2012 Debates

[not_so_new]

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...

CNN actually did a total running time for each speaker, I believe it was pretty much a tie with Obama speaking for 30 secs or a min longer from what I remember (but don't hold me to that).

 

[AlBell]

Jebus, check out the HuffPo headline. Jebus.

This one?

OBAMEH
ROMNEY SWERVES ON THE ISSUES
PRESIDENT FAILS TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics/

A link would have been helpful.

 

[angrysoba]

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

Easier said than done.

I understand what it is for someone to start spewing out a chain of lies and half-lies and irrelevant truths and make them seem as though they are profound but the point is that when someone does that you need to seize on a particular lie and show it up for what it is. We know people who debate Truthers and creationists and we know people who win despite the shoddy debating tactics of their opponents. It isn't as though the Gish Gallop is an invincible weapon.

But just out of interest, and I haven't seen the debate. What was the Gish Gallop section of Romney's argument?

 

[not_so_new]

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.

Yep, falls in line with what you and I talked about earlier in the thread. Based on Nate Silver's predictions the debates don't really make a big dent in one direction or another. Nate seemed to feel that Romney needed a huge knock out performance to make up the ground he has to cover... so while it's probably a general consensus that Romney "won" last night he certainly didn't win by enough to really matter.

Another thing that many people (on this thread and in the news outlets) seem to be missing. Romney is Romney and up to this point he has been running an extremely disorganized and clunky campaign. The polling numbers up to this point back this up.

Romney winning a single debate isn't going to magically change his overall campaign into a well oiled machine.

Romney is who he is, Obama is who he is and up to this point the general voting public seems to like what they see out of Obama, I don't see that trend changing as the rest of the election cycle unfolds.

 

[eeyore1954]

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)

And a few JREF posters. IE the posts about Romney's "smirk".

 

[angrysoba]

Another thing that many people (on this thread and in the news outlets) seem to be missing. Romney is Romney and up to this point he has been running an extremely disorganized and clunky campaign. The polling numbers up to this point back this up.

Romney winning a single debate isn't going to magically change his overall campaign into a well oiled machine.

Romney is who he is, Obama is who he is and up to this point the general voting public seems to like what they see out of Obama, I don't see that trend changing as the rest of the election cycle unfolds.

I tend to be of the opinion that a debate performance should matter more than a PR performance (i.e the campaign in general).

This just seems another occasion where Obama Democrats seem more than a little complacent.

It doesn't matter who is polled now. It matters who turns out to vote in the end.

 

[joobie]

I'm not a fan of where they put it. Can't really see it from the street.

if you ask me, it belongs at the top of the steps of the art museum. anyone that cries that it's not art needs to be reminded that there's a urinal on a pedestal inside.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I thought Obama did just what he needed to do, which was not hurt himself. Romney is the long shot to win this election, and at this point it's up to him to beat Obama. He certainly didn't win the election with this debate.

And I thought Obama had a few really strong moments. I liked the part where he said if you believe this big tax cut and this big military spending increase (that the Pentagon doesn't even want) is the way to tackle the deficit problem then Romney is your man. I liked the bit where he said a Romney claim was refuted by "math, common sense, and history". I liked where he schooled Romney on the issue of bipartisan compromise.

And if the undecided voters are unaware of Romney's playing fast and loose with the facts, they were confronted with the issue when Romney claimed that Obama was lying about companies getting tax breaks for moving jobs out of the country. You had a challenger accusing the POTUS of lying on this point. They can't possibly both be correct. You'd have to be exceptionally incurious not to find out who is wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isl...ouse-says-companies-get-tax-break-moving-job/

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It doesn't matter who is polled now. It matters who turns out to vote in the end.

Yes, the polls could be wrong, but I sure wouldn't bet on it. As it stands now, Obama already has very nearly 270 electoral votes in the bag. Even if the polls are off a little, it means that Obama has to lose every single one of the closely contested states and Romney has to win every single one of them.

So for the debate, Obama did just what he needed to do: not hurt himself.

As a bonus, he's now got Mr. Etch-a-Sketch pinned down to a few committed statements on economic issues.

 

[Unabogie]

One thing that has likely been pointed out a elsewhere is that this is somewhat of a Pyrrhic victory for conservatives. Yes, Obama was clearly off his game and didn't score any "debate points" worth gloating over, but a lot of that is because Romney completely abandoned his platform (well, at least for 90 minutes).

Romney made a passionate defense of government regulation, promised that he would not cut taxes for the rich while cutting them for everyone else, promised an end to pre-existing conditions, and promised to support green energy. In other words, he adopted the Obamao Marxist Kenyan agenda when he faced the public.

Of course, we all know he's lying and in fact, he'll "walk back" everything he said yesterday, today, but this is sort of the rights "the era of big government is over". It's a sign that right wing policies aren't selling, so you have to lie and pretend you're not really for what you're really for.

Again, a Pyrrhic victory.

 

[Tricky]

It was a disappointing performance by Obama, but like Unabogie, I'm thinking this is not the last we'll hear of what was said here. When the Obama ads start coming out showing how Mitt flip-flopped, it may turn out to be to the advantage of the Democrats.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What was the Gish Gallop section of Romney's argument?

I think the technique is to shotgun so many lies knowing full well it takes a lot less time to make such statements than to refute them, so there will never be enough time in a debate format to refute all of them, and the ones left standing will appear to be unchallenged (and assumed true to an ignorant observer).

I could list a handful of them. He twice talked about Obamacare as government run healthcare (even calling up the specter of some appointed panel making potentially life or death medical treatment decisions). He claimed the President was wrong about the fact that companies can get a tax break for shipping jobs overseas (even saying that if it were true then he, Romney, needs to get a new accountant). He claimed his tax proposal isn't a $5 trillion tax cut. He claimed he wasn't proposing a tax cut for the wealthy. He claimed there are 23 million people unemployed or who have stopped looking for jobs. He claimed pre-existing conditions will be covered under his proposed alternative to Obamacare.

All of these things take time to unpack and explain. But most of them have been debunked before.

He's playing to a very limited segment of the electorate, I think: undecided likely voters interested enough to watch the debate but not informed enough to recognize the repeating of debunked claims and not interested enough to check up on them. In other words, he's only playing to undecided voters who will vote based on debate performance but only on style and not content. That might be the best he can hope for at this point, but it won't win him the election.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

but a lot of that is because Romney completely abandoned his platform (well, at least for 90 minutes).

Romney made a passionate defense of government regulation, promised that he would not cut taxes for the rich while cutting them for everyone else, promised an end to pre-existing conditions, and promised to support green energy. In other words, he adopted the Obamao Marxist Kenyan agenda when he faced the public.

It was a disappointing performance by Obama, but like Unabogie, I'm thinking this is not the last we'll hear of what was said here. When the Obama ads start coming out showing how Mitt flip-flopped, it may turn out to be to the advantage of the Democrats.

Yep. Good point. We've got Mr. Etch-a-Sketch making claims that contradict his platform in a debate just a month before the election. (Yeah--his defense of government regulation of Wall Street was a surreal moment.)

Give him enough rope. . .

 

[DavidJames]

I posted in another thread about some undecided people here saying Romney improved his image with them although they were still undecided.

I have to wonder how anyone could be undecided. Maybe I'm delusional and assume people at this point have actually spent some time looking at and reading about the candidates. If they had, they know the differences are vast. Maybe there are a chunk of people who really don't pay much attention and rely on the debates.

Considering last night, I hope it's not a huge chunk.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

And I thought Obama had a few really strong moments. I liked the part where he said if you believe this big tax cut and this big military spending increase (that the Pentagon doesn't even want) is the way to tackle the deficit problem then Romney is your man. I liked the bit where he said a Romney claim was refuted by "math, common sense, and history". I liked where he schooled Romney on the issue of bipartisan compromise.

And if the undecided voters are unaware of Romney's playing fast and loose with the facts, they were confronted with the issue when Romney claimed that Obama was lying about companies getting tax breaks for moving jobs out of the country. You had a challenger accusing the POTUS of lying on this point. They can't possibly both be correct. You'd have to be exceptionally incurious not to find out who is wrong.

The problem for Obama, as I see it, is that presidential debates are more about who seems "presidential" than whether what they actually said anything of substance. I doubt that the fact that Romney flip-flopped on a number of his positions and that he can't say how he is going to accomplish his major goals is really important to a whole lot of voters.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, Obama was clearly off his game and didn't score any "debate points" worth gloating over,

But I disagree. There were a couple of moments anyway.

I forget how he put it, but at one point Obama addressed Romney's commitment to getting bipartisan cooperation in Congress. He pointed to something Romney had just said earlier that essentially blew up any chance of entertaining real compromise. In my mind it called up a stark contrast between Obama who really did incorporate conservative and even Republican proposals into legislation he supported, and a "President Romney" dealing with Washington politics.

I think this was underscored when he cited Romney's rejection of a "balanced" plan for dealing with deficit reduction that would not even accept a 10 to 1 ratio (spending cuts to revenue increases) because he was so committed to something like the Norquist pledge.

I think Obama presented himself as an experienced statesman as compared to an ideologue.

Oh yeah, and Romney really really looked bad after criticizing Obama for not jumping on to support Simpson-Bowles and then twice refusing to answer Lehrer's twice repeated question, "Would you support Simpson-Bowles?"

 

[Meadmaker]

It was a disappointing performance by Obama, but like Unabogie, I'm thinking this is not the last we'll hear of what was said here. When the Obama ads start coming out showing how Mitt flip-flopped, it may turn out to be to the advantage of the Democrats.

I'm hoping the same thing. I thought Obama looked bad, but when it comes right down to it, all Romney could do was dodge.

I would love to see an ad that has Romney saying he doesn't want a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, alongside an explanation of his proposed 5 trillion dollar tax cut. I think there were several places where Obama wasn't thinking quickly on his feet, but where Romney just said things that are easily shown to be either flip-flops from previous positions or, in some cases, just plain wrong.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The problem for Obama, as I see it, is that presidential debates are more about who seems "presidential" than whether what they actually said anything of substance. I doubt that the fact that Romney flip-flopped on a number of his positions and that he can't say how he is going to accomplish his major goals is really important to a whole lot of voters.

Or at least to the very small segment of likely voters who are still undecided, ignorant of the meat of these issues, yet interested enough to watch the debate. I don't think that's "a whole lot of voters".

And I certainly don't think it's enough for Romney to win every single toss-up state (which is pretty much what he needs to do to win this election at this point).

Also, I think even in the style contest (who seems more "presidential"), I think Obama had his moments in this debate.

 

[johnny karate]

But I disagree.

As do I. I think Romney won on style and verve, but he didn't land any solid blows.

There were a couple of moments anyway.

The most significant to me (which I posted as the debate was taking place) was when Obama nailed Romney on his lack of specifics, and Romney pretty much copped to it, saying it was more about "principles" with him.

As myself and other have already said, the fact-checking of this debate will not be in Romney's favor.

I just hope Obama's campaign is smart enough to use that to their advantage.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think there were several places where Obama wasn't thinking quickly on his feet, but where Romney just said things that are easily shown to be either flip-flops from previous positions or, in some cases, just plain wrong.

Obama was probably listening to some of the media pundit "wisdom" and polls that claimed people don't want attacks and confrontation in the debate. I also think he realized that there are other venues for making use of these flip-flops or just plain wrong statements. No need to waste precious debate time unpacking and debunking them.

Personally, I thought the professorial tone those experts were counting as a negative for Obama worked very well. When he explained the consequence of the option between a voucher and traditional Medicare--that it would separate the low risk and high risk people, leaving the high risk in traditional Medicare--he scored big in my book. Romney's response began with what was obviously something canned (he repeated the explanation of the choice that Obama had just given), and seemed a bit panicky to me.

Also, when Romney argues that his tax cuts which are meant to save the economy are deemed revenue neutral based on very optimistic growth projections, I don't think you need to say anything. The circularity of positing growth in an argument that it will be revenue neutral and lead to growth is obvious.

By the way, is he abandoning the "revenue neutral" claim? I don't think he used those words at all in the debate. I think I heard phrases such as "will bring in enough money", which isn't really the same.