[HoosierDaddy]

Tapper, on 04 October 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Just about every Euro paper/news site I've seen proclaims Romney a clear winner and Obama's performance as a lacklustre and reluctant one. Some refer to Obama watching a lot of football on the flight to the debate instead of prepping, which is going to damage to Obama's image this side of the pond (not that it matters much, if we were allowed to vote it would still be a landslide).
Even if Romney gets fact checked to death, it will come way too late to reverse the initial opinion/view.

He did well. He did well and he completely changed his utter campaigning position on LIVE TV. It's sad. He'll absolutely and utterly lie and obfuscate his way to the presidency.

Who could trust him at all in the world at large?

[worry]

Yah, I wonder if Obama got thrown off by the fact that Romney denied, immediately, his whole campaign up till now just so he could get out from under the negative reaction. I mean he basically made up an entirely new self right there, how could Obama even prepare for it? He obv. reiterated the $5 trill thing (plus the $2 trill military thing), and Romney saying it just isn't true (which is a lie Lehrer certainly didn't call him on) is different than trying to spin it in a sneaky way. It was bizarre and cynical and entirely dishonest, but he still came off as the confident alpha male of the two.

I didn't think the substance of Obama's replies was bad at all, though his tone throughout was subdued and just strangely off, and he didn't do enough to counter Romney at all (whether the bizarre new lies threw him off or what). That said, Biden is never a push-over, and Obama (potentially) has much clearer wins on defense, foreign policy, and domestic social issues to come.

[Tapper]

HoosierDaddy, on 04 October 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Tapper, on 04 October 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Just about every Euro paper/news site I've seen proclaims Romney a clear winner and Obama's performance as a lacklustre and reluctant one. Some refer to Obama watching a lot of football on the flight to the debate instead of prepping, which is going to damage to Obama's image this side of the pond (not that it matters much, if we were allowed to vote it would still be a landslide).
Even if Romney gets fact checked to death, it will come way too late to reverse the initial opinion/view.

He did well. He did well and he completely changed his utter campaigning position on LIVE TV. It's sad. He'll absolutely and utterly lie and obfuscate his way to the presidency.

Who could trust him at all in the world at large?

No-one apart from fringe parties on the right side of the political spectrum.
Romney isn't a diplomat, nor a commander-in-chief, nor a strategist, nor a citizen-of-the-world. He lacks charisma, he lacks knowledge and his self-created image of the statesbusiness-man is working against him internationally. Dictatorships will assume he can be bought by favorable deals, allies will frown against his America-first-always ways and hard stances on China and Russia which sound like he'd love a new Cold War, especially with the growing tensions between Japan, Taiwan and China and the shuffles in the Northern Korean leadership. Also, Iran and Israel.
The world will not become a better place with Romney at the helm.

[Sick@Simpliciter]

I'm new to the forum but I found myself reading this thread quite often the last few days. I am not an American citizen but I have always followed American elections.
Just to be clear I don't like Republicans (and so much for the politically correct) and more importantly I don't like this Wall Street puppet with unsettling ideas on foreign policy and dangerous ideas about the American economy. As further disclosure, I want to point out that I work in the banking industry, meaning that I don't see banks and wall street as evil or unethic institutions. But I deem unacceptable for people coming from that background to get entangled into politics.
I had my own sufferings in Italy with the buffoon Berlusconi destroying the Italian economy and the nation's credibility abroad. Those bi/millionaries either don't care about middle-class people or they are not able to emphatize with them. Either way, their policies are disasterous.
Trickle-down economics do not work and if it wasn't for the Clinton administration the collapse of the doped American financial system - based on the empty Reaganian promise that all Americans should own a house and spend more than they have - would have happened much sooner.
More importantly, trickle-down policies are not ethical: getting rich people richer so that the poor could have the scrubs! really now?


All these being said, I found yesterday's debate rather disturbing. I would like to think - how few people from this side of the ocean are suggesting - that Obama's renunciative attitude during yesterday's debate was a strategy to make Romney go all out and beat him back in the following debates. I don't know if that's true. I hope it is. But I am worried.
This man cannot become the president of the USA. He will create tensions in the international community, he will cut across the budget just to make his friends richer and happier (even if yesterday he flip-flopped big time on this issue!), he will probably repel some of the civil rights that the Obama administration introduced, etc.. In short, he'll make America and the world a more miserable place. The most worrying thing- as seen from overseas - is how lots of Americans are convinced that trickle-down politics are useful and perfectly ethical, that taking care of the poorer is a form of communism and that having a budget deficit is a financial crime... it is not, it's simple economics: during a recession you run deficits to help the citizens of your country, during an expansion you run surpluses by taxing your citizens... what's wrong with that? if you then decide to make wars around the world and finance them with debt during an economic expansion, you may have some problems with your budget in the future... electing another Republican sociopath is not the way to fix it...

To conclude my message to Obama is: Wake the Fuck Up! this election is not already won

P.S: that will probably considered extremist but that's the real issue... my stance is considered rather moderate here... and sorry if parts of my statements sound a litte bit too obvious =)

[Vengeance]

I think a lot of you guys missed what happened last night. Obama forced Romney to say that his Medicare plan is vouchers. Something that no sane minded person wants. He allowed Romney to start to dig his own hole. The papers and internet sites have been fact checking the debate to death and Romney is all lies. I think that Obama gave Romney just enough rope. People are flipping out because Obama didn't win the debate. He is a sitting president with a lead in the electoral college. He didn't have to win the debate. All he had to do was to look Presidential and box Romney in to his policies. Romney's tax plan is shit as is his health care plan. Everyone is going to go over what he said and obama is going to be able to pound on them.

[Morgoth]

It is the hope. However, with the increasing polarisation of the electorate I'm doubtfull the debates will have much impact at all unless there's a truly monumental mistake made by either candidate.

They're certainly hyped up as the big decider, but I wonder how much of that narrative is based in fact rather than the media's need to aquire viewers.

[Vengeance]

Morgoth, on 04 October 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

It is the hope. However, with the increasing polarisation of the electorate I'm doubtfull the debates will have much impact at all unless there's a truly monumental mistake made by either candidate.

They're certainly hyped up as the big decider, but I wonder how much of that narrative is based in fact rather than the media's need to aquire viewers.

Media's need to be saying something is the real reason.

[Terez]

Morgoth, on 04 October 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

It is the hope. However, with the increasing polarisation of the electorate I'm doubtfull the debates will have much impact at all unless there's a truly monumental mistake made by either candidate.

They're certainly hyped up as the big decider, but I wonder how much of that narrative is based in fact rather than the media's need to aquire viewers.

Check the poll numbers on Monday; that will tell you how much debates matter. But I expect to see fact-checking ads from the Obama campaign starting today, tomorrow at the latest.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Maddow's been ranting for weeks about how little debates matter in the poll numbers actually, but I'll be interested to see nonetheless.

On a sidenote, her show is starting to get on my nerves a bit with the fishing for stories RE voter suppression and all that. I mean, there's the obvious ones for sure, but it seems now like she's looking for stories that just aren't there...like trying to infer that voter challenges from right-wing "true the vote" type groups are sucking up SO MUCH of election boards' time that they can't properly prepare for the election. She even had an election official on there for an interview last week, after a 20 minute leadup and tried to get the official to say as much, but the official wouldn't actually say that their efforts were being hampered at all. I dunno...sometimes she takes stuff a bit too far despite her usual level-headedness when it comes to fact-based reporting.

On topic,

Canadian news is reporting much the same thing as euro news according to Traveler. Not that CBC covers much american politics (except for the significant stuff), but I found their assessment very shallow. Without actually commenting substantively on anything that was said, they proclaimed Mitt the winner simply because he came off sounding a bit more confident than obama. I mean, is that all anybody really got out of the debate in the end? I understand forum members here are a lot more thoughtful and critical of the debate's substance, but by and large are the debates really just a big zingfest with the winner and loser decided upon who zung the other best?

The most annoying thing is that with Romney the clear zingmaster, conservative media will be using it as a rallying cry, despite the fact that very little of importance was actually articulated by their candidate.

Also, I missed the actual debate but read much of the transcript. What the hell rock did they pull that moderator out from under? Dude may be a good newscaster but as a moderator he had zero command over the situation and pretty much let both candidates prattle on, repeating the same things over and over rather than cornering them on specifics.

[Terez]

cerveza_fiesta, on 04 October 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Maddow's been ranting for weeks about how little debates matter in the poll numbers actually...

That was my point really. I think he'll probably get a bump, but it will be like a convention bump. Transient.

cerveza_fiesta, on 04 October 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

On a sidenote, her show is starting to get on my nerves a bit with the fishing for stories RE voter suppression and all that. I mean, there's the obvious ones for sure, but it seems now like she's looking for stories that just aren't there...like trying to infer that voter challenges from right-wing "true the vote" type groups are sucking up SO MUCH of election boards' time that they can't properly prepare for the election. She even had an election official on there for an interview last week, after a 20 minute leadup and tried to get the official to say as much, but the official wouldn't actually say that their efforts were being hampered at all. I dunno...sometimes she takes stuff a bit too far despite her usual level-headedness when it comes to fact-based reporting.

I can understand why she puts so much effort into discussing the voter suppression, but the 'taking things too far' element has always bothered me a little. It's her style of 'messaging', and definitely her style of spin. I don't like spin, even when it comes from reporters I agree with, and I've often wondered if it's really her style or if it's something MSNBC expects her to do; someone who is familiar with her pre-MSNBC work might know. I do know she has said she doesn't really like being mainstream; she's always hated mainstream media. I dislike her presentation of the female vote, as if all we are concerned about is abortion rights, and I sometimes feel like maybe she overdoes that a little bit because she's a lesbian and doesn't want to lose women who might think she therefore doesn't care about abortion or birth control. And it annoyed me during the birth control debates that she so rarely mentioned the fact that birth control has many medical benefits independent from pregnancy prevention. She went on and on about the forced vaginal ultrasound thing to the point that I actually stopped watching her show during that period which I am hoping was just a slow news period where she felt the need to fill in the gaps. The vote suppression stuff is more important to me even if she does overdo it sometimes. She really is a fantastic reporter when she has something substantive to say, which is most of the time lately.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 04 October 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

worrywort, on 04 October 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

That just looks like an image with words on it to me. I recoiled from my monitor in horror, I assure you.

Ah. I just got it. Lol. It's at least pertinent because it's an Etch-o-sketch which recalls Mitt's advisor's famous "Etch-o-sketch" moment. Thus, it's pertinent to the discussion.

Edit: I'm duly chastised.

By the way, I still don't get it. I even tried looking at it cross-eyed.

[cerveza_fiesta]

I know what you mean Terez,

I get the feeling too that whether it's her doing or not, she's trying to formulate as big a right-wing conspiracy as Glen Beck's left-wing conspiracies with all her harping on the election suppression thing. I mean, the whole thing is shocking in its blatant immorality, but it's hardly a secret that they do it, and it's hardly a mastermind in charge of it all....it's just what parties do. Demos would be exploiting the same system weaknesses if it were in their interest to do so, guaranteed.

Also much agreed on the ultrasound ranting. I'm fucking tired of hearing about Governor ultrasound.

I used to listen all the time to the Diane Rehm show, but haven't really been keeping up with it during the election. I wonder what her take on all this is? She's NPR and so can afford to go her own way with things than a reporter beholden to a network. A 2 hour radio discussion show is much more to my liking than the hammer-home-the-point-over-and-over format of cable news shows. I always admired her fair and analytical take on things too...that and the fact she can actually complete a 2 hour discussion show every day with her vocal cords being such a trainwreck.

but I digress...

I was just on polltracker. They are showing Obama with a pretty significant lead overall in terms of EC votes, and a small margin in the popular vote. Romney is going to have to zing the shit out of Obama in the next round if he wants to make up his deficit.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 04 October 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 04 October 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

worrywort, on 04 October 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

That just looks like an image with words on it to me. I recoiled from my monitor in horror, I assure you.

Ah. I just got it. Lol. It's at least pertinent because it's an Etch-o-sketch which recalls Mitt's advisor's famous "Etch-o-sketch" moment. Thus, it's pertinent to the discussion.

Edit: I'm duly chastised.

By the way, I still don't get it. I even tried looking at it cross-eyed.

It's a picture with text. I.e.: Not discussion. I chastised Worrywort and someone else for doing so in the Discussion forum then did it myself.

[Terez]

Ohhhh.

Obama approval rating jumps to highest level in 3 years after yesterday.

[Gust Hubb]

I'm sick of reading that personality alone determined who won the debate last night. And I don't even really follow politics. Fucking press.

[LinearPhilosopher]

how are these approval ratings acquired anyways?

[amphibian]

BalrogLord, on 04 October 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

how are these approval ratings acquired anyways?

Telephone polling conducted in several regions and then messed around with by formulas to create a nationwide projection.

[worry]

Here is an actual list of the actual lies Romney told last night, 27 in total (so far). I don't necessarily believe that Obama was pulling the rope-a-dope strategy with the first debate (though it's not out of the question), but Romney might have rope-a-doped himself anyway:

http://thinkprogress...-in-38-minutes/

[Terez]

There were other things that were at the very least misleading. Like saying that gas prices have doubled since Obama took office. There not very different than they were just before the crisis at all; that number only works because gas prices nosedived at the end of 2008. And steadily climbed back up to where they were before. Some of those points could have been written better, too...like the one about pre-existing conditions. They didn't point out that his campaign has now backtracked that one twice, and they didn't point out that continuous coverage exemptions predate even Obamacare.

[worry]

On the other hand: http://www.newyorker...ama-missed.html