As a person that will not vote for either Obama or Romney, I think I bring a little less bias to my opinion on the debates.
Obama was crushed. I could not believe how cleanly and decisively Romney destroyed Obama. I wasn't expecting that in the debates. I was expecting some of the awesome knockout debating that Obama delivered to McCain's face.
For example, Obama harped on how much Romney would do "trickle down" economics...pretty much. Romney countered that 3 times and rejected that premise. So why did Obama keep harping on that over and over when that was pointed out to be wrong? Romney called him on it by using his "boys(children)" as an example of someone repeating the same lie over and over until the "parent" believes it.
I liked Obama's points on Romneycare being stupid similar to Obamacare...but then the rebuttal to that was seen from 10 million miles away: state solution, not a federal one, and there are marked differences.
Meh, Obama better step his game up if he wants to win the next one. I think Obama came into this with too much confidence and was too relaxed.
Originally posted by Major_Lexington
Romney on the ropes, Obama wins by a knock out!
My personal opinion is you didn't watch the debate.
On face value, I think Romney won this round (damn). His comedic timing was better (see, everyone, I'm relatable!); plus, Obama's attacks seemed rather tepid (smug?). Romney countered well, though the accuracy of his statements remain to be seen by the fact-checkers.
Mostly what I like about watching these debates is this: where else can you see the most powerful man in the country, if not the world, sweatin' for his job? God Bless America.
Originally posted by Mindship
On face value, I think Romney won this round (damn). His comedic timing was better (see, everyone, I'm relatable!); plus, Obama's attacks seemed rather tepid (smug?).
I agree. At times, I was thinking that Obama was the R because of his smug rich-man attitude.
Originally posted by Mindship
Romney countered well, though the accuracy of his statements remain to be seen by the fact-checkers.
This: Romney spit out quite a few facts. I can't wait for the fact checking.
Originally posted by Mindship
Mostly what I like about watching these debates is this: where else can you see the most powerful man in the country, if not the world, sweatin' for his job? God Bless America.
That is an interesting "outside the box" perspective.
very surprising result imho. I think it is fairly obvious that Romney's performance was superior to Obama's, who seemed to be under the impression that a debate was going to be about facts and policy. A couple of times when he was in trouble, you could see Obama try to channel Clinton's convention speech, but it was clear he had brushed up on content more than rhetoric, which I'd say is the opposite for Romney.
Romney's tautology about his tax policy was a laugh, "if it isn't defecit neutral, it is not my plan", essentially because it gives him the out of being like "that's not my policy" whenever Obama tried to talk specifics of the plan Romney had been pushing for over a year.
Moderation was terrible, I'm amazed how much they straight up admitted they agreed on.
ultimately, sort of boring, Romney being better than expected was a surprise, but neither said anything of huge significance.
We live in an information-saturated world. I was able to read multiple articles debunking the debate's talking points before the debate happened, on both sides. And they were mostly right. It's just people tuning in to hear what they want to.
I still can't understand why people put so much importance on such broad stuff. There's literally about 4 states, and 5-6 counties in each of those states, that actually matter. The rest is decided. If I were either candidate, I'd be shoveling millions of dollars and going door to door to win, say, Ohio, and wouldn't be doing much else.
When factcheck.org runs the debate, and gets to offer their own counter-points, I'll care. Until then, it's just sound bites and posturing. And while we're at it, the Onion runs the second debate, and Stewart/Colbert co-host the last one. THEN I'd care.
Also: http://imgur.com/oxopq
Originally posted by Digi
I still can't understand why people put so much importance on such broad stuff. There's literally about 4 states, and 5-6 counties in each of those states, that actually matter. The rest is decided. If I were either candidate, I'd be shoveling millions of dollars and going door to door to win, say, Ohio, and wouldn't be doing much else.
it matters because the people in those limited places are in fact persuaded by broad stuff and this type of rhetoric.
Its not like these places are the bastions of independent thinking individuals who are inundated with political facts and have a nuanced political ideology. These are the same low-information voters that exist everywhere, only in significant enough numbers to meaningfully impact the vote. To them, the debate and these talking points are important.
Its for the same reason most people think Romney won the debate and was less factual in his statements. People are looking for the horse to vote for, much of the "policy" becomes the window-dressing that is used to justify the choice they make. For instance, the above quote about "trickle down government". That statement literally makes no sense, but it is a clever play on an old phrase that made Romney look sharp and prepared for Obama's critique. It is these surface level things that win elections, not a nuanced deconstruction of positions.
In case you want to see more candidates debating.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/4/expanding_the_debate_exclusive_third_party
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Pretty sure Obama added in his own phrase as well.
sure, just using it as an example
it's actually a point of credit to Romney's performance that we can remember and are discussing his talking points. I have to be honest, outside of the times he almost literally lifted parts from Clinton's convention speech, I can't remember a single word Obama said, it was all so passive and meandering.
I lol'd.
Obama was way too passive and accepting of Romney's attacks. Almost never pushed back in any meaningful way. When Romney kept harping on Obama's failed investments in green jobs and Obama just basically took it I nearly shit my pants in confusion. How does he not respond by pointing out that Romney knows a good deal about failed investments - just ask some of the failed companies that Bain invested in while Romney was running it and the people who lost their jobs because of that failure. The window was wide open and Obama basically just nodded and said "okay" to every attack. It was embarrassingly bad on Obama's part.
Originally posted by BackFire
Obama was way too passive and accepting of Romney's attacks. Almost never pushed back in any meaningful way. When Romney kept harping on Obama's failed investments in green jobs and Obama just basically took it I nearly shit my pants in confusion. How does he not respond by pointing out that Romney knows a good deal about failed investments - just ask some of the failed companies that Bane invested in while Romney was running it and the people who lost their jobs because of that failure. The window was wide open and Obama basically just nodded and said "okay" to every attack. It was embarrassingly bad on Obama's part.
Yup.
Or just said: "47%, yo."