EPTThings got really heated in this debate. I hated that part!! The debate was soooo poorly moderated. That was the problem. I hope that the next debate will be moderated better. Honestly, this moderation was unacceptable. I don't think this debate will have a long term effect like the last one did.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 863
| 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 | ||
|
dannystarcraft
United States179 Posts
Things got really heated in this debate. I hated that part!! The debate was soooo poorly moderated. That was the problem. I hope that the next debate will be moderated better. Honestly, this moderation was unacceptable. I don't think this debate will have a long term effect like the last one did. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43771 Posts
On October 17 2012 12:21 xDaunt wrote: Eh, I think Candy Crowley did okay. She was definitely better than that hack, Raddatz. Both of those were better than the non-existent first moderator though ^^ | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
| ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On October 17 2012 12:19 BluePanther wrote: yeah, it was something about how he request someone to collect resume's of qualified women for his cabinet. But he used the phrase "binders full of women" somwhere in that story. It was kinda funny. This is so true. I was sort of wincing when he was talking in that kind of language. I don't want to say the Governor's intent was to objectify women, but the poor choice of words in that case made it seem like that's what he was doing. He didn't have a solid reserve to draw upon when it came to relating to the problems that womens face in the workplace and got stuck in a situation where he wasn't talking about women as persons, but rather as resumes, which is a major problem. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On October 17 2012 12:19 xDaunt wrote: So I'm watching this Frank Luntz focus group on Fox right now that is supposedly made up of undecided voters, most of whom voted for Obama in 2008. By an overwhelming margin, they said that they were not voting for Romney. Usually Frank Luntz does a good job, and usually focus groups are fairly reliable if properly selected (I've conducted them), but I have my doubts about this one. What surprised me was how they perceived that Obama was on the defensive most of the time -- that he had few answers for Romney's charges against his record. I guess the whole primacy and recency thing matters (Romney led off with an indictment of Obama's record if you remember and Obama didn't really defend himself at the start or in his closing remarks). I think Obama's ability to act presidential, and Romney's near-meltdown, overshadowed Obama not directly defending his economic record (in the minds of independent voters). I actually thought the method that Romney attacked Obama's economic record was okay, but not great ... He often rattled off stats too quickly for them to land or resonate. After a certain point, he starting sounding like a broken record. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On October 17 2012 12:19 dannystarcraft wrote: There was no winner in this debate. Obviously, President Obama didn't just get owned like the last debate, but Governor Romney was not too bad either. I almost think people will declare a win for the president because he did so monumentally better than his previous performance! Things got really heated in this debate. I hated that part!! The debate was soooo poorly moderated. That was the problem. I hope that the next debate will be moderated better. Honestly, this moderation was unacceptable. I don't think this debate will have a long term effect like the last one did. I'm sorry, but Obama clearly won. There was at least a couple moments that he absolutely pwned -- which is what he desperately needed after his no-show in the first debate. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 17 2012 12:23 turdburgler wrote: i cant read the name raddatz without think radditz and imagining a debate being moderated by someone with such a low power level. hahaha how fitting. Whelp, people are going to be in very high spirits tomorrow at work. Shall be interesting! | ||
|
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On October 17 2012 12:19 dannystarcraft wrote: There was no winner in this debate. Obviously, President Obama didn't just get owned like the last debate, but Governor Romney was not too bad either. I almost think people will declare a win for the president because he did so monumentally better than his previous performance! Things got really heated in this debate. I hated that part!! The debate was soooo poorly moderated. That was the problem. I hope that the next debate will be moderated better. Honestly, this moderation was unacceptable. I don't think this debate will have a long term effect like the last one did. There were several instances where Crowley stood up to both candidates, stopped them from bickering/rambling too much concerning one issue, and moved the discussion forward. That was her job and she did it fairly well. In fact, if we're talking about a schedule, getting all the questions asked, and keeping the candidates in line then she did a much better job than Lehrer did (even though the blame falling on Lehrer was also largely unfair and more a byproduct of the President's poor performance than it was his own). | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On October 17 2012 12:30 BluePanther wrote: They need to give the moderator a mic kill switch. That would be brutal ... and awesome! | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 17 2012 12:23 Defacer wrote: I think Obama's ability to act presidential, and Romney's near-meltdown, overshadowed Obama not directly defending his economic record (in the minds of independent voters). I actually thought the method that Romney attacked Obama's economic record was okay, but not great ... He often rattled off stats too quickly for them to land or resonate. After a certain point, he starting sounding like a broken record. I tend to agree with you that Obama generally had a better demeanor -- not that Romney was bad. Both can look the part. However, the focus group really focused on Romney looking incredibly good, which, again, kinda surprised me. Assuming that the focus group is reflective of the sentiment of undecided voters (big if as mentioned above), the explanation for their findings is my plywood board theory: Obama's record is so fatal that he can't win so long as there is a credible alternative. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Supamang
United States2298 Posts
On October 17 2012 12:36 xDaunt wrote: Obama's record is so fatal that he can't win so long as there is a credible alternative. Come on lets be completely honest with ourselves here...this is an exaggeration. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 17 2012 12:37 sam!zdat wrote: There is no alternative, xDaunt. There is no alternative. Don't you know?? Let me revel in my naïveté. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 17 2012 12:37 Supamang wrote: Come on lets be completely honest with ourselves here...this is an exaggeration. I really don't think so. Obama's record is horrible by an objective standard. He's on par with Jimmy Carter. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
nah you just provoked one of my little pet obsessions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_is_no_alternative edit: nice job on those diacritics though - u so cultured xdaunt <3 | ||
|
Angel_
United States1617 Posts
- either way I think with all the content that came from the debate that people are focusing on...symantics in a speech, is just stupid. | ||
|
Deathmanbob
United States2356 Posts
| ||
| ||
