[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
FYI - the above clip has black guys in it, that’s ok in the politics forum right?[/quote]
It’s a fine clip Irish but where is the referee who assisted “the champ”? Last night Romney took on Obama and Candy Crowley and did a great job!
[quote]666Rich wrote:
Hello,
I missed the first 15 min or so of the debate, but tried to watch as unbiased and strategically as possible.
I am neither a republican, nor democrat. I do not really “like” either candidate.
As the first page predicted, the moderator and some of the questions were very very much on Obamas side.
Some of the questions were flat our irrelevant to the state of the nation. The hiring women question, was a stupid one. The assault weapons question, was also very stupid.
Obama came out with his usual grandiose talk and rebuttals. He gets style points for this, despite not having substance. That is what I expected. Romney is stuck in a bind by trying to provide substance, but dumbing it down enough for the average vote to understand. Specifically with anything regarding the economy, most people are in fact…really fucking stupid.
You cannot compare the tax rates of individuals to those of companies. I think Romney did well in this point, though he could have been more succinct, and delivered better.
He completely gaffed the woman question to almost face palm status, and nearly did it with assault weapons as well.
I thought his answer to Libya was decent, but the moderator fucked him on that one. Obama is extremely deft at creating (ugh, i hate to say it) strawman arguments out of Romney, which then leaves Romney looking like a fool trying to explain his position. Politically very saavy, and people will eat that shit up.
What I AM very glad Romney interjected with, was the Fast and Furious debacle that the Obama administration tries to sweep under the rug. There were a few other instances were he could have really hit it out of the park, but stammered instead.
One of my fundamental differences with the current president is his wording on taxes. He tried to explain the Romney tax cuts as “Costing” a certain amount. Tax cuts cost NOTHING. NOTHING. They only “cost” something if someone is led to believe the government has a claim over all of their income and CHOOSES, by some favor to give them back a portion. The only time taxes “cost” something is when government SPENDING is greater than revenue. Thus, the issue is that of government spending.
The real question should be this: What do you think is the appropriate size and scope of government involvement in your life. Should it be simply national defense, or education, healthcare, transportation, food fucking safety…etc and what is the appropriate cost and level of social externalities when compared to the private sector.
An analogy is as follows: Say you want bacon. You can get it at a mom and pop store for 4$ a package or walmart for 3. If you are fine with your patronizing only the mom and pop, then realize you are spending an extra dollar to do so.[/quote]
I agree with a lot of this. Obama clearly did not want to talk about gun ownership or the fact that he’s done NOTHING about immigration, Medicare, or social security.
One thing I’d like to add, which I think a lot of people missed was when Obama said something along the lines of, “If it is indeed a moral obligation for us to reduce the deficit for future generations…” (paraphrasing from memory)
You are DAMN RIGHT it’s a moral obligation. The fact that he is question this is the epitome of why I want him out of office. He thinks spend spend spend is just fine because he and his generation won’t have to deal with it.
I think you all are attributing way too much influence to these debates and the presidential race in general. Honestly, and I hope I don’t offend anyone on here, because there are ALWAYS exceptions, but by in large, I think that if you’re still undecided at this point, you’re a fucking idiot.
Who the hell are these “undecided voters” who can’t pick between Romney and Obama (or to not vote if they disagree with both of them too much)? Anyone with half a brain knew who they were voting for after the primaries. It doesn’t matter if you agree with Romney or Obama, you should at least know which one you agree with more given the colossal divide between their political parties nowadays. Maybe someone on here can enlighten me as to why undecided voters aren’t the stupidest people on the planet.
So really, ever since the primaries ended, I have seen the race as the two candidates competing over a small minority of the country, most of which probably can’t spell the word minority if you gave them half the letters. I guess you still need those votes though lol, but if you are undecided in this election then God help you.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Obama decisively. I am literally astounded that Mitt Romney could somehow have allowed Obama to knock Libya out of the park and end up looking like a castigated child crossed with a stuttering deer in the headlights in the aftermath. I suspect that Crowley’s interjection won’t play well around here, but my view is that Mitt Romney posed the question and she answered it. Correctly. Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less (and yes, I agree with all of you that the facts should be checked for both candidates and not just the Republican).
Without the Libya moment, I’d say it was a draw–each side did what it had to, Obama came out like a candidate and not a narcoleptic while Romney continued to hammer away at the numbers and hammer them well.
Again, how in God’s name did Romney end up losing the night on Libya?
What will it mean? A few points and therefor the lead back to Obama. Things could change with the 3rd debate but time is running out and the contours of the electorate are probably already beginning to crystallize.[/quote]
Why can’t you see that when Romney was about to throw the Libya knock out punch the referee, Candy Crowley tripped him from behind.
It’s called B I A S…As I sad before the debate Crowley was in the tank for Obama and she proceeded to prove me correct. And even so Romney held his own against both of them.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
How in God’s name can’t you see that when Romney was about to throw the Libya knock out punch the referee, Candy Crowley tripped him from behind.
It’s called B I A S…As I sad before the debate Crowley was in the tank for Obama and she proceeded to prove me correct. And even so Romney held his own against both of them.[/quote]
My buddy and I were watching, and when that happened he immediately said “Whoa, wait a minute. She shouldn’t really be doing that.”
Not to mention leading up to the debate (like the day before even!) she was talking to people about what Obama needed to do to win this debate. Everyone has bias, but a good moderator would be able to show some professionalism and keep it in check.
[quote]csulli wrote:
I think you all are attributing way too much influence to these debates and the presidential race in general. Honestly, and I hope I don’t offend anyone on here, because there are ALWAYS exceptions, but by in large, I think that if you’re still undecided at this point, you’re a fucking idiot.
Who the hell are these “undecided voters” who can’t pick between Romney and Obama (or to not vote if they disagree with both of them too much)? Anyone with half a brain knew who they were voting for after the primaries. It doesn’t matter if you agree with Romney or Obama, you should at least know which one you agree with more given the colossal divide between their political parties nowadays. Maybe someone on here can enlighten me as to why undecided voters aren’t the stupidest people on the planet.
So really, ever since the primaries ended, I have seen the race as the two candidates competing over a small minority of the country, most of which probably can’t spell the word minority if you gave them half the letters. I guess you still need those votes though lol, but if you are undecided in this election then God help you.[/quote]
Don’t you think it’s possible some voters like some of Romney’s ideas and some of Obama’s ideas so they listening the debates waiting for a candidate to say or act in a way that sways their vote?
I love how when talking about politics it always boils down to, if you don’t make decisions or think like me you must have half a brain. That is not helpful to the discussion and in the larger sense American prosperity.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why can’t you see that when Romney was about to throw the Libya knock out punch the referee, Candy Crowley tripped him from behind.
It’s called B I A S…As I sad before the debate Crowley was in the tank for Obama and she proceeded to prove me correct. And even so Romney held his own against both of them.[/quote]
My buddy and I were watching, and when that happened he immediately said “Whoa, wait a minute. She shouldn’t really be doing that.”
Not to mention leading up to the debate (like the day before even!) she was talking to people about what Obama needed to do to win this debate. Everyone has bias, but a good moderator would be able to show some professionalism and keep it in check.[/quote]
I am hopeful that there were many people like your friend who obviously witnessed the left wing moderator assist Obama when he was in trouble.
I’ve said many times that it was going to be difficult for Romney to beat both Obama and the Main stream liberal media. Last night was an obvious example of what I was talking about. But that goes on daily in about 70% of all news outlets. Sometimes it’s subtle and sometimes, like last night not so subtle.
Crowley is a big fat disgusting disgrace to her profession!
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Don’t you think it’s possible some voters like some of Romney’s ideas and some of Obama’s ideas so they listening the debates waiting for a candidate to say or act in a way that sways their vote?
I love how when talking about politics it always boils down to, if you don’t make decisions or think like me you must have half a brain. That is not helpful to the discussion and in the larger sense American prosperity.
[/quote]
I tried specifically to not make the point that “if you don’t think like me you must have half a brain.” In fact I didn’t even tell you what I thought about either candidate at all. All I said was I can’t imagine how someone wouldn’t know which one they fell more in line with at this point in the election.
Do you personally like some of Romney’s ideas and some of Obama’s to the point that you are torn as to which to vote for? I mean that’s sort of what I was looking for; someone who could show me an example of how the decision would be hard for them. Can you give any specifics?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less.[/quote]
Can’t agree with that at all.
Aside from the philoshical issues, when has there even been a competely neutral moderator?[/quote]
You bring up a good point. It would be nearly impossible, and as we saw last night (yes I am agreeing with you folks completely) it is very easy for a moderator to help a candidate with even the slightest push.
But, in my perfect world, we would have live, in-the-debate fact-checking. Sometimes candidates say something that is simply wrong or a lie, and that would be a good thing to catch. But far more important would be the search for things that are technically true but enormously misleading. Imagine if it were like a football game, and a candidate could toss a red flag for official review?
That’s 99% a joke, but a guy can dream.[/quote]
Yes a person can lie, but isn’t the point of the debate to prove the other person is lying? If it’s purely facts and judgement then what is the point of the debate? Couldn’t you realistically look at each candidates past and tell what they stand for, and how they will act, and results of their decision making?
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Don’t you think it’s possible some voters like some of Romney’s ideas and some of Obama’s ideas so they listening the debates waiting for a candidate to say or act in a way that sways their vote?
I love how when talking about politics it always boils down to, if you don’t make decisions or think like me you must have half a brain. That is not helpful to the discussion and in the larger sense American prosperity.
[/quote]
I tried specifically to not make the point that “if you don’t think like me you must have half a brain.” In fact I didn’t even tell you what I thought about either candidate at all. All I said was I can’t imagine how someone wouldn’t know which one they fell more in line with at this point in the election.
Do you personally like some of Romney’s ideas and some of Obama’s to the point that you are torn as to which to vote for? I mean that’s sort of what I was looking for; someone who could show me an example of how the decision would be hard for them. Can you give any specifics?[/quote]
It’s this phrase you used, “Who the hell are these “undecided voters” who can’t pick between Romney and Obama (or to not vote if they disagree with both of them too much)? Anyone with half a brain knew who they were voting for after the primaries.”
I don’t know if you meant anything by it. Your follow up makes it sound like you didn’t and I accept that. I jus think too often we as a society dismiss others because they don’t process information like we personally do.
I’m a decided voter and have been since before the debate, but only because I was against Obama’s policies in 2008 and have seen nothing over four years to change my mind. If anything his record has pushed me further away. However, I can see how someone might approve of Obamas stance of womenâ??s healthcare/contraception, abortion, and other social programs as well as be for Romney’s tax plan and business acumen. In this case they could easily be torn and looking for a candidate to say something that pushes them one way or the other.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Obama decisively. I am literally astounded that Mitt Romney could somehow have allowed Obama to knock Libya out of the park and end up looking like a castigated child crossed with a stuttering deer in the headlights in the aftermath. I suspect that Crowley’s interjection won’t play well around here, but my view is that Mitt Romney posed the question and she answered it. Correctly. Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less (and yes, I agree with all of you that the facts should be checked for both candidates and not just the Republican).
Without the Libya moment, I’d say it was a draw–each side did what it had to, Obama came out like a candidate and not a narcoleptic while Romney continued to hammer away at the numbers and hammer them well.
Again, how in God’s name did Romney end up losing the night on Libya?
What will it mean? A few points and therefor the lead back to Obama. Things could change with the 3rd debate but time is running out and the contours of the electorate are probably already beginning to crystallize.[/quote]
Why can’t you see that when Romney was about to throw the Libya knock out punch the referee, Candy Crowley tripped him from behind.
It’s called B I A S…As I sad before the debate Crowley was in the tank for Obama and she proceeded to prove me correct. And even so Romney held his own against both of them.[/quote]
Crowley showed bias and proved you prediction correct, that is uncontested.
But–this was Mitt Romney’s fault. He had the opportunity to mount a broad and damning assault on Barack Obama’s response to the tragedy in Libya, and instead he allowed it–no, he ENCOURAGED it–to be framed in the narrowest possible sense. He turned a scathing critique into a yes-or-no question to which he did not know the answer. Candy Crowley answered the question and she answered it correctly. It was bias on her part, yes, but it was also unbelievable incompetence on Romney’s part.
Mitt Romney had all the ammunition in the world and yet in the heat of the moment he went all in on a matter of wording.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less.[/quote]
Can’t agree with that at all.
Aside from the philoshical issues, when has there even been a competely neutral moderator?[/quote]
You bring up a good point. It would be nearly impossible, and as we saw last night (yes I am agreeing with you folks completely) it is very easy for a moderator to help a candidate with even the slightest push.
But, in my perfect world, we would have live, in-the-debate fact-checking. Sometimes candidates say something that is simply wrong or a lie, and that would be a good thing to catch. But far more important would be the search for things that are technically true but enormously misleading. Imagine if it were like a football game, and a candidate could toss a red flag for official review?
That’s 99% a joke, but a guy can dream.[/quote]
Yes a person can lie, but isn’t the point of the debate to prove the other person is lying? If it’s purely facts and judgement then what is the point of the debate? Couldn’t you realistically look at each candidates past and tell what they stand for, and how they will act, and results of their decision making?[/quote]
The point of a debate is to say your misleading half-truth more loudly and more forcefully than your opponent says his misleading half-truth. Anyone who watches politics closely feels almost insulted during these debates.
But, as I said, that’s a fantasy world that I’m describing when I talk about live fact-checking.
I’d say basically a draw, with a slight edge for Obama, so victory for Obama. The victory was a result of Romney’s missteps, but I think these missteps were mainly “points taken away” in a debate and not missteps that move polls or otherwise raise questions about Romney’s competence, ability, etc.
Romney could have been sharper on Libya, and he needed to be prepared to put it in a larger context - and could have based directly on the question the citizen asked. The citizen wanted answers on why the Benghazi consulate didn’t have better security, and Obama completely refused to answer the question. Romney could have used that as an opportunity to talk about competence in national security, and how important that is in any presidential election, and talk directly to that citizen and say “not on my watch.”
Most importantly, though, the citizen raised the Libya question, so Romney had the clear opportunity to beat back Obama’s (false) complaints about “politicization” of the Libya attack. He didn’t do that. Romney could have made the point that it isn’t “politicization” for the American people to want to know the truth about how national security is being handled, and say “and [citizen asking question] is entitled to that answer, Mr. President.”
In fairness, though, Crowley screwed up horribly. Obama’s representation that he labeled the Libya attack an “act of terror” was completely dishonest, and Romney’s disbelief that the words came out Obama’s mouth was fair - he was shocked, and so was everyone else. We know this because since the attack occurred, not a single person - newsperson, opinionmaker, blogger, commentator, campaign spokesperson - had attempted this line that, no, really, Obama really did call it a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden speech on September 12, don’t you remember?
It’s a disengenous lie, and Crowley was complicit in letting Obama get away with it in real time, just as Romney was ready to call him on it (i.e., if Obama had already declared it an “act of terror”, why did Rice say it wasn’t? And why did Jay Carney finally need to announce that it was many days later, if Obama had already done it?).
To Crowley’s credit, she walked that back (some) after the debate, but the real-time damage was done. He put her thumb on the scale and affected the debate.
*Although, I think Obama’s answer will end up hurting more than helping. It’s going to cause more inspection of his comments, and his claim won’t hold up to scrutiny.
Obama was, of course, more animated, and his base was no doubt excited. Will independents care that he was more animated? I doubt it. Also, part of Obama’s aggression required him to be even faster and looser with facts - and that will come back to haunt him.
The CNN poll had Obama winning 46-39%. But in the breakdown of topics, Romeny fared considerably better on subjects like best on economy (18 point lead), health care, and taxes, the most important topics. Also, Obama’s line that “Romney-isn’t-specific-enough” isn’t working - in this debate, Obama was seen as having fewer specifics.
It’s interesting, and we may at the point where “winning” the debate is something independent and separate from where voters’ heads are in terms of preferring a candidate - i.e., you can “win” a debate, but that doesn’t change any minds.
Here is a better breakdown on polling subtopics than the first link:
http://nationaljournal.com/politics/obama-ekes-out-a-win-in-2-post-debate-polls-20121017
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Obama decisively. I am literally astounded that Mitt Romney could somehow have allowed Obama to knock Libya out of the park and end up looking like a castigated child crossed with a stuttering deer in the headlights in the aftermath. I suspect that Crowley’s interjection won’t play well around here, but my view is that Mitt Romney posed the question and she answered it. Correctly. Moderators should be doing a hell of a lot more of that kind of fact-checking, not less (and yes, I agree with all of you that the facts should be checked for both candidates and not just the Republican).
Without the Libya moment, I’d say it was a draw–each side did what it had to, Obama came out like a candidate and not a narcoleptic while Romney continued to hammer away at the numbers and hammer them well.
Again, how in God’s name did Romney end up losing the night on Libya?
What will it mean? A few points and therefor the lead back to Obama. Things could change with the 3rd debate but time is running out and the contours of the electorate are probably already beginning to crystallize.[/quote]
Why can’t you see that when Romney was about to throw the Libya knock out punch the referee, Candy Crowley tripped him from behind.
It’s called B I A S…As I sad before the debate Crowley was in the tank for Obama and she proceeded to prove me correct. And even so Romney held his own against both of them.[/quote]
Crowley showed bias and proved you prediction correct, that is uncontested.
But–this was Mitt Romney’s fault. He had the opportunity to mount a broad and damning assault on Barack Obama’s response to the tragedy in Libya, and instead he allowed it–no, he ENCOURAGED it–to be framed in the narrowest possible sense. He turned a scathing critique into a yes-or-no question to which he did not know the answer. Candy Crowley answered the question and she answered it correctly. It was bias on her part, yes, but it was also unbelievable incompetence on Romney’s part.
Mitt Romney had all the ammunition in the world and yet in the heat of the moment he went all in on a matter of wording.[/quote]
But you and I don’t know where Romney would have taken his attack because Candy Crowley took Obama’s side and essentially turned it around.
He may have done exactly what you claim he should have.
Just like to fighters in a cage, all a referee has to do is stop the fight at a crucial moment then restart them and it is a game changer!
Get it?
Okay where to start:
?The Complementarity between Cities and Skills,? (joint with Matthew G. Resseger), Journal of Regional Science, 50(1) (2010): 221-244.
?Urban Economics and Entrepreneurship,? (joint with Stuart S. Rosenthal and William C. Strange), Journal of Urban Economics, 67(1) (2010): 1-14.
?Clusters of Entrepreneurship,? (joint with William R. Kerr and
?Clusters of Entrepreneurship,? (joint with William R. Kerr and Giacomo A.M. Ponzetto), Journal of Urban Economics, 67(1) (2010): 150-168.
?The Divergence of Human Capital Levels across Cities,? (joint with Christopher
Berry), Papers in Regional Science, 84(3) (2005): 407-444.
?The Rise of the Skilled City,? (joint with A. Saiz), Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 5 (2004): 47-94.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
.
It’s interesting, and we may at the point where “winning” the debate is something independent and separate from where voters’ heads are in terms of preferring a candidate - i.e., you can “win” a debate, but that doesn’t change any minds.[/quote]
I threw in a comment on the last debate thread and I’ll throw one in for this one.
As I said last time, I’m an independent who voted for Obama, but will be voting for Romney this fall. There is a LOT of talk in this thread about the Libya incident. I can tell you as an independent, if I was still actually trying to decide who I was voting for, this would be down on the list a bit on topics that would sway my decision. Not to say it isn’t important, it is. But I would imagine most independents are going to put issues on the home front ahead of foreign policy, especially right now.
I think the Libya incident in the debate will weigh less in swing voters/independents minds. And looking at it that way, I would say Romney looks pretty good for the issues most of these people care about the most, as you listed above.
I certainly feel Romney has been effective in driving home the fact that Obama’s policies haven’t and won’t work.
Romney should have been more above the fray. He chose not to. I think it was a mistake. But not one that moves the needle very much, if at all.
[quote]cueball wrote:
I threw in a comment on the last debate thread and I’ll throw one in for this one.
As I said last time, I’m an independent who voted for Obama, but will be voting for Romney this fall. There is a LOT of talk in this thread about the Libya incident. I can tell you as an independent, if I was still actually trying to decide who I was voting for, this would be down on the list a bit on topics that would sway my decision. Not to say it isn’t important, it is. But I would imagine most independents are going to put issues on the home front ahead of foreign policy, especially right now.
I think the Libya incident in the debate will weigh less in swing voters/independents minds. And looking at it that way, I would say Romney looks pretty good for the issues most of these people care about the most, as you listed above.
I certainly feel Romney has been effective in driving home the fact that Obama’s policies haven’t and won’t work.
[/quote]
Well said, and the Obama supporters who feel that this debate will give their candidate a bump will be very disappointed.
No bump for Obama and here’s why:
1- The debate was close, some give the edge to Obama, fair enough. But, as you said, on the issues that matter the most, the ones that effect the pocketbook Romney hit it out of the park. How many times did he remind the viewers that Obama has had four years and failed? I think five or six times. nd he also told the voters what he’d do to turn things around.
2- Many, not all, will see Candy Crowley as the biased moderator that she was. This takes away a bit from Obama’s performance as he had help.
3- The third debate is on Monday the 22nd, only 6 days from the previous debate. As you recall after the first debate the voters had two weeks to let the Romney victory percolate. Those who chose Romney over Obama after that first debate are not going to swing over to Obama because the two had a close debate. Most importantly the new polls will barely be out and they will be going at it again.
4-Historically the middle debate means less than either the first which is the most important and the third which is the final impression for those who want to decide from debate performances.