2012 US Presidential Debate 1 - October 3, 2012

[Drewish]

I don't think that picture is very partisan.

Looks two posts up... What?

[Ian]

I don't think that picture is very partisan.

Looks two posts up... What?

What?

It seems fairly accurate and objective to me. An NBC News guy drew it.

[Svartalf]

So, did people drink much?

[Wumbologist]

I really wish Obama had shot back on the repeated "$716 billion cut" misrepresentation. He really needs to get that one locked down.

[Wumbologist]

I also find it regrettable that the idea of cutting defense is so taboo. Fuck that, we don't need you idiots stumbling over each other to tell us how much you're both going to spend as much money on blowing shit up as possible. We need to get a fucking handle on the defense budget.

[Gerald McGrew]

Early verdict:

Both did fairly well, and neither was a clear winner. Obama played it safe and came off very smart but perhaps a bit defensive; I was hoping he'd slap Romney around a bit more than he did. He did too much lecturing. Romney was confident and well-rehearsed, but remains ideologically inconsistent (still hasn't detailed his policies well, and the President thankfully drove that point home) and his body language looked ridiculous: he had a weird perma-smirk on his face while Obama was speaking, and couldn't keep his own arms from flapping around when he was speaking.

The moderator served up softballs to both of them. It was basically: "Here's the subject. You start with a two minute speech, then your opponent can give one, and then you guys go back and forth at will." He didn't even control their time limits very well. I hope the others will be tougher.

Naturally, I wanted to tear my hair out every time Romney told an outright lie or something completely out of context, but I won't get into those things right now... except for Romney's invoking death panels. Politifact.com gave that their Lie Of The Year award in 2010. Jerk.

The whole thing was pretty damn dull, IMO.

Actually, I thought Romney had by far the stronger night. He was energetic, quick, and on point. Obama OTOH looked like he was going through the motions and missed one opportunity after another. I mean, at around the same time that Obama was trying to make the point that Romney has a pattern of making promises without giving specifics, Romney actually said about his tax plan, "make up a number" and Obama failed to pounce on it. That right there could have been a defining moment of the debate had Obama immediately used it (Something like, "Gov. Romney perfectly captured the problems with his proposals when he said 'make up a number'. Well, you just can't go around making things up as President.") Instead it slid on by without a notice.

No Bain Capital, no 47%, no etch-a-sketch...just standard talking points and numbers debating. So without much substance or defining moments to decide a winner, if falls to demeanor and presence. Romney won those categories in spades and Obama just seemed to want to be somewhere else.

So now we see if it moves the polls at all.

[Svartalf]

As per French news, Obama lost.

[Coito ergo sum]

Democrats and Obama are so clearly the better selection, only a fool would consider that other group and their 'candidate'.

I don't see where we need to have these debates at all.

Because the other half of the country thinks Obama is a failure at fixing the economy and the "fundamental change" he is looking for is undesirable.

Well that's the problem, isn't it? Fixing the economy is going to require fundamental change. But the conservatives/Republicans don't want change, so the economy (that their party fucked up) is never going to get fixed, certainly not if another Republitard gets into office.

Actually not. More of a return to fundamentals.

The Republicans do want change, they just don't want the kind of change Obama is selling.

I'm curious... what is this "fundamental change" you speak of anyway? Is it more than "fix it and make it better" or is there something more concrete that you think Obama wants?

[Coito ergo sum]

Clearly we need to immediately enact a voter competence requirement that would disqualify anyone who voted Republican in any election for the last 30 years. That should do it!

If your goal is to wreck the country, that would work pretty quickly.

[Kristie]

As per French news, Obama lost.

No if lying gets you disqualified. Then, it would be a clear Obama win.

[FBM]

So, did people drink much?

What's Obama's "doing fine" gaffe? We don't get that much news over here.

[Coito ergo sum]

Early verdict:

Both did fairly well, and neither was a clear winner.

One, I disagree completely. I was very surprised at how poorly Obama was doing in the debate, and I expected him to turn it around throughout, but he never did. Romney scored many points and was the clear winner.

Two, even MSNBC, after the debate, which is where I turned as soon as it was over -- to a person -- Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Ed Shultz and Chris Matthews, the biggest cheerleaders for Obama, all said flat out that Obama did a shit job and Romney won clearly. Bill Maher said he won. James Carville said he won. Chris Mattews was positively insane about it: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... nning.html

Andrew Sullivan: "this was a disaster" and may have cost Obama the election. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... -2012.html

10.31 pm. Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama's meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.

Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn't there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.

The person with authority on that stage was Romney - offered it by one of the lamest moderators ever, and seized with relish. This was Romney the salesman. And my gut tells me he sold a few voters on a change tonight. It's beyond depressing. But it's true.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... -2012.html

James Carville: "Romney came out with a chainsaw" http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/04/carvi ... -chainsaw/

Liberals throw a hissy fit over Obama's debate performance: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/03/liber ... erformance

CNN Poll: Romney annihilates Obama: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ig-margin/

Two-thirds of people who watched the first presidential debate think that Republican nominee Mitt Romney won the showdown, according to a nationwide poll conducted Wednesday night.

"No presidential candidate has topped 60% in that question since it was first asked in 1984," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

No presidential candidate has topped 60% - until Romney who just nailed 67%. This was a "thumpin'".

Van Jones -- Romney was able to Out-Obama Obama: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/ ... ama-obama/

Not debatable, Obama Stumbles: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/10 ... ml?hp=t2_3

"Obama seemed like George H.W. Bush in 1992. He didn't want to be there, was unable or unwilling to defend his four years and could not explain why everything he did led to such a poor recovery, high unemployment and at the unbearable cost of $5 trillion in additional debt." - Grover Norquist.

"Romney won this debate on points, rounds, style, substance and even likability. He told stories,connected himself with regular people, seemed more relaxed/ muted his little richie rich image and challenged President Obama on his own turf." - Aaron David Miller

Chris Matthews rant -- "where was Obama tonight?" http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201 ... 37447.html

Matthews described Obama’s debate performance as “like, ‘I’ll wait an hour and a half, I think I can get through this thing. I don’t even look at this guy.' Whereas Romney — I loved the split screen, staring at Obama, addressing him, like the prey. He did it just right. I'm coming at an incumbent. I've got to beat him. You gotta beat the champ, and I’m gonna beat him tonight. And I don't care what this guy moderator, whatever he thinks he is, because I'm going to ignore him. What was Romney doing? He was winning.”

The moderator served up softballs to both of them. It was basically: "Here's the subject. You start with a two minute speech, then your opponent can give one, and then you guys go back and forth at will." He didn't even control their time limits very well. I hope the others will be tougher.

I agree. Lehrer did his usual shit job. Romney did not get tougher questions than Obama, that I agree with. The questions were shit, poorly worded, kind of just "throw the topic out there" and let the candidates say whatever they want, and screw the 15 minute sections. We're paying a 40 year professional journalist for this? Throw a college kid up there and he could have done that. Fuck Lehrer. Get him out of the debates. He sucks.

Naturally, I wanted to tear my hair out every time Romney told an outright lie or something completely out of context, but I won't get into those things right now... except for Romney's invoking death panels. Politifact.com gave that their Lie Of The Year award in 2010. Jerk.

The whole thing was pretty damn dull, IMO.

Well, we have to be careful here and specify exactly what the Romney or Obama said that is being claimed as a lie or out of context. Many times people attribute the word "lie" to something that isn't a lie, but just unpalatable and not phrased in a positive way.

[Coito ergo sum]

Just saw this already put online somewhere.

644536_483038075063948_983943323_n.jpg

That this was posted so quickly is a pretty good indication of how predictable this debate was.

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but every major commentator is saying it went to Romney and that he beat the piss out of Obama, and 67% of those watching the debate agreed.

I went into the debate thinking it would be just that, no gloves laid on Obama, and Obama deftly handling all issues, with Romney doing o.k. but either being dubbed the loser or at most a draw. About 5 minutes in, I caught a whiff of Obama stumbling and not really articulating his points well, and Romney was very clear, and strongly wording his points. He was unafraid to shove Obama's talking points back in his face, and call a mischaracterization a mischaracterization.

About 1/2 way through I was still waiting for Obama to improve, but he never did.

Then at the end I turned to MSNBC, and I couldn't believe the reactions there. On that channel, with Maddow, Hayes, Shultz, Matthews and Sharpton, if the thing was a tie or even just a marginal Romney victory, they would have easily spun it into an Obama clear win. But, they were, to a person, shocked and amazed and forced to admit that Romney won.

I mean, even Bill Maher said Romney won.

[Coito ergo sum]

I would not do debates with anyone like Romney, who can't shut up when asked. In real life if I am faced with such situations, such as at work, I hold back. But sometimes an explosion follows. Then I walk off.

Obam spoke for 4 minutes longer than Romney during the debate - timed by MSNBC and announced by Rachel Maddow.

[Coito ergo sum]

What's Obama's "doing fine" gaffe? We don't get that much news over here.

He said "The private sector is doing fine" -- in the most anemic recovery since the great depression.