WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

POLITICO: Denver debate do-or-die for Romney

POLITICO offers an analysis of how the first Presidential debate could be absolutely decisive.

Either Mitt Romney recovers from his downward spiral with a smashing performance or the trajectory of his candidacy will spiral downward. Absent a very strong performance, G.O.P. donors and strategists may decide to concentrate on Congressional races.

Here's that account from POLITICO:


My analysis: Let's recall how Mitt Romney did during that marathon string of Republican Primary candidates' debates. He typically delivered strong performances, but seldom hit a ball out of the park.

Remember when Newt Gingrich seemingly had Romney on the ropes? Romney responded forcefully in the Florida debates... although some of us will never completely understand why Gingrich suddenly lost his thunder. Something about Romney intimidated Gingrich? Gingrich went limp with a less supportive crowd? Will President Obama be the "next" Gingrich?

As usual, Romney is getting conflicting advice. Does he pummel the President unceasingly? Or, no, Romney's got to go for nuance and likability to appeal to those remaining undecided, "swing" voters who might be turned off by a brawl?

Posted at 6:55am on September 27, 2012 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts

Comments on this post:

Thu, Sep 27, 2012 11:21am
The debates bring Gov. Romney to do-or-die time because this is when the campaign starts to matter. Until now, the effort has been the launch of a "product". The marketing campaign is for name recognition and charm. October is when the issues campaign actually begins. This is the part of the marketing campaign when you learn what the product can do, cannot do, and how much you need it.

Polls are meaningless until October, since we are only measuring likeability. Although I do not like Mr. Obama, many/most people do. It's difficult to like Mitt Romney. But now we learn that he shares a characteristic with Richard Nixon. Few liked the President, but a large majority knew we needed him to save the country. Likewise with Mr. Romney.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Sep 27, 2012 1:06pm
JimH: Well said.

In the debates, it would be helpful for Mr. Romney to speak slower and look more confident in what he says. His face so often has the deer-caught-in-the-headlights look and his voice sounds unsure. My guess is, he's not really comfortable being in big crowds. He's probably an introvert. Also, he's used to being in a boardroom with a handful of folks. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, always loved the crowds, the bigger the better. But Romney needs to slow down his delivery and speak with confidence.

When is the first debate?

Allan: Will WDEL air these debates (I'm assuming CBS radio will offer a feed) or will I have to listen again to NPR for radio coverage. I doubt your cross town rival will pre-empt their satellite parade of right wing talkers to air the Fox Feed of the debates. IF WDEL has a Phillies game they can't pre-empt, WSTW could air the debates, might help their ratings. If not, that leaves NPR.

Thu, Sep 27, 2012 1:42pm
The 47-percent comment was the gaffe that cost Mitt Romney this Presidential race. While there are social conservatives and many anti-Obama factions, most of these people are working-class conservatives. They've been offended that they've been dismissed as "dependent on government" or have "no personal responsibility" simply because they are not millionaires like Mr. Romney.

The 47 percent are people who get up at 5 a.m. to go to work, who have been earning a paycheck from age 18 to 68, and sometimes work three jobs to ensure there is food on the table. We have plenty of personal responsibility. It is Mr. Romney who has not worked a job since 1998.

Romney will be going down hard.

Thu, Sep 27, 2012 2:45pm
I think WDEL has definitively proven on Allan, Rick's, and Al's shows, that this remark would have been made by any Republican candidate at any fundraising event...


Like if I'm asking you for money, and you firmly only give if it benefits Delaware, I'm going to include Delaware somewhere in my presentation... Duh.

This microscopic sliver of society is what funds the Republican Party.. "These people" who think they are chosen by God to get rich off of everyone else, are the very ones who part the purse-strings to fund the entire Republican Party from top to bottom...

In fact, anyone can become a candidate; not necessarily to win, but to live off these mentally-challenged donors' largess by simply saying things like: God needs to get back into our country; Obama is bad for business; We need moral leadership; Lower taxes grow jobs; Socialism. Cut Benefits to Poor People.

You won't win, so it will never happen, but, it's a great way to live for two years before an election. Which is why, when seen from this perspective, the Republican Party has a lack of talent. If you were talented, and wanted to personally "accomplish" something, would you join the Republican Party? OF.. COURSE... NOT.

Why join a group of losers?

So this is nothing new. This is not even controversial. This was played down by all the press accounts I saw.

What amazes me, is how it is resonating with the American People. It is a good thing, that they are waking up to what the Republican Party has stood for since the neo-cons became a force, but, even I, am flabbergasted that they are just now, realizing the truth... Republicans have always only catered to the top 1% of power. Always... Ever since the Civil War ended, they have taken the role previously held by the Whigs, and the Federalists before that, which is the voice of Capital....

Agreed, we have seen evidence of what happens when that voice is silenced and killed. Soviet Russia and Communist China are two in recent memory. History buffs will likewise throw in the French Revolution as the perfect example.....

But we are not talking about guillotining the heads of Goldman-Sachs or JP Morgan. We are simply allowing taxes to rise to where they were the last time when everything was fine and we had wonderful prosperity.

Americans just woke up. So I take issue with Teatime that Romney lost the election... He didn't. He is a good candidate trying to sell a bankrupt program.

Romney is a Burger King ad. You see it and it looks good until you walk in, wait 3 minutes for someone to come up and greet you, place your order to a rude kid (not really rude, just a misplaced idea of what is "cool'), wait 7 more minutes for him to find someone to put your burger on the conveyor, then having another sandwich be found, microwaved and given to you, and upon biting into it, it is still cold in the middle.

You had McDonald's right next door, with a perfect operation from beginning to end.... Burger King spends a lot of money on ads. They have to. They don't have a product good enough to sell itself... or bring one person in for a return visit. McDonald's doesn't have to advertise. Every product they serve, is always top-notch and excellent.

So this tape can be really nothing more or less likened to a tape released from the central boardroom of Burger King Headquarters, where the "deciders" were trying to increase their market share... "47% of people are loyal to McDonalds, and won't come no matter how much we rattle their cages..."

Well, if Burger King offered me a free smoothie on Memorial Day or Labor Day, I might be persuaded to come in .... "Oops, what? They tried that already? How did it go? Oh, It didn't. What? They didn't have the smoothie machines in place, up and running on either of those days... Oh, really."

There will be an attempt to blame Mitt Romney for this loss. As their figurehead, he could share some of the blame but the true reason is that the Republican Party does not have a bill of goods to sell... America ate Republican fare for 8 years earlier this century. Most Americans are holding their stomachs remembering the bad mayonnaise on that last whopper they held with two hands, all the while realizing that the competing fast-food place right next door had never made them sick, never in their entire lives. In fact, it was pretty good.

Republicans themselves lost this election.. And I will tell you when. It came during that question in the first primary debate when there were fourteen candidates, and the question was ... even if you had a ratio of nine cuts to every one revenue increase, would you agree to a budget that raised taxes? No. no. No. Nope. No. No. Nope. No. No. No. No. Nope. No. No.......

All fourteen. That moment is when Republicans lost the election. We realized they were more concerned with philosophy, than with bringing our nation back. The rest of America just woke up to it with this last secret tape release.

Allan Loudell
Thu, Sep 27, 2012 2:47pm
To Mike from Delaware---

WDEL will air the 1st & 2nd Presidential debates. The first Presidential debate of this string will take place Wednesday, October 3rd.

Conflicts (One is NFL) will prevent us from airing the 3rd Presidential debate. Also, can't do the Veep debate.

A music-driven station like WSTW would never carry a Presidential debate.

Allan Loudell

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Sep 27, 2012 3:18pm
Thanks Allan, I'll be listening.

Thu, Sep 27, 2012 9:20pm
Sadly, there's one important ingredient that will be missing from the presidential debates, and that's Allan Loudell as moderator. Only Allan can make Republicans, Democrats, and Independents equally squirm in their seats!

Thu, Sep 27, 2012 9:22pm
Kavips: I don't care what you or Shawn or any other liberal dufus has to say, I'm sticking to my Republican guns. If I go down, so be it, but I'll be going down swinging!

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Sep 27, 2012 11:04pm
Was it Yogi Berra who said, it ain't over until its over.

As all of us here enjoy kicking it around, debating our points of view, exchanging ideas, learning from one another as everyone here brings some knowledge and experience to Allan's Blog. But all of this means nothing if folks don't go and vote. So yes, even those of you who disagree with me and my point of view, I still want you also to vote as this is an important part of being an American. The more people who vote, better reflects the heart of this nation.

So bottom line "it don't mean a thing if we don't do the vote thing" (you can sing that to the tune "It Don't mean a thing if it ain't got that Swing" - sorry I couldn't resist). Many brave Americans gave their lives so that we can be free and have the right and the privilege to vote.

So depending on who makes the effort and goes to the polls and votes will determine IF Obama gets a second term or if Romney gets a first term.

Fri, Sep 28, 2012 9:14am
I agree Mitt needs to come out strong & confident but do not believe the polls that say he is losing large...current polling that shows Obama in the lead still relies on land lines, HEAVY Democrat turnout and heavy youth turnout. Yes, the Democrats turned out in record numbers in 2008 but not in 2010...the only pollster who nailed both the 2008 & 2010 election results was Rasmussen and he shows this to be a very close race.

But yes, Romney does need to do well if he wishes to unseat an incumbent president and overcome the 49% (not 47%) of the American population who do not pay federal income taxes...and therefore want more "free stuff" since they have no "investment" in the game (much easier to spend other people's money).

Simple analogy: Who takes better care of a house? (a)owners (b)renters or (c)squatters? The answer is (a)...followed next by (b). If you have no investment in the outcome, why would you care about the house (i.e. the financial health of the US economy)

Mike from Delaware
Fri, Sep 28, 2012 10:49am
EarlGrey: Well said. The thing Mitt's got to make clear is that he won't be throwing folks out on the street, but will help them to get back into the mainstream of the working world again where they again feel the pride of bringing home a pay check.

We still need safety net programs to help folks during those times when they truly need a helping hand. So there is balance and Mitt's got to get that message out in a very clear way so that the Lib Media can't spin it that he wants to throw people out in the streets (because you know that's what they'll report). THAT's not what we as a nation do, we help them to be a part of the American Dream, etc, etc.

Fri, Sep 28, 2012 11:27am
Thanks Mike, and I agree with you that Romney/Ryan have to clearly get the message out that they DO NOT want to end the social safety nets but DO want to make changes that will allow these programs to continue.

Sun, Sep 30, 2012 8:38pm
If Republican leadership had started out doing what Mike says above, it could now be a close race because of the luckluster performance of certain sectors of the economy. But no, they didn't. They started out how they would shut down Obamacare. How they would not raise one penny in tax revenue. How they would privatize Social Security. How they would offer coupons and shut down Medicare completely, giving 100% of the savings to private insurance companies.... How they would open up again the doughnut hole, so insurance companies could make even more money off of Americans who were getting poorer and poorer. And now, when it is obvious America doesn't want to go in that direction.... You say they need to say they don't want to end America's social nets?... BECAUSE HE IS LOSING?

Who in their right mind will trust this party's late turn away from everything "ad nauseum" they said since the primaries began 16 months ago...

No one, that is who.....

And that begs the question: why didn't they start a long time ago with positioning themselves where they plan to go right now? So they wouldn't be forced to have to say..."Don't listen to anything we said before this point. That was just schoolboy funnin'... What we say now, that is the only statements we are serious about...."

The reason is you. Republicans. Just go back and look at the stuff you were writing in April, in March, in February... They were repeating the very messages being said right here on this blog. But now, that it is obvious that your messages are entirely wrong if not dangerous for the United States of America to follow, you say he should change his message. When all this time, it was to appeal to you, responding to your messages, your dreams and your aspirations for this country, all of which it is now clear, are unsellable and if enacted, will ruin this nation; not pull us out of a Republican caused slump....

America is digesting what you have said, and doesn't like it one bit.

Which means one thing. Republicans are going in the WRONG DIRECTION.

And in retort to Mr. Pizza's defiant call.... there were also little boys standing on piles of rubble firing the Lugars just handed them minutes before, whose rounds simply just bounced off the Soviet Tanks which turned their turrets at those piles of rubble eternalizing the souls of those little boys.

Sometimes it is wise to accept the upcoming changes, and grow and prosper under them, instead of going down and being forever ridiculed for your blind obedience to a figment proposed by your imagination.....

Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.

Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach