What do expect from the first debate?

[Further]

Both sides are downplaying their chances of having a great debate. Romney and his people are talking about how Obama has been here before and is a great and seasoned debater. Obama is talking about how Romney really won his parties nomination via debates and that Romney has been spending a ton of time mock-debating.

Personally, I think both will perform pretty well, but I certainly am not expecting any knock out blows. Both sides have some flaws that could be attacked, but with all the nastiness already bantered about, it will be hard for either side to pull out a clear win. More likely, those on the right will think Romney won, those on the left will think Obama won, and those in the middle will think everyone lost.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think Obama can't win, but he will be declared the winner by acclaim by the media.

Seriously. His record is indefensible. Personal attacks against Romney can't win an actual debate, though they can (and have) shape public opinion.

Romney should throw him a curveball by asking, "are you better off now than you were 3 years ago?" Note I wrote 3 on purpose. Obama has a stock answer for 4 years ago that is weak but again acclaimed by the media as sufficient.

If I were him, I'd ask "is some video of me speaking and taken out of context really more important an issue than your foreign policy crumbling to pieces before our very eyes?"

We'll see.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

nice post.

I dont think that there is anything that obummer could do or say to change the minds of his followers or the main stream press. He has that Jim Jones thing going on..

 

[Further]

Wow, just goes to show perspective is everything. I see the Romney supporters as blind and unwilling to listen to reason. Those who still support Romney after all the flip flopping and lack of compass Romney has shown are so filled with Obama-hate that nothing could ever affect their support.

And even though I am an Obama supporter, I do not blindly support everything he has done or said. If I were Romney, I would talk about the Afghanistan surge being a failure. Most, even on the left, are unhappy with this. If I were Obama, I would talk about his accomplishments and future plans, and stay away from digging on Romney too much. Romney will have to attack, but if Obama can manage to stay away from turning negative he will look more presidential. Whereas, as Denny pointed out in another thread, simply by being on stage with the president Romney will appear presidential.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Hmm, I dont think that even the most hard core R (self included) is blind, just very pissed at the stuff obummer has done and very tired of the press giving him a free pass. Look back at how the press ass fucked any R for anything the 8 years before. any small thing and they were all over Bush. In hind sight, a lot of you guys are going to regret votes spent on this guy.

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow, just goes to show perspective is everything. I see the Romney supporters as blind and unwilling to listen to reason. Those who still support Romney after all the flip flopping and lack of compass Romney has shown are so filled with Obama-hate that nothing could ever affect their support.

And even though I am an Obama supporter, I do not blindly support everything he has done or said. If I were Romney, I would talk about the Afghanistan surge being a failure. Most, even on the left, are unhappy with this. If I were Obama, I would talk about his accomplishments and future plans, and stay away from digging on Romney too much. Romney will have to attack, but if Obama can manage to stay away from turning negative he will look more presidential. Whereas, as Denny pointed out in another thread, simply by being on stage with the president Romney will appear presidential.

Obama's accomplished an 8%+ unemployment rate, grew the debt bigger than GDP for the first time since WW II, added more debt in his first 3 years than Bush did in 8 years (and he was spendy!), about 5 million homes have been foreclosed on during his watch, etc. I don't think he wants to brag about his "accomplishments."

These are things Romney can put the president on the defensive with and for which no answer is truly acceptable. Think about it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Also note, I don't call Obama names. He's the president and, in fact, MY president. He seems like a very smart and good man with a beautiful wife and kids. I'm happy he's made $millions and can live a great life and provide for them.

My gripes are solely with the socialist attitude and programs a lack of leadership on the really big issues (even ObamaCare he was on the sidelines while Pelosi and Reid wrote the bill and negotiated the bribes for votes to pass it). I think he's been adversarial with the capitalistic forces that make us a rich and prosperous nation. And I think he's spent an awful lot of money with the claim it would provide certain results and those results not met but in fact the situation made longer and worse.

I happen to be a fan of Clinton and his presidency, and I had hoped that the 2010 election might be a 2x4 across the head of the guy who's been stubborn as a mule. If it had woke him up, we might be experiencing the kind of recovery we did under Clinton and republican congress.

 

[Further]

Although overall, there is a slight left bent to the media, I don't think the news for the most part gives the left a pass while fucking the right. I think the news gives both sides too much of a pass not because of leaning left, but because being probative into almost any political subject repulses viewership. Just look at how the media was not willing to fully criticize how the Bush presidency lied to the public to attack Iraq. The media wants sound bites and short easy to digest stories. There are more probative media, but those almost always have more of a political leaning to them.

As far as saying the right wingers are blind, that missed my point. What I was trying to highlight was that perspective matters. Those on the right see those on the left incorrectly, just those on the left often view those on the right incorrectly. I have legitimate and well thought out reasons for supporting Obama, even if I do not agree with him on everything. And I assume you have reasons for supporting Romney. Difference is, I'm right and you're wrong. (At least in my mind).

 

[Denny Crane]

FWIW, I don't support Romney. I'll be voting for this guy: http://www.examiner.com/article/gary-johnson-reaches-double-digits-ohio

 

[Denny Crane]

And if I were you, I'd be a vengeful type, smiting those who piss me off to the slightest degree.

 

[MickZagger]

FWIW, I don't support Romney. I'll be voting for this guy: http://www.examiner.com/article/gary-johnson-reaches-double-digits-ohio

So, essentially you're voting for Obama?

Cool beans.

 

[julius]

Both sides will say their guy did great, and the other guy did horrible. Both sides will claim they 'won' the debate, but the right will say the "media" claimed Obama won because they're in his back pocket (and Fox news will say Romney won).

Both sides will make gaffes, misstatements and have some water cooler moments/memorable comments.

And in the end, the love you give is equal to the...wait, I mean in the end it won't matter for shit.

 

[MickZagger]

Both sides will say their guy did great, and the other guy did horrible. Both sides will claim they 'won' the debate, but the right will say the "media" claimed Obama won because they're in his back pocket (and Fox news will say Romney won).

Both sides will make gaffes, misstatements and have some water cooler moments/memorable comments.

And in the end, the love you give is equal to the...wait, I mean in the end it won't matter for shit.

So, I don't need to watch?

 

[julius]

So, I don't need to watch?

If you have a preconceived notion about who is going to win and already believe what you want to believe about the other candidate (i.e., he's "lead the country" in the wrong direction or will just "continue Bush style economics" if elected, then no, you don't need to watch).

 

[bluefrog]

I think the League of Women Voters put it best when the pulled sponsorship of the debates:

"...the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public"

 

[barfo]

So, I don't need to watch?

The only people who need to watch are the ones that won't watch - the uninterested, uninformed voters.

barfo

 

[Further]

To be honest, Romney has no shot of getting me to vote for him, however, Obama does risk losing my vote.

 

[maxiep]

It's funny because it's true: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/28/the-medias-top-10-post-debate-story-lines/

 

[dviss1]

It's funny because it's true: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/28/the-medias-top-10-post-debate-story-lines/

But really though? When has Romney ever been a good debater? If Rick perry can make you look stupid while pounding you
for hiring illegals to cut your lawn, Obama will wipe the floor with you. Romney has never been good at debating:

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."

~ Mitt Romney (saying whatever he can to be president)

[video=youtube;a9IJUkYUbvI]

 

[MickZagger]

Obama will shred him to pieces with very little prep.

Not.

Even.

Close.

 

[donkiez]

To be honest, Romney has no shot of getting me to vote for him, however, Obama does risk losing my vote.

I kind of agree with this. Although I actually liked the pre 2010 Romney and would seriously consider voteing for him, if he was still that guy.

 

[MickZagger]

I kind of agree with this. Although I actually liked the pre 2010 Romney and would seriously consider voteing for him, if he was still that guy.

The pre-flip flop on his origninal flip flop Romney?

He's always wreaked of snake oil salesman to me. The guy looks like someone who should be playing a politician in a movie, from his artificial benevolence all the way to his gray patches of hair above his ears he purposefully forgets to Just For Men.

 

[donkiez]

The pre-flip flop on his origninal flip flop Romney?

He's always wreaked of snake oil salesman to me. The guy looks like someone who should be playing a politician in a movie, from his artificial benevolence all the way to his gray patches of hair above his ears he purposefully forgets to Just For Men.

The pre origional flip flopper. Thats how he comes across to me now. He was a pretty moderate republican at one time who seemed to have a sense of social responsibility. Pandering to the extreme right to get his parties nomination seemed to make him out to be someone who will scrafice his beliefs and views to win. The republican party has been hijacked by elitists and religeous extremists. Standing up to that element would have won my vote, but its to late now.

 

[julius]

I kind of agree with this. Although I actually liked the pre 2010 Romney and would seriously consider voteing for him, if he was still that guy.

It is interesting how pre-machine candidates are much better than the candidates they turn into once the machine gets it's hands on them.

McCain pre-2008 was significantly better than 2008 McCain.

I think had Romney been more like Huntsman, he would've been able to win the Presidency easily. Huntsman did fall into the trap occasionally, but all in all, he didn't turn into a conservative talking head. He was realistic, realized that science isn't the devil, put country first and not party first, etc.

If they stayed true to what real republican values are, and not the "rich get richer" and 'the gheys are bad' republicans (who start wars and don't pay for them, give tax cuts and then complain about budget issues, announce that their main goal in government is to make a 1 term president out of Obama etc), they're actually candidates who make people want to vote for them.

The Tea Party, and the Right wing of the Republicans has ruined the party for everyone else.

You can't say the same for the super liberals, they're not powerful enough to control what the D's do (as for proof? Look at what Obama didn't do as President. Pot is still illegal, there is no single payer option, they stayed in Iraq far longer than the L base wanted, hasn't raised taxes (significantly or at all) to the levels of that communist socialist symp Clinton and didn't undo any of the things Bush did that really irked the L wing of the party).

The funny thing is, Obama is more like a republican than Romney is. Same with Clinton, he was a great republican.

 

[MickZagger]

It is interesting how pre-machine candidates are much better than the candidates they turn into once the machine gets it's hands on them.

McCain pre-2008 was significantly better than 2008 McCain.

I think had Romney been more like Huntsman, he would've been able to win the Presidency easily. Huntsman did fall into the trap occasionally, but all in all, he didn't turn into a conservative talking head. He was realistic, realized that science isn't the devil, put country first and not party first, etc.

If they stayed true to what real republican values are, and not the "rich get richer" and 'the gheys are bad' republicans (who start wars and don't pay for them, give tax cuts and then complain about budget issues, announce that their main goal in government is to make a 1 term president out of Obama etc), they're actually candidates who make people want to vote for them.

The Tea Party, and the Right wing of the Republicans has ruined the party for everyone else.

You can't say the same for the super liberals, they're not powerful enough to control what the D's do (as for proof? Look at what Obama didn't do as President. Pot is still illegal, there is no single payer option, they stayed in Iraq far longer than the L base wanted, hasn't raised taxes (significantly or at all) to the levels of that communist socialist symp Clinton and didn't undo any of the things Bush did that really irked the L wing of the party).

The funny thing is, Obama is more like a republican than Romney is. Same with Clinton, he was a great republican.

My dad's a registered Independent and isn't stuck in his ways. He, at one time told me that he'd vote for McCain a couple years before he ran. Come time to vote and voted for Obama. He said if he'd have stuck in his ways he'd of voted for him. He said the same thing about Romney. In order to ease the extremist base of the Republican party they have to change ideology. My mom on the otherside is a looney liberal like yours truly.

I think the patriotic/religion theme that the Republican party has to live up to is the kiss of death for them during the past couple election cycles. Too broad a base they got to pander to.

If that makes any sense.

 

[Denny Crane]

It is interesting how pre-machine candidates are much better than the candidates they turn into once the machine gets it's hands on them.

McCain pre-2008 was significantly better than 2008 McCain.

I think had Romney been more like Huntsman, he would've been able to win the Presidency easily. Huntsman did fall into the trap occasionally, but all in all, he didn't turn into a conservative talking head. He was realistic, realized that science isn't the devil, put country first and not party first, etc.

If they stayed true to what real republican values are, and not the "rich get richer" and 'the gheys are bad' republicans (who start wars and don't pay for them, give tax cuts and then complain about budget issues, announce that their main goal in government is to make a 1 term president out of Obama etc), they're actually candidates who make people want to vote for them.

The Tea Party, and the Right wing of the Republicans has ruined the party for everyone else.

You can't say the same for the super liberals, they're not powerful enough to control what the D's do (as for proof? Look at what Obama didn't do as President. Pot is still illegal, there is no single payer option, they stayed in Iraq far longer than the L base wanted, hasn't raised taxes (significantly or at all) to the levels of that communist socialist symp Clinton and didn't undo any of the things Bush did that really irked the L wing of the party).

The funny thing is, Obama is more like a republican than Romney is. Same with Clinton, he was a great republican.

As I see it, the tea party is the only hope for the republican party. The tea party platform isn't very radical at all:
http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

I don't see anything in it about immigration, abortion, religion, or anything else that has tainted the republican party since Reagan finished his 2nd term. If all that is right wing radical stuff, then that's what this country is. Read the constitution some time.

 

[crandc]

IMO unless Romney totally stinks up the joint, the media will, by and large, declare him the winner. The reason is a close race drives up ratings. If it's clear a month in advance one contestant it toast, who's going to watch all the election specials?

I'm going to watch at the local library, they are showing on big screen TV and the League of Women Voters (which incidentally includes men, so now sexism charges, OK?) is hosting a follow-up debate between local campaign reps. I can think of a few good questions to ask.

Unless I have a really killer workday, in which case I'll watch at home in my Blazers pajamas.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

IMO unless Romney totally stinks up the joint, the media will, by and large, declare him the winner. The reason is a close race drives up ratings. If it's clear a month in advance one contestant it toast, who's going to watch all the election specials?

I'm going to watch at the local library, they are showing on big screen TV and the League of Women Voters (which incidentally includes men, so now sexism charges, OK?) is hosting a follow-up debate between local campaign reps. I can think of a few good questions to ask.

Unless I have a really killer workday, in which case I'll watch at home in my Blazers pajamas.

I think the opposite. The media is unabashedly liberal and Obama is their guy. Add to that he's a tough, charismatic and eloquent person. He'll mop the floor with Mitt.

 

[huevonkiller]

It's not worth tuning in.