2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Lemur]

Still haven't seen debate, stupid "work" getting in between me and politics. But this struck me as off:

It is obvious that Obama just speaks at a slower rate than Romney does.

But debates are timed, or should be. So if one speaker is naturally slower, that's his own dang problem.

That is all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think overall, Lehrer did a fair job- although he did give Obama slightly more time overall. (Obama spoke for 4.5 minutes longer than Romney in total).

I think, in general a good moderator will let the candidates speak. I find it so silly when they employ bells, whistles, gongs, ect. to try to hold a candidate. How can they demand everything be boiled down to a soundbite while bemoaning the lack of details? (Again, Obama went beyond his 2 minute allotment more often than Romney.) Both candidates constantly offered platitudinous talking points and anonymous "studies" in place of detail- and Leher's biggest mistake is not pressing either candidate for specifics. I think the format itself also lacked structure- but I don't know that was Leher's call.

I'm not sure how, with the situation we're facing, we are letting both parties get away with pretending they will not either make serious cuts or raise serious taxes. To hear them talk it's all just a question of efficiency, cutting waste, or taxing donald trump. Probably it's political suicide to be blunt. But surely we can avoid taking "he's going to cut medicare!!!!" as a serious point.

I wonder if this is how he behaves when he meets with world leaders behind closed doors

"The tensions between Mr. Obama and the Gulf states, both American and Arab diplomats say, derive from an Obama character trait: he has not built many personal relationships with foreign leaders. “He’s not good with personal relationships; that’s not what interests him,” said one United States diplomat. “But in the Middle East, those relationships are essential. The lack of them deprives D.C. of the ability to influence leadership decisions.”

Arab officials echo that sentiment, describing Mr. Obama as a cool, cerebral man who discounts the importance of personal chemistry in politics. “You can’t fix these problems by remote control,” said one Arab diplomat with long experience in Washington. “He doesn’t have friends who are world leaders. He doesn’t believe in patting anybody on the back, nicknames.

“You can’t accomplish what you want to accomplish” with such an impersonal style, the diplomat said."

[a completely inoffensive name]

long transcript

But in that segment you posted, Romney is not really saying anything either. Saying three talking points without a plan on how he is going to change that other than "this isn't good." is not really a statement. Obama does a really bad job at replying, no doubt. But no one is really bringing up details. Lehrer lets the 122 community banks number slide without any challenge or follow up.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But debates are timed, or should be. So if one speaker is naturally slower, that's his own dang problem.

That is all.

Again, the fault is on Lehrer for not controlling the debate. The candidate is going to try and get as much time as possible and the moderator has to keep that in check. I am just saying that in terms of pushing for more time Romney seems to be the winner, in terms of talking time Obama wins because the moments that he got another chance, he naturally takes longer to say something.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But in that segment you posted, Romney is not really saying anything either. Saying three talking points without a plan on how he is going to change that other than "this isn't good." is not really a statement. Obama does a really bad job at replying, no doubt. But no one is really bringing up details. Lehrer lets the 122 community banks number slide without any challenge or follow up.

The dodd-frank act is thousands of pages long and the question was a general one about "the level of regulation in the economy". He was asked about principles, the only details were to illustrate. And that's what the debates are for...in fact that's almost the entirety of what we elected someone based on. Because we don't know what's going to happen during the presidency, we don't know what situations are going to come up, we don't know what the legislative debate is going to be like, what will be possible and what won't, we don't even know which party will control the houses. Why do you think a debate is the place for detailed explanatory speeches?

My impression is that the debate was a shocker to a lot of the liberal pundits because they were amazed the president knew better than to use their dumb talking points in place where Romney could reply directly.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The dodd-frank act is thousands of pages long and the question was a general one about "the level of regulation in the economy". He was asked about principles, the only details were to illustrate. And that's what the debates are for...in fact that's almost the entirety of what we elected someone based on. Because we don't know what's going to happen during the presidency, we don't know what situations are going to come up, we don't know what the legislative debate is going to be like, what will be possible and what won't, we don't even know which party will control the houses. Why do you think a debate is the place for detailed explanatory speeches?

Because debates are worthless otherwise. We already know their principles Sasaki, we already know what they think in general about X law regarding Y. These are not the subjects that should be the highlight of a debate, because only the most clueless, ignorant, undecided voter has no clue about what each candidate stands for and what his principles are.

But then again, the debates are meant for the undecided in the first place. So maybe you are right.

My impression is that the debate was a shocker to a lot of the liberal pundits because they were amazed the president knew better than to use their dumb talking points in place where Romney could reply directly.

I try not to let my view paint how the debate went, I will admit that Obama did a very terrible job in this debate. However, I think also think it was a failure on some level on everyones part as well.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Because debates are worthless otherwise. We already know their principles Sasaki, we already know what they think in general about X law regarding Y. These are not the subjects that should be the highlight of a debate, because only the most clueless, ignorant, undecided voter has no clue about what each candidate stands for and what his principles are.

But it's not about the candidates saying what their principles are. That's all obama did, and that's why he lost. It's about the candidates challenging each other's principles. Candidates state principles all the time and the question is always "do they mean them?" In their regular speeches they can get away with just rhetoric. The media is supposed to challenge them but does a poor job. In the debate they can challenge each other--"if that's really your principle, then..." etc.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But it's not about the candidates saying what their principles are. That's all obama did, and that's why he lost. It's about the candidates challenging each other's principles. Candidates state principles all the time and the question is always "do they mean them?" In their regular speeches they can get away with just rhetoric. The media is supposed to challenge them but does a poor job. In the debate they can challenge each other--"if that's really your principle, then..." etc.

The only thing that politicians do when challenging each others principles is rhetoric. This isn't a university class where they are using logical arguments to come to conclusions about why the opponents views on X are bad. What good came out of Romney's attacks on Obama's principles (since Obama didn't do the same in return)? We had more talking points, "death panels" came up again, and some blatant lies in regards to Medicare. How is this a good purpose for debates?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The only thing that politicians do when challenging each others principles is rhetoric. This isn't a university class where they are using logical arguments to come to conclusions about why the opponents views on X are bad. What good came out of Romney's attacks on Obama's principles (since Obama didn't do the same in return)? We had more talking points, "death panels" came up again, and some blatant lies in regards to Medicare. How is this a good purpose for debates?

Obama didn't do the same in turn because he couldn't. That was what was shown and that's the good that came out of it and that's why Romney won.

Obama's bland and sweeping "there's a choice between Republicans who are anti-regulation, and me who thinks that some regulation is good" is shallow and doesn't hold up to contact with reality. Romney doesn't have to say much to counter that, all he has to do is say that he supports some regulation, but that x,y,z of such and such are a failure, and that he knows how to have regulations without failures like that. He actually started with that and then Obama came in with his standard bit as a (non) response. Romney's challenge of Obama is claiming that Obama views regulations in a vague way as a cure all without having the know how to see how they play out--and Obama feeds right into that with his bit of narrative history, with his self-congratulatory "toughest reforms since the 1930's" etc.

It's not "just rhetoric" it's rhetoric getting shown up.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Pure genius.

[drone]

I would love to see a debate PTI-style. Topics on the rundown list, discussion timed with buzzers, and most importantly, a "Stat Boy" that points out the lies the candidates tell.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Obama didn't do the same in turn because he couldn't. That was what was shown and that's the good that came out of it and that's why Romney won.

That is reading into it too much. If Obama can't perform in the next two debates, then yes I will agree with this. However, one debate does not tell us something as general as that. Romney has had his fair share of stumbles this past 3 months, Obama played it way too soft and way too general because he may have been overconfident in his lead in polls or because he underestimated Romney's skills or any number of reasons.

It's not "just rhetoric" it's rhetoric getting shown up.

With more rhetoric. By my count, I am reading three different fact checking organizations throwing flags all over the field on most of Romney's statements. It is not really showing up some rhetoric if what you are saying is false and only sounds good to begin with.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That is reading into it too much. If Obama can't perform in the next two debates, then yes I will agree with this. However, one debate does not tell us something as general as that. Romney has had his fair share of stumbles this past 3 months, Obama played it way too soft and way too general because he may have been overconfident in his lead in polls or because he underestimated Romney's skills or any number of reasons.

Wishful thinking. He didn't "play it soft". He has a poor record and little to defend it with. That's even granted that I largely agree with the idea that much of the economy is out of the presidents hands.

Romney hasn't stumbled recently, that's just media noise. Pay less attention to the media.

With more rhetoric. By my count, I am reading three different fact checking organizations throwing flags all over the field on most of Romney's statements. It is not really showing up some rhetoric if what you are saying is false and only sounds good to begin with.

You think Obama didn't say false things? Are you sure you read the fact checkers?

Politicians scaremonger about their opponent, and gloss over or speaking in glowing terms about their own plans and actions. The fact checkers, incompetent as they, do show that obama and romney did that. But it's democracy in action. If you do a lot of "his plan might, in the worst case scenario, though it's not really certain and perhaps a more probable estimate would be..." you might get some vaporous points for honesty but you will bleed votes.The noise about "false-hoods" and "fact-check" is partisans trying to make hay out of criticizing what their own guy also did.

What is revealed in debate, for those didn't know it already or weren't sure, is the fundamental difference between the two candidates. Romney on the whole appeared as a businessman, someone who believes deeply in free enterprise, someone who believes that it's "immoral to spend massively", and someone who is willing to make cuts, except in the military. Obama on the whole seemed to be an intellectual, with broad ideas (or "vision" as some people call it), he believes in educating for the future, green energy for the future, things like a measured approach, a balanced approach, the rich paying their fair share which is a moral issue to him, he drops words like arithmetic and experts, etc.

The debate was a contrast between moralizing stories about the good guys and bad guys of government regulation and the moral victory of "toughest regulations since..." etc, and Romney's replies which de-moralizes the story and talks about problems in the bill in real world terms of the effects on business. It was between "I believe in the future of green energy" and Romney talking about the actual attempts--lofty sentiment does not look so good when it comes to reality, creating successful businesses is very difficult.

Obama presents the issues in terms of what's intellectual or enlightened, abstracted from the real world. Romney presents the issues in terms of what's practical and moral in a real world sense, a more traditional kind of morality. To win debates Obama would have to be able to cast Romney in moral terms as an evil rich man, only looking out for the wealthy, not caring about the middle class. That's what his campaign has tried to do, very hard, but I'm skeptical that it can be done in a debate without the media on hand to help. It's also much harder to sell yourself as an enlightened bringer of progress when you have a four year record as president that looks like his. His comments about reaching out the muslim world sound a lot worse than they did 4 years ago.

Obama didn't lose because of lehrer's moderation, or because he played it soft while Romney was aggressive, or because of the altitude (:p) or even because he was unprepared. He lost because he has a shallow intellect. He can get away with it in speeches, with his cheerleader groupies in the media, but in a debate it can be revealed as his actual self. Romney was able to do that effectively. Obama coming out and saying "Romney wants to repeal dodd-frank" after Romney has just criticized parts of it and praised parts of it, has just said that he would "repeal and replace it" makes Obama sound like an empty suit, or an empty chair if you will. Obama did not seem capable of actually debating with Romney, and that's because he isn't. It seems to me like that's a fundamental ability for a politician.

[Hooahguy]

With more rhetoric. By my count, I am reading three different fact checking organizations throwing flags all over the field on most of Romney's statements. It is not really showing up some rhetoric if what you are saying is false and only sounds good to begin with.

Those same fact checking organizations are also throwing flags on Obama's statements. According to FactCheck.org, the score is Obama 5, Romney 4 on lies and exaggerations.

[HopAlongBunny]

Those same fact checking organizations are also throwing flags on Obama's statements. According to FactCheck.org, the score is Obama 5, Romney 4 on lies and exaggerations.

So, since nobody held anybody to account, it was essentially an info-mercial not a debate. Complete waste of time.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well **** it. I feel like I shouldn't even vote. **** both of them.

[rvg]

Well **** it. I feel like I shouldn't even vote. **** both of them.

Willard Romney thanks you in advance for your non-vote.

[Hooahguy]

Well **** it. I feel like I shouldn't even vote. **** both of them.

...and thats why Im voting Gary Johnson.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Willard Romney thanks you in advance for your non-vote.

Obama doesn't really represent me either. He hasn't helped student loans like I would want, he hasn't raised funding for NASA as much as I would want. He hasn't stopped enforcing the War on Drugs on medical pot dispensaries that are legal in their respective states.

The only reason I even try to support him is because he is not the GOP and doesn't inject fundamentalist christian doctrine as domestic social policies. But even there he hasn't done much other than repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, but he shows no promise of following up on anything else I would like him to focus on.

I live in California anyway, I very much doubt this state will turn red this election.

[Major Robert Dump]

And ACIN calls other people cheerleaders. You are apparently like one of seven people in the USA who thinks Obama did well.

The guy needs to stick his chest out and act like a ***** man. That is what he needs to do. He is the President. Maybe he could adopt that attitude he had in the gathering of back pastors from 2007 the media selectively released. That would gain him far more credibility than not looking people in the eye, holding his head down while he is being attacked, and pretty much in general actling like a toddler in trouble.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And ACIN calls other people cheerleaders. You are apparently like one of seven people in the USA who thinks Obama did well.

...You didn't read. Should I quote myself for you?

[Major Robert Dump]

What? Calling Hooah a cheerleader? Or stating that Obama was cool under fire and pretty much behaved th way he always does?

[Major Robert Dump]

dbl post

[Hooahguy]

What? Calling Hooah a cheerleader? Or stating that Obama was cool under fire and pretty much behaved th way he always does?

Yeah, Im not exactly sure how he figured I was a cheerleader. Im not a fan of either parties. Im merely stating the facts about the debates.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What? Calling Hooah a cheerleader? Or stating that Obama was cool under fire and pretty much behaved th way he always does?

I try not to let my view paint how the debate went, I will admit that Obama did a very terrible job in this debate. However, I think also think it was a failure on some level on everyones part as well.

Herp derp, what you want me to say? Yes, I have a bias. It's not some bombshell and I am surprised people don't call me out on it more. It comes out in a very hypocritical manner because I try to maintain cognitive dissonance on my guy being better despite him showing obvious flaws in the most important part of the campaign. Even worse, it's not even cleverly disguised like some others on this forum because let's face it, I am not that great a critical thinker and my writing skills are shit. That's what happens when I get to watch the Pride and Prejudice miniseries in English class instead of being asked to actually read it.

However, I try not to assert a view that Obama is the most wonderful man in the world, I just try to justify to myself that he is still better than the other guy by engaging in dumb and petty arguments online with people who have a better grasp of politics. I'm sorry I called Hooahguy a cheerleader, he isn't, I was obviously mad my team had lost the night.

[Hooahguy]

Though I really want to know why you consider me a cheerleader. I never once said that Romney didnt lie or whatnot. Nor did I say that Obama was flawless either.

If I had to be labeled a cheerleader, Im a cheerleader for the Johnson campaign.

[Major Robert Dump]

Actually, I think you ARE Obama, or at least on his staff, and you are here to sway Org opinion in your favor because The Org is an ever powerful entity.

I'm flattered, really, Mr President, but SRYSLY, you have work to do, bra

[a completely inoffensive name]

Though I really want to know why you consider me a cheerleader. I never once said that Romney didnt lie or whatnot. Nor did I say that Obama was flawless either.
If I had to be labeled a cheerleader, Im a cheerleader for the Johnson campaign.

I don't. Like I said, I was just in a pissy mood. I'm not mature as I like to pretend either. Again, I am sorry.

[Hooahguy]

I don't. Like I said, I was just in a pissy mood. I'm not mature as I like to pretend either. Again, I am sorry.

To cheer you up I think I will find a cheerleaders costume. Then dress up in it and take a picture. And post it for your enjoyment.

[Montmorency]

The guy needs to stick his chest out and act like a ***** man. That is what he needs to do. He is the President. Maybe he could adopt that attitude he had in the gathering of back pastors from 2007 the media selectively released. That would gain him far more credibility than not looking people in the eye, holding his head down while he is being attacked, and pretty much in general actling like a toddler in trouble.

I can empathise with Obama. That's exactly how I would have presented, in the event.

As I have found a connection between us in this manner, perhaps I should give him my vote.