USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
An interesting poll and one that is encouraging to me ... the government should get out of being in the values business (left or right). If the GOP wants to stay relevant, they need to drop the social agenda and focus on the second part of this poll of limiting government. Supposedly, 15 minutes of the debate tonight will be on the role of government, that is the portion of the debate I am most interested in.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Correct! Popcorn Sutton, (in)famous moonshiner and ornery old bastard.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Perhaps I'm biased, but I think Romney is coming across as much stronger and more confident than Obama, who seems tired. Obama is saying intelligent things, but seems distracted and stammers a lot.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Yes, he was constantly in defense, and his known handicaps popped up:
-teaching too much
-looking bored at his opponent
From CNN website:
Body language matters
Sometimes how a candidate looks is more important than what he says.
That may have been the case in the first presidential debate, in which Romney often looked more at ease than Obama. When speaking, Romney often looked directly at Obama, while the president mainly looked at the moderator or the cameras when he was speaking. And Obama looked down quite often while Romney was speaking.
"The president could barely look at Mitt Romney, which was interesting. He really wouldn't engage with him, where as Romney would take the president on, on every issue." said CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger.
While Romney's body language seemed energetic, the president's body language was just the opposite. He seemed a bit irritated.
"I don't think anyone's ever spoken to him like that over the last four years. I think he found that not only surprising but offensive. It looked like he was angry at times," added CNN Senior Political Analyst David Gergen, who has advised both Democratic and Republican presidents.
While Romney took part in nearly 20 GOP primary debates this cycle, Obama has not participated in a debate in four years. And it showed.
"Participating in so many Republican primary debates helped Mitt Romney. He was, right from the beginning, more comfortable debating. The president was rusty as a debater. He hasn't done this in four years." King said.
Senior Obama campaign advisers disagreed, saying that it was Romney who appeared ill at ease.
"People at home saw (Romney) get testy, interrupt the moderator," Obama campaign deputy communications director Stephanie Cutter told CNN.
"My thought is that you're going to find that people watching at home thought he was quite testy," Plouffe added.
-teaching too much
-looking bored at his opponent
From CNN website:
Body language matters
Sometimes how a candidate looks is more important than what he says.
That may have been the case in the first presidential debate, in which Romney often looked more at ease than Obama. When speaking, Romney often looked directly at Obama, while the president mainly looked at the moderator or the cameras when he was speaking. And Obama looked down quite often while Romney was speaking.
"The president could barely look at Mitt Romney, which was interesting. He really wouldn't engage with him, where as Romney would take the president on, on every issue." said CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger.
While Romney's body language seemed energetic, the president's body language was just the opposite. He seemed a bit irritated.
"I don't think anyone's ever spoken to him like that over the last four years. I think he found that not only surprising but offensive. It looked like he was angry at times," added CNN Senior Political Analyst David Gergen, who has advised both Democratic and Republican presidents.
While Romney took part in nearly 20 GOP primary debates this cycle, Obama has not participated in a debate in four years. And it showed.
"Participating in so many Republican primary debates helped Mitt Romney. He was, right from the beginning, more comfortable debating. The president was rusty as a debater. He hasn't done this in four years." King said.
Senior Obama campaign advisers disagreed, saying that it was Romney who appeared ill at ease.
"People at home saw (Romney) get testy, interrupt the moderator," Obama campaign deputy communications director Stephanie Cutter told CNN.
"My thought is that you're going to find that people watching at home thought he was quite testy," Plouffe added.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Romney did really well, not just in debate style, but in substance he did a good job at swating dowm the Obama attacks (the tax cuts for the rich lines, Medicare, and government in general). Obviously there are 2 more of these to go plus the VP debate, but Romney was the clear winner in this debate and it should reflect in the next round of polling.
Lehrer got some flack for how he moderated, but I have no issues with him. Like the old football saying goes, he just let him play. In terms of candidates just talking about issues versus just answering (or not answering) narrow questions, I thought discussing the boader/major topics was better and the flow of the debate seemed very conversational.
As for expectations, pre dabate polls had Obama had the edge in the debates.
Lehrer got some flack for how he moderated, but I have no issues with him. Like the old football saying goes, he just let him play. In terms of candidates just talking about issues versus just answering (or not answering) narrow questions, I thought discussing the boader/major topics was better and the flow of the debate seemed very conversational.
As for expectations, pre dabate polls had Obama had the edge in the debates.
Romney did a great job. I just want to say that I came away impressed by how he performed (with the exception of how he bullied Lehrer, but I'll get to that in a moment). Obama had some good lines, but Romney had more and better. He never knocked Obama out, though, and I think Obama's good lines were better than Romney's good ones, which will lead to about equal spin at the end of the night, imo.
Obama did poorly. Way worse than he did in 2008. Romney was good, but Obama wasn't on his game either. It should be worth noting that no incumbent president has done well in their first debate. Ford flubbed his, Carter famously flubbed his, Reagan did really bad in his first debate, as did Bush, Clinton, and Bush. Why? It's like those men have something else to do, eh? That crosses party lines, and is universal.
Romney won. Straight up. I don't think it changes his narrative, unless he wins the next 2 debates, and Ryan wins his handily (which I don't think he will do). Romney also deserves some credit for putting some of his ideas out. The problem is that they don't make any sense to me. Lower rates but keep revenue the same by closing loopholes, but rich people won't pay more. That doesn't make sense. Obama just said Romney doesn't have a plan, but he really failed to nail down Romney for that, which he could have done. Romney didn't land any heavy hitters because I don't think he has any he can really land. He did great, though.
I disagree with bearfan about Lehrer. He let both candidates, especially Romney, bully him about all night. The moderator has no power in these debates. The candidates give lip service to the question, and then talk about whatever they want until the other interrupts. At first, Lehrer tried to ask direct questions, but they were ignored. The debate format is bullshit. It's theatre. Very few people get convinced by debates: they generally go in rooting for a candidate. I don't think this changes the overall course of the election - it makes it tighter, but doesn't put Romney into the lead.
Obama did poorly. Way worse than he did in 2008. Romney was good, but Obama wasn't on his game either. It should be worth noting that no incumbent president has done well in their first debate. Ford flubbed his, Carter famously flubbed his, Reagan did really bad in his first debate, as did Bush, Clinton, and Bush. Why? It's like those men have something else to do, eh? That crosses party lines, and is universal.
Romney won. Straight up. I don't think it changes his narrative, unless he wins the next 2 debates, and Ryan wins his handily (which I don't think he will do). Romney also deserves some credit for putting some of his ideas out. The problem is that they don't make any sense to me. Lower rates but keep revenue the same by closing loopholes, but rich people won't pay more. That doesn't make sense. Obama just said Romney doesn't have a plan, but he really failed to nail down Romney for that, which he could have done. Romney didn't land any heavy hitters because I don't think he has any he can really land. He did great, though.
I disagree with bearfan about Lehrer. He let both candidates, especially Romney, bully him about all night. The moderator has no power in these debates. The candidates give lip service to the question, and then talk about whatever they want until the other interrupts. At first, Lehrer tried to ask direct questions, but they were ignored. The debate format is bullshit. It's theatre. Very few people get convinced by debates: they generally go in rooting for a candidate. I don't think this changes the overall course of the election - it makes it tighter, but doesn't put Romney into the lead.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I think Romney accomplished a few things, and the CBS poll bears this out.
1) He deflected the "he is a right wing nut narrative"
2) He showed he had good command of the issues, people may agree or disagree with him on his proposals, but he showed he is a smart guy and a viable alternative to Obama
3) He did a good job at humanizing himself ... this seems to have been a complaint about him before this. I never really put much importance on the "I feel your pain" type of touchy-feely aspects of races, but some people do and I think he helped himself there
4) He attacked Obama, but did so, I thought in a manner respectful of the office and did not go overboard
5) A portion of those voting for him are more anti-Obama than pro-Romney, I think he turned that around a bit, which may help with turnout.
6) The post debate spin was pretty much all pro Romney, which I think will (for now at least), end the "it's all over, Obama won" talk as well as the "What is wrong with Mitt" narrative, and some articles suggesting the GOP does what it did in 96 (Dole) and just focus on Congress. Outside groups will keep putting money on Romney and he will probably raise a fair amount of $ from this
7) Similar to 6, people think he has a shot at it now
The polls were tightening a bit before the debate, at least most national polls had him withing 2 or 3 points, he still needs to better in Ohio though than he has been, those numbers have stayed the same post convention.
As LC mentioned, there are 2 more debates and a VP debate, so it is too early to get overly excited and say Romney completely turned it around, but Obama had a chance to end this campaign last night and he did not do it and Romney has I think ended the slide that has been happening since the conventions and the 47% leak.
I'm not sure how much the VP debate matters, unless one of them does something horribly wrong... anything close to a draw or a slight win for Ryan or Biden pretty much changes nothing. Most people vote for President and really do not care about the VPs. It is even less of an issue this year since both Obama and Romney are relatively young and in good health. Most people see little chance either of them will be President outside of running and being elected on their own. What Ryan probably needs to do is something similar to #1 above and show he is not what he is not being made out to be by the Dems. I think people pretty much have made up their minds about Biden by now.
1) He deflected the "he is a right wing nut narrative"
2) He showed he had good command of the issues, people may agree or disagree with him on his proposals, but he showed he is a smart guy and a viable alternative to Obama
3) He did a good job at humanizing himself ... this seems to have been a complaint about him before this. I never really put much importance on the "I feel your pain" type of touchy-feely aspects of races, but some people do and I think he helped himself there
4) He attacked Obama, but did so, I thought in a manner respectful of the office and did not go overboard
5) A portion of those voting for him are more anti-Obama than pro-Romney, I think he turned that around a bit, which may help with turnout.
6) The post debate spin was pretty much all pro Romney, which I think will (for now at least), end the "it's all over, Obama won" talk as well as the "What is wrong with Mitt" narrative, and some articles suggesting the GOP does what it did in 96 (Dole) and just focus on Congress. Outside groups will keep putting money on Romney and he will probably raise a fair amount of $ from this
7) Similar to 6, people think he has a shot at it now
The polls were tightening a bit before the debate, at least most national polls had him withing 2 or 3 points, he still needs to better in Ohio though than he has been, those numbers have stayed the same post convention.
As LC mentioned, there are 2 more debates and a VP debate, so it is too early to get overly excited and say Romney completely turned it around, but Obama had a chance to end this campaign last night and he did not do it and Romney has I think ended the slide that has been happening since the conventions and the 47% leak.
I'm not sure how much the VP debate matters, unless one of them does something horribly wrong... anything close to a draw or a slight win for Ryan or Biden pretty much changes nothing. Most people vote for President and really do not care about the VPs. It is even less of an issue this year since both Obama and Romney are relatively young and in good health. Most people see little chance either of them will be President outside of running and being elected on their own. What Ryan probably needs to do is something similar to #1 above and show he is not what he is not being made out to be by the Dems. I think people pretty much have made up their minds about Biden by now.
425
Starblind
The unspoken issue with the presidential debates is the fact that Obama and Romney are so similar and that the Democratic and Republican parties work so hard to ensure that no other parties get into the debates. The debate committee (which was founded by the Dem and Rep parties) requires a candidate to get 15% in at least 5 national polls to get into a debate. With how much money there is, it is near impossible to get 15% - except for having a strong debate performance, which you are obviously prevented from doing by not having 15%. In fact, most national polls are in on the scam and do not even include any 3rd party candidates.
This video from a great local news anchor, Ben Swann, one of the few TV journalists who is actually willing to seek truth, highlights the flawed debate process.
On the issues that matter most to me - and anyone who cares about civil liberties - the two major party candidates agree, and not in a good way:
- both support NDAA (indefinite detention for US citizens without trial)
- both support the PATRIOT Act (warrantless wiretapping on US citizens)
- both support getting involved in more war in the Middle East (Iran)
- both support drone strikes to kill US citizens without trial (US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen by a drone strike on the grounds of suspected terrorism. He was never given an opportunity to stand trial. His Denver, CO born 16 year old son, who was not suspected of terrorism, was also killed. The order was given by President Obama)
- both likely support the new plan to have thousands of drones flying over US soil within the space of a few years.
None of the aforementioned things are conspiracy theory or conjecture. These are fact. And both Romney and Obama seem to think that those powers are ones that the government should have. They see no problem with the government being allowed to arbitrarily spy on, imprison, or even kill its own citizens.
These issues are not even discussed in the debates or by the mainstream media. Yet they are by far the most important issues in this election. Gary Johnson, the third highest-polling candidate, is on the right side of all of those issues. But he has been locked out of the debates and the national conversation by a two-party cartel. It is an abomination.
This video from a great local news anchor, Ben Swann, one of the few TV journalists who is actually willing to seek truth, highlights the flawed debate process.
On the issues that matter most to me - and anyone who cares about civil liberties - the two major party candidates agree, and not in a good way:
- both support NDAA (indefinite detention for US citizens without trial)
- both support the PATRIOT Act (warrantless wiretapping on US citizens)
- both support getting involved in more war in the Middle East (Iran)
- both support drone strikes to kill US citizens without trial (US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen by a drone strike on the grounds of suspected terrorism. He was never given an opportunity to stand trial. His Denver, CO born 16 year old son, who was not suspected of terrorism, was also killed. The order was given by President Obama)
- both likely support the new plan to have thousands of drones flying over US soil within the space of a few years.
None of the aforementioned things are conspiracy theory or conjecture. These are fact. And both Romney and Obama seem to think that those powers are ones that the government should have. They see no problem with the government being allowed to arbitrarily spy on, imprison, or even kill its own citizens.
These issues are not even discussed in the debates or by the mainstream media. Yet they are by far the most important issues in this election. Gary Johnson, the third highest-polling candidate, is on the right side of all of those issues. But he has been locked out of the debates and the national conversation by a two-party cartel. It is an abomination.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I like Gary Johnson, there is a decent chance I will vote for him (given I live in Texas and if it comes down to Mitt really needing my vote, he is toast anyway). I would like to see at least one debate where candidates that at least get on the ballot in 40+ states can participate. There needs to be some cutoff, otherwise you would have 20 people up there. That would usually at least mean the Green Party and the Libertarians would get at least one shot to express their views. Maybe Peace and Freedom (not sure if they are still around) and the Constitution Party as well ... it would maybe encourage better candidates for some of these parties.
The only way anyone has a shot at 15% would be if someone like Perot ran again (at least someone with his stature and money)
I would guess at least some of the issues you mentioned will come up in the Foreign Policy debate.
The only way anyone has a shot at 15% would be if someone like Perot ran again (at least someone with his stature and money)
I would guess at least some of the issues you mentioned will come up in the Foreign Policy debate.
425
Starblind
I would say that anyone who is on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the electoral college should be allowed in all the debates, period. I'm betting that of all the issues I mentioned, only Iran will be brought up in the foreign policy debate. All the others have been kept very quiet by the Dem/Rep parties and the mainstream media.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
If I understand the debate schedule correctly, one of them is supposed to be all foreign policy. I would assume topics would be Iran, Isreal/Palestine, Syria, Russia, China, Afghanistan/Iraq, and terrorism in general. I assume it will delve a bit back into the economy with talks about offshoring, trade agreements, and energy dependency.