[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Romney actually looked and sounded like the man described on his resume last night…[/quote]
Well said my friend. This is what happens when you line up the two candidates and the MSLM is not there to run interference for their man Obama.
And I will add that Romney is better than his campaign and Obama far worse!
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes, it could be temporary or it could shift the election in Romney’s favor just as the first Reagan/Carter debates did. Reagan trailed by 6-8 pts. going into the first debate according to Gallup. After the debate he took the lead and held it to election day.
[/quote]
Glad to see that you have changed how you characterize the Carter-Reagan debate. Of course all of the other polls (other than a SINGLE gallup poll) showed Reagan leading in the run up to their debate.
I am also curious why you keep referring to debates (plural)… Care to explain?
jnd[/quote]
You are truly a johnny one note. Makes me wonder what other screen names you operate under.
I used Gallup because they were the most trusted name in polling in 1980. But then I already schooled you on that a week or so ago.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes, it could be temporary or it could shift the election in Romney’s favor just as the first Reagan/Carter debates did. Reagan trailed by 6-8 pts. going into the first debate according to Gallup. After the debate he took the lead and held it to election day.
[/quote]
Glad to see that you have changed how you characterize the Carter-Reagan debate. Of course all of the other polls (other than a SINGLE gallup poll) showed Reagan leading in the run up to their debate.
I am also curious why you keep referring to debates (plural)… Care to explain?
jnd[/quote]
You are truly a johnny one note. Makes me wonder what other screen names you operate under.
I used Gallup because they were the most trusted name in polling in 1980. But then I already schooled you on that a week or so ago. [/quote]
I just dislike when people get their facts wrong… Especially when they are so confident. I enjoy learning new things from all sorts of sources.
So - no comment on all of those debates you keep mentioning professor zeb?
jnd
I am a Gary Johnson supporter, and a libertarian. I expected to hear the same drivel being obfuscated by both candidates tonight. I expected that Obamas charisma and emotional resonance through vague allegory would win over the debate, with parlance to Romneys previous lack of identity with the common man, lack of public speaking ability, and general social awkwardness.
Barring a few gaffes, I thought Romney was not only confident, but dare I say, likeable and empathetic. I am trying to analyze this from a strategic perspective (thanks, Zeb). Romney certainly corrected alot of his previous errors on likeability. I thought his numbering of points was a good way to simplify concepts to the average voter, while providing some level of details. The political math was still evident among both candidates, but I do think Romney provided some reasonable figures.
Obama used some anecdotal references (grandmother) that I thought would be effective, and showed some penchant for his cool demeanor as I had expected. However, he really did seem lost at times and unable to provide anything beyond rehashed talking points. He could have simply had a power point up while he sung a song.
The cleveland clinic part was a major FUBAR for Obama.
I am not sure if Romney took advantage of the fact Obama had both houses of congress and wasted it on the ACA rather than “fixing” the economy.
I do think there are many important issues that were left unaddressed (civil liberties, devaluing of the currency…etc) that perhaps would have ate into time constraints, but are equally as important. I feel GJ would have brought these up.
My 2cents.
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes, it could be temporary or it could shift the election in Romney’s favor just as the first Reagan/Carter debates did. Reagan trailed by 6-8 pts. going into the first debate according to Gallup. After the debate he took the lead and held it to election day.
[/quote]
Glad to see that you have changed how you characterize the Carter-Reagan debate. Of course all of the other polls (other than a SINGLE gallup poll) showed Reagan leading in the run up to their debate.
I am also curious why you keep referring to debates (plural)… Care to explain?
jnd[/quote]
You are truly a johnny one note. Makes me wonder what other screen names you operate under.
I used Gallup because they were the most trusted name in polling in 1980. But then I already schooled you on that a week or so ago. [/quote]
I just dislike when people get their facts wrong… Especially when they are so confident. I enjoy learning new things from all sorts of sources.
So - no comment on all of those debates you keep mentioning professor zeb?
jnd
[/quote]
What happened to your boy last night jnd?
I hate it when people get things wrong too and you said this:
[quote]09-12-2012, 08:25 AM
jnd
Level 0
Based on all of the polls, this election is over. Obama gets 4 more years.
jnd [/quote]
Still think the race is over?
Did you enjoy watching your guy take a beating last night jnd? I sure did!
No media darlings were there to pump him up just him standing there hapless trying to duck Romney’s punches and having no luck at all doing it!
Truly a great night for the truth wouldn’t you say?
No…I guess you wouldn’t say that would you?
Did you still kiss your poster of Obama goodnight or are you now mad at him for not being the man you soooo wanted him to be?
I guess this is a race after all isn’t it?
Just as I predicted this debate may have made a difference just like the Reagan/Carter debate in 1980 where Reagan was behind and after that one debate surged ahead and eventually won the race.
Please tell us all about your take on last nights debate.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[
The most egregious dissembling of the night, in my opinion.
He still absolutely won the debate, and he still deserves to be called the winner. Obama achieved this odd combination of aloofness and exasperation. He was remarkably passive. He frankly doesn’t deserve another term if he can’t put some minimal kind of effort into this whole thing. He doesn’t even seem to know or care as much about his own reelection as Bill Clinton does.
[/quote]
He quite frankly has the body language of a man WHO DOES NOT WANT to be re-elected.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes, it could be temporary or it could shift the election in Romney’s favor just as the first Reagan/Carter debates did. Reagan trailed by 6-8 pts. going into the first debate according to Gallup. After the debate he took the lead and held it to election day.
[/quote]
Glad to see that you have changed how you characterize the Carter-Reagan debate. Of course all of the other polls (other than a SINGLE gallup poll) showed Reagan leading in the run up to their debate.
I am also curious why you keep referring to debates (plural)… Care to explain?
jnd[/quote]
You are truly a johnny one note. Makes me wonder what other screen names you operate under.
I used Gallup because they were the most trusted name in polling in 1980. But then I already schooled you on that a week or so ago. [/quote]
I just dislike when people get their facts wrong… Especially when they are so confident. I enjoy learning new things from all sorts of sources.
So - no comment on all of those debates you keep mentioning professor zeb?
jnd
[/quote]
What happened to your boy last night jnd?
I hate it when people get things wrong too and you said this:
[quote]09-12-2012, 08:25 AM
jnd
Level 0
Based on all of the polls, this election is over. Obama gets 4 more years.
jnd [/quote]
Still think the race is over?
Did you enjoy watching your guy take a beating last night jnd? I sure did!
No media darlings were there to pump him up just him standing there hapless trying to duck Romney’s punches and having no luck at all doing it!
Truly a great night for the truth wouldn’t you say?
No…I guess you wouldn’t say that would you?
Did you still kiss your poster of Obama goodnight or are you now mad at him for not being the man you soooo wanted him to be?
I guess this is a race after all isn’t it?
Just as I predicted this debate may have made a difference just like the Reagan/Carter debate in 1980 where Reagan was behind and after that one debate surged ahead and eventually won the race.
Please tell us all about your take on last nights debate. [/quote]
I did not watch the debate- so I cannot comment on it.
Glad to see that my input is helping you remember what happened in the Reagan Carter debate. I am sure that you knew that there was only one debate, but were just mistaken. At least you have amended your language (At least you now accurately report that there was only one reputable poll (Gallup) and only one debate). I’d call that progress.
Wanna explain what makes Gallup the only reputable poll? I am confident that this is more of your spin that confirms your devotion to Reagan mythology. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I only post under 1 name and the data continue to show Obama up by 3.1 (as of today). So yes, I still think he wins (at least that is what my Obama poster told me to say).
jnd
All style, no substance.
Have fun pulling the lever on election day and I hope everything goes your way and you get the exact government you want.
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[
The most egregious dissembling of the night, in my opinion.
He still absolutely won the debate, and he still deserves to be called the winner. Obama achieved this odd combination of aloofness and exasperation. He was remarkably passive. He frankly doesn’t deserve another term if he can’t put some minimal kind of effort into this whole thing. He doesn’t even seem to know or care as much about his own reelection as Bill Clinton does.
[/quote]
He quite frankly has the body language of a man WHO DOES NOT WANT to be re-elected. [/quote]
I did not see the debate, but I am really curious about body language. What was Obama doing that lead you to think this?
jnd
I concur with much that has been said. My only additional observations:
Obama clearly did not prepare well. He’s a smart guy used to coasting by without preparation. In the womb of liberal politics and in academia, you can bluff by with bullshit. In the cut-throat world of private finance, this doesn’t work — a teacher or a president at a podium can cut off tough follow up questions, in the real world, this does not happen.
Obama did not prepare well because he does not know how to work hard. Jobs get “done” with that last 3 days haze of caffeine and nicotine. Muscles get built with that last rep and puking in the alley after squats. Obama doesn’t know how to do this.
Obama got by last time with glittering generalities. Now he has a record he has to defend, and the facts are not good — people dropping out of the labor force en masse, high unemployment, no growth, inflation just on the horizon, price of gasoline doubled since elected, price of food on the rise, more people that ever on welfare and food stamps. This is a really, really bad economy, and his policies, if they didn’t cause it, certainly haven’t done a damn thing to fix it. “Hope” and “change” doesn’t feed the family or pay the mortgage.
The next debate is foreign policy. Given that not only the middle east, but the near east looks just like WWIII, I’d say this debate is going to be bad because Obama managed to back the wrong people in basically every fight. (Or failed to back the right people — e.g., the revolutionaries in Iran.) Or got involved when he shouldn’t or stayed out when he should have gotten in. In short, pretty much fucked it all up, worse than Bush II, which is pretty impressive fucking up.
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[
The most egregious dissembling of the night, in my opinion.
He still absolutely won the debate, and he still deserves to be called the winner. Obama achieved this odd combination of aloofness and exasperation. He was remarkably passive. He frankly doesn’t deserve another term if he can’t put some minimal kind of effort into this whole thing. He doesn’t even seem to know or care as much about his own reelection as Bill Clinton does.
[/quote]
He quite frankly has the body language of a man WHO DOES NOT WANT to be re-elected. [/quote]
I did not see the debate, but I am really curious about body language. What was Obama doing that lead you to think this?
jnd
[/quote]
He looked defeated, like he knew he was screwed and was just going through the motions.
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes, it could be temporary or it could shift the election in Romney’s favor just as the first Reagan/Carter debates did. Reagan trailed by 6-8 pts. going into the first debate according to Gallup. After the debate he took the lead and held it to election day.
[/quote]
Glad to see that you have changed how you characterize the Carter-Reagan debate. Of course all of the other polls (other than a SINGLE gallup poll) showed Reagan leading in the run up to their debate.
I am also curious why you keep referring to debates (plural)… Care to explain?
jnd[/quote]
You are truly a johnny one note. Makes me wonder what other screen names you operate under.
I used Gallup because they were the most trusted name in polling in 1980. But then I already schooled you on that a week or so ago. [/quote]
I just dislike when people get their facts wrong… Especially when they are so confident. I enjoy learning new things from all sorts of sources.
So - no comment on all of those debates you keep mentioning professor zeb?
jnd
[/quote]
What happened to your boy last night jnd?
I hate it when people get things wrong too and you said this:
[quote]09-12-2012, 08:25 AM
jnd
Level 0
Based on all of the polls, this election is over. Obama gets 4 more years.
jnd [/quote]
Still think the race is over?
Did you enjoy watching your guy take a beating last night jnd? I sure did!
No media darlings were there to pump him up just him standing there hapless trying to duck Romney’s punches and having no luck at all doing it!
Truly a great night for the truth wouldn’t you say?
No…I guess you wouldn’t say that would you?
Did you still kiss your poster of Obama goodnight or are you now mad at him for not being the man you soooo wanted him to be?
I guess this is a race after all isn’t it?
Just as I predicted this debate may have made a difference just like the Reagan/Carter debate in 1980 where Reagan was behind and after that one debate surged ahead and eventually won the race.
Please tell us all about your take on last nights debate. [/quote]
I did not watch the debate- so I cannot comment on it.[/quote]
I bet you would have “watched the debate” had your guy won.
Stop reaching I added an “s” to debate. Are you now going after me for spelling errors? You are sinking that low?
Well, I’ve proven you wrong on everything else that you posted why should this be any different?
Gallup has been the gold standard in Presidential polls since they predicted that Roosevelt would beat Landon in 1936. Anyone who follows Presidential politics DOES NOT have to be told this.
[quote]I only post under 1 name and the data continue to show Obama up by 3.1 (as of today). So yes, I still think he wins (at least that is what my Obama poster told me to say).
jnd[/quote]
Sorry you don’t get to play that game. The debate results will not show up in the daily tracking poll until later today or on Friday depending on which pollster you read.
However, early flash polls (look it up the definition) showed Romney to be the clear winner.
CNN poll who is the stronger leader:
Romney 58%
Obama 37%
CBS poll of uncommitted voters:
56% say their opinion of Romney changed for the better.
13% say their opinion of Obama changed for the better.
But enough of this let’s see what Gallup has to say on the issue in a few hours. They have been more accurate in their predictions over the past 76 years than any other polling company. And they’ve been around longer than just about everyone!
Now go put that poster of Obama back over your bed. Don’t take it out on him that he can’t live up to the liberal media’s expectations.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I concur with much that has been said. My only additional observations:
Obama clearly did not prepare well. He’s a smart guy used to coasting by without preparation. In the womb of liberal politics and in academia, you can bluff by with bullshit. In the cut-throat world of private finance, this doesn’t work — a teacher or a president at a podium can cut off tough follow up questions, in the real world, this does not happen.
Obama did not prepare well because he does not know how to work hard. Jobs get “done” with that last 3 days haze of caffeine and nicotine. Muscles get built with that last rep and puking in the alley after squats. Obama doesn’t know how to do this.
Obama got by last time with glittering generalities. Now he has a record he has to defend, and the facts are not good — people dropping out of the labor force en masse, high unemployment, no growth, inflation just on the horizon, price of gasoline doubled since elected, price of food on the rise, more people that ever on welfare and food stamps. This is a really, really bad economy, and his policies, if they didn’t cause it, certainly haven’t done a damn thing to fix it. “Hope” and “change” doesn’t feed the family or pay the mortgage.
The next debate is foreign policy. Given that not only the middle east, but the near east looks just like WWIII, I’d say this debate is going to be bad because Obama managed to back the wrong people in basically every fight. (Or failed to back the right people — e.g., the revolutionaries in Iran.) Or got involved when he shouldn’t or stayed out when he should have gotten in. In short, pretty much fucked it all up, worse than Bush II, which is pretty impressive fucking up.[/quote]
Excellent assessment!
I just watched it on youtube and here is my rewiew.
First I must say most of my knowledge of American politics comes from this forum( sad I know lol ), so I was actually positively surprised by both politicians and they dont fit the demonic description they sometime get.
For my part there was no clear winner and I dont see what so many see aka that Romney won. Now this doesnt
meen I think he did a bad job up there in the debate, but I did not turn off that debate feeling that Romney won.
I think Romney made some good points, especially regarding the 90 billion spent on green jobs, but on the other hand he was to vague when it came to describe hes plans, I am still not shure what he is going to do if he gets elected. Hes strongest point/points from my point of wiew was how he was able to show what he have done as a governor and how he have done that colleborating with the democratic mayority in hes state. Also I think he came off as a positiv guy when he said he wanted to sit down with house members of both parties on hes first day as president( if he get elected ). Obamas answer to that question was not as good and he came across as a bit negativ.
I think Obamas strong suit in this debate was that he was better at explaining what he wants to do,
I think he did a better job here than Romney.
Besides this I think it was a civil debate and thats allways good in my book.
James Carville just cracks me up!
He had the best quote of the night:
“President Obama wanted a conversation…Romney didn’t want no damn conversation! He came to dis’ thing with a freakin’ chainsaw”!
(All said with his deep Cajun drawl!)
Mufasa
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
was it a lie or not , Did Romney propose a 5 trillion tax cut or not , or does it even matter ? Is it possible to beat a liar in a debate ?[/quote]
"Taxes
At the outset of the debate, President Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney tangled over taxes. Romney objected to the president’s claim that his tax cuts would cost $5 trillion.
ROMNEY: Let me repeat what I said, I’m not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. That’s not my plan. My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit.
What is Romney’s plan?
He has proposed making the Bush tax cuts permanent for all income levels – then cutting all rates by an additional 20 percent. He would also repeal the alternative minimum tax and permanently repeal the estate tax.
The non-partisan Tax Policy Center concluded that Romney’s tax plan would cost $4.8 trillion over 10 years.
Romney said – once again tonight – that his plan would be paid for by closing loopholes in the tax code and by getting rid of some tax deductions and credits. But he has repeatedly declined to say which deductions he’d eliminate, saying he’d work with Congress to make those decisions."
[/quote]
The most egregious dissembling of the night, in my opinion.
He still absolutely won the debate, and he still deserves to be called the winner. Obama achieved this odd combination of aloofness and exasperation. He was remarkably passive. He frankly doesn’t deserve another term if he can’t put some minimal kind of effort into this whole thing. He doesn’t even seem to know or care as much about his own reelection as Bill Clinton does.
[/quote]
I 100% agree.
[quote]florelius wrote:
I’m not sure you watched the same debate the rest of us did then.
even lapdog’s are giving it to romney, which means it was a slaughterhouse.
[quote]but on the other hand he was to vague when it came to describe hes plans, I am still not shure what he is going to do if he gets elected. Hes strongest point/points from my point of wiew was how he was able to show what he have done as a governor and how he have done that colleborating with the democratic mayority in hes state. Also I think he came off as a positiv guy when he said he wanted to sit down with house members of both parties on hes first day as president[/quote]
Please, read the above, over and over again until it sinks in that you basically state the answer to your original ‘concern’ in the very next two sentences.
POTUS has to work with congress. You don’t work with congress by walking in and saying “this is the way we are going to do it, or else.” obama proved that. You work with people by coming in and saying “this is what we need to do, this is where we are now, what path gets us there?” and then finding a path everyone can have some common ground in. There is a very good reason the founding fathers set up the republic like they did. To prevent “my way or the highway”.
It’s okay Obama, you didn’t fail that, someone else made that happen.
Al Gore has suggested that Obama may not have had time to acclimate to the altitude. Jesus.
As for me, and this is wild speculation, I can’t help thinking that Obama is subconsciously unsure of whether or not he actually wants another term. I think he went into this job with an unrealistic sense of what it actually entails. He isn’t a natural politician a la Bill Clinton, he is often criticized on the Hill for failing to schmooze, he obviously doesn’t like answering questions about his decisions.
I’m finding it hard to come up with a better explanation for his recent triple-crown of mediocrity: the convention speech, the 60 minutes interview, and now the debate. Most people–even the staunch detractors–have said all along that, love or hate his policies, he’s a charismatic guy, charming, etc. There was charisma last night, but it was all sitting stage right.
Beans!