Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 4  Next >

First Debate

  • BMann
  • Raven Veteran
  • 4193 posts this site

Posted: 10/3/2012 11:03 PM

First Debate 


I didn't watch the whole thing (O's were on for most of the first hour), but what I saw from Romney was impressive.  I honestly don't listen to much of the "facts" in these debates, because I recognize that most in the viewing audience are more interested in "who comes off better." And both these guys are so full of sh*t that I don't believe much of anything that comes out of their mouths.  But this is about who is the better salesman, who does the country feel more comfortable putting in charge.  And I thought Romney appeared more confident, more under control, and, yes, even more dignified that Obama.  He looked at Obama when the President spoke, while Obama only offered occasional glances at Romney when the Gov spoke, instead opting to stare at his frantic note-taking most of the time.  It wasn't as bad as Gore's audible sighs back in 2000, but it just didn't come off well.

I also got the impression that Romney was fighting a cold, just from his eyes and nose. Not that it matters at all, but just something I noticed.

I don't think this was a big knockout for Romney, but I think he helped himself more than Obama did tonight.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/3/2012 11:43 PM

Re: First Debate 


Fair and quite accurate.

I do think him calling out Obama for focusing on Obamacare for two years instead of jobs and for giving 90 billion to bankrupt green energy campaign contributing companies was HUGE for Romney.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/3/2012 11:59 PM

Re: First Debate 


No doubt that Romney wins this debate and probably substantially.  I disagree that he looked more dignified; he looked more energetic though.  While Romney will improve his standing as a result of this debate, I don't think Obama did anything to diminish his standing such as Gore's sigh, Dean's scream or McCain's "that one".  I think it is pretty clear that Obama was going into the debate with a four-corner strategy.  I am not so sure how that will play out.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the polls by this time next week. 

One thing I have learned about Obama and moments like this where he frustrates me is that he always has a longer term strategy.  Its that tactic vs, strategy approach.  One point that Obama set up and maybe the only area where I think he did something postive and possible is setting up or "seeding" ideas for future debates.  Obama did call out Romney for some serious discrepancies in areas where Romney is proposing ideas that are favorable yet avoided the unfavorable aspects of realizing them.  For example:

1.  Romney giving an across the board 20% tax cut to everyone yet maintaining a deficit neutral tax plan.

2.  Romney proposing to keep preexisting conditions in his healthcare reform yet not being honest as to how he will pay for this benefit.  Preexisting conditions are a huge expense can only be paid by huge premium increases or greatly expanding the insurance pool which could only occur with single payer or a mandate.

Obama had a third example like this that I can't remember but it might be around repealing Dodd-Frank.

O'Malley put it well afterwards by saying Romney will give us cake but no weight gain.

Romney already has issues with flips and flops but if he is ever held to explaining how he accomplishes the two aformentioned ideas without 1.  toasting the middle class and 2. mandates then he is going to fall back into the same trap he has been in hte past several months.  Some are saying Obama was "rope and doping" here by letting Romney run with these wild claims unchallenged.  I think that is a bit optimistic but at the very least, Romney has left himself vulnerable in future debates.  Obama has many openings to engage in the second debate.  Obama let Romney back into the race tonight but not on facts but on smoke and mirrors.  Now we see how well Obama can expose Romney's sleight of hand in the next debates.  Obama is no pushover and he will come out swinging next time and Romney left many targets in the wake tonight.

One other observation in regards to cable news which I found interesting was MSNBC's reaction which was across the board negative about Obama's performance as it should have been but I remember the debate reactions in 2008 where it was clear that Obama beat McCain and all the snap polls agreed yet the Fox folks respone was that McCain "wiped the floor with Obama".  Fox even thought Palin "wiped the floor" and "hit it out of the park" against Biden.  I give credit to MSNBC for being honest about Obama's performance.

Last edited 10/4/2012 12:03 AM by GalenSevinne

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/4/2012 12:04 AM

Re: First Debate 


Hussein just got kicked in the rear, so much so he's walking bow-legged tonight… the only question I have is how much will they have to over sample dems now?









Yanni

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! 
the balvenie single malt whisky fifty
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/4/2012 6:58 AM

RE: First Debate 


These things are indeed more about selling the agenda than the agenda itself. Having been on debate teams while in school, I've said for years that what we are 'treated' to every four years with the presidential candidates is hardly "debate". A piece that I read in the Post last Sunday really spoke to me about these so-called debates. It described them as essentially a simultaneous job interview. There is no interaction between the candidates, as there is in true debate - and, no, quips, zingers, and interruptions do not serve as "interaction". In a true debate, a candidate would get 3-5 minutes to make a statement on an issue, and then the other candidate would get 2-3 minutes to DIRECTLY question that candidate. Then the roles switch, then both would get a two minute rebuttal. The "moderator" only introduces the topic (called a "resolution") and keeps time.

As to who "won" the job interview last night, I've heard most people say Romney. I think that will help him a lot with the undecideds and so-called "leaners". When an incumbent is running for re-election, being an undecided or leaner essentially means that you're likely looking for a reason to NOT vote for the incumbent. After all, if you're satisfied with how things are going, you're not very likely to consider changing things.

We'll see though. Domestic policy is certainly where Obama is the most vulnerable, and Romney scored what points were to be had. We'll find out after two more debates and in a month if it was enough points with the undecided and leaning electorate.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/4/2012 8:29 AM

Re: First Debate 


I for one, expected a more spirited performance from the president. No matter, I am an issues voter so personality isn't as important to my choice of president.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/4/2012 9:02 AM

Re: First Debate 


I thought Romney was outstanding, and Obama mediocre at best.  I think you will see a more attacking Obama in the 2nd debate - we shall see how Romney reacts.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/4/2012 9:54 AM

RE: First Debate 


If he handles himself like he did against Gingrich and Santorum, who both went after him more aggressively than the President will be able to, then he should be fine. The President cannot come across as lashing out in desperation. He will need to hit where Romney might not be prepared, something that did not happen last night - with some of Obama's charges, it was apparent that Romney not only knew they were coming but knew how to effectively blow them out of the water (like the tax breaks for moving jobs overseas charge).

Before Obama can concern himself with how he's going to deal with Romney, he needs to be concerned with how he's going to present himself.

The performance by Obama suddenly puts greater importance for the Obama camp on the VP debate, which is scheduled to occur before the next presidential one. If Ryan throttles Biden, then things will become pretty desperate.

And the undercurrent to this is not just the presidential election, but coattails that might be made for the close Senatorial races that have drifted slightly toward the Dems over the last several weeks. The House is going to remain Repub. The Senate is leaning as if it will stay Dem, but is still very much in play for the Repubs. If Romney continues to look and appear more presidential in these debates, that will also impact the Senate races.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/4/2012 10:09 AM

RE: First Debate 


The debates are, in general, a waste of time. Each candidate will claim they "won" the "debate." The different media outlets will also claim their preferred candidate won the debate by a wide margin. You won't convince anyone on either party that their candidate lost, so the target is the few undecided voters to begin with, and neither candidate ever provides any real answers to any questions of substance. And what's worse, no candidate would ever consent to a real debate, for fear that they actually could lose and not be able to spin a victory out of it. It's a joke, treat it as such.

Look at their records. The US is in further debt than it was 4 years ago. Housing prices have not truly stabilized, and only appear that way because their is no interest on anything. Tax rates are about to soar through the roof, and unemployment is still entirely too high to be able to claim any kind of positive economic impact by the sitting president. And I don't trust Romney to do any better.

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!!!

Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/4/2012 10:39 AM

RE: First Debate 



cvilleRaven wrote: The debates are, in general, a waste of time. Each candidate will claim they "won" the "debate." The different media outlets will also claim their preferred candidate won the debate by a wide margin. You won't convince anyone on either party that their candidate lost, so the target is the few undecided voters to begin with, and neither candidate ever provides any real answers to any questions of substance. And what's worse, no candidate would ever consent to a real debate, for fear that they actually could lose and not be able to spin a victory out of it. It's a joke, treat it as such.

Look at their records. The US is in further debt than it was 4 years ago. Housing prices have not truly stabilized, and only appear that way because their is no interest on anything. Tax rates are about to soar through the roof, and unemployment is still entirely too high to be able to claim any kind of positive economic impact by the sitting president. And I don't trust Romney to do any better.

No, "undecided" voters and independents aren't very important in an election. It's more about getting your own party to come out to the polls instead of allowing them to sit on their hands. That's why it's important to rile people up and show them that voting for you will make a difference, and that allowing the other guy to get elected will be a disaster instead of a minor annoyance.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/4/2012 11:09 AM

Re: First Debate 


If it did anything, it at least slowed the corrupt media down from declaring the race over. But 3 more debates and anything can happen.

It is hilarious watching my Lib friends on FB fume.

"Romney has never worked a day in his life. He has had plenty of time to prepare"
"The President doesn't have as much time to prepare because he is busy saving the free world" (Go tell that one on The View)
"The moderator let Romney talk too much"(Fact check says Obama talked 4 mins more)
"Romney is a POS for wanting to defund PBS"

So much more I had to stop reading.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/4/2012 12:02 PM

Re: First Debate 


On Facebook, somebody posted in their status that "Obama couldn't prepare for the debates because he was busy running the country."

I simply responded: "*ruining."
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/4/2012 12:14 PM

Re: First Debate 


Must be a talking point because I've seen that also. They lose that excuse after THE VIEW and hanging with Rappers.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/4/2012 12:22 PM

RE: First Debate 


The important thing to remember is that it was nothing but a bunch of lies from both of them. Romney is not going to defund PBS or any other government program for that matter. I would be amazed if he even tried. Congress will not allow for the elimination of any government program, even a Republican controlled congress. How many times do people need to be fooled before they realize that none of these guys do what they say they are going to do?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/4/2012 12:51 PM

Re: First Debate 


Romney's campaign now has predictably gone into clean up mode.

1.  Starting with his pre-exisiting condition lie:

Campaign advisor Eric Fehrnstrom:   “With respect to pre-existing conditions, what Governor Romney has said is for those with continuous coverage, he would continue to make sure that they receive their coverage,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, referring to existing laws which require insurance companies to sell coverage to people who already have insurance, or within 90 days of losing their employer coverage.

lol...so if you already have insurance then preexisiting conditions are covered.  Ahh, that doesn't prevent insurance companies from denying you Mitt.

2.  On Romney's lie that half” of the green firms Obama invested “have gone out of business”:

Michael Grunwald  ICYMI: Romney camp told me (after my tweet-rants) Mitt didn't mean to say half the #stimulus-funded green firms failed. Probably <1% so far.


Okay he didn't mean to say "half" but he did.  Less than 1% is not even in the same debate as "half"


More to come I am sure as Romney's campaign seeks to maintain its momentum.


Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/4/2012 1:05 PM

RE: First Debate 


The message was sent in the primaries that Romney is no John McCain when it comes to campaigning and debating. So there really is no excuse for Obama being as ill-prepared for a sharp opponent. One has to wonder when one hears the excuse floated, "But, he's too busy running the country to prepare for a debate." George W. Bush, who many of these same folks put at maybe one IQ point above being mentally retarded, was able to prepare just fine while running the country. Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan... all managed to do just fine both running the country AND preparing for presidential debates.

This is where the appearances on Letterman (again) and The View (again) can really come back and bite people in the ass who are floating this nonsense excuse. I'm sorry, but while your opponent is sparring with Rob Portman in preparation, you cannot be yucking it up with Dave and declaring yourself "eye candy" on Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg's couch - then have your machine turn around and describe you as "too busy running the country" to prepare.

Obama has a pattern throughout his professional life of becoming lazy once he has what he wants - "phoning it in", if you will. He declared just a couple of days ago that debate prep was "a drag". Well, maybe he may want to consider another line of work then - because this is something that a presidential candidate need only do every FOUR YEARS.

One way that he could have helped keep himself at least somewhat sharp for this type of forum would have been to have held open press conferences more than once a year.

Last edited 10/4/2012 1:06 PM by 12thRaven

Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/4/2012 1:14 PM

Re: First Debate 


The debate helped to show the differences between the candidates.

"Qualified residential mortgage."

"Obamacare."

When Romney addressed these issues he showed how government regulation, even if it is well-intended, can create uncertainty and, thus, paralysis in the private sector. Meanwhile, Obama repeated the charge that the way to fix things is more taxes, and more government.

One says the answer is in the private sector and with the states. The other says the answer is with more bureaucrats (IPAB) and with more federal government control.

Romney will do well if he continues to make and prove the case of just how it is that good intentions, be they expressed in laws or by the President, are not enough to turn things around.
Reply | Quote
  • mdnjdevil
  • Raven Starter
  • 1937 posts this site
Avatar

Posted: 10/4/2012 1:17 PM

RE: First Debate 


I have only seen snippets of the debate, so I could be wrong in my theory here, but...

Is it possible that Obama is playing coy in order to swing the numbers back in his favor closer to the time of election?

This, like most presedential runs, appears to be "what have you done for me or said for me lately". 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/4/2012 1:17 PM

Re: First Debate 


I have never seen so many excuses for Obama's performance. Imagin if the media had been doing its job the past 4 years. The man might have exploded by now from hard questions. Instead of, "Isn't Michele cute? What's Beyonce like?"

As Galen's starts to tick off fact checks, I wonder if Obama made any mistakes? Nah.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/4/2012 1:19 PM

RE: First Debate 


Nevermind.  Al Gore offers his Man of Science explanation.

"Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today — just a few hours before the debate started," Gore said on his network, Current. "Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet, and you only have a few hours to adjust, I don't know..."

The science is settled and the debate is over then, I guess.  Thank you, Al.  eek1

This Obamabot thing is more serious than I thought. The pundits and his handlers need to stop making excuses for him and get him off his lazy ass so he doesn't get schooled again - or at least not as badly schooled.  The more quickly Team Obama can admit that this was OBAMA'S fault for not doing well, the more quickly they can move forward.  Making excuses for a lazy personality only enables the behavior.

Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 4  Next >