Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm still trying to figure out what was 'historic' about the debate. It seemed like another Presidential debate, and not even one that had any really memorable lines or ideas.

The gap of the rating between the two on who won...I think

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out what was 'historic' about the debate. It seemed like another Presidential debate, and not even one that had any really memorable lines or ideas.

Yeah... I'm struggling with that too...

Just like I'm struggling that 60 million watched that debate...

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out what was 'historic' about the debate. It seemed like another Presidential debate, and not even one that had any really memorable lines or ideas.

Apparently there had never been such a large margin of victory for a candidate in any presidential debate as this one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Romney's 52 point win is the largest in any debate Gallup has polled.

If romantic comedies have taught me one thing it is this:

Married couple stuck in a rut plans big anniversary night, but husband thinks he is all that and doesn't prepare for it. Disappoints wife with his performance and sleeps on the couch instead of getting the complimentary "birthday and anniversary oral pleasure", marriage is on the rocks and children don't respect him anymore.

*enter White House inspired work-out montage with inspirational music*

Obama ties in the second debate, doubts himself and wonders if he can still make it. His mother-in-law yells at him about "this is not the man that married my daughter", Michelle moves into the VP house "until things get better".

*enter new debate prep-montage that leaves the white house and focuses on Obama preparing for the final showdown in the tough suburbs of Chicago with the 47% that need him. Also more inspirational music*

Obama totally owns the last debate, Romney starts crying, marriage is saved, kids are happy, ending credits fade in as Obama gets his delayed anniversary oral pleasure.

Relapse wrote:
Romney's 52 point win is the largest in any debate Gallup has polled.

This feels historic in the same way that the guy who ate the most nickels is a world record holder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Michelle moves into the VP house "until things get better".

This is when I knew it would make a mint at the box office.

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Romney's 52 point win is the largest in any debate Gallup has polled.

This feels historic in the same way that the guy who ate the most nickels is a world record holder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Michelle moves into the VP house "until things get better".

This is when I knew it would make a mint at the box office.

It is surprising though, since looking at news stories, all that seems to be talked about are Romney gaffes and mistakes and accusations of lying. Even Democrats gave Romney a 10 point or so lead over Obama.

Another good take:

 d-usa wrote:
Another good take:

I don't get it.

Relapse wrote:
It is surprising though, since looking at news stories, all that seems to be talked about are Romney gaffes and mistakes and accusations of lying. Even Democrats gave Romney a 10 point or so lead over Obama.

I think that gets to the core of the nonsense of who 'won' a debate. The winner is the guy people thought was more confident, more forceful, and generally commanded the situation better. Which has nothing to do with whether anything you said made sense or not, or whether any of it was true.

That's what annoyed me about debate class in school. I thought it sounded great, until I joined and the teacher started explaining how it was all about confident and clear speaking, and posture and stuff... and basically sweet feth all points were given for the actual content of your argument.

Romney scores a win because his style on the night was much better than Obama's, but long term he's had to shift again on his tax policy. With no-one, especially not Romney, actually able to tell us what the guy plans to do once he's in the White House, can anyone see his bump actually lasting?

This is kinda weird...
http://www.suffolk.edu/research/1450.html

“In places like North Carolina, Virginia and Florida, we’ve already painted those for Romney. We’re not polling any of those states again. We’re focusing on the remaining states.”

Um... what? Florida!? Seems waaay too early to call them.

Can't resist though... As Han Solo said: "Don't get cocky kid!".




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It is surprising though, since looking at news stories, all that seems to be talked about are Romney gaffes and mistakes and accusations of lying. Even Democrats gave Romney a 10 point or so lead over Obama.

I think that gets to the core of the nonsense of who 'won' a debate. The winner is the guy people thought was more confident, more forceful, and generally commanded the situation better. Which has nothing to do with whether anything you said made sense or not, or whether any of it was true.

That's what annoyed me about debate class in school. I thought it sounded great, until I joined and the teacher started explaining how it was all about confident and clear speaking, and posture and stuff... and basically sweet feth all points were given for the actual content of your argument.

Romney scores a win because his style on the night was much better than Obama's, but long term he's had to shift again on his tax policy. With no-one, especially not Romney, actually able to tell us what the guy plans to do once he's in the White House, can anyone see his bump actually lasting?

Okay... I need to ask you about this...

This is strange to me... I don't remember any "explicit plans" Obama (or McCain) had in '08... nor any other presidential candidates since Clinton (don't remember past him).

Presidential candidate run on framework and ideals.

I think the angst with this is wanting to know HOW a candidate can achieve their objectives. What they SAY they want to do during a campaign is often different when those ideas are implemented.

And yes, I see this bump lasting because it gives those undecideds and previous Obama voters something to latch on to... simply put, Romney changed the "narrative" that's going to last.

Here's a debate that changed the course of an election, Nixon and Kennedy:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2021078,00.html

In other news, one in ten Americans thinks PBS takes up a third or more of the Federal Budget. As in PBS would have to cost in excess of a trillion dollars for that be true. I think we could get more than puppets in trashcans for that kind of money.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/one-in-ten-americans-think-pbs-gets-a-third-or-more-of-the-entire-federal-budget/politics/2012/10/06/50504

That more than 75% of voters think PBS is more than 1% of the budget is probably even sadder, but less funny.

It does explain why people could sit in there living rooms listening to Romney talk about PBS in an answer to deficit reduction and not shout 'this man is a lunatic' at the television.

 whembly wrote:
Um... what? Florida!? Seems waaay too early to call them.

Can't resist though... As Han Solo said: "Don't get cocky kid!".

That's odd, Romney tipped ahead in polling in Florida for the first time in months this week.

Okay... I need to ask you about this...

This is strange to me... I don't remember any "explicit plans" Obama (or McCain) had in '08... nor any other presidential candidates since Clinton (don't remember past him).

Presidential candidate run on framework and ideals.

I think the angst with this is wanting to know HOW a candidate can achieve their objectives. What they SAY they want to do during a campaign is often different when those ideas are implemented.

And yes, I see this bump lasting because it gives those undecideds and previous Obama voters something to latch on to... simply put, Romney changed the "narrative" that's going to last.

McCain and Obama both released tax policies in 2008. Don't you remember the comparison emails going around, pointing out that under both tax plans people under about $200,000 would have their tax reduced, but it was way more in Obama's plan, because McCain's plan actually delivered even greater cuts to people over that, while Obama taxed them more?

Bush had a rather noted plan to cut taxes, and a stated belief per the Laffer Curve that revenue would increase despite the cuts. He followed through on it.

Presently Obama has a plan to keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, and phase out the tax cut on the wealthy.

I can't remember Kerry or Gore's positions, but that was eight and twelve years ago, respectively, so I'll ask for a little leniancy on that Clinton had a rather detailed series of financial reforms, most of which he managed to get through by working with the Republican controlled congress, and led to the sound budgets you guys produced in the latter 1990s.

In comparison to all that Romney has this plan where people's taxes can be dropped by 20% across the board, and it'll be paid for by cutting deductions. Unless that would impact the deficit (it would, there aren't enough deductions available to pay for a quarter of the tax cut Romney is calling for), in which Romney will... what?

All that said, I agree with you in general, that presidential campaigns are not about policy specifics, because a president can't make his preferred policy just happen, no matter how many people voted for him. But the problem is that Romney isn't just failing to put up policy specifics, he doesn't even have generalities. He's just got stuff he claims one day, to one audience, that he backs away from almost straight away.

I mean, when Obama came in in 2008 you could say with some confidence any initiative he took on tax policy would look to shifting more of the burden to the rich, and away from the middle class. What can we say about Romney's tax policy at this time, that he won't have contradicted somewhere else?

 sebster wrote:
Romney scores a win because his style on the night was much better than Obama's, but long term he's had to shift again on his tax policy. With no-one, especially not Romney, actually able to tell us what the guy plans to do once he's in the White House, can anyone see his bump actually lasting?

Absolutely.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Romney scores a win because his style on the night was much better than Obama's, but long term he's had to shift again on his tax policy. With no-one, especially not Romney, actually able to tell us what the guy plans to do once he's in the White House, can anyone see his bump actually lasting?

Absolutely.

Absolutely his short term bump may be countered by long term problems with policy incoherence?

Or

Absolutely I can see his bump lasting?

 sebster wrote:
Absolutely his short term bump may be countered by long term problems with policy incoherence?

Or

Absolutely I can see his bump lasting?

Absolutely, I suspect the bump will last.

 Seaward wrote:
Absolutely, I suspect the bump will last.

Interesting. Time will tell.

I just want the moderator to have a 'mike-kill' button next time, there was too much cutting in on both sides. Moderators need to be harsher, I was watching this thing and trying to hear their answers over the other guy's cutting in, and it was just a bit of a mess.

I don't personally care for either candidate...but as an observer I find it funny how many people on this here forum made comments like.."Debates don't really matter"..."The debate won't change a thing", "Only people who are REALLY into politics pay attention" etc.etc.

And here we have a massive upswing for Romney right after the debate.

And all the Obamites can come up with is Big Bird?

sheesh

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
I don't personally care for either candidate...but as an observer I find it funny how many people on this here forum made comments like.."Debates don't really matter"..."The debate won't change a thing", "Only people who are REALLY into politics pay attention" etc.etc.

And here we have a massive upswing for Romney right after the debate.

And all the Obamites can come up with is Big Bird?

sheesh

GG

Well, considering how vague Romney's been on stuff it's not that strange that there's not much to counter...

 motyak wrote:
I just want the moderator to have a 'mike-kill' button next time, there was too much cutting in on both sides. Moderators need to be harsher, I was watching this thing and trying to hear their answers over the other guy's cutting in, and it was just a bit of a mess.

God on earth why? Only wussies need moderators. If you can't hang toe to toe with your opponent GTFO. If it was good enough for Lincoln and Douglas, its good enough for these jerkwads.

 generalgrog wrote:
I don't personally care for either candidate...but as an observer I find it funny how many people on this here forum made comments like.."Debates don't really matter"..."The debate won't change a thing", "Only people who are REALLY into politics pay attention" etc.etc.

And here we have a massive upswing for Romney right after the debate.

And all the Obamites can come up with is Big Bird?

sheesh

GG

Big Bird wants to be left out of this:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/09/14325494-sesame-street-to-obama-big-bird-ad-doesnt-fly?lite

djones520 wrote:

He is a good orator with a teleprompter in front of him.

So, he's a good orator. Reagan was also a good orator, and Reagan also used a teleprompter.

One of the advantages that the great orators of the past had was that audio recording technology didn't exist. For example, we don't actually know what Lincoln said when he gave his "Four Score" speech, we just know how the speech was written, and how other people remembered it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Obama was just totally unprepared.

I suspect it has more to do with his natural lack of aggression. When you debate someone "civility" is only a matter of cloaking attacks in diplomatic language. To win a debate, you have to be direct.

Obama has no problem launching attacks. Outside of the debate he's been as polite as a hammer. Not sure where you're getting that.

 generalgrog wrote:
I don't personally care for either candidate...but as an observer I find it funny how many people on this here forum made comments like.."Debates don't really matter"..."The debate won't change a thing", "Only people who are REALLY into politics pay attention" etc.etc.

And here we have a massive upswing for Romney right after the debate.

And all the Obamites can come up with is Big Bird?

Statistically the debates don't matter. If you look at the historical relevance of debate victories and losses to election victories and losses debate performance is statistically insignificant. There's sufficient data regarding this such that its become a fact of the study of Presidential politics.

This doesn't mean that they can't have a significant effect in particular situations, but it does mean that they generally don't have a large enough one to be considered important.

Perhaps more importantly, as Sebster has already noted, Presidential debates, much like any other debate, primarily have to do with influencing people by way of rhetorical techniques. Of course, so do elections, hence the reason so many people are fond of demeaning politicians as crooks and liars. Of course, the unfortunate truth is that an effective lie will primarily turn on on understanding the ignorance of who you are lying to. This is why debate judges generally aren't given notice of the topic to be debated prior to the debate itself.

 Frazzled wrote:
Obama has no problem launching attacks. Outside of the debate he's been as polite as a hammer. Not sure where you're getting that.

There is a huge difference between what a Presidential campaign does, and what a Presidential candidate does. Attack ads are usually written by campaign staff or contracted consultants, and published by affiliated campaign funds. The content of the ad may be approved by the candidate, but it usually isn't. Hell, candidates have about as much say regarding their campaign as their campaign managers and other high level functionaries.

Indeed, the first rule of attack ads is to distance them from the campaign itself.

Relapse wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
I don't personally care for either candidate...but as an observer I find it funny how many people on this here forum made comments like.."Debates don't really matter"..."The debate won't change a thing", "Only people who are REALLY into politics pay attention" etc.etc.

And here we have a massive upswing for Romney right after the debate.

And all the Obamites can come up with is Big Bird?

sheesh

GG

Big Bird wants to be left out of this:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/09/14325494-sesame-street-to-obama-big-bird-ad-doesnt-fly?lite

That can't be an actual campaign that has to be a parody.

Nope.

Big Bird has already responded with a request to be dropped from politics. The Obama campaign is considering whether or not it will obey copyright law.

 Frazzled wrote:
Nope.

Big Bird has already responded with a request to be dropped from politics. The Obama campaign is considering whether or not it will obey copyright law.

This whole thing can very easily fall under Fair Use and the campaigns would be able to use Sesame Street as it relates to commenting on public events and news.

But despite it being perfectly legal it wouldn't look pretty.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nope.

Big Bird has already responded with a request to be dropped from politics. The Obama campaign is considering whether or not it will obey copyright law.

This whole thing can very easily fall under Fair Use and the campaigns would be able to use Sesame Street as it relates to commenting on public events and news.

But despite it being perfectly legal it wouldn't look pretty.

Evidently PBS and the Sesame Street disagree with you. Big Bird is a private, copyrighted property. Royalties and permission need to be paid and obtained.

Don't mess with Big Bird's lawyers...

Well you can say Romeny old school if he said Big Bird instead of that evil little SoB I needed to hunt for to cover down on Bday's and Xmas....yep that little red monster Elmoe