Presidential debate thread

[Mad Mike]

Close. There's no good excuse for Obama's fumbling the ball last night. It was strategically dumb no matter what "excusing" spin supporters try to put on it. He handled himself poorly. He was improperly prepared. But it's done. It's far from lethal. They just let Romney back in the game more than they should on their own end.

If he had been any major GOP figure offering that level of effort, we non-GOPers would be all over him for such a poor showing. It really is a game and he fumbled on an important drive. It's hardly over, however and there's a lot to this game. It's not all shallow.

I expect his team to work on the obvious. Use fact-checks to eviscerate Romney's clear win on surface presentation (which still will yield only limited damage repair) and more importantly, prepare to kick his ass thoroughly next time where it counts---in those superficial but vital appearances.

He can keep to some substance on issues, but he needs to show some of his top-drawer campaign trail pizzazz. Oh, and have Biden (and I like/respect Smokin' Joe) kidnapped and hidden away until after the election.

I fully expect a better performance by Obama next time now that he has seen Romney's new "reasonable" persona.

And Romney... the dude would be one slick used car salesman. I could see him slipping from "youse guys" to "y'all" at the hint of a rebel flag on a customers car.

[DjTj]

I doubt, seeing how he's now being eviscerated by the media & etc., that O will play it safe in future debates.

As for the 47% lack on focus last night - why give Romney another chance to explain or apologize for it? The maximum damage has already been done.

That's not true at all. Millions of people tuned into the debates last night who have not been following the day-to-day election news cycle. And as SHF pointed out, I think that 90% of people in the U.S. don't really understand where the 47% number comes from and what it means.

If the best strategy is to not bring things up that have already been beaten to death on the campaign trail, why didn't Romney just ignore Obamacare last night?

[Gibbsisgod2006]

I don't think he's weak and I don't think his performance in the debate is reflective of his ability as president. He's gotten a lot of crap done despite facing a horrible economy, two unfinished vastly expensive wars, and the most oppositional and obstructionist congress since... probably ever. You can't do that without a backbone of steel.

And ultimately, I think the media will do the job of excoriating Romney for lying for Obama. That's the funny thing about telling lots of lies, you'll piss people off and they'll start calling you out on it. Has anyone focused on the false claims Obama made? There had to be some.

I doubt any of it matters though. I think the news cycles so fast these things play almost no factor in the way people actually vote when they are at the poll. Romney is an untrustworthy liar and shill for big business and the far right, or Obama is an untrustworthy socialist and redistributionist who wants government to own and control everything. That's what a lot of people will take with them to the polls.

He has done nothing but let Al Qaeda back in to Afghanistan and as regard to the Iraq war he was just following through with President Bush withdrawl plan that was already in place. President Obama also let US Ambasodor get killed on his watch by an act of terrorism as well.

[The Evil Genius]

Edited cause it said ****.

Humorous though.

[KCClybun]

He has done nothing but let Al Qaeda back in to Afghanistan and as regard to the Iraq war he was just following through with President Bush withdrawl plan that was already in place. President Obama also let US Ambasodor get killed on his watch by an act of terrorism as well.

Al Qaeda left Afghanistan? I don't think they ever left Afghanistan. And they likely won't leave Afghanistan unless we leave Afghanistan a giant smoking crater.

Our job in Afghanistan was to kill Osama bin Laden. That happened. Under the Obama administration there have also been several key members and figures of of Al Qaeda who have been eliminated. The notion that he "let someone get killed under his watch" is ridiculous, especially in the face of all the evidence that Dubya had about 9/11.

[Hersh]

He has done nothing but let Al Qaeda back in to Afghanistan and as regard to the Iraq war he was just following through with President Bush withdrawl plan that was already in place. President Obama also let US Ambasodor get killed on his watch by an act of terrorism as well.

So much is wrong with this statement but it's pretty clear that you hate Obama for whatever reason you've made up in your mind. I bet you voted for Bush in 2004 even though you might not admit it now.

[LadySkinsFan]

Where were the women and our issues? Are we not part of the domestic debate? I guess not. Obama had a huge opportunity to score major points with the largest electorate demographic (women) and nothing.

---------- Post added October-4th-2012 at 01:21 PM ----------

People, Bush didn't have a timetable to get out of Iraq; they kicked us out, set a deadline for us to be out, and when Obama tried to extend it, it was shot down.

Again, Iraq booted us out.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Al Qaeda left Afghanistan? I don't think they ever left Afghanistan. And they likely won't leave Afghanistan unless we leave Afghanistan a giant smoking crater.

Our job in Afghanistan was to kill Osama bin Laden. That happened. Under the Obama administration there have also been several key members and figures of of Al Qaeda who have been eliminated. The notion that he "let someone get killed under his watch" is ridiculous, especially in the face of all the evidence that Dubya had about 9/11.

Seriously it is ridiculous he allowed a US ambasador get killed were not talking about Bush were talking about President Obama who has blamed a stupid film for this act instead of taking repsonibility for it. OK they may have killed some top Al Queda officals but still the violence in Afganistan has gotten worse.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57522727/insider-attacks-kill-u.s-troops-in-afghanistan/?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

[Hersh]

And ultimately, I think the media will do the job of excoriating Romney for lying for Obama. That's the funny thing about telling lots of lies, you'll piss people off and they'll start calling you out on it. Has anyone focused on the false claims Obama made? There had to be some.

I actually disagree with you on what the media will do. Investigative journalism is almost completely dead and at the point that the media cares more about ratings than about substance. They want this to be close, it serves there best interest. Holding Romney and Obama accountable isn't good tv compared to a tight race. As I think you or someone else pointed out in this thread, all people talked about last night was the style Romney had with very few people talking about the lack of facts or his previous positions. If fact, when it was pointed out that Romney was factually off-base, it was dismissed as spin for Obama not showing more fight. Facts continue to be the biggest loser in this country.

[visionary]

I bet you voted for Bush in 2004 even though you might not admit it now.

LOL, this is kind of a weird accusation to make.

[Going Commando]

And Romney... the dude would be one slick used car salesman. I could see him slipping from "youse guys" to "y'all" at the hint of a rebel flag on a customers car.

The Don Draper affect works well for him.

Romney is how a Republican should look.

[Hersh]

Seriously it is ridiculous he allowed a US ambasador get killed were not talking about Bush were talking about President Obama who has blamed a stupid film for this act instead of taking repsonibility for it. OK they may have killed some top Al Queda officals but still the violence in Afganistan has gotten worse.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57522727/insider-attacks-kill-u.s-troops-in-afghanistan/?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

This is typical of people who know nothing about the history of Afghanistan. If you think that violence will stop someday in that country if we stay long enough than we will be there for the rest of time. I love how you are suggesting that Obama stand up and say it's his fault that a terrorist attack occurred but you had no problem voting for Bush after 9/11 happened. For the record, I don't blame Bush for 9/11 and I don't think anyone should. Terrorist acts are never going to stop.

---------- Post added October-4th-2012 at 05:27 PM ----------

LOL, this is kind of a weird accusation to make.

One of his arguments against Obama is that he let the US Ambassador die and thus people shouldn't vote for him. I just want to point out his obvious hypocrisy.

[KCClybun]

The Don Draper affect works well for him.

Romney is how a Republican should look.

Obvious, slimy, but almost admirable in their conviction and belief in their own crap?

[Gibbsisgod2006]

So much is wrong with this statement but it's pretty clear that you hate Obama for whatever reason you've made up in your mind. I bet you voted for Bush in 2004 even though you might not admit it now.

Really President Bush did not set a timetable for us getting out of Iraq prior to him leaving office? The ambasdor in Libya getting killed was not an act of Terrorism? I do not hate Obama at all but he has not been the savior that many has proclaimed him to be.

[KCClybun]

This was supposed to be an economy, deficit, spending, healthcare debate and I think it pretty much stayed on task. I think the subsequent debates will cover the special issues specifically relevant to the female demographic. Ditto for immigration and the Hispanic demo.

That and Mitt Romney, essentially, controlled the debate and steamrolled the moderator to the point that he couldn't really control the debate.

Romney worked the moderator and Obama with the ol' Palin "I'm not going to answer the questions you want me to answer" schtick, and it worked.

[Going Commando]

Where were the women and our issues? Are we not part of the domestic debate? I guess not. Obama had a huge opportunity to score major points with the largest electorate demographic (women) and nothing.

This was supposed to be an economy, deficit, spending, healthcare debate and I think it pretty much stayed on task. I think the subsequent debates will cover the special issues specifically relevant to the female demographic. Ditto for immigration and the Hispanic demo.

[KCClybun]

Really President Bush did not set a timetable for us getting out of Iraq prior to him leaving office? The ambasdor in Libya getting killed was not an act of Terrorism? I do not hate Obama at all but he has not been the savior that many has proclaimed him to be.

The only people who tend to pretend he's a savior are conservatives. He's not a savior.

[Bang]

The ambasdor in Libya getting killed was not an act of Terrorism? I do not hate Obama at all but he has not been the savior that many has proclaimed him to be.

Sounds like you expected him to dive in front of the grenade for the ambassador.

hate to break it to you, but this is what happens in wars. People get killed, and the closer they are to the front of things, the higher their risk.

Complaining that war causes casualties is preposterous.

~Bang

[LadySkinsFan]

Really President Bush did not set a timetable for us getting out of Iraq prior to him leaving office? The ambasdor in Libya getting killed was not an act of Terrorism? I do not hate Obama at all but he has not been the savior that many has proclaimed him to be.

No, Bush did not set a timetable to get out of Iraq, he was forced to sign an agreement with Iraq and Iraq set the timetable. Since Iraq is a sovereign nation and all, he couldn't do anything else but sign the agreement.

And BTW, USSR was in Afghanistan for 20 years and that war bankrupted the USSR leading directly to its downfall. So have we learned nothing? We should get out now and not waste one more penny there fighting the Taliban.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

This is typical of people who know nothing about the history of Afghanistan. If you think that violence will stop someday in that country if we stay long enough than we will be there for the rest of time. I love how you are suggesting that Obama stand up and say it's his fault that a terrorist attack occurred but you had no problem voting for Bush after 9/11 happened. For the record, I don't blame Bush for 9/11 and I don't think anyone should. Terrorist acts are never going to stop.

---------- Post added October-4th-2012 at 05:27 PM ----------

One of his arguments against Obama is that he let the US Ambassador die and thus people shouldn't vote for him. I just want to point out his obvious hypocrisy.

Really I have no clue about the history of Afghanistan? I was just deployed there for a year providing support to Combined Security Transition but I have no clue about the history. Secondly about the integrity that he would blame an idiotic film on the ambassador getting killed instead of taking responsibility for allowing it to happen. If he came out and took responsibility it would be a moot point I think that says a lot about character.

[LadySkinsFan]

This was supposed to be an economy, deficit, spending, healthcare debate and I think it pretty much stayed on task. I think the subsequent debates will cover the special issues specifically relevant to the female demographic. Ditto for immigration and the Hispanic demo.

As the largest electorate demographic, do not women have concerns about the economy, deficit, spending and healthcare?

[LadySkinsFan]

Really I have no clue about the history of Afghanistan? I was just deployed there for a year providing support to Combined Security Transition but I have no clue about the history. Secondly about the integrity that he would blame an idiotic film on the ambassador getting killed instead of taking responsibility for allowing it to happen. If he came out and took responsibility it would be a moot point I think that says a lot about character.

I posted in the killing of the ambassador thread because this is derailing the debate issue.

[Wrong Direction]

I have to admit that I'm getting a kick out of reading this thread. I can imagine conservative leaning sites with similar threads when Obama was waxing McCain. I do think that a lot of you have it wrong on why Romney won. Maybe looking at each other or how you stand at the podium matters a bit, but there were specific, substantive points that Obama couldn't rebut.

1. When Obama talked about the top 3% of small businesses as rich people who can have their taxes raised, Romney talked about the fact that they account for 50% of small business jobs and 25% of all jobs in America. It was spot on. Then Romney cited a study saying that that tax plan would cost 700,000 jobs. Obama wasn't prepared for that substance, and thus had no answer.

2. When Obama mentioned the admin costs of private versus public insurance. Romney said fine, if they really can do it cheaper, they'll win and nothing will change. That might have gone over people's heads, but it's an incredibly important substantive point in support of his proposed Medicare reform.

3. When Obama tried to point out his donut hole and preventive services coverage, Romney quickly pointed out that their were 15 times more cuts than new benefits, that 15% of hospitals were projected to drop out of the program if the $716 billion in cuts remained, that 4 million seniors were projected to lose their Medicare Advantage plan (another substantive official CBO data point), and he very effectively juxtaposed the cost of those new benefits with the failed Solyndra loans.

4. When Obama talked about tax breaks for oil companies, Romney eviscerated that liberal straw man of them all going to the Exxon-Mobils of the world, and then said that tax break could very well be on the table anyway. Obama couldn't respond because the entire talking point is a straw man in the first place. Credit budget chairman Ryan for knowing how to destroy that liberal point.

5. When Obama tried to make Romney out as a guy who didn't want to regulate Wall St., Romney destroyed that point and pointed specifically to 1) Obama's 5 too big to fail banks as a result of Dodd-Frank, 2) the fact that the Obama administration hasn't even issued regulations telling banks what constitutes a safe housing loan and 3) the 100+ small banks that have gone out of business. This substantive exchange left one wondering if even Obama would like to reform Dodd-Frank.

6. When Obama talked about tax breaks to offshore, Romney made it clear that doesn't exist. If it does, Obama certainly couldn't describe that law as a counter.

7. When Obama tried to say he was for domestic energy production, Romney immediately pointed out that the increase in production was in private lands, permits in public lands have gone down, where he'd expand production and he'd build the pipeline. Very substantive response.

8. On the issue of working with the other party, Romney gave a good example on taxes of how things could be negotiated and he pointed out how he was able to work with the other party to get things done, whereas the President has not. The president's only retort was that the Mass dems could teach Congress a thing or two. That may be true, but woe is me if very far from hope and change, and this point scored big for Romney.

Those who say Romney offered no specifics are fooling themselves. Obama didn't lose because of Romney platitudes or 7th grade debate coaching, he lost because he couldn't respond to specific critiques with substantive answers. This, coupled with the facts that employement is terrible, food stamps have gone up by 15 million people, 1 in 6 people are in poverty, and higher health insurance, food and gas prices (all specific data points that Romney knows inside and out), led to the evisceration of the man who has survived for the last 5 years on platitudes and misdirection.

By the way, Obama didn't mention 47% because his campaign feels it's best left to commercials where it can't be answered. If Romney gets 2 minutes to answer, he'll come across as very reasonable and he'll probably list 5 things he'd do for the middle class immediately. The Obama campaign doesn't want to give Romney that opportunity.

Looking forward, I think this sets up very well for Romney/Ryan. Biden will have to come out as an attack dog, but there's nobody better in this world at defending conservative positions than Paul Ryan. I think the Dems are already telegraphing their attacks (it doesn't add up, leopard is changing his spots) and the R's will be prepared to answer and to point out the lack of details from the Democrats on these issues too.

Therefore, the biggest land mine I see for Romney is his own next debate, where social/womens issues will be highlighted. After last night, I have no doubt that he'll be prepared.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

No, Bush did not set a timetable to get out of Iraq, he was forced to sign an agreement with Iraq and Iraq set the timetable. Since Iraq is a sovereign nation and all, he couldn't do anything else but sign the agreement.

And BTW, USSR was in Afghanistan for 20 years and that war bankrupted the USSR leading directly to its downfall. So have we learned nothing? We should get out now and not waste one more penny there fighting the Taliban.

This part of the status of forces agreement that was signed in 2008 by President Bush and was set in place prior to Preisdent Obama getting elected.

[Going Commando]

Obvious, slimy, but almost admirable in their conviction and belief in their own crap?

It's his magnificent haircut and boardroom demeanor.

Everything about me is presidential. You may not even know why' date=' but you’ve all thought it, and that’s no accident. I’ve been designed precisely for this moment. I’m a hybrid of every classic American presidential hairstyle since the 1930s. Roosevelt’s fatherly gray temples. Kennedy’s insouciant bouffant. Reagan’s lethal, revolutionary amalgam of feathering and pomade.[/quote']

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/mitt-romneys-haircut-will-not-be-denied