Take a look at this headline and see if you’re being informed or conned:
Romney Narrows Vote Gap After Historic Debate Win
Jeffrey M. Jones / Gallup:
By record-high margin, debate watchers say Romney did better — PRINCETON, NJ — Registered voters’ preferences for president are evenly split in the first three days of Gallup tracking since last Wednesday’s presidential debate…
“Historic”? Take a look at “historic” and see if that’s anywhere near the definition:
his-tor-ic
adj.
1. Having importance in or influence on history.
2. Historical.Usage Note: Historic and historical have different usages, though their senses overlap. Historic refers to what is important in history: the historic first voyage to the moon. It is also used of what is famous or interesting because of its association with persons or events in history: a historic house.Historical refers to whatever existed in the past, whether regarded as important or not: a minor historical character.Historical also refers to anything concerned with history or the study of the past: a historical novel; historical discoveries. While these distinctions are useful, these words are often used interchangeably, as in historic times or historical times.
~ The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition 2000 rev. 2009
Historic? What are you talking about? The idiotic “horse-race” coverage of our most consequential presidential election in a generation continues, as brain-dead as the writer’s (not just the headline writer, please note) use of the word “historic.” Here’s their explanation, using Monday Night Football Voodoo Statistics:
Romney Posts Historic Win in Debate
An Oct. 4-5 Gallup poll finds roughly two in three Americans reporting that they watched the Oct. 3 debate, similar to what Gallup measured for each of the three 2008 presidential debates. Those who viewed the debate overwhelmingly believe Romney did a better job than Obama, 72% to 20%. Republicans were nearly unanimous in judging Romney the winner. But even Democrats rated Romney as doing a better job than Obama, 49% to 39%.
Gallup has assessed opinion on who did better in most past presidential debates; some of these polls were conducted the night of the debate with pre-recruited samples of debate watchers immediately after it concluded, and some were conducted with more general samples of Americans in the days that followed the debate. Across all of the various debate-reaction polls Gallup has conducted, Romney’s 52-point win is the largest Gallup has measured. The prior largest margin was 42 points for Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush in the 1992 town hall debate.
Romney’s debate performance is also notable from the standpoint that U.S. debate watchers judged Obama the winner of all three 2008 debates with John McCain.
Oh. You mean YOUR statistics, Gallup. What an inflated notion you have of yourselves, Gallup. Especially when the entire rightie snarkosphere was up in arms the entire previous week about how completely wrong and irrelevant you are?

Here’s some interesting polling statistics
Seriously: the debates are meaningless in the final analysis. No matter who wins or loses, or gets a bump, two important figures overshadow them completely.
First, that the ultimate arbiter of “winning and losing” is the election, per se. If you kick your opponent’s ass you can still lose, and if you lose, you can still win. The election is what matters, and there is nothing “historic” generally about the debates, any more than there is something “historic” about bumper stickers, unless you count the most famous of all, “Fifty four forty or fight,” which turns out to have been nearly as meaningless as it sounds.
Polk swept into office with the pronouncement, which referred to the U.S. claim to most of British Columbia, up to the Yukon Territory. Once in office, Polk settled with the British at the Forty-ninth Parallel, which is a full Five degrees and twenty minutes shy of the campaign promise. He did, however, pick a fight with Mexico, of which, after invading and conquering, we kept half and returned the part we didn’t want (modern Mexico).
So, even that’s not “historic.”
The sheer arrogance of Gallup citing their own statistical database over less than a century as a “world’s record” is less credible than Guiness’ record for long-distance trampolining.

The Presidency as Prize Fight
The second point is the important one:
History is not what it WAS, but, rather, what it IS.
Just as Clint Eastwood was a monumental mistake in retrospect, even after several forced attempts to repropagandize it as a great performance and a great rhetorical victory, the only thing that anyone’s talked about (other than the notion that somehow winning and losing the “horse race” is the big news of the week) has been Big Bird.
If that was the only real takeaway from the debate, the rest doesn’t matter. And, given the visceral rage that the spectacle of an out of touch bully ignoring the debate moderator and openly stating that, he “likes him” but would, in essence, like to fire him for what he considers bottom line issues, and stupidly including “Big Bird” — a character beloved to a generation and MORE of American children — lost Mr. Romney the debate, no matter what Gallup may be patting themselves on the back over.
History becomes what we believe it to be at that moment, as Karl Rove knows all too well. In 2004, draft dodger George W. Bush became a “fighter pilot” and superhero action figure, and John Kerry, a multiply -decorated Vietnam volunteer who turned DOWN his draft deferment to serve, became a coward who was “unfit for command,” as the famed Swiftboating book screeched in its title.
Was that history? No, but that was what “history” was at that moment.
Today is Columbus day (observed). Formerly, it has been a celebration of the European arrival in the Americas, then an Italian-American holiday, and now a grave act of intentional genocide by the terrible Europeans. Much as Custer has gone from the hero of the Battle of the Little Big Horn to the villain of same. History is not what it was, but what it IS, right now.
Which is why I’ve told you that the debate about the debate is the only important debate, because that’s where the former is ultimately decided. By letting Mitt lie outrageously for ninety minutes, the debate had opened wounds in credibility far deeper than any perceived humiliation of the “loser” might have scratched. The latter vanishes after a couple of rounds of late-night jokes. The former tends to gangrene.
Let me tell you an old ’80s Hollywood story:
I was talking to late screenwriter/director Dan O’Bannon once, about “Alien,” and he told the story about Life on the Movie Set: all the different ways Ridley Scott came up with to kill the ship’s cat. And O’Bannon kept fighting with him on them until one day he screamed: “Kill anybody you want, Ridley. But if you KILL THAT FUCKING CAT, people are going to get up out of their seats and walk out of the fucking theaters!” Ridley gave up and stopped trying to kill the cat, and Alien became a blockbuster.
On the other hand, Mitt just killed the cat.
“Historic”? The mosquito and the elephant. Just don’t make yourself (once more) Irrelephant, Gallup.
Giddy up.
Courage.






























I hope you’re right Hart, I damn well hope you’re right.
Does anyone actually remember any of the policy stuff? No: they remember the visceral moment. The only determinant of “winner” and “loser” here will come on November 6. Let’s see how heavily Karl Rove can press his thumb down on the butcher’s scales.
Firing Big Bird is bad but what about all the other cuts the Rom will try to make. Food stamps, job programs, minimum wages, child tax credit, corporate tax rates, EPA, not to mention public land sales, oil and gas subsidies ,and more.
From what I see things will get a lot tougher for the bottom 90% and a lot easier for the top buggers to take advantage .So why in the hell would any non-rich person vote for more hard times ala the repubs!
,
Agreed. But sometimes what you need to really drive home the fundamental cruelty is a gut moment.
Willard Mittens Romney delivered that. That’s what is remembered.
From the emails I’ve been getting from RW friends and relatives, you are exactly right, people don’t remember the substance, just the impression they came away with, and that makes it almost impossible to talk to them. There is no meat to discuss, just the shadow of the meat. I find it very difficult to explain that what the shadow was an image of was rotten, and should be tossed out.
When the facts approach a Republican voter, they curl their brains into a ball like an armadillo.
Oh they believe in facts, but only the ones they make up. And the only reason they never do fact checking is it makes their fingers smelly poking into that dark place where the sun never shines.
They believe whatever they’re told to believe. Which is, I seem to recall, the definition of “cannon fodder.”
Hart, what is your gut feeling on the two remaining debates? Do you feel that Obama will get his mojo back? On most of the blogs that I visit, everybody was stunned at the Romney lies, so he didn’t roll over everybody with his bullshit. Obama can be so sharp with a comeback, but he seemed really thrown off and just wanted to remain presidential. Plus I think that he gives the American people a little to much credit in the intellectual dept, he seems blind to the millions of ignorant and easily led electorate. Remember, over 60 million people voted for Palin. Gives you the chills …..doesn’t it.
I’m not worried. When you look back, the biggest “gaffe” was supposedly not mentioning the “47%” quote.
In hindsight, it was a brilliant move. Preempted the carefully crafted Romney comeback and forced him to lamely regurgitate it on Ha-nnutty (sic). Where maybe 2 million saw it, as opposed to 60 million.
So, a ‘gaffe’? Romney thinks tactically but not strategically.
So was Mittwit coked up for the debate? I’m not saying he was and I have no evidence. I’m just asking the question.
He seemed wired on something. Could’ve been his own ego.
Reneph, I don’t know about the coke, but if you google Romney cheats during debate, you will see he was caught on film throwing down a notebook which he took out if his pants pocket. After the debate when both families were standing to the side, Romney walked back to his podium, picked up his notebook wrapped in a paper, tried to fit it into his inside suit pocket…..right side then left side and it didn’t fit so he handed it to his one of his sons who threw it into his jacket. The entire time Ann had her eyes glued on that paper and when h e handed it to his son she leaned into them and clearly said “let’s get off this stage”
Funny how quickly that notion was pooh-pooh’ed and dismissed as “phony conspiracy theory.” And the EXAMPLE? The Bush backbox during the Kerry debates.
It’s this kind of crap that scares hell out of me on vote manipulation, hacking and ballot manipulation. Evidently if you do it, and someone says anything, you’re a “conspiracy nut.” Well, conspiracies DO happen, and this time we need to start screaming long and loud BEFORE the election.
If not? Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité! (Minus Bastille, of course).
Speaking of ballot manipulation, in heavily Democratic areas of my city, the Republican Party has sent out flyers with absentee ballot applications to most households with instructions to mail them to the wrong place for processing. Nothing shady going on here.
That’s small change. They changed the laws in a dozen states. They’ve had hundreds of millions to play with and they didn’t know who the nominee was going to be. What do you suppose that cash was channeled into?