"The Debate"

[Denny Crane]

I forgot, what was the point behind the pictures?

It seems like a good way to gauge enthusiasm.

 

[Denny Crane]

Supposedly, Obama actually spoke for 4 minutes longer than Romney in the debate. Seem that way to you?

 

[julius]

Supposedly, Obama actually spoke for 4 minutes longer than Romney in the debate. Seem that way to you?

It didn't to me. But I think if you took out stammers and ums, Obama really talked for about 8 minutes.

 

[mook]

Just curious: is there anyone here, anyone at all, who will change the way they vote on the basis of this resounding debate win by Mitt Romney?

I've got to think that the kind of people who were undecided are the kind of people that wouldn't watch a debate. And the kind of people who were going to vote for Obama are going to look at Romney and say "you slick lying bastard".

Also: does anyone remember ANYTHING AT ALL about the Obama/McCain debates?

It's a pretty good question. I was pretty strongly in favor of Obama going into this debate, but I have to admit Romney sounded pretty good. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of him winning than I was beforehand.

But I can't get out of my mind all the pretty dumb things he's said in the past, nor all the ways he's been on all sides of issues. I think Obama should have really focused on the shifty nature of Romney. Drive home the lack of specificity of his proposals, the way he's shifted stances on abortion/gays/health care, the intellectual dishonesty of condemning the $716b in Medicare reductions (while using those same deductions in your own program), the way he's one kind of guy in public and another when talking to millionaires. I think Obama has prematurely gone into the football equivalent of "prevent defense," trying to run out the clock while just defending yourself.

Anyway, Romney's proposal earlier this week to limit total deductions to $17k seems like a real winner to me--it basically tells congress, "Go ahead and fuck up our personal tax code all you want. But the benefit to individuals caps out at $17k, so you are wasting your time." That's a nice one that could have bipartisan support.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/baron...sidential-debate/article/2509823#.UG2iifl24Rh

(he nails it, IMO)

 

[Rastapopoulos]

So: Mitt Romney gives what everyone says was a very good convention speech. And all anyone remembers is Clint and the chair. Now Romney "wins" the "debate" handily... and all anyone will remember is Big Bird. Calling it now.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

It's a pretty good question. I was pretty strongly in favor of Obama going into this debate, but I have to admit Romney sounded pretty good. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of him winning than I was beforehand.

But you're still voting for Obama, right?

Romney's got to hope that the ONLY thing people see is this debate. And that they don't follow up and fact check. And that they don't think that he came across as a jerk (which, I bet you, many people think - the fact that he was "aggressive" is being used as evidence in his favor, but that turns a lot of people off - see Gore, Al).

 

[Denny Crane]

It's a pretty good question. I was pretty strongly in favor of Obama going into this debate, but I have to admit Romney sounded pretty good. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of him winning than I was beforehand.

But I can't get out of my mind all the pretty dumb things he's said in the past, nor all the ways he's been on all sides of issues. I think Obama should have really focused on the shifty nature of Romney. Drive home the lack of specificity of his proposals, the way he's shifted stances on abortion/gays/health care, the intellectual dishonesty of condemning the $716b in Medicare reductions (while using those same deductions in your own program), the way he's one kind of guy in public and another when talking to millionaires. I think Obama has prematurely gone into the football equivalent of "prevent defense," trying to run out the clock while just defending yourself.

Anyway, Romney's proposal earlier this week to limit total deductions to $17k seems like a real winner to me--it basically tells congress, "Go ahead and fuck up our personal tax code all you want. But the benefit to individuals caps out at $17k, so you are wasting your time." That's a nice one that could have bipartisan support.

If Obama took the personal attack route, he'd have lost even worse. That is a sign he's afraid and losing. Republicans had the same gripe about McCain in the debates against Clinton - "he needs to go on the attack!" and McCain finally did in the final debate, and he really was losing by then.

Unless Obama figures out a way to perk up for the remaining debates, this will be the "emperor wears no clothes" moment.

All this time, you've been worshiping an illusion. An emperor wearing the finest garments. The press tells you they're the finest garments. The spinmeisters tell you they're the finest garments. The media tells you they're the finest garments.

When the emperor went out in public, he was seen for what he truly is (and wore).

Obama without the teleprompter wears no clothes. Get it? At least that's how it looks at this moment. He's been protected by an adoring media. He's had very few press conferences where he might be challenged in a public forum.

 

[mook]

I don't "worship" Obama.

 

[Denny Crane]

But you're still voting for Obama, right?

Romney's got to hope that the ONLY thing people see is this debate. And that they don't follow up and fact check. And that they don't think that he came across as a jerk (which, I bet you, many people think - the fact that he was "aggressive" is being used as evidence in his favor, but that turns a lot of people off - see Gore, Al).

My take is...

People say, "who is this Romney fellow? He's not at all the guy Obama's ads say he is!"

The electorate is something like 40-40-20. Really close between hardcore democrats-republicans (40-40) who will vote the letter (R or D next to the name). The 20 is independents and they generally swing the election one direction. Typically those break for the challenger (in 80% of elections).

What's been telling me this election is very close, at least the national popular vote, is Obama (or Romney) has not broken 50% in any poll and held it or extended it. This means Obama + 3 (but < 50%) means EVEN if independents break for the challenger.

Romney was aggressive, but in no way like Gore was. Gore walked over to where W was sitting and invaded his personal space.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't "worship" Obama.

To some degree you do. That you say you don't is akin to "the emperor's clothes are the finest garments."

And it is not to be offensive in any way, just a commentary on PR, propaganda, who Obama really is, how he's been "handled" and so on.

 

[mook]

But you're still voting for Obama, right?

Romney's got to hope that the ONLY thing people see is this debate. And that they don't follow up and fact check. And that they don't think that he came across as a jerk (which, I bet you, many people think - the fact that he was "aggressive" is being used as evidence in his favor, but that turns a lot of people off - see Gore, Al).

I think recent history has shown that debates don't change much. The 2008 and 2004 debates also happened in October, and as I noted in other posts the momentum from mid-September seems predictive of election results.

 

[mook]

To some degree you do. That you say you don't is akin to "the emperor's clothes are the finest garments."

And it is not to be offensive in any way, just a commentary on PR, propaganda, who Obama really is, how he's been "handled" and so on.

lol. ok. Thanks for peering into my soul and divining my religious beliefs. No offense, though!

 

[Eastoff]

To some degree you do. That you say you don't is akin to "the emperor's clothes are the finest garments."

And it is not to be offensive in any way, just a commentary on PR, propaganda, who Obama really is, how he's been "handled" and so on.

Why do you worship a fictional character? I mean Obama is actually a president.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

To some degree you do. That you say you don't is akin to "the emperor's clothes are the finest garments."

And it is not to be offensive in any way, just a commentary on PR, propaganda, who Obama really is, how he's been "handled" and so on.

So are we worshiping a false god, then? I'd like to know before I sacrifice any more small animals. People in my neighborhood are starting to complain about the burning smell.

 

[Denny Crane]

lol. ok. Thanks for peering into my soul and divining my religious beliefs. No offense, though!

I think W was handled, too.

You guys ragged on him for talking stupid, etc. Yet I see him in old reruns of campaign ads and debates against Ann Richards in Texas and he was not the same guy.

 

[Denny Crane]

So are we worshiping a false god, then? I'd like to know before I sacrifice any more small animals. People in my neighborhood are starting to complain about the burning smell.

I didn't mention any god. You must equate Obama to one to even think this up, eh?

 

[Denny Crane]

[video=youtube;JvknGT8W5jA]

 

[mook]

I find that once I insult a fellow poster, they tend to stop listening to anything I have to say, and I'm stuck arguing with myself. It's pretty counter-productive. You can argue with yourself that it wasn't an insult, but you aren't going to convince the person insulted. Just something to think about Denny. YMMV.

Anyway, it seems to me every debate is about two things, perceptions and facts. This thread focuses heavily on perception (how the candidates come across.) I'd encourage people to look at FactCheck.org to see how much of the truth got stretched: http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

 

[BrianFromWA]

There's a dichotomy to Obama's performance that I can't answer to, and maybe some of the more Obama-supporting here can help:

I'm not going to use the "emperor has no clothes" analogy, but I think anyone would say that the strengths of Obama (even since 2004) have been that he's a great public speaker, that's able to get his message out (whether or not you think there's substance to it) and that he's smart as a whip. Some criticize that he's teleprompter-dependent or whatever, but I don't think anyone thinks he's dumb or can't hold a conversation.

On the other hand, last night I saw in him someone who was not polished (the "ums" and "ahs" and pauses mid-stream), who wasn't able to give a narrative that made sense (whether you want to call it a talking point or not) and who didn't seem to have as good a grasp as his opponent on the issues brought up in the debate (maybe with different questions in the next two he'll be stronger)--and even when he tried to bring up anecdotes or stats he seemed to fumble them (the Cleveland Clinic story comes to mind immediately). So the question that came to my mind (that I can't answer) is: does he really have a worse grasp on the issues brought up last night (health care, economy) after 4 years of governing through them than his opponent, does he get flustered when confronted (like Denny's article about being "handled" for so long that he doesn't expect or like hard questions), or a combination of both? I disagree with some of his policies, but (somewhat egotistically, maybe) I think that I could've hit back against Romney harder last night with facts and policy rebuttals and probably have a better overall showing than the President did.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

View attachment 2970

So: Mitt Romney gives what everyone says was a very good convention speech. And all anyone remembers is Clint and the chair. Now Romney "wins" the "debate" handily... and all anyone will remember is Big Bird. Calling it now.

I think you are missing a big part of what happened during this debate. Romney has been villinized by democrats (rightly or wrongly) as a stuck up business man who cares little for the less fortunate citizens and is only concerned with money and increasing the quality of life for those with money. On top of that he is a bumbling fool who is out of touch with middle America.

After this debate, I think Ronmey did a lot to shake that image. I think people are going to remember a bumbling Obama and composed and well spoken Romney more than the big bird comment.

But now the pressure shifts, as the independents that Romeny now has their attention, will be expecting more of the same in this next debate. Obama now goes into the debate as even or maybe an underdog. Should be interesting. Obama could have ended it last night by polishing off the image that was created for Romney, instead there are probably a lot of confused independents . . . like myself.

 

[Rhal]

The election isn't usually won or lost in the debates. Romney did a good job last night and most likely will do just as good of a job in the next few debates. Nothing I saw of Romney nor of Obama changes my stance on them, save that Romney has a quicker whit then he I gave him credit for after watching the republican debates. There really needs to be a fact checker after each debate, those two were throwing out so many contradictory numbers it was insane and 90% of people who watched those debates aren't going to check to see if either of them was screwing facts or telling a version of the truth (because we all know a politician will never say the cold hard truth, no wiggle room in that).

 

[Denny Crane]

I find that once I insult a fellow poster, they tend to stop listening to anything I have to say, and I'm stuck arguing with myself. It's pretty counter-productive. You can argue with yourself that it wasn't an insult, but you aren't going to convince the person insulted. Just something to think about Denny. YMMV.

Anyway, it seems to me every debate is about two things, perceptions and facts. This thread focuses heavily on perception (how the candidates come across.) I'd encourage people to look at FactCheck.org to see how much of the truth got stretched: http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

Where's the insult? I made a commentary on how the campaigns are run and how the politicians are handled.

I think the PR thing is spreading a very distorted picture of who Romney is. It's a combination of Obama's spending on attack ads, the outside groups spending, the media spinning, etc.

Similarly, there's a distorted picture of who Obama is.

And I don't think it's any sort of insult to you. What I am seeing all over the place is guys like Chris Matthews and Michael Moore scratching their heads and wondering what happened to the Obama that gives great speeches. The emperor showed up for the debate and people saw his clothes for what they really are.

Again, no insult. Just you're in good company (Matthews, Moore, et al).

 

[blazerboy30]

It's a pretty good question. I was pretty strongly in favor of Obama going into this debate, but I have to admit Romney sounded pretty good. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of him winning than I was beforehand.

I'm curious... What specifics (other than the tax deduction limit) made you feel better about Romney winning?

 

[Denny Crane]

Where's the insult? I made a commentary on how the campaigns are run and how the politicians are handled.

I think the PR thing is spreading a very distorted picture of who Romney is. It's a combination of Obama's spending on attack ads, the outside groups spending, the media spinning, etc.

Similarly, there's a distorted picture of who Obama is.

And I don't think it's any sort of insult to you. What I am seeing all over the place is guys like Chris Matthews and Michael Moore scratching their heads and wondering what happened to the Obama that gives great speeches. The emperor showed up for the debate and people saw his clothes for what they really are.

Again, no insult. Just you're in good company (Matthews, Moore, et al).

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast...gging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html

Andrew Sullivan live blogging. Basically saying "where's the emperor in his new clothes that I've come to expect?"

 

[blazerboy30]

Neil deGrasse Tyson ‏@neiltyson Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive

0.012% of a $3.8 trillion budget (for 2013) is $456 MILLION. Does it really seem reasonable that we need to be spending $456 MILLION per year on a public tv station?

People are so quick to point out a small percentage, but those millions and billions of dollars start to add up.

 

[julius]

0.012% of a $3.8 trillion budget (for 2013) is $456 MILLION. Does it really seem reasonable that we need to be spending $456 MILLION per year on a public tv station?

People are so quick to point out a small percentage, but those millions and billions of dollars start to add up.

Well, I think one way to look at it would be this way.

What are similar programs that they spend that much $$ on, AND do they have the positive influence/educational impact on children that PBS does?

Also, what is the total budget for PBS, and what % of the $$ from the Government is their total PBS budget?

I think the Government should audit EVERYTHING not just pick and chose easy targets (you know, PBS is socialism, etc). PBS (or planned parenthood, or others) are easy targets for people because they seem simple and they're known quantities.

Instead of saying "I WON'T cut the Military Budget!" I'd much rather the candidate say "we'll go through the military budget, and cut what isn't necessary and what our military leaders don't want/use/need".

There is probably a lot of bloated spending in the military, but if you dare talk about cutting it you're unpatriotic, etc.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, I think one way to look at it would be this way.

What are similar programs that they spend that much $$ on, AND do they have the positive influence/educational impact on children that PBS does?

Also, what is the total budget for PBS, and what % of the $$ from the Government is their total PBS budget?

I think the Government should audit EVERYTHING not just pick and chose easy targets (you know, PBS is socialism, etc). PBS (or planned parenthood, or others) are easy targets for people because they seem simple and they're known quantities.

Instead of saying "I WON'T cut the Military Budget!" I'd much rather the candidate say "we'll go through the military budget, and cut what isn't necessary and what our military leaders don't want/use/need".

There is probably a lot of bloated spending in the military, but if you dare talk about cutting it you're unpatriotic, etc.

NASA

http://io9.com/5885042/how-will-the-white-houses-brutal-budget-cuts-affect-nasa

 

[BrianFromWA]

There is probably a lot of bloated spending in the military, but if you dare talk about cutting it you're unpatriotic, etc.

From the military perspective, it's not that way at all. From the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to me to the sailors in my unit, the vast majority of military members understand that to get the budget reined in, it requires military spending to be cut as well.

The "unpatriotic" part (if you want to say it) is when people toss out a number willy-nilly ("Super-Committee can't decide, so get rid of XTrillion from somewhere!!11!") without looking at requirements, missions, or strategic plans.

 

[blazerboy30]

Well, I think one way to look at it would be this way.

What are similar programs that they spend that much $$ on, AND do they have the positive influence/educational impact on children that PBS does?

Also, what is the total budget for PBS, and what % of the $$ from the Government is their total PBS budget?

I think the Government should audit EVERYTHING not just pick and chose easy targets (you know, PBS is socialism, etc). PBS (or planned parenthood, or others) are easy targets for people because they seem simple and they're known quantities.

Instead of saying "I WON'T cut the Military Budget!" I'd much rather the candidate say "we'll go through the military budget, and cut what isn't necessary and what our military leaders don't want/use/need".

There is probably a lot of bloated spending in the military, but if you dare talk about cutting it you're unpatriotic, etc.

Sorry, but that just isn't a reasonable way to determine whether a certain spend is necessary.

You don't make a decision whether or not to spend on a particular project based on how much a completely different, unrelated project costs. Also, it doesn't matter what percentage of the total PBS budget comes from the government. We either are spending $450 MILLION or we're not.

It is a strawman to argue that only PBS or planned parenthood are being picked on. It was an example, not an entire plan.