In response to:

Debates go to Aggressor, Not the Aggressive

rbarton Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 8:46 AM
Operative for the Muslim Brotherhood or just plain stupid?
ThasicAlambra Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 11:05 AM
Wow, this guy is really lost. He must have been looking for the HuffPo and stumbled into TH by mistake.
LoneGunman2 Wrote: Sep 27, 2012 10:15 AM
ALL OF THE ABOVE is more like it!

I don't look for anything positive to come out of these lamestream moderated "debates"! It's a stacked deck and it's not possible for Romney to get anything positive out of them. FHIW I won't even watch as my mind is already made up and I have no desire to watch the circus that will be the presidential debates of 2012!
As a pollster, I understand how polling numbers can lead to the misimpression that televised debates never decide presidential elections. But I first got involved in competitive debate at age 14, and I was coaching state and national politicians in debate starting at age 20. My experience taught me that debates can be the difference.

The key to winning televised presidential debates, and ultimately the election, is for a candidate to come across as being the "aggressor," rather than being "aggressive." It's an important distinction.

The "aggressor" is the candidate who answers questions with forceful language and a laser...