Just caught the first debate, and surprised would be an understatement. President Obama looked so tired and Romney all "fired up and ready go". Just some thoughts:
Romney: 1. Great energy. He showed up ready to play. 2. Showed off his business-savvy character. Talking about different industried clearly demonstrated his extensive business background, regardless of wheter it's good or not. 3. Prepared. Romney knew what he had to do, and hammered Obama on JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
Obama: 1. Professor-in-Chief showed up. Methodical but far too conservative. 2. Seemed thrown off and unprepared for Romney's gusto. 3. Was not his campaign self. Certainly did not sell himself.
Generally dissapointing for the President. Maybe it's part of his plan? No idea, but Romney definitely revived his campaign. Going to come down to the wire. Defnitely saw a "new" Romney tonight.
What did you guys think? Huge deciding moment?
Poll: DId this debate change who you are going to vote for?
No (21)
91%
Yes (2)
9%
23 total votes
Your vote: DId this debate change who you are going to vote for?
Well, here's how I see it. Romney had nothing to lose, Obama is the incumbent. Romney is going to say anything to get elected, doesn't matter whether what comes out of his mouth is true or not, doesn't matter if he really knows what he's talking about. Obama has experience, Romney has none. Obama knows what works, Romney is saying big words to attract voters, but if he gets elected there's no way he could get even a fraction done of what he's saying he will do.
Obama is far, far more pragmatic and he knows what works, inside and out. Romney is all over the place and all his words are highly theoretical, but Obama is extremely practical. Obama talks about facts, Romney talks about fantasies.
To be honest I'm surprised this is even an issue. Obama is just far more knowledgeable than Romney. Romney has no specific plans, all he has are vague ideas of what he will do if he gets elected. And all his "ideas" are just not feasible, they are not going to work like how he predicts them to. Obama is accountable for everything, whereas nothing Romney says seems to add up.
How in the world do you "win" a debate? This isn't an art contest. This is about facts and what works, and what doesn't. There should be no subjectivity involved, one candidate obviously knows what he's talking about and the other one doesn't. It's clear.
Can't tell if the OP is highly in favor of Romney or if this is actually how the debate seemed. I wasn't able to catch it tonight. Can anybody confirm that the OP is correct?
On October 04 2012 12:39 coZy wrote: Can't tell if the OP is highly in favor of Romney or if this is actually how the debate seemed. I wasn't able to catch it tonight. Can anybody confirm that the OP is correct?
Yeah that's pretty accurate. Romney definitely did better. Even MSNBC said so. But it wasn't a runaway victory or anything like that. Romney was just more aggressive Obama seemed much more defensive.
On October 04 2012 12:39 coZy wrote: Can't tell if the OP is highly in favor of Romney or if this is actually how the debate seemed. I wasn't able to catch it tonight. Can anybody confirm that the OP is correct?
The popular opinion seems to be people saying that Romney won because Romney was constantly on the offensive, attacking Obama left and right, whereas Obama was calm, cool, and collected. Romney seemed desperate to dig up some dirt on Obama but Obama stuck to the facts and relied on his experience. Romney was just trying to get him flustered, but Obama spoke the truth. Romney was just empty rhetoric, but Obama knows what works, he is the far more knowledgeable candidate.
These types of debates tend to favor the challenger, because they're allowed to theorycraft a bit while the incumbent has to run on an actual record. It's sort of like how Obama had an advantage against McCain back in 2008, because he was allowed to state what he planned on doing (regardless of how practical it would be - we can see how much he was forced to eventually compromise on health insurance reform), while McCain was stuck defending Bush's policies, the results of which were obvious to the audience.
In that regard, it seems that Romney did a good job of attacking on points where he could - whether or not they actually made sense is, sadly irrelevant. It's all about perception, not the facts nowadays.
On October 04 2012 12:53 Funnytoss wrote: These types of debates tend to favor the challenger, because they're allowed to theorycraft a bit while the incumbent has to run on an actual record. It's sort of like how Obama had an advantage against McCain back in 2008, because he was allowed to state what he planned on doing (regardless of how practical it would be - we can see how much he was forced to eventually compromise on health insurance reform), while McCain was stuck defending Bush's policies, the results of which were obvious to the audience.
In that regard, it seems that Romney did a good job of attacking on points where he could - whether or not they actually made sense is, sadly irrelevant. It's all about perception, not the facts nowadays.
I agree with this 100%. What you managed to say in a paragraph and a half I couldn't say in 5 paragraphs, well stated.
it was also really "coincidental" how they cut off the closing statement from Mitt Romney tonight, kind of like when a NFL QB "loses" hearing in his helmet during Away Games
It was so terrible honestly, neither of them did anything. Romney sounded like he was winning, but if you followed the election he just seemed dumb, because he contradicted himself time after time(typical romney tho)
1. No. but then again, nothing short of Romney eating a baby on live television would have done that. lol.
2. Yes. I didn't know Romney was an actually good debater.
3. Romney. I think Obama did alright, and I think Romney was too excited, but Romney still won, hands down.
One thing about Romney being too aggressive is that it humanizes him, and not in a bad way. he didn't look cold and aloof in that debate, he looked ambitious and alert.
Watched some of it. From what I've seen Obama is winning in facts, but Romney has more energy when he's talking. Unfortunatly, I doubt people will run on facts and will simply think the candidate with more energy in this debate is overall better.
First, I was really annoyed with Romney constantly cutting off the host. That shit is super fucking disrespectful. If that's how he is going to handle foreign policy, then screw that.
Then I got very tired of hearing the same thing every few minutes because Romney didn't want to the debate to actually happen. "No, my five point plan is this..." "Well, he wants to get rid of loopholes, but doesn't want to say what they are, here's what my ideas are..." "No, my five point plan is this..."
On October 05 2012 00:50 DigiGnar wrote: First, I was really annoyed with Romney constantly cutting off the host. That shit is super fucking disrespectful. If that's how he is going to handle foreign policy, then screw that.
Then I got very tired of hearing the same thing every few minutes because Romney didn't want to the debate to actually happen. "No, my five point plan is this..." "Well, he wants to get rid of loopholes, but doesn't want to say what they are, here's what my ideas are..." "No, my five point plan is this..."
Yup. Romney certainly did not explain what it is he actually wants to do. It seems like he's asking for a blank cheque here.
Amazing anyone can think Obama won the debate... they clearly blinded by their beliefs or love for Obama... or something? I think it was more than clear, to anyone who can view the debate nuetrally, that Romney won convincly.
Still won't change the election, as I feel Obama has it won already. Looking forward to the other debates.
Romney "won" the debate. Even if all he was spouting was empty rhetoric, Obama didn't force him to admit to the hot air (biggest mistake) and just defended, defended, defended, while Romney went for the throat. Clear to me who lost in that situation. (And I say this as an Obama supporter.) Criticize Romney all you want, he is excellent at debate and delivers well, with a loud, clear voice, even if it's obnoxious how he kept cutting off Jim (who was perhaps the biggest loser in this debate).
I feel that you really can't determine who "won" or "lost" a debate based purely on next-day reaction. For example, although most of the media gave the debate to Romney based on style points, I'm not sure his strategy was for the best.
For example, he provided Obama with a lot of ammunition to use in future debates and campaign ads, by pretty much flip-flopping on everything on his campaign platform, which might come back to bite him in the long run. The Mitt Romney in the debate was running as the moderate governor of Massachusetts, but that's not who he has been running as throughout the primary and presidential campaign. He really wants to go "etch-a-sketch", but in this day and age with the increasing use of social media and video... it may backfire, because you can't really pretend you didn't say something before. There's too much proof. It's too easy to take clips from the debate, and then contrast them with contradictory stances from before. We'll have to see how this plays out, but count me as one of those who is slightly skeptical that this is overall a net good for Romney.
On October 05 2012 11:56 Funnytoss wrote: I feel that you really can't determine who "won" or "lost" a debate based purely on next-day reaction. For example, although most of the media gave the debate to Romney based on style points, I'm not sure his strategy was for the best.
For example, he provided Obama with a lot of ammunition to use in future debates and campaign ads, by pretty much flip-flopping on everything on his campaign platform, which might come back to bite him in the long run. The Mitt Romney in the debate was running as the moderate governor of Massachusetts, but that's not who he has been running as throughout the primary and presidential campaign. He really wants to go "etch-a-sketch", but in this day and age with the increasing use of social media and video... it may backfire, because you can't really pretend you didn't say something before. There's too much proof. It's too easy to take clips from the debate, and then contrast them with contradictory stances from before. We'll have to see how this plays out, but count me as one of those who is slightly skeptical that this is overall a net good for Romney.
On October 05 2012 00:50 DigiGnar wrote: First, I was really annoyed with Romney constantly cutting off the host. That shit is super fucking disrespectful. If that's how he is going to handle foreign policy, then screw that.
Then I got very tired of hearing the same thing every few minutes because Romney didn't want to the debate to actually happen. "No, my five point plan is this..." "Well, he wants to get rid of loopholes, but doesn't want to say what they are, here's what my ideas are..." "No, my five point plan is this..."
Yup. Romney certainly did not explain what it is he actually wants to do. It seems like he's asking for a blank cheque here.
Romney repeatedly explained what he wants to do. he gave specific goals, and set broad guidelines for how to achieve those goals, which is no more or less than any candidate has ever done.
further, what exactly is Mitt Romney supposed to do? the debates give him only so much time, he can't explain in full detail what his plans are, especially when the details will have to be hammered out by negotiations with Congress. asking Romney to be more specific is a way of tricking people who don't know what they're talking about and couldn't understand the specifics even if Romney did explain them, which he has before. Obama knows this and runs with it, despite it being a clearly dishonest tactic.
basically: Romney has given us a broad guideline and specific goals and metrics that we can judge him by. he has also, at other times, gone into greater detail.
the reason Obama lost the debate wasn't because he was uninterested, lethargic and disheartened. he was lethargic, uninterested and disheartened because his ideas are terrible, and he lost the debate because for the first time in God-knows-how-long, he was in an honest-to-God debate with someone who knew what the hell he was talking about. Romney straight schooled Obama on the battle of ideas, which led to Obama being schooled on the battle of perceptions. he became disheartened as soon as Romney started tearing him up.
On October 05 2012 11:56 Funnytoss wrote: For example, he provided Obama with a lot of ammunition to use in future debates and campaign ads, by pretty much flip-flopping on everything on his campaign platform, which might come back to bite him in the long run.
he didn't flip-flop on any position his campaign has held. what happened is that your caricature of Romney was proven wrong. you just mistake the caricature that you've created in your own mind as the real Romney. blame the media.
On October 05 2012 00:50 DigiGnar wrote: First, I was really annoyed with Romney constantly cutting off the host. That shit is super fucking disrespectful. If that's how he is going to handle foreign policy, then screw that.
Then I got very tired of hearing the same thing every few minutes because Romney didn't want to the debate to actually happen. "No, my five point plan is this..." "Well, he wants to get rid of loopholes, but doesn't want to say what they are, here's what my ideas are..." "No, my five point plan is this..."
Yup. Romney certainly did not explain what it is he actually wants to do. It seems like he's asking for a blank cheque here.
Romney repeatedly explained what he wants to do. he gave specific goals, and set broad guidelines for how to achieve those goals, which is no more or less than any candidate has ever done.
further, what exactly is Mitt Romney supposed to do? the debates give him only so much time, he can't explain in full detail what his plans are, especially when the details will have to be hammered out by negotiations with Congress. asking Romney to be more specific is a way of tricking people who don't know what they're talking about and couldn't understand the specifics even if Romney did explain them, which he has before. Obama knows this and runs with it, despite it being a clearly dishonest tactic.
basically: Romney has given us a broad guideline and specific goals and metrics that we can judge him by. he has also, at other times, gone into greater detail.
the reason Obama lost the debate wasn't because he was uninterested, lethargic and disheartened. he was lethargic, uninterested and disheartened because his ideas are terrible, and he lost the debate because for the first time in God-knows-how-long, he was in an honest-to-God debate with someone who knew what the hell he was talking about. Romney straight schooled Obama on the battle of ideas, which led to Obama being schooled on the battle of perceptions. he became disheartened as soon as Romney started tearing him up.
On October 05 2012 11:56 Funnytoss wrote: For example, he provided Obama with a lot of ammunition to use in future debates and campaign ads, by pretty much flip-flopping on everything on his campaign platform, which might come back to bite him in the long run.
he didn't flip-flop on any position his campaign has held. what happened is that your caricature of Romney was proven wrong. you just mistake the caricature that you've created in your own mind as the real Romney. blame the media.
But Romney's claim of Medicare providing care to all who need it ALREADY before the Affordable Care Act was false. And his budget the rich, apparently he promised no new taxes on anyone. How exactly is that possible?
On October 05 2012 00:50 DigiGnar wrote: First, I was really annoyed with Romney constantly cutting off the host. That shit is super fucking disrespectful. If that's how he is going to handle foreign policy, then screw that.
Then I got very tired of hearing the same thing every few minutes because Romney didn't want to the debate to actually happen. "No, my five point plan is this..." "Well, he wants to get rid of loopholes, but doesn't want to say what they are, here's what my ideas are..." "No, my five point plan is this..."
Yup. Romney certainly did not explain what it is he actually wants to do. It seems like he's asking for a blank cheque here.
Romney repeatedly explained what he wants to do. he gave specific goals, and set broad guidelines for how to achieve those goals, which is no more or less than any candidate has ever done.
further, what exactly is Mitt Romney supposed to do? the debates give him only so much time, he can't explain in full detail what his plans are, especially when the details will have to be hammered out by negotiations with Congress. asking Romney to be more specific is a way of tricking people who don't know what they're talking about and couldn't understand the specifics even if Romney did explain them, which he has before. Obama knows this and runs with it, despite it being a clearly dishonest tactic.
basically: Romney has given us a broad guideline and specific goals and metrics that we can judge him by. he has also, at other times, gone into greater detail.
the reason Obama lost the debate wasn't because he was uninterested, lethargic and disheartened. he was lethargic, uninterested and disheartened because his ideas are terrible, and he lost the debate because for the first time in God-knows-how-long, he was in an honest-to-God debate with someone who knew what the hell he was talking about. Romney straight schooled Obama on the battle of ideas, which led to Obama being schooled on the battle of perceptions. he became disheartened as soon as Romney started tearing him up.
On October 05 2012 11:56 Funnytoss wrote: For example, he provided Obama with a lot of ammunition to use in future debates and campaign ads, by pretty much flip-flopping on everything on his campaign platform, which might come back to bite him in the long run.
he didn't flip-flop on any position his campaign has held. what happened is that your caricature of Romney was proven wrong. you just mistake the caricature that you've created in your own mind as the real Romney. blame the media.
EPT
