Presidential debate thread

[SkinsHokieFan]

Text conversation with my Mitt Romney source (who is high enough in the campaign that he has Mitt's personal cell # and Mitt has him on speed dial)

SHF: Game changer tonight?

Mitt's guy: Romney did better, but not game changer better. He looked smart and Presidential which was the main goal

Next text from Mitt's guy: He looked sane and reasonable.

[NLC1054]

I guess it depends on what people pay attention to more, fact checking or debates.
I don't think Obama did as bad as some pundits do, but I was surprised at how off balance he looked and sounded.
That's not good considering the narrative of him being weak or indecisive.
He needs to come out and show his strength a bit.
Hopefully in the next debates he'll do so...and with more honesty than Romney.

I think the "weak and indecisive" thing is a talking point that's largely been washed away by his two landmark pieces of legislation. Conservatives tend to run on the fact that Obama decided from day one that he was going to ram these things through Congress and that there was no stopping him---it's sort of hard to run on him being weak and indecisive when you're also trying to run on the fact that he came into the Presidency having already made up his mind that he was going to ram through his legislation whether the American people wanted it or not.

I do think the Town Hall format is one that formats Obama more than it favors Romney. Romney's fire and vigor could come off as uncaring in that format. But I think the Town Hall is a perfect format for someone who, basically, is a teacher.

And once again, I didn't notice that he sounded any different than he did in 2008, or any different than he does in interviews. He's careful and measured all the time.

Just to give an example; the whole "you didn't build that" thing. That was Barack Obama not being measured, not taking careful consideration into exactly what he was saying. In essence he ripped a line from Elizabeth Warren about how business thrive and the economy grows because of American collectivism. What came out in that speech was inarticulate, and what did the right do? They pounced on the "You didn't build that" thing, even though that wasn't not what Obama said.

What we have is a case study where every single word the man uses is scrutinized. So he's very careful and mindful of what he says, so he does not give the right some new "thing" to flog half to death, while also trying desperately to avoid the "angry black man" tag that some conservatives seem desperate to pin on him.

[Spearfeather]

A CNN telephone survey of 430 registered voters who were questioned after watching the contest handed an even more decisive victory to Romney: 67 percent said he won the debate, compared to only 25 percent who said the same of Obama.

The CBS poll also showed Romney making clear strides in improving his likeability, with 56 percent of those surveyed saying their opinions of him had changed for the better. He saw a huge jump – 30 percent – in the number of uncommitted voters who said Romney cares about their needs and problems. Before the debate, 30 percent agreed with the statement. Afterward, that number rose to 63 percent. Sixty-nine percent of those surveyed said the same of Obama, up from 53 percent before the debate.

The CNN poll actually found Romney leading on likeability among the poll respondents, with 46 percent saying Romney was more likeable and 45 percent choosing Obama. Fifty-eight percent also deemed Romney the stronger leader, compared to 37 percent for Obama.

Romney also far exceeded expectations, while the opposite was true of Obama. Among registered voters surveyed by CNN, 82 percent said the former Massachusetts governor exceeded their expectations, but 61 percent said the president did worse than expected.

The one silver lining for the Obama campaign may be that nearly half of respondents in the CNN poll – 47 percent - said that the debate didn’t make them more likely to vote for either candidate. But Romney also won on that measure, with 35 percent saying the matchup made them more likely to vote for him. Only 18 percent said the same of the president.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-...inner-20121003

[visionary]

I think the "weak and indecisive" thing is a talking point that's largely been washed away by his two landmark pieces of legislation. Conservatives tend to run on the fact that Obama decided from day one that he was going to ram these things through Congress and that there was no stopping him---it's sort of hard to run on him being weak and indecisive when you're also trying to run on the fact that he came into the Presidency having already made up his mind that he was going to ram through his legislation whether the American people wanted it or not.

Actually I think he is indecisive and overly compromising at times and even liberals have said as such that he hasn't been a strong enough advocate of his own policies.
(which also can hurt in international dealings and I think is a problem at times)
It is ironic that conservatives also use that idea though at the same time they try to portray him as forcing his agenda on America...which is kind of silly.

[stevemcqueen1]

Bingo.

There were several times when I could tell he wanted to just say Mitt was lying, but he always takes the tempered, more measured approach. Against John McCain he appeared more thoughtful against McCain's sort of grumpy old man schtick and his eye rolling and visible disdain.

In a lot of ways, he is still a professor. (In the literal since, not in the "you're a dirty elitist snob how dare you teach people thing"). I pointed out before that he never straight up accused Mitt Romney of not lying. Instead, he would explain what Romney was actually lying about. But I just kept wishing that, at the very least, if he didn't come straight up say "YOU LIE!", he'd at least say "Mitt, what you're saying simply isn't true" or "what your saying is not based on the facts presented." He was right on the ragged edge of coming right out and saying it, but he never did.

I fully agree.

I think Romney won the debate because they aren't about substance, where I think Obama beat him. They're about impressions and keeping on the messages you want. I think Romney looked bad at a couple of points, looked ugly talking over Jim Lehrer and belittling him and he stumbled with a couple of his pivots, making them too obvious. I can't remember what question it was, one of the final ones, he also gave a bad answer and lost his track. But in general, his performance was very successful because he set the tone of the debate throughout much of it while Obama's was more passive and forgettable. People will forget the specifics that Obama won on almost immediately, all they will remember are impressions. And the general impression people will remember from this is Romney surprisingly funny, vigorous and polished, and suddenly legitimate while Obama looked thoughtful and peeved to have to stoop to deal with Romney's BS.

But looking back, this was probably an un-winnable debate for Obama. It was an economy debate when everyone and their mother thinks that's the major barrier to his reelection, and the challenger always gets a bump in debates from being starkly legitimized by standing on the same stage as the leader of the free world. It quite literally equates them.

I don't think it'll matter much in the end. Elections come down to demographics and its hard to shift them from one party to another. And Obama has always been "above the fray," and lets his allies like Clinton and Biden do that type of fighting for him. And it works for him. I doubt he needs to change that up for the debates, and doing so could end up hurting him. Being a chameleon and shifting for expediency is why nobody trusts Romney.

Still, I feel like this was a missed opportunity for Obama to point out Romney is, by turns, a snake oil salesman and/or living in la la land. He hinted at it with "you have to have a plan to actually be a leader" and "you have to be able to use compromise and balance to get things done" (hammer that 2.5 dollars in cuts for 1 dollar in revenue point home versus Romney going on record as saying he wouldn't have supported drastically lesser compromise). He didn't drive that home though, and it got swept up.

[Duckus]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-...inner-20121003

Well, at least this debate did one thing. Conservatives appear to believe in polls again.

[NLC1054]

Actually I think he is indecisive and overly compromising at times and even liberals have said as such that he hasn't been a strong enough advocate of his own policies.
(which also can hurt in international dealings and I think is a problem at times)
It is ironic that conservatives also use that idea though at the same time they try to portray him as forcing his agenda on America...which is kind of silly.

I think people want him to be a progressive, when really he's more of a pragmatist.

I think he heavily weighs the potential impact of policy decisions, which can come off as indecisive. But he never waffles back and forth or seems wishy-washy; once he makes a decision, he makes it. Which is annoying as balls for someone like me, but then again I think (probably arrogantly) that me and him think a lot a like.

Hell, he really should hire Bill Clinton as the President of Explaining Things.

I also think that he (at times) too image conscious. Now, I wonder if that'll change if we wins re-election, because then he doesn't have to worry about another term. But he doesn't want to come off like an extreme leftist and he doesn't want to come off like the angry black man so he doesn't quite forcefully advocate for himself.

I always say the thing that got me to vote for Barack Obama in the beginning wasn't Obama, but it was his wife. Way better advocate for him than Obama is for himself.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I really don't have conservative friends anymore that I regularly see so I watched it with some liberal cousins.

The impression is, and I see this on twitter as well, was the President just appeared unprepared.

Again, I don't think does anything in the grand scheme

---------- Post added October-4th-2012 at 01:13 AM ----------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ebate/?hpid=z2

Agree or disagree? Have a takeaway of your own? Offer it in the comments section below.
* The grimness of Barack Obama: There’s a fine line between sober/serious and grim/uninterested when it comes to the optics of these debates, and the incumbent was on the wrong side of it Wednesday night. Whether it was his habit of looking down for the majority of Romney’s answers or the pique he displayed when debate moderator Jim Lehrer interrupted him, Obama looked like he’d prefer to be somewhere else. In many ways what Obama seemed to be doing was taking on the persona he used to much success in 2008 when he was careful to show he was ready for the job. But, now that he has been in the job for four years, Obama’s demeanor came across far less well. Remember that voters see their vote for president as electing a leader not just a set of policy positions. And, Obama the glum is not the leader people want to vote for.

Link for rest

[Rdskns2000]

Anyone here honestly think if Romney said what he did tonight in the Republican debates; he would be the nominee??

He flipped on everything and alot of what he said would piss off the right wing conservatives.


Romney provided Obama will plenty of commercial material.

Sean Hannity was in ecstasy over than Obama video last night, comparing that video to what Obama said later in the 2008 campaign. That video will only just reenforce the views of the anti Obama crowd.

Obama can just slice what Romney said last night with probably a campaign speech Romney gave within the last week.

Conservatives may feel happy tonight but once this dust settles and reality sets in; they will see the race the same- Obama with comfortable leads.

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82005.html

Colorado presidential debate: Media piles on moderator Jim Lehrer

The loser of Wednesday night’s debate, according to many pundits and political commentators?

Moderator Jim Lehrer.

Lehrer, the executive editor of PBS Newshour, sat behind the desk for the 12th time in the history of televised presidential debates on Wednesday night — and drew some of the most blistering reviews of his career. The consensus: Lehrer did not control the debate, failed to enforce the time limits, did not press the candidates enough and generally was steamrolled by the presidential candidates, Mitt Romney in particular.

Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace criticized Lehrer for seeming to “lose some control” of the candidates, and questioned whether his questions sometimes helped President Barack Obama.

“Jim Lehrer, a man for whom I have tremendous esteem, seemed to lose control of the debate, occasionally,” Wallace said. “He seemed to just simply throw something out there to keep the conversation going, sometimes it seemed to be helping Obama, like saying, ‘Well, gee, so you are for a balanced approach of tax cuts and spending — tax increases and spending cuts,’ and that really seemed to lose some control.”

On MSNBC, Chris Matthews knocked Lehrer for not being aggressive, saying, “I thought the moderator did not moderate.”

“He didn’t follow up,” Matthews said. “Today, moderators are expected to be aggressive, they’re going to ask a question, they throw it out there, they don’t just say a topic. They ask a question.”

Also on MSNBC, The Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman blasted Lehrer as “practically useless.”

[stevemcqueen1]

I also think that he (at times) too image conscious. Now, I wonder if that'll change if we wins re-election, because then he doesn't have to worry about another term. But he doesn't want to come off like an extreme leftist and he doesn't want to come off like the angry black man so he doesn't quite forcefully advocate for himself.

I disagree. I think Obama is very natural and genuine and I never get the sense he's playing to a crowd or trying to pose a certain image, even when he's actually doing it.

Obama is himself and he's well defined now. You're right that he's a teacher. My mother was a teacher and I grew up around them. He speaks my language and I thoroughly understand him. Romney is a businessman, a CEO, he doesn't speak my language and he seems completely incoherent and shifty to me.

I could see that becoming the narrative of the election: Who do you trust to govern you, the teacher or the CEO?

[Hersh]

Anyone here honestly think if Romney said what he did tonight in the Republican debates; he would be the nominee??

He flipped on everything and alot of what he said would piss off the right wing conservatives.


Romney provided Obama will plenty of commercial material.

Sean Hannity was in ecstasy over than Obama video last night, comparing that video to what Obama said later in the 2008 campaign. That video will only just reenforce the views of the anti Obama crowd.

Obama can just slice what Romney said last night with probably a campaign speech Romney gave within the last week.

Conservatives may feel happy tonight but once this dust settles and reality sets in; they will see the race the same- Obama with comfortable leads.

I still haven't gotten an answer from any Republican/conservative on how Mitt Romney pays for everything and reduces the deficit. I still haven't gotten a Republican to explain how Romney's tax numbers add up though the new lie is that all the jobs created by the tax cuts will make up for all the lost revenue. There is no chance that if Romney does what he has claimed that the deficit won't explode in the next few years. It amazes me that people bury their heads in the sand about this fact.

[Rdskns2000]

I still haven't gotten an answer from any Republican/conservative on how Mitt Romney pays for everything and reduces the deficit. I still haven't gotten a Republican to explain how Romney's tax numbers add up though the new lie is that all the jobs created by the tax cuts will make up for all the lost revenue. There is no chance that if Romney does what he has claimed that the deficit won't explode in the next few years. It amazes me that people bury their heads in the sand about this fact.

They are probably too drunk with joy right now, let them sober up. Sure someone will try to explain the fuzzy math.

[Hersh]

They are probably too drunk with joy right now, let them sober up. Sure someone will try to explain the fuzzy math.

The other question I ask them repeatedly for which they have no answer: Since you want to repeal Obamacare, who will pay for the people going to the emergency room that don't have insurance and can't afford their own bills?

[NLC1054]

The other question I ask them repeatedly for which they have no answer: Since you want to repeal Obamacare, who will pay for the people going to the emergency room that don't have insurance and can't afford their own bills?

That's why I hate debates; in the interest (read; fear) of not being called "gotcha" journalism, the moderators often don't challenge political candidates. So the moderators are basically there for show. And they hardly ever ask the really tough questions. So you leave a debate still not knowing much more about and candidates policies than you did coming in.