The Debates- 2012

[AGDee]

Ok, I've been paying for Big Bird and Medicare for 31 years. I want them both to be around when I can retire in 20 more years.

[Kevin]

Romney won the debate hands down in terms of appearance, looking presidential, great hair, etc. I tend to favor Obama's policies. I can't imagine why Obama didn't attack Romney on things Romney has said in the past, e.g., the poor will always have emergency rooms for urgent care or the whole 47% debacle.

Trouble is, Mitt's got a crack team of spinners working with him and he has a comeback for every attack. He's extremely well coached and appears to be very practiced. Mr. President's going to have to step up his game.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Romney won the debate hands down in terms of appearance, looking presidential, great hair, etc. I tend to favor Obama's policies. I can't imagine why Obama didn't attack Romney on things Romney has said in the past, e.g., the poor will always have emergency rooms for urgent care or the whole 47% debacle.

Trouble is, Mitt's got a crack team of spinners working with him and he has a comeback for every attack. He's extremely well coached and appears to be very practiced. Mr. President's going to have to step up his game.

Forget what he's said in the past, why didn't the President jump all over him for saying he needed a new accountant because he never got a tax break for shipping jobs overseas?

I hope the President is sharper for the next debate.

[TonyB06]

Romney the debator was much better than Romney the campaigner of the last three weeks. He won the debate.

For whatever reason President Obama was not sharp, and rarely engaged --with the exception of portions of the medicare discussion, I thought.

The President will have to step his game up in the Oct. 16 debate.

(I do have to shout-out to my 12-year-old daughter who, to my surprise, watched the entire debate last night. We had the best "debate analysis" ever on our ride to work/school this morning. You rock, EDB!)

[MysticCat]

Agree that Romney "won" the debate last night. It'll be interesting to see if and how that translates to overall poll numbers. I think traditionally, it has been the challenger rather than the incumbent who stands to benefit most from the first debate -- it his first time going up against the President, and it's a win if he exceeds expectations. (And it's more of a win if the President doesn't live up to expectations, like last night.)

But historically, even though the challenger makes gains in the polls, they have typically been modest ones. The two exceptions to that are Reagan and Carter in 1980 and Bush and Gore in 2000, where the lead in the polls flipped after the first debate.

And the analysis I have seen shows that the gains the challenger makes tends to come from undecided voters, not from wooing voters away from the incumbent. But in the Reagan-Carter instance and the Bush-Gore instance, the candidates went into the debate with about 12%-20% of those polled still undecided. Right now, most polls show the undecided slice to be around 7% or less. Where the slice of undecided voters seems to be pretty slim, a bump in the polls may not help too much. And what will really matter is the degree to which Romney is able to pick up enough of those undecided voters from the relatively few states still up for grabs.

I'll be interested to see how it plays out over the next week or so.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Agree that Romney "won" the debate last night. It'll be interesting to see if and how that translates to overall poll numbers. I think traditionally, it has been the challenger rather than the incumbent who stands to benefit most from the first debate -- it his first time going up against the President, and it's a win if he exceeds expectations. (And it's more of a win if the President doesn't live up to expectations, like last night.)

But historically, even though the challenger makes gains in the polls, they have typically been modest ones. The two exceptions to that are Reagan and Carter in 1980 and Bush and Gore in 2000, where the lead in the polls flipped after the first debate.

And the analysis I have seen shows that the gains the challenger makes tends to come from undecided voters, not from wooing voters away from the incumbent. But in the Reagan-Carter instance and the Bush-Gore instance, the candidates went into the debate with about 12%-20% of those polled still undecided. Right now, most polls show the undecided slice to be around 7% or less. Where the slice of undecided voters seems to be pretty slim, a bump in the polls may not help too much. And what will really matter is the degree to which Romney is able to pick up enough of those undecided voters from the relatively few states still up for grabs.

I'll be interested to see how it plays out over the next week or so.

During this year's campaign when I close my eyes and LISTEN to long excerpts of Romney's speeches, he sounds like Ronald Reagan in tone and especially in phrasings. Does anyone know if some of Reagan's speechwriting people are working for Romney?

[AGDee]

I was disappointed that the President was so "nice" to him. However, I wanted to wipe that smug smirk off of Romney's face. I screamed at the TV a few times. However, if you check out factcheck.org, although Romney may have "won", he had more facts wrong... not that the average Joe Schmoe bothers checking those things.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Romney won the debate hands down in terms of appearance, looking presidential, great hair, etc. I tend to favor Obama's policies. I can't imagine why Obama didn't attack Romney on things Romney has said in the past...

Originally Posted by agzg

I hope the President is sharper for the next debate.

I agree with both. I only got to see/hear the first 60% of the debate but this reflects my general feeling when I left the house.

Originally Posted by AGDee

although Romney may have "won", he had more facts wrong... not that the average Joe Schmoe bothers checking those things.

You know, I've heard this several times since last night...I think way more people are checking than would be expected.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I agree with both. I only got to see/hear the first 60% of the debate but this reflects my general feeling when I left the house.


You know, I've heard this several times since last night...I think way more people are checking than would be expected.

Yeah, I'm thinking of people like the guy on Facebook who said he was moving to Finland when the Supreme Court upheld national health care.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Yeah, I'm thinking of people like the guy on Facebook who said he was moving to Finland when the Supreme Court upheld national health care.

I heard Slovakia.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by AGDee

However, if you check out factcheck.org, although Romney may have "won", he had more facts wrong... not that the average Joe Schmoe bothers checking those things.

Both of them had facts wrong and stretched the truth. Both of them had pretty smug looks on their faces at times.

The fact is, Obama needs to own it next time or he may be in trouble.

[AGDee]

Yes, they did. I think the thing that upsets me most is the gross exaggeration of negative impacts of the Affordable Care Act. I do think that finding a new job is going to become a high priority for me if Romney is elected... one that is not related to health care or insurance in any way.

ETA: And I'm sick of both sides spouting off these lame stories about the people they've met around the country. I thought after Joe the Plumber they would stop that crap, but they continue on. It's ridiculous to think that any of those stories are going to change anything or make them seem like "real" people. Nobody in politics at that level are average US citizens.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by AGDee

ETA: And I'm sick of both sides spouting off these lame stories about the people they've met around the country. I thought after Joe the Plumber they would stop that crap, but they continue on. It's ridiculous to think that any of those stories are going to change anything or make them seem like "real" people. Nobody in politics at that level are average US citizens.

Thank you!!!

Both of them last night kept saying things like, "I met this woman in Texas.. and she said, 'Please help me get a job,'" and, "I met this man in Connecticut... he said, "'I can't afford healthcare for my kids.'"

Wow. Cool story.

If you had a personal experience that really moved you and you feel compelled to tell the story, then that's fine. But simply saying some guy walked up to you and said he's struggling.. well.. duh. That doesn't make you a compassionate person.. it sounds more like you just made something up on the fly.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AGDee

However, I wanted to wipe that smug smirk off of Romney's face.

i'm glad I'm not the only one who thought he had that smug smirk way too much.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by AGDee

ETA: And I'm sick of both sides spouting off these lame stories about the people they've met around the country. I thought after Joe the Plumber they would stop that crap, but they continue on. It's ridiculous to think that any of those stories are going to change anything or make them seem like "real" people. Nobody in politics at that level are average US citizens.

You're completely missing the point of why they do that. It's not to portray politicians as avergage people, but rather to show that they understand average people's concerns and that average people are the driving force(s) behind the politicians' policy proscriptions.

Public "faces" humanize the policy or program that they're talking about. After all, we all know, or think we do, somebody who's be affected or would positively be affected by the policy in question.

We were taught this day 1 in journalism school -- "show, don't tell," but it works in politics, too. People (and voters) respond/empathize when they see direct impact (human interests) of policy.