|
|
On October 04 2012 12:26 jalstar wrote:
That's grading on a curve though. No one expected Romney to do as well as he did, and almost everyone expected Obama to do a lot better. Objectively they were about the same with Obama slightly ahead, but Obama was far behind expectations and Romney well ahead. Romney won the debate before it began.
If you think Obama won, you're delusional, man lol.
|
So going back to my scoring (8-4 Romney was the final), I'm not seeing much disagreement with it anymore. In fact, I think the progression of my scoring accurately reflects how the debate went in general. Romney had Obama on the ropes for the first half, and then Obama gradually began to fight back a bit.
Y'all should trust me more. =)
|
On October 04 2012 12:26 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:06 tarath wrote:
Why didn't they ask about birth control, abortion, gay marriage etc at all? I feel like the social issues are big issues where the candidates are miles apart and that social issues are very important to a significant % of voters.
eg romneys stance on gay marriage and birth control is a deal breaker for me. The subject matter covered by each of the debates were decided in advance and agreed to by the candidates. Foreign policy also was not scheduled for this debate. I'm not sure what the next debate topics are, I'm quite certain foreign policy is in one of them, probably the last, but I'm not sure about social issues. Based on Obama's performance tonight, don't assume that Obama will tear Romney up on social issues when they come up.
If Obama cant beat Romney on social issues, then that is just miserable. Social issues are one of Obama's strong points that I can see.
|
On October 04 2012 12:19 xDaunt wrote:From Andrew Sullivan: Show nested quote + 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.
There are two more debates left. I have experienced many times the feeling that Obama just isn't in it, that he's on the ropes and not fighting back, and then he pulls it out. He got a little better over time tonight. But he pulled every punch. Maybe the next two will undo some of the damage. But I have to say I think it was extensive. Source. Sums it up pretty well, I think.
Yup. As an Obama guy, I'm disappointed ... but not surprised. Debating -- and going for the jugular -- is not Obama's forte. His nature is not to get combative or angry. But if the debates keep going in this direction, Romney will win, regardless of the facts or policy.
There's an anecdote about Obama, as a ten year old living in Indonesia, having rocks thrown at him by other kids because he was Black. Casual racism runs pretty rampant there. He just danced and dodged the rocks.
A friend of his mother offered to intervene, but his mother dismissed it, and said, "Oh, he's fine."
It's just the way Obama was raised ... to keep your cool and not fight back. It's gotten him pretty far, but now he's met his match. He's never had a guy like Romney -- the type of kid that would assault another for having long, 'gay' hair, and laugh about it afterwards -- drag him through the mud.
This will be interesting.
|
On October 04 2012 12:27 xDaunt wrote:
So going back to my scoring (8-4 Romney was the final), I'm not seeing much disagreement with it anymore. In fact, I think the progression of my scoring accurately reflects how the debate in general. Romney had Obama on the ropes for the first half, and then Obama gradually began to fight back a bit.
Y'all should trust me more. =)
CNN said with a poll who won the debate 67% Romney and 25 % Obama. So you were more Obama then most haha
|
On October 04 2012 12:18 micronesia wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 04 2012 12:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:10 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 12:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2012 12:07 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 12:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 12:00 NPF wrote:On October 04 2012 11:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 11:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:46 Deathmanbob wrote:
[quote]
so you go, if your poor, i guess you cant go? come on man that really isnt the best response, i know you can do better then this. This is the problem that people see, this idea will only increase funding for the better schools because now they will have more students, and will kill the lesser schools that only the poor can go to People need to learn how vouchers work. The parents, the poor parents, get the money directly and then can choose which school they send their child too. If the parents choose to send their child to a failing school that is their own fault. Alright, so parents have vouchers and can send kids to any school. What do you do about overpopulation of schools then? Parents will want to send their kids to the "good schools", which means they become hugely crowded. How is this even an argument? The school will expand like any other business in the country. They will hire new teachers and build more classrooms or open new schools and do what it takes to get the money being offered them. How many businesses do you know that turn away customers because of overcrowding? So why instead of expanding a school or bulding a new one you study what makes a school good and you realocate some of the ressources to help the poor schools Because that is rewarding poor management and teaching. The market is based upon destruction, the destruction of poor management and poor performance. If a school is poor at teaching, then it is a good thing that the school dies, and gets replaced by a better once. The concept here is competition, which is what is lacking in public schools and why they are doing such a poor job. In order to get better teaching, you need better teachers. Which we dont have. Sending a student to a different school doesnt solve this problem, it just creates one of overcrowding. You want better schools? Invest in better teachers, not different locations. invest in better teachers? specifically, what does this mean? Raise wages of teachers to make it a more appealing job, get people that want to teach. Look at programs that would train teachers in better teaching methods. Lots of ways to invest in better teachers. chicago school teachers are paid more than any other teachers... but chicago schools are terrible. The first part is false... I won't argue one way or another on the second part. private institutions pay their teachers less than the national average for public school teachers I don't doubt it although what's your source ... and private schools have, in general, better scores. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Also, what is your source? throwing money at teachers doesn't solve anything. Agreed. Making professionals better at their job isn't as simple as suddenly throwing more money at the system one year... this however does not mean that things such as teacher pay do not impact teacher quality. also, i believe that private school teachers generally have less schooling and training. go figure. Not relevant unless correlation == causation, aka see above
1. Chicago teachers start out (in some cases) making more than any other teacher, but they end up making less than the VERY top. they are still among the highest paid, by a wide margin. my point stands.
2. Pay
While there are many pros and cons to teaching in a private school, probably the biggest negative is the pay. Private school teachers make in most cases much less than their public school counterparts. Teacher pay at these schools is based on the tuition brought in by students. Therefore, expect to earn at least $10 – 15,000 less at a minimum if you choose to teach at a private school.
http://712educators.about.com/od/jobopenings/a/private-public.htm
3. i see no evidence that better pay = better teachers.
4. i believe there can be a case made that there is both a correlation and a causation.
on the private vs. public scores:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp
there may be a couple reasons for the difference, but it is certainly there.
|
On October 04 2012 12:27 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:26 jalstar wrote:
That's grading on a curve though. No one expected Romney to do as well as he did, and almost everyone expected Obama to do a lot better. Objectively they were about the same with Obama slightly ahead, but Obama was far behind expectations and Romney well ahead. Romney won the debate before it began. If you think Obama won, you're delusional, man lol.
Romney won the debate
If you don't think expectations factor into who won, you are the delusional one.
|
On October 04 2012 12:29 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:19 xDaunt wrote:From Andrew Sullivan: 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.
There are two more debates left. I have experienced many times the feeling that Obama just isn't in it, that he's on the ropes and not fighting back, and then he pulls it out. He got a little better over time tonight. But he pulled every punch. Maybe the next two will undo some of the damage. But I have to say I think it was extensive. Source. Sums it up pretty well, I think. Yup. As an Obama guy, I'm disappointed ... but not surprised. Debating -- and going for the jugular -- is not Obama's forte. His nature is not to get combative or angry. But if the debates keep going in this direction, Romney will win, regardless of the facts or policy. There's an anecdote about Obama, as a ten year old living in Indonesia, having rocks thrown at him by other kids because he was Black. Casual racism runs pretty rampant there. He just danced and dodged the rocks. A friend of his mother offered to intervene, but his mother dismissed it, and said, "Oh, he's fine." It's just the way Obama was raised ... to keep your cool and not fight back. It's gotten him pretty far, but now he's met his match. He's never had a guy like Romney -- the type of kid that would assault another for having long, 'gay' hair, and laugh about it afterwards -- drag him through the mud. This will be interesting.
Reading your posts reminds me of those car commercials with Mario Andretti where he is only capable of making left turns.
|
It barely even matters about the points, it matters how you look, and Romney looked assertive. Republicans are so much better at understanding the show biz side of politics.
|
On October 04 2012 12:29 NPF wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:27 xDaunt wrote:
So going back to my scoring (8-4 Romney was the final), I'm not seeing much disagreement with it anymore. In fact, I think the progression of my scoring accurately reflects how the debate in general. Romney had Obama on the ropes for the first half, and then Obama gradually began to fight back a bit.
Y'all should trust me more. =) CNN said with a poll who won the debate 67% Romney and 25 % Obama. So you were more Obama then most haha
I'll be waiting for the apologies to start rolling in. =)
(though I'm not going to hold my breath)
|
On October 04 2012 12:31 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:27 Kaitlin wrote:On October 04 2012 12:26 jalstar wrote:
That's grading on a curve though. No one expected Romney to do as well as he did, and almost everyone expected Obama to do a lot better. Objectively they were about the same with Obama slightly ahead, but Obama was far behind expectations and Romney well ahead. Romney won the debate before it began. If you think Obama won, you're delusional, man lol. If you don't think expectations factor into who won, you are the delusional one.
Expectations factor in, of course, but you claimed "Objectively they were about the same, with Obama slightly ahead". That's not only not objective, it's hard to find a subjective weighting of expectations so different to conceive of an Obama win in this one.
|
On October 04 2012 12:31 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:29 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 12:19 xDaunt wrote:From Andrew Sullivan: 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.
There are two more debates left. I have experienced many times the feeling that Obama just isn't in it, that he's on the ropes and not fighting back, and then he pulls it out. He got a little better over time tonight. But he pulled every punch. Maybe the next two will undo some of the damage. But I have to say I think it was extensive. Source. Sums it up pretty well, I think. Yup. As an Obama guy, I'm disappointed ... but not surprised. Debating -- and going for the jugular -- is not Obama's forte. His nature is not to get combative or angry. But if the debates keep going in this direction, Romney will win, regardless of the facts or policy. There's an anecdote about Obama, as a ten year old living in Indonesia, having rocks thrown at him by other kids because he was Black. Casual racism runs pretty rampant there. He just danced and dodged the rocks. A friend of his mother offered to intervene, but his mother dismissed it, and said, "Oh, he's fine." It's just the way Obama was raised ... to keep your cool and not fight back. It's gotten him pretty far, but now he's met his match. He's never had a guy like Romney -- the type of kid that would assault another for having long, 'gay' hair, and laugh about it afterwards -- drag him through the mud. This will be interesting. Reading your posts reminds me of those car commercials with Mario Andretti where he is only capable of making left turns.
Hey, I'm just calling it like I see it. Before the race was Ferris Bueller versus the Angry Rich White Guy. After the debate, the race is between the Nerdy Pacifist and ... The School Jock.
Both anecdotes are entirely true, by the way.
|
On October 04 2012 12:26 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:04 kmillz wrote:On October 04 2012 12:03 Kaitlin wrote:
MSNBC just came out that Obama spoke for 4 more minutes than Romney. Obama's problem is that he took to long in his ramblings, consuming time, where Romney could always just get the last word in. It was hard to let Obama counter a couple of times because he had taken so long to make his original point and Romney's short refutation was short enough for Lehrer to end it after Romney.
That and Obama left that $716 billion Medicare cut out there for seniors to hold against him, and also saying their Social Security plans were basically the same. Seniors don't have much reason to fear Romney based on this debate. Bad for Obama. Yup, I give Romney a B and Obama a C in this debate. That's grading on a curve though. No one expected Romney to do as well as he did, and almost everyone expected Obama to do a lot better. Objectively they were about the same with Obama slightly ahead, but Obama was far behind expectations and Romney well ahead. Romney won the debate before it began.
No I gave the grade taking in consideration that Romney would do better. I still give the same grade.
|
On October 04 2012 12:29 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:19 xDaunt wrote:From Andrew Sullivan: 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.
There are two more debates left. I have experienced many times the feeling that Obama just isn't in it, that he's on the ropes and not fighting back, and then he pulls it out. He got a little better over time tonight. But he pulled every punch. Maybe the next two will undo some of the damage. But I have to say I think it was extensive. Source. Sums it up pretty well, I think. Yup. As an Obama guy, I'm disappointed ... but not surprised. Debating -- and going for the jugular -- is not Obama's forte. His nature is not to get combative or angry. But if the debates keep going in this direction, Romney will win, regardless of the facts or policy. There's an anecdote about Obama, as a ten year old living in Indonesia, having rocks thrown at him by other kids because he was Black. Casual racism runs pretty rampant there. He just danced and dodged the rocks. A friend of his mother offered to intervene, but his mother dismissed it, and said, "Oh, he's fine." It's just the way Obama was raised ... to keep your cool and not fight back. It's gotten him pretty far, but now he's met his match. He's never had a guy like Romney -- the type of kid that would assault another for having long, 'gay' hair, and laugh about it afterwards -- drag him through the mud. This will be interesting.
History tells us that debates don't change the elections to the degree you claim here. Or at all really, with the exception of huge gaffes.
|
Obama is down about 10 percentage points on Intrade today, which is another indicator that he lost the debate.
|
On October 04 2012 12:35 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:29 Defacer wrote:On October 04 2012 12:19 xDaunt wrote:From Andrew Sullivan: 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.
There are two more debates left. I have experienced many times the feeling that Obama just isn't in it, that he's on the ropes and not fighting back, and then he pulls it out. He got a little better over time tonight. But he pulled every punch. Maybe the next two will undo some of the damage. But I have to say I think it was extensive. Source. Sums it up pretty well, I think. Yup. As an Obama guy, I'm disappointed ... but not surprised. Debating -- and going for the jugular -- is not Obama's forte. His nature is not to get combative or angry. But if the debates keep going in this direction, Romney will win, regardless of the facts or policy. There's an anecdote about Obama, as a ten year old living in Indonesia, having rocks thrown at him by other kids because he was Black. Casual racism runs pretty rampant there. He just danced and dodged the rocks. A friend of his mother offered to intervene, but his mother dismissed it, and said, "Oh, he's fine." It's just the way Obama was raised ... to keep your cool and not fight back. It's gotten him pretty far, but now he's met his match. He's never had a guy like Romney -- the type of kid that would assault another for having long, 'gay' hair, and laugh about it afterwards -- drag him through the mud. This will be interesting. History tells us that debates don't change the elections to the degree you claim here. Or at all really, with the exception of huge gaffes.
Who can forget "fuzzy math" though? That one-liner probably won a ton of votes just by itself lol.
|
Man that was frustrating. I can think of about a million ways the president could have gone after Romney. Lame.
Still, I remember when Kerry absolutely wiped the floor with Bush in the debates, especially the first one, and we all remember how that turned out. Romney was clearly really, really well prepared. His team knew this was do or die. I also think that the challenger has an advantage over an incumbant in the prep area because (1) challenger has just done 20 primary debates and (2) the incumbent has an important job called being the president that gets in the way of debate prep.
I think the take away is this:
Obama = good campaigner and speaker, bad debater
Romney = bad to mediocre campaigner and speaker, good debater
|
I almost wonder if they're playing the expectation game. Like, realistically, Obama has almost nowhere to go but up and Romney, undoubtedly, can probably only go down in the later debates. He was the only one on the stage tonight and didn't even look impressive; he just looked better than a completely phantasmal Obama.
I'm not saying they are, but regardless I don't see how Obama can do worse, so it certainly sets himself up for an easy W next time.
|
I'm not sure what some of the Liberals in here remember, but for me, Obama's best line was when he told Jim Lehrer that he had 5 seconds before being interrupted, which is really innocuous and not good for Obama that that comment is what I remember as positive for his performance.
|
In my view Romney went all in on this debate. He essentially reinforced a bunch of grandiose claims that have no basis in reality. None of his plans work in the real world and he knows it. No matter who wins the presidency taxes will have to go up and spending will have to come down for defense among other things. Conservatives will never ship medicare off to the states or get a 20% tax cut. Liberals will never see these miracle policies that provide all the guarantees of obamacare without any of the liability. He is just hoping that an Oprah style media blitz where "everybody gets a car" lasts long enough to get those levers pulled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
