The Debates!

[StrangeSox]

Romney won the debate, no contest. His whole approach was pretty brilliant, from a performance standpoint. He was focused and to-the-point, he hammered a small list of key themes, he came off as a business leader. He also did a 180 on some issues right in front of people, and they barely noticed, because Obama was too weak to point it out in a useful way.

 

Obama was professorial and weak, meandered through answers, and had very little to say as to what good he would do in a second term.

 

As for facts, they both played fast and loose, but Romney was clearly doing a lot more fudging and lying... and yet, it didn't matter to most people, because of how well he presented it. It was almost like those two flipped personalities before the debate.

Agreed

[Reddy]

Agreed

so i've been hearing more mumbling and grumbling that Obama's PLAN was to shut up and let Romney talk so they could put out the new commercials having him contradict himself. Because that's EXACTLY what he did last night. He said the opposite of all the things he's been saying on the trail for months. And now Obama has the proof.

 

Betcha Bam bounces back next time.

[Rex Kickass]

if you mean a drunk, bumbling, professor, then yes Obama was professorial.

 

Professors aren't regularly drunk? You must not have gone to my school...

[Jenksismyhero]

so i've been hearing more mumbling and grumbling that Obama's PLAN was to shut up and let Romney talk so they could put out the new commercials having him contradict himself. Because that's EXACTLY what he did last night. He said the opposite of all the things he's been saying on the trail for months. And now Obama has the proof.

 

Betcha Bam bounces back next time.

 

No way that's true because that's a terrible strategy. First, they probably had enough ammo to do a commercial like that anyway. Second, those commercials are worthless because people know that politicians are awful people that change their minds to get votes. And third, you know what's worth even more? Stealing headlines for an entire day about how you, the s***ty challenger, made the President look like someone who doesn't want to be President anymore. Winning that debate completely changed the race. 15 million more people watched the debate this year than four years ago. They wanted to see what these guys had to say. And they saw Romney on the attack and Obama backing away. That was huge. Romney needed to "upset" Obama on a national stage to have a chance and he did it. Allowing that to happen for a 15 second political ad? No way.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Jake]

They may be two different people, but they're both businessmen that look at the bottom line much in the same regard. By and large, Bain was known was a job shipper/outsourcer...which is exactly what GE has become in recent years under Immelt's lead, and he's just one of the many Obama appointed to advise him who are HUGE on outsourcing jobs, because it helps their bottom lines despite the fact it kills American jobs. There are plenty of successful businessmen he could have appointed to advise him that DON'T outsource, but he didn't do that...he played politics and doled out favors to what will result in huge campaign contributions.

 

If he doesn't think Romney was a very sound businessman in what he did with Bain regarding American jobs, then he shouldn't be taking advice from people who do business exactly like Romney does when better alternatives exist and could have just as easily been appointed to said advisory board.

 

If you want to stop outsourcing, you talk to those that outsource. How else do you find out what kinds of things would stop them from doing so? It's kind of simple. If all they say is "billions in tax cuts," well you don't have to listen. This is the nice thing about having an advisory board. These assholes AREN'T the President.

 

[Reddy]

No way that's true because that's a terrible strategy. First, they probably had enough ammo to do a commercial like that anyway. Second, those commercials are worthless because people know that politicians are awful people that change their minds to get votes. And third, you know what's worth even more? Stealing headlines for an entire day about how you, the s***ty challenger, made the President look like someone who doesn't want to be President anymore. Winning that debate completely changed the race. 15 million more people watched the debate this year than four years ago. They wanted to see what these guys had to say. And they saw Romney on the attack and Obama backing away. That was huge. Romney needed to "upset" Obama on a national stage to have a chance and he did it. Allowing that to happen for a 15 second political ad? No way.

 

 

meh, i dunno. it makes sense to be weak in your first debate and then fire it up for the last two, the two weeks before the election... THAT gives you the momentum when you need it - not a month out.

 

Obama and his team know how to run campaigns. They're brilliant at it. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the plan all along.

 

Yes, that's also me hoping, and I realize the bias that goes into that. however... stranger things have happened.

[Jake]

I doubt the plan was to be received as a loser. I didn't actually see the debate, but from the parts I've seen, it seemed like something was up with BO. It was as if he had missed out on sleep or something...probably just part of being a President instead of just some random rich guy politicking around.

[Soxbadger]

so i've been hearing more mumbling and grumbling that Obama's PLAN was to shut up and let Romney talk so they could put out the new commercials having him contradict himself. Because that's EXACTLY what he did last night. He said the opposite of all the things he's been saying on the trail for months. And now Obama has the proof.

 

Betcha Bam bounces back next time.

 

 

This seems like revisionist history. I believe statistically Obama spoke more than Romney.

 

That being said, last night I commented that Obama should have shut up and let Romney hang himself with his own rope. Perhaps I know a little more about debate strategy than Y2hh gave me credit for.

 

Jenks,

 

If this was the 3rd debate it may have been devastating. But it was the first debate and if Obama's handlers are smart the bury Romney in a shallow grave the next 2 debates. I dont buy Obama purposefully tanked, I just think hes not great at speaking.

 

 

[Reddy]

This seems like revisionist history. I believe statistically Obama spoke more than Romney.

 

That being said, last night I commented that Obama should have shut up and let Romney hang himself with his own rope. Perhaps I know a little more about debate strategy than Y2hh gave me credit for.

 

Jenks,

 

If this was the 3rd debate it may have been devastating. But it was the first debate and if Obama's handlers are smart the bury Romney in a shallow grave the next 2 debates. I dont buy Obama purposefully tanked, I just think hes not great at speaking.

 

i've always felt that way. people talk about what a great orator obama is and i've never felt that. all the 10 minute pauses, tons of "uhs" and "ums" and mumbles. i dunno... there were points last night where all he NEEDED to say was a great snappy one liner, but he buried them in 5 minutes of monologue-ing so no one knew what he was getting at.

[Reddy]

I doubt the plan was to be received as a loser. I didn't actually see the debate, but from the parts I've seen, it seemed like something was up with BO. It was as if he had missed out on sleep or something...probably just part of being a President instead of just some random rich guy politicking around.

no of course the plan wasn't to lose, but i think the plan MAY have been to save his best for later.

[Soxbadger]

I doubt the plan was to be received as a loser. I didn't actually see the debate, but from the parts I've seen, it seemed like something was up with BO. It was as if he had missed out on sleep or something...probably just part of being a President instead of just some random rich guy politicking around.

 

He got stunned in a "gotchya" moment early on and couldnt recover.

 

It happens, it sucks, but it happens.

[Soxbadger]

i've always felt that way. people talk about what a great orator obama is and i've never felt that. all the 10 minute pauses, tons of "uhs" and "ums" and mumbles. i dunno... there were points last night where all he NEEDED to say was a great snappy one liner, but he buried them in 5 minutes of monologue-ing so no one knew what he was getting at.

 

He went to Harvard, Im pretty sure that when they debate you dont have one side going "Thats not my position" and "No one can comment on my position because its never been done before."

 

He needs to watch Ted Kenendy, because thats how you beat a Romney.

 

Simple nonsense like "Oh Governor Romney when did you become a Democrat" will cause him to just completely implode. My guess is Obama thought thats to low brow. Well see if he changes his stripes now.

[Jake]

He went to Harvard, Im pretty sure that when they debate you dont have one side going "Thats not my position" and "No one can comment on my position because its never been done before."

 

He needs to watch Ted Kenendy, because thats how you beat a Romney.

 

Simple nonsense like "Oh Governor Romney when did you become a Democrat" will cause him to just completely implode. My guess is Obama thought thats to low brow. Well see if he changes his stripes now.

 

That Ted Kennedy debate is funny because so much of it is Ted Kennedy bullying the s*** out of Romney and taking advantage of the crowd being on his side. There were times, even while I dislike Romney, that I felt like Kennedy was just blowing smoke and Romney wasn't given a chance to say more or clarify his position, which was already clear to me.

[Y2HH]

If you want to stop outsourcing, you talk to those that outsource. How else do you find out what kinds of things would stop them from doing so? It's kind of simple. If all they say is "billions in tax cuts," well you don't have to listen. This is the nice thing about having an advisory board. These assholes AREN'T the President.

 

I think the reality is that this board was put together to become friendly with some big business leaders that would result in nice campaign contributions. IMO, it was politically driven decision making. I do not, however, believe that this commission of known outsourcers was put together so they could teach him how to not outsource, this is a reach at best, and an excuse for Obama in the least.

 

In other words, contrary to Obamas entire first campaign message, business as usual in Washington.

[GoodAsGould]

I don't think debates matter nearly as much as they used to pre George Bush 2nd. I consider myself an independent, I voted for Bush over Kerry and Obama over McCain partly because of who he chose as VP. Going into this election early on I leaned towards Obama and no debate is going to change that.

 

Watching the debate, everything Romney said made him come off as an asshole to me and Obama while wasn't great I was ok with what he was saying. I know people who are leading to one side or other going to have same opinions their guy was ok/good other guy comes off as a duesch/did terrible. With the Internet the true independents that still haven't decided truly IMO are the people who just don't give a damn and aren't going to vote anyways.

[Jenksismyhero]

meh, i dunno. it makes sense to be weak in your first debate and then fire it up for the last two, the two weeks before the election... THAT gives you the momentum when you need it - not a month out.

 

Obama and his team know how to run campaigns. They're brilliant at it. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the plan all along.

 

Yes, that's also me hoping, and I realize the bias that goes into that. however... stranger things have happened.

 

I argue for a living and this goes against every rule in the book. You lead off with your best argument because first impressions are everything. The game has now changed and the talk until the next debate is Romney outclassing the President at the debate.

 

I watched that Kennedy debate last night, and I think Romney is going to beat Obama in every one of these things. He's determined, speaks quickly and to the point, and it's clear he knows what he wants to say. Obama is much more laid back and unsure (if not unprepared). He's not a good debater. He went up against Jon McCain, not exactly the Patrick Henry of our times.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think debates matter nearly as much as they used to pre George Bush 2nd. I consider myself an independent, I voted for Bush over Kerry and Obama over McCain partly because of who he chose as VP. Going into this election early on I leaned towards Obama and no debate is going to change that.

 

Watching the debate, everything Romney said made him come off as an asshole to me and Obama while wasn't great I was ok with what he was saying. I know people who are leading to one side or other going to have same opinions their guy was ok/good other guy comes off as a duesch/did terrible. With the Internet the true independents that still haven't decided truly IMO are the people who just don't give a damn and aren't going to vote anyways.

 

Eh, I disagree here. I think there's a good chunk of people that are truly undecided and that's proven after the votes are tallied (since the results don't always match up with pre-voting polls). I agree the debates don't mean as much these days, but it's the best opportunity to really compare the two candidates while they're in the same room, so there's some value.

[MexSoxFan#1]

If I were on Obama's debate prep team, the first thing I would suggest the president should say to Romney right at the opening of the debate would go something like this...

 

"First of all Gov Romney, I would like for you to tell me which version of candidate Romney will I debate tonight, are you the version who was for healthcare for everyone or the version who's against it, will it be the version who pledged to protect a women's right to choose or the version who is against it, the version who was for tough gun laws or the version who's against those laws you supported as Governor, the one who says you'll raise taxes or the one who says you won't"...(the list can go on and on because I don't believe Romney has ever sticked to one side of an issue). I would tell the president to end thise list of flip flops with this line, "finally, tell me which Romney I'm with here tonight, the one who says he'll care about 100% of the country or the one who was recorded behind closed doors telling a bunch of fellow multi-millionaires that you're job isn't to worry about half of the country because they are moochers who'll never take responsibility of their lives regardless of the fact that most of them are children, college students, working single mothers, disabled veterans, retired elderly folks and decent hard working folk who just don't earn enough to pay income taxes, because I gotta tell ya, you're moderate stance on last week's debate threw me off my game so I would really appreciate a heads up"...

 

That would be a killer statement that would put Romney on the defensive and would show Obama is there for a fight.

 

Here's a youtube video of Romney's flip flops, it's a pretty long video

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_pgfWK3sxw...be_gdata_player

[Y2HH]

If I were on Obama's debate prep team, the first thing I would suggest the president should say to Romney right at the opening of the debate would go something like this...

 

"First of all Gov Romney, I would like for you to tell me which version of candidate Romney will I debate tonight, are you the version who was for healthcare for everyone or the version who's against it, will it be the version who pledged to protect a women's right to choose or the version who is against it, the version who was for tough gun laws or the version who's against those laws you supported as Governor, the one who says you'll raise taxes or the one who says you won't"...(the list can go on and on because I don't believe Romney has ever sticked to one side of an issue). I would tell the president to end thise list of flip flops with this line, "finally, tell me which Romney I'm with here tonight, the one who says he'll care about 100% of the country or the one who was recorded behind closed doors telling a bunch of fellow multi-millionaires that you're job isn't to worry about half of the country because they are moochers who'll never take responsibility of their lives regardless of the fact that most of them are children, college students, working single mothers, disabled veterans, retired elderly folks and decent hard working folk who just don't earn enough to pay income taxes, because I gotta tell ya, you're moderate stance on last week's debate threw me off my game so I would really appreciate a heads up"...

 

That would be a killer statement that would put Romney on the defensive and would show Obama is there for a fight.

 

Here's a youtube video of Romney's flip flops, it's a pretty long video

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_pgfWK3sxw...be_gdata_player

 

You have to be very careful with this sort of strategy, and it's not one they're likely to use because it has a much larger chance of backfiring than not. As sitting President, you have to maintain a presidential stature during these debates, and this sounds not only disingenuous, but very condescending, and it will make Obama come off as the bully in charge.

 

It's disingenuous in that Obama is also a multi-millionaire, who holds fundraiser after fundraiser for mega rich folks that cost 30k+ to attend, which alienate those same 47% Romney was talking about. If Obama wants to pretend to be the president of the people, he needs to be that.

 

The second Obama says anything about Romney catering to the ultra rich, all Romney has to do is say, "You mean like the folks that attend your 40 thousand dollar per plate dinners?"

 

It's hard to debate as a sitting President, as you MUST maintain a presidential stature throughout, you absolutely CANNOT come off as a condescending bully.

 

And when talking about flip flops, it would be quite easy for Romney to say, "You mean just like how you flip flopped on the gay marriage issue AFTER it became beneficial to your campaign?"

 

These types of 'shots' work both ways, which is why they're dangerous to use in a forum where your opponent can respond. They're often better used in commercials where a response cannot be immediate.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

You have to be very careful with this sort of strategy, and it's not one they're likely to use because it has a much larger chance of backfiring than not. As sitting President, you have to maintain a presidential stature during these debates, and this sounds not only disingenuous, but very condescending, and it will make Obama come off as the bully in charge.

 

It's disingenuous in that Obama is also a multi-millionaire, who holds fundraiser after fundraiser for mega rich folks that cost 30k+ to attend, which alienate those same 47% Romney was talking about. If Obama wants to pretend to be the president of the people, he needs to be that.

 

The second Obama says anything about Romney catering to the ultra rich, all Romney has to do is say, "You mean like the folks that attend your 40 thousand dollar per plate dinners?"

 

It's hard to debate as a sitting President, as you MUST maintain a presidential stature throughout, you absolutely CANNOT come off as a condescending bully.

 

And when talking about flip flops, it would be quite easy for Romney to say, "You mean just like how you flip flopped on the gay marriage issue AFTER it became beneficial to your campaign?"

 

These types of 'shots' work both ways, which is why they're dangerous to use in a forum where your opponent can respond. They're often better used in commercials where a response cannot be immediate.

 

And again, the same kind of ad could be made against Obama. Off the top of my head he "flip flopped" on raising the debt ceiling and extending the Bush tax cuts. He blasted Bush for deciding to use unilateral military action without congressional approval, and then did the same thing with Libya. I'm sure there's a ton more. He's a politician. He can't keep all of his promises or keep his same positions on issues and expect to keep his job or get anything done while in office.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Eh, I disagree here. I think there's a good chunk of people that are truly undecided and that's proven after the votes are tallied (since the results don't always match up with pre-voting polls). I agree the debates don't mean as much these days, but it's the best opportunity to really compare the two candidates while they're in the same room, so there's some value.

 

An overwhelming majority of people are already decided, especially in the "likely voter" pool. The results, in aggregate, usually match up very well with pre-voting polls. Significant differences are usually signs of fraud if anything.

[Jenksismyhero]

An overwhelming majority of people are already decided, especially in the "likely voter" pool. The results, in aggregate, usually match up very well with pre-voting polls. Significant differences are usually signs of fraud if anything.

 

3-5% is statistically significant and incredibly significant if it changes a state from one candidate to another. This happens every year and we don't assume it's fraud. A handful of states don't go quite as predicted, especially in polling from debate time, every election.

[StrangeSox]

My mistake for conflating "pre-election polls" and "pre-election polls the day(s) right before the election." Bad assumption on my part.

[MexSoxFan#1]

You have to be very careful with this sort of strategy, and it's not one they're likely to use because it has a much larger chance of backfiring than not. As sitting President, you have to maintain a presidential stature during these debates, and this sounds not only disingenuous, but very condescending, and it will make Obama come off as the bully in charge.

 

It's disingenuous in that Obama is also a multi-millionaire, who holds fundraiser after fundraiser for mega rich folks that cost 30k+ to attend, which alienate those same 47% Romney was talking about. If Obama wants to pretend to be the president of the people, he needs to be that.

 

The second Obama says anything about Romney catering to the ultra rich, all Romney has to do is say, "You mean like the folks that attend your 40 thousand dollar per plate dinners?"

 

It's hard to debate as a sitting President, as you MUST maintain a presidential stature throughout, you absolutely CANNOT come off as a condescending bully.

 

And when talking about flip flops, it would be quite easy for Romney to say, "You mean just like how you flip flopped on the gay marriage issue AFTER it became beneficial to your campaign?"

 

These types of 'shots' work both ways, which is why they're dangerous to use in a forum where your opponent can respond. They're often better used in commercials where a response cannot be immediate.

Well, as they say, perception is reality and of course every politician flip flops, just some more than others. Obama isn't percieved as a flip flopper, unfair or not while Romney is seen as someone who will say anything for political expidiency. The GOP were very effective against Kerry in that regard. The Obama team has also been effective on Romney on that front, especially considering that there is a ton of video out there. Romney was a moderate Republican as Gov, lot's of conservatives pundits like Coulter hated the idea as Romney the GOP standard bearer. He has shifted way to the right to appease his base and I can understand that but that's an opening the Democrats can exploit.

 

If Romney were to win (I still think he won't based on the battleground state polls so far), I think he'll mostly be a moderate except on foriegn affairs with neocons making a comeback and we'll see tax breaks for the wealthy and the deficit will just keep on growing. Republicans always talk about balanced budgets but when was the last time they actually left a surplus? They always talk about smaller government but it ezpands under them, or am I wrong?

 

Anyways, where's Balta, haven't seen anything from him lately.

 

[Cknolls]

An overwhelming majority of people are already decided, especially in the "likely voter" pool. The results, in aggregate, usually match up very well with pre-voting polls. Significant differences are usually signs of fraud if anything.

 

 

Are you hedging a Romney win here with shananigans???