Obama worshipers who are upset about his debate performance last night, as well as Romney supporters who are elated about it, are overlooking the fact that Obama intentionally did poorly in order to assure that he -- or at the very least the Establishment Party that he is the primary current figurehead of -- wins in November.
In the days leading up to the debate Obama had developed a significant lead over Romney in the polls. In fact, many were saying that if Obama did well in the debate it could be all over for Romney.
Which is exactly why Obama had to take a dive: The last thing he, or the magenta (blue plus red) party, wants is an election that doesn't go down to the wire. Because the most fundamental strategy of the party, the strategy that has kept it in power for so many decades, is to make sure that support amongst the two halves (republican and democrat) is always roughly even.
A close race keeps people from voting for an independent candidate that actually more closely represents their views, because they figure that to vote for the independent would be “wasting their vote” as it might let the establishment candidate they dislike more win.
But think about it objectively for a minute: Regardless of whether you prefer the blue or red half of the magenta party, doesn't it stand to reason that if your half is really so much better than the other, that after all these decades this would have become clear to most people and thus the other half would have shriveled up to just a small percentage?
Clearly, the fact that the other half has (roughly) just as much support as your half, year after year, decade after decade, strongly implies that, overall, the each half is probably roughly just as good (and, more importantly, just as bad) as the other.
Of course on a personal level Obama might been concerned that if he did well last night his supporters might become complacent, and that could lead to a lower voter turnout on election day that could cost him the election. I certainly don’t deny that this could have been part of his strategy, for even a figurehead wants to beat the other figurehead.
But the much larger, much more important thing to remember is that the establishment magenta party doesn’t really care which of its two figurehead wins, as long as one of them does -- and the other one is close enough that no other candidate (such as Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson) can get more than a trivial percentage of the votes. For if such an independent ever got a significant percentage of the votes -- say, even five percent -- the mainstream media might no longer be able to totally ignore his or her candidacy in the future, and might even have to include him or her in future debates.
And once that happens, it's just a matter of time before it is all over the for establishment ("magenta") party -- because once the American people are exposed to a true choice, they will eventually choose freedom over endless foreign wars, foreign aid, and wars against Americans (such as drug addicts) who need help, not prison.
In the meantime, one can’t help but feel sorry for moderator Jim Lehrer... somebody really should have clued him in ahead of time as to the true purpose of the debate.
(Please send this essay's link -- http://nuzcom.com/debate-why-obama-took-dive -- to others!)
(And please consider clicking on the donation button below.)