2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[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.

[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.

[Hooahguy]

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

...and thats why Im voting Gary Johnson.

[Goofball]

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.

That depends on which fact checkers you believe, I guess. The first one I saw yesterday had Romney "ahead" of Obama 3 - 1 on lies.

[Major Robert Dump]

My fave is Gore blaming altitude/jet lag whatever.

The lefty pundits are considerably less hard on tghe president on day 2#

Still doesn't change the fact that he did not respond to several Romney direct attacks which happended to be valid questions.

Surely in the national security debate he willl have some tricks, as he has access to facts and info romney will not.

[Lemur]

[Obama] has access to facts and info romney will not.

Don't presidential candidates start to receive briefings once it's down to two? Or is that only in the post-November period if they win?

I could Google it, but that would take effort.

-edit-

I am so deliriously happy this guy is back, singing about gay sex in the White House.

[Kralizec]

I am so deliriously happy this guy is back, singing about gay sex in the White House.

Arrrrrr train

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Don't presidential candidates start to receive briefings once it's down to two? Or is that only in the post-November period if they win?

I could Google it, but that would take effort.

-edit-

I am so deliriously happy this guy is back, singing about gay sex in the White House.

I googled. Apparently the two major candidates are offered briefings by the CIA after receiving their parties' nominations. The preface I read suggested, however, that very few of the candidates manage more than one "overiew" briefing prior to the general elections because of the tight schedule of a campaign.