2012 Presidential Debates - Page 4

LemonMelon · 10-04-2012, 12:36 AM

bono_212 · 10-04-2012, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Everyone took Obama being calm as him being soft. Romney certainly had the flair.

I wasn't watching the debate, just listening, and he didn't sound calm, he sounded bored. He didn't sound like he wanted to be here, and he sounded like he just wanted to get the thing over with and go home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitize

Nobody won. Obama and Romney lost. That debate was utterly abhorrent. Like, miserably fucking disgusting. Insulting to the collective intelligence of this country. I am actually borderline angry about it.

Neither of them said a damn thing. Neither of them sounded like they have a single plan for the future. Neither of them gave me any hope that things are going to get better.

I love this country. So much. But the politics are pathetic, and I'm getting sick with it. I feel so fucking helpless. I don't know what to do come November, but I'm not voting for either of these guys.

PhilsFan · 10-04-2012, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deep

it seems like some people have been telling lies about Romney
he is much more reasonable, not in favor of any of those extreme things.

ROMNEY has been telling lies about Romney. Are we that stupid as a nation now? Can we no longer recognize when a person lies to our faces? Jesus. The entire debate was over whether a snake oil salesman was convincing enough! What the hell?

deep · 10-04-2012, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bono_212

I wasn't watching the debate, just listening, and he didn't sound calm, he sounded bored. He didn't sound like he wanted to be here, and he sounded like he just wanted to get the thing over with and go home.

One might think that 20 year anniversary thing just soured his whole evening.

deep · 10-04-2012, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

ROMNEY has been telling lies about Romney. Are we that stupid as a nation now? Can we no longer recognize when a person lies to our faces? Jesus. The entire debate was over whether a snake oil salesman was convincing enough! What the hell?

if you got a choice of more of the same
or a new guy promising all kinds of nice sounding things, why not?
especially if the new guy is fired up and ready to go

LemonMelon · 10-04-2012, 01:46 AM

If you're positing that the layman with minimal knowledge of what makes a country tick at its most fundamental level will be intrigued by platitudes, I'm right behind you.

But, if you're asking me, you're asking someone who isn't entirely ignorant of Romney's polices, past and present, as well as the typical campaign trajectory. And my answer to Romney is "hell no."

LemonMelon · 10-04-2012, 01:53 AM

If for some reason presidential debates still sway your votes, I implore you to read the debate in addition to watching it.

2012 presidential debate: President Obama and Mitt Romney’s remarks in Denver on Oct. 3 (full transcript) - The Washington Post

Obama did an absolutely horrendous job of communicating his ideas tonight, but they read pretty well.

BonosSaint · 10-04-2012, 05:33 AM

Always better to read the transcripts to see what was really said. But the debate's in the delivery. I started just listening to it and I was so bored, I kept zoning out. I then watched it for a little bit on TV and was even more bored. I think Romney showed more energy and was vague, unwilling to be pinned down. Obama just looked tired and defensive. I looked over longingly at the article I was reading about measuring the cranium, which was way more exciting.

Net reaction last night: I think Romney supporters were pleased, Obama supporters uncomfortable. No serious damage though. Not yet. The President needs to set the bar higher, though.

mikal · 10-04-2012, 05:53 AM

Quick question. How do you "win" a debate? Is the there a scorecard I could follow? Does anyone know the final score?

cobl04 · 10-04-2012, 05:55 AM

Over here we have "the worm"

LJT · 10-04-2012, 07:21 AM

We have the worm here to, absolutely meaningless. The 'debates' are some of the most pointless exercises in modern 'democracy' a style over substance filled with lots of meaningless soundbites. As I have often read Lincoln would never have been elected on the basis of one of these debates as his voice was too shrill.

iron yuppie · 10-04-2012, 07:35 AM

I think that ascertaining a “winner” from a single debate is problematic on a number of levels, especially on the first night of a series. My feeling is that the challenger to an incumbent has an advantage from the start; the incumbent, with four years of experience, will be dealing in the day-to-day realities of the job, whereas the challenger will be eager to talk in ideals. The latter is generally more appealing rhetorically. And I think we saw that pattern last night: Obama being cautious to outline how things are working in government and Romney talking mainly in broad ideas and generalities.

So if we are talking about rhetoric, I would say that Romney had the edge. He put Obama on the defensive and showed more energy than I have yet seen of him. Obama in comparison did look a bit lethargic to me, especially in his delivery.

But if we’re talking about content, I would say that Obama came out on top. He had a measured response to everything Romney threw at him and was careful to remind people of what his administration had been doing rather than simply what they wanted to do. In contrast, Romney consistently fell back on appeals to states rights and his record as governor, which frankly I do not see as pertinent in any way. The disparity in scale between the presidency and the governorship of a state like Massachusetts is simply too large to warrant any comparisons. As has been the case throughout most of his campaign, Romney was defined by what he would dismantle rather than what he would construct. Looking back on that debate, I still have no real idea what a Romney administration would look like beyond that initial period of repeal efforts.

**Headache in a Suitcase** · 10-04-2012, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511

If I were Obama, I'd be more concerned about the optics. O looked bored and irritated.

The substance? Well, give 'em enough rope ... I we had any honest Republicans in here they'd be aghast at how centrist their candidate was tonight.

But we of the center who have made mocking comments about Mittens, and followed them up with "the ironic thing is that Mitt acted like he did as governor Romney instead of candidate Romney i'd probably vote for him" have at the very least been given a reason to stop and go "huh... where's that guy been?". And there's a lot of us.

Mitt waxed the floor with Obama last night. The whole idea of "well the ideas were actually better" on Obama's side doesn't really matter... sorta sad yet true. Whomever's ideas you believe in, Romney clearly did a better job selling his ideas than Obama, who appeared bored, annoyed, and completely caught off guard by Romney's effectiveness. Its almost as if that whole "we expect to lose the first debate" thing slipped from the Romney camp last week was a set up trying to lure Obama into believing that all he had to do was show up and he had it in the bag.

Kerry couldn't beat Bush because nobody really liked Kerry. All the dems has to do was put forth a candidate with a pulse and they would have won. They failed.

Up until last night the same could be said of the republicans in this race, because Romney had yet to show an actual pulse, and was one flub after another.

Well... that changed last night.

Is it enough to change my vote? No, not yet. I'm still disgusted at the social policies of Mitt's running mate. But reality is the VP doesn't really matter. If Mitt stays closer to the middle when social issues come up... abortion, gay marriage and the such... then yea, Obama might actually be in trouble here... which if you told me a week ago that I'd say those words i'd tell you you were crazy.

Liesje · 10-04-2012, 10:31 AM

The VP matters to me hence why I did not watch the debate as it would not have changed my vote whatsoever.

mikal · 10-04-2012, 10:35 AM

I guess I just don't see how Romney clearly "won" this debate. Part of me wonders if he set the bar so low that the fact that he showed up and spoke was enough for him to "win".

I will agree though that Obama wasn't on his "A" game, but I do expect him to really come out swinging in the next debate considering the media's reaction to last night.

BEAL · 10-04-2012, 10:45 AM

Romney was going to win regardless of how Obama performed. My hunch is that Obama knew this and didn't bother to come out swinging with his strongest points until the initial storm passes.

The media wants a race, they need a race. And rather than overshadow strong points that Obama could have made, he can just concede this first debate.

That would be my best guess, or Obama really just wasn't on his game and couldn't recover.

But to call these things debates is a joke. It's a beauty pageant and who can have the best sound bites. There is no debating at all. They both give vague policy ideas or solutions, and never really counter what is said.

**Headache in a Suitcase** · 10-04-2012, 11:04 AM

PhilsFan · 10-04-2012, 11:06 AM

As someone who thinks media corporations are the problem and that the BBC model is preferred, that whole PBS thing was pretty much the worst.

**Headache in a Suitcase** · 10-04-2012, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BEAL

Romney was going to win regardless of how Obama performed. My hunch is that Obama knew this and didn't bother to come out swinging with his strongest points until the initial storm passes.

The media wants a race, they need a race. And rather than overshadow strong points that Obama could have made, he can just concede this first debate.

That would be my best guess, or Obama really just wasn't on his game and couldn't recover.

But to call these things debates is a joke. It's a beauty pageant and who can have the best sound bites. There is no debating at all. They both give vague policy ideas or solutions, and never really counter what is said.

I probably couldn't disagree more. Last night definitely showed a clear line between the two candidates, and they tried to engage each other quite often... much to the chagrin of an awful Jim Lehrer, who should have encouraged the back and forth rather than trying to speak over them and shut them up. I understand he's the moderator and all, but nobody tuned in to see the moderator.

The reason why I don't agree with you about how Obama felt he would lose in the medias eyes because they needed a race is because a) that's a horrible tactic when you could have pretty much buried the guy with a good performance, and b) even MSNBC was baffled at how badly Obama got beaten.

Those on the left will say that despite O looking disinterested and sounding like a rambling, boring economics professor... his ideas will work better. If Mitt had lost, the right would say the same thing.

But the point of these debates is to see who can do a better job of convincing the middle... i.e. the majority of Americans... that their ideas and plans foe the country are better than the other guys.

Point, Romney.

Still two and a half more debates to go... plenty of time for Obama to refined his pulse and for Romney to ride in a tank... but last night revived a campaign that was on life support, and turned a potential blow out into a nail biter... at least for now.

**Headache in a Suitcase** · 10-04-2012, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

ROMNEY has been telling lies about Romney. Are we that stupid as a nation now? Can we no longer recognize when a person lies to our faces? Jesus. The entire debate was over whether a snake oil salesman was convincing enough! What the hell?

Obama's entire campaign 4 years ago was around hope and change and a new kind of politician... and shockingly enough, his 4 years have been politics as usual.

Sooooo since when have political campaigns not been about who can do a better job of selling their own personal image?

10-04-2012, 12:36 AM	#61
LemonMelon More 5G Than Man Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Hollywoo Posts: 68,784 Local Time: 02:34 AM	__________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-04-2012, 01:46 AM	#66
LemonMelon More 5G Than Man Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Hollywoo Posts: 68,784 Local Time: 02:34 AM	If you're positing that the layman with minimal knowledge of what makes a country tick at its most fundamental level will be intrigued by platitudes, I'm right behind you. But, if you're asking me, you're asking someone who isn't entirely ignorant of Romney's polices, past and present, as well as the typical campaign trajectory. And my answer to Romney is "hell no."

10-04-2012, 01:53 AM	#67
LemonMelon More 5G Than Man Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Hollywoo Posts: 68,784 Local Time: 02:34 AM	If for some reason presidential debates still sway your votes, I implore you to read the debate in addition to watching it. 2012 presidential debate: President Obama and Mitt Romney’s remarks in Denver on Oct. 3 (full transcript) - The Washington Post Obama did an absolutely horrendous job of communicating his ideas tonight, but they read pretty well.

10-04-2012, 05:33 AM	#68
BonosSaint Rock n' Roll Doggie Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 3,566 Local Time: 05:34 AM	Always better to read the transcripts to see what was really said. But the debate's in the delivery. I started just listening to it and I was so bored, I kept zoning out. I then watched it for a little bit on TV and was even more bored. I think Romney showed more energy and was vague, unwilling to be pinned down. Obama just looked tired and defensive. I looked over longingly at the article I was reading about measuring the cranium, which was way more exciting. Net reaction last night: I think Romney supporters were pleased, Obama supporters uncomfortable. No serious damage though. Not yet. The President needs to set the bar higher, though.

10-04-2012, 05:53 AM	#69
mikal Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Black Lodge Posts: 28,295 Local Time: 04:34 AM	Quick question. How do you "win" a debate? Is the there a scorecard I could follow? Does anyone know the final score?

10-04-2012, 05:55 AM	#70
cobl04 45:33 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: East Point to Shaolin Posts: 59,011 Local Time: 07:34 PM	Over here we have "the worm"

10-04-2012, 07:21 AM	#71
LJT Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS Join Date: May 2005 Location: Belfast Posts: 5,191 Local Time: 10:34 AM	We have the worm here to, absolutely meaningless. The 'debates' are some of the most pointless exercises in modern 'democracy' a style over substance filled with lots of meaningless soundbites. As I have often read Lincoln would never have been elected on the basis of one of these debates as his voice was too shrill.

10-04-2012, 07:35 AM	#72
iron yuppie ONE love, blood, life Join Date: May 2009 Location: Chicago Posts: 10,892 Local Time: 04:34 AM	I think that ascertaining a “winner” from a single debate is problematic on a number of levels, especially on the first night of a series. My feeling is that the challenger to an incumbent has an advantage from the start; the incumbent, with four years of experience, will be dealing in the day-to-day realities of the job, whereas the challenger will be eager to talk in ideals. The latter is generally more appealing rhetorically. And I think we saw that pattern last night: Obama being cautious to outline how things are working in government and Romney talking mainly in broad ideas and generalities. So if we are talking about rhetoric, I would say that Romney had the edge. He put Obama on the defensive and showed more energy than I have yet seen of him. Obama in comparison did look a bit lethargic to me, especially in his delivery. But if we’re talking about content, I would say that Obama came out on top. He had a measured response to everything Romney threw at him and was careful to remind people of what his administration had been doing rather than simply what they wanted to do. In contrast, Romney consistently fell back on appeals to states rights and his record as governor, which frankly I do not see as pertinent in any way. The disparity in scale between the presidency and the governorship of a state like Massachusetts is simply too large to warrant any comparisons. As has been the case throughout most of his campaign, Romney was defined by what he would dismantle rather than what he would construct. Looking back on that debate, I still have no real idea what a Romney administration would look like beyond that initial period of repeal efforts.

10-04-2012, 10:31 AM	#74
Liesje Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the dog house Posts: 19,563 Local Time: 05:34 AM	The VP matters to me hence why I did not watch the debate as it would not have changed my vote whatsoever.

10-04-2012, 10:35 AM	#75
mikal Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Black Lodge Posts: 28,295 Local Time: 04:34 AM	I guess I just don't see how Romney clearly "won" this debate. Part of me wonders if he set the bar so low that the fact that he showed up and spoke was enough for him to "win". I will agree though that Obama wasn't on his "A" game, but I do expect him to really come out swinging in the next debate considering the media's reaction to last night.

10-04-2012, 10:45 AM	#76
BEAL Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: San Diego Posts: 7,152 Local Time: 09:34 AM	Romney was going to win regardless of how Obama performed. My hunch is that Obama knew this and didn't bother to come out swinging with his strongest points until the initial storm passes. The media wants a race, they need a race. And rather than overshadow strong points that Obama could have made, he can just concede this first debate. That would be my best guess, or Obama really just wasn't on his game and couldn't recover. But to call these things debates is a joke. It's a beauty pageant and who can have the best sound bites. There is no debating at all. They both give vague policy ideas or solutions, and never really counter what is said.

10-04-2012, 11:04 AM	#77
Headache in a Suitcase Forum Moderator Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: With the other morally corrupt bootlicking rubes. Posts: 73,394 Local Time: 05:34 AM

10-04-2012, 11:06 AM	#78
PhilsFan Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: South Philadelphia Posts: 19,218 Local Time: 05:34 AM	As someone who thinks media corporations are the problem and that the BBC model is preferred, that whole PBS thing was pretty much the worst.