Mitt Romney Has a Good Chance of Winning

I have been having some problems with the input for the debate.org website, so first I will apologize for the huge and bold font in my previous reply. Hopefully I'll have it ironed out by the time I post this... As I peruse Pros discussion, I am surprised that my opponent seems to be replying to arguments remarkably similar to my points, but is missing what I am actually saying. Did I communicate badly? I'll try to clarify while rebutting him.To start at number 1, The economy has been sputtering along since 2008, without any improvements. This is certainly Mr. Obamas biggest hurdle and no one, myself included, is saying any different. The problem Mr. Romney has with Bain Capitol is the basic story: a predatory company that purchases other companies, actively looting them of all the liquid cash it can, and dumping the carcass to the ruination of stockholders, employees and consumers. The behavior of Bain appears to be precisely the same that cause the 2008 Recession, and Mr. Romney has – as described by the talking heads on both left and the right [1.1] [1.2]- created a tragicomedy in failing to distance himself from that behavior. Was he out of Bain at the end of the 1990's, as he claimed recently in his campaign? Was he the managing director in the 2000's, as his own SEC forms indicate? How could he have those important sounding titles and a $100,000 a year salary if he was doing 'nothing' at Bain? [1.4] And I seriously must know, what the hell is the public supposed to make out of the claim that Mr. Romney “retroactively retired”? [1.5] Trust me, I don't know of anybody who has a problem merely with Mr. Romney's wealth, this being America and all. The great difficulty is that Mr. Romney has a serious trust issue that he himself is not solving.[1.1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[1.2] http://www.christianpost.com...[1.4] http://www.examiner.com...[1.5] http://www.youtube.com...Point 2. The Presidential “Look”. My opponents first sentence doesn't make sense. The meaning that comes out is that both candidates are equally presidential, so Mr Romney doesn't lose by not being presidential (obviously because he is presidential). OK, Mr. Romney is photogenic. So is Mr. Obama. So is this guy [2.0]. So was Kerry, Dole, Gore- and every other failed candidate since Richard Nixon lost a debate with JFK mostly due to 5 o'clock shadow [2.1] . Pros next sentence may also be more on point than he realizes- “Romney has not done as much so he does not have a disadvantage here” taken literary is a hilarious confirmation of my economic argument as well as being unflattering to his case generally. Merely avoiding the spectacular implosions his opponents indulged in is hardly sufficient to be statesmanlike. But again, as far as “being Presidential” is concerned, let us not forget that the also intelligent, aware and experienced Barack Obama gets to be seen leaving Air Force One, address the nation from the Oval Office, speak from a podium with the Seal of the Executive Office on the front, ans so forth. Simply put, Mr Obama IS the President, while Mr. Romney WANTS to be. The advantage here is always with the incumbent, and leaves Mitt falling short of his 50%.[2.0] http://www.youtube.com...[2.1] http://www.museum.tv...Point 3. A Well Organized Campaign. My opponent in his reply sates that “Both of us cannot deny that both Obama's and Romney's campaign[s] are organized and funded well. So no one gains over 50% from this.” Without further discussion of Mr. Romney's foot in mouth disease, I will agree with Pro, and claim my laurel for this point, as Pro's burden is to show the positive argument that Mr. Romney has a more than 50% probability.Point 4. Good Debater. As far as policy issues, Mr. Romney has continuously flipped like a flounder flavored waffle on abortion, health care, immigration, et cetera [4.1] [4.2 (McCains 2008 anti Romny handbook =SCORE!)], and Mr Obama (who has no equivalent explanatory burden on the issues) will almost certainly hammer Romney hard. - With the exception of his 'evolving' position on gay marriage, where Obama is gaining the vote of some relevant LBGT, liberal and progressive citizens. Mr. Obama is also not losing many additional votes from the alternative block, so that trend will favor him. Point 4a, the debating history. Again, Carter vs Reagan 1979, Bush vs Dukakis 1988, Stewart vs. Lincoln 1856, or even Thag vs Og 3500 B.C.E. will have no affect on Obama vs. Romney 2012 except for providing instructive examples to maybe plan strategy.[4.1] http://www.businessinsider.com...[4.2] http://www.buzzfeed.com...Point 5. He a a Morman. It remains likely that many of the more fundamentalist Christians may elect to remain home rather than chose between two “ungodly” alternatives. As far as the minority vote, I don't see significant shifting, even among very conservative minority voters. [5.2] [5.3] Escpecially after this [5.4][5.1] http://www.pbs.org...[5.2] http://theweek.com...[5.3] http://thestir.cafemom.com...[5.4] http://www.youtube.com...Point 6. The Polls. Here Pro does not notice that my argument only began with the name of a website that continuously slants its prose, that has no methodological systemics anywhere (what exactly is the justification for giving Mitt 3 additional points, instead of say 5 or -1?), and in fact IS mathematically false in that it derives these results [6.1]in the sidebar: Romney 62% chance to win vs. Obama's 38% from this charwhose actual average is 46.5% each. Also the site pretends that this picture is actually represents some sort of polling for the last six months. Seriously, This picture [6.1].For a quick comparison of an objective and reliable site I recommend the 538 blog [6.2].[6.1] http://www.elephantwatcher.com...[6.2] http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...Point 7. Obamas Weaknesses. My opponent again says that the economy is Obama's most difficult issue, and that he can prove it. I have already stipulated, I agree with the point. However, Pro has stated that (his first two arguments) the economy and the lack of success of many of his projects makes Obama a “Failed Presidency”. This argument ignores both those parts of the Obama Administration that were successful[7.1] , and the sad fact that most if not all of the failures in the last half a decade stem from the stubborn resistance of the GOP in Congress. [7.3] Point 7a Health care. This topic is not directly on the topic, and dangerously close to needing a separate forum. I will quickly point out several sources concerning how the two systems are functionally the same [7.4] [7.5]. Also I show that each component of the package is more popular when it is explained[7.8]. We may need to put this into a new debate.[7.1] http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...[7.3] http://www.youtube.com...[7.4] http://www.politifact.com...[7.5] http://www.theatlantic.com...[7.8] http://www.washingtonpost.com...