Presidential debate thread

[visionary]

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.

You bring up some interesting points, but are you sure that most people who watched saw things the same way you did?

I haven't really seen anyone go into these specific details as for the reason why they thought Romney won. Although I suppose these could add up subconciously to the idea that most seem to have that Obama looked unprepared, off balance, or unhappy to be there.

[Going Commando]

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

Should they be presented differently from the way they would for men? Those issues are not special interests for men.

I guess I'm not sure what either candidate or the moderator should have done differently to appeal specifically to women regarding those topics.

[Jumbo]

As LSF indicated and very responsibly facilitated, the place for an extended exchange over Afghanistan is for another thread. Back to topic.

[Wrong Direction]

You bring up some interesting points, but are you sure that most people who watched saw things the same way you did?

I haven't really seen anyone go into these specific details as for the reason why they thought Romney won. Although I suppose these could add up subconciously to the idea that most seem to have that Obama looked unprepared, off balance, or unhappy to be there.

I think Romney appeared more presidential and confident because he is more presidential and confident in his positions. It's the strength of his points that made him that way, not his posture. Maybe that's a better way to put it?

[Hersh]

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.

How long was the USSR there? When has Afghanistan ever been successfully occupied?

So Obama allowed someone to get killed?? Did Bush allow 9/11 to happen? Did Obama allow insider killings? That's all pure craziness.

---------- Post added October-4th-2012 at 06:07 PM ----------

As LSF indicated and very responsibly facilitated, the place for an extended exchange over Afghanistan is for another thread. Back to topic.

My bad.

[LadySkinsFan]

Should they be presented differently from the way they would for men? Those issues are not special interests for men.

I guess I'm not sure what either candidate or the moderator should have done differently to appeal specifically to women regarding those topics.

Women's issues on these topics are different because we don't get paid the same (Lily Leadbetter Act), we shoulder the childcare issues (getting outside childcare, women are proportionally more likely to stay home with a sick child etc.), they are more likely to have 1 or more part-time jobs where benefits are not provided by their employers, any tax increase will directly affect them and their children on a proportionally higher rate because of lower wages, if the safety net spending is cut, it will affect women and children more and I could go on.

But women aren't as important as men in patriarchy, so it's just normal for women to be relegated to 2nd class status, and our concerns are to be ignored in favor of the "larger picture" that directly affects men.

[Beygo]

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.

I don't think Romeny has been specific enough. For example he plans to lower our tax burden by 20% and make up the difference by reducing or eleminating deductions. I've heard that the home mortgage interest deduction is on the table. That particular deduction will affect me if it is eleminated. He needs to tell us what he plans on doing, not just say "trust me".

Do you know what specific deductions he will target to make up for the 20% reduction?

[Jumbo]

Guy summed it up fairly well IMO for a yahoo (no joke intended) level view.

http://news.yahoo.com/after-the-debate-debacle-for-obama--we%E2%80%99ll-find-out-if-we-have-a-race.html

And I think WD's worthy time/effort post should be noticed.

---------- Post added October-4th-2012 at 11:12 AM ----------

My bad.

You're always trouble.

:pfft:

[Mad Mike]

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.

He didn't "let" our ambassador get killed any more than bush "let" 3000 americans die on 9/11. Nor did he "let" Al Qaeda back into Afghanistan.

Yours is one of the dumbest attacks on Obama I have seen yet. I feel more stupid for having read it. :doh:

[DjTj]

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.

I think this was a great post, WD, and I agree with you that Obama lost on the substance last night. There were available rebuttals to many of the points made by Romney, but Obama seemed unprepared or uninterested in providing them.

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.

Obama's campaign actually rebutted this study back in July, so there is no excuse for Obama failing to respond to this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/17/fact-check-industry-financed-study-gets-president-s-tax-cuts-wrong

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.

I thought that Obama did an okay job of responding to this, but he definitely could have done better. Insuring old and dying people is fundamentally unprofitable, so allowing private insurance into Medicare would result in companies covering the healthier and younger seniors at lower rates while older and sicker seniors have to pay more. That is *fair* in market terms, but not fair in the way we want to treat our seniors.

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.

I thought this was a little bit of a stretch for Romney, and Obama responded to this okay by explaining what the "cuts" really were, and that the AARP supports his plan.

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.

This was a cheap point by Obama and was well deflected by Romney, but I don't think that Romney's retort will register with anyone other than die-hard conservatives.

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.

This whole discussion got very wonky, and Obama should have done better in defending what had to be done during the financial crisis in 2008-09. At the end of the day, I think this was kind of a wash, and Romney didn't really explain what he would do either.

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.

Obama definitely should have countered this by pointing out that the Democrats tried to pass a bill changing the tax code to remove deductions when jobs are moved offshore, but Republicans blocked it. It's not a specific deduction for moving offshore, but the same deductions apply whether you are moving a plant to Texas or to Mexico. There was a Democratic bill to change our tax laws to treat those differently. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575520091126205702.html

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.

I think that Romney overstated his numbers here, but this is not an issue that will likely move the needle much, and I was okay with Obama ignoring it.

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.

I thought this was where Obama really dropped the ball. Obama should have said that the very first thing he did when he got into office was to work across the aisle and pass the stimulus bill. That had strong bipartisan support, and he even had the support of President Bush in the bailout. But at the beginning of Obama's second term, the Republican Congress has explicitly said that they won't compromise, and the failure to work across the aisle has been as much their fault as his.

I think Obama will come out a lot stronger in the next debate, but this was definitely a big missed opportunity. He himself has admitted that he has not done well at explaining his policies to the American people, and it is about time to get better.

---------- Post added October-4th-2012 at 02:20 PM ----------

I think Romney appeared more presidential and confident because he is more presidential and confident in his positions. It's the strength of his points that made him that way, not his posture. Maybe that's a better way to put it?

I think Romney was just better prepared. The Obama campaign already had rebuttals to most of Romney's points, but Obama did not appear prepared to make them at the debate.

[Wrong Direction]

I don't think Romeny has been specific enough. For example he plans to lower our tax burden by 20% and make up the difference by reducing or eleminating deductions. I've heard that the home mortgage interest deduction is on the table. That particular deduction will affect me if it is eleminated. He needs to tell us what he plans on doing, not just say "trust me".

Do you know what specific deductions he will target to make up for the 20% reduction?

I think he has been specific on a whole lot of things, probably the least of which is taxes. I honestly think it's impossible to tell everyone what deductions you'll get rid of because 1) he's open to negotiating that point and 2) if he does then the Dems will just use every single one as a wedge issue. It's not strategically smart. I also think Romney over-promised on taxes. I don't think he can do the full 20% AND keep capital gains taxes that low in a TAX neutral plan. However, he said the plan would be deficit neutral, not tax neutral. In the end, he'll end up either 1) tailor the specifics in a way that makes it tax neutral (smaller cuts) or 2) include spending cuts so the CBO views it as deficit neutral.

I think it'll have to be #1, but time will tell. The important thing here is he's cleaning up the tax code that was bought and paid for by lobbyists. That has a lot of value beyond CBO score. Watch the Ryan debate. He'll explain this as well as anyone can.

[pointyfootball]

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

Are you saying they should have singled out exactly how women were going to be affected by "economy, deficit, spending and healthcare"? I personally think they should do what's best for the country and not for a specific group of people, unless there is a topic that affects that group only.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

How long was the USSR there? When has Afghanistan ever been successfully occupied?

So Obama allowed someone to get killed?? Did Bush allow 9/11 to happen? Did Obama allow insider killings? That's all pure craziness.

---------- Post added October-4th-2012 at 06:07 PM ----------

My bad.

We’re talking about an Ambassador getting killed I am glad that you do see this as a big deal. No but policy and the people that he has put in place are to a certain extent responsible for these actions. The Rand Corporation back in 2008 did a report on why the USSR was not successful in Afghanistan and the main reason was becasue of Pakistan and how many of the mujadin were able to regroup in Pakistan. However, I could go on and on but this has gone off topic so we will have to agree to disagree.

[88Comrade2000]

FOX news can't be serious with this "bias" B.S. I don't think I've seen them post a positive article about Obama in the last 3 months. What a joke of a news service.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/04/liberals-freak-out-after-obama-poor-debate-performance/

They aren't a news service, just like MSNBC. CNN is a news service. The other 2 are opinion channels from the right and left with occasional news as filler.

[Jumbo]

Here's another one I found interesting, and following a strategy I and others envisioned during the debate.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20121002/US.Obama/

Obama challenges Romney's candor post-debate

DENVER — Looking for a quick recovery from a disappointing debate, President Barack Obama questioned the identity of the "real" Mitt Romney on Thursday, suggesting his Republican rival had not been candid about his policy positions while on stage.

"Gov. Romney may dance around his positions but if you want to be president, you owe the American people the truth," Obama said at a post-debate rally.

Obama's aggressive stand came as his campaign conceded he will have to adjust his debate style. Wednesday's night event was widely viewed as a win for Romney and a lost opportunity for Obama to connect with the American people as national polls had showed him with a slight advantage heading into their first debate.

Obama said that when he reached the debate stage "I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney. But it couldn't have been Mitt Romney," Obama said, adding that the "real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night said he didn't know anything about that."

The president also accused Romney of misrepresenting past statements on education and outsourcing. In tough comments, the president said Romney "does not want to be held accountable ... because he knows full well that we don't want what he's selling."

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/04/962501/romney-campaign-chair-on-obama-when-youre-not-that-bright-you-cant-get-better-prepared/

Romney Campaign Chair On Obama: ‘When You’re Not That Bright You Can’t Get Better Prepared’

[wshngtn1]

Did anybody catch Obama's details on creating jobs? Or was that what he told us to go read online? Being serious here....I don't recall anything.

[Hersh]

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.

How did small businesses ever make money when Bill Clinton was President?

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.

So what is Romney for? Is he acknowledging that private insurance have higher administrative costs but still wants to move seniors there?

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.

Medicare was extended 8 years under Obama's plan. Is Romney planning on cutting anything or just means testing Medicare? AKA redistribution

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.

And yet Republicans in Congress refuse to eliminate it. Why is that?

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.

Romney has stated he wanted to repeal all of Dodd-Frank. Now he is singing the praises of some of it. This is a new line of thinking on his part and the part of Republicans?

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.

There is a loophole which allows companies to get tax credits on taxes paid to overseas countries whether or not they US company brings that money back and pays taxes on it. Hope that makes sense. Not sure if it truly encourages outsourcing

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.

Production on federal land increased last year. You know where it decreased? Offshore. Any guess as to why?

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.

Yes, the House GOP was very willing to compromise. So was the Senate GOP for that matter. That's completely disingenuous on your part.

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.

Addressed your comments point by point above. Last thing on specifics, since I've been asking Republican/conservatives to explain, how does Romney pay for his tax cuts? How does he also increase military spending, apparently now will increase education funding and decrease the deficit let alone balance the budget? Furthermore, how will people with pre-existing conditions get to have health insurance if the amount of people on health care isn't broadened by the mandate? I'd love to know.

[Jumbo]

Did anybody catch Obama's details on creating jobs? Or was that what he told us to go read online? Being serious here....I don't recall anything.

I noticed the first fact check article I saw right after the debate took both speakers to task. Both had vagaries or made "shaky" statements, it wasn't just Romney, though he had more questionable comments in total. I don't remember which article it was though, sorry.

[Hersh]

I also think Romney over-promised on taxes.

This is what he does on every single issue. I heard one great line last night on PBS saying that Romney's plan was offering chocolate sundaes for dinner. No pain or sacrifice. I believe that if Mitt had come forward with detail business plans and not felt the need to cater to everyone, he'd be winning.

[Wrong Direction]

Obama's campaign actually rebutted this study back in July, so there is no excuse for Obama failing to respond to this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/17/fact-check-industry-financed-study-gets-president-s-tax-cuts-wrong

I think Romney's specific mention of raising taxes on small businesses that employ 25% of Americans threw him off. His previous response is not nearly that specific and Obama was unprepared to go back to that macro-level point.

Insuring old and dying people is fundamentally unprofitable, so allowing private insurance into Medicare would result in companies covering the healthier and younger seniors at lower rates while older and sicker seniors have to pay more. That is *fair* in market terms, but not fair in the way we want to treat our seniors.

This point doesn't stand scrutiny because any plan for seniors adds huge hidden subsidies designed to make the individual insurable that the senior never sees. Traditional Medicare gets them and private Medicare plans get the. Also, Medicare has open enrollment, so plans won't be able to cherry pick. Finally, Medicare has minimum coverage criteria, so it's not like a plan can just not offer access to doctors, or expensive drugs, or whatever. The plans have to meet those criteria and they're subject to audit at least once every three years. There are a ton of consumer protections built in there.

This was a cheap point by Obama and was well deflected by Romney, but I don't think that Romney's retort will register with anyone other than die-hard conservatives.

You might be right, but I think people of every political stripe have heard this point for several years and now will dismiss it. It was a small battle won in the war of public debates.

This whole discussion got very wonky, and Obama should have done better in defending what had to be done during the financial crisis in 2008-09. At the end of the day, I think this was kind of a wash, and Romney didn't really explain what he would do either.

Here too, I think Romney made an extremely smart point that will register with a certain subset of voters. When you point out that the government hasn't told banks what is and isn't a safe loan, people's ears perk up. We all know housing is struggling and banks aren't offering a lot of loans. This is a potential reason why and it's directly attributable to Obama. His lack of retort here was terrible, assuming he has a reason for his positions.

Obama definitely should have countered this by pointing out that the Democrats tried to pass a bill changing the tax code to remove deductions when jobs are moved offshore, but Republicans blocked it. It's not a specific deduction for moving offshore, but the same deductions apply whether you are moving a plant to Texas or to Mexico. There was a Democratic bill to change our tax laws to treat those differently. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575520091126205702.html

Yup. Obama just blew this one. It will come back up for sure.

I thought this was where Obama really dropped the ball. Obama should have said that the very first thing he did when he got into office was to work across the aisle and pass the stimulus bill. That had strong bipartisan support, and he even had the support of President Bush in the bailout.

The Recovery Act got 0 Republican votes in the house and 3 in the Senate, and it didn't work. Obama doesn't want to highlight this because Romney will proudly say that R's didn't vote for the bill that didn't work.

I think Romney was just better prepared. The Obama campaign already had rebuttals to most of Romney's points, but Obama did not appear prepared to make them at the debate.

Substance of those rebuttals aside, I agree. Obama's team totally failed to anticipate the responses Romney would bring to this debate.

[Going Commando]

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/04/962501/romney-campaign-chair-on-obama-when-youre-not-that-bright-you-cant-get-better-prepared/

That was a mistake. The Obama is lazy and stupid and disaffected tact is going to reflect poorly on the Romney campaign if that's a message they stick to.

[Hdf561]

My issue with Obama is that he has stated he wants to go back to the policies under Cinton. Well....

Two things Clinton did was repeal the Glass-Stiegle Act which lead to the economic collapse of 2008 and spearheaded NAFTA which made out sourcing of products and jobs cheaper thus contributing to the current job crisis we currently have.

So NONE of that sounds good to me. Both of there health care plans are not very good in my opinion but the economic policies are very different and Obama has no true plan for getting us more jobs or getting us out of the financial funk we are in. Any upswing in either area has been sure luck in my opinion at this point not any skill on his part.

[88Comrade2000]

I think the first debate should've been the town hall debate. The second debate foreign policy and the third debate should've been domestic issues.

Also, regarding other candidates- for the future I think at least for the first debate you include the candidates that are on the ballot of at least 40 states and where they are well over the 270 electoral vote margin. Then after that, you can go based on getting at least 10% in the polls.

I think it's clear SNL's skit will have a Jim Lehrer focus to it and there's bound to be something about Big Bird, either in the debate skit or they could have a separate Big Bird skit.

[Wrong Direction]

This is what he does on every single issue. I heard one great line last night on PBS saying that Romney's plan was offering chocolate sundaes for dinner. No pain or sacrifice. I believe that if Mitt had come forward with detail business plans and not felt the need to cater to everyone, he'd be winning.

He'd have never been nominated, which is an important point, and all politicians over promise on every issue. Obama on employment, deficits or lowering sea levels ring a bell?

I'm running to a meeting, but will try to respond to your other post later.