Presidential debate thread

[nuposse87]

My opinion is probably useless because I'm biased, so, my unofficial survey of twitter and CNN says that Romney won in a pretty big way. The president better be ready with good ads because (my opinion) I think he was totally unprepared for this level of discussion. Romney prepared excellently.

Obama cannot have the last 3 debates (one Biden/Ryan) go like this or he'll lose in a laugher. Obama can definitely win, but I think this was a game changer.

But that's the opinion of a Republican, so take it for what it's worth.

Did Romney win the debate? Absolutely. Was it a game changer? That is the republican in you speaking. Obama can make a recovery from this, albeit not as easy as some may want it to be, but this was hardly a haymaker. Obama has to make sure that all aspects of the presidency is covered in the next debate. I'm not sure if this debate was suppose to be only about economy but it worked well into Romney's favor. Jim had no balls as a moderator. Jim was Romney's biggest ally in this victory. Part of me wonders also...how could the POTUS be this unprepared. If he tries well in the next debates, the contrast will be very vivid, maybe he's waiting to show his best stuff? I'm not sure that is the best way to win a presidency but it was surprising how lack luster Obama was early on.

[Madison Redskin]

Ask Sullivan or Matthews

when the cheerleaders turn on you.....

I think most people (including people who will vote for Obama) would agree that Romney did a better job presenting his case, but I still don't know whether he'll get a bounce among undecideds. Did he say anything meaningful?

[Sonofwashington14]

Says a lot right there.

[stevemcqueen1]

Also, wtf about Romney saying "I don't want this country to go down the path of Spain" which is in the fix they're in because of all of the austerity cuts... which is the basis of Paul Ryan's goddamn budget proposal.

There were definitely some openings in Romney's answers that could have been exploited. Obama needed to keep this debate on message about how horrible the Ryan budget is, and equate it to Romney's plan. Nobody likes that Ryan budget.

[Wrong Direction]

Did Romney win the debate? Absolutely. Was it a game changer? That is the republican in you speaking. Obama can make a recovery from this, albeit not as easy as some may want it to be, but this was hardly a haymaker. Obama has to make sure that all aspects of the presidency is covered in the next debate. I'm not sure if this debate was suppose to be only about economy but it worked well into Romney's favor. Jim had no balls as a moderator. Jim was Romney's biggest ally in this victory. Part of me wonders also...how could the POTUS be this unprepared. If he tries well in the next debates, the contrast will be very vivid, maybe he's waiting to show his best stuff? I'm not sure that is the best way to win a presidency but it was surprising how lack luster Obama was early on.

Fair enough. For what it's worth, yes, this was a debate about the economy and domestic policy specifically.

Re: the fact checkers, Obama better hope so. I have my doubts, but time will tell.

Still a huge 30+ days left. If there was any doubt, this is now a real race.

---------- Post added October-3rd-2012 at 11:34 PM ----------

Also, wtf about Romney saying "I don't want this country to go down the path of Spain" which is in the fix they're in because of all of the austerity cuts... which is the basis of Paul Ryan's goddamn budget proposal.

There were definitely some openings in Romney's answers that could have been exploited. Obama needed to keep this debate on message about how horrible the Ryan budget is, and equate it to Romney's plan. Nobody likes that Ryan budget.

The austerity cuts are there because of their overwhelming debt, and there are more people on this board who belive they've seen UFOs than there are in the Senate who voted for Obama's budget.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

My opinion is probably useless because I'm biased, so, my unofficial survey of twitter and CNN says that Romney won in a pretty big way. The president better be ready with good ads because (my opinion) I think he was totally unprepared for this level of discussion. Romney prepared excellently.

Obama cannot have the last 3 debates (one Biden/Ryan) go like this or he'll lose in a laugher. Obama can definitely win, but I think this was a game changer.

But that's the opinion of a Republican, so take it for what it's worth.

Honestly, the debates don't matter.

I can't get to the articles at the moment because I don't have JSTOR access anymore and I'm on my old laptop while my newer one is in the shop but any political journal worth a damn will tell you that statistically and historically the debates mean little to nothing.

Independent/undecided voters are barely swayed if they're swayed at all by the debates and while they're trending towards becoming more important to the average voter as the debates get more and more exposure, they simply will not have a major impact on this election.

Mitt Romney 'won' tonight, even though the fact checkers are tearing him apart (more strongly, it seems than Obama at the moment), but it wasn't in a 'pretty big way'. He came out strong but Obama definitely bounced back towards the end.

Romney did seem more prepared and energetic but remember that in 2008 McCain 'won' a majority of the debates as well. Obama's strength's in 2008 were his speeches (which, were light on detail--as he's accusing Romney of being right now), his extraordinarily organized and energetic grassroot campaigning and fundraising as well as his ability to tie John McCain to then President Bush and convince the American public that McCain would be a continuation of the failed Bush policies. Obama wasn't particularly strong in the debates then, and while he looked worse tonight (seemed tired and unprepared) I wouldn't call the election for Romney even if the next 3 debates go similarly.

Again, the debates are relatively meaningless. The Fox/CNN/MSNBC people do a pretty terrible job of covering campaigns, and there's a ton of misinformation from both sides due to sloppy polling, biased coverage and the domination of overly opinionated talking heads on both sides. They're going to obsess over this and other meaningless crap until the election results are in.

There's a reason we've only had 12 traditional one-term presidents and such high incumbency rates in Congress. I can't link the pictures but check out these charts:

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

The lowest incumbency rate in the House since '64 was 85% in 1974 and 2010. The Senate had a low 55% re-election rate in '80 but that is exceptionally rare. The Republican Revolution in 1992? 90% re-election in the House, 83% in the Senate.

It's hard to lose a re-election. The American people hate everyone in Congress except their guy (or gal), the National Election Survey asks questions about it every year and I can't imagine how hilarious it must be to ask someone their opinion of Congress, hear them rant about how much they hate it and then follow it up by praising their particular Congressperson (because, he's different ya know?). We're a lazy and uninformed public, it's frustratingly obvious when you study politics. I'd still say it's Obama's election 'to lose', and tonight didn't lose it for him.

[chipwhich]

I think Romney did a good job saying absolutely nothing in a very convincing manner.

Obama said even less.

I loved when Obama tried to imply his "Tax Plan" is the same as Clinton's plan which led to a surplus and it's been proven...

It's not about taxation people, it's about the economy. Clinton was lucky enough to serve over one of the greatest economic era's in American history...and it wasn't because of how he taxed people The .com boom produced jobs and the economy was functioning well.

[DM72]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...33018321_n.jpg

Says a lot right there.

I think that has more too do with what Obama didn't do as opposed to what Romney did. But in the long run, it won't matter.

[Mad Mike]

Obama was flat tonight and I think unprepared for Romney's blatant BS. The man will say anything at any time and contradict himself a thousand times over if he thinks it will get a vote. Obama also seemed to be WAY to easy on Mitt. How did Obama not hit him on the 47% comment? And the other thing I noticed is that Obama seemed concerned about not playing into the right wing perception of him as a socialist. It's the only explanation I can think of for not flat out stomping Romney on his death panel attack by pointing out the panels on every insurance company who decide what and who they will cover based on what will maximize profits.

[DjTj]

Obama said even less.

I loved when Obama tried to imply his "Tax Plan" is the same as Clinton's plan which led to a surplus and it's been proven...

It's not about taxation people, it's about the economy. Clinton was lucky enough to serve over one of the greatest economic era's in American history...and it wasn't because of how he taxed people The .com boom produced jobs and the economy was functioning well.

But when Clinton raised taxes, it did help balance the budget. Bush Jr. got the benefit of a bubble as well, but since he had cut taxes, the real estate boom in the mid-2000s did very little to balance the budget.

It is about the economy, but if you want to use a rising economy to cut the deficit, you need to collect the money in taxes.

As Clinton said:

Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can't afford to double-down on trickle-down.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/05/160643...vention-speech

[Wrong Direction]

It's not about taxation people, it's about the economy. Clinton was lucky enough to serve over one of the greatest economic era's in American history...and it wasn't because of how he taxed people The .com boom produced jobs and the economy was functioning well.

He also benefitted majorly from bubble economics. He created the stock bubble when he had the huge cut to capital gains and he started the housing bubble with the mortgage tax deduction and support of Greenspan. The personal computer and internet were certainly a coincidence of timing, as was the peace dividend from the "end" of the cold war.

[Madison Redskin]

Does Romney's tax plan remind anyone else of Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war? Basically, he doesn't have a ****ing plan, but he hopes you're too dumb to realize it.

And that BS about Romney refusing to disclose the details so he preserves flexibility to negotiate with Dems is garbage. If he's so committed to preserving flexibility, why did he sign a pledge refusing to increase taxes under ANY circumstances whatsoever?

[Mad Mike]

Obama said even less.

I loved when Obama tried to imply his "Tax Plan" is the same as Clinton's plan which led to a surplus and it's been proven...

It's not about taxation people, it's about the economy. Clinton was lucky enough to serve over one of the greatest economic era's in American history...and it wasn't because of how he taxed people The .com boom produced jobs and the economy was functioning well.

There is truth in this. Which makes Romney's attacks on Obama about the deficit all the more ironic considering the economy *he* inherited.

[DjTj]

Obama was flat tonight and I think unprepared for Romney's blatant BS. The man will say anything at any time and contradict himself a thousand times over if he thinks it will get a vote. Obama also seemed to be WAY to easy on Mitt. How did Obama not hit him on the 47% comment? And the other thing I noticed is that Obama seemed concerned about not playing into the right wing perception of him as a socialist. It's the only explanation I can think of for not flat out stomping Romney on his death panel attack by pointing out the panels on every insurance company who decide what and who they will cover based on what will maximize profits.

I think Obama was trying to act "Presidential" and above the fray, but he definitely missed a lot of good opportunities.

When Romney said that Obama spent too much time on Obamacare rather than jobs, Obama should have pointed out that the very first thing he did when he got into office was to pass the stimulus bill. And when Romney attacked him for not working across the aisle, he should have highlighted that same stimulus bill, and pointed out that the Republican Congress has made it a mission to oppose him at all costs, and that while Republicans supported the 2009 stimulus, they have opposed later job bills for partisan reasons.

[stevemcqueen1]

The austerity cuts are there because of their overwhelming debt, and there are more people on this board who belive they've seen UFOs than there are in the Senate who voted for Obama's budget.

The austerity cuts were a disaster that sunk Spain's economy. Doesn't anyone debate this any more? I'm honestly unfamiliar with the arguments against this claim.

I was talking about Ryan's budget. It's an awful budget that nobody likes and Obama should have forced the issue on this budget IMO. He should have tried to force Romney to either endorse it or disavow it. It's a chink in Romney's armor.