Presidential debate thread

[DjTj]

Romney can easily tweak his tax plan to make the numbers add up. Money is fungible. Just because one analysis acts like they've considered every option doesn't mean they have. For example, if Romney lowers the tax rate for the top earners from 35 to 27 instead of 25 (or whatever the exact numbers are), what does that do to the overall math? It's still a cut and politically he could definitely maintain his cred with the right if he did it.

Bottom line is that Romney has been saying his tax cut will be revenue neutral for more than a year.

I'm pretty sure that Obamacare was supposed to be revenue neutral.

Calling something revenue neutral is the biggest lie going in politics today.

[Going Commando]

Does Romney's tax plan remind anyone else of Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war? Basically, he doesn't have a ****ing plan, but he hopes you're too dumb to realize it.

And that BS about Romney refusing to disclose the details so he preserves flexibility to negotiate with Dems is garbage. If he's so committed to preserving flexibility, why did he sign a pledge refusing to increase taxes under ANY circumstances whatsoever?

Absolutely.

I don't follow the politics of the election super closely and am not as informed as many, but it seemed obvious to me Romney has no plan. I'll repeal Dodd-Frank. I'll repeal Obamacare. I'll cut taxes but raise revenue by closing those silly loopholes in the tax code. I'll grow the economy. I'll work with democrats on day one for bipartisan solutions. (I just have no ****ing clue how I'm going to do all of that, and hope you all don't realize that)

But I suppose that, since I remembered those specific messages, Romney accomplished his goal. Too bad I also observed he's a shameless liar. Or startingly and dangerously naive. Or both.

[DjTj]

No Clinton raising taxes wasn't the reason our economy rocked. It was the .com boom. Maybe you aren't familiar with that boom and why it helped economy.

Yes, I agree that the boom was the reason the economy grew. But the reason that the budget was balanced was because of the internet boom and the fact that Clinton had raised taxes. Growing economy + reasonable tax rates = balanced budget.

We also had a boom During the Bush administration. But since we had cut taxes so dramatically, the improved economy did not result in a proportional increase in tax revenue. Growing economy + low taxes = continued deficits.

We can't just cut taxes all the time. We will never balance the budget if we just keep cutting taxes. Raise taxes and cut spending, and when the economy gets better, that will help us balance the budget.

[Going Commando]

I think the problem with Obama was that he sounded confused and stumbled a lot of the time, making way too many vocal fillers though maybe less so at the end.

Obama has always spoken like this. Remember all of the Republican talk about how stupid Obama must be early in his presidency because of how often he pauses and uses vocal fillers in his responses?

It's actually the sign of a mind working too fast for the mouth to communicate it's ideas. It's a tactic an active mind weighing it's words uses to slow down speech and avoid inaccuracy. It's basically the way a college professor would talk.

That's a turnoff for people apparently.

[chipwhich]

We also had a boom During the Bush administration. But since we had cut taxes so dramatically, the improved economy did not result in a proportional increase in tax revenue. Growing economy + low taxes = continued deficits.

We can't just cut taxes all the time. We will never balance the budget if we just keep cutting taxes. Raise taxes and cut spending, and when the economy gets better, that will help us balance the budget.

Actually we had no boom during Bush anywhere close to Clinton. Not even sniffing it.

We can balance the budget with economic boom, or not balance it with economic fail. Tax policy will NEVER balance a budget.

You create jobs or you don't. Nothing else needs to be said.

[Duckus]

I did think Obama's line on bipartisanship was pretty funny.

Romney plans to work with Democrats from Day 1 . . . . . right after repealing every word ACA.

That will go over well.

[chipwhich]

Either he's full of it and doesn't have a plan, or he's chicken **** and won't reveal it because it will alienate some people.

We know Obama's plan, so your point is?

[Madison Redskin]

Romney can easily tweak his tax plan to make the numbers add up. Money is fungible. Just because one analysis acts like they've considered every option doesn't mean they have. For example, if Romney lowers the tax rate for the top earners from 35 to 27 instead of 25 (or whatever the exact numbers are), what does that do to the overall math? It's still a cut and politically he could definitely maintain his cred with the right if he did it.

Bottom line is that Romney has been saying his tax cut will be revenue neutral for more than a year.

Either he's full of it and doesn't have a plan, or he's chicken **** and won't reveal it because it will alienate some people.

[KCClybun]

The problem with Obama was that he sounded confused and stumbled a lot of the time, making way too many vocal fillers though maybe less so at the end.

I don't think he did.

I think he's always been measured and very careful about what he says. I noticed that in 2008---using a lot of pauses, and "uh's". He's always been careful---perhaps too careful---about not saying the wrong thing.

It's easy for the guy who's done nothing but debate prep for like three months to come in with his schtick memorized. The Mitt Romney clearly is still in the mindset of the primary season---that if you win the debates, you win the Presidency. People felt like McCain came out looking on the better in the first and third debate; the only one where McCain faultered was the town hall debate. Ultimately, though, the debates didn't matter.

Romney has been a primary mindset since jump. He's never waivered from campaigning like he's still campaigning in the primaries, and in the primaries, the debates sort of matter. Nationally...meh? I think Obama was taken back by the tone early, and then rebounded and was a little more forceful later.

At any rate I never thought the first debate was some sort of shoe-in for Barack Obama like everyone else did. Everyone wanted Obama to go all American History X and curb stomp Romney. That didn't happen. Still have two to go.

I don't think he sounded confused though. Even with the vocal fillers, he talked enough substance that you could tell he knew his ****.

[Madison Redskin]

We can balance the budget with economic boom, or not balance it with economic fail. Tax policy will NEVER balance a budget.

You create jobs or you don't. Nothing else needs to be said.

I agree, but I'm not sure Mitt does. He explicitly said that he'd address the budget via his tax policies (which would create jobs).

[chipwhich]

I don't think he sounded confused though. Even with the vocal fillers, he talked enough substance that you could tell he knew his ****.

I love politics.

Romney has been a DISASTER as a candidate. Everyone on his side can admit it.

Tonight he made Obama look dumb.

Don't make excuses. 1 person knew his **** and it wasn't Obama.

Score 1 for Romney....a FIRST.

[visionary]

I keep seeing people tonight here and on twitter say that McCain supposedly won the debates in 2008, but I don't remember that at all, and I'm not sure that's true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2008

[Teller]

That was an unmitigated, absolute beatdown.

I watched CNN all night, just to avoid the usual FAUX accusations. Their poll of registered voters who watched the entire debate ended up 67% to 25% for Romney.

Could not possibly have gone better for Mitt.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I keep seeing people tonight here and on twitter say that McCain supposedly won the debates in 2008, but I don't remember that at all, and I'm not sure that's true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2008

Yeah, that is true. Obama is not the best debater. That's not a secret.

He lost some debates to Hillary as well as McCain.

It's just not his strength.

[visionary]

Yeah, that is true. Obama is not the best debater. That's not a secret.

He lost some debates to Hillary as well as McCain.

I don't think he did lose to McCain.

I don't know where people are getting that from.

I don't like Romney, but let's not make excuses for Obama when he ****s up.

I hope he does better next time, because I don't exactly trust Romney.

It will be good if Romney can push him to improve though.

[KCClybun]

I love politics.

Romney has been a DISASTER as a candidate. Everyone on his side can admit it.

Tonight he made Obama look dumb.

Don't make excuses. 1 person knew his **** and it wasn't Obama.

Score 1 for Romney....a FIRST.

Made him look dumb how?

Again...this is the same stuff conservatives said time around. "Look at the vocal fillers. He doesn't look like he knows what he's talking about."

And yet people voted for him or President.

Despite what Mitt Romney did, Obama explained, in detail, and at length at times, what his policies would and what his policies had done. For example, when Mitt Romney kept harranging him on this death-panel-esque "board of unelected officials who make decisions on your health care", Obama very carefully explained what it actually was. Now that didn't stop Mitt from repeating the same lie over and over again, but he did explain it, and he did go into detail about it.

I don't think he sounded confused at all. The "he's confused, he used vocal fillers and pauses and doesn't know what he's saying" thing has been around since last election cycle.

Romney accomplished his only goal tonight---to not look like a complete buffoon. He came out with fire and managed to actually look human, so yes, that is a win for a campaign that has been drowned in the stupid things Romney has said and done. Like I said, Romney's campaign has made the political calculation that the way you win your way into the White House is by winning the debates, and he'll see a little bump in the polls, and the liberal media can whine for the next week about how Obama didn't attack enough (just like they did in 2008) and the conservative media can swoon about how Mitt Romney finally grew a set and took on Obama head on (just like they did with McCain in 2008).

At the end of the day we'll see if the "win the debates to win the Presidency" thing works.

[Going Commando]

I did think Obama's line on bipartisanship was pretty funny.

Romney plans to work with Democrats from Day 1 . . . . . right after repealing every word ACA.

That will go over well.

It was a good line. But the problem was its delivery. It was too casual and light. He should have been more dripping and emotive IMO. Obama gets criticized for being aloof and professorial. But I think it's an issue of being too subtle. Being annoyed with having to get his hands dirty lowering himself to the fray.

People don't listen to the words these guys say, they sense the emotion behind the words. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Obama isn't good at convincing people because he tries to reason with you on fine points and thinks you're sharp enough to catch his drift. Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average person.

[KCClybun]

I don't think he did lose to McCain.

I don't know where people are getting that from.

I don't like Romney, but let's not make excuses for Obama when he ****s up.

The way I remember it, in the first debate, Obama and McCain essentially tied. Joe Biden and Sarah Palin essentially tied just because Palin didn't fall flat on her face. In the Town Hall, Obama won, and on foreign policy, I think McCain won, ish.

I don't think he "****ed up" in the sense that this is an unmitigated disaster. I don't think he's the best debater in the world, and I think he got the wind knocked out of his sails a bit by Romney. But if I'm going to admit Obama didn't bring his A-game, let's also not act like Mitt didn't just tell several bold face lies to the American people, of which each and every one will be dissected over the next week, whatever bump in the polls that he sees in this.

[KCClybun]

It was a good line. But the problem was its delivery. It was too casual and light. He should have been more dripping and emotive IMO. Obama gets criticized for being aloof and professorial. But I think it's an issue of being too subtle. Being annoyed with having to get his hands dirty lowering himself to the fray.

Bingo.

There were several times when I could tell he wanted to just say Mitt was lying, but he always takes the tempered, more measured approach. Against John McCain he appeared more thoughtful against McCain's sort of grumpy old man schtick and his eye rolling and visible disdain.

In a lot of ways, he is still a professor. (In the literal since, not in the "you're a dirty elitist snob how dare you teach people thing"). I pointed out before that he never straight up accused Mitt Romney of not lying. Instead, he would explain what Romney was actually lying about. But I just kept wishing that, at the very least, if he didn't come straight up say "YOU LIE!", he'd at least say "Mitt, what you're saying simply isn't true" or "what your saying is not based on the facts presented." He was right on the ragged edge of coming right out and saying it, but he never did.

[visionary]

The way I remember it, in the first debate, Obama and McCain essentially tied. Joe Biden and Sarah Palin essentially tied just because Palin didn't fall flat on her face. In the Town Hall, Obama won, and on foreign policy, I think McCain won, ish.

I don't think he "****ed up" in the sense that this is an unmitigated disaster. I don't think he's the best debater in the world, and I think he got the wind knocked out of his sails a bit by Romney. But if I'm going to admit Obama didn't bring his A-game, let's also not act like Mitt didn't just tell several bold face lies to the American people, of which each and every one will be dissected over the next week, whatever bump in the polls that he sees in this.

Looking at wiki it seems like McCain sort of won the foreign policy portions and Obama won everything else.

I guess it depends on what people pay attention to more, fact checking or debates.

I don't think Obama did as bad as some pundits do, but I was surprised at how off balance he looked and sounded.

That's not good considering the narrative of him being weak or indecisive.

He needs to come out and show his strength a bit.

Hopefully in the next debates he'll do so...and with more honesty than Romney.

Of course he also has to do it without overdoing it and giving Romney an opening.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Text conversation with my Mitt Romney source (who is high enough in the campaign that he has Mitt's personal cell # and Mitt has him on speed dial)

SHF: Game changer tonight?

Mitt's guy: Romney did better, but not game changer better. He looked smart and Presidential which was the main goal

Next text from Mitt's guy: He looked sane and reasonable.

[KCClybun]

I guess it depends on what people pay attention to more, fact checking or debates.

I don't think Obama did as bad as some pundits do, but I was surprised at how off balance he looked and sounded.

That's not good considering the narrative of him being weak or indecisive.

He needs to come out and show his strength a bit.

Hopefully in the next debates he'll do so...and with more honesty than Romney.

I think the "weak and indecisive" thing is a talking point that's largely been washed away by his two landmark pieces of legislation. Conservatives tend to run on the fact that Obama decided from day one that he was going to ram these things through Congress and that there was no stopping him---it's sort of hard to run on him being weak and indecisive when you're also trying to run on the fact that he came into the Presidency having already made up his mind that he was going to ram through his legislation whether the American people wanted it or not.

I do think the Town Hall format is one that formats Obama more than it favors Romney. Romney's fire and vigor could come off as uncaring in that format. But I think the Town Hall is a perfect format for someone who, basically, is a teacher.

And once again, I didn't notice that he sounded any different than he did in 2008, or any different than he does in interviews. He's careful and measured all the time.

Just to give an example; the whole "you didn't build that" thing. That was Barack Obama not being measured, not taking careful consideration into exactly what he was saying. In essence he ripped a line from Elizabeth Warren about how business thrive and the economy grows because of American collectivism. What came out in that speech was inarticulate, and what did the right do? They pounced on the "You didn't build that" thing, even though that wasn't not what Obama said.

What we have is a case study where every single word the man uses is scrutinized. So he's very careful and mindful of what he says, so he does not give the right some new "thing" to flog half to death, while also trying desperately to avoid the "angry black man" tag that some conservatives seem desperate to pin on him.

[Guest Spearfeather]

A CNN telephone survey of 430 registered voters who were questioned after watching the contest handed an even more decisive victory to Romney: 67 percent said he won the debate, compared to only 25 percent who said the same of Obama.

The CBS poll also showed Romney making clear strides in improving his likeability, with 56 percent of those surveyed saying their opinions of him had changed for the better. He saw a huge jump – 30 percent – in the number of uncommitted voters who said Romney cares about their needs and problems. Before the debate, 30 percent agreed with the statement. Afterward, that number rose to 63 percent. Sixty-nine percent of those surveyed said the same of Obama, up from 53 percent before the debate.

The CNN poll actually found Romney leading on likeability among the poll respondents, with 46 percent saying Romney was more likeable and 45 percent choosing Obama. Fifty-eight percent also deemed Romney the stronger leader, compared to 37 percent for Obama.

Romney also far exceeded expectations, while the opposite was true of Obama. Among registered voters surveyed by CNN, 82 percent said the former Massachusetts governor exceeded their expectations, but 61 percent said the president did worse than expected.

The one silver lining for the Obama campaign may be that nearly half of respondents in the CNN poll – 47 percent - said that the debate didn’t make them more likely to vote for either candidate. But Romney also won on that measure, with 35 percent saying the matchup made them more likely to vote for him. Only 18 percent said the same of the president.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/post-debate-polls-of-voters-declare-romney-the-winner-20121003

[visionary]

I think the "weak and indecisive" thing is a talking point that's largely been washed away by his two landmark pieces of legislation. Conservatives tend to run on the fact that Obama decided from day one that he was going to ram these things through Congress and that there was no stopping him---it's sort of hard to run on him being weak and indecisive when you're also trying to run on the fact that he came into the Presidency having already made up his mind that he was going to ram through his legislation whether the American people wanted it or not.

Actually I think he is indecisive and overly compromising at times and even liberals have said as such that he hasn't been a strong enough advocate of his own policies.

(which also can hurt in international dealings and I think is a problem at times)

It is ironic that conservatives also use that idea though at the same time they try to portray him as forcing his agenda on America...which is kind of silly.

[Going Commando]

Bingo.

There were several times when I could tell he wanted to just say Mitt was lying, but he always takes the tempered, more measured approach. Against John McCain he appeared more thoughtful against McCain's sort of grumpy old man schtick and his eye rolling and visible disdain.

In a lot of ways, he is still a professor. (In the literal since, not in the "you're a dirty elitist snob how dare you teach people thing"). I pointed out before that he never straight up accused Mitt Romney of not lying. Instead, he would explain what Romney was actually lying about. But I just kept wishing that, at the very least, if he didn't come straight up say "YOU LIE!", he'd at least say "Mitt, what you're saying simply isn't true" or "what your saying is not based on the facts presented." He was right on the ragged edge of coming right out and saying it, but he never did.

I fully agree.

I think Romney won the debate because they aren't about substance, where I think Obama beat him. They're about impressions and keeping on the messages you want. I think Romney looked bad at a couple of points, looked ugly talking over Jim Lehrer and belittling him and he stumbled with a couple of his pivots, making them too obvious. I can't remember what question it was, one of the final ones, he also gave a bad answer and lost his track. But in general, his performance was very successful because he set the tone of the debate throughout much of it while Obama's was more passive and forgettable. People will forget the specifics that Obama won on almost immediately, all they will remember are impressions. And the general impression people will remember from this is Romney surprisingly funny, vigorous and polished, and suddenly legitimate while Obama looked thoughtful and peeved to have to stoop to deal with Romney's BS.

But looking back, this was probably an un-winnable debate for Obama. It was an economy debate when everyone and their mother thinks that's the major barrier to his reelection, and the challenger always gets a bump in debates from being starkly legitimized by standing on the same stage as the leader of the free world. It quite literally equates them.

I don't think it'll matter much in the end. Elections come down to demographics and its hard to shift them from one party to another. And Obama has always been "above the fray," and lets his allies like Clinton and Biden do that type of fighting for him. And it works for him. I doubt he needs to change that up for the debates, and doing so could end up hurting him. Being a chameleon and shifting for expediency is why nobody trusts Romney.

Still, I feel like this was a missed opportunity for Obama to point out Romney is, by turns, a snake oil salesman and/or living in la la land. He hinted at it with "you have to have a plan to actually be a leader" and "you have to be able to use compromise and balance to get things done" (hammer that 2.5 dollars in cuts for 1 dollar in revenue point home versus Romney going on record as saying he wouldn't have supported drastically lesser compromise). He didn't drive that home though, and it got swept up.