Debates

B

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
I FUCKING LOVE THIS SHIT!

everytime I feel alienated by politics I am reminded on how much I truly love the theater of all this stuff. FUCK YES BABY LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOOO

<3 politics again
 
Barack obama does the retarded "thanks to my wife for being awesome" speech before starting. gross.

Talks about how things sucked and now things are getting better

"it's not about where we've been, but where we are going"

Romney does boilerplate about congrats to obama on his anniversary

Romney talks about how things suck

- wants us to get energy independent
- open up trade, particularly with latin america
- make education better
- better budget
- help out small businesses

Obama "invest in energy sources of the future, wind, solar, biofuels"
 
watching the cnn independent focus group tracker (don't know how accurate it is) no candidate has been negative so far except obama briefly when he talked about tax cuts
 
When asked what one thing could save the economy, Gov. Romney replied:




SPOILER ALERT


























COOKIES!





(Inside joke)
 
Voltaire said:
Poor Howey. He will be "self-medicating" tonight, given his messiah's pathetic performance.
Click to expand...
Oh I don't know about that. I do think Romney was more aggresive (he certainly had to be given how badly he's ran his campaign) and he was also more relaxed. Having said that, don't get a woody just yet. He sounded an awful lot like Richard Nixon to me.

Romney. "I have a plan! I have a plan! I'm going to solve these problems cause I have a plan!"

Moderator "Hmmm, well Mr. Romney, what exactly is your plan?"

Romney. "It doesn't matter. What matters is I have a plan!".

Romney's presentation last night was certainly better but on substance.......he didn't say anything. He was aggresive, he leveled criticism and he told us pretty much nothing about what he would do. Not that Obama did much better but he was more specific on policy that Romney was......which isn't saying much.

In all Obama's presentation came off as cold, stiff and slow. He sounded like a wasp liberal arts professor but at least he had some specifics. It wasn't all boiler plate like Romney, though there was a fair amount of that from Obama as well.

If I was scoring the debate like a fight I'd called it 12-10 split decision in Romney's favor. Unfortunately for Romney he didn't score the knock out punch he needed.

Oh well, there's always the next debate. Hope springs eternal Brent.
 
I'll admit first I didn't watch all of it. I turned it on early, Obama was speaking and the camera went to Romney. One look at that self-serving condescening "I'm better than you" smirk, and I turned it off.

Since even the liberals on my forum are giving it to Romney, I'll concede round one.

And, since I didn't watch, can someone provide the specifics on Romney's plans?

I'm sure there were plenty, right?
 
I'll admit first I didn't watch all of it. I turned it on early, Obama was speaking and the camera went to Romney. One look at that self-serving condescening "I'm better than you" smirk, and I turned it off.

Since even the liberals on my forum are giving it to Romney, I'll concede round one.

And, since I didn't watch, can someone provide the specifics on Romney's plans?

I'm sure there were plenty, right?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh I don't know about that. I do think Romney was more aggresive (he certainly had to be given how badly he's ran his campaign) and he was also more relaxed. Having said that, don't get a woody just yet. He sounded an awful lot like Richard Nixon to me.

Romney. "I have a plan! I have a plan! I'm going to solve these problems cause I have a plan!"

Moderator "Hmmm, well Mr. Romney, what exactly is your plan?"

Romney. "It doesn't matter. What matters is I have a plan!".

Romney's presentation last night was certainly better but on substance.......he didn't say anything. He was aggresive, he leveled criticism and he told us pretty much nothing about what he would do. Not that Obama did much better but he was more specific on policy that Romney was......which isn't saying much.

In all Obama's presentation came off as cold, stiff and slow. He sounded like a wasp liberal arts professor but at least he had some specifics. It wasn't all boiler plate like Romney, though there was a fair amount of that from Obama as well.

If I was scoring the debate like a fight I'd called it 12-10 split decision in Romney's favor. Unfortunately for Romney he didn't score the knock out punch he needed.

Oh well, there's always the next debate. Hope springs eternal Brent.
Click to expand...

I basically agree with your analysis, with one notable exception - Romney did present his five-point plan for economic recovery. It was simple, digestible, and to the point. This is the sort of thing Romney needs to win over the undecideds. I would argue that people don't really care about the specifics.
 
mott, facts don't matter, shifting voters matter. I wish people understood this when dicussing electoral politics. The truth is absolutely irrelevant.
 
Among Undecided voters:
TJd7X.png


6% gain with those thinking Romney would do a better job handling the economy (nations #1 issue)
12% gain on the issue of taxes, with obama losing an additional 5%. (17 point swing)
10% gain on doing the best job with medicare, obama loses an additional 3% (obama still leads in this category, but we just had a 13% swing towards romney)

By a 2 to 1 margin, uncommitted voters crowned Mitt Romney the winner
Click to expand...
56 percent of those polled said they viewed Romney in a better light after watching the debate.
Click to expand...


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57525698/poll-uncommitted-voters-say-romney-wins-debate/?pageNum=1&tag=page

If that isn't a win, I don't know what is.
 
Howey said:
I'll admit first I didn't watch all of it. I turned it on early, Obama was speaking and the camera went to Romney. One look at that self-serving condescening "I'm better than you" smirk, and I turned it off.

Since even the liberals on my forum are giving it to Romney, I'll concede round one.

And, since I didn't watch, can someone provide the specifics on Romney's plans?

I'm sure there were plenty, right?
Click to expand...

Maybe you can watch the Daily Show and get your latest news....thats about your level of intellect....
 
Voltaire said:
I basically agree with your analysis, with one notable exception - Romney did present his five-point plan for economic recovery. It was simple, digestible, and to the point. This is the sort of thing Romney needs to win over the undecideds. I would argue that people don't really care about the specifics.
Click to expand...
...and utterly lacking in detail as to how he would accomplish any of those points. The devil is in the details but hey, Obama has the advantage of incumbancy but that also comes with a few disadvantages, and having a detailed policy track records on policy is one of them. Romney did a good job of exploiting that while saying pretty much nothing but glittering generalities himself.
 
GRIND said:
mott, facts don't matter, shifting voters matter. I wish people understood this when dicussing electoral politics. The truth is absolutely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Only if enough of them shift in the right places. Voters shifting from Obama to Romney in Texas or Alabama don't matter. They do in Ohio and Florida but only if enough of them shift. In the grand scheme of things I'll bet you these debates amount to diddly squat. Mostly they do. There has probably been only one Presidential debate in my life time that played a significant role in an election. Ford/Carter didn't. Reagan/Carter didn't. It was too close to the election and most people had decided for Reagan all ready. It sure didn't in Reagan/Mondale. Granted Reagan went from 47 states to 49 states after his debate with Mondale, It did have an affect in the 88 election but not a big one nor did the Presidential debates of 92, 96, 2000, 2004 (where Kerry killed W in all 3 debates and still lost the election) and 2008 have an impact. I doubt it will this year either but it sure does give us a lot to talk about.

Essentially the polling data you sighted is meaningless as it isn't broken down State by State because such a shift will really only matter in the swing States.

I wish people understood that when discussing electoral politics national polls mean nothing.
 
mott, of course the data we have from last night isn't the be all end all on a state by state basis, but it is a good snapshot of what we can possibly expect.

The data I provided you is of undecideds. There AREN'T many undecideds in texas or alabama vs. ohio or florida. So to throw out texas and alabama as some smug example is pretty stupid. When you swing undecided voters, you are speaking directly TO the people in ohio and florida and virgina etc . .

The results of this debate are almost unprecedented in electoral history in terms of how many minds were changed. If any debate would end up having an effect, it is this one.
 
GRIND said:
mott, of course the data we have from last night isn't the be all end all on a state by state basis, but it is a good snapshot of what we can possibly expect.

The data I provided you is of undecideds. There AREN'T many undecideds in texas or alabama vs. ohio or florida. So to throw out texas and alabama as some smug example is pretty stupid. When you swing undecided voters, you are speaking directly TO the people in ohio and florida and virgina etc . .

The results of this debate are almost unprecedented in electoral history in terms of how many minds were changed. If any debate would end up having an effect, it is this one.
Click to expand...
Oh that's a laughable notion Grind. There are plenty of undecided voters in States like California and Texas which are firmly going one way or the other. The point is, is that there's not enough of them to make a statistically significant difference in those States. They only mean something in the swing States. It's retarded to think that a snapshot national poll in independent voters means anything. They don't. The only swing of independents that matter is in the swing States which, ironically, is why they are called "Swing" States. derp, derp.
 
mott you are a retard. you can extrapolate independents to ohio and florida pretty easily. no shit the only independents that matter are in swing states, I never claimed otherwise. You are arguing against something I haven't put forth.

The point is, mitt romney, based on the data we have right now, improved dramatically among undecided voters, the people that make and break elections, and those undecideds that he spoke to ARE in ohio, ARE in florida, and ARE in virginia.
 
GRIND said:
Among Undecided voters:
TJd7X.png


6% gain with those thinking Romney would do a better job handling the economy (nations #1 issue)
12% gain on the issue of taxes, with obama losing an additional 5%. (17 point swing)
10% gain on doing the best job with medicare, obama loses an additional 3% (obama still leads in this category, but we just had a 13% swing towards romney)





http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57525698/poll-uncommitted-voters-say-romney-wins-debate/?pageNum=1&tag=page

If that isn't a win, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...
Watching the debate just now and i have to agree Romney came across well, he made sense and didn't gaff. Obama didn't do as badly as republicans would like to think but Romney is pretty much the undisputed winner there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top