[Flint]

I think Obama did very well on repeating over and over how Romney's policies are 'all over the place' (regardless of whether they are or not, he says it so many times you're convinced there must be something to it); also the phrase 'as commander in cheif' sounds much more authoritative--as compared to a guy who, by definition, isn't already the president; also Obama had a finely crafted program of implying Romney's lack of knowledge (Russia as the greatest threat without the context of how different threats are defined; the 'apology tour' as something which was a 'whopper' when fact-checking is not applicable to an obviously subjective matter of opinion); and of course, Obama had really great zingers! I think these are all things that will stick with people despite their lack of substantive merit. I wish Obama had made a better case for his principles, for us thinkers. I have red flags that go up when a speaker relies too heavily on emotion.


By contrast, I think Romney had the problem that I often run into as an IT guy: facts are boring. Sound, traditional ideas aren't sexy. Listening to an executive-level businessman speak about the broad view of matters, wherein large chunks of ideas are zipped in small keyword packages, for brevity's sake, tends to, when not examined thoroughly, appear to contain deceptively less information than if fully expounded. I got it, I understood what he was saying, but as a technical person who deals with logic all day long, I tend to latch on to concepts like: the guy who is telling me that he knows how to do something can demonstrate that he has previously been successful at doing this thing. That counts more than rhetoric, to me. That counts more than the other guy having great zingers. To me.