-985324
It’s similar to the first debate, in a way, since the attention was all on Obama and whether he’d “bring his A-game” or not, so the truth is that he enjoyed a lowered expectation in the same manner Romney did for the first debate (although the perception might be that expectations were higher for him, that’s not really the case — the expectations for what he needed to DO were “higher” perception-wise, but the bar for how to achieve that result was actually fairly low because it is seen in comparison to his last performance). Because of this, Obama’s performance seems even more assertive and impressive, by comparison to his previous performance. The fact that he also did do a modestly good job increases the perception that Obama won easily.
But I don’t think it’s that simple. While I feel that, in the context of expectations and performance mixed together, Obama will be rightly declared the winner of this debate, I think it would be a big mistake to underestimate Romney’s performance.
Move up http://i.forbesimg.com t Move down Six Digital Takeaways From Last Night's Debate Alex Kantrowitz Contributor Romney v. Obama Was a Nauseating Draw, and Both Deserve to Lose John Tamny Forbes Staff 15 images Photos: Obama And Romney Square Off In Second Presidential Debate 11 images Photos: Election 2012: Battleground States Where It?s All About Women While a lot of people will be influenced negatively by Romney’s arguing about debate rules and going over time repeatedly (it’s the combination of his going over time and interrupting, plus his contemptuous attitude toward moderator Crowley while arguing with her about rules, that makes his over-time seem worse even if it didn’t add up to as much as Obama’s total over-time remarks), and while many people will point to the fact-checking as further strikes against Romney, it’s important to remember that after the fact fact-checking doesn’t matter to the impact of the debate performance.
Romney kept hitting the theme about disappointment in Obama, and I think it will strike a chord with a lot of voters in certain demographics. When Obama was confronted (by apparently one of only two black audience members, in an otherwise mostly very white room) with some difficult points about people being less hopeful than they were in 2008 because of continued economic hardships, Obama seemed to go on the defensive to argue why things weren’t as bad as the man (and many other people, obviously) feel it is. But Romney, when it was his turn to respond, walked toward that man with a simple skeptical look on his face (and a very effective one, at that) and said basically, “You know, don’cha? You know it’s not better, you don’t need someone telling you you don’t feel what you know you feel.” Romney won that question, because it went to the underlying selling point of his entire campaign — Obama didn’t deliver what he said he would and what you thought he would, you’re right to feel let down, and it’s time to cut your losses and give a businessman a try. It’s a simple but effective message, and Romney stuck to his talking points about middle class relief and job creation without straying too far, and it was an effective debate performance.
Obama did a good job of coming back from a lackluster performance, and he tried to be more assertive, and he didn’t make the previous debate’s mistake of assuming everyone “knows” the key talking points and facts that dispute much of Romney’s assertions. Obama made those points, and returned to them several times, scoring some good hits on Romney about not offering specifics and about Romney’s business record. However, Obama still didn’t in fact hit Romney where Romney appears strongest but where there is ample soft tissue to inflict real and lasting damage — Romney’s supposed business experience. When Romney kept claiming his experience running businesses makes him know how to create jobs and that he knows his math adds up (although he once again refused to show the addition that makes his magic numbers balance out), Obama never once said simply, “Mitt, your experience as a businessman was destroying businesses, buying them up to fire everybody and ship the jobs overseas. And I have no doubt that’s exactly the kind of job-killing corporate experience you’ll bring to the White House if you were elected.”
Obama has not learned the lesson of looking at his opponent’s greatest strength and turning it against them as a weapon to discredit them, despite the fact he faces an opponent with whom that tactic would probably help deliver a killing stroke. So, we have a debate in which Obama won by doing better than last time, while the appearance of his victory doesn’t override the fact that Romney turned in another strong performance and pushed his core message further into the psyche of a lot of voters. I think any voters who were undecided but leaning a lot toward Romney are solidly in his corner now, and anyone undecided but leaning slightly toward Romney either leaned further toward him or (at best for Obama) moved back to fully undecided. I think Obama’s primary victory was with voters who were undecided but leaning his way who (after the previous debate) moved back to being open to Romney, but who did not fully move into Romney’s camp.
I’m sure a lot of voters might equate “I was leaning Obama, but now think Romney might be better” with “leaning Romney” when in fact that kind of assessment by formerly Obama-leaning voters really is more a sign of having become equally unsure about both candidates, not a full flip in support. Those are the ones Obama won back tonight, while probably also energizing some supporters who were less motivated to show up at the polls for him.
However, I think the most important thing that probably happened tonight is something that might take a while to really become clear. While Romney continued to perform well and likely scored some solid points with a lot of undecided white voters, and while Obama moved some undecideds back to his side and probably halted any slide in enthusiasm for him, I think tonight probably did one key thing that will have the effect of helping ensure Obama’s reelection: tonight, Romney probably officially lost the Latino vote. I expect Obama will win two-thirds or more of the Latino vote easily, adding to his likely 95+% of the black vote. Obama’s lead with women voters will probably not change significantly, but even if Romney manages a modest gain in that regard, the wide margin of Obama’s advantage among Latinos and blacks will pretty much guarantee his reelection.
Romney’s answers on immigration will hurt him, big-time. He was trailing already, but any lingering undecided voters among Latinos who weren’t already leaning clearly in his favor are probably lost to him now. Obama’s position supporting allowing the children of undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S., stated in immediate contrast to Romney’s repeated use of the term “illegals” and clear opposition to anything that might give any appearance of being “soft” on immigration, is going to have a decisive impact on the election’s outcome.
Obama won the debate in modest terms, Romney remained strong and probably did a lot to further sell himself to undecides leaning his way, but the real secret of the debate — which will only become evident in a few days, perhaps — is that Obama won the debate and the election tonight when Romney handed him the Latino vote
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/10/17/who-won-the-october-16th-presidential-debate/
It’s similar to the first debate, in a way, since the attention was all on Obama and whether he’d “bring his A-game” or not, so the truth is that he enjoyed a lowered expectation in the same manner Romney did for the first debate (although the perception might be that expectations were higher for him, that’s not really the case — the expectations for what he needed to DO were “higher” perception-wise, but the bar for how to achieve that result was actually fairly low because it is seen in comparison to his last performance). Because of this, Obama’s performance seems even more assertive and impressive, by comparison to his previous performance. The fact that he also did do a modestly good job increases the perception that Obama won easily.
But I don’t think it’s that simple. While I feel that, in the context of expectations and performance mixed together, Obama will be rightly declared the winner of this debate, I think it would be a big mistake to underestimate Romney’s performance.
Move up http://i.forbesimg.com t Move down Six Digital Takeaways From Last Night's Debate Alex Kantrowitz Contributor Romney v. Obama Was a Nauseating Draw, and Both Deserve to Lose John Tamny Forbes Staff 15 images Photos: Obama And Romney Square Off In Second Presidential Debate 11 images Photos: Election 2012: Battleground States Where It?s All About Women While a lot of people will be influenced negatively by Romney’s arguing about debate rules and going over time repeatedly (it’s the combination of his going over time and interrupting, plus his contemptuous attitude toward moderator Crowley while arguing with her about rules, that makes his over-time seem worse even if it didn’t add up to as much as Obama’s total over-time remarks), and while many people will point to the fact-checking as further strikes against Romney, it’s important to remember that after the fact fact-checking doesn’t matter to the impact of the debate performance.
Romney kept hitting the theme about disappointment in Obama, and I think it will strike a chord with a lot of voters in certain demographics. When Obama was confronted (by apparently one of only two black audience members, in an otherwise mostly very white room) with some difficult points about people being less hopeful than they were in 2008 because of continued economic hardships, Obama seemed to go on the defensive to argue why things weren’t as bad as the man (and many other people, obviously) feel it is. But Romney, when it was his turn to respond, walked toward that man with a simple skeptical look on his face (and a very effective one, at that) and said basically, “You know, don’cha? You know it’s not better, you don’t need someone telling you you don’t feel what you know you feel.” Romney won that question, because it went to the underlying selling point of his entire campaign — Obama didn’t deliver what he said he would and what you thought he would, you’re right to feel let down, and it’s time to cut your losses and give a businessman a try. It’s a simple but effective message, and Romney stuck to his talking points about middle class relief and job creation without straying too far, and it was an effective debate performance.
Obama did a good job of coming back from a lackluster performance, and he tried to be more assertive, and he didn’t make the previous debate’s mistake of assuming everyone “knows” the key talking points and facts that dispute much of Romney’s assertions. Obama made those points, and returned to them several times, scoring some good hits on Romney about not offering specifics and about Romney’s business record. However, Obama still didn’t in fact hit Romney where Romney appears strongest but where there is ample soft tissue to inflict real and lasting damage — Romney’s supposed business experience. When Romney kept claiming his experience running businesses makes him know how to create jobs and that he knows his math adds up (although he once again refused to show the addition that makes his magic numbers balance out), Obama never once said simply, “Mitt, your experience as a businessman was destroying businesses, buying them up to fire everybody and ship the jobs overseas. And I have no doubt that’s exactly the kind of job-killing corporate experience you’ll bring to the White House if you were elected.”
Obama has not learned the lesson of looking at his opponent’s greatest strength and turning it against them as a weapon to discredit them, despite the fact he faces an opponent with whom that tactic would probably help deliver a killing stroke. So, we have a debate in which Obama won by doing better than last time, while the appearance of his victory doesn’t override the fact that Romney turned in another strong performance and pushed his core message further into the psyche of a lot of voters. I think any voters who were undecided but leaning a lot toward Romney are solidly in his corner now, and anyone undecided but leaning slightly toward Romney either leaned further toward him or (at best for Obama) moved back to fully undecided. I think Obama’s primary victory was with voters who were undecided but leaning his way who (after the previous debate) moved back to being open to Romney, but who did not fully move into Romney’s camp.
I’m sure a lot of voters might equate “I was leaning Obama, but now think Romney might be better” with “leaning Romney” when in fact that kind of assessment by formerly Obama-leaning voters really is more a sign of having become equally unsure about both candidates, not a full flip in support. Those are the ones Obama won back tonight, while probably also energizing some supporters who were less motivated to show up at the polls for him.
However, I think the most important thing that probably happened tonight is something that might take a while to really become clear. While Romney continued to perform well and likely scored some solid points with a lot of undecided white voters, and while Obama moved some undecideds back to his side and probably halted any slide in enthusiasm for him, I think tonight probably did one key thing that will have the effect of helping ensure Obama’s reelection: tonight, Romney probably officially lost the Latino vote. I expect Obama will win two-thirds or more of the Latino vote easily, adding to his likely 95+% of the black vote. Obama’s lead with women voters will probably not change significantly, but even if Romney manages a modest gain in that regard, the wide margin of Obama’s advantage among Latinos and blacks will pretty much guarantee his reelection.
Romney’s answers on immigration will hurt him, big-time. He was trailing already, but any lingering undecided voters among Latinos who weren’t already leaning clearly in his favor are probably lost to him now. Obama’s position supporting allowing the children of undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S., stated in immediate contrast to Romney’s repeated use of the term “illegals” and clear opposition to anything that might give any appearance of being “soft” on immigration, is going to have a decisive impact on the election’s outcome.
Obama won the debate in modest terms, Romney remained strong and probably did a lot to further sell himself to undecides leaning his way, but the real secret of the debate — which will only become evident in a few days, perhaps — is that Obama won the debate and the election tonight when Romney handed him the Latino vote
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/10/17/who-won-the-october-16th-presidential-debate/
-553064
A man who posted negative comments about the death of Amanda Todd was fired from his job after an Airdrie, Alta., woman alerted his employer.
Todd is the 15-year-old who killed herself last week after suffering years of bullying. Many online memorial sites have popped up in response to her death, and thousands of people have posted comments on them.
Christine Claveau was looking at a site when she saw what she thought was a particularly hateful anonymous post.
Facebook memorial sites for Amanda Todd have popped up all over the country and thousands of people have posted to them. (CBC)She said the comment read, "It's about time this bitch died."
Claveau said she tracked down the identity of the sender in Toronto and forwarded a note to his employer, the retail store Mr. Big and Tall.
The man was fired.
"We are deeply saddened by the loss of Amanda Todd," said Dave McGregor, president and CEO of Grafton-Fraser Inc. which operates the retail chain, in response to a query from CBC News.
"Out of respect for the family, I decided not to comment further on this situation beyond our statement that we took the action we felt to be appropriate. I will tell you that the individual in question is no longer employed with our company."
McGregor said the company's ethics are based on tolerance, respect and fair and honourable treatment of all individuals, internally, with customers and the population as a whole.
"We have zero tolerance for the mistreatment of others no matter what form it takes," he said. "We feel that the focus should remain on the issue at hand, which is bullying and how we work together to stop it. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Todd family."
Mixed reaction online"I'm glad that they fired him and they took such a strong stance against bullying," said Claveau.
"But I just think that even having him reprimanded or having the embarrassment of his company knowing what he did is what I was aiming for, just to say … you know what you do in your pastime can affect who you are at work and your personal life too."
Claveau said she has received a lot of response to what happened — most of it positive but some of it negative.
"You can't please everybody, so I'm getting a lot of people saying I was the bully in the matter, or it wasn't right to contact his employer. So I'm getting a little bit of negative backlash."
Claveau said so-called "internet trolls" must be held accountable for what they say and do online.
"Trolls" are people who anonymously post negative comments on the internet to elicit a reaction.
She said she's more encouraged than ever now to monitor the internet and "out" those behind hateful statements.
Claveau has started a group of concerned moms who plan to continue alerting authorities to cyberbullying taking place online.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/10/16/calgary-airdrie-woman-website-comment.html
A man who posted negative comments about the death of Amanda Todd was fired from his job after an Airdrie, Alta., woman alerted his employer.
Todd is the 15-year-old who killed herself last week after suffering years of bullying. Many online memorial sites have popped up in response to her death, and thousands of people have posted comments on them.
Christine Claveau was looking at a site when she saw what she thought was a particularly hateful anonymous post.
Facebook memorial sites for Amanda Todd have popped up all over the country and thousands of people have posted to them. (CBC)She said the comment read, "It's about time this bitch died."
Claveau said she tracked down the identity of the sender in Toronto and forwarded a note to his employer, the retail store Mr. Big and Tall.
The man was fired.
"We are deeply saddened by the loss of Amanda Todd," said Dave McGregor, president and CEO of Grafton-Fraser Inc. which operates the retail chain, in response to a query from CBC News.
"Out of respect for the family, I decided not to comment further on this situation beyond our statement that we took the action we felt to be appropriate. I will tell you that the individual in question is no longer employed with our company."
McGregor said the company's ethics are based on tolerance, respect and fair and honourable treatment of all individuals, internally, with customers and the population as a whole.
"We have zero tolerance for the mistreatment of others no matter what form it takes," he said. "We feel that the focus should remain on the issue at hand, which is bullying and how we work together to stop it. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Todd family."
Mixed reaction online"I'm glad that they fired him and they took such a strong stance against bullying," said Claveau.
"But I just think that even having him reprimanded or having the embarrassment of his company knowing what he did is what I was aiming for, just to say … you know what you do in your pastime can affect who you are at work and your personal life too."
Claveau said she has received a lot of response to what happened — most of it positive but some of it negative.
"You can't please everybody, so I'm getting a lot of people saying I was the bully in the matter, or it wasn't right to contact his employer. So I'm getting a little bit of negative backlash."
Claveau said so-called "internet trolls" must be held accountable for what they say and do online.
"Trolls" are people who anonymously post negative comments on the internet to elicit a reaction.
She said she's more encouraged than ever now to monitor the internet and "out" those behind hateful statements.
Claveau has started a group of concerned moms who plan to continue alerting authorities to cyberbullying taking place online.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/10/16/calgary-airdrie-woman-website-comment.html
-985324
Felix Baumgartner broke the speed of sound reaching an estimated speed of *833.9 mph (1,342.8 km/h) jumping from the stratosphere, which when certified will make him the first man to break the speed of sound in freefall while delivering valuable data for future space exploration.
Felix climbed to 128,100 feet (39,045 meters) in a helium-filled balloon Sunday morning Oct. 14, 2012. This is exactly 65 years after Chuck Yeager first broke the sound barrier flying in an experimental rocket powered airplane. Felix broke two other world records (highest freefall, highest manned balloon flight), leaving the longest freefall record to project mentor Col. Joe Kittinger.
Felix's entire trip back to earth lasted 9:09 minutes, with 4:22 of that time in freefall (without drogue). Countless millions of people around the world watched his ascent and jump live on television broadcasts and live stream on the Internet. At one point during his freefall Baumgartner appeared to spin rapidly, but he quickly re-gained control and moments later opened his parachute as members of the ground crew cheered and viewers around the world heaved a sigh of relief.
"It was an incredible up and down today, just like it's been with the whole project," a relieved Baumgartner said. "First we got off with a beautiful launch and then we had a bit of drama with a power supply issue to my visor. The exit was perfect but then I started spinning slowly. I thought I'd just spin a few times and that would be that, but then I started to speed up. It was really brutal at times. I thought for a few seconds that I'd lose consciousness. I didn't feel a sonic boom because I was so busy just trying to stabilize myself. We'll have to wait and see if we really broke the sound barrier. It was really a lot harder than I thought it was going to be."
Baumgartner and his team spent five years training and preparing for the mission that is designed to improve our scientific understanding of how the body copes with the extreme conditions near space.
* The data on the records set by the jump are preliminary pending confirmation from the authorized governing bodies.
http://www.redbullstratos.com/
Felix Baumgartner broke the speed of sound reaching an estimated speed of *833.9 mph (1,342.8 km/h) jumping from the stratosphere, which when certified will make him the first man to break the speed of sound in freefall while delivering valuable data for future space exploration.
Felix climbed to 128,100 feet (39,045 meters) in a helium-filled balloon Sunday morning Oct. 14, 2012. This is exactly 65 years after Chuck Yeager first broke the sound barrier flying in an experimental rocket powered airplane. Felix broke two other world records (highest freefall, highest manned balloon flight), leaving the longest freefall record to project mentor Col. Joe Kittinger.
Felix's entire trip back to earth lasted 9:09 minutes, with 4:22 of that time in freefall (without drogue). Countless millions of people around the world watched his ascent and jump live on television broadcasts and live stream on the Internet. At one point during his freefall Baumgartner appeared to spin rapidly, but he quickly re-gained control and moments later opened his parachute as members of the ground crew cheered and viewers around the world heaved a sigh of relief.
"It was an incredible up and down today, just like it's been with the whole project," a relieved Baumgartner said. "First we got off with a beautiful launch and then we had a bit of drama with a power supply issue to my visor. The exit was perfect but then I started spinning slowly. I thought I'd just spin a few times and that would be that, but then I started to speed up. It was really brutal at times. I thought for a few seconds that I'd lose consciousness. I didn't feel a sonic boom because I was so busy just trying to stabilize myself. We'll have to wait and see if we really broke the sound barrier. It was really a lot harder than I thought it was going to be."
Baumgartner and his team spent five years training and preparing for the mission that is designed to improve our scientific understanding of how the body copes with the extreme conditions near space.
* The data on the records set by the jump are preliminary pending confirmation from the authorized governing bodies.
http://www.redbullstratos.com/
RSS Feed