US Presidential Election Debate #1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bellasbane said:
I thought Romney was too aggressive and Obama looked tired.

Romney totally ran rough-shod over Jim Lehrer - I’ve never seen a presidential candidate over-rule the moderator the way he did. I’m sure it looked like strength to some people, but it just looked rude to me.

Obama refused to go on the attack. He could so easily have hit Romney with a 47% reference, but he didn’t. It was clearly deliberate and maybe a mistake, since Romney didn’t use the rope given him to quite hang himself. He was prepared & disciplined enough to run away from the most controversial aspects of his economic policies.

Romney’s tactic was to make a lot of promises - in fact he promised everything but the kitchen sink: no tax increases, no cuts to education, increased spending on the military, no changes to medicare, no cuts to medicaid. He even said his plan didn’t include a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, which was news to me. His math really does not add up.

At one point, he slipped in the factor of “growth” to defend his math - that is exactly what George Bush did when he proposed tax cuts and it didn’t happen. All it did was to increase the deficit and the income disparity between the rich and the middle class. So if Romney is relying on growth, that means we are doomed to repeat the Bush years if he’s elected.

I wish Obama had asked Romney if he would take Charitable Deductions off the table of things he would eliminate in order to pay for his tax plan. The Mormon Church has a pretty strict policy of a 10% tithe on all its members and wouldn’t be affected by closing that loop-hole, but I think it would be devastating to the Catholic Church and private charities who rely heavily on charitable giving from both individuals and corporations.
Click to expand...
President Obama spoke significantly longer than Romney did, and didn’t stop for Lerher repeatedly when asked. The truth is that both candidates overran the moderator, but if anyone was worse, it was the President.

I also find it amazing that there are supposedly no details of Romney’s plans, but somehow the President, and apparently you, are able to tell what exactly his plans are to the level of detail that you can calculate his entire economic plan and make claims about how they supposedly do not add up.

Regarding the growth comment, pretty much every politician does that. The President used it repeatedly when trying to get the CBO to score ObamaCare in such a way that he could try to convince the American people that it wasn’t going to bankrupt the country. He built in projections for growth that were nowhere near accurate or a reflection of reality.
 
Here’s my analysis

Everything is about trajectory in a close election like this one.

Before the debate, Obama was winning the election. He had the positive trajectory. Romney was definately losing ground in the swing states. If everything stayed the way it was, Obama would win in November. Romney had to have a strong performance in this debate to start moving the ship around. This was a “must win” debate for Romney, not Obama. If it was perceived that Romney had lost the debate, then he would probably have lost the election.

Romney had a very strong performance. He gave himself a second chance. The undecided voters will take a second look at Romney now.

The race is still close.
 
bellasbane said:
You’re right, these are my own observations. I’ve watched many debates and never before have I felt like the moderator was loosing control like I did with this one and it wasn’t Obama who gave me that impression.

Obama spoke more in the first few rounds, but Romney more often insisted on having the last word when he wasn’t entitled to the extra turn. That sort of bully behavior is not a trait I admire in politicians. He deserved a good scolding from Jim Lehrer, who unfortunately fell into the trap of being too polite to tell him off.

Nothing Romney said last night would convince me to vote for him, because all he did was propose the same old Republican policies I’ve rejected in the past: Voodoo trickle-down economics, drastic cuts to entitlements, and huge increases in defense spending.

Tell me one thing that was new.
Click to expand...
Trickle down government. 😃
 
bellasbane said:
Tell me one thing that was new.
Click to expand...
This is new to the last 40 or so years, Catholics are to vote thier faith, not democrat or republican. How’s that for e new concept?

dem platform = anti-life
rep platform = pro-life

Done…
 
pepipop said:
I noted all that too. I’d say Romney due to his articulateness (for once), fluidity of speech and instant recollection of facts and figures that he was ‘chemically’ helped, possibly with an amphetamine or whatever, as is used by some college kids to get through their exams with flying colours due to cognative enhancement. Obama has 16 years on him, but looked much older and slower, his feet were like concrete blocks when he walked across at the end to shake hands with Romney.
Click to expand...
You are just going to go and accuse someone of taking drugs, with no evidence or support whatsoever?

Stay classy.
 
gilliam said:
Here’s my analysis

Everything is about trajectory in a close election like this one.

Before the debate, Obama was winning the election. He had the positive trajectory. Romney was definately losing ground in the swing states. If everything stayed the way it was, Obama would win in November. Romney had to have a strong performance in this debate to start moving the ship around. This was a “must win” debate for Romney, not Obama. If it was perceived that Romney had lost the debate, then he would probably have lost the election.

Romney had a very strong performance. He gave himself a second chance. The undecided voters will take a second look at Romney now.

The race is still close.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Voters like me and bellasbane are of little importance when it comes to debates. Neither of us are undecided, and neither of us is likely to be swayed by the opposing candidate.

Romney won the first debate, but there are more to come. He has to keep the momentum going, if he wants to win.
 
He_Man said:
The first thing I noticed was Obama’s dark circles under his eyes. He looked tired, like he hadn’t slept. They need to fix that with makeup next time. It ages him.

He also had poor foot posture, according to debate experts. I could care less about where the mans toes are, but he kept cocking his foot back and resting on the tip of his foot. Apparently that is a no-no, whereas Mitt stood tall and upright the whole time.

To me, things like that are silly.
Click to expand...
Unable to watch due to work, but from what you describe, it sounds like the famous landmark Nixon-Kennedy debate, which apparently included major lighting, makeup, fatigue, and body language mistakes as crucial elements of “looking Presidential.” (or not)

I don’t make my voting decisions based on visuals, but an awful lot of undecided voters do.
 
gilliam said:
Here’s my analysis

Everything is about trajectory in a close election like this one.

Before the debate, Obama was winning the election. He had the positive trajectory. Romney was definately losing ground in the swing states. If everything stayed the way it was, Obama would win in November. Romney had to have a strong performance in this debate to start moving the ship around. This was a “must win” debate for Romney, not Obama. If it was perceived that Romney had lost the debate, then he would probably have lost the election.

Romney had a very strong performance. He gave himself a second chance. The undecided voters will take a second look at Romney now.

The race is still close.
Click to expand...
Undecided voters will break hard against Obama. Rasmussen ran a survey before the debate and only 10% thought the country was heading in the right direction.

Romney has the undecided even if the undecideds don’t know it yet.

It’s time for him to start pulling the swing voters and Obama’s base.
 
pepipop said:
I noted all that too. I’d say Romney due to his articulateness (for once), fluidity of speech and instant recollection of facts and figures that he was ‘chemically’ helped, possibly with an amphetamine or whatever, as is used by some college kids to get through their exams with flying colours due to cognative enhancement. Obama has 16 years on him, but looked much older and slower, his feet were like concrete blocks when he walked across at the end to shake hands with Romney.
Click to expand...
What you said would be funny if it wasn’t so serious…

Maybe he did his home-work why taint the debate with drugs like the Olympics ?

I’ll bet Mr Romney put something in Mr Obama’s coffee, there ye go Columbo, mystery solved 👍
 
I wish Obama had asked Romney if he would take Charitable Deductions off the table of things he would eliminate in order to pay for his tax plan. The Mormon Church has a pretty strict policy of a 10% tithe on all its members and wouldn’t be affected by closing that loop-hole, but I think it would be devastating to the Catholic Church and private charities who rely heavily on charitable giving from both individuals and corporations.
Click to expand...
It’s the best thing that could happen to private charities, because now they won’t even have to worry about the write-offs.

By lowering the rates on the top earners, they will pocket more of the money and they will give more, meanwhile the revenue stays the same.

This is great psychology by Romney.
 
I realize it sounds like back-to-the-future, John-Kerry talk, but I mean, according to what I heard from a pundit, that in the future, people who have preexisting conditions will not be covered by Romney’s healthcare plan, while those who currently have preexisting conditions will be covered. I’m just wondering if this is mentioned at all in Romney’s plan.
Click to expand...
You can’t, for instance, call an insurance company when your house is on fire and ask for insurance.

That’s what a preexisting condition is.

Romney’s plan covers preexisting conditions.

I think that all comes down to the market.

patientpowernow.org/2012/09/pre-existing-conditions-free-market/
 
After thinking about the debate last evening, and having seen Obama debate back in the last election against Hillary and then McCain, and knowing that he has debate skills far surpassing last evening’s performance, I have to wonder?

Is Obama playing a “rope a dope,” strategy, holding back until the last debate? The last debate is the one the voters will remember before going to vote. Perhaps it’s there that Obama will come out swinging and land a knockout punch.

Not saying this is the case, but last night’s performance was not Obama’s best for sure.

So Romney supporters, don’t get over confident.

Jim
 
bellasbane said:
I thought Romney was too aggressive and Obama looked tired.

Romney totally ran rough-shod over Jim Lehrer - I’ve never seen a presidential candidate over-rule the moderator the way he did. I’m sure it looked like strength to some people, but it just looked rude to me.
Click to expand...
Unless the GOP candidate is crucified and “loving it” the Left will never be satisfied :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

As for the rest of the debates, you can bet your bottom dollar, the moderators will be lenient towards Obama and less towards Romney and you can expect the moderators to do everything in their power to protect Obama.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Undecided voters will break hard against Obama. Rasmussen ran a survey before the debate and only 10% thought the country was heading in the right direction.

Romney has the undecided even if the undecideds don’t know it yet.

It’s time for him to start pulling the swing voters and Obama’s base.
Click to expand...
I watched it and though I might not be that rough on Obama though I’m decided for Romney before hand, when big Obama supporters are saying things like “He really needs a teleprompter” etc. etc. this is just awkward for the President and might make some question his credibility alright.

I basically see the debate as at least in this first round, Romney was prepared and knowledgeable and did a good job presenting his ideas. They said in 2002, he came from behind as well.

I have no problem with Romney, I don’t think he looked bad last time in 2008 but before, he did have to make compromises to govern a state generally thought of being one of the most liberal ones in the nation.

However, that said, he could probably work with the Democrats if Romney wins and the Democrats drop some of these horribly radical progressive policies.
 
He_Man said:
The first thing I noticed was Obama’s dark circles under his eyes. He looked tired, like he hadn’t slept. They need to fix that with makeup next time. It ages him.

He also had poor foot posture, according to debate experts. I could care less about where the mans toes are, but he kept cocking his foot back and resting on the tip of his foot. Apparently that is a no-no, whereas Mitt stood tall and upright the whole time.

To me, things like that are silly.
Click to expand...
I’m ashamed of Mr Romney:

As tired as Mr Obama looked - Mr Romney should have offered Mr Obama an empty chair. :yup::yup::yup:
 
Romney did pretty well in this first debate. CNN states that %67 believe he won this time around. Hopefully Obama will rise to the occasion a bit more on the next two.

It looks like the various debates in the primaries really gave Romney some valuable experience.
 
SuperLuigi said:
You can’t, for instance, call an insurance company when your house is on fire and ask for insurance.

That’s what a preexisting condition is.

Romney’s plan covers preexisting conditions.

I think that all comes down to the market.

patientpowernow.org/2012/09/pre-existing-conditions-free-market/
Click to expand...
And that’s the problem with Romney. He says he’s going to repeal Obama Care on the first day after his election. Anyone with knowledge on how the government works, knows he can’t do this.

However, as he said in a TV interview just a couple weeks ago, when pressed, he said he would not repeal it, but keep the things that are good, and he said there are lots of things he likes in Obama Care, and get rid of the things he doesn’t like.

So, reading between the lines, he could just say, he’ll modify Obama Care, but he should stop saying he’ll repeal it. Repealing it. scares the people who are already benefiting from it.

Jim
 
epan said:
Out of curiosity I checked the FOX website poll on who won the debate. The results were 61% Obama, 39% Romney. Can’t find it now. This is the second time, at least, that they have closed a poll with disagrees with their “fair and balanced” ideology.

Interesting the 2/3’s of FOX viewers thought Obama won.
Click to expand...
foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/02/poll-obama-ahead-and-favored-to-win-debate-romney-has-edge-among-independents/

This poll shows viewers thought Romney won…95-5.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top