2012 Presidential Debates

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

how does it make you feel knowing that Mitt thinks you're wrong?

I don't know where you get that, I'm on of those he was talking about that would leave Afg-stan today.

also, the right wing blogs are complaining about the questions, the moderators, and saying that Mitt "sure looked presidential out there."

That was his mission tonight, look levelheaded and presidential. I thought Romney was strong on Russia and took the president to task when he explained why he called it "the president's apology tour."

all of which means Obama decisively won.

Do think that will be reflected in the polls? I bet it isn't.

ps The president just lost Virginia with his condescending statement about horses and bayonets.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

I don't know where you get that, I'm on of those he was talking about that would leave Afg-stan today.

That was his mission tonight, look levelheaded and presidential. I thought Romney was strong on Russia and took the president to task when he explained why he called it "the president's apology tour."

Do think that will be reflected in the polls? I bet it isn't.

ps The president just lost Virginia with his condescending statement about horses and bayonets.

So by "levelheaded an presidential" you mean the entire opposite of every GOP primary contender, including Mitt himself?

You are probably right. both you and Mitt want Obama to be the one getting the 3am phone call.

[PhilsFan]

PolitiFact | Mitt Romney said Barack Obama began his presidency with an apology tour

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I'm asking you as a voter.

Who would you rather have dealing with the next foreign policy crisis?

I'm not overly confident with either of them, to be honest.

[LemonMelon]

BOTH SIDES CLAIMING VICTORY!!!



When it comes to Romney and diplomacy a, uh, is England speaking to us yet?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Than is why I think Romney is going to win.

a) polling always leans democratic... so I believe Romney's current leads specifically in swing stayes are bigger and his deficits smaller

b). I think conservatives are going to turn out in droves to vote for anyone but Obama. I don't believe that Obama will see the same enthusiasm as he did last time around.

c) ratings go down after each debate. Romney dominating the first debate has more pull than Obama winning the next two, which he did, but he never made Romney look incapable of being President...

d) ...which is the next point. Romney's been labeled this big joke for most of the campaign. The first debate made him look presidential in the eyes of a whooooole lotta people for the first time. He's also made it clear that he is not George Bush... despite Obama constantly trying to pin that on him

e) fair or not, Obama has the economy. Romney doesn't.

George HW Bush probably deserved better than what he got... but he had the economy. Clinton didn't. In the end, that's what decides elections.

Clinton rode the dot.com bubble to amazing heights, then took his ball and went home right after it burst. He also gave us the nice little "everybody should own a home!" thing, which sorta ended up backfiring a few years later. But the economy was great when he was in office, so in turn, he's great!

Obama has a terrible economy, and i really don't think Americans want to hear him simply say "welp, its not my fault!"

Now I've never said this is a good thing that I think Romney will win.

I voted for Obama 4 years ago. I don't want to vote for him this time. Problem is I don't want to vote for Mittens, either. To quote Lewis Black, if you're inspired by either of these assholes you were probably inspired by your high school principal.

Thankfully I live in New York so my vote doesn't matter either way.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Thankfully I live in New York so my vote doesn't matter either way.

As a New Yorker, this is my attitude too. If I lived in a swing state, I would be more keen on who I vote for.

[deep]

Living in CA my whole life my vote has never counted. CA has never been close to a toss up state. However, I do vote in every election.

There are 20 items on my ballot this time. Some of these small items, local City Councilmen, state wide initiatives have some big effects and can be close elections. Prop 8, banning gay marriage was a close election in my state.
We have an infinitive ending capital punishment, a couple of ones raising taxes for education, one modifying third strike law, there is a city wide one to ban class action lawsuits.

People that don't live in swing states have many other things to vote on. I think it is irresponsible not to take the time to read up on your ballot issues and vote, and then act like you care about gay rights. If you don't take the time to vote and rant, you are full of shit. You are leaving it up to the people you are complaining about.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Romney's America—one that progresses, proudly, toward opportunity, liberty and economic prosperity—represents the future that this country deserves.

You're kidding, right?

I missed the debate tonight-had to work. Will try and check it out online later tonight or tomorrow at some point.

But regarding the discussion in here, the only thing I have to say right now is this: Can we please stop with this insane, stupid "apology tour" BS? I'm so sick of the right complaining about that and making a big thing out of it.

[dazzledbylight]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Thankfully I live in New York so my vote doesn't matter either way.

Originally Posted by Pearl

As a New Yorker, this is my attitude too. If I lived in a swing state, I would be more keen on who I vote for.

ah..... no, I am a Ny'r and my vote stil lmaters as in local and state yes the Presidential votes because while unexpected (and that's the way Karl Rove & co have instigated.... we don't know where and by how many smaller localities adding up intobigger number will some ube[por-corporatists etc try to flip the vote tallies and change the votes re Pres Obama

The more everybody who wants to/or resigned to voting for Pres Obama does so the less chace it will be stolen as it was in 04 and 01 (different mechanisms)
Annd also for kicking out Tea Party Republicans from The House and Uber-Coporatists ( maybe Tea Partiers too there) The Senate and adding Democratics we might have all three branches again.

[Diemen]

I don't see how anyone actually paying attention to the actual substance of what Romney says (particularly in comparison to what he said last week, or last month, or last year) could say that he's shown himself to be "presidential." In my mind, his shameless and cynical disregard for the truth, unwillingness to stand up for anything he's said or done when it's unpopular, and his willingness to say pretty much anything, truth be damned, to win political points has shown him to be utterly unfit for the office.

If you don't have the moral fiber to stand up and defend your platform in an honest way before you're even in office - if you defect away from your previously held positions the instant it becomes politically expedient to do so, then what the hell are you going to do when you're faced with a real crisis?

[cobl04]

^I've been thinking... what happens if Romney becomes president and all of a sudden he has to deal with actual crises as the President of the USA? Being the opposition leader is one of the easiest jobs in politics. You just have to not fuck up, whilst continually berating your opponent.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

a) polling always leans democratic... so I believe Romney's current leads specifically in swing stayes are bigger and his deficits smaller

That's actually patently false.

[mikal]

While it can be said that Obama won't see the same enthusiasm as he did in '08, I've read several reports that his ground team is at least double the size of Romney's.

Plus, a poll this morning was released showing that Obama leads by 45% among Latino voters. If they turn out in big numbers, that's a HUGE advantage for the President.

[anitram]

I think it will be tight but I see no plausible argument for why Mitt is more likely to win. I really don't.

[phanan]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

e) fair or not, Obama has the economy. Romney doesn't.

George HW Bush probably deserved better than what he got... but he had the economy. Clinton didn't. In the end, that's what decides elections.

It sure didn't help Bush the Elder that there was a historic third party vote that year.

[mikal]

Originally Posted by anitram

I think it will be tight but I see no plausible argument for why Mitt is more likely to win. I really don't.

It's because people are focusing too heavily on the popular vote polls. The fact is that it's pretty easy for Obama to pull this off even if he loses the popular vote. The Democratic Party has done a brilliant job of shifting the Electoral map in their favor. In this case, if Obama wins Ohio (which he's never trailed in the polls), his chances of winning are sky high and it's that grim for Romney.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I don't see how anyone actually paying attention to the actual substance of what Romney says (particularly in comparison to what he said last week, or last month, or last year) could say that he's shown himself to be "presidential." In my mind, his shameless and cynical disregard for the truth, unwillingness to stand up for anything he's said or done when it's unpopular, and his willingness to say pretty much anything, truth be damned, to win political points has shown him to be utterly unfit for the office.

If you don't have the moral fiber to stand up and defend your platform in an honest way before you're even in office - if you defect away from your previously held positions the instant it becomes politically expedient to do so, then what the hell are you going to do when you're faced with a real crisis?

a day later, polls show that Obama won this debate by as large a margin as Romney did the first debate. it's abundantly clear that Obama won 2 of the 3 debates.

however, the fact remains that Romney has "qualified" himself as a viable alternative to Obama over the course of these three debates. he has done this by embracing positions often 180 degrees from his stated positions in the primary, as well as embracing the most popular parts of the president's agenda (parts of Obamacare, *all* of his foreign policy).

so what Romney has done is very shrewd, and exactly what he needed to do in order to stay in the race, and by focusing his entire candidacy around complaints about the economy (and not presenting anything in the way of solutions), he has provided a home for voters who hate Obama or who feel as if he hasn't done a good enough job.

it's up to the voters. it's a democracy. Romney has made his pitch, are you buying?

[phanan]

Originally Posted by mikal

It's because people are focusing too heavily on the popular vote polls. The fact is that it's pretty easy for Obama to pull this off even if he loses the popular vote. The Democratic Party has done a brilliant job of shifting the Electoral map in their favor. In this case, if Obama wins Ohio (which he's never trailed in the polls), his chances of winning are sky high and it's that grim for Romney.

He needs at least one other battleground state to do it. Ohio alone won't be enough.

[mikal]

Originally Posted by phanan

He needs at least one other battleground state to do it. Ohio alone won't be enough.

Oh I know, but I just don't see Romney sweeping every other state. Obama is still leading in Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire and barely ahead in Wisconsin.

It really would take the perfect storm for Romney to win.