2012 Presidential Debates

[BigRedBuster]

That post didn't even make a good point. Read my response.

[zoogs]

I think the point that knapp is making here is, how can you say those people were not serious contenders when they actually won the primaries?

 

I watched the debate in full this afternoon. And it makes me realize how clueless I am about things. Plenty of stuff I didn't understand, even though neither candidate went into a real level of detail. Takeaways:

 

1) How do you pit talking point vs talking about? They're empty feel-good statements any way you slice it.

2) I feel supremely underqualified to personally wade through the political speech charade and objectively evaluate the candidates' platforms.

2.5) Can't we have two independent committees present an academic debate in lieu of his silly little media event?

3) Boy, Romney was sharp. I take a few issues with what he said - for instance, his talk about government efficiency by the "Is it so important we have to borrow from China" line. How much does he expect to actually spare the federal government this way? Drop in the bucket is my understanding. Also, his energy policy. He wants to wean us off foreign oil dependence and I gather he is advocating what seems to be a fairly short-sighted jobs-now solution of drilling our reserves.

[JJ Husker]

I did not watch the debates. I hate them and won't waste my time with them.

 

I saw a CNN poll that says 67% of those watching the debate say Romney won (25% said Obama won), and pretty much everywhere else you look, Romney has been declared the winner.

 

Yes, to put it mildly, I'm shocked by that. I've seen Mitt speak enough to be very surprised by that result.

I understand being fed up with this whole election process and the poor choice we have but, I do not understand not watching the debates. I hate the commercials and most everything involved but how do you expect to understand these guys position on things if you won't even watch the debates? I found it rather refreshing to see what they have to offer without some PAC slinging mud for them.

 

I think Romney won the debate on multiple levels. He presented himself better and made eye contact with the camera, with the moderator, and with Obama. Obama on the other hand was constantly diverting his eyes and seemed to avoid talking to the camera. That actually surprised me because I thought Obama would win the presentation side of things. More importantly though, Romney won on substance. Mitt pretty much dispelled most of the liberal claims against his economic plans, the constant refrain that he will cut taxes for the rich, raise taxes on the middle class, etc. He made Obama look like the economic fool that he is. I doubt he did anything that would change your mind but wouldn't it be better to more fully inform yourself?

[JJ Husker]

As far as the discussion about supporting Romney now, or anyone other than Obama, there are a few reasons for that. 1- The liberal media wanted Romney as the candidate. They literally destroyed every other front runner (that didn't destroy themselves) the second they were in the lead. Personally I would rather have seen Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich win the nomination but they drummed up some affairs or womanizing BS and got rid of those 2 quick. I believe it was a concerted effort because they knew repubs were luke warm to Romney and he is just not the type to generate a lot of excitement. 2- It doesn't take much to figure out that most any conservative leaning person would prefer any republican candidate to Obama. I seriously cannot think of one person, dem or repub, that I would not rather have than Obama. Well, ok that's not true. I would take Obama over Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid but, those really are the only two that come to mind. 3- Things are not good economically for many many people in this country. Right or wrong, Obama and our elected representatives will pay for that. If there is one thing I have little tolerance for it is a man like Obama, who is still blaming the country's ills on his predecessor and not taking any responsibility for his inability to deliver on his promises. He promised us many things 4 years ago. He did not deliver on too many critical issues. He has to go and the sooner the better.

[The King]

Issues with the debate:

 

They don't really talk about anything - it's all pretty much just fluffy goodness. It's like watching a highlight tape of a football player, maybe he breaks a long run once every couple games, doesn't make him qualified to be a D1 player.

 

The moderator is awful, the questions suck (primarily because we don't really get an answer) - to fix this? Town hall style debates.

 

Next issue: Only 2 candidates are present: This may set some of you off, but I think its becoming more clear. This "bipartisanship" nonsense is because the two parties are more similar than many would like to believe. We essentially get to hear two takes of the same view (with slight variations). Would love to see Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or some other candidate present as there is a reason these two parties veto having a 3rd (or 4th) candidate... Don't want to hear about time constraint, because IMO, our country's well being is worth enough for a 3 hour long debate - town hall style, of course.

[The King]

Clearly, I don't support either candidate.

[T_O_Bull]

I watched about 2/3rds to 3/4ths of this and for all the jargon about my plan this and my plan that neither of the candidates talked about how they would implement any of these plans. Congress still is a huge road block and if you can't get things through Congress and without Congress bastardizing the bill you are not getting anything done.

T_O_B

[carlfense]

 

I see you are one of those that doesn't get how the media can and does influence perception.

What exactly do you mean? Did the media cast those votes? If so, did those votes not count while votes for Mitt Romney did count? Please explain if you can.

[carlfense]

I think the point that knapp is making here is, how can you say those people were not serious contenders when they actually won the primaries?

Exactly. The Romney-washing of recent history seems to have been quite effective on certain people.

[carlfense]

He presented himself better and made eye contact with the camera, with the moderator, and with Obama. Obama on the other hand was constantly diverting his eyes and seemed to avoid talking to the camera. That actually surprised me because I thought Obama would win the presentation side of things.

Completely agree.

 

More importantly though, Romney won on substance. Mitt pretty much dispelled most of the liberal claims against his economic plans, the constant refrain that he will cut taxes for the rich, raise taxes on the middle class, etc.

What substance? I heard the same non-answers that Romney always gives.

 

"Yes, I'll completely repeal Obamacare but I'll replace it." (No replacement specified or explained.)

"Yes, I'll completely repeal Dodd-Frank but I'll replace it." (No replacement specified or explained.)

"Yes, I'll cut taxes across the board but it will be completely paid for." (No specifics given . . . and mathematically impossible without raising taxes on the middle class.)

 

Obama had a very poor debate but let's not act like Romney did something that he didn't do: he did not offer substance.

[JJ Husker]

Carl- I disagree. No, there were not highly detailed plans presented by either of them. But, Romney did shed some light on his general direction on many matters.

 

1-he disputed the lefts claim that he will give tax breaks to the rich and raise taxes on the middle class.

2- he explained that he would cut spending and decrease taxes for everyone. And that the resultant economic growth would replace lost federal revenue. Also he would eliminate tax loopholes which would help offset lowered rates..

3-he explained his criteria deficit reduction; is it worth borrowing money from China to continue funding it.

4-he made it abundantly clear that most of the dems claims about what he would cut, who would get tax breaks, etc, were mad up claims only rooted in what Obama could dream. Like usual both sides have their own preferred studies backing their own version of things. It is possible to cut tax rates across the board and not lose required levels of revenue. Cutting spending lowers the amount of revenue required. Eliminating deductions and loopholes offsets tax rate reductions. A healthy, growing economy will generate more taxable income and thus increased revenue. He clearly stated numerous times that he would not increase taxes on the middle class and that an economically healthy middle class is paramount for the economic health of our nation. Why do you not believe what he said?

 

Obama has not offered any more details or more credible information. I've gone to his website for his "plan". He only offers general ideas, no more specific than what Romney offers.

[zoogs]

Obama really clung on to that $5 trillion number like it was part of his gameplan. Unfortunate that it turned out to be incorrect. Obama seemed as surprised by anyone, and called out Mitt for changing his position that he had been promoting for 8 months.

 

Mitt's criteria for deficit reduction is garbage. How much spending is he going to cut eliminating programs that way? Extremely little. Why? Because the huge bulk of our spending is tied in Medicare and social security. What's he going to do about those? I made that 'budget things' thread a while back highlighting just how unrealistic those discretionary spending cuts are, and they remain to this day, that unrealistic.

 

Off the top of my head, discretionary spending #s were somewhere around 12% of the federal budget, with defense accounting for most of that. Medicare and Social Security comprised the rest.

[JJ Husker]

Zoogies, you are correct, he was not abundantly clear when it came to entitlement spending. However, I do believe they are using the Ryan plan which is detailed somewhere (I haven't read it) but apparentley Obama has because he referred to it. He did say if you were near retirement age, 60ish, that you would not see benefit cuts. Obama indicated the Ryan plan would start affecting people 55-57ish and that they would be changing to some sort of "voucher" system. Now I do not know anything more specific than that but it does sound like they have a plan, good or bad, to start getting entitlements under control. Obama offered nothing on entitlements. He only wanted to scare people into thinking Romney was going to harm their social security and medicare. Ignoring the problem may get him elected for another four years but it doesn't begin to solve the impending problem.

[krc1995]

why did Obama not refer to Bain Capital and the 47%. Strategy for later debates?

[carlfense]

A healthy, growing economy will generate more taxable income and thus increased revenue.

If this hasn't been debunked yet it never will be.

 

W's own chief economist:

"You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one."

 

http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-years-plea.html