Scroll to the bottom to see how Romney won on non-verbals alone. It is well known in pragmatics that non-verbals communicate more than actual words. Even if the verbal part had been a tie, Obama still would have lost big. This was classic Nixon-Kennedy.http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/its-over.phpOne other note. Obama compared himself to Lincoln and Eisenhower last night. I look forward to the Romney comeback line next debate, because this will surely happen again.
This was the case in the first Bush-Gore debate. In that case, the Democrats really screwed up because they simply couldn't help themselves but to proclaim loudly and often how Bush was the stupidest person alive and Gore the smartest man ever. I remember about a day before the debate, Paul Begala seemed to realize that they needed to slam on the brakes and made a few comments complimenting Bush, but it was too late. At that point, all Bush had to do was not fall down and he wins the debate. As far as I recall, that is where the expectations game shifted into high gear, because the Democrats misplayed it so much.Bush performed just OK. But came out the winner. Not just because he didn't fall on his face, but because Gore came across as such an annoying, arrogant ass. It was so bad, even SNL ripped him in a sketch. It was all in the non-verbal cues (do the excessive sighs count as verbal)? Gore than turned one debate loss into three, and that may have been decisive (anything could be, in an election won by a few hundred votes in one state). In debate two, Gore showed up on sedatives, and Bush carried the day. In debate three, Gore came out like a gladiator, and mostly just looked bizarre for changing personalities every time he showed up.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Mornings