Michelle Singlehandedly PWNED the GOP

[clistensprechen]

....sez Twitter.

The end of @MichelleObama's speech drove 28,003 Tweets-per-minute at its peak. @MittRomney peaked at 14,289 TPM at #GOP2012.

This, when an AP article ran that Nielson reports that TV viewership of the GOP convo was down from 2008 on 11 channels it surveyed.  Suck it.  :mooner:

[wbcoleman]

It was a fine speech and Michelle looked fantastic.  Therefore.... what?

[Ted S]

WBC,

I didn't get to see the First Lady's speech so I can't offer any opinion but Krauthammer said this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/04/krauthammer_on_michelle_obama_it_was_a_great_speech_but_i_didnt_buy_a_line_of_it.html

Do you think that's an accurate representation?

[Woody]

....sez Twitter.

The end of @MichelleObama's speech drove 28,003 Tweets-per-minute at its peak. @MittRomney peaked at 14,289 TPM at #GOP2012.

This, when an AP article ran that Nielson reports that TV viewership of the GOP convo was down from 2008 on 11 channels it surveyed.  Suck it.  :mooner:

Two things. 


1.  Most people know who they are voting for so watching convention speeches is not a high priority.  What will get higher ratings tonite, the convention or the giants/Dallas game?


2.  Where on the Ballot will I find a candidate named Michelle Obama?  What office is she running for?

[clistensprechen]

....sez Twitter.

The end of @MichelleObama's speech drove 28,003 Tweets-per-minute at its peak. @MittRomney peaked at 14,289 TPM at #GOP2012.

This, when an AP article ran that Nielson reports that TV viewership of the GOP convo was down from 2008 on 11 channels it surveyed.  Suck it.  :mooner:

Two things. 


1.  Most people know who they are voting for so watching convention speeches is not a high priority.  What will get higher ratings tonite, the convention or the giants/Dallas game?


2.  Where on the Ballot will I find a candidate named Michelle Obama?  What office is she running for?

The same one Ann Romney is running for.  Of course!

The ratings are in for the GOP convo, and they're down from 2008. Those ratings should be easy to beat.

[Woody]

....sez Twitter.

The end of @MichelleObama's speech drove 28,003 Tweets-per-minute at its peak. @MittRomney peaked at 14,289 TPM at #GOP2012.

This, when an AP article ran that Nielson reports that TV viewership of the GOP convo was down from 2008 on 11 channels it surveyed.  Suck it.  :mooner:

Two things. 


1.  Most people know who they are voting for so watching convention speeches is not a high priority.  What will get higher ratings tonite, the convention or the giants/Dallas game?


2.  Where on the Ballot will I find a candidate named Michelle Obama?  What office is she running for?

The same one Ann Romney is running for.  Of course!

The ratings are in for the GOP convo, and they're down from 2008. Those ratings should be easy to beat.

I and others didn't brag that Ann pwned the dems because we know she ain't running.  Barry is the one that has to pwned the GOP.


I already acknowledged the GOP RATINGS were down.  Will you repeat the same mess over and over?  Ow, wait, you will.

[clistensprechen]

Watch this, Woody, and pay attention...

It was a fine speech and Michelle looked fantastic.  Therefore.... what?

Therefore this:

.





...otherwise said, a rich source of campaign principles to quote.

[Woody]

Yawn!  Same ol' same ol'.

[clistensprechen]

I didn't think that "playing by the same set of rules" would appeal to any Republican, who also keep double books, too.

[Woody]

I didn't think that "playing by the same set of rules" would appeal to any Republican, who also keep double books, too.

Could you list those rules for us.  We are all fortunate to born American.  Some are rich.  Most aren't. That's life. 


So please list the rules you are talking about.  I am non committal on whether or not it appeals to me.  Convince me with details.

[Ted S]

I'm going to take issue with some of the things on that poster:

1. Hard work should pay off.  Not necessarily.  A person can work very hard at something but if it has no value to anyone else, why should it pay off?

2. Responsibility should be rewarded.  I agree, but then why would I vote for her husband if he won't take any responsibility for the current economic conditions.

3. Everyone in this country should get a fair shot but play by the same rules.  Affirmative Action violates this by tilting the rules in favor of certain groups.

[wbcoleman]

WBC,

I didn't get to see the First Lady's speech so I can't offer any opinion but Krauthammer said this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/04/krauthammer_on_michelle_obama_it_was_a_great_speech_but_i_didnt_buy_a_line_of_it.html

Do you think that's an accurate representation?

It's not that I would disagree with Krauthammer's analysis, but I do regard his comments as overly cynical.  Michelle spoke of her husband in the same terms that Ann Romney spoke of hers.  The wives' endorsements of the husbands are branding exercises.  It's like having an Olympic athlete endorse Wheaties and putting the athlete's picture on the box.  In that sense, the wife's job is to vouch for what a great guy the husband is.  I felt that Michele nailed that.

[wbcoleman]

Watch this, Woody, and pay attention...

It was a fine speech and Michelle looked fantastic.  Therefore.... what?

Therefore this:

.





...otherwise said, a rich source of campaign principles to quote.

Answering my own question, the "therefore" is that "therefore Michelle vouched for O's virtue, did a great job of it and, in so doing, enhanced his prospects for reelection."  All things being equal.

[wbcoleman]

I'm going to take issue with some of the things on that poster:

1. Hard work should pay off.  Not necessarily.  A person can work very hard at something but if it has no value to anyone else, why should it pay off?

2. Responsibility should be rewarded.  I agree, but then why would I vote for her husband if he won't take any responsibility for the current economic conditions.

3. Everyone in this country should get a fair shot but play by the same rules.  Affirmative Action violates this by tilting the rules in favor of certain groups.

These are all popular contemporary platitudes.

[clistensprechen]

....and the figures are in re: viewership of Michelle O's speech.  Whereas 11 channels were surveyed to muster up the entire RNC convo viewer numbers, only 9 were surveyed to come up with Mrs. O's.  Read 'em and weep:

Reuters report