Post-Debate Thoughts - Winners? Losers?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I predicted a draw and I think it was however, Romney did make a very pointed message of

- The key thingsObama promised he didn't deliver

-I can get it done.

That would be a much more compelling argument if he could tell people HOW he was going to get it done.

It's easy and idealistic to say you're going to fix things because you can do better. But so many people (one of the voters last night, even) have asked "hey, can I have some specifics?" and he's yet to list one. He doesn't have to list them all. Just one. And he won't or he can't. I'm not sure which.

One of the greatest parts is, after hammering Obama for not creating jobs, and for stating he himself WOULD create jobs... he then laughs at the idea that government creates jobs.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the "we had a binder full of women!" comment.

So basically his argument was "Yeah, Obama fights for equal pay for women but uh ... I hired women out of a catalog once, so I am on their side."

I expected the Libya thing to be Obama's downfall in the debate when it was inevitably talked about, and it should have been. Instead, Obama came off looking better with his responses.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Evylin

[Mick_n_Leila 6]

Neither one is any good.......its just more of the same....all garbage.....we need some new blood, outside of the two parties

[kytwell 179]

I wonder if they agree about camera angles prior to the debate? My wife who can't vote anyway, noticed it and asked me about it. The majority of the time when Romney was speaking the camera would be in up close on him or would have a split screen with Obama. When Obama would have the stage, there was hardly any split screen shots and they would alternate b/t close up and pan shots to show Obama, the audience and the stage. It gave the appearance of him having a better command and stage presence. She likes BO, but said it comes off as if they were trying to make him look more "Presidential." I don't buy into the media bias stuff, so I was wondering if this is one of the agreed upon conditions candidates sign off on; camera angles? Or if this is an example of media bias that I hear so much about?

[decocker 7,198]

I don't buy into the media bias stuff, so I was wondering if this is one of the agreed upon conditions candidates sign off on; camera angles? Or if this is an example of media bias that I hear so much about?

Please begin buying into the media bias stuff. Start here: http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart

[JohnR! 5,495]

I don't buy into the media bias stuff, so I was wondering if this is one of the agreed upon conditions candidates sign off on; camera angles?

The campaign for both candidates go over all the detail of the broadcast before it airs, but to answer your question, if the media were not biased, would we have only two candidates?

Why don't they bring in ALL the candidates for a debate?

[JohnR! 5,495]

I expected the Libya thing to be Obama's downfall in the debate when it was inevitably talked about, and it should have been. Instead, Obama came off looking better with his responses.

That was the turning point at the debate.

Romney could not stand his ground and Obama's admonition sucked all the confidence he had left. From that moment onwards Mittens began to stutter and stumble.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The campaign for both candidates go over all the detail of the broadcast before it airs, but to answer your question, if the media were not biased, would we have only two candidates?

Why don't they bring in ALL the candidates for a debate?

Because membership on the Commission on Presidential Debates is determined by the percentage of the popular vote gained in the last election. In other words, only Democrats and Republicans sit on that commission.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Because membership on the Commission on Presidential Debates is determined by the percentage of the popular vote gained in the last election. In other words, only Democrats and Republicans sit on that commission.

Which IMHO sucks... If you're on the ticket you should be on the debate.

[kytwell 179]

Which IMHO sucks... If you're on the ticket you should be on the debate.

I concur.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That would be a much more compelling argument if he could tell people HOW he was going to get it done.

It's easy and idealistic to say you're going to fix things because you can do better. But so many people (one of the voters last night, even) have asked "hey, can I have some specifics?" and he's yet to list one. He doesn't have to list them all. Just one. And he won't or he can't. I'm not sure which.

In all fairness, it's nearly impossible to go into details in these "debates." - That's what campaign websites are for. Limited details on the Romney campaign site, but still a lot more than what he says on TV. The information is out there, you just have to look for it.

These 90 minute 'debates' though are a true disservice to the ADD American people.

Which IMHO sucks... If you're on the ticket you should be on the debate.

That would break up their playground though, now wouldn't it? We just can't have that happening....

[JohnR! 5,495]

I concur.

In particular, I would very much like to hear from Ron Paul. He has some good ideas and America should at least be afforded the opportunity to listen to him in the context of a presidential debate. More than any other potential candidate, Ron Paul is a good alternative for all those who are not sold on either of the major candidates.

[^_^ 5,021]

That would break up their playground though, now wouldn't it? We just can't have that happening....

If we let every candidate on the ballot in any state on that debate stage, the debate would have to last all day to be of any use.

If we don't let them all in, if we create standards that must be met before you're allowed on.... well, isn't that what we have today? It seems like the only real beef is that the standards created by the Commission were too stringent for the candidate of your choice.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

[quote name=' timestamp='1350483329' post='5761188]

If we let every candidate on the ballot in any state on that debate stage, the debate would have to last all day to be of any use.

If we don't let them all in, if we create standards that must be met before you're allowed on.... well, isn't that what we have today? It seems like the only real beef is that the standards created by the Commission were too stringent for the candidate of your choice.

If the two-party system that is very much controlled by corporations which own the modern media outlets, then how do you propose a third/fourth party candidate get said voice. No one is saying Billy Bob from Kentucky get in on the debates with his 3 voters. We're talking legitimate candidates like Gary Johnson who will carry a couple of million people on election day easily. Who that helps or hinders is something else.

[^_^ 5,021]

If the two-party system that is very much controlled by corporations which own the modern media outlets, then how do you propose a third/fourth party candidate get said voice. No one is saying Billy Bob from Kentucky get in on the debates with his 3 voters. We're talking legitimate candidates like Gary Johnson who will carry a couple of million people on election day easily. Who that helps or hinders is something else.

I am sympathetic to your concerns about the plutocratic nature of our so-called democracy.

That said, tell me this. Who is a "legitimate candidate"? Is someone who can get a few million votes on Election Day but not win a single Electoral College seat "legitimate" or a waste of time?

Also: I assume you're now trusting the polls to tell you who is (and who isn't) in a position to win a few million votes. I had you pegged for someone who mistrusted polls. My bad.

[decocker 7,198]

If the two-party system that is very much controlled by corporations which own the modern media outlets, then how do you propose a third/fourth party candidate get said voice. No one is saying Billy Bob from Kentucky get in on the debates with his 3 voters. We're talking legitimate candidates like Gary Johnson who will carry a couple of million people on election day easily. Who that helps or hinders is something else.

agreed.

what we have right now is the corporation fueled fed's illusion of choice and american people's respective illusion of outrage..

romney and obama are completely similar, sound bites and reddit memes aside.