• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

2012 First U.S. Presidential Debate |OT| OK Libya... We need a leader, not a reader.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
But continue this stupid false equivalence BS you continue to spout day after day, election after election. Doesn't make you any better or more intelligent for it. It just makes you wrong.

Jeez, overreact much? Good thing you can feel free to belittle my intelligence over having something to say about the attitude of the contemporary electorate. Note that I didn't say "olol both parties suck, vote for Ron Paul!". I said that having the candidate of your choice lose will not usher in the apocalypse. 50% of the population has had their favored candidate not win for the last couple hundred years and so far things have turned out more or less okay. There are fundamental checks and balances in place throughout our government that prevents one part from fucking everything else up.
 

NH Apache

Banned
I'm just interested in how different you might think Obama may have been portrayed if he acted in the manner Romney did, consistently interrupting his opponent and the moderator, and raising his voice.

Would he have been described as assertive and confident?

Both interrupted Jim. Remind me when Romney consistently interrupted Obama.
 
I'm just interested in how different you might think Obama may have been portrayed if he acted in the manner Romney did, consistently interrupting his opponent and the moderator, and raising his voice.

Would he have been described as assertive and confident?

You really think Romney is satan don't you
 

Diablos

Member
In an earlier interview on NBC's "Today Show," Axelrod added that the president was "looking very much forward" to his next chance to debate Romney on Oct. 16.

"I know this, he will come, he will make an honest argument with the American people about how to rebuild the economy and the middle class and he'll hold Gov. Romney to account for these big gaps in the truth we saw last night," Axelrod said.

But Obama's longtime political strategist did seem to concede that the president had been bested, at least on style, in Wednesday night's pivotal showdown with his Republican challenger.

"I joked that Mitt Romney put more preparation into it than they did into the invasion in Normandy and you saw last night," Axelrod said. "I expected a strong performance, got a strong performance, but that's what it was — a performance."

On MSNBC, host Joe Scarborough asked Axelrod why, if Romney had shifted from many of his positions as the Obama campaign contended, the president was unable to seize on those discrepancies. And Axelrod was repeatedly reminded that high-profile liberal allies expressed dismay at the president's performance on Wednesday night.

"I understand, and I understand there was a hunger for us to attack Romney more personally than the president did last night," Axelrod conceded. "The president was talking to the American people about some of these fundamental issues. As I said, treating the American people as adults."

The Obama adviser was also repeatedly pressed as to why the president did not mention either Gov. Romney's tenure at Bain Capital or his "47 percent" remarks at a closed-door fundraiser — both staples of the president's reelection effort.

"It wasn't a calculated decision," Axelrod said. "I think the president's belief is that that's something that's been very much part of the fabric of the discussion. People understand that. And the president was answering the questions he was asked about the issues facing this country."

But Axelrod pledged the next meeting between the candidates would be "really interesting" now that the president had "gotten a good look at the Romney routine."

"What we need to do is make sure that they know ... exactly what Gov. Romney's inconsistencies, as you put them, and what his positions actually mean for them, what it means in terms of the higher taxes they're going to have to pay, what it means in terms of the reduced protection they're going to have vis-a-vis their financial transactions, what it means in terms of their healthcare and the weakening of their protections in their relationship with their insurance companies," Axelrod said. "We've got to make that case, and we're going to make that case in the next 30 days."
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/2...ses-tougher-response-to-romney-in-next-debate

Obama's campaign seems to be aware that he messed up... I think. But all the excuses about "trying to have a conversation" while Romney's fumbles were somehow magically baked into the discussion is a bit dismissive and wrong. Obama needed to capitalize on that and not expect swing voters, who have the shortest memories ever, to be able to do all the math themselves. Le sigh.

They better be prepping the shit out of Obama between now and the town hall. Axelrod kind of acting like a dick towards Candy Crowley on CNN (who will be moderating the town hall) probably was not a smart first move after such a dismal debate performance.
 
There is a rich irony there. Fossil fuel people hate Obama because he's allowed fossil fuel people to drill largely unfettered to reduce fossil fuel prices.


The coal people are just in a bad time for their industry but that is not Obama's fault, that is the free market's fault.
And how much involvement do you have with this issue on a daily basis? If you'll notice, there were two reasons I listed for the current state of the coal market; cheap natural gas and over-regulation. Natural gas has been cheaper than coal in the past and both were able to carry along just fine, so there is obviously something different about this particular instance. I'll spare you the rest of the boring details, though.

The only reason Obama is over-regulating coal and not natural gas is because it's a more politically intelligent move. Coal is a popular thing to hate.
 

Bowdz

Member
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/2...ses-tougher-response-to-romney-in-next-debate

Obama's campaign seems to be aware that he messed up... I think. But all the excuses about "trying to have a conversation" while Romney's fumbles were somehow magically baked into the discussion is a bit dismissive and wrong. Obama needed to capitalize on that and not expect swing voters, who have the shortest memories ever, to be able to do all the math themselves. Le sigh.

They better be prepping the shit out of Obama between now and the town hall. Axelrod kind of acting like a dick towards Candy Crowley on CNN (who will be moderating the town hall) probably was not a smart first move after such a dismal debate performance.

Agreed. I sincerely hope Obama spends more time prepping for the next debate than he did for this one. The town hall style should suit him better and, if he is prepared for it, will allow him to provide a stark contrast to Romney in terms of connecting with voters in person. Obama basically let Romney walk back his entire platform during the debate with no real opposition. He needs to call him out forcefully next debate.
 

besada

Banned
This is true. I didn't realize there were so many right-leaning dudes around here. Where y'all been?
Unlike you, Bulbo, they lack the strength of their convictions. With the exception of a handful of regular conservative posters, what we normally see is a flood of gloating when there's an opportunity or a sea of whining about how unfair and difficult it is to be a conservative poster.

While we rarely agree on an issue, I have to give posters like you, Kosmo, TA, and the other regular GAF conservatives props for having the balls to argue for what you believe in rather than keep quiet until you think it's safe.
 
Agreed. I sincerely hope Obama spends more time prepping for the next debate than he did for this one. The town hall style should suit him better and, if he is prepared for it, will allow him to provide a stark contrast to Romney in terms of connecting with voters in person. Obama basically let Romney walk back his entire platform during the debate with no real opposition. He needs to call him out forcefully next debate.

I think Obama was honestly caught off guard by Romney basically sinking his entire platform in one night and going with "Obama-lite" as his position on everything
 

Buzzati

Banned
One of them wants to turn medicare into a system where senior citizens are told to go out and purchase private insurance.

the entire reason why medicare was made in the first place is because the employment-based health insurance model did not accomodoate senior citizens, and senior citizens could not afford the individual plans that the private insurance market offered precisely because of their age and medical problems

Or maybe romney wants obamacare. OR maybe he doesn't. Or maybe he does but in all of the 50 states and all the US territories instead of all of the US (?!). But we do know that romney would definitely support a vouchercare system, and if he becomes president, it would almost certainly mean a republican house and senate, and that is what they would give him.

But continue this stupid false equivalence BS you continue to spout day after day, election after election. Doesn't make you any better or more intelligent for it. It just makes you wrong.


The sickiening part of this is that you have a candidate arguing to preserve the quality of life enjoyed by the current generation and weaken the quality of life for subsequent generations. That's not how you move forward. Usually you want your children to live better than you

Think of all the jobs created from start-ups that will be in demand to help seniors figure out how their vouchers work!
 
And how much involvement do you have with this issue on a daily basis? If you'll notice, there were two reasons I listed for the current state of the coal market; cheap natural gas and over-regulation. Natural gas has been cheaper than coal in the past and both were able to carry along just fine, so there is obviously something different about this particular instance. I'll spare you the rest of the boring details, though.

The only reason Obama is over-regulating coal and not natural gas is because it's a more politically intelligent move. Coal is a popular thing to hate.

Because coal is dirty as fuck, dangerous, and extremely detrimental to a healthy environment and population...

No, it can't be that...
 
The most interesting thing out of this debate, is that suddenly there are republican gaffers. They just don't show up all that often...
 
Agreed. I sincerely hope Obama spends more time prepping for the next debate than he did for this one. The town hall style should suit him better and, if he is prepared for it, will allow him to provide a stark contrast to Romney in terms of connecting with voters in person. Obama basically let Romney walk back his entire platform during the debate with no real opposition. He needs to call him out forcefully next debate.

It's the advantage a challenger has - he has no real record to defend and can morph his ideas in the debate to say what the incumbent points out is a lie because most voters have never been engaged on knowing what those positions are. So when Obama points out Romney wants to cut $5T in taxes, Romney can just say "Sorry, nope. You're like one of my sons trying to get away with a lie."

How do people think the VP debate will go? You know Ryan is going to say, essentially "I agree with what President Biden said the other day - the middle class has been buried the last 4 years and it's high time we change that."
 

Bowdz

Member
I think Obama was honestly caught off guard by Romney basically sinking his entire platform in one night and going with "Obama-lite" as his position on everything

I know hindsight is 20/20, but that is something Obama and his team should have been prepared for. Forcefully call out Romney as a flip flopper (one of the worst charges in American politics) on every single issue. Hell, Romney has had all of his former stances written out on his website for months. At the very least, Obama should have brought up the fact that Romney's website calls for "...permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates" and say that Romney is just changing his position with the time. Romney can say Obama is misrepresenting his position all he wants, but his former stances are in writing on his website right now and Obama missed the perfect opportunity to undermine Romney's credibility last night.

The only good things to come out of the debate last night for Obama is that he and his team now have all the video they need to fully launch the Operation Flip Flopper ad blitz and that Obama now understands Romney will literally say anything and that it is up to Obama to call it out forcefully.

It's the advantage a challenger has - he has no real record to defend and can morph his ideas in the debate to say what the incumbent points out is a lie because most voters have never been engaged on knowing what those positions are. So when Obama points out Romney wants to cut $5T in taxes, Romney can just say "Sorry, nope. You're like one of my sons trying to get away with a lie."

I definitely agree about the incumbent advantage on vagueness, but Romney has a lot of these positions spelled out on his website:

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

Obama should have said that it is in contrast to what was on Romney's own website. It is much harder for Mitt to get away with transforming when people hear that it is in writing on the candidates website.
 

Revolver

Member
Not when the the fate of the world is on the line!

That's because it's the most important election in our lifetimes. [hyperbole]The future of Democracy itself is at stake.[/hyperbole]

I just wish Obama had been more engaged. He had his moments, but he seemed unprepared for the Mittchine that came at him.
 

Puddles

Banned
I'm reading about a bunch of conservative gloating in this thread.

If you're a conservative, and you post here, why not come over to PoliGAF and share your views? I'd love to get a good, in-depth discussion of the nuances of the preferred conservative policy platform. If it's as good as you say it is, maybe you'll change some minds.
 
What's your experience with coal mining? Do you live near any coal mines? Have you ever seen one? How about coal-powered plants?

Do you refute my claims? Or is it going to be an ad hominem attack because I may or may not live near a coal mine while you attempt to talk down to me like you know more than I do?
 
Unlike you, Bulbo, they lack the strength of their convictions. With the exception of a handful of regular conservative posters, what we normally see is a flood of gloating when there's an opportunity or a sea of whining about how unfair and difficult it is to be a conservative poster.

While we rarely agree on an issue, I have to give posters like you, Kosmo, TA, and the other regular GAF conservatives props for having the balls to argue for what you believe in rather than keep quiet until you think it's safe.

Thanks besada. I came into GAF like a monkey jumping on a treadmill going 100mph and fell flat on my face because I'd been lurking Gaf for a while and had a lot of pent up aggression or something from not being able to respond. You probably remember that. Now, I try to keep things lighthearted as much as possible because that's the way I am in real life. I don't find this environment scary at all. I think it's important not to be unnecessarily confrontational with people when you try to make a point, that's all. Do I feel like a minority? Yeah. But everything is cool here. I feel welcome (sometimes).
 

pigeon

Banned
I know hindsight is 20/20, but that is something Obama and his team should have been prepared for. Forcefully call out Romney as a flip flopper (one of the worst charges in American politics) on every single issue.

Obama made a tactical choice early on not to emphasize Romney's chameleonic nature because he wanted to target Romney for his extremist positions during the GOP debates instead. Some undecided voters like flip-floppers because it implies they can change their mind. There have actually been a lot of pundits offering arguments like "sure, Romney says attack Iran, but we don't have to worry about that because he obviously will just flip-flop on that when he gets elected." That's the kind of thing Obama wanted to avoid. At this moment, it looks bad, obviously, but over the last couple months it's been looking pretty good. Now Obama has to reframe somewhat, which apparently he is trying to do in speeches today.
 

nib95

Banned
Any new polls comparing both Romeny and Obama's numbers post debate? See Gallup daily above which unexpectedly has Obama up. What about Romney?
 

LosDaddie

Banned
I know PoliGAF assumed Obama would trounce Romney last night, but did anybody not in the liberal echo chamber think that would be the case, too? I didn't expect Obama to perform that badly, but I knew Romney would do good. 4yrs of prep time, and the experience from the primary debates.

I mean, Romney lacks a spine, but not a brain.



Unlike you, Bulbo, they lack the strength of their convictions. With the exception of a handful of regular conservative posters, what we normally see is a flood of gloating when there's an opportunity or a sea of whining about how unfair and difficult it is to be a conservative poster.

While we rarely agree on an issue, I have to give posters like you, Kosmo, TA, and the other regular GAF conservatives props for having the balls to argue for what you believe in rather than keep quiet until you think it's safe.

Agreed, and well said.
 

Baraka in the White House

2-Terms of Kombat
The most interesting thing out of this debate, is that suddenly there are republican gaffers. They just don't show up all that often...

They didn't want to be hauled off by the liberal GAF Gestapo. But now that Romney's ON FIRE the signal has been given to rise.

Kosmo... *inception horn* ...was just the beginning. *inception horn*
 

Bowdz

Member
I know PoliGAF assumed Obama would trounce Romney last night, but did anybody not in the liberal echo chamber think that would be the case, too? I didn't expect Obama to perform that badly, but I knew Romney would do good. 4yrs of prep time, and the experience from the primary debates.

I mean, Romney lacks a spine, but not a brain.

I was expecting Romney to win last night. He is a good debater in what (unfortunately) matters: tone, image, pacing, assertiveness, looking presidential. What I didn't expect was Obama to be so timid, weak, and unpolished. Romney threw softball after softball to Obama and it turns out Obama wasn't even holding a bat.
 
Do you refute my claims? Or is it going to be an ad hominem attack because I may or may not live near a coal mine while you attempt to talk down to me like you know more than I do?
Fair enough, you could know much more about the industry than I do regardless of whether or not you live near it or work in it. That is certainly a possibility. I only ask the questions because it's a good way to quickly find out if someone's knowledge of coal mining is based only on what they read in the media or if there is some actual substance to it. I'm sorry if I came off as condescending, it's just sometimes a reaction that gets triggered when people attack your profession because it is oftentimes based on little substance.

To be perfectly honest I just get tired of answering the same arguments over and over so I'll just leave it at that. You're free to look at the research that's out there and come to your own conclusions, all I would ask is that you look at something beyond the shallow material that the media typically puts out.

Also, I don't believe that there is anything wrong with regulation in the coal industry. In fact, I think it is needed and essential, as the past has demonstrated. I just think you have to draw the line somewhere. If you want to get rid of all coal mining then that's fine as long as you can address all of the points I've already raised in previous posts in this thread.
 

RiccochetJ

Gold Member
Does anyone actually know any swing voters?

I'm one. I thought Romney presented very well last night, but left a ton of questions because he was so extremely vague. It was annoying when he would refute Obama saying, "My plan doesn't have that" or, "I'm going to replace it!" Well tell me what "it" is dammit!

I honestly thought Obama did a good job as well but he also gets the added benefit of telling me exactly what his plan is. I think his problem was that he would "err..." too much which is troublesome when you only have 2 minutes.

All in all, the debate unfolded like I expected and they only real thing that I got out of the whole debate was that the moderator was a spineless schlub and should never be allowed to moderate a debate ever again. What an embarrassment. That and these debates should be longer than an hour and a half. Way too short to be able to cover these types of issues in any sort of real depth.
 
I'm one. I thought Romney presented very well last night, but left a ton of questions because he was so extremely vague. It was annoying when he would refute Obama saying, "My plan doesn't have that" or, "I'm going to replace it!" Well tell me what "it" is dammit!

I honestly thought Obama did a good job as well but he also gets the added benefit of telling me exactly what his plan is. I think his problem was that he would "err..." too much which is troublesome when you only have 2 minutes.

All in all, the debate unfolded like I expected and they only real thing that I got out of the whole debate was that the moderator was a spineless schlub and should never be allowed to moderate a debate ever again. What an embarrassment. That and these debates should be longer than an hour and a half. Way too short to be able to cover these types of issues in any sort of real depth.

I agree with your take on it. I think Obama's style of speaking works better when he has plenty of time to layout his plans. The rapid fire 2 minute thing last night made him seem like he couldn't answer quickly enough
 
What's your experience with coal mining? Do you live near any coal mines? Have you ever seen one? How about coal-powered plants?

LOL. That's the thing . . . you don't have to be anywhere near coal to suffer from it. If you eat a lot of fish your mercury levels with rise . . . because of coal.

Coal is bad news. There are just too many bad aspects to it. From the mountain-top removal mining harming rivers & streams; to the NO2, SO2, mercury pollutants; to the heavy CO2 greenhouse gas emissions; to the radioactive & heavy-metal laden ash. I'll take natural gas & nukes over coal while we should be continuing building wind & solar.

I don't advocate shutting down plants . . . but we should avoid building new ones. Those coal miners can go find jobs drilling for natural gas. That will be much better for them and everyone else.


Of course, if I were Obama, I'd avoid this topic because it is too heavy-policy driven and does not make for simple sound-bites. Just take the positive side . . . only talk about the natural gas and wind revolution while ignoring coal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom