but tepid toward Romney, and the other of whom is a low-info Democrat not sold on Obama’s re-election. Voter #1 watched Fox News today while Voter #2 tuned into CNN or maybe even MSNBC after debate one. Which would be more likely to tell a pollster he’s a likely voter for his candidate?
Obligatory link to the greatest movie review ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI
Comparing Obama’s performance to the shitpile that was The Phantom Menace does the President no favors.
So the president’s president’s bully pulpit doesn’t move opinion — but the pundit’s bully pulpit does?
The first debate was nothing like this one. For one thing, it was the first debate, always the most important and almost always beneficial to the challenger. For another thing, Obama’s loss was the biggest in history.
Oh, shut up.
I remember that time a guy ran for president and gave universally acclaimed speeches. Then he was said to have won all the general election debates. He even enjoyed high personal approval ratings. As I recall that translated to him receiving nearly 100% of the vote and signing his whole agenda into law by February 1. It was so awesome.
Truly, Kim Jong-Il mastered the use of the bully pulpit.
“So the president’s president’s bully pulpit doesn’t move opinion — but the pundit’s bully pulpit does?”
Um, yeah. How is that uncontrovrsial?
Pundits might have some effect around the margins, but surely the debate itself — not the pundit reaction to it (how many people watch MSNBC?) — was responsible for the political damage to Obama. Which actually wasn’t that great — he fell back a couple of points to where he was before the convention.
In my own little focus group of not especially politically engaged friends and family, people were taken aback by Obama’s lackluster performance. It was glaring.
Silly beyond words to blame Ed Schulz or tweeters for the political hit.
You’re confusing one pundit with the effect of consensus opinion amongst pundits. The latter very much impacts public opinion, as Al Gore would be happy to explain to you I’m sure.
That wasn’t the case with the first debate. The snap polls were in line with the media reaction. Obama performed weakly and in so doing let Romney back into the race when he had a chance to close the deal. He recovered nicely in the last two debates and the debates probably won’t matter in the long run, but it seems silly to deny the first debate was a self-inflicted injury on Obama’s part. These things happen.
Also, I’m willing to bet that the viewership of MSNBC is higher than the viewership of any one of the debates.
!
Two thirds of voters watched the debates.
Well, two-thirds of voters *say* they watched the debates.
I doubt that more people watch any one network than watch the debates, but I would certainly bet that more people watch *coverage* of the debate than the event itself, and that they pay much more attention to the “analysis” the pundits spoon feed them than to the back and forth of candidates.
David, the data supports the notion that viewers’ opinions are impacted by the “expert” opinions they hear at the conclusion of a debate.
1. The “opinion” in question here is the public’s opinion of a politician, not of a an issue. I’ve yet to see a single person claim that rhetoric doesn’t move public opinion about candidates. The debate – the incredibly one-sided debate, with all of the evidence supporting one side – is about how presidential rhetoric influences public opinion about issues.
2. If we were talking about issues – yes, the pundit’s pulpit moves public opinion about issues much more than the bully pulpit.
You are remarkably trusting when it comes to Republicans’ spin.
Golly, if most Republicans said John Kerry lost the debates to George W. Bush, then that must mean those debates were really close!
Obama sucked. Some liberals, being somewhat more honest and less robotic than conservatives, said he sucked. I suppose we could wish for more Al Sharptons, who declared that there would be no criticism of Obama on the air, or try to get more commenting gigs for DNC operatives, but I think we might have to live with a few prominent Democrats and liberals retaining the capacity for independent thought.
Al Sharpton said Obama sucked in the first debate.
Oops.
Link?
I watched him after the debate and he offered no criticism of Obama.
You are right about his reaction after the debate. He was entirely focused on Romney, and offered no criticism of Obama that night.
Since then, he has made references to Obama’s performance being inadequate on his show.
But that doesn’t really address Scott’s point, that a consensus among pundits can help shape partisan enthusiasm, at all. Last night I flipped to Hannity for a minute and saw a Republican operative furiously spinning on behalf of Mitt. He was also interviewing Ed Gillespie. The purpose wasn’t to change the score, exactly, but to buoy the base.
I don’t recall what Sharpton said after the first debate, but I watched a few minutes of MSNBC immediately following and they were not trying to prop up Obama’s performance. So if Sharpton made any such declaration it had no effect on his co-anchors. Matthews almost gave himself an anuerysm shouting WHERE WAS THE PRESIDENT?!?!?! for chrissakes.
That’s the point of the “hack gap” comment.
They would have looked foolish if they had – even Obama’s people were looking grim that night.
Well, I heard liberal bastion NPR “fact check” the debate on my drive to work this morning. Both sides made some minor factual or semantic errors (the “Syria is Iran’s route to the sea” gaffe was ignored. They even gave points to Romney on the size of our navy (aka “horses and bayonets”) question.
In other words, it was a tie. Even uber-liberal NPR says so.
On NPR, pretty much everything is a tie.
Nice Polite Republicans.
Haven’t listened to them in years, which has done wonders for my blood pressure.
Yeah, the liberals did it. In your universe, Obama literally can do nothing wrong, can he?
Well, I certainly wouldn’t say nothing wrong, but at least he appears to know where the Persian Gulf is. And that aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines didn’t exist in 1913. I’ll admit that I’m grading on a curve, though.
The soft bigotry of low expectations, indeed.
Falsifiability, anyone?
This is a pathetic, juvenile response to the argument.
I’m impressed you understood it well enough to evaluate whether it was pathetic and juvenile. I sure couldn’t.