2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

[Coito ergo sum]

O.k., folks, the first debate is upon us.

My prediction, Romney will try for zingers which will fall flat. He will receive "gotcha" questions from the moderators which he will stumble over. He will try, but he will not lay a glove on Obama.

Obama will stick with pat answers, and he will use up all his time answering questions with non-answers. He will do so deftly and the moderators will not be swift or motivated enough to ask probing follow-up questions to press the issues.

Obama will not get a knockout, but mainly because he doesn't need one and will not risk leaving an opening by going for a big hit. He'll rope a dope and work the body. In the end, a majority of pundits and a majority of voters will say he won the debate.

Romney will need to be prepared with a short and sweet, and persuasive, explanation of his 47% gaffe. He will be asked if he is ready to handle foreign policy given his international "gaffe tour" that he was labeled as having starting with the Olympics. He will be challenged on his tax proposal, which some have said will result in tax hikes for the middle class, so he has to have details that will be able to show he doesn't intend that. He also needs to say, flat out, that while the details of the plan have not been ironed out, he will not allow a tax increase on the middle class. I predict no questions about his religion, at all, and if he does get one, he will have to refuse to answer and accuse the moderator of asking impertinent questions that are none of his business. He will be asked if he accepts the "Ryan proposals" and if not he will be asked how his plans differ.

Obama will be asked largely softball questions which are more open-ended and which allow him to pontificate. So, while Romney will be asked questions like "how will you handle the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, considering your gaffe in calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel?" And, Obama will be asked questions like "In your second term, what more will you do to solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis?" (hypothetical examples).

Romney has the uphill battle. Romney has to hit a massive home run in order to be declared the victor. Ties go to Obama.

[Ian]

Shortly after the debate begins, I predict Romney will develop spontaneous cases of explosive diarrhea, Tourette's Syndrome and projectile vomiting.

I could be wrong, of course.

More serious discussion will come after I watch the debate. For now, I more or less agree with what Coito said.

[Coito ergo sum]

For the furreners: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/0 ... al-debate/ and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 35456.html

And, Ian, don't fucking agree with me!

[Ian]

And, Ian, don't fucking agree with me!

Well, I disagreed with your notion that the President would be served up a bunch of softball questions while Romney would get tailored tough ones. You really think Jim Lehrer is going to be that preferential towards Obama?

[Gerald McGrew]

Keep in mind that for conservatives, "What papers do you read" is considered a "gotcha question".

[Gerald McGrew]

It's not too difficult (or useful) to make predictions if you've been paying attention. A few obvious facts lead to obvious conclusions...

1) Romney is behind, has been behind, and is losing ground in the swing states. Thus, it's obvious that he's a bit desperate and has to do something to turn the momentum.

2) It's already been leaked that Romney is being coached on delivering "zingers" to try and win the debate.

3) Given Obama's standing in the polls and Romney's proclivity to fuck up over the past month, it's obvious that he has no need to take any risks and will be playing it safe.

4) Conservatives have believed that any media source that doesn't report on or otherwise reflect the alternate reality constructed by Fox News is "liberally biased", and..

a) Expectations (given all of the above) are that neither side will walk away a clear victor, which is effectively a win for Obama, thus...

5) Conservatives are constructing fall back narrative where Obama's win will be chalked up to the "softball questions" the liberally biased media asked Obama and the "gotcha" questions they asked Romney.

As with so many other issues, conservatives will deny the obvious reality and instead adopt a more comfortable explanation for the results.

[amused]

[redunderthebed]

I wonder if they are as much of a wankfest and increasingly irrelevant in the age of the soundbyte as our election debates.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not too difficult (or useful) to make predictions if you've been paying attention.

It is fun, though. Hardly any of this forum can be deemed "useful," can it? But, it isn't easy to make accurate predictions. Predictions are easy. Being right often isn't.

A few obvious facts lead to obvious conclusions...

1) Romney is behind, has been behind, and is losing ground in the swing states. Thus, it's obvious that he's a bit desperate and has to do something to turn the momentum.

There is reasonable debate as to where the two stand in given states, depending on the poll and the methodology issues. However, even if they are tied or even if Romney were a point or two ahead generally, the same analysis would apply. He needs to score big, and Obama doesn't.

2) It's already been leaked that Romney is being coached on delivering "zingers" to try and win the debate.

Both candidates are heavily coached. The "leaks" have mainly been commentary from folks looking to lambaste Romney, like this dopey article in the HuffPo -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... tions-2012 - the problem with zingers is their tendency to fall flat. The classic zinger is the Reagan - Mondale "I won't hold my opponent's youth and inexperience against him..." line....

3) Given Obama's standing in the polls and Romney's proclivity to fuck up over the past month, it's obvious that he has no need to take any risks and will be playing it safe.

And, it's also because when Obama fucks up, he's not called on it by the mainstream media. Has a reporter even asked Obama any probing questions about Bengazi? Of course not. they just print what the White House press releases say, and if they say "this has everything to do with the video" and everyone else is saying it was preplanned and forewarned, well, nothing to do with Obama's foreign policy....not worth asking about.

4) Conservatives have believed that any media source that doesn't report on or otherwise reflect the alternate reality constructed by Fox News is "liberally biased", and..

a) Expectations (given all of the above) are that neither side will walk away a clear victor, which is effectively a win for Obama, thus...

The mainstream American media, with the exception of FoxNews, is definitely biased toward Obama. Absolutely. It's painfully obvious. The fact that nobody asked Obama what warnings they received prior to the Bengazi attack, and what steps were taken to address the warnings is testament to that. The fact that the press went haywire over Romney's supposed "gaffe" about the London Olympics is another example the other way. Which got more press and which garnered more implications that something wrong was done? Romney's accurate and not even impolite statement was turned into a foreign policy debacle illustrating his unfitness to be President, whereas President Obama is essentially treated as having nothing at all to do with American foreign policy in Libya et al. (except that he's apparently doing all the right things, and the unrest is purely due to the dopey video).

5) Conservatives are constructing fall back narrative where Obama's win will be chalked up to the "softball questions" the liberally biased media asked Obama and the "gotcha" questions they asked Romney.

Let's analyze the transcript afterward, and we'll see who gets the softball questions. The press typically asks softball questions of Obama. They don't challenge him. They don't press him. They don't WANT him to be wrong. That's because 80% of the reporters are staunchly in favor of his reelection.

As with so many other issues, conservatives will deny the obvious reality and instead adopt a more comfortable explanation for the results.

Well, provide some concrete examples, if you would. That would help in understanding what you're saying. What's a prominent example of conservatives denying an obvious reality?

[Coito ergo sum]

Keep in mind that for conservatives, "What papers do you read" is considered a "gotcha question".

I think in that case, it wasn't so much a "gotcha" question, as a question they only pose one way. We don't see similar questions posed to Democrat candidates. Like the "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" question asked to Palin.

Biden is showing himself to be a fucking moron, and he's been making ridiculous statements for years. Why isn't he asked questions like that, designed to get at what he knows and doesn't know? He's not. We all know why.

And, Gibson was wrong about what "The Bush Doctrine" was. He questioned Palin, right? Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine. She asked what respect he meant that, and he refused to tell her, initially, because obviously the implication would be that she didn't know what it was. He then clarified that it meant that the US has the right to anticipatory self defense.

Interestingly, Gibson is wrong about that. The term was first used by Charles Krauthammer, a popular and prominent conservative columnist, who wrote in 2001 that Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine. Another Bush Doctrine arose after 9/11/01 when Bush announced the "with us or against us" policy on the war on terrorism and Pakistan was faced with an ultimatum to support our war in Afghanistan, or else. Then another Bush Doctrine arose after the 2003 Iraq War started which was the doctrine as "a" major justification for the war that we had a right to attack a country that posed an imminent threat, etc. That's the doctrine Gibson was referring to, but there was another subsequent doctrine too, which was announced in Bush's secondinaugural address and stated that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world.
Krauthammer wrote:

If I were in any public foreign-policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about Bush’s grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda. Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.

Not the “with us or against us” no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign-policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02457.html

[Gerald McGrew]

Yes, yes, yes CES, we know...the polls are biased against Romney, the media's biased against Romney, etc, etc, etc. When Obama wins next month, it'll be because of those things rather than the fact that the GOP put up a weak candidate who ran an incompetent campaign.

And examples of conservatives denying reality? Oh let's see....evolution, global warming, Obama raised federal taxes, death panels, allowing gays to marry will be the end of western civilization, letting them serve in the military will destroy readiness....

There's a reason Fox News viewers are grossly misinformed on so many issues; it's because they regularly create their own reality and accuse any media that doesn't reflect it of "liberal bias".

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/1 ... n-stewart/

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, yes, yes CES, we know...the polls are biased against Romney, the media's biased against Romney, etc, etc, etc.

Where did I say that. I just said it was arguable. It wouldn't be unheard of for polls to be biased, and even unbiased polls can have poor methodology.

When Obama wins next month, it'll be because of those things rather than the fact that the GOP put up a weak candidate who ran an incompetent campaign.

If Obama wins it won't be because of biased or poor methodology polls. Saying that the polls might not be 100% accurately reflecting the electorate's views is not to say that such inaccuracy is determinative of the election.

But, if you want to look for people trying to blame election results on nonsense, look no further than moronic Democrats laying the foundation for a loss in 2008 by claiming that the bush administration controlled the "Diebold" voting booths and that Obama wouldn't have a chance to win because it was all rigged.

And examples of conservatives denying reality? Oh let's see....evolution,

Romney is in favor of teaching evolution in science class, and against teaching creationism.

global warming,

Romney on climate change in 2010: "I believe that climate change is occurring — the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to factors out of our control."

Obama raised federal taxes,

He did raise federal taxes: (1) Obamacare includes increases to federal taxes, (2) Obamacare includes health insurance welfare which is assistance to people who can't afford insurance, and that is paid for with a tax leveled at the federal level.

He's also been trying to raise other federal taxes by repealing the Bush tax cuts and if they are repealed as is slated for January 1, 2013, the top two income tax rates would increase by nearly 20%, the capital gains tax rate would increase nearly 60%, the tax on dividends would nearly triple, the Medicare payroll tax rate would increase by 62% for these disfavored taxpayers, and the death tax rate would rise from the grave with a 57% increase in the top rate. And a 40% corporate income tax rate.

He proposed the Buffet rule tax which would increase the capital gains tax by 100%.

death panels,

This is a label given to a provision which actually did exist in Obamacare, as a review board. Calling it a death panel was an exaggeration.

allowing gays to marry will be the end of western civilization, letting them serve in the military will destroy readiness....

Being against gay marriage is an opinion that was shared by the President until about four months ago.

And, the serving in the military issue was also bipartisan.

There's a reason Fox News viewers are grossly misinformed on so many issues;

Looks like you were grossly misinformed on most of the issues you listed.

[Gerald McGrew]

Where did I say that. I just said it was arguable. It wouldn't be unheard of for polls to be biased, and even unbiased polls can have poor methodology.

Oh riiiiiiiiiiight....that's all you meant. No attempt at all to attribute Romney's trailing status to biased polls...none at all.

If Obama wins it won't be because of biased or poor methodology polls. Saying that the polls might not be 100% accurately reflecting the electorate's views is not to say that such inaccuracy is determinative of the election.

And it won't be because of the "liberal media" either, right?

Romney is in favor of teaching evolution in science class, and against teaching creationism.

Wow, nice bait n' switch dude! First you asked for me to name realities conservatives denied, but when given examples you suddenly change it to realities Romney denies.

How fucking dishonest of you. Really CES, that's just pathetic.

He did raise federal taxes: (1) Obamacare includes increases to federal taxes, (2) Obamacare includes health insurance welfare which is assistance to people who can't afford insurance, and that is paid for with a tax leveled at the federal level.

If you click the link I provided, you'll see that at the time the question was asked, Obama had reduced federal taxes, yet conservatives were absolutely sure he had raised them.

Being against gay marriage is an opinion that was shared by the President until about four months ago.

Again, bait n' switch. I specifically cited the argument that gay marriage will "destroy western civilization".

And, the serving in the military issue was also bipartisan.

Looks like you were grossly misinformed on most of the issues you listed.

The only way you can make that argument is via blatantly dishonest tactics. That speaks for itself.

[Coito ergo sum]

Where did I say that. I just said it was arguable. It wouldn't be unheard of for polls to be biased, and even unbiased polls can have poor methodology.

Oh riiiiiiiiiiight....that's all you meant. No attempt at all to attribute Romney's trailing status to biased polls...none at all.

No. I wrote what I meant. I don't expect that he is more than tied. Some polls of likely voters show him tied. I never said the polls were biased. I said that there are arguments being made about methodology. As I said, poor methodology can occur without any overt "bias." One of the arguments is that the polls are weighted based on 2008 voter turnout, which is not an accurate reflection of the current voting cycle. There is some merit to the argument, but it certainly doesn't mean that the polls are biased and Romney is really running away with a victory.

Just calm down and give me the courtesy of intending to write what I actually write and not some other thing that you imagine.

If Obama wins it won't be because of biased or poor methodology polls. Saying that the polls might not be 100% accurately reflecting the electorate's views is not to say that such inaccuracy is determinative of the election.

And it won't be because of the "liberal media" either, right?

I don't know. There is a liberal bias in the media, though. That much is very clear, and I gave examples of what I mean. It doesn't mean Republicans can't win. Bush was lambasted incessantly in the media, and sometimes rightly so, and he still won by a greater margin in 2004 than in 2000, when he lost the popular vote.

Romney is in favor of teaching evolution in science class, and against teaching creationism.

Wow, nice bait n' switch dude! First you asked for me to name realities conservatives denied, but when given examples you suddenly change it to realities Romney denies.

Fair point. I agree that conservatives often believe that evolution is not true, which is a very silly belief in this day and age. Lots of people believe a lot of crazy things. Good thing I'm not a conservative, nor do I care about what religious conservatives believe about evolution or anything else. There still is a Liberal and Left bias in the media.

Since this thread is about the US Presidential debate it seems more relevant what Romney believes, rather than what some portion of conservatives believe.

How fucking dishonest of you. Really CES, that's just pathetic.

I don't know why you've become belligerent. Where have I gotten in any way personal with you. You seem emotionally invested in disproving the obvious Liberal bias in the media. If it upsets you, I'm sorry, but there is no call to be calling me fucking dishonest or pathetic. You ought to apologize.

He did raise federal taxes: (1) Obamacare includes increases to federal taxes, (2) Obamacare includes health insurance welfare which is assistance to people who can't afford insurance, and that is paid for with a tax leveled at the federal level.

If you click the link I provided, you'll see that at the time the question was asked, Obama had reduced federal taxes, yet conservatives were absolutely sure he had raised them.

Whatever. I don't care what conservatives think. Some people probaby think he did raise them. And, he did raise them. And, he definitely has WANTED and called for the raising of them since before he was even elected. Is the argument here that Obama is a tax cutter and that tax cuts are good? If so, why are you and others so all fired in favor of raising them?

Large portions of Liberals thought Bush Did 9/11 and that the GOP controlled the voting booths and could rig the 2008 election. So what?

Being against gay marriage is an opinion that was shared by the President until about four months ago.

Again, bait n' switch. I specifically cited the argument that gay marriage will "destroy western civilization".

And, the serving in the military issue was also bipartisan.

Looks like you were grossly misinformed on most of the issues you listed.

The only way you can make that argument is via blatantly dishonest tactics. That speaks for itself.

I haven't been dishonest at all. You're just very immature and you have difficulty having a civil discussion without flying off the handle and mischaracterizing people's arguments.

[macdoc]

summary - wishful thinking by a right winger seeing his hopes dashed.