Debate I

[TheLeviathan]

Romney held his own pretty well tonight no? Better than I would've thought at least, maybe it was more an off-night for Obama, but a tad surprising.

[drjim]

I thought Romney waxed Obama tonight. Obama looked tired, bored and/or distracted.

 

I generally think Romney is full of it, but he is extremely confident in his presentation. It also seemed like Romney left a ton of openings for Obama to jab him and Obama never took it. I wonder if that was the gameplan - if so it was a poor one.

[TheLeviathan]

I liked Romney's crack about how Obama kept saying his plan had no details and then attacked details. He seemed quick witted and pretty decisive in the way he attacked Obama's differences from him. It was a surprisingly effective debate for Romney.

[drjim]

I liked Romney's crack about how Obama kept saying his plan had no details and then attacked details. He seemed quick witted and pretty decisive in the way he attacked Obama's differences from him. It was a surprisingly effective debate for Romney.

 

I'm curious, why are you that surprised with the debate performance of Romney? He has always been considered a strong debater and Obama is generally considered a weaker one (especially compared to his speech ability). I wonder if the 20 or so debates Romney had in the past year helped him while the fact Obama hasn't had a debate in 4 years cost him. I will be interested to see how the next two go.

 

Overall I just felt like Obama looked tired and beat down and Romney seized the initiative and never let it go.

[flpmagikat]

It looked like both players were bored with the game and on the defensive. Neither won, mitt played even which is winning, but its a weak opponinent. Ill still take the guy who isnt a bigot.

[TheLeviathan]

No one is requiring you to change your mind about candidates but even hard leftwingers were calling that a blowout for Romney.

 

What surprised me jim was that we saw Gov Romney last night who seemed to care less about appealing to the Hannity-type base of the party. I think that was a huge part of why he destroyed most of the meager Obama attacks. He seemed magnimous, rational, and more prepared than Obama on every front. I think it was just how much better he was than Obama, I didn't expecft it to be that lopsided.

[PseudoSABR]

Romney was more poised, brief, and exacting, while Obama appeared frustrated, wonkish and rambly. I think Obama came in not wanting to make mistakes nor change the dynamics of the race--in that point, the President perhaps succeeded, but was it worth it looking more meek among the two? I do think Obama got the best zinger; "Romeny's new tax plan: Nevermind."

 

Romeny still strikes me, even in winning the debate, as an empty suit. He didn't clarify any of his ideas for me, he muddled them and even retracted positions that he taken before. Maybe he wins the debate by offering adamant abstractions, but I'm not sure that moves the electorate.

[gunnarthor]

I'm not going to vote for either guy but Romney won. I think one problem Obama had was he wasn't able to point out the false/myths/lies that Romney was able to constantly put out there. One reason, I think, might be that Obama is so insulated (just like Bush) that he wasn't ready for an actual confrontation with Romney over ideas. He just didn't seem well prepared.

[TheLeviathan]

Romeny still strikes me, even in winning the debate, as an empty suit. He didn't clarify any of his ideas for me, he muddled them and even retracted positions that he taken before. Maybe he wins the debate by offering adamant abstractions, but I'm not sure that moves the electorate.

 

Was it really more abstract than any other debate? I guess I'm not familiar with detailed debates, the time frame usually makes them about principles not details. In fact, I thought this debate was refreshingly more nuanced than most. Both candidates tried to get specific when talking about particular legislation. In my eyes, this was one of the better debates I can remember for talking specifically rather than broadly.

 

The devil is in the details so it's probably not best to evaluate policy changes by debates anyway. But it's hard, as someone who believes being practical is important, not to strongly favor Romney's abstract take on Dodd-Frank for instance. Now I know that he has backdoor intentions and part of this isn't genuine, but his argument was "regulation is ok, but not all regulation is ok. Sometimes, some part of legislation are bad" to which Obama basically replied "well better to do something bad than nothing." Which A) doesn't answer the question and is pretty much in line with every liberal driven policy change on social welfare, college funding, etc. It's admitting your own legislation's awful unintended consequences, throwing up your hands, shrugging, and blaming someone else.

 

Good god. That, for me, totally encapsulates the problem with the left. I'm still probably going to throw my vote away on some third party or write-in, but Romney at least got me interested in seeing how long this Rational Romney is going to stay around.

[biggentleben]

Frankly, neither one of them will be able to get done any of "their" plans without the help of Congress, so why do we care what anyone's "plan" is? Romney could have a plan to have every person in America be making six figures before the end of his presidency. It's not logical or probable, but neither is either candidate's economic plans in totality or their foreign policy plans or their health care plans or a single bit of what they're selling. Rather than talking about plans that neither of them has the overarching power to make happen on their own, I'd love to see a return to a Nixon/Kennedy type of debate where we were truly exploring the candidate's feelings and position on an issue, not so focused on what the plan was.

[drjim]

One reason, I think, might be that Obama is so insulated (just like Bush) that he wasn't ready for an actual confrontation with Romney over ideas. He just didn't seem well prepared.

 

I think this is a good observation. There are many striking parallels between this election and 2004 up to the strong performance that Kerry had in the first debate. Good for Romney, but some of the polling following the debate was interesting. It was a knockout victory for Romney and people seemed to indicate they'll take another look at him, but there didn't seem to be any negative movement against Obama. In a sense he held his position while allowing Romney to move forward to claim some of the undecideds. I'm not sure it is enough, Obama has a huge chunk of states to play with, Romney really needs to move the needle to have a chance. I'm not convinced one debate can do that.

[gunnarthor]

One reason, I think, might be that Obama is so insulated (just like Bush) that he wasn't ready for an actual confrontation with Romney over ideas. He just didn't seem well prepared.

 

I think this is a good observation. There are many striking parallels between this election and 2004 up to the strong performance that Kerry had in the first debate. Good for Romney, but some of the polling following the debate was interesting. It was a knockout victory for Romney and people seemed to indicate they'll take another look at him, but there didn't seem to be any negative movement against Obama. In a sense he held his position while allowing Romney to move forward to claim some of the undecideds. I'm not sure it is enough, Obama has a huge chunk of states to play with, Romney really needs to move the needle to have a chance. I'm not convinced one debate can do that.

 

Agreed. Today's job report was a big boon for Obama. Romney really needs a run on those swing states. Romney could win FL, OH and VI and still realistically lose. Unless all that super-PAC money sways a lot of voters, Romney is going to need some sort of October surprise.

[glunn]

Ninety minutes does not seem like enough time to cover what needs to be covered. I would like to see the debates be at least three hours, with strict cutoffs when the candidates go ever the allotted time for each answer.

[Frozented9]

 

I found this interesting. It be fun to see what stops this tide or if it just dies out on it's own. And how close this brings Mitt to Obama.

 

Edit I tried to post a pic of the Chance of

Winning graph at 538.

 

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[Shane Wahl]

It is disturbing that apparently millions of Americans can be swayed by a sham of a debate that covered nothing, had one of its contestants playing prevent defense and allowing touchdown after touchdown, and had the other one lying left and right.

[TheLeviathan]

It is disturbing that apparently millions of Americans can be swayed by a sham of a debate that covered nothing, had one of its contestants playing prevent defense and allowing touchdown after touchdown, and had the other one lying left and right.

 

You're aware that both sides utilize these things called advertisements that are less substantive, often far more hyperbolic and riddled with lies, and strategically designed to mislead far more often and far more effectively right? Just want to be sure, because - if you are aware of this - it makes your point seem a lot less reasonable.

[drjim]

It is disturbing that apparently millions of Americans can be swayed by a sham of a debate that covered nothing, had one of its contestants playing prevent defense and allowing touchdown after touchdown, and had the other one lying left and right.

 

You're aware that both sides utilize these things called advertisements that are less substantive, often far more hyperbolic and riddled with lies, and strategically designed to mislead far more often and far more effectively right? Just want to be sure, because - if you are aware of this - it makes your point seem a lot less reasonable.

 

This. Plus the fundamental fact that Obama had trouble providing a defense of his record and providing a positive reason for a second term (even if it stretched the truth a little). Doesn't mean he can't recover and win some of those voters back.

[PseudoSABR]

It is disturbing that apparently millions of Americans can be swayed by a sham of a debate that covered nothing, had one of its contestants playing prevent defense and allowing touchdown after touchdown, and had the other one lying left and right.

 

You're aware that both sides utilize these things called advertisements that are less substantive, often far more hyperbolic and riddled with lies, and strategically designed to mislead far more often and far more effectively right? Just want to be sure, because - if you are aware of this - it makes your point seem a lot less reasonable.

He's not talking about advertising though. Sure Obama's ads distort the truth, but it's far different for a candidate to be the mouth piece for such distortions.

 

That said, this is the first time Romney's been a palatable candidate for the center; so a lot of people I believe are unaware of his prior positions, and just how much he's swiveled from the summer. I don't believe that many Americans are swayed by Romney's debate to actually vote for him...though I do think, many more are churning the idea over.

[Brock Beauchamp]

That in itself is probably my biggest beef with Romney. Who is this guy? Is he the guy that was a very moderate governor of Massachusetts, is he the vocal mouthpiece we saw for the right during the primaries (and the run up to the primaries), or is he again the moderate he claimed to be during the debate?

 

I don't see how anyone can be comfortable voting for a man that so completely reverses his positions on issues to fit what he believes the voters want to hear on that particular day. Going into the primaries, I was pretty high on Romney (still liked Huntsman better and that is about 1000% more true today, at least that guy has common sense and conviction, plus he's whip-smart) but after seeing Mitt waffle constantly and directly contradict his own opinions from his time as Governor, I no longer have the slightest bit of respect for the man. I've gone from slightly positive to ambivalent to believing he is a deceitful menace in the course of a year. Pretty amazing, actually.

[DaveW]

Pig hit it on the head, even the folks I know who usually vote republican are refusing to vote for Romney, he will never pick up the independent vote (along with the women's vote, latino vote, black vote, under 35 vote etc)

 

The republicans need to figure out eventually that they can't just keep appealing to the middle american white male.

[Squirrel]

That in itself is probably my biggest beef with Romney. Who is this guy?

 

I've heard people say they will support Mitt because they don't like Obama, to which I reply, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't." We won't know who we'd be getting until it's too late. Not that I would've voted for him anyway. Still not sure who I'll vote for but likely for the devil I know.

[TheLeviathan]

He's not talking about advertising though. Sure Obama's ads distort the truth, but it's far different for a candidate to be the mouth piece for such distortions.

 

Did a bad debate showing collectively crotch-kick the intelligence of all liberals? His point was that it was ridiculous that people got swayed by a debate that he perceives as distorted. The fact is - both sides use much shorter, much more distorted efforts to sway people CONSTANTLY. And IT WORKS. It was a stupid point that I'm hearing from lots of people on the left. If Romney was distorted and vague in a debate and it was effective - it's nothing new to politics. And it's insanely stupid to suggest otherwise.

 

Lefties just need to accept that their guy had a bad showing. I still think he's the lead dog in the race, but he opened a door for Romney that Romney desperately needed. It had nothing to do with Romney and everything to do with his poor showing. There was nothing unique about the debate either. The excuses just get old, so I apologize if my patience with them is thin.

[TheLeviathan]

but after seeing Mitt waffle constantly and directly contradict his own opinions from his time as Governor, I no longer have the slightest bit of respect for the man. I've gone from slightly positive to ambivalent to believing he is a deceitful menace in the course of a year. Pretty amazing, actually.

 

In principle I agree. But here's the thing - aren't both bases basically forcing candidates into insane primary positions? We saw a very different Obama last year after his primary too. To me, one reason I am at least entertaining Romney is that I'm seeing the man who actually governed in a manner I can respect re-emerge. If my vote goes to that man, I guess I can forgive the primaries as a means to an end. But I'm very cautious because of what the primaries showed.

[Brock Beauchamp]

but after seeing Mitt waffle constantly and directly contradict his own opinions from his time as Governor, I no longer have the slightest bit of respect for the man. I've gone from slightly positive to ambivalent to believing he is a deceitful menace in the course of a year. Pretty amazing, actually.

 

In principle I agree. But here's the thing - aren't both bases basically forcing candidates into insane primary positions? We saw a very different Obama last year after his primary too. To me, one reason I am at least entertaining Romney is that I'm seeing the man who actually governed in a manner I can respect re-emerge. If my vote goes to that man, I guess I can forgive the primaries as a means to an end. But I'm very cautious because of what the primaries showed.

 

It's one of the biggest problems with the primary process but Romney is going above and beyond with talking out of both sides of his mouth. I expect to see a little back-tracking and double-speak in an election campaign. What I don't expect to see are direct contradictions from previous stances and lots of 'em... on almost a daily basis.

 

At this point, I have no idea what to expect from the man and that virtually negates any chance he has of getting my vote. All I see is a guy who is pushing another form of trickle-down (really, again?) and being incredibly vague on how he plans to balance the budget when simple math says it's impossible based on the few details he has given us. If he had the courage to stand up and actually lay out a real plan, I'd listen. I may disagree with that plan, but I'd at least listen to it and give it a fair shot. Romney has been far too cryptic for my liking (as was Obama during 2008), which leads me to wonder if he has any conviction at all.

[PseudoSABR]

The fact is - both sides use much shorter, much more distorted efforts to sway people CONSTANTLY. And IT WORKS.

The notion that the distortion from left versus right is equivalent in degree or amount is asinine. Sure, Obama and liberals distort the truth and their positions for political convenience, but it is nowhere near the same kind of distortion that happens on the right. The right doesn't believe in evolution; many think Obama is a Muslim The equivalency you are trying to make is absurd. Again, sure both sides lie, but the scope of the lie and the amount of lies actually do matter.

 

Recapping the position changes: Obama did adopt a healthcare mandate and a more hawkish policy on foreign, but beyond that I think you'd be hard pressed to find substantive differences between Obama's primary policy and his general election policies. As for Romney, it's EVERY SINGLE ISSUE, from abortion to taxes to healthcare. I just don't get why you'd try to equate the two candidates, in terms of their distortion, when it's so clear one is so heavy in the red. I just don't get your angle.

[PseudoSABR]

All I see is a guy who is pushing another form of trickle-down (really, again?) and being incredibly vague on how he plans to balance the budget when simple math says it's impossible based on the few details he has given us. If he had the courage to stand up and actually lay out a real plan, I'd listen. I may disagree with that plan, but I'd at least listen to it and give it a fair shot.

This. What the **** is Romney's plan? All best parts of the best ideas that we've seen so far? Oh boy!

[TheLeviathan]

I just don't get your angle.

 

Because you can't see past your own particular political angle. I haven't started a "Lies" tally Dems vs. Repubs - perhaps you should share yours? The notion of one lie being "more" than another is purely based off of perception. We could compare lists on that all day and it wouldn't matter. You don't see the angle because your political persuasion doesn't want you to. I'll recap anyway:

 

1) Suggesting that people changing their minds from a debate are shallow is truly asinine. Especially given how much both parties use advertising to change minds. If you watched the debate, paid attention, and thought about it - to me that's a great thing. Regardless of political orientation. We should be pleased people are tuning in rather than disparaging them for taking it seriously.

2) The primary process presents distorted candidates - it did for McCain, Obama, Hillary, Romney, etc. It's something we're all going to have to accept as long as it's around.

3) Distortion is a common political ploy that neither party holds a monopoly on. It's absurd to suggest otherwise.

4) Obama lost that debate at a time when a decisive win could have made his re-election pretty much a given. If lefties want to come up with excuses for that I find it pathetic. Apparently, yesterday, even Obama was tired of hearing it and came out and said the same thing.

[flpmagikat]

No one said anything about changing ones mind based on a commercial being any less shallow. Both just give more constant exposure to those who dont need it, and shut out those who do(every other parties candidates) But there is a big difference between exagerating or omitting, and completely reversing ones stance. Are both dishonest? Yeah. But the later tends to fall into the outright lie category usually.

 

Its like when you hear the mouthpieces say obama lied, they point to something he promised In 2007-8 that hasnt materialed. When people call romney out, they just point to almost anything he's said, cause he's probably claimed the exact opposite.

[PseudoSABR]

I just don't get your angle.

 

Because you can't see past your own particular political angle. I haven't started a "Lies" tally Dems vs. Repubs - perhaps you should share yours? The notion of one lie being "more" than another is purely based off of perception. We could compare lists on that all day and it wouldn't matter. You don't see the angle because your political persuasion doesn't want you to. I'll recap anyway:

 

1) Suggesting that people changing their minds from a debate are shallow is truly asinine. Especially given how much both parties use advertising to change minds. If you watched the debate, paid attention, and thought about it - to me that's a great thing. Regardless of political orientation. We should be pleased people are tuning in rather than disparaging them for taking it seriously.

2) The primary process presents distorted candidates - it did for McCain, Obama, Hillary, Romney, etc. It's something we're all going to have to accept as long as it's around.

3) Distortion is a common political ploy that neither party holds a monopoly on. It's absurd to suggest otherwise.

4) Obama lost that debate at a time when a decisive win could have made his re-election pretty much a given. If lefties want to come up with excuses for that I find it pathetic. Apparently, yesterday, even Obama was tired of hearing it and came out and said the same thing.

I don't disagree with 1 - 4. I simply disagree with your equivalency of the lies and the distortions. It's like you're trying to undercut the significance of Romney's switcharoo, by pointing out that all campaign ads are dishonest. Romney's makeover should disturb you and it is UNLIKE previous candidates.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't disagree with 1 - 4. I simply disagree with your equivalency of the lies and the distortions. It's like you're trying to undercut the significance of Romney's switcharoo, by pointing out that all campaign ads are dishonest. Romney's makeover should disturb you and it is UNLIKE previous candidates.

 

I don't see the need to splice out who has worse lies or distortions because it a matter of opinion in most cases. As for Romney switching positions, I chalk it up to presenting himself as a character in the primaries. As a matter of principle I agree it's not tasteful, hence why he doesn't have my vote. But I do think we're going to see both parties veering more and more towards this happening with the extreme takes both bases are digging in with.