To all the confused punditry we've been told before (re: debate "wins" and what Undecideds want)
Let's see whether I've got this clear:
* We're told that Bishop Mittens won the first debate because he was so aggressive. What I saw/heard was him being a mouth breathing jerk. Oh, btw, James LIPTON from The Actor's Studio told Tweety that the reason OBAMA was "off" in the first debate was that "the man he prepared to debate didn't show up (it was somebody else)."
* Yet we're told that the Undecideds are mostly women and don't like aggression. Yet they loved Bishop Mittens in the first debate.
* So now we're told that Bishop Mittens cannily turned down the aggression for the third debate in order to win more of those Undecided women who, remember, don't like aggression although they liked aggression in the first debate.
Any providing of what I'm missing will be appreciated.
Oh, in the past Undecideds were not characterized much, were given a vague image of being impartial, objective beings who where not ideological. It has only been in this campaign that I've heard media yakkers tell a truth and say that these are "Low Information Voters," those who don't follow politics (but DO vote?), and don't pay attention till crunch time and even then vote by some weirdly subjective criteria of personal looks or demeanor or voice tone.
= new reply since forum marked as read
