Soxbadger Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 These poll stats are hilarious. CNN has obama winning by 8% overall (who won) But in basically every individual category Romney is winning. So I guess they just dont like Romney because it seems they are buying what hes selling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 16, 2012 -> 11:05 PM) These poll stats are hilarious. CNN has obama winning by 8% overall (who won) But in basically every individual category Romney is winning. So I guess they just dont like Romney because it seems they are buying what hes selling. He still hasnt come up with his "plan". That's the problem. You cant criticize what someone did and say you will do better without having something concrete to say on the matter. He clearly wants to say what HE would do but is hamstrung by his party and especially the people who are shoving money in his pocket. You could see it when the Gun Control topic came up. He took out an NRA card and read the slogan on the back. Doesnt matter anyway. Why do we think these people will magically change anything that they say they are. Obama's has alot of his policies blocked for his term and so will Romney if he wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 16, 2012 -> 11:18 PM) Doesnt matter anyway. Why do we think these people will magically change anything that they say they are. Obama's has alot of his policies blocked for his term and so will Romney if he wins. That's why what you really need most from a president is leadership. Obama was sorely lacking in that the past four years. But Romney just does absolutely nothing to inspire any sort of confidence in his leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I would think now is the perfect time for an independent to step up and take on both of those fools. Too bad no one so far has shown they can take on either party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 When has Obama ever been in charge of Chicago? Never. He's been in charge of Chicago ever since Rahm got elected mayor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 01:45 AM) I would think now is the perfect time for an independent to step up and take on both of those fools. Too bad no one so far has shown they can take on either party. +100000 Too bad the system is rigged for these two parties. I thought the debate last night was pretty meh. Obama actually showed up, but he didn't really do anything to tell undecided's what he's going to do in the next 4 years. Given that his main hurdle to reelection is the American people's belief that Romney would be better for the economy, you'd think he would want to hit on that. Yeah, it's great he a good zinger about Romney being rich. I like how that's pointed out in the post-debate blog posts. But Romney had an equally good zinger about Obama needing to look at his own pension before calling people out for investing in China. The Libya issue needs to go away. Both sides are saying the other side made it political. While I agree with the Romney camp that Obama didn't outright call it a terrorist act for a long time afterwards, and Obama did spend way too much time placing blame on that stupid video, now BOTH sides are making it a political issue and we've completely forgotten that 4 Americans are dead because of a bunch of assholes that live half a world away. Lastly, that was quite possibly the worst moderating job in the history of political debates. She had zero control over both candidates, she was CLEARLY impartial, and she actually interjected her own opinions into the debate itself. That was ludicrous. At the end of the day, I think this was along the lines of the Biden/Ryan debate. Obama showed up and did what people thought he would do, and Romney wasn't bad and made some good arguments. I don't think either will get much of a bump from this because the focus will be on the moderator and the awful format of the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 01:29 PM) I don't think either will get much of a bump from this because the focus will be on the moderator and the awful format of the debate. Part of it is that both of these guys are in full attack mode and if you don't get the last word, you're farked. So you have to butt in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 16, 2012 -> 09:58 PM) If you reallycare somuch about intelligence failures, I seriously hope you didnt vote for Bush after 9/11, Iraq etc. People make mistakes, who cares either way. If that is the reason you dont want vote for someone, so be it. Thank you Jethro Tull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Who cares about OBL, didn't you guys know that 9/11 was an inside job? /libertarianfriends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 1. Obama won, almost as handily as Romney won the first one. 2. Candy Crowley was clearly in the bag for Obama and Romney did in fact get screwed by the moderator multiple times. Although really, Obama would have won anyway. 3. This town hall format is obviously much better for Obama than Romney. 4. For all the general perception that Romney is a results-oriented business guy and Obama is a big talker... Obama provided a heck of a lot more specifics for policy in the debate than Romney has. Mitt needs to add a lot more details to his plans if he plans to make a better case. 5. Neither candidate provided a real or useful answer to the questions about Benghazi. Obama got angry at the end, for good reason I suppose, but that didn't answer the original question whatsoever. Obama didn't answer to the failure in the agency's decision making, and Romney did nothing more than try to make it seem like Obama didn't care. Those are both loser arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 01:45 AM) I would think now is the perfect time for an independent to step up and take on both of those fools. Too bad no one so far has shown they can take on either party. It's too bad our "democracy" only allows for two candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I'm still waiting on Romney's policy specifics for the economy, cant his party put them out today or something since he only said "it will work" again on tv. Doing the math, he's reducing all taxes (his words) increasing spending in key areas and somehow that reduces the deficit? I dont understand how anyone can believe that. I also dont understand how he can say he's a great business-runner with a straight face. You grew up with money, made investments for awhile and then took a bailout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 10:14 AM) 1. Obama won, almost as handily as Romney won the first one. 2. Candy Crowley was clearly in the bag for Obama and Romney did in fact get screwed by the moderator multiple times. Although really, Obama would have won anyway. 3. This town hall format is obviously much better for Obama than Romney. 4. For all the general perception that Romney is a results-oriented business guy and Obama is a big talker... Obama provided a heck of a lot more specifics for policy in the debate than Romney has. Mitt needs to add a lot more details to his plans if he plans to make a better case. 5. Neither candidate provided a real or useful answer to the questions about Benghazi. Obama got angry at the end, for good reason I suppose, but that didn't answer the original question whatsoever. Obama didn't answer to the failure in the agency's decision making, and Romney did nothing more than try to make it seem like Obama didn't care. Those are both loser arguments. I think some of the snap polling bore this out, but the town hall plays up the perception that BO relates to people better. It is one thing to relate through a TV camera, but I certainly get a sense that seeing BO talk to the question-askers makes him look much more like he cares about them than Romney. Whether one actually cares more than the other....who knows, it really doesn't matter. I believe Romney is going to continue to be vague so no one gets scared of his plans. When you have no specifics, there are no specific people that are going to get disenchanted. This goes perfectly with his general anti- campaign, just stand there and be a general alternative to the incumbent. The Benghazi question could have been a good one for Romney, but like you said he totally went at it the wrong way and it made Obama look good. He looked like a good leader with true concern for his decisions (especially when they might result in loss of life)...while true IMO, Romney could have prevented that from coming through if he had framed his response in a way that was far more specific and instead made Obama look incompetent instead of just trying to make him look careless/without remorse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 One question for the real political fans on here: How do they get the poll results? Seems that the population they would poll from wouldnt be indicative of who is actually going to vote come Nov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 10:26 AM) It's too bad our "democracy" only allows for two candidates. Proportional voting like damn near the rest of the world would allow other parties to get more of a voice. In this case, you could have a libertarian party matter since they could simply cooperate in Congress with Repubs on relevant issues and with Dems on others. I have a feeling libertarians could take up 15%+ in a system that allowed for proportional representation. I've said this before, but our system is not a democracy by any stetch. It is a republic that has (almost) completely democratic voting for representatives. We don't do popular votes on legislation and therefore are not a democracy. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 10:28 AM) I'm still waiting on Romney's policy specifics for the economy, cant his party put them out today or something since he only said "it will work" again on tv. Doing the math, he's reducing all taxes (his words) increasing spending in key areas and somehow that reduces the deficit? I dont understand how anyone can believe that. I also dont understand how he can say he's a great business-runner with a straight face. You grew up with money, made investments for awhile and then took a bailout. It doesn't make any sense to me, but he's just going up there saying it because people are attracted to the idea of less taxes. He is saying "trickle down economics" without saying it. "How does the budget balance, Mitt?" "More jobs/revenue because I cut taxes...but also, this is not trickle down economics because we know that doesn't work" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 10:14 AM) 1. Obama won, almost as handily as Romney won the first one. 2. Candy Crowley was clearly in the bag for Obama and Romney did in fact get screwed by the moderator multiple times. Although really, Obama would have won anyway. 3. This town hall format is obviously much better for Obama than Romney. 4. For all the general perception that Romney is a results-oriented business guy and Obama is a big talker... Obama provided a heck of a lot more specifics for policy in the debate than Romney has. Mitt needs to add a lot more details to his plans if he plans to make a better case. 5. Neither candidate provided a real or useful answer to the questions about Benghazi. Obama got angry at the end, for good reason I suppose, but that didn't answer the original question whatsoever. Obama didn't answer to the failure in the agency's decision making, and Romney did nothing more than try to make it seem like Obama didn't care. Those are both loser arguments. Romney could have made the argument better. I do think it's important that instead of immediately calling this thing a planned terrorist attack by a terrorist group, the Obama Administration took the tactic of apologizing to the world for a stupid American's youtube video. That's a policy difference in the two campaigns. But Romney never got it out right during the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 16, 2012 -> 10:47 PM) Biden brought it up in the VP debate I think...he pointed out that Romney isn't even contesting the state. This Mittens loves mentioning his time as Mass. Gov. and how he worked with Dems, Obama should just flat out ask him why he isn't contesting his state. BTW, when is the last time a former Gov. of a state didn't carry his state in a presidential election? Probably a long time ago I would guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 10:52 AM) This Mittens loves mentioning his time as Mass. Gov. and how he worked with Dems, Obama should just flat out ask him why he isn't contesting his state. BTW, when is the last time a former Gov. of a state didn't carry his state in a presidential election? Probably a long time ago I would guess. Not sure, but Al Gore did not win TN where he served as Senator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 10:14 AM) 1. Obama won, almost as handily as Romney won the first one. 2. Candy Crowley was clearly in the bag for Obama and Romney did in fact get screwed by the moderator multiple times. Although really, Obama would have won anyway. 3. This town hall format is obviously much better for Obama than Romney. 4. For all the general perception that Romney is a results-oriented business guy and Obama is a big talker... Obama provided a heck of a lot more specifics for policy in the debate than Romney has. Mitt needs to add a lot more details to his plans if he plans to make a better case. 5. Neither candidate provided a real or useful answer to the questions about Benghazi. Obama got angry at the end, for good reason I suppose, but that didn't answer the original question whatsoever. Obama didn't answer to the failure in the agency's decision making, and Romney did nothing more than try to make it seem like Obama didn't care. Those are both loser arguments. Neither of them won, and the American people lost. To call either of them a winner in that debacle is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 10:54 AM) Not sure, but Al Gore did not win TN where he served as Senator. I knew that, but every state has two senators and TN is a red state. I know Mass. is a blue state but Romney touts his bi-partisanship yet he isn't contesting his state. I could be wrong but maybe it's never happened before where a presidential candidate couldn't carry the state he was the Gov. of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 11:05 AM) Neither of them won, and the American people lost. To call either of them a winner in that debacle is a joke in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Why do I seem to be the only person here that thinks these debates have done nothing to answer any questions? As is typical of a modern debate, they only answered questions in a round about way, and often changed the subject on the fly, or spun some tall tale that went from starting to answer the specific question asked of them, to answering a question that was never asked at all... Not to mention, most of these questions were so broad/generalized, that even if they tried to answer them (which they won't), they would have needed 5 minutes, at minimum, to do so. I think this speaks volumes about these tired/failed debate formats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) WTF? Seriously MexSox? If you have nothing to say, how about don't say anything. Of couse it's my opinion, everything everyone has posted here is their opinion. You're response was totally unnecessary...but thanks for pointing out the extremely obvious for everyone here that didn't realize these posts were opinions. Edited October 17, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 11:17 AM) Why do I seem to be the only person here that thinks these debates have done nothing to answer any questions? As is typical of a modern debate, they only answered questions in a round about way, and often changed the subject on the fly, or spun some tall tale that went from starting to answer the specific question asked of them, to answering a question that was never asked at all... Not to mention, most of these questions were so broad/generalized, that even if they tried to answer them (which they won't), they would have needed 5 minutes, at minimum, to do so. I think this speaks volumes about these tired/failed debate formats. Im not sure many disagree. Ive commented numerous times about how its not really a debate and its more just repeating talking points. Its useless to attack the format as its not going to change, at least not for this election. So might as well just discuss what did happen because that is all we are going to get. These debates do not do much for me, as neither candidate is likely going to convince me to change my opinion. But there are a certain percentage of the population who can be influenced by repeating phrases etc, so we get to watch 2 people pander to that group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Oct 17, 2012 -> 10:52 AM) This Mittens loves mentioning his time as Mass. Gov. and how he worked with Dems, Obama should just flat out ask him why he isn't contesting his state. BTW, when is the last time a former Gov. of a state didn't carry his state in a presidential election? Probably a long time ago I would guess. I'll bet 1956, when Stevenson lost Illinois. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts