2012 Debates

[Peephole]

Does "FactCheck" matter? In a debate, what matters is how well you can bloody your opponent. If it is the conventional wisdom that most people tuning in will come away from a debate with the same convictions they had going in then I think this is even more true of anyone who goes to "FactCheckers".

Nope, Factcheck has been mostly reduced to spewing right-wing talk points to keep up some sort of pretense of balance.

Just look at their analysis of the first claim:

The president said Romney was proposing a $5 trillion tax cut and Romney said he wasn’t. The president is off base here — Romney says his rate cuts and tax eliminations would be offset and the deficit wouldn’t increase.


...


By themselves, those cuts would, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, lower federal tax liability by “about $480 billion in calendar year 2015” compared with current tax policy, with Bush cuts left in place. The Obama campaign has extrapolated that figure out over 10 years, coming up with a $5 trillion figure over a decade.


However, Romney always has said he planned to offset that massive cut with equally massive reductions in tax preferences to broaden the tax base, thus losing no revenue and not increasing the deficit. So to that extent, the president is incorrect: Romney is not proposing a $5 trillion reduction in taxes.

So, basically Factcheck concedes that Romney's plan includes a $5 trillion tax cut, but Romney said it isn't so. So Obama is wrong. Ta-dah!

Romney knows there will never be a decent fact checking. So he just spent an hour and a half stringing together lie after lie. He knows the media will just let him get away with it. All the media cares about was spinning a Romney comeback narrative. I wonder if that's one of the reasons Obama was so subdued, maybe his campaign figured it didn't really matter all that much.

 

[AlBell]

Yup, and that, more than any other aspect of the debate, is what's going to stick with people who are watching it... especially the undecideds.

Romney shoots himself in the foot, yet again

According to media this am, apparently not, when all was said and done.

 

[varwoche]

The cameras were big on showing the facial expressions of the person not talking, and Obama did himself no favors. I don't know how one fixes that sort of thing without becoming excessively self conscious.

(yeah yeah I know how superficial this is -- except it's the US electorate we're dealing with)

 

[AlBell]

Exactly.

Like it or not, no matter what the policy positions of a candidate, if they come across with bad body language in a debate, it will hurt them. Such is the landscape of politics in the TV/Internet age.

And Romney cannot afford to be displaying this kind of body language right now.

He's screwed.

Dream on. It was another Walker moment for Democrats.

 

[remirol]

Dream on. It was another Walker moment for Democrats.

I'll take Romney action at even odds

 

[rcfieldz]

What I got...

From what I heard them say...Obama wants the people to go into business on their own (wonder if that means no more handouts/bailouts?) and Romney wants to cut off funding Obama's Care/cause...and effect on the nations budget.

 

[elbe]

The cameras were big on showing the facial expressions of the person not talking, and Obama did himself no favors. I don't know how one fixes that sort of thing without becoming excessively self conscious.

(yeah yeah I know how superficial this is -- except it's the US electorate we're dealing with)

I watched it on CSPAN and they pretty much did split screen for the entire debate. Personally I thought Romney was far more distracting when he wasn't talking. He looked antsy, like he just couldn't wait until he could talk again. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

 

[AlBell]

So according to Romney. trickle down government doesn't work, but trickle down economics do.

Great phrase, and so far it hasn't worked for Obama.

 

[Tony]

According to media this am, apparently not, when all was said and done.

You mean the evil liberal media? I thought they were in bed with Obama.

 

[grunion]

Great phrase, and so far it hasn't worked for Obama.

I'll concede that it is a cute, debate-friendly catchphrase but what do you think it means, and how is Obama guilty of it (especially in ways that "haven't worked")?

 

[rcfieldz]

I saw

I watched it on CSPAN and they pretty much did split screen for the entire debate. Personally I thought Romney was far more distracting when he wasn't talking. He looked antsy, like he just couldn't wait until he could talk again. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

I didn't watch that station but it seemed to me Obama tried to command the debate. He should have been clearer and shorter with his responses and leads. I am tired of his dead zone moments while the gears in his head try to prepare his next sentence or reply.

 

[AlBell]

I feel the debate winner is tough to call. I don't see a clear winner.
Besides the issues I had with Romney, Obama needed to garner confidence in his performance going forward. And while his stammering had nothing to do with content, it knocked some points off his confidence.

So... hard to call. If when Romney had sad "I have no plan to cut education", Obama had come back with "Yes, it doesn't seem you have much of a plan for anything", it would have been a knock-out.

If the media tomorrow picks up on the no-details-just-principles comment, the Obama pulls ahead here. If not, I think the next poll numbers will either be unchanged, or maybe an uptick for Romney.

When Obama brought Clinton into the comments "You aren't Bill Clinton." would have been even better.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Interesting developments on the prediction markets (IEM and Intrade)... last night, right after the debates, President Obama took a hit and his WTA numbers went down from about 70+% or so to 65%; meanwhile Romney's WTA numbers went up by about the same amount.

However, now the trend has reversed. Obama's numbers have stopped falling and are, in fact, starting to go back up; likewise, Romney's numbers have stopped rising and are beginning to drop again.

That's quite a short-lived bump for Romney on the markets. It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out in the polls over the next few days, but based upon this I don't see how last night's debate is going to translate into any lasting positive effect for Romney.

 

[elbe]

I didn't watch that station but it seemed to me Obama tried to command the debate. He should have been clearer and shorter with his responses and leads. I am tired of his dead zone moments while the gears in his head try to prepare his next sentence or reply.

I meant distracting visually, like if you turned off the sound. Romney kind of looked like he constantly wanted to ask "is it my turn yet?" while Obama looked more focused on Romney while he was speaking (ignoring that they both appeared to be taking notes).

 

[rcfieldz]

maybe...

I did record the night so I might try adding up the time each spent talking and see who was longer winded. Hope someone else in the media does it before me...

 

[angrysoba]

Romney's positions shift like the sand in a strong wind, and Obama could not predict what Romney's "position du jour" would be, especially since there seems to be no concerns on Romney's part about consistency or hypocrisy. How can one prepare for a debate against a man who changes his views as often as he changes his socks?

I would think it should be easy to debate a person like that. Demonstrate their contradictions and hypocrisy and ask, rhetorically, what their "position du jour" is and how the electorate can expect any consistency from him.

Seriously, from what's been said here for the last year or so, Romney should have plenty of weak spots for a skilled debator to exploit.

No excuses for Obama if he didn't do his homework and lost the debate.

 

[TragicMonkey]

While I appreciate a good show as entertainment, when it comes to people running for president I'd much prefer they just publish a spreadsheet containing the details and numbers for their proposals. We could then review them, check the math, and choose the candidate we each prefer based on that, rather than performance on a tv event. Words are air.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I would think it should be easy to debate a person like that. Demonstrate their contradictions and hypocrisy and ask, rhetorically, what their "position du jour" is and how the electorate can expect any consistency from him.

Seriously, from what's been said here for the last year or so, Romney should have plenty of weak spots for a skilled debator to exploit.

No excuses for Obama if he didn't do his homework and lost the debate.

You have obviously never tried debating a creationist who is performing the Gish Gallop in a public forum.

Easier said than done.

 

[DavidJames]

Seriously, from what's been said here for the last year or so, Romney should have plenty of weak spots for a skilled debator to exploit.

No excuses for Obama if he didn't do his homework and lost the debate.

I agree with you. Romney should have been a sitting duck. Obama failed to take advantage. Shame on him.

 

[angrysoba]

While I appreciate a good show as entertainment, when it comes to people running for president I'd much prefer they just publish a spreadsheet containing the details and numbers for their proposals. We could then review them, check the math, and choose the candidate we each prefer based on that, rather than performance on a tv event. Words are air.

That's a great idea. Unfortunately, almost nobody bothers checking that spreadsheet. Some newfangled contraption called television took the place of that since, at least, the sixties.