The Debates

Tools    





Biden's interruptions were brilliant. That debate was more informal and looser. He really got under Ryan's skin and rattled him.
We must've been watching different debates. Ryan hardly rose to the bait at all. Not even when I think it probably would've been wise to do so, actually.



He kept saying my plan this and that and never said what his plan actually was.
Sure he did; he described his plan yet again. I know because once he started the spiel, I tuned out a little, having heard it a few dozen times over the last several weeks.

Yeah, I think he has to be a little more specific than my plan is like miracle hair.
Yeah, again, cutting taxes and encouraging investment spurring job growth is really, really basic economic theory. If you think that's a "miracle," or something that requires special explanation, then the problem isn't with Romney. And I'd wonder why you don't want an A-to-B rundown of how Obama's vague promises about clean energy are going to create jobs, too.

Becuae Romney is the one who promises to cut taxes twenty percent, raise military spending, and balance the budget. That raises the goal post for him. He is promising a lot more contradictory things than Obama.
Say wha? Obama's still rolling out laundry lists of things we need to get done, all of which cost money, while simultaneously talking about cutting spending. And he's got the added burden of having promised all this stuff before and not delivered on it, too.

So Romney gets pilloried for not being specific, but Obama gets a pass. Which leads me to conclude that this isn't actually a consistent standard of wanting politicians to be specific, but just the most convenient angle from which to go after the other guy.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Sure he did; he described his plan yet again. I know because once he started the spiel, I tuned out a little, having heard it a few dozen times over the last several weeks.

The first question he said nothing. He said what his plan was going to do. He didn't say what his plan was.


Yeah, again, cutting taxes and encouraging investment spurring job growth is really, really basic economic theory. If you think that's a "miracle," or something that requires special explanation, then the problem isn't with Romney. And I'd wonder why you don't want an A-to-B rundown of how Obama's vague promises about clean energy are going to create jobs, too.

Well, because Bush was doing that and that is when this mess started so, yes, I would need more than just that.

It isn't so basic as you think.




Say wha? Obama's still rolling out laundry lists of things we need to get done, all of which cost money, while simultaneously talking about cutting spending. And he's got the added burden of having promised all this stuff before and not delivered on it, too.

And Romney can't deliver either. If he gets elected the deficit will balloon even more than under Obama because there won't be the political will to make up the twenty percent cuts with deduction eliminations and he can't find enough cuts in the budget. The Congrssional Budget office won't accept his assumptions for revenue enhancements from his tax cuts.

So Romney gets pilloried for not being specific, but Obama gets a pass. Which leads me to conclude that this isn't actually a consistent standard of wanting politicians to be specific, but just the most convenient angle from which to go after the other guy.
Romney's tax and budget plan is the focus in these debates and he always sounds when talking about his tax plan like a snake oil salesman. Obama's plan may not add up either, but it is not as out of whack as Romney's. I would prefer Obama would talk more about cutting, but he does far less over promising than Romney.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
We must've been watching different debates. Ryan hardly rose to the bait at all. Not even when I think it probably would've been wise to do so, actually.
He didn't rise to the bait. That was the problem. That is how he unnerved him. He didn't confront him. He seemed confused. He got him off his game. He seemed to be stuck rattling off his talking points instead of reacting to what Biden actually said. Biden was taking the debate in a different direction, and Ryan was stuck with his prepared spiel. When Biden challenged him, Ryan looked weak..



He didn't rise to the bait. That was the problem. That is how he unnerved him. He didn't confront him. He seemed confused. He got him off his game. He seemed to be stuck rattling off his talking points instead of reacting to what Biden actually said. Biden was taking the debate in a different direction, and Ryan was stuck with his prepared spiel. When Biden challenged him, Ryan looked weak..
Wha? He got under Ryan's skin because Ryan didn't respond to the provocation? He rattled him because he didn't rise to the bait? This is, like, the exact opposite of what these phrases mean. You get under someone's skin when you provoke them, not when you completely fail to.

I'm totally on board with the idea that Ryan should've taken a well-timed swipe back, but this is just contradictory gibberish.

And it's instructive to remember that the two candidates were working at cross-purposes: Biden had to generate Democratic enthusiasm, and Ryan had to appear "Presidential" and acceptable. Hence: Biden needling Ryan, and Ryan not letting it provoke him. Makes perfect sense.



I heard this morning, there is going to be another debate... interesting.. What's going to happen? KO or points decision



KOs are insanely rare. They're so rare that, even though Romney did so well in the first debate, I honestly didn't expect all the polls and pundits to reach a consensus on it the way they did.

The only way to score a huge win is to perform very well AND for your opponent to perform terribly, in ways both substantive and superficial. It almost never happens.



The first question he said nothing. He said what his plan was going to do. He didn't say what his plan was.
It was kind of a meandering answer, but I really don't care that he didn't launch into a detailed explanation of his entire plan. Neither candidate answered the kid's question, unless you think the kid's going to get a job on an assembly line.

Well, because Bush was doing that and that is when this mess started so, yes, I would need more than just that.
Uh...are you suggesting that the Bush tax cuts led to the financial crisis? Because I would absolutely love to hear you explain how that works. Obama does this too when he mentions "the same policies that got us into this mess," without ever making even a token effort to explain the mythical connection.

It isn't so basic as you think.
The idea that investment and lower tax burdens spur economic growth and jobs is pretty darn basic, dude. You can make arguments against its wisdom, I suppose, but the idea that this is some kind of dangling, unexplained thread is goofy. Romney's answer assumes a rudimentary understanding of super basic economic theory. If someone can't be bothered to understand the basic premises of most arguments on tax policy, then it's their own fault if they don't understand, and it's hard to conceive of them caring enough to thoughtfully consider the answer, anyway.

And Romney can't deliver either. If he gets elected the deficit will balloon even more than under Obama because there won't be the political will to make up the twenty percent cuts with deduction eliminations and he can't find enough cuts in the budget. The Congrssional Budget office won't accept his assumptions for revenue enhancements from his tax cuts.
I don't think you understand how the CBO works. It's not that it "won't accept his assumptions." It's that they literally have no way of accounting for them. It's outside of their purview. They do what's called "static scoring," which means they can only estimate what something costs given very clear instructions and a static set of expectations. Modeling the effect of tax cuts on growth requires dynamic scoring.

Romney's tax and budget plan is the focus in these debates and he always sounds when talking about his tax plan like a snake oil salesman. Obama's plan may not add up either, but it is not as out of whack as Romney's. I would prefer Obama would talk more about cutting, but he does far less over promising than Romney.
Yeah, I'm not going to argue with you about how you think Romney sounds. But the first part of that first sentence says it all, I think: it's not that Romney's more lacking in specifics, it's just that it's been more of a focal point. Obama's being just as wishy-washy about how he'll get things done, but nobody's calling him on it. Least of all the people making all kinds of noise about Romney's tax plan.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Wha? He got under Ryan's skin because Ryan didn't respond to the provocation? He rattled him because he didn't rise to the bait? This is, like, the exact opposite of what these phrases mean. You get under someone's skin when you provoke them, not when you completely fail to.

I'm totally on board with the idea that Ryan should've taken a well-timed swipe back, but this is just contradictory gibberish.

And it's instructive to remember that the two candidates were working at cross-purposes: Biden had to generate Democratic enthusiasm, and Ryan had to appear "Presidential" and acceptable. Hence: Biden needling Ryan, and Ryan not letting it provoke him. Makes perfect sense.
Well, Ryan certainly didn't look presidential to me because Biden was eating him up. He didn't look like he could be President in that debate. He looked like a sophomore high school kid getting his ass whipped in his first debate by the canny senior champ. He wasn't holding his own. He was unable to confront Biden. He was unnerved because he looked like he didn't know what to do. He sounded defensive and he was not sounding good. Becuae Biden pushed his buttons. he didn't show anger. But Biden clearly got to him by throwing him off his game.



Boy, I think you missed the entire dynamic of that debate. And I think your interpretation of human behavior is kinda perplexing. Being emotional and quick to anger is what makes you look unqualified. Especially when you're younger. In what universe is being calm in the face of provocation not a sign of maturity and preparedness? And in what universe is allowing yourself to be baited a sign of confidence and strength? This assessment is completely upside down.

And the idea that he was unnerved is mildly hysterical. Leaving aside the fact that Ryan's got a long history of being quick on his feet and unusually good at parrying with policy contentions, everybody and their dog knew that Biden was going to come out swinging. It didn't surprise anyone, least of all the guy he'd be sitting across from.

The conventional wisdom is that, even once an incumbent has failed to make a clear case for their reelection, the challenging ticket needs to pass some threshold of acceptability. This is entire premise behind Obama's attacks on Romney, and it perfectly explains Ryan's unusually calm demeanor. As I said, I'd like for him to have made an exception or two, but it's pretty obvious what the gameplan was, on both sides.



I think Obama won this one. He did what he had to do, which was to come back strong, and attack the conservative criticism of his record. At the same time, Romney held his own, and put in a strong performance. Ultimately, I found the debate a bit disappointing, because it's very clear that these two candidates really don't like each other, and they spent much of the debate seeking to discuss peripheral issues so that they could avoid talking about their plans for moving this country forward. I understand that some of this is politics, but at the same time, I think as voters we deserve better than than this. I've watched this election very closely, and I still really don't know what President Obama wants to do in a second term. What is his agenda for recovering from this crisis? What is it that he is going to tackle and fight for if the voters grant him another four years? What has he learned from the past four years that are going to make him better and stronger as President the next time around? This, to me, is sad. Obama should be able to tell the people what he wants to do in a second term. It's not enough to just criticize the other guy and hope to make him unacceptable. I know what Obama believes in. I just rarely see him fighting for his vision, and I wonder why.

As for Romney, I know what his proposals are, to the extent that he will reveal them, but I still really don't know what the guy believes in. He's a walking contradiction. He says he cares about 100% of the people, and his charitable work as a pastor and as a missionary helps to lend credence that there's some truth to what he is saying. He's not the greedy corporate raider the Obama campaign is painting him to be. At the same time, he said that every person who voted for Obama, and 47% of the American people are victims who refuse to take personal responsibility for their lives. That shows extreme contempt for almost half the society. There is simply no way to spin that comment that makes Romney look good. He didn't misspeak. This wasn't a gaffe. He wasn't just talking about not paying federal income taxes. He was saying that 47% of the country sees themselves as victims and refuses to take accountability for their lives. It's not the circumstances of the crisis or a lack of opportunity that's the problem. It's the people themselves. There is something wrong with them. That's what Romney was saying. This was incredibly revealing. That kind of mentality is simply not consistent with caring about 100% of the people, donating millions to charity, and spending ten years of his life as a leader of his church. This can't be the same guy, yet it is, and that's the problem. I don't understand who this man is.

I know he wants to be President, but is it because he really believes he can turn the economy around, and that his ideas can help this country, or is it because he wants power and influence and is seeking to finish what his father started? I really have no idea. Is Governor Romney really a moderate who is pretending to be a conservative, or is he really a conservative who pretended to be a moderate so he could win the Governorship of Massachusetts and set himself up for a Presidential run? I really have no idea. I also don't know what gives Governor Romney so much confidence that he knows what it takes to make the economy work, when his policies are virtually identical to President Bush's policies. What is it that he knows that Obama does not? Why is he going to be so much more successful than Obama was? Does he really believe that lowering taxes on three percent of the nation is going to unleash massive amounts of economic growth and get 23 million unemployed people jobs? If he does, why is he so confident in this vision, and if he doesn't, than is he not just saying whatever people want to hear so he can become the President of the United States? There are too many missing pieces to this puzzle for anyone to have confidence that either one of these two men know what it takes to turn this economy around.



I think Obama won this one. He did what he had to do, which was to come back strong, and attack the conservative criticism of his record. At the same time, Romney held his own, and put in a strong performance. Ultimately, I found the debate a bit disappointing, because it's very clear that these two candidates really don't like each other, and they spent much of the debate seeking to discuss peripheral issues so that they could avoid talking about their plans for moving this country forward. I understand that some of this is politics, but at the same time, I think as voters we deserve better than than this. I've watched this election very closely, and I still really don't know what President Obama wants to do in a second term. What is his agenda for recovering from this crisis? What is it that he is going to tackle and fight for if the voters grant him another four years? What has he learned from the past four years that are going to make him better and stronger as President the next time around? This, to me, is sad. Obama should be able to tell the people what he wants to do in a second term. It's not enough to just criticize the other guy and hope to make him unacceptable. I know what Obama believes in. I just rarely see him fighting for his vision, and I wonder why.

As for Romney, I know what his proposals are, to the extent that he will reveal them, but I still really don't know what the guy believes in. He's a walking contradiction. He says he cares about 100% of the people, and his charitable work as a pastor and as a missionary helps to lend credence that there's some truth to what he is saying. He's not the greedy corporate raider the Obama campaign is painting him to be. At the same time, he said that every person who voted for Obama, and 47% of the American people are victims who refuse to take personal responsibility for their lives. That shows extreme contempt for almost half the society. There is simply no way to spin that comment that makes Romney look good. He didn't misspeak. This wasn't a gaffe. He wasn't just talking about not paying federal income taxes. He was saying that 47% of the country sees themselves as victims and refuses to take accountability for their lives. It's not the circumstances of the crisis or a lack of opportunity that's the problem. It's the people themselves. There is something wrong with them. That's what Romney was saying. This was incredibly revealing. That kind of mentality is simply not consistent with caring about 100% of the people, donating millions to charity, and spending ten years of his life as a leader of his church. This can't be the same guy, yet it is, and that's the problem. I don't understand who this man is.

I know he wants to be President, but is it because he really believes he can turn the economy around, and that his ideas can help this country, or is it because he wants power and influence and is seeking to finish what his father started? I really have no idea. Is Governor Romney really a moderate who is pretending to be a conservative, or is he really a conservative who pretended to be a moderate so he could win the Governorship of Massachusetts and set himself up for a Presidential run? I really have no idea. I also don't know what gives Governor Romney so much confidence that he knows what it takes to make the economy work, when his policies are virtually identical to President Bush's policies. What is it that he knows that Obama does not? Why is he going to be so much more successful than Obama was? Does he really believe that lowering taxes on three percent of the nation is going to unleash massive amounts of economic growth and get 23 million unemployed people jobs? If he does, why is he so confident in this vision, and if he doesn't, than is he not just saying whatever people want to hear so he can become the President of the United States? There are too many missing pieces to this puzzle for anyone to have confidence that either one of these two men know what it takes to turn this economy around.
Good questions!
The bottom line is this: Obama had his chance and he clearly failed, both economicaly and in his foreign policy. Not only did he fail in his first term but I fear that if gets another chance he will fail even more because he has allready demonstrated an agenda that is doomed to fail and he arrogantly refuses to back off.
I see Romney as being more economicaly savy and firmer on foreign policy.
I think it's funny that Obama keeps reiterating that he took care of Bin Laden, as if this was some special accomplishment. Bin Laden was allready retired and obviously of no more use to Alkeida. His compound wasn't even properly guarded. After everything was said and done, Bin Laden became the sacrificial lamb to buy the Alkeida hierarchy more time and keep the wolves at bay.



Look at this, Biden just creamed him,

Now I know why you're so high on Biden; neither of you knows what ad hominem means. And I'll take this response as a cue that we're dropping the Ryan-was-actually-provoked-by-not-letting-himself-be-provoked stuff.

Sure, Biden dinged him. It's a 90-minute debate; he'd better ding him sometimes. And he got dinged; when Biden blustered (twice!) about broadening tax revenue with broad cuts that "It has never been done before," Ryan simply and calmly corrected him, which is when we got the hilariously inept, sarcastic Jack Kennedy non-sequitur. He simply had no response. He looked foolish in that exchange.

But I'm glad you brought this particular thing up, because it's a perfect example of the kind of ticky-tack issues the Obama campaign is increasingly content to "win" on. Increasingly their campaign is about pouncing on little misstatements, procuring stimulus money, the candidates' taxes, etc. But try to talk about the massive issues like entitlement spending an unemployment, and they have nothing of substance to say. Ever hear the political complaint that something is "tactics, not strategy"? This is the kind of thing they mean.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
I see Romney as being more economicaly savy
http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Now I know why you're so high on Biden; neither of you knows what ad hominem means. And I'll take this response as a cue that we're dropping the Ryan-was-actually-provoked-by-not-letting-himself-be-provoked stuff.

Sure, Biden dinged him. It's a 90-minute debate; he'd better ding him sometimes. And he got dinged; when Biden blustered (twice!) about broadening tax revenue with broad cuts that "It has never been done before," Ryan simply and calmly corrected him, which is when we got the hilariously inept, sarcastic Jack Kennedy non-sequitur. He simply had no response. He looked foolish in that exchange.

But I'm glad you brought this particular thing up, because it's a perfect example of the kind of ticky-tack issues the Obama campaign is increasingly content to "win" on. Increasingly their campaign is about pouncing on little misstatements, procuring stimulus money, the candidates' taxes, etc. But try to talk about the massive issues like entitlement spending an unemployment, and they have nothing of substance to say. Ever hear the political complaint that something is "tactics, not strategy"? This is the kind of thing they mean.
First of all, your reaaction to the Kennedy remark is not what most people got from it. It is generally regarded as an effective Biden ding at Ryan, "Oh, now you're Kennedy?" I don't recall reports Ryan was effective in that exchange. And it is a minor thing to show a politician being a hypocrite, criticizing the concept of stimulus money when at the time he lobbied for his share? Ryan is not a fast thinker in a debate. He was unable to adjust to what Biden was doing to him.



First of all, your reaaction to the Kennedy remark is not what most people got from it. It is generally regarded as an effective Biden ding at Ryan, "Oh, now you're Kennedy?" I don't recall reports Ryan was effective in that exchange. And it is a minor thing to show a politician being a hypocrite, criticizing the concept of stimulus money when at the time he lobbied for his share? Ryan is not a fast thinker in a debate. He was unable to adjust to what Biden was doing to him.
Ryan was probably uncomfortable as Biden was grinning at him so much, that he couldn't figure out his intentions



Forgive me if I don't really trust your impression of how something was "generally regarded." But how it was received has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Biden had no idea what he was talking about and had no response. God help anyone who actually thinks he scored a point with a sarcastic non-sequitur. He was bluffing his way through half his arguments (he didn't vote for both wars? What?) and Ryan nabbed him on it there.

By the way, here's Paul Ryan not being a fast thinker with three people trying (and failing) to criticize his plan in rapid succession:


Yeah. He looks totally rattled. Or, wait, he doesn't look rattled...which means he actually was? I forget how these new rules of interpreting human emotion work.



There are those who call me...Tim.
I was skeptical of Romney's claims regarding his tax plans, but now they make complete sense thanks to this:

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/
__________________
"When I was younger, I always wanted to be somebody. Now that I'm older, I realise I should've been more specific."