Obama and Romney hit the final stretch

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t particular buy the domestic thing since Romney kleeps saying his position is to cut every domestic program in sight and overspend on military like Bush did. Cut education (despite “liking those teachers”, cut arts, cut healthcare, cut everything and mindlessly increase weaponry and go after yet another country with war. That is NOT being stronger in domestic policy. That is to not HAVE a domestic policy.

not to mention actually attacking half the country as “freeloaders” when everyone is struggling to get by except the millionaires apparently. That annoys me to no end he did that.

Romney did not say he would cut every domestic program but there is a huge debt crisis, built up in a large part by Obama, and that debt is going to hurt the poor and the middle clas if it is not dealt with so it is logical non essential programs sould be cut; planned parenthood funding, pbs funding etc. Nearly $1 billion could be saved if those 2 programes funds were cut

Romney’s comments on the 47% were inelegantly stated, he said that, but at least he admitted that; when has Obama retracted his, ‘You didn’t build that,’ comment or ‘They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.’ At least Romney acknowledged that he had said something in the wrong way

 

[_Abyssinia]

CNN’s John King: Trend Line Is Moving Governor Romney’s Way

White House Already Backpedaling On Obama Sequestration Comments

CNBC’s John Harwood: Obama Looked Like A Challenger

Paul Begala: Obama Is Giving Up On North Carolina

 

[meltzerboy]

Romney did not say he would cut every domestic program but there is a huge debt crisis, built up in a large part by Obama, and that debt is going to hurt the poor and the middle clas if it is not dealt with so it is logical non essential programs sould be cut; planned parenthood funding, pbs funding etc

Romney’s comments on the 47% were inelegantly stated, he said that, but at least he admitted that; when has Obama retracted his, ‘You didn’t build that,’ comment or ‘They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.’ At least Romney acknowledged that he had said something in the wrong way

PBS funding is a miniscule drop in the bucket. It doesn’t make sense to cut something that is nearly the only educational, informative, and cultural programming on television. It would make much more sense for Romney not to propose spending trillions of extra dollars on funding the military, which isn’t asking for and doesn’t need the additional money. The 47% comment of Romney’s was not simply inelegantly stated; rather, it revealed his true sentiments toward people who financially depend on government programs. Obama was equally wrong in what he said about people clinging to their guns or religion.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I’m ready for this thing to be over.

No such thing. The 2016 Presidential campaign begins on November 7, 2012.

 

[meltzerboy]

No such thing. The 2016 Presidential campaign begins on November 7, 2012.

You’re a political junkie enabler.

 

[markomalley]

PBS funding is a miniscule drop in the bucket. It doesn’t make sense to cut something that is nearly the only educational, informative, and cultural programming on television. It would make much more sense for Romney not to propose spending trillions of extra dollars on funding the military, which isn’t asking for and doesn’t need the additional money. The 47% comment of Romney’s was not simply inelegantly stated; rather, it revealed his true sentiments toward people who financially depend on government programs. Obama was equally wrong in what he said about people clinging to their guns or religion.

PBS funding is an icon.

“47%” was inartfully expressed. It is a statement recognizing that people who are dependent upon government subsidy are not likely to vote for him because they would perceive that it is against their interests to do so…so why bother pandering to them.

What I find interesting is that the heir to the Wal Mart fortune is actually a big Obama fan.Wal-Mart heir funding Obama big time
(snip)
My favorite detail, though, is this Washington Times report by data hound Luke Rosiak: Wal-Mart heir Sam Walton has apparently given big to Obama’s SuperPAC.
This is at first surprising for a couple of reasons. First, the Waltons tend to be Republican. Second, the conventional wisdom is that megacorps like Wal-Mart are a Republican thing.
But Sam Walton gave the maximum $30,800 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008, and $40,000 to the OVF this election.
Policy-wise, there’s plenty of reason for the Waltons to like Barack Obama:

1. 
   *]Wal-Mart endorsed the employer mandate in ObamaCare, which gives Wal-Mart an advantage by crushing smaller competitors.
   *]Wal-Mart has profited from Dodd-Frank, which fixes the price Wal-Mart has to pay banks for processing debit cards.
   *]Wal-Mart has lobbied for and profits from higher minimum wage.
   *]Wal-Mart is a top beneficiary of eminent domain takings, a government power protected by the types of judges Obama appoints.
   *]Big Business generally benefits from Big Government.
   
   A little fact checking, courtesy of the Federal Election Commission:
   
   
   
   

 

[TrueLight]

“Ugly” can be spirited debate. What is ugly is America’s economy, a headed for more war outlook with outbreaks of revolutions and totalitarian crackdowns, and leadership that cracks down harder on Catholic schools and hospitals than it does openly hostile foreign forces.

I made that comment at the beginning of the debate. I am neither a Romney nor Obama supporter. But it pained me immensely to see Obama pounding away at Romney, to hear the snickers in the audience and to see Romney being passive.

It didn’t get any better later on with Obama showing ways in which Romney has shifted his views and in saying how Romney agrees with his policies now. Romney was forced to admit that they did have similar views.

I found the debate to be depressing because it looks like another 4 years to me.

 

[stinkcat_14]

What I find interesting is that the heir to the Wal Mart fortune is actually a big Obama fan.

Not really that surprising when you think of it.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I disagree that Obama’s entire presidency has been a failure. His signing of the Lily Ledbetter Bill for equal pay for women, his repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy, the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, setting a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, the crippling sanctions on Iran, the Affordable Care Act of Obamacare that ensures, among other things, coverage for preexisting conditions, the reduction of costs for prescription medication for seniors, the auto bailout, these I view as genuine accomplishments.

And the $16 trillion national debt, $1 trillion annual deficits, $90 billion wasted on green energy companies, 23 million unemployed, and 47 million people on food stamps are successes of the Obama administration?

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Finally watching a re-run of the debate. Romney’s comments on Obama’s “apology tour” very effective. Obama - interrupting and playing “small ball” whereas Romney speaking about the big picture. Obama comes across as petty and unpresidential. Romney is successfully making the case for his ability to be the commander in chief. Obama is making his case - and obviously has learned the lesson from the 1st debate. But it doesn’t matter - Obama doesn’t have the momentum anymore. I would call it a draw or slight edge to Obama on points, but Romney achieved his goal. This is the kind of debate where the partisans on both sides say “our guy won, yayyyy.” But in terms of political analysis, I think Romney won - because he had to come across as credible on foreign policy and trustworthy to lead America. Obama needed a knock out or some kind of “Ford moment” ala “there’s no Soviet domination of eastern Europe now and there won’t be under a Ford Administration.” (this was in 1976). But Romney is too smart and disciplined to make a gaffe or mistake like that. In fact, if I take anything away from these three debates it is this: Romney is much smarter than Obama.

Ishii

You nailed it. Obama won technical points on foreign policy, but Romney wisely steered the discussion into domestic economic issues (Obama’s Achilles heel). Voters elect presidents on the economy, not a candidate’s position on Syria. Romney won the strategic war last night even if Obama won the debate on strictly foreign policy issues. I expect to see the “who are you voting for” polls, versus “who won the debate” polls, post completely different results. The former polls will show Romney maintaining his momentum heading into the November vote.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Lets take a look at the CNN poll vaunted by liberals.

It appears that 48% of CNN’s respondents “gave the foreign policy-themed debate to Mr. Obama; 40% said Romney won,” according to CNN. But here is the kicker: 24% of those respondents said the debate made them more likely to vote for Obama, while 25% said they’re more likely to vote for Romney. So, even if Obama won the debate by a large margin on foreign policy matters, those same CNN respondents still gave the edge to Romney when it comes to whom they are more likely to vote for. A 1% edge to Romney following the last debate, if the poll truly reflects national sentiments, is huge in such a tight election. Particularly when the election polls have generally been trending Romney’s way. Excellent result.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Lets take a look at the CNN poll vaunted by liberals.

It appears that 48% of CNN’s respondents “gave the foreign policy-themed debate to Mr. Obama; 40% said Romney won,” according to CNN. But here is the kicker: 24% of those respondents said the debate made them more likely to vote for Obama, while 25% said they’re more likely to vote for Romney. So, even if Obama won the debate by a large margin on foreign policy matters, those same CNN respondents still gave the edge to Romney when it comes to whom they are more likely to vote for. A 1% edge to Romney following the last debate, if the poll truly reflects national sentiments, is huge in such a tight election. Particularly when the election polls have generally been trending Romney’s way. Excellent result.

As CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said, “on the question of likeability, the two candidates are essentially tied on a trait that has generally been an advantage for Obama. That’s probably due to the fact that two-thirds of debate watchers felt that Obama spent more time than Mitt Romney on the attack"

breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/22/CNN-poll-obama-won-but-lost

Dem poll: independents like Romney after debate

According to Public Policy Polling, a Democratic polling institution, 53% of viewers thought Barack Obama won tonight’s third debate on foreign policy; 42% thought Romney won. Going in, 51% were planning to vote for Obama, as opposed to 45% for Romney. Surprisingly, Obama led Romney by a mere 51% to 47% margin on the issue of foreign policy among those Democratic-leaning voters.

But among independents, the numbers moved heavily toward Romney. While 55% of independents said Obama won the debate, a full 48% of the independents said they were less likely to vote Obama after the debate. 47% of independents said they were more likely to vote Romney.

There can be only one possible explanation for these numbers. While the public thought Obama won the debate, they didn’t like how he won it. They felt he was arrogant and dismissive. And they felt more comfortable with Mitt Romney as a human being – he looked presidential. That means that the Romney strategy worked last night.

 

[_Abyssinia]

In a debate about who should be commander-in-chief, Mitt Romney was just as much in command as the man in the job now.
…

But Romney also had a strong debate, in pursuing different goals than the president. He sought to come across as reasonable rather than confrontational — a candidate comfortable with the campaign’s trajectory.

“Attacking me is not talking about an agenda,” Romney said at one point.

Perhaps oddly for a challenger, Romney singled out areas of agreement with the president — on Egypt, Syria, the use of drone strikes — and then used disagreements to stitch together an argument that looked forward.

…

But Romney had already shown voters that he belongs on the stage with the president. Coming into the debate, he’d fought himself into a virtual tie with the president on key issue areas, according to the new ABC News/Washington Post poll, with little daylight between the two men on trust in handling terrorism, international affairs, or serving as commander-in-chief.

…

There’s no going back, though, to a point where a single debate could change the trajectory of a campaign. Nothing happened tonight to change the race’s direction — and Romney walks away strong after playing on Obama’s turf, competing for his job.

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/mitt-romney-keeps-command-amid-attacks-and-looks-to-future

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I totally agree, as you can tell from my previous posts. “Its the economy, stupid” was Romney’s winning theme last night in terms of drawing voter interest in the ballot box. Romney looked exceptionally presidential; Obama looked like a desperate predator waiting to pounce on the calm, cool Mitt Romney, who wisely refused to involve himself in a raucous and contentious debate over foreign policy matters that are clearly secondary (if that) to the American electorate…

 

[_Abyssinia]

In a debate about who should be commander-in-chief, Mitt Romney was just as much in command as the man in the job now.
…

But Romney also had a strong debate, in pursuing different goals than the president. He sought to come across as reasonable rather than confrontational — a candidate comfortable with the campaign’s trajectory.

“Attacking me is not talking about an agenda,” Romney said at one point.

Perhaps oddly for a challenger, Romney singled out areas of agreement with the president — on Egypt, Syria, the use of drone strikes — and then used disagreements to stitch together an argument that looked forward.

…

But Romney had already shown voters that he belongs on the stage with the president. Coming into the debate, he’d fought himself into a virtual tie with the president on key issue areas, according to the new ABC News/Washington Post poll, with little daylight between the two men on trust in handling terrorism, international affairs, or serving as commander-in-chief.

…

There’s no going back, though, to a point where a single debate could change the trajectory of a campaign. Nothing happened tonight to change the race’s direction — and Romney walks away strong after playing on Obama’s turf, competing for his job.

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/mitt-romney-keeps-command-amid-attacks-and-looks-to-future

 

[_Abyssinia]

I totally agree, as you can tell from my previous posts. “Its the economy, stupid” was Romney’s winning theme last night in terms of drawing voter interest in the ballot box. Romney looked exceptionally presidential; Obama looked like a desperate predator waiting to pounce on the calm, cool Mitt Romney, who wisely refused to involve himself in a raucous and contentious debate over foreign policy matters that are clearly secondary (if that) to the American electorate…

It looked like Obama was the challenger and Romney the president, as a bunch of political commentators have said

 

[scipio337]

Romney lost…again…and once more his investments in Iran have been exposed. Obama is still up in Ohio.

Just one of the reasons I thought President Obama came across as spiteful and condescending.

If this were a 3 round fight, Romney one the first round, 10-8, easy. I gave the President a slight advantage on the 2nd debate, 10-9. Romney went into the 3rd round with a lead, and didn’t want to expose himself much for a loss. He clinched more than in the previous 2, and played it a little safe.

I give Romney the 3rd, 10-9. Majority decision: Romney.

Romney last night came across as cool, collective, and knowledgable. I don’t agree with his views on Syria (arming “rebels” didn’t go well in Afghanistan), and thought he missed opportunities to absolutely hammer the President on the Islamist flag being raised over our embassies, “creating daylight” between us and Israel the rise of al Qaeda in places they weren’t in 2008, and his apology tour.

The President was agressive, but I think his points missed the mark. His condescending comments about “your investments in China” (the President Illinois pension is also vested in those companies, and he has about as much control over those as Romney does over a blind trust), “we have less bayonets and horses” (infantry still use bayonets, do we have less Navy “corpsemen”?) came across to me and those I know (some who are Obama supporters, like my brother) and hollow and spiteful.

For those who it mattered to (Obama supporters pointed his analysis out on the last debate), Charles Krauthammer (who gave Obama the 2nd debate on points), called the 3rd a “decisive Romney victory”.

Watching the same debate, I agreee.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Personal anecdote. I am in Pinellas County, Florida, looking for retirement homes. My wife and I searched neighborhoods from Palm Harbor to the St. Petersburg suburbs. And we counted exactly six Obama lawn signs to at least ten times more for Romney. I couldn’t be more thrilled. This compares favorably with three Obama lawn signs to sixteen for Romney that my wife counted during a recent walk in our Northern Virginia neighborhood. Quite frankly, I think many of the polls showing a close race in America’s heartland are wrong. Why? The economy, pure and simple.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It must be a daunting task to debate the President on Foreign Policy when you just don’t have the access to the information he has, which is in the moment. So your playing defense by re-direct.

Economy/Jobs are the priority.

Anyway, The aggressive/passive view I also thought that position could be viewed either way. There were two debates already which were heated, I couldn’t imagine entertaining that path again last night after last week? I don’t see that as an issue, only part of the Obama show which leans toward entertainment.

The Fact Check after the debate clearly showed the President knew no more in what he was talking about than Romney in specific areas. The President was wrong on the state of Mass, education stating Romney wasn’t in office, he was in office.

The “continued chant” of Obama was Romneys view on Iraq. Yet the president misrepresented himself in this area.

“What I would not have had done was left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. And that certainly would not help us in the Middle East.” …Obama

But what really happened as we discussed this at length on this forum. Obama had “every intention” of leaving Troops in Iraq. Obama tried for months to keep several thousand troops in Iraq past 2011. That ended over legal immunity for our troops.

Course this isn’t to say I didn’t think the debate was close, it was. Now we are viewing not so much last nights debate, but the entire debate process which I believe favors Romney. Lets face I don’t know a single individual who didn’t expect Obama to rebound from the first debate. There is no doubt he is a very good pubilic orator, but nothing else.

Look at this again…"$16 trillion national debt, $1 trillion annual deficits, $90 billion wasted on green energy companies, 23 million unemployed, and 47 million people on food stamps are successes of the Obama administration" Foreign trade?

4-more years of this? “I can’t afford heath insurance” that is the resounding campaign chant of the “majority” of Obama followers.

 

[SamH]

companies, and he has about as much control over those as Romney does over a blind trust), “we have less bayonets and horses” (infantry still use bayonets, do we have less Navy “corpsemen”?) came across to me and those I know (some who are Obama supporters, like my brother) and hollow and spiteful.

For those who it mattered to (Obama supporters pointed his analysis out on the last debate), Charles Krauthammer (who gave Obama the 2nd debate on points), called the 3rd a “decisive Romney victory”.

Watching the same debate, I agreee.

I saw the bayonets and the comments on the navy, what was Obama thinking? Does he know the US has had submarines for over 100 years? That the US has had aircraft carriers for over 85 years? These are not new weapons. Nor did it address the fact that the duties outlined by his own administration require a 300+ ship navy - does he* think *he knows something that professional naval officers don’t know? Perhaps he should tell them about this new invention called the aircraft carrier.