ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   General Politics Poll: Was Clint Eastwood's Speech A Positive or Negative For Romney? (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=263093)

RINGLEADER 09-01-2012 10:50 AM

Poll: Was Clint Eastwood's Speech A Positive or Negative For Romney?
 
Personally, I think Clint's schtick with an empty chair was a net positive.

Until next week when George Clooney gives a more coherent speech next to an empty suit.

Aries Walker 09-01-2012 11:00 AM

It was a negative - not because it didn't work or something, but because it's all people are talking about now, when ideally people should be talking about Rubio's, Ryan's, or - best of all - Romney's speeches and platforms and so on.

Brock 09-01-2012 11:03 AM

I don't see how it matters. All I thought about it was that Clint needs to go get a cat scan.

mlyonsd 09-01-2012 11:03 AM

Hard to say. It was painful for me to watch. Not for Romney's sake though. Felt bad for Clint. I hate to see him get old.

WilliamTheIrish 09-01-2012 11:05 AM

I love Clint. That speech was hilarious. Little to no affect.

cosmo20002 09-01-2012 11:30 AM

I can't imagine that it swayed any votes even subconsciously.

"Conventional" wisdom is that it was a negative because it was the thing people were talking about rather than Mitt or Mitt's speech.

However, if it means that people won't remember Mitt's substance-free speech full of platitutes about parent's love and how the Rs all rallied around Pres. Obama with their support after the 2008 election, Clint was a net positive for him.

|Zach| 09-01-2012 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aries Walker (Post 8870283)
It was a negative - not because it didn't work or something, but because it's all people are talking about now, when ideally people should be talking about Rubio's, Ryan's, or - best of all - Romney's speeches and platforms and so on.

Yea, I have no idea how it can be spun into a positive.

KILLER_CLOWN 09-01-2012 11:37 AM

He made some good points, and some dumbass points I voted no impact.

cosmo20002 09-01-2012 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 8870346)
Yea, I have no idea how it can be spun into a positive.

Instead of the media and people talking about Mitt's lousy speech, they talked about Clint.

"We Americans have always felt a special kinship with the future." WTF is that?

cosmo20002 09-01-2012 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN (Post 8870350)
He made some good points, and some dumbass points I voted no impact.

What was with Clint bitching to invisible Obama about the decision to invade Afghanistan?

|Zach| 09-01-2012 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 8870359)
Instead of the media and people talking about Mitt's lousy speech, they talked about Clint.

"We Americans have always felt a special kinship with the future." WTF is that?

Hahaha

BucEyedPea 09-01-2012 11:45 AM

No difference. Don't understand why RNC leadership, or controllers of the message, were upset about it.
Perhaps, because Clint mocked the wars ever so slightly. Judging from the camera moving around the forum, not all Republicans looked pleased at that part.

|Zach| 09-01-2012 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea (Post 8870372)
No difference. Don't understand why RNC leadership, or controllers of the message, were upset about it.

It is probably because he looked like a blathering mumbling idiot muttering sentence fragments.

Hoover 09-01-2012 11:50 AM

It was a positive.

Not what he said, but because of the extra people he got to tune into the convention.

DementedLogic 09-01-2012 11:51 AM

I voted positive, because it is actually distracting from Romney's speech which was not very good. Romney did what most people expecting him to, he gave a speech about the results he wants, but once again did not provide a plan.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.