Reply to Topic
So, the Yanks will decide in 3 weeks. I heard that this Presidential election is going be the most significant in 30 years. My money is on Romney, but I would rather Obama to win.
The Debates
I think your memory of the interruptions is convenient; he interrupted Romney himself a number of times, and he chirped in briefly a few more on top of that. He also completely steamrolled Crowley when she tried to stop him. But all this goes down the memory hole when your guy does it, eh?
Thankfully, some people actually count these things, so we can see who's being objective and who's remembering things the way they want to. For example: Crowley interrupted Romney more than three times as often as Obama (28-9), in addition to giving him about 10% more talking time, and the last word a number of times on contentious exchanges. So yeah, no kidding he talked about what he wanted to. He should, when he's constantly getting cut off by both his opponent and the moderator.
Obama ignored the substance of numerous questions; the only difference is that he didn't actually acknowledge he was doing it. That's supposed to be a good thing?
Frankly, I was disappointed at how often each candidate failed to answer the question presented to them. That's a fair complaint you can level at both guys. But trying to pretend Romney did this significantly more (or more at all, for that matter) is just a straight-up case of partisan blinders.
Thankfully, some people actually count these things, so we can see who's being objective and who's remembering things the way they want to. For example: Crowley interrupted Romney more than three times as often as Obama (28-9), in addition to giving him about 10% more talking time, and the last word a number of times on contentious exchanges. So yeah, no kidding he talked about what he wanted to. He should, when he's constantly getting cut off by both his opponent and the moderator.
Obama ignored the substance of numerous questions; the only difference is that he didn't actually acknowledge he was doing it. That's supposed to be a good thing?
Frankly, I was disappointed at how often each candidate failed to answer the question presented to them. That's a fair complaint you can level at both guys. But trying to pretend Romney did this significantly more (or more at all, for that matter) is just a straight-up case of partisan blinders.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
So, the Yanks will decide in 3 weeks. I heard that this Presidential election is going be the most significant in 30 years. My money is on Romney, but I would rather Obama to win.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula
X
User Lists
It looks like the general consensus is a narrow Obama win which probably means Obama slowed Romney's momentum.
Agreed on Obama narrowly winning. I think on pure "debate performance," Obama did better. As soon as it ended I told my wife I thought he'd win the snap polls by a moderate but not large margin, which is exactly what happened.
The real question is what moves votes, though; the debate is only a means to that end. I've always found it kinda goofy that they ask who won the debate, as if this is about debating and not about debating to persuade people. They should ask who they're more likely to vote for now. Heck, I thought Obama won maybe two out of the three debates against McCain, but I didn't vote for him.
The reason I mention this is because, in the same polls last night in which Obama won by 7-ish points, the questions under the topline kind of seem like a big deal. For example:
I gotta be honest, if you offered me the same result for the last debate on the 22nd--where Obama scores a moderate win in the debate, but consistently trails on almost every sub-issue, and trails huge on the economy and the deficit, I'd absolutely take it.
One more sub-metric: when asked "Did Obama offer a clear vision for solving the country's problems?" the results were: 38% Yes, 61% No. He's obviously decided that his best chances at reelection come from just attacking Romney relentlessly. And it very well may work. But people are noticing.
The real question is what moves votes, though; the debate is only a means to that end. I've always found it kinda goofy that they ask who won the debate, as if this is about debating and not about debating to persuade people. They should ask who they're more likely to vote for now. Heck, I thought Obama won maybe two out of the three debates against McCain, but I didn't vote for him.
The reason I mention this is because, in the same polls last night in which Obama won by 7-ish points, the questions under the topline kind of seem like a big deal. For example:
- CBS Poll: Obama wins debate, 37-30. Who wins on economy? Romney, 65-34.
- CNN Poll: Obama wins debate, 46-39. Who wins on economy? Romney, 54-40. He's also +3 on health care, +7 on taxes, +23 on the deficit, and +3 on leadership. I think the only significant metric Obama won on (other than "debating") was foreign policy, at just +2.
I gotta be honest, if you offered me the same result for the last debate on the 22nd--where Obama scores a moderate win in the debate, but consistently trails on almost every sub-issue, and trails huge on the economy and the deficit, I'd absolutely take it.
One more sub-metric: when asked "Did Obama offer a clear vision for solving the country's problems?" the results were: 38% Yes, 61% No. He's obviously decided that his best chances at reelection come from just attacking Romney relentlessly. And it very well may work. But people are noticing.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I guess I neg rapped powderfinger by accident.
I wasn't even trying to rep him at all.
I wasn't even trying to rep him at all.
I didn't even know I did it. I saw the neg rap and thought who did that and then saw my options to rep were gone so I must have. Probably when i tried to hit quote the cursor was over there.
X
User Lists
Agreed on Obama narrowly winning. I think on pure "debate performance," Obama did better. As soon as it ended I told my wife I thought he'd win the snap polls by a moderate but not large margin, which is exactly what happened.
The real question is what moves votes, though; the debate is only a means to that end. I've always found it kinda goofy that they ask who won the debate, as if this is about debating and not about debating to persuade people. They should ask who they're more likely to vote for now. Heck, I thought Obama won maybe two out of the three debates against McCain, but I didn't vote for him.
The reason I mention this is because, in the same polls last night in which Obama won by 7-ish points, the questions under the topline kind of seem like a big deal. For example:
I gotta be honest, if you offered me the same result for the last debate on the 22nd--where Obama scores a moderate win in the debate, but consistently trails on almost every sub-issue, and trails huge on the economy and the deficit, I'd absolutely take it.
One more sub-metric: when asked "Did Obama offer a clear vision for solving the country's problems?" the results were: 38% Yes, 61% No. He's obviously decided that his best chances at reelection come from just attacking Romney relentlessly. And it very well may work. But people are noticing.
The real question is what moves votes, though; the debate is only a means to that end. I've always found it kinda goofy that they ask who won the debate, as if this is about debating and not about debating to persuade people. They should ask who they're more likely to vote for now. Heck, I thought Obama won maybe two out of the three debates against McCain, but I didn't vote for him.
The reason I mention this is because, in the same polls last night in which Obama won by 7-ish points, the questions under the topline kind of seem like a big deal. For example:
- CBS Poll: Obama wins debate, 37-30. Who wins on economy? Romney, 65-34.
- CNN Poll: Obama wins debate, 46-39. Who wins on economy? Romney, 54-40. He's also +3 on health care, +7 on taxes, +23 on the deficit, and +3 on leadership. I think the only significant metric Obama won on (other than "debating") was foreign policy, at just +2.
I gotta be honest, if you offered me the same result for the last debate on the 22nd--where Obama scores a moderate win in the debate, but consistently trails on almost every sub-issue, and trails huge on the economy and the deficit, I'd absolutely take it.
One more sub-metric: when asked "Did Obama offer a clear vision for solving the country's problems?" the results were: 38% Yes, 61% No. He's obviously decided that his best chances at reelection come from just attacking Romney relentlessly. And it very well may work. But people are noticing.
X
User Lists
Attacking the incumbent is literally the only way to run against them. An incumbent, on the other hand, has a choice about how much to attack the other guy, and how much to defend their own record. Obama's made his choice. And he's chosen not to make a strong case for a second term, but to make a case against Romney. As I said, it may work, but it's pretty conspicuous after awhile.
As for specifics; wanting more of them is a perfectly valid policy to have, as a voter. But I notice that everyone harping on specifics conveniently looks the other way when Obama said he'll cut $3 trillion from the deficit, but won't say how. It's almost enough to make you wonder whether or not they actually care about specifics, or if that just happens to be the most convenient way to attack the other guy. Hmmm.
As for specifics; wanting more of them is a perfectly valid policy to have, as a voter. But I notice that everyone harping on specifics conveniently looks the other way when Obama said he'll cut $3 trillion from the deficit, but won't say how. It's almost enough to make you wonder whether or not they actually care about specifics, or if that just happens to be the most convenient way to attack the other guy. Hmmm.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I think your memory of the interruptions is convenient; he interrupted Romney himself a number of times, and he chirped in briefly a few more on top of that. He also completely steamrolled Crowley when she tried to stop him. But all this goes down the memory hole when your guy does it, eh?
Thankfully, some people actually count these things, so we can see who's being objective and who's remembering things the way they want to. For example: Crowley interrupted Romney more than three times as often as Obama (28-9), in addition to giving him about 10% more talking time, and the last word a number of times on contentious exchanges. So yeah, no kidding he talked about what he wanted to. He should, when he's constantly getting cut off by both his opponent and the moderator.
Obama ignored the substance of numerous questions; the only difference is that he didn't actually acknowledge he was doing it. That's supposed to be a good thing?
Frankly, I was disappointed at how often each candidate failed to answer the question presented to them. That's a fair complaint you can level at both guys. But trying to pretend Romney did this significantly more (or more at all, for that matter) is just a straight-up case of partisan blinders.
Thankfully, some people actually count these things, so we can see who's being objective and who's remembering things the way they want to. For example: Crowley interrupted Romney more than three times as often as Obama (28-9), in addition to giving him about 10% more talking time, and the last word a number of times on contentious exchanges. So yeah, no kidding he talked about what he wanted to. He should, when he's constantly getting cut off by both his opponent and the moderator.
Obama ignored the substance of numerous questions; the only difference is that he didn't actually acknowledge he was doing it. That's supposed to be a good thing?
Frankly, I was disappointed at how often each candidate failed to answer the question presented to them. That's a fair complaint you can level at both guys. But trying to pretend Romney did this significantly more (or more at all, for that matter) is just a straight-up case of partisan blinders.
__________________
Yeah, there's no body mutilation in it
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
He did interrupt Romney, rarely interrupted the moderater though. And I'm not shocked that she interupted Romney more, he kept getting up trying to get another word in when it was time to move onto the next question.
He did interrupt Romney, rarely interrupted the moderater though. And I'm not shocked that she interupted Romney more, he kept getting up trying to get another word in when it was time to move onto the next question.
I mean, how short is your memory? Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times in 90 minutes, but apparently that was, like, totally awesome, because you agreed with him. But when Romney tries to get a word in because the moderator's interrupting him three times as often, well, how dare he! How dare he flaunt the sacred rules of debate that the moderator is apparently making up as she goes along! *throws monocle on the ground*
Puh. Lease. This is standard cheerleading, not dispassionate analysis.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Attacking the incumbent is literally the only way to run against them. An incumbent, on the other hand, has a choice about how much to attack the other guy, and how much to defend their own record. Obama's made his choice. And he's chosen not to make a strong case for a second term, but to make a case against Romney. As I said, it may work, but it's pretty conspicuous after awhile.
As for specifics; wanting more of them is a perfectly valid policy to have, as a voter. But I notice that everyone harping on specifics conveniently looks the other way when Obama said he'll cut $3 trillion from the deficit, but won't say how. It's almost enough to make you wonder whether or not they actually care about specifics, or if that just happens to be the most convenient way to attack the other guy. Hmmm.
As for specifics; wanting more of them is a perfectly valid policy to have, as a voter. But I notice that everyone harping on specifics conveniently looks the other way when Obama said he'll cut $3 trillion from the deficit, but won't say how. It's almost enough to make you wonder whether or not they actually care about specifics, or if that just happens to be the most convenient way to attack the other guy. Hmmm.
I thought Obama was going to blow that debate when he let Romney get away with responding to the first question by talking about how his ecconomic plan was going to create more jobs, but didn't once say how.
X
User Lists
I don't know why Romney hasn't brought it up in a debate. But it's true, and I'm asking you (and anyone else looking the other way on this) to explain why you only expect one of the two candidates to offer up specific plans.
As for job growth; if you're actually suggesting that Romney has to elaborate on how cutting taxes and encouraging investment will create jobs, then you're essentially just asking him to teach you basic economic theory.
As for job growth; if you're actually suggesting that Romney has to elaborate on how cutting taxes and encouraging investment will create jobs, then you're essentially just asking him to teach you basic economic theory.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Yeah, except she didn't apply that standard consistently. On the first question, she says we have to move on. Fair enough. On the second, she lets Obama keep the volley going when he wanted to past the normal structure. He got the last word both times. I complained about this in real time: either policy is fine, provided you apply it consistently.
I mean, how short is your memory? Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times in 90 minutes, but apparently that was, like, totally awesome, because you agreed with him. But when Romney tries to get a word in because the moderator's interrupting him three times as often, well, how dare he! How dare he flaunt the sacred rules of debate that the moderator is apparently making up as she goes along! *throws monocle on the ground*
Puh. Lease. This is standard cheerleading, not dispassionate analysis.
I mean, how short is your memory? Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times in 90 minutes, but apparently that was, like, totally awesome, because you agreed with him. But when Romney tries to get a word in because the moderator's interrupting him three times as often, well, how dare he! How dare he flaunt the sacred rules of debate that the moderator is apparently making up as she goes along! *throws monocle on the ground*
Puh. Lease. This is standard cheerleading, not dispassionate analysis.
Even I noticed she was screwing Romney in the early part of the debate.
Biden's interruptions were brilliant. That debate was more informal and looser. He really got under Ryan's skin and rattled him.
X
User Lists
I don't know why Romney hasn't brought it up in a debate. But it's true, and I'm asking you (and anyone else looking the other way on this) to explain why you only expect one of the two candidates to offer up specific plans.
As for job growth; if you're actually suggesting that Romney has to elaborate on how cutting taxes and encouraging investment will create jobs, then you're essentially just asking him to teach you basic economic theory.
As for job growth; if you're actually suggesting that Romney has to elaborate on how cutting taxes and encouraging investment will create jobs, then you're essentially just asking him to teach you basic economic theory.
Yeah, I think he has to be a little more specific than my plan is like miracle hair.
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.
X