carlfense Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 My take: High information voters won't be swayed either way. They'll stick with their preferred candidate. Low information voters will either think that Romney looked confident and in control . . . or like he was rudely interrupting. (Not sure about this one.) Romney's performance will probably be more memorable. Result in the polls? Slight shift in Romney's favor but not enough to overcome Obama's lead. Link to comment
Mars Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Lots of pandering and the usual talking points have been repeated ad nauseam. I think Romney controlled the debate for the most part. He seemed more prepared. He beat the economy topic to death, which is the topic that will probably decide the election. Obama seemed a bit rusty. I'm sure that will change as the debates progress. Link to comment
krc1995 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 what is that heartrate thing at the bottom? I must have missed the explanation Link to comment
Ziggy Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 All in all I was surprised. I wasn't sure where each side would go with a few things, and I like the back and forth. It felt like Romney came off more business like, more leader like. Obama seemed more relaxed, more conversational, but didn't push too hard on a lot of issues I thought he had the opportunity to hit Romney on. I was also pleased to see the post debate scene with the families and both candidates able to come together. Link to comment
krc1995 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think Romney looks like Richard Nixon crossed with Bob Dole. Link to comment
Whistlebritches Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Jim Lehrer was the big loser tonight. What's the point of even having a moderator if he is going to get bullied by candidates. I hope the next debates are better than this. Link to comment
Lil' Red Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Jim Lehrer was the big loser tonight. What's the point of even having a moderator if he is going to get bullied by candidates. I hope the next debates are better than this. I agree. However, I did find his inability to control the debate rather amusing. Link to comment
Enhance Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 It's a debate - either you have a moderator that can control them or you let them go freestyle. That said, I'm not sure any moderator could entirely control these two guys. Link to comment
tschu Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 From what I saw, Romney looked much better prepared and won. Still not voting for him though. Link to comment
Fuzzy Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I was on the fence on this year's presidential vote, during the debate i started to side with Romney as he brought up very good points, but then he lost me as Obama brought up the notion to be more specific about his proposed policies and he became defensive and sidestepped the answer by going back to what he wanted to finish before his time ran out. Leaving me in sofa cushion, still wondering about those specifics. So, I'm still on the fence about who to vote for. Within the first 5 minutes, i heard Romney shoot down a $5 trillion tax cut, according to Obama, by saying he doesn't want a $5 trillion tax cut. That won me. But then he said, I don't want to push for any tax cuts. Umm, wait, you lost me. He said he wants to repeal Obamacare, that's fine. He wants to give the money that Obama cut from Medicare back to them. That's cool, even though i am not on Medicare. He wants to replace it with a state by state healthcare system. That lost me. Correct me if i am wrong or over-thinking this. But wouldn't that create some lopsided advantages and disadvantages between states? For example, what if Michigan has better overall healthcare coverage than Ohio? Couldn't that cause more folks to move to Michigan? Would Ohio raise taxes to make up for a loss of revenue if more folks moved to Michigan for better healthcare? What if Montana had better healthcare benefits for asthmatics? Now Montana would have a bunch of asthmatics living there. Link to comment
Mars Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 For example, what if Michigan has better overall healthcare coverage than Ohio? Couldn't that cause more folks to move to Michigan? Would Ohio raise taxes to make up for a loss of revenue if more folks moved to Michigan for better healthcare? What if Montana had better healthcare benefits for asthmatics? Now Montana would have a bunch of asthmatics living there. Then Ohio should find a way to improve its healthcare system, so that its residents aren't seeking residence in Michigan. The idea is that the people of each individual state know what is best for themselves and know how to best govern themselves, and so they should ultimately choose the healthcare system that best fits their needs. Link to comment
Fuzzy Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 For example, what if Michigan has better overall healthcare coverage than Ohio? Couldn't that cause more folks to move to Michigan? Would Ohio raise taxes to make up for a loss of revenue if more folks moved to Michigan for better healthcare? What if Montana had better healthcare benefits for asthmatics? Now Montana would have a bunch of asthmatics living there. Then Ohio should find a way to improve its healthcare system, so that its residents aren't seeking residence in Michigan. The idea is that the people of each individual state know what is best for themselves and know how to best govern themselves, and so they should ultimately choose the healthcare system that best fits their needs. Still weary about the idea, but its does make sense. Its not really the people who govern themselves, its the people that other people vote for and put in the governing spot to do what is in their best interest. I will agree with Romney that we need to put more of the taxpayer's money in our military. Link to comment
Mars Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 For example, what if Michigan has better overall healthcare coverage than Ohio? Couldn't that cause more folks to move to Michigan? Would Ohio raise taxes to make up for a loss of revenue if more folks moved to Michigan for better healthcare? What if Montana had better healthcare benefits for asthmatics? Now Montana would have a bunch of asthmatics living there. Then Ohio should find a way to improve its healthcare system, so that its residents aren't seeking residence in Michigan. The idea is that the people of each individual state know what is best for themselves and know how to best govern themselves, and so they should ultimately choose the healthcare system that best fits their needs. I will agree with Romney that we need to put more of the taxpayer's money in our military. Why do we need to spend more taxpayer money on our military? Link to comment
ZRod Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I will agree with Romney that we need to put more of the taxpayer's money in our military. Couldn't disagree more, the military's budget doesn't need anymore tax payer money in it. Once the war stages down the budget shouldn't increase for anything other than inflation. Unless God forbid we enter into an unforeseen large scale war. In terms of US dollars we spend about 6 times as much as anyone else in the world on our military. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I will agree with Romney that we need to put more of the taxpayer's money in our military. Couldn't disagree more, the military's budget doesn't need anymore tax payer money in it. Once the war stages down the budget shouldn't increase for anything other than inflation. Unless God forbid we enter into an unforeseen large scale war. In terms of US dollars we spend about 6 times as much as anyone else in the world on our military. not to mention, our 'enemies' are third world nations and rogue terrorists groups. spend money on intelligence. Link to comment
Recommended Posts