The *** OFFICIAL *** Presidential Debate Thread!

[remote controller 143]

The only people who are taking a bigger a$$ kicking then the incumbent are those here trying to tap dance around it. Even the highly partisan press are admitting disaster. His wifes first words to him were to console him for his poor performance.

[remote controller 143]

The next one is a town hall format; that should be a stronger format for Obama, even without his teleprompters.

I can already see the set up questioners. lol!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The next one is a town hall format; that should be a stronger format for Obama, even without his teleprompters.

I'm not a big Lehrer fan, but I think the format last night was the best I've seen. The candidates did 95% of the talking without much input from the moderator.

 

Town hall formats are a joke.

[Strike 5,570]

The next one is a town hall format; that should be a stronger format for Obama, even without his teleprompters.

 

I don't think the format will matter. Obama may fare better simply due to not taking the thing for granted as it appears he did last night's debate. However, as one analyst said, at the end of the day you've got to have substance. And IMO Obama can't run on his record so he's got none really. That's why his campaign is largely a negative campaign. He's trying to get people to not vote for Romney instead of to vote for Obama.

[kutulu 1,680]

I'm not a big Lehrer fan, but I think the format last night was the best I've seen. The candidates did 95% of the talking without much input from the moderator.

 

Town hall formats are a joke.

 

 

Too bad, more often than not, they didn't even answer the question asked. They walked all over that dude.

[jerryskids 6,827]

Too bad, more often than not, they didn't even answer the question asked. They walked all over that dude.

 

Well, Romney did anyway. Because he was in charge.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The AARP released a statement today distancing themselves from Obama.

 

The AARP posted a blog saying that while the group is "grateful" the candidates had a "robust" debate on health care, the organization is not aligned with either candidate.

 

"While we respect the rights of each campaign to make its case to voters, AARP has never consented to the use of its name by any candidate or political campaign. AARP is a nonpartisan organization and we do not endorse political candidates nor coordinate with any candidate or political party," the group said

.

 

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/aarp-objects-to-obama-invoking-group-support-during-debate/#ixzz28LKtl600

[kutulu 1,680]

Well, Romney did anyway. Because he was in charge.

 

That one time, old PBS dude asked Romney if he wanted to ask Obumbler a question...so he goes on a five minute canned speech and never gets around to a question. Romney hit for the cycle...Obumbler dribbled all over the toilet seat.

[kutulu 1,680]

For sharts and giggles....yesterday it was +3.3, btw.

 

 

RCP Average 9/25 - 10/3 -- -- 49.1 46.0 Obama +3.1 <--
Rasmussen Tracking 10/1 - 10/3 1500 LV 3.0 49 47 Obama +2 
Gallup Tracking 9/26 - 10/2 3050 RV 2.0 49 45 Obama +4 
CNN/Opinion Research 9/28 - 9/30 783 LV 3.5 50 47 Obama +3 
National Journal 9/27 - 9/30 789 LV 4.2 47 47 Tie 
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 9/26 - 9/30 832 LV 3.4 49 46 Obama +3 
NPR 9/26 - 9/30 800 LV 4.0 51 44 Obama +7 
ABC News/Wash Post 9/26 - 9/29 813 LV 4.0 49 47 Obama +2 
Quinnipiac 9/25 - 9/30 1912 LV 2.2 49 45 Obama +4 

[Strike 5,570]

The AARP released a statement today distancing themselves from Obama.

 

. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/aarp-objects-to-obama-invoking-group-support-during-debate/#ixzz28LKtl600

 

The AARP should be irrelevant to anyone with a clue. As the article mentions they've got a strong financial interest in Obamacare. The only reason they don't want to be aligned with Obama is to prevent defections due to their bias becoming known by their members. I know a lot of them canceled their memberships after AARP endorsed Obamacare initially.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Well, Romney did anyway. Because he was in charge.

 

Romney took a calculated risk that paid off. In the first part of the debate I kept thinking that he'd come off like a disrespectful a-hole for interrupting Lehrer and the president, but neither one of them effectively called him out on it. So in the end he looked in charge and vigorous rather than like a jerk.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The ads are already coming out.

 

 

The youtube link says it is unavailable, but you can see it here.

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-smirk-rnc-plays-up-obamas-body-language/article/2509830#.UG2Q1U3A-gR

[NorthernVike 2,087]

The real question is...Will SNL do a skit on last nights debate showing Obama getting his ass handed to him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

doubtful

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Romney took a calculated risk that paid off. In the first part of the debate I kept thinking that he'd come off like a disrespectful a-hole for interrupting Lehrer and the president, but neither one of them effectively called him out on it. So in the end he looked in charge and vigorous rather than like a jerk.

Romney outsmarted the "Smartest Man On The Planet"

[MDC 7,480]

Obummer was absolutely awful last night. It really wasn't a matter of substance or not substance so much as his horrible, horrible body language and meandering, muddled message. Half the time I couldn't even follow WTF it was he was trying to say. That was the worst performance I've seen in a debate since Bush got clobbered by Kerry in the first debate of the '04 season.

 

If this were a true dead heat I'd say Romney pulls in front. Mostly though I think Obummer squandered an opportunity to build on his lead and create a sense of inevitability about his re-election.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

An Obama adviser last night after the debate said something like "...It went just how we wanted it to...."

[NewbieJr 541]

That was the worst performance I've seen in a debate since Bush got clobbered by Kerry in the first debate of the '04 season.

 

 

I think this pretty much sums up what role this will play in the general election.

[jerryskids 6,827]

Obummer was absolutely awful last night. It really wasn't a matter of substance or not substance so much as his horrible, horrible body language and meandering, muddled message.

 

Interestingly, most of what I caught of the debate was on the radio driving home, and without seeing the body language, I didn't think Obama did so poorly. He seemed to have a strategy of "Romney says he is going to cut taxes, but every time we talk about something like education he says he won't cut funding, so he is blowing smoke up y'alls asses." Seemed not terribly ineffective on the radio.

 

Then I walked in my door and my wife said Romney is kicking his ass. And everyone else is saying the same; well, except Newbie. So apparently the body language was key.

[remote controller 143]

Interestingly, most of what I caught of the debate was on the radio driving home, and without seeing the body language, I didn't think Obama did so poorly. He seemed to have a strategy of "Romney says he is going to cut taxes, but every time we talk about something like education he says he won't cut funding, so he is blowing smoke up y'alls asses." Seemed not terribly ineffective on the radio.

 

Then I walked in my door and my wife said Romney is kicking his ass. And everyone else is saying the same; well, except Newbie. So apparently the body language was key.

Speaking complete unbroken sentences would help, but for that to happen he would need the assistance of his crutches. Talk about out of touch. This was the first time he had to stand there and listen to someone else, then try to respond to it. He just isn't capable of a conversation he can't control.

[sheadtoo 1]

Romney took a calculated risk that paid off. In the first part of the debate I kept thinking that he'd come off like a disrespectful a-hole for interrupting Lehrer and the president, but neither one of them effectively called him out on it. So in the end he looked in charge and vigorous rather than like a jerk.

I think Romney still came off looking like a Jetk I think the way he treated the moderator an the POTUS was egotistical and direspectful. That said, it worked. He treated that debate like it was a board room full of guys against his plan and made tem listen to him.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I think Romney still came off looking like a Jetk I think the way he treated the moderator an the POTUS was egotistical and direspectful. That said, it worked. He treated that debate like it was a board room full of guys against his plan and made tem listen to him.

You are just butthurt Romney didn't kiss Obama's ass, and actually challenged him. Doing so exposed Obama as the empty suit he is, and that upsets you.

[NewbieJr 541]

I think Romney still came off looking like a Jetk I think the way he treated the moderator an the POTUS was egotistical and direspectful. That said, it worked. He treated that debate like it was a board room full of guys against his plan and made tem listen to him.

While I agree that Obama didn't have the best strategy going in and probably lost the debate, I think that Romney came off as rude, disrespectful, smug and holier-than-thou. He certainly didn't come off as likeable. Totally ignoring Lehrer's requests and talking over him and the President isn't likely to sway anyone who was undecided.

 

I think Romney fans are expecting way too big of a bump from last night and are going to be quite disdappointed when they find their boy is still in a deep hole. Especially in regard to swing states and electoral votes.

[mobb_deep 920]

I'll reply.

 

I do not like Romney but his "plans" are better than the path we are currently on.

 

In all fairness we only have 2 people to chose from.

 

Which of his plans? Come on people!

 

You guys spend all day talking about politics on a message board, yet not a single one of you (besides Jerry) can spend 5 minutes to articulately say what you like about Romney.

 

I even told Wifeless Pilot what I liked about Romney, and he still couldn't humor anyone with a reply. He's too busy bashing Obummer, because he doesn't like anything about the Romney plan either. Ofcourse, that would be even more painfully obvious, if toolbag RP had the sack to speak up about who he supported in the primaries. Not that I expect any level of honesty or mature conversation from the biggest welching dooshbag on the forum, since Q.Lazz.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

While I agree that Obama didn't have the best strategy going in and probably lost the debate, I think that Romney came off as rude, disrespectful, smug and holier-than-thou. He certainly didn't come off as likeable. Totally ignoring Lehrer's requests and talking over him and the President isn't likely to sway anyone who was undecided.

 

I think Romney fans are expecting way too big of a bump from last night and are going to be quite disdappointed when they find their boy is still in a deep hole. Especially in regard to swing states and electoral votes.

They both spoke over each other, and Lehrer. They both ignored Lehrer, for the most part, which is why the format was good.

 

And I have yet to see anyone say anything about a big bump from last night.

 

Oh, and there is no "probably lost" about it. Obama had his ass handed to him, you are just too dumb to figure it out.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Which of his plans? Come on people!

 

You guys spend all day talking about politics on a message board, yet not a single one of you (besides Jerry) can spend 5 minutes to articulately say what you like about Romney.

 

I even told Wifeless Pilot what I liked about Romney, and he still couldn't humor anyone with a reply. He's too busy bashing Obummer, because he doesn't like anything about the Romney plan either. Ofcourse, that would be even more painfully obvious, if toolbag RP had the sack to speak up about who he supported in the primaries. Not that I expect any level of honesty or mature conversation from the biggest welching dooshbag on the forum, since Q.Lazz.

You seem bitter today, Bieber Jeans.

 

Cheer up, your hero gets a few more chances to avoid a major fukk up like last night.

[Strike 5,570]

Which of his plans? Come on people!

 

You guys spend all day talking about politics on a message board, yet not a single one of you (besides Jerry) can spend 5 minutes to articulately say what you like about Romney.

 

I even told Wifeless Pilot what I liked about Romney, and he still couldn't humor anyone with a reply. He's too busy bashing Obummer, because he doesn't like anything about the Romney plan either. Ofcourse, that would be even more painfully obvious, if toolbag RP had the sack to speak up about who he supported in the primaries. Not that I expect any level of honesty or mature conversation from the biggest welching dooshbag on the forum, since Q.Lazz.

 

Look at the way you're writing. You sound like Newbie or MDC. Why would anyone waste time trying to articulate anything to you?

[Strike 5,570]

Interestingly, most of what I caught of the debate was on the radio driving home, and without seeing the body language, I didn't think Obama did so poorly. He seemed to have a strategy of "Romney says he is going to cut taxes, but every time we talk about something like education he says he won't cut funding, so he is blowing smoke up y'alls asses." Seemed not terribly ineffective on the radio.

 

Then I walked in my door and my wife said Romney is kicking his ass. And everyone else is saying the same; well, except Newbie. So apparently the body language was key.

 

Obama actually asked the moderator to change subjects at one point, he was getting his butt kicked so bad. No one asks the moderator to change subjects in a debate.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Look at the way you're writing. You sound like Newbie or MDC. Why would anyone waste time trying to articulate anything to you?

He also admitted a while back that he only comes into political threads to troll.

 

No reason to attempt any kind of conversation with him.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Obummer was absolutely awful last night. It really wasn't a matter of substance or not substance so much as his horrible, horrible body language and meandering, muddled message. Half the time I couldn't even follow WTF it was he was trying to say. That was the worst performance I've seen in a debate since Bush got clobbered by Kerry in the first debate of the '04 season.

 

If this were a true dead heat I'd say Romney pulls in front. Mostly though I think Obummer squandered an opportunity to build on his lead and create a sense of inevitability about his re-election.

 

Like I said, it gives Romney an opening. Independents are going to listen to him now and really consider whether they want a change in leadership. There could be some other benefits as well - Romney's base is clearly buoyed by his performance and more donors might step up with a sense that he has a chance now.

 

I don't think this debate alone will create a big shift, but it does make the closing stretch of the campaign much more important.

[DAVID RUFFIN 2]

Obama had his ass handed to him, it's as simple as that. I think he'll do better next time but I also thought he'd win last night.

[MicktheGreat 1]

As someone who is pretty moderate politically, here's what I took away from last night's debate:

 

STYLE

Romney was the clear "winner" here. He was assertive, fiery, and aggressive. He was on the offensive nearly all night, which is likely the approach that you want to take on national television in today's political climate and in today's sound-byte news-coverage circus. There were a couple moments where Romney's assertiveness bordered on being rude/smug; but I don't think he ever really crossed that line last night (just skirted it a couple times). That sort of thing can be adjusted for upcoming debates.

 

Obama seemed to want to play it cool and collected. He seemed to have a friendlier disposition than Romney -- which you could see in the fact that he smiled a lot and tried to lighten the mood a couple times. But, overall, that sort of "friendly" approach didn't seem effective in this format and was a poor rhetorical choice on the part of him and his staff. So, while he had a couple of good moments, he seemed inconsistent over the course of the entire debate. He'll need to show more spunk in the next debate.

 

CONTENT

No one won here. But I suspect that was mostly the result of this type of debate-format: lots of vague questions, mostly "He's going to do this!...No, I'm not!" type answers/responses, etc. Both candidates spent their time making vague generalities, noting worthless points ("We support education!"), referencing amorphous citizens in anecdotal stories, and simply decrying what the other candidate had said about them. Very little memorable substance from either candidate, which will be fine for their respective bases and will frustrate moderate/independent voters (who should be used to being disappointed by now).

 

OVERALL

Romney is the debate "winner" for his style w/ little-substance (though, again, neither candidate brought much policy "meat" last night). Obama is mostly a net-zero from this debate -- as he didn't impress but also didn't implode here. The big, big, BIG "loser" here is Jim Lehrer. He asked really vague and broad questions, and he got steamrolled by BOTH candidates. (Plus, he found out that he'd probably be out of a job if Romney wins.) Lehrer lost control of the debate from the very beginning and never regained it at any point; and that's pretty much the only job of the moderator: maintain control at all costs. The next few moderators need to learn from Lehrer's mistake and bring a big stick to the debate.

 

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

I went from I'm not voting for either to maybe I'd go for Romney. It isn't certain yet. But He clearly handed Obama is arse.

[GettnHuge 2]

CONTENT

No one won here. But I suspect that was mostly the result of this type of debate-format: lots of vague questions, mostly "He's going to do this!...No, I'm not!" type answers/responses, etc. Both candidates spent their time making vague generalities, noting worthless points ("We support education!"), referencing amorphous citizens in anecdotal stories, and simply decrying what the other candidate had said about them. Very little memorable substance from either candidate, which will be fine for their respective bases and will frustrate moderate/independent voters (who should be used to being disappointed by now).

 

 

You didn't think the Romney content was solid? He threw out terms like economy tax, trickle down gov't, gov't shouldnt pick winners and losers...and you seem to pick all losers,

90billion to those losers, who seem to be your contributors, 700billion out of medicare going unaddressed all night, death panel accusation going unanswered.

bomb after bomb blowing up on obomba

 

what did obama say which was memorable? that he liked the term obamacare? repeatedly talking up a 5trillion tax cut that Romney refuted each time? The rest was blah blah blah

[Strike 5,570]

As someone who is pretty moderate politically, here's what I took away from last night's debate:

 

STYLE

Romney was the clear "winner" here. He was assertive, fiery, and aggressive. He was on the offensive nearly all night, which is likely the approach that you want to take on national television in today's political climate and in today's sound-byte news-coverage circus. There were a couple moments where Romney's assertiveness bordered on being rude/smug; but I don't think he ever really crossed that line last night (just skirted it a couple times). That sort of thing can be adjusted for upcoming debates.

 

Obama seemed to want to play it cool and collected. He seemed to have a friendlier disposition than Romney -- which you could see in the fact that he smiled a lot and tried to lighten the mood a couple times. But, overall, that sort of "friendly" approach didn't seem effective in this format and was a poor rhetorical choice on the part of him and his staff. So, while he had a couple of good moments, he seemed inconsistent over the course of the entire debate. He'll need to show more spunk in the next debate.

 

CONTENT

No one won here. But I suspect that was mostly the result of this type of debate-format: lots of vague questions, mostly "He's going to do this!...No, I'm not!" type answers/responses, etc. Both candidates spent their time making vague generalities, noting worthless points ("We support education!"), referencing amorphous citizens in anecdotal stories, and simply decrying what the other candidate had said about them. Very little memorable substance from either candidate, which will be fine for their respective bases and will frustrate moderate/independent voters (who should be used to being disappointed by now).

 

OVERALL

Romney is the debate "winner" for his style w/ little-substance (though, again, neither candidate brought much policy "meat" last night). Obama is mostly a net-zero from this debate -- as he didn't impress but also didn't implode here. The big, big, BIG "loser" here is Jim Lehrer. He asked really vague and broad questions, and he got steamrolled by BOTH candidates. (Plus, he found out that he'd probably be out of a job if Romney wins.) Lehrer lost control of the debate from the very beginning and never regained it at any point; and that's pretty much the only job of the moderator: maintain control at all costs. The next few moderators need to learn from Lehrer's mistake and bring a big stick to the debate.

 

 

Romney offered plenty of substance. If you didn't see it you weren't listening. You may not believe him, and fact checking will certainly show that he exaggerated some things, but to say he didn't offer substance would be wrong. Obama stuck to talking points. Romney outlined his plans clearly and concisely. That's one of the main reasons he won the debate. When you listened to Obama all you heard were platitudes and attacks. Romney spoke about his plans and, when he did tell Obama "No I'm not", he explained why. Again, whether you believe him is up to you. But he did offer specifics and substance.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

You didn't think the Romney content was solid? He threw out terms like economy tax, trickle down gov't, gov't shouldnt pick winners and losers...and you seem to pick all losers,

90billion to those losers, who seem to be your contributors, 700billion out of medicare going unaddressed all night, death panel accusation going unanswered.

bomb after bomb blowing up on obomba

 

what did obama say which was memorable? that he liked the term obamacare? repeatedly talking up a 5trillion tax cut that Romney refuted each time? The rest was blah blah blah

 

Romney did not really refute Obama's claim on the $5 trillion dollar tax cut. Basically he said trust me it's my plan, I know that it will not cost five trillion dollars. Now that actually worked in this debate because Obama did not effectively attack him on the "trust me" point, but its disingenuous to say that Romney really explained how his plan will not cost 5 trillion dollars.

 

The death panel charge was ludicrous and was surely viewed as such by anyone who is not a frothing-at-the-mouth right winger. Romney should have been hammered hard on that but instead it was another instance of Obama dropping the ball.

[Strike 5,570]

Romney did not really refute Obama's claim on the $5 trillion dollar tax cut. Basically he said trust me it's my plan, I know that it will not cost five trillion dollars. Now that actually worked in this debate because Obama did not effectively attack him on the "trust me" point, but its disingenuous to say that Romney really explained how his plan will not cost 5 trillion dollars.

 

The death panel charge was ludicrous and was surely viewed as such by anyone who is not a frothing-at-the-mouth right winger. Romney should have been hammered hard on that but instead it was another instance of Obama dropping the ball.

 

First of all, you realize the 5 trillion estimate is over 10 years, right? Secondly, I don't remembering him saying it wouldn't be a 5 trillion dollar cut. He just said it would be revenue neutral. You got a link to a transcript of him saying it wouldn't cost 5 trillion?

[GettnHuge 2]

Romney did not really refute Obama's claim on the $5 trillion dollar tax cut. Basically he said trust me it's my plan, I know that it will not cost five trillion dollars. Now that actually worked in this debate because Obama did not effectively attack him on the "trust me" point, but its disingenuous to say that Romney really explained how his plan will not cost 5 trillion dollars.

 

The death panel charge was ludicrous and was surely viewed as such by anyone who is not a frothing-at-the-mouth right winger. Romney should have been hammered hard on that but instead it was another instance of Obama dropping the ball.

 

obama: And this is where there's a difference, because Governor Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut -- on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts -- that's another trillion dollars -- and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn't asked for. That's $8 trillion.

 

Romney: First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don't have a tax cut of a scale that you're talking about.

 

Obama: Now, Governor Romney's proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military.

 

Romney: So if the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I'd say absolutely not. I'm not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut.

 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

First of all, you realize the 5 trillion estimate is over 10 years, right? Secondly, I don't remembering him saying it wouldn't be a 5 trillion dollar cut. He just said it would be revenue neutral. You got a link to a transcript of him saying it wouldn't cost 5 trillion?

 

He said it all night. You're right though: the basis of his claim is that it wouldn't really cost 5 trillion dollars because it would be revenue neutral. But how would it be revenue neutral? Studies suggest that is literally impossible. Romney certainly didn't say anything to disprove that.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

obama: And this is where there's a difference, because Governor Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut -- on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts -- that's another trillion dollars -- and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn't asked for. That's $8 trillion.

 

Romney: First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don't have a tax cut of a scale that you're talking about.

 

Obama: Now, Governor Romney's proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military.

 

Romney: So if the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I'd say absolutely not. I'm not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut.

 

 

What I fail to see there is any actual explanation of how his proposed tax cuts would NOT cost 5 trillion. Like I said, he basically just said "trust me, it won't."

[jerryskids 6,827]

Romney did not really refute Obama's claim on the $5 trillion dollar tax cut. Basically he said trust me it's my plan, I know that it will not cost five trillion dollars. Now that actually worked in this debate because Obama did not effectively attack him on the "trust me" point, but its disingenuous to say that Romney really explained how his plan will not cost 5 trillion dollars.

 

 

I really liked what Romney said, which paraphrased was: my job is to set the vision and then sit down with folks on both sides, like Reagan did with Tip and I did in Mass, and hammer out the details so that we all walk away happy. This is how successful people do things in the real world.