2012 Presidential Debates

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's clear that Mitt Romney had a giant, beach ball sized hanging curve thrown his way, and he went all A-Rod on us and swung and missed.

Benghazi.

Romney allowed a giant black mark on the Obama administration to be turned against him over a simple case of semantics. He took an easy zing and turned around and zinged himself.

There are incredibly important questions about why the security requests were denied, how an attack was allowed to take place on the anniversary of 9/11, and why the administration tried to lay the blame on a video that it now appears they knew full well wasn't the cause... yet Romney lost that easy, meatball of an argument because he focused on what the definition of the word is is.

Baffling... huge moment in the debate. The only thing Mittens has going for him on that one is that the next debate is all foreign policy focused... so he can turn the attention back on the questions that really matter, rather than Barry's use of the phrase terror... but wow what a giant whiff on that one tonight.
 
maycocksean said:
I don't think you're biased, deep. Just wrong. :wink:
Click to expand...

oh I have a bias for Obama and against Romney

I also can have wrong opinions, I change my opinions and beliefs when I get better information to replace ? less good information

I personally feel Obama bettered Romney tonight especially compared to last time.

but taking my bias into account I did a slight adjustment and see it being pretty close with each side being able to call their guy the winner. If current polls are correct and Romney is at 49 to Obama 47, gallup has it at 50 - 46 for Romney

then this will shake out as a slight win for Romney, and with the momentum going his way, I would call this a slight win for him, a 'net' win.

of course I could be wrong, in 4 -5 days, there will be enough polls to come to some kind of consensus and perhaps some change in the polls.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
I think it's clear that Mitt Romney had a giant, beach ball sized hanging curve thrown his way, and he went all A-Rod on us and swung and missed.

Benghazi.

Romney allowed a giant black mark on the Obama administration to be turned against him over a simple case of semantics. He took an easy zing and turned around and zinged himself.

There are incredibly important questions about why the security requests were denied, how an attack was allowed to take place on the anniversary of 9/11, and why the administration tried to lay the blame on a video that it now appears they knew full well wasn't the cause... yet Romney lost that easy, meatball of an argument because he focused on what the definition of the word is is.

Baffling... huge moment in the debate. The only thing Mittens has going for him on that one is that the next debate is all foreign policy focused... so he can turn the attention back on the questions that really matter, rather than Barry's use of the phrase terror... but wow what a giant whiff on that one tonight.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just don't see the Libya attacks as quite the failure on the part of the Obama administration you're suggesting, largely because the implied answers are so terrible as to be implausible:

Why were the security requests denied? Because the Obama administration just doesn't care about the security of it's personnel? Come on. . . I'd have a lot of questions about the request, what was the nature of the denial, who made the decision to deny additional security and what the reasons were. But that doesn't add up to a callous disregard for the safety of diplomatic personnel by the administration as a whole.

Why did they lay blame on the video? Because the Obama administration wanted to hide what. . .? It seems more reasonable to conclude that the facts simply weren't clear at the time. Also reasonable, is that they may not have not wanted to admit that they didn't see the attack coming. Still it would be rather foolish to put the blame on the video when you know full well that the video wasn't responsible. They would have had to know the truth would come out so an intentional misplacing of blame would have been pretty dumb.

Finally, I just don't see the Libya attacks being the great game-changer when it comes to Romney vs. Obama on foreign policy. It wasn't in tonight's debate. I don't think it will be in the final debate either.
 
i think a CNN poll that just came up is fairly interesting... people tend to think Obama won, and I can see that.

80+% seem to think that Obama did the same or better than last time, which is the most obvious thing in the world...

but what i find interesting is that some 70 odd percent thought that Romney was the same or better than the last debate... split about evenly between better or the same...

and CNN said the debate was 33% democratic, 38% republican, and the rest identified as independent...

i dunno if it means anything at all... and we'll see a ton more numbers coming out soon... but i do find it interesting that the opinion of anyone who isn't a democrat either didn't change or got better on Romney after this debate.

so basically... even though Obama probably won here, did he win by enough to slow down Romney's momentum? will be interesting to see how things play out in the next few days...
 
Those polls a realistic reaction to what occurred from people who watched the debate. Wait until the media (which seems to be heavily favoring Obama's performance) has an opportunity to spoonfeed the population a second-hand reproduction of the debate and you'll see the numbers shift significantly toward Obama.

Personally, I don't think it was even close. I can't imagine anyone in a parallel universe, let alone our own, who would consider Romney's performance stronger than Obama's.
 
First impressions are an interesting thing:

During the first debate, both my wife and I immediately noticed that Romney seemed to really answer the first question he was asked--it was striking (I say "seemed" because neither candidate actually answers the questions asked most of the time. ..but it helps tremendously if they at least sound like they are answering the question). He looked really impressive.

Tonight, we both noticed that Romney was NOT answering the first question that was asked of him. Again, very noticeable.
 
maycocksean said:
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just don't see the Libya attacks as quite the failure on the part of the Obama administration you're suggesting, largely because the implied answers are so terrible as to be implausible:

Why were the security requests denied? Because the Obama administration just doesn't care about the security of it's personnel? Come on. . . I'd have a lot of questions about the request, what was the nature of the denial, who made the decision to deny additional security and what the reasons were. But that doesn't add up to a callous disregard for the safety of diplomatic personnel by the administration as a whole.

Why did they lay blame on the video? Because the Obama administration wanted to hide what. . .? It seems more reasonable to conclude that the facts simply weren't clear at the time. Also reasonable, is that they may not have not wanted to admit that they didn't see the attack coming. Still it would be rather foolish to put the blame on the video when you know full well that the video wasn't responsible. They would have had to know the truth would come out so an intentional misplacing of blame would have been pretty dumb.

Finally, I just don't see the Libya attacks being the great game-changer when it comes to Romney vs. Obama on foreign policy. It wasn't in tonight's debate. I don't think it will be in the final debate either.
Click to expand...

why did Bush say we were going to Iraq for WMD's, when they knew there weren't any? why did he do what he did in New Orleans?

it doesn't have to make sense.

it could be for sinister reasons... it could be just a plain and simple and horrible oversight. either way it was a fuck up.

how is it not plausible that the administration wanted to hide said fuck up? it's certainly worth a discussion. and that's the point... the discussion should have been about the handling of the incident, which there are serious questions about... not over the timing and use of the word terror, which is just plain stupid.
 
more interesting things from the CNN poll... despite people saying that obama clearly won, romney won by a huge margin on the economy... and frankly, it's the economy, stupid.

i think obama won the debate... but i don't think he stopped the momentum. slowed it, maybe, probably... but he still has work to do.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
why did Bush say we were going to Iraq for WMD's, when they knew there weren't any? why did he do what he did in New Orleans?

it doesn't have to make sense.

it could be for sinister reasons... it could be just a plain and simple and horrible oversight. either way it was a fuck up.

how is it not plausible that the administration wanted to hide said fuck up? it's certainly worth a discussion. and that's the point... the discussion should have been about the handling of the incident, which there are serious questions about... not over the timing and use of the word terror, which is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Bush said we were going to Iraq for WMDs because he knew that the real reasons for going wouldn't sell well with the American people. I also question that the Bush admin knew for certain that there were no WMDs. However, I believe the Bush admin believed going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do and would work in the best interests of the country. Of course they were wrong. I thought so at the time and of course I still think so now.

The response to New Orleans was not sinister. . .it was as you said a horrible oversight. It was not however, the worst thing Bush did in his presidency (the war in Iraq takes the cake for that).

I don't think it's implausible for the president's administration to try to hide a fuck up particularly if details are sketchy. It is implausible for the administration to hide something that clearly happened and that they knew clearly happened.

It's like blaming Bush for not stopping 9/11.

I don't buy that kind of argument.
 
maycocksean said:
Bush said we were going to Iraq for WMDs because he knew that the real reasons for going wouldn't sell well with the American people. I also question that the Bush admin knew for certain that there were no WMDs. However, I believe the Bush admin believed going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do and would work in the best interests of the country. Of course they were wrong. I thought so at the time and of course I still think so now.

The response to New Orleans was not sinister. . .it was as you said a horrible oversight. It was not however, the worst thing Bush did in his presidency (the war in Iraq takes the cake for that).

I don't think it's implausible for the president's administration to try to hide a fuck up particularly if details are sketchy. It is implausible for the administration to hide something that clearly happened and that they knew clearly happened.

It's like blaming Bush for not stopping 9/11.

I don't buy that kind of argument.
Click to expand...

so how is it implausible that Benghazi was an incredible oversight by the Obama administration? Nothing sinister... but a giant fuck up? And the confusion argument is fine for a day or two, but they continued to blame the riots around the video for longer than that when it was clear that it had nothing to do with it.

so my only point here is that THAT should have been what romney went after, because there are perfectly legitimate questions and concerns, and i, for one, would love to hear the administration's full answers to all of them... but that he chose to go after when he used the word terror is baffling, asinine, and incredibly stupid.
 
maycocksean said:
Agree here. I'm much less optimistic about Obama winning the election than I was before the first debate.
Click to expand...



same

again, that is why tonight can end being that 'net' win for Romney

this needed to be a direction changer, like the first debate was a 'game changer' for Romney.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
so how is it implausible that Benghazi was an incredible oversight by the Obama administration?
Click to expand...


this is over kill, but it is playing with the average joe smoe.


this was not the embassy in Libya.

ok, they had 2 guards, if the request for more security was granted would they have had 6? 8?.

and what difference would that have made with 200 attackers with assault rifles?

truth is 200 armed attackers could be successful at many of our diplomatic buildings in many countries. We just don't want to come out and say that.
Any flash mob can loot a store, even ones with good security.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
how is it not plausible that the administration wanted to hide said fuck up? it's certainly worth a discussion. and that's the point... the discussion should have been about the handling of the incident, which there are serious questions about... not over the timing and use of the word terror, which is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...



but that's not what Romney is doing. he's trying to make this incident fit the narrative they've constructed that the man who killed OBL and sends drones into Pakistan has gone on an apology tour and projects "weakness" because he's somehow not brave enough to call things terror and that because of this "weakness" our enemies are emboldened and they respond by killing embassy staff and murdering a lot of Syrians.

they don't have a foreign policy argument to make, and it's become evident in how they can't make hay of Benghazi.
 
trojanchick99 said:
Disagree. The President needed a win, and I think he got one. He didn't need to completely reverse what happened in the first debate. If he wins the last debate, I think he will at that point have the momentum completely back.
Click to expand...

people may be voting now, I think

and by the last debate quite a few will have voted.


tonight keeps him in the race, a big loss like last time would have put him in danger.

just like a big loss by Romney in the first would have put him on the ropes. A small win is good. A decisive win is what they were hoping for.
 
there are very few decisive wins in politics. the fist debate is the only one in my lifetime.

what needs to happen are "moments," and then for the targeted groups to hear specifics. everything else is noise.

Obama clearly made himself heard to women. and he got his "moments" too -- with Libya, ironically, being his high point. he got the moderator to fact check Romney, and the crowd applauded. twice.

Romney was, still, good. he's done his job, which is to seem presidential. but i don't see how anyone could conclude, on the merits, that this debate was anything but a win for the president.

as for the race, we'll continue to see it be close, but my guess is that Obama will shore up his small but clear 2% lead across the board.

also, the Dems are easily going to hold the senate.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
so how is it implausible that Benghazi was an incredible oversight by the Obama administration? Nothing sinister... but a giant fuck up? .
Click to expand...


Our disagreement is over degree. I think it was an oversight, just not an incredible one. I agree that it was a fuck up, just not a giant one.

This is one of those uncomfortable truths that the American people don't want to hear:

No one can guarantee that there will never be another terrorist attack. No one. No matter what we do, we'll miss something at some point and a terrorist will exploit that weakness.

For that reason, situations like what happened in Libya are not "incredible failures of security" (deep made some good points on this). Not unless they are part of a pattern of failures and missed opportunities that allow terrorists to attack time after time. There is no such pattern with the Obama administration and as a result there is no "incredible failure."
 
Irvine511 said:
there are very few decisive wins in politics. the fist debate is the only one in my lifetime.

what needs to happen are "moments," and then for the targeted groups to hear specifics. everything else is noise.

Obama clearly made himself heard to women. and he got his "moments" too -- with Libya, ironically, being his high point. he got the moderator to fact check Romney, and the crowd applauded. twice.

Romney was, still, good. he's done his job, which is to seem presidential. but i don't see how anyone could conclude, on the merits, that this debate was anything but a win for the president.

as for the race, we'll continue to see it be close, but my guess is that Obama will shore up his small but clear 2% lead across the board.

also, the Dems are easily going to hold the senate.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree with that


a few weeks back my over under for Romney was 200 electoral votes

now it could be around 260, easy to hit the 270

I keep checking the no toss ups on the senate and see it at 52-48

I keep hoping there might be a couple of upsets for the dems to get it to 53, 54. perhaps Tester in Montana can win, I want to see Scott Brown go out the same way he came in, naked on a bear skin rug.

Bush 1 killed Michael Dukakis in a debate in 88, those poll numbers flipped by double digits.
 
maycocksean said:
Our disagreement is over degree. I think it was an oversight, just not an incredible one. I agree that it was a fuck up, just not a giant one.

This is one of those uncomfortable truths that the American people don't want to hear:

No one can guarantee that there will never be another terrorist attack. No one. No matter what we do, we'll miss something at some point and a terrorist will exploit that weakness.

For that reason, situations like what happened in Libya are not "incredible failures of security" (deep made some good points on this). Not unless they are part of a pattern of failures and missed opportunities that allow terrorists to attack time after time. There is no such pattern with the Obama administration and as a result there is no "incredible failure."
Click to expand...

I can go with that.

My point is still that there are plenty of questions and points that Romney could have brought up that could have been negative for the President, yet he brought up the one that could be spun into a positive.

Which is pretty dumb.
 
dazzledbylight said:
i did hear callers on a particular radio talkers show ( an ? independent and leaning towards some progressivism person) after the (1st) debate saying how they liked that Obama didn't get all "agressive". Some thought he won, too by being that way.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I personally like it when he's more aggressive, but some people prefer the opposite, too, for a variety of reasons.

Also, well said to Sean and Irvine (your posts are making me feel better, I must say).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Miroslava
Friday, February 23, 2024 - MSG Sphere - Las Vegas, NV
Replies
2
Views
497
Miroslava
Miroslava
prbiker15
Sphere Show #1 Setlist Party
14 15 16
Replies
451
Views
20K
dan_smee
dan_smee
dan_smee
SPOILERS - Cover art for Sphere audio recordings
Replies
2
Views
531
ascender_RS
ascender_RS
MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
876
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Need Help With How To Do Transfer And Sale Through TM
Replies
14
Views
585
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom