EPTThe only thing that matters is what undecided voters think, you have to view it through that prism.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 667
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Zaqwert
United States411 Posts
The only thing that matters is what undecided voters think, you have to view it through that prism. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:35 Doodsmack wrote: 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. Nah. If Romney choked the election would have been over. But Obama let him back into the race. Romney was incredibly well prepared -- even his lies were well-structured -- and he pivoted towards the middle. Obama can't let his surrogates fight this battle for him. He has to bring up specific examples of Romney's duplicity and just hammer him for it. He needs to figure out a clear, convincing way to point out what is obvious to all the high-information voters out there -- that Romney will basically do and say anything to become president. He has to attack Romney's character -- which, in and of itself, is an insanely risky strategy. Basically, the debates can't continue to be Romney marketing himself as a vaguely authoritative guy, with 'principles,' picking apart an exhausted leader. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:45 Zaqwert wrote: If you are a die hard Obama or Romney supporter your opinion of these debates means nothing. You will vote for your candidate no matter what. The only thing that matters is what undecided voters think, you have to view it through that prism. pretty much, and this is why this thread is literally comedic. one thing ill never understand about us politics is why people vote not on the issues and what benefits them but instead what their parents tell them. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8001 Posts
apparently i'm in the minority, but frankly i wasn't particularly moved by either candidate (although i'm obama biased). i'm just surprised the 47% comment wasn't referenced at least once. am i the crazy one here? | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:47 Defacer wrote: Nah. If Romney choked the election would have been over. But Obama let him back into the race. Romney was incredibly well prepared -- even his lies were well-structured -- and he pivoted towards the middle. Obama can't let his surrogates fight this battle for him. He has to bring up specific examples of Romney's duplicity and just hammer him for it. He needs to figure out a clear, convincing way to point out what is obvious to all the high-information voters out there -- that Romney will basically do and say anything to become president. He has to attack Romney's character -- which, in and of itself, is an insanely risky strategy. Basically, the debates can't continue to be Romney marketing himself as a vaguely authoritative guy, with 'principles,' picking apart an exhausted leader. I think Obama is incredibly lucky the foreign policy debate is the final one. There's no way it will end on that note as a result, Romney's vagueness and inexperience there will be too much for the public to stomach I think. That's also the only area where Romney cannot logically attack the president at all without his contradictions being summable up in a sentence or two. | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
Romney openly admonishes the actions of foreign nations and vows to take over-the-top, aggressive action. Obama says he wants to negotiate, but then secretly kills a thousand Libyans and Pakistani and hopes nobody notices. They are two sides of the same ugly, fiat coin. Vote third party folks.  | ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:45 Zaqwert wrote: If you are a die hard Obama or Romney supporter your opinion of these debates means nothing. You will vote for your candidate no matter what. The only thing that matters is what undecided voters think, you have to view it through that prism. I've never met an undecided voter. There are uninformed voters and people who claim to be undecided but consistently vote along one party's line. It's the biggest perpetuated myth every political cycle. Undecideds don't matter; getting your supporters to actually go to the polls does. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:48 darthfoley wrote: personally i found the debate pretty lackluster, boring and run of the mill. apparently i'm in the minority, but frankly i wasn't particularly moved by either candidate (although i'm obama biased). i'm just surprised the 47% comment wasn't referenced at least once. am i the crazy one here? No, Romney looked mean and Obama's smirk was annoying. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:50 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: It's funny, they both debate in EXACTLY the same way that they conduct foreign policy. Romney openly admonishes the actions of foreign nations and vows to take over-the-top, aggressive action. Obama says he wants to negotiate, but then secretly kills a thousand Libyans and Pakistani and hopes nobody notices. They are two sides of the same ugly, fiat coin. Vote third party folks. voting 3p does nothing but waste your time going to the polls. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:45 Zaqwert wrote: If you are a die hard Obama or Romney supporter your opinion of these debates means nothing. You will vote for your candidate no matter what. The only thing that matters is what undecided voters think, you have to view it through that prism. That's not necessarily true. Ask Karl Rove; enthusiasm matters. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:50 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: It's funny, they both debate in EXACTLY the same way that they conduct foreign policy. Romney openly admonishes the actions of foreign nations and vows to take over-the-top, aggressive action. Obama says he wants to negotiate, but then secretly kills a thousand Libyans and Pakistani and hopes nobody notices. They are two sides of the same ugly, fiat coin. Vote third party folks. I'll be voting Jill Stein, but not voting for Obama in a swing state is like putting your car in reverse because it won't go fast enough. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:48 darthfoley wrote: personally i found the debate pretty lackluster, boring and run of the mill. apparently i'm in the minority, but frankly i wasn't particularly moved by either candidate (although i'm obama biased). i'm just surprised the 47% comment wasn't referenced at least once. am i the crazy one here? The 47% was a deliberate omission, methinks. Obama: I don't think 47% of the country are victims. Romney: You see, that's just not true. I repeat, that's not true. You're taking what I said out of context. What I said is that 47% of people won't vote for me. Obama: Ummm, I have a word-for-word transcript right in front of me ... Romney: That's not true. I'm sorry. Not true at all ... | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:52 Mindcrime wrote: That's not necessarily true. Ask Karl Rove; enthusiasm matters. In terms of motivating the base, I'm not sure Romney did a great job. He pivoted hard back to the center tonight; can you imagine him saying that his first day in Washington would be sitting down with Democrats and compromising 5 months ago? That comment probably demotivated the base more than anything he's said so far. On October 04 2012 12:53 Defacer wrote: The 47% was a deliberate omission, methinks. Obama: I don't think 47% of the country are victims. Romney: You see, that's just not true. I repeat, that's not true. You're taking what I said out of context. What I said is that 47% of people won't vote for me. Obama: Ummm, I have a word-for-word transcript right in front of me ... Romney: That's not true. I'm sorry. Not true at all ... Eh, that was the entire debate anyway on both sides. One more back and forth wouldn't have hurt. Edit: On October 04 2012 12:22 Kaitlin wrote: Well, the reason you can't just say exactly what is going to happen is because it's all subject to negotiation with Congress. The important thing to take away was that Romney said he wasn't going to increase taxes on the middle class. That is a framework within which they can work. People who continue to call for specifics should fucking ask Congress, but not this Congress, they should consult their crystal ball because they need to know what the NEXT congress will pass. Obama's been take it or leave it and hasn't passed a single bi-partisan bill aside from extending the Bush tax cuts (might have missed a couple minor things). It's not even that he hasn't said exactly his plans, it's that he's only said who they won't effect. The middle class. Or the wealthy. Or small businesses. Or big corporations. And Obamacare would have been bipartisan and was designed with Republican help, the only reason it was stonewalled by Republicans is because the Tea Party hated it and now they're forced to live with it or look like dunces (and no, the Tea Party is NOT Republicans). | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8001 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:51 jalstar wrote: No, Romney looked mean and Obama's smirk was annoying. romney's fake smile 24/7 + blinking incessently was equally as annoying lol. frankly i wasted 1h30 of my life watching this lame ass debate. no social policies at all...the same boring arguments on the same boring areas of the economy. i could've finished my hw by now easily  edit: also, jim lehrer was completely destroyed, moderator my ass. obama probably had 60% of the total speaking time, at least. | ||
micronesia
United States24568 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:30 sc2superfan101 wrote: What do you mean they start out in some cases making more than any other teacher? Putting aside that you suddenly added the qualifier, this seems like an exaggeration to me. I'm not saying they have a low starting salary, but I want to keep the information being offered accurate. You also added a qualifier that they are among the highest paid. I'd be happy to say they are among the better paid teachers, but the schools have worse performance according to indicator X, Y, and Z. Maybe that's what you meant, but the claim you said was unnecessarily strong.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. Chicago teachers start in the 50ks with a bachelors. Exactly which data are you using for your conclusion? There are schools right near me which start teachers with a bachelors at more than that. Thank you, I was curious how big the difference was even though I was pretty sure you were correct that there is a gap overall. 3. i see no evidence that better pay = better teachers. You might not be aware of any evidence, but I wouldn't use that to assume that better pay does not equal better teachers. How exactly do you propose drawing more qualified teachers... or do you think that our current teachers represent the most qualified individuals? Places with better schools do generally have higher pay. That also isn't proof that teacher pay impacts quality of teachers. The basic laws of economics to apply to teachers as much as any other job though. If you want proof that teacher pay does have an impact on teacher quality, then that is difficult to provide in this discussion (but does not mean that it doesn't). Two different things. I feel the most important thing to point out I already pointed out: that the apparent evidence that more money != better teachers (throwing money at school systems, which does not necessarily work) doesn't actually mean that money doesn't help with teacher quality.4. i believe there can be a case made that there is both a correlation and a causation. A case has not been made, although you can have whichever stance you want. You should keep in mind that private schools have kids whose parents paid for them to go... public schools don't. There are a million sources of bias for comparison of standardized tests (if using standardized tests to compare schools is even reasonable) scores.on the private vs. public scores: How do you count charter schools by the way? My favorite is when a charter school exclaims that they performed much better than the local public school, and when you check the statistics it turns out the lower half of the student body of the charter school was kicked out and sent back to the public school prior to standardized tests (mostly an exaggeration but stuff like that actually has happened).http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp there may be a couple reasons for the difference, but it is certainly there. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:22 Kaitlin wrote: Well, the reason you can't just say exactly what is going to happen is because it's all subject to negotiation with Congress. The important thing to take away was that Romney said he wasn't going to increase taxes on the middle class. That is a framework within which they can work. People who continue to call for specifics should fucking ask Congress, but not this Congress, they should consult their crystal ball because they need to know what the NEXT congress will pass. Obama's been take it or leave it and hasn't passed a single bi-partisan bill aside from extending the Bush tax cuts (might have missed a couple minor things). People aren't looking for a fortune teller, but rather somebody that leads with a plan. We all know anything he proposes will then go to Congress to work out, but Congress isn't likely to do something without a forceful push in the form of an explicit plan. | ||
|
nstiver
United States9 Posts
| ||
|
Zaqwert
United States411 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:47 Defacer wrote: Nah. If Romney choked the election would have been over. But Obama let him back into the race. Romney was incredibly well prepared -- even his lies were well-structured -- and he pivoted towards the middle. Obama can't let his surrogates fight this battle for him. He has to bring up specific examples of Romney's duplicity and just hammer him for it. He needs to figure out a clear, convincing way to point out what is obvious to all the high-information voters out there -- that Romney will basically do and say anything to become president. He has to attack Romney's character -- which, in and of itself, is an insanely risky strategy. Basically, the debates can't continue to be Romney marketing himself as a vaguely authoritative guy, with 'principles,' picking apart an exhausted leader. I'm not sure the word "nah" cuts it, you need to address the effect (or lack thereof) that debates have had on polls going back to Reagan. | ||
|
whatevername
471 Posts
On October 04 2012 12:55 darthfoley wrote: Why would they discuss social policy when the federal Government has limited control over social policies, and the president none? It's absurd. Especially since on every single social policy Romney and Obamare are in agreement...romney's fake smile 24/7 + blinking incessently was equally as annoying lol. frankly i wasted 1h30 of my life watching this lame ass debate. no social policies at all...the same boring arguments on the same boring areas of the economy. i could've finished my hw by now easily edit: also, jim lehrer was completely destroyed, moderator my ass. obama probably had 60% of the total speaking time, at least. --- Obama is a mediocre debater, got thrashed. | ||
| ||
