Presidental Debate One

Bob Ross, the best hippie painter ever. Kinda funny considering he was a military man at one point.

On a closing note, I'll say that this debate was a big victory for Romney regarding voters that are prone to swaying or undecided. But for those that have been in touch, and keeping tabs on his campaign will know that this is just rectifying PR for what has been a terrible and bumbling campaign trail.

All I got from Romney was mixed signals.

The moderator is agreed upon by both candidates beforehand. If he was "too easily intimidated" then they should have agreed upon a different moderator. But, you're right, Obama took a diplomatic, submissive approach. This is much akin to his approach on foreign policy which angers many people.

On a side note, I wish this thread was being moderated atm. It would be nice if those that were talking about alternate topics (IE sesame street) would get topic banned so they could waste time somewhere else.

Don't be a fun sponge :|

It was actually mentioned in the debate.

My elmo picture is definitely on topic.

Other than that, we dont need to go around the world kicking nations that hate us in the balls and telling them it's their fault. That is what causes wars and incites terrorism. A more subtle and attentive candidate is definitely a plus for this country as a whole in foreign affairs.

I suppose on paper the moderator was a sure bet, but in actual practice and presented in the proposed format, left for an event that can only be described as a Jenga tower.



(Honestly had no idea this image existed until now, so the reference is suddenly hilarious)

This.

And, with the generalities that Rmoney speaks in, while what you'd get would be new, it wouldn't be specific enough to call out.

Every time Obama or the host asked for specifics, Rmoney came back with "oh and these other 5 reasons what you're going to do are wrong."

If the victor of a presidential debate is decided by who seemed more convincing while spitting bull-***, Mitt will win .... ALWAYS win. Fact-checker will likely rip to shreds what he said but anyone who cares would have changed the channel.

I agree with your first statement. Your second statement is obviously false because there are millions of people on both sides that have been in touch and paying attention to what's going on, and wouldn't agree that this is just "rectifying PR."
The perception of a "terrible and bumbling campaign trail" is a bias opinion, propagated by his opponent's supporters.

well, whenever Obama challenged one of his points he was quick to pull the whole:

DEATH PANELS
DEATH PANELS
DEATH PANELS
DEATH PANELS
DEATH PANELS
Obamacare is the only insurance
DEATH PANELS
DEATH PANELS
DEATH PANELS
Save Teh Medicare
DEATH PANELS
DEATH PANELS
DEATH PANELS
Obamacare is bad
DEATH PANELS

thing.

Jim lost control of the debate because Romney wanted to end sections with the last word and Obama could only move in that direction to avoid being completely submissive to the rules of debate. If your opponent isn't going to follow the rules and the moderator isn't going to mute his mic to assert control then you end up with what happened tonight where both sides do whatever.

The PBS part was also kinda like "Yeah, *** you bro. You're fired if I get elected. Now shut up old man." for easy points from Romney lol.

That doesn't necessarily negate or dismiss the validity of me second statement. It was simply my perceived approach, which in the end is what these debates come down to.

I'm sure even the most adamant of Romney supporters can come to terms with the reality that his campaign has had numerous hurtles with significant consequence as seen recently in polls.

The fact is that no one knows what they're going to get if they elect Mitt Romney because the little we've been given on details coupled with constantly shifting positions leads to a candidate that reflects whatever you want him to be. You want a champion against abortion? You got it. Moderate Mitt? Done. Fiscal whizkid? We have an app for that. Tough hawk on the ME? That's in stock too.

Being short on facts to some extent is expected from pols but an entire campaign built on "vote for me, I have bsns experience and am not Obama" is what Mitt Romney is selling.

Why would the undecided be swung towards Romney, did I miss the part where he spelled out his policy plans?

I always figured that when it comes to elections that come down to one side running for re-election, the stances or approach in campaign have to switch to some degree. Obama needs to defend his throne with an offense showing the potential consequence of electing Romney based on his voting record and interviews that would leave many with a palpable distaste for the man, rather than rehashing the "Hope" and "Change" slogans that undecided/sway-able voters aren't going to fall for.

On that note, Romney should be defending his ambitions of being the president by bringing tangible and constructive arguments as to why his contrasting vision and choices in policy would be conducive to the needs of the country, rather than the constant and unrelenting "Obama is bad, vote for me" catch.

But alas, politics aren't always predictable or appeal to reason or logic.

It's all perception. Like I said, it's a catch up on PR and making amends for the embarrassing candid moments revealed left and right throughout his campaign. He was attentive, focused, aggressive, and put on a face that would befit a contender running for the seat in the white house, rather than the rich jerk making offensive statements like most view him for.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/undecided-voter/1418227

Pretty funny (by SNL standards)

You cannot go offense as the sitting president in this economic situation. The economy hasn't fully healed and most of this debate hinged on questions about the economy which leave you dangerously open to come off as out of touch if you try to pass off incomplete work as complete. Obamas stance was basically to say "I've done well and if reelected I can finish what we started here." while trying to chip away at Romney's plan except there's a problem...

Romney has a shifting position that manifests itself as whatever is currently advantageous which makes it even more difficult to indict your opponent when you have nothing to contrast his statement against and your public has nfc about the flip-flops.

The problem is in these styles of debate though is you're free to distort anything and your opponent cannot do much but say "that isn't what I said" which leads to a circular argument without outside evidence indicting one side. Being able to put your opponent to task using their own words is more potent than any claim you could possibly make.

Future debates with more favorable topics may be more advantageous to the president.

Short of having the ability to cut mics or screaming at the candidates, Jim Lehrer did about as well as he could. They just kept talking over him, when they wanted to keep making a point, but there were a couple instances when he wrestled control back. Not many but a few.

For a presidential debate I'd have thought they'd have run a tighter ship with the moderating.

It'll get tighter as they go on (I hope).

I have to give credit where it is due, but it was painful to see both sides abusing their speaking privileges and talking over the moderator to simply be one with the last word. You're right though, based on the format, he did the best he could for what little control there was for maintaining order and organization.

Guess it sucks as the moderator cause if you kill the presidents mic that's a historical moment right there and if you cut Romney's mic OMGLIBERALBIAS.

Let me get this straight, people here are praising sesame street and they are going to vote? We are all doomed.

Supporting educational television programs for children is just terrible. How dare we have voting rights?

Republicans are rejoicing in tonight's debate. My republican friends are totally using this debate as a proof that ACA is a failure....

I personally felt Obama's defense of ACA was a bit feeble.

Proof ACA is a failure? You mean the same ACA that is Romneycare?

If anything, that was Obamas best part of the debate - effectively roping Romney into the healthcare debate... before he let him get away with *** death panels.

Makes me sad that validity within debates typically come to cheap shots and jabs that generally have no feasible time sphere or structure to defend or counter.

Maybe because they are real...

I want to ask a question, but I know there is no civil way for it to be asked. Just dwell on that a bit.