Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (2 Viewers)

[adonis]

Has the Taiwanese animation video of the debate been posted? If not, it's spectacular. Poor Big Bird.

Beautiful

 

[Jim11]

Seems as though many on the left are having trouble internalizing Obama's weak effort last night.

They're still in mourning over Gore in 2000. The guy who blamed the Denver altitude for Obama's poor showing. Incredible.

 

[adonis]

Seems as though many on the left are having trouble internalizing Obama's weak effort last night.

Not really. He did a crappy job trying to win the "political debate" rather than trying to win a real debate. He should do better next time and realize people aren't interested in truth, just in who draws the most perceived blood and who looks the most energetic and "fighty". Pretty simple.

 

[Jim11]

If he's smart, which he appeared to be last night, he is going to compromise and come off some of his previous plans so that he can actually get some policies approved, unlike the President that tries to ram his horrible plans like Obamacare down everyones throats regardless of what people think. Romney very effectively called him out on this a number of times and he just stood there, duhhhhh.

This is ludicrous. Do you really think Obamacare is the plan liberals wanted? No single-payer. No public option. Obamacare wasn't rammed through. Obama worked on it for 18 months, and once it was clear that the Republicans wouldn't support a thing he proposed, he passed it. Because he felt it was important. And Democrats, having seen that, are sure to treat Romney the same way should he win. Which sucks, frankly, but that's what we've got. In the same debate where Romney lauded his bipartisan spirit of compromise, he affirmed that he wouldn't accept a 10:1 spending cut to revenue defecit reduction plan. And he explained why, which is fine. He feels it's worth fighting for. But at least be able to see how ridiculous that sounds if he's going to trumpet his ability to reach across the aisle.

Touche, I guess.

The Affordable Care act sprung from a committee consisting of 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats who met for 60 hours between June and September 2009 and laid down the key concepts of what was eventually introduced in September 2009. Of course, by 2010, the Tea Party was protesting everything and whatever chance there was of even getting a few Republicans to make a bipartisan gesture evaporated. At which point, Obama did what everyone of us who voted for him when he promised to address health care would have wanted him to do. Which is to take advantage of winning an election.

Okay, so you're one of the people who wants me to pay for their health care. Gotcha.

 

[drummer]

If he's smart, which he appeared to be last night, he is going to compromise and come off some of his previous plans so that he can actually get some policies approved, unlike the President that tries to ram his horrible plans like Obamacare down everyones throats regardless of what people think. Romney very effectively called him out on this a number of times and he just stood there, duhhhhh.

This is ludicrous. Do you really think Obamacare is the plan liberals wanted? No single-payer. No public option. Obamacare wasn't rammed through. Obama worked on it for 18 months, and once it was clear that the Republicans wouldn't support a thing he proposed, he passed it. Because he felt it was important. And Democrats, having seen that, are sure to treat Romney the same way should he win. Which sucks, frankly, but that's what we've got. In the same debate where Romney lauded his bipartisan spirit of compromise, he affirmed that he wouldn't accept a 10:1 spending cut to revenue defecit reduction plan. And he explained why, which is fine. He feels it's worth fighting for. But at least be able to see how ridiculous that sounds if he's going to trumpet his ability to reach across the aisle.

Touche, I guess.

The Affordable Care act sprung from a committee consisting of 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats who met for 60 hours between June and September 2009 and laid down the key concepts of what was eventually introduced in September 2009. Of course, by 2010, the Tea Party was protesting everything and whatever chance there was of even getting a few Republicans to make a bipartisan gesture evaporated. At which point, Obama did what everyone of us who voted for him when he promised to address health care would have wanted him to do. Which is to take advantage of winning an election.

Okay, so you're one of the people who wants me to pay for their health care. Gotcha.

Need some names? I can hook ya up with a few so you can complain to them about what Obama is doing to you.

 

[saintfool]

Okay, so you're one of the people who wants me to pay for their health care. Gotcha.

with statements like that, i'm not sure you understand how health insurance works, Jim.

 

[Zegras11]

BO BS BINGO

Did you win?

 

[tommyboy]

Seems as though many on the left are having trouble internalizing Obama's weak effort last night.

Not really. He did a crappy job trying to win the "political debate" rather than trying to win a real debate. He should do better next time and realize people aren't interested in truth, just in who draws the most perceived blood and who looks the most energetic and "fighty". Pretty simple.

didn't you just posit that Obama was playing a chess match and sandbagged the debate so he could come out Rocky-style next time and blow the doors off this mutha>? i'm sure he'll be more aggressive next time but the damage is done. If the roles were reversed the election would be over. You didn't seem all that interested in truth when Obama was making stupid statements like "you didn't build that" and his surrogates were making claims that Romney didn't pay taxes or killed a lady.

 

[adonis]

Seems as though many on the left are having trouble internalizing Obama's weak effort last night.

Not really. He did a crappy job trying to win the "political debate" rather than trying to win a real debate. He should do better next time and realize people aren't interested in truth, just in who draws the most perceived blood and who looks the most energetic and "fighty". Pretty simple.

 

[drummer]

Guys, can't you see what happened? Romney's team knows Obama isn't great at speaking off the cuff. They decided to stray from their message and throw curve-balls all night, to have Obama stuttering and confused and let Romney look smooth and polished. A few internet bloggers will "fact-check" but the average person had no idea what they were talking about anyway.

It was a desperate move to make Romney look good and Obama look like an idiot, and from what I can tell it worked. To what extent, remains to be seen.

Great debating skills by Romney. Whether what he said was true or a lie, that is irrelevant.

Not when you open the doors for ads and campaign strategy it isn't. It's more of a opportunity to further paint Romney until the next debates. Romney put out more questions for him to answer, and that could kill whatever momentum he had after last night.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Romney vs Romney.

 

[BoneYardDog]

Seems as though many on the left are having trouble internalizing Obama's weak effort last night.

Not really. He did a crappy job trying to win the "political debate" rather than trying to win a real debate. He should do better next time and realize people aren't interested in truth, just in who draws the most perceived blood and who looks the most energetic and "fighty". Pretty simple.

obama and the truth = Priceless You are as clueless as Donna Brazille and Al Gore...

 

[timschochet]

Perhaps the m.o. here is that no one likes an odds-on favorite. Obama was turning into that going into this debate, and had he won, he would've been the overwhelming favorite.

Perhaps by sandbagging this debate, he can come out guns blazing after Romney regains some of his shine, and really knock him down.

The people like their political narratives to have plot twists, and perhaps team-Obama is just delivering the drama the people want. Perhaps he wants people to think the outcome is in doubt and they need to go to the polls to ensure it. Perhaps he wants the narrative to be "Romneys surprise comeback" for a week or two, only to be battered and bashed after 2 weeks to ride the victory to the finish line and the election.

Or perhaps I'm just imagining rationale that never existed in order to make up for a poor performance by Obama and poor strategy by his team...nah.

Honestly, I thought this same thought last night after the debate was over.

Bull####. Nobody "sandbags" debates. 50-60 million people watched last night. Most of them don't watch the news on a regular basis. This chance will not come again. The next debate won't be watched by close to half of that number.

Obama was lousy last night. He lost, plain and simple. He wasn't sandbagging, he wasn't trying to lose, there was no secret "ploy" in mind. He just lost. Whether he loses the election over it is an open question for later. But last night he tried as hard as he could, and was awful.

 

[drummer]

Perhaps the m.o. here is that no one likes an odds-on favorite. Obama was turning into that going into this debate, and had he won, he would've been the overwhelming favorite.

Perhaps by sandbagging this debate, he can come out guns blazing after Romney regains some of his shine, and really knock him down.

The people like their political narratives to have plot twists, and perhaps team-Obama is just delivering the drama the people want. Perhaps he wants people to think the outcome is in doubt and they need to go to the polls to ensure it. Perhaps he wants the narrative to be "Romneys surprise comeback" for a week or two, only to be battered and bashed after 2 weeks to ride the victory to the finish line and the election.

Or perhaps I'm just imagining rationale that never existed in order to make up for a poor performance by Obama and poor strategy by his team...nah.

Honestly, I thought this same thought last night after the debate was over.

Bull####. Nobody "sandbags" debates. 50-60 million people watched last night. Most of them don't watch the news on a regular basis. This chance will not come again. The next debate won't be watched by close to half of that number.

Obama was lousy last night. He lost, plain and simple. He wasn't sandbagging, he wasn't trying to lose, there was no secret "ploy" in mind. He just lost. Whether he loses the election over it is an open question for later. But last night he tried as hard as he could, and was awful.

 

[timschochet]

It is true, IMO, that part of Romney's victory last night was a result of his having more energy, and speaking faster than Obama. His style was simply better.

But there is another truth as well: Romney's overarching theme last night, that the private sector works more efficiently than government does, is something that most Americans have always believed in. Putting aside the details of the two men and their specific plans, it still comes down to one guy preferring government solutions, and the other guy preferring private sector solutions. In terms of economics, the majority of the public has always believed, rightfully IMO, that the private sector is preferable. That was the essence of last night's message and the main reason, IMO, why Romney won and may yet win this election.

 

[Zegras11]

IMO, the one opportunity that Romney missed was this:

"Mr. President, are you saying that it was BECAUSE taxes were high in the 90's that the economy was good?"

A regular refrain the past couple of years is that the US debt has been shaking investor and business confidence so indirectly, yes. The economy could have been good (or partly attributable) to higher taxes.

Fair answer. But we were already coming out of recession before Clinton took office.And aren't you one of the guys that says that that reasoning is invalid. That investor confidence has actually stayed up?

Anyway, I have come to believe that the Clinton tax plan was right for the time. Duplicating it in these times however seems the wrong plan.

Of course it's wrong. Three generations of baby boomers were spending like crazy then and things were going well. A tax increase then could easily be supported. Not these days.

 

[drummer]

It is true, IMO, that part of Romney's victory last night was a result of his having more energy, and speaking faster than Obama. His style was simply better.But there is another truth as well: Romney's overarching theme last night, that the private sector works more efficiently than government does, is something that most Americans have always believed in. Putting aside the details of the two men and their specific plans, it still comes down to one guy preferring government solutions, and the other guy preferring private sector solutions. In terms of economics, the majority of the public has always believed, rightfully IMO, that the private sector is preferable. That was the essence of last night's message and the main reason, IMO, why Romney won and may yet win this election.

tim11 needs his meds today.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

It is true, IMO, that part of Romney's victory last night was a result of his having more energy, and speaking faster than Obama. His style was simply better.

But there is another truth as well: Romney's overarching theme last night, that the private sector works more efficiently than government does, is something that most Americans have always believed in. Putting aside the details of the two men and their specific plans, it still comes down to one guy preferring government solutions, and the other guy preferring private sector solutions. In terms of economics, the majority of the public has always believed, rightfully IMO, that the private sector is preferable. That was the essence of last night's message and the main reason, IMO, why Romney won and may yet win this election.

The private sector in preferable but only with the right regulations in place to protect the public from predatory business practices, and business practices that endanger the entire economy of western civilization.

 

[Joe T]

Seems as though many on the left are having trouble internalizing Obama's weak effort last night.

"It was the moderator's fault"

 

[timschochet]

It is true, IMO, that part of Romney's victory last night was a result of his having more energy, and speaking faster than Obama. His style was simply better.

But there is another truth as well: Romney's overarching theme last night, that the private sector works more efficiently than government does, is something that most Americans have always believed in. Putting aside the details of the two men and their specific plans, it still comes down to one guy preferring government solutions, and the other guy preferring private sector solutions. In terms of economics, the majority of the public has always believed, rightfully IMO, that the private sector is preferable. That was the essence of last night's message and the main reason, IMO, why Romney won and may yet win this election.

The private sector in preferable but only with the right regulations in place to protect the public from predatory business practices, and business practices that endanger the entire economy of western civilization.

That is true, and based on what he said last night, Mitt Romney would agree with you.

 

[larry_boy_44]

When Romney said he'd "better get a new accountant" regarding a tax benefit to sending jobs overseas, Obama had the perfect opportunity to bring up Bain and its holdings in china! It could have been a great moment. But he didn't. Why not? I don't get the strategy.

Really? How is this difficult to understand...Just because Romney was over a company with plants/workers in China doesn't mean they got a TAX BENEFIT to send those jobs there...There are benefits to overseas jobs beyond tax breaks, you know...

 

[BoneYardDog]

AARP tells obama to "pound sand"

AARP has a message for President Obama: Stop using us and lying to score political points.

 

[drummer]

AARP tells obama to "pound sand"

AARP has a message for President Obama: Stop using us and lying to score political points.

Yeah that changes everything with the AARP.

 

[drummer]

It is true, IMO, that part of Romney's victory last night was a result of his having more energy, and speaking faster than Obama. His style was simply better.

But there is another truth as well: Romney's overarching theme last night, that the private sector works more efficiently than government does, is something that most Americans have always believed in. Putting aside the details of the two men and their specific plans, it still comes down to one guy preferring government solutions, and the other guy preferring private sector solutions. In terms of economics, the majority of the public has always believed, rightfully IMO, that the private sector is preferable. That was the essence of last night's message and the main reason, IMO, why Romney won and may yet win this election.

The private sector in preferable but only with the right regulations in place to protect the public from predatory business practices, and business practices that endanger the entire economy of western civilization.

That is true, and based on what he said last night, Mitt Romney would agree with you.

What else did Romney say that adhered to his entire campaign?

 

[BoneYardDog]

“What people saw last night, I think, was a president who revealed his incompetence — how lazy and detached he is and how he has absolutely no idea how serious the economy problems of the country are and how he has failed to even begin address them,” Sununu said.He went on: “And I think even the liberal press reacted with shock at this revelation and I find it fascinating now this morning after they’ve slept, watching them all scrambling around to clean up the mess the president left on the floor last night.

 

[Zeff]

Perhaps the m.o. here is that no one likes an odds-on favorite. Obama was turning into that going into this debate, and had he won, he would've been the overwhelming favorite.

Perhaps by sandbagging this debate, he can come out guns blazing after Romney regains some of his shine, and really knock him down.

The people like their political narratives to have plot twists, and perhaps team-Obama is just delivering the drama the people want. Perhaps he wants people to think the outcome is in doubt and they need to go to the polls to ensure it. Perhaps he wants the narrative to be "Romneys surprise comeback" for a week or two, only to be battered and bashed after 2 weeks to ride the victory to the finish line and the election.

Or perhaps I'm just imagining rationale that never existed in order to make up for a poor performance by Obama and poor strategy by his team...nah.

Honestly, I thought this same thought last night after the debate was over.

Bull####. Nobody "sandbags" debates. 50-60 million people watched last night. Most of them don't watch the news on a regular basis. This chance will not come again. The next debate won't be watched by close to half of that number.

Obama was lousy last night. He lost, plain and simple. He wasn't sandbagging, he wasn't trying to lose, there was no secret "ploy" in mind. He just lost. Whether he loses the election over it is an open question for later. But last night he tried as hard as he could, and was awful.

Obama wasn't good. And Romney was, surprisingly so.But there's definitely more going on here than appears on the surface. It wasn't just a matter of Obama failing to connect and coming off half-assed...both of which he certainly did.

The stranger thing by far is the way he let Romney continue to score points, while leaving some HUGE meatballs lying on the table. This was domestic night. And there were ample points not only to use the 47% stuff, the Bain stuff, and all the other things that make Romney appear like a corporate elitist whore...but to use them to directly counteract some of the big "points" the right keeps saying Romney scored on.

Now, it's not like Obama goes into these things unprepared. And it's not like he preps for them alone. And lastly, it's not like the guys prepping him aren't the best and brightest political and rhetorical minds on the planet. So, they didn't just *whoops* accidentally forget to put that stuff in the repertoire. And they didn't *whoops* forget that after tonight, the debates move into foreign policy land. So leaving that stuff out 100% had to be a calculated ploy.

You've just got to wonder why? On the face of it, it looks like Obama just didn't bother to load his guns before showing up. Which is, of course, not what happened. This wasn't amateur hour...it was a U.S. presidential debate. It doesn't look, on the face of it, like his rhetorical choices did him any favors, and I don't understand what (if anything) he stood to gain here. But the strategic gaffes were way to glaring to be simple oversights on the part of the Obama campaign staff.

I'm not voting for either clown, but I'm very interested in the marketing of each candidate. And something in the Obama handlers' marketing of their candidate last night was fishy. Be interesting to follow to see if we can figure out what.

 

[timschochet]

It is true, IMO, that part of Romney's victory last night was a result of his having more energy, and speaking faster than Obama. His style was simply better.

But there is another truth as well: Romney's overarching theme last night, that the private sector works more efficiently than government does, is something that most Americans have always believed in. Putting aside the details of the two men and their specific plans, it still comes down to one guy preferring government solutions, and the other guy preferring private sector solutions. In terms of economics, the majority of the public has always believed, rightfully IMO, that the private sector is preferable. That was the essence of last night's message and the main reason, IMO, why Romney won and may yet win this election.

The private sector in preferable but only with the right regulations in place to protect the public from predatory business practices, and business practices that endanger the entire economy of western civilization.

That is true, and based on what he said last night, Mitt Romney would agree with you.

What else did Romney say that adhered to his entire campaign?

In order to win the nomination, Romney was forced to spew out a bunch of Tea Party garbage. Last night proved what we all knew all along anyhow: he doesn't believe any of it. The Tea Party populist no regulations-no taxes under any circumstances! crap is 180% from the moderate, centrist, pro-business guy we saw last night. If Romney is elected, it will hopefully be the end of all this tea party nonsense.

 

[drummer]

It is true, IMO, that part of Romney's victory last night was a result of his having more energy, and speaking faster than Obama. His style was simply better.

But there is another truth as well: Romney's overarching theme last night, that the private sector works more efficiently than government does, is something that most Americans have always believed in. Putting aside the details of the two men and their specific plans, it still comes down to one guy preferring government solutions, and the other guy preferring private sector solutions. In terms of economics, the majority of the public has always believed, rightfully IMO, that the private sector is preferable. That was the essence of last night's message and the main reason, IMO, why Romney won and may yet win this election.

The private sector in preferable but only with the right regulations in place to protect the public from predatory business practices, and business practices that endanger the entire economy of western civilization.

That is true, and based on what he said last night, Mitt Romney would agree with you.

What else did Romney say that adhered to his entire campaign?

In order to win the nomination, Romney was forced to spew out a bunch of Tea Party garbage. Last night proved what we all knew all along anyhow: he doesn't believe any of it. The Tea Party populist no regulations-no taxes under any circumstances! crap is 180% from the moderate, centrist, pro-business guy we saw last night. If Romney is elected, it will hopefully be the end of all this tea party nonsense.

So he frames anything convenient to make what whoever wants to hear happy. That isn't anything new here. What incredibly ridiculous is that you find some integrity within that. Aw hell, you're tim. Wishy-Romney is your wheelhouse.

 

[Tau837]

Seems pretty obvious to me that not increasing the burden on the middle class refers to the burden per person/family. Increasing the size of the middle class, and thereby increasing the total tax revenue from the middle class does not equate to increasing the burden on the middle class.To argue otherwise is to suggest that increasing unemployment in the middle class is lessening the burden on the middle class.

It doesn't to me If that's what he means, then say that. If he says it that way then folks will realize he's counting on job growth in the middle class to offset taxes being placed on their "class" of people and if that growth doesn't happen, they are shouldering more of the bill. In other words, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

He's saying he wants to reduce taxes on the average middle class person/family. He is saying that reduction in tax revenue will be made up by some combination of (1) growth in employment, generating more tax revenue and (2) reducing/eliminating loopholes that will lead to more tax revenue from the wealthy.The growth in employment will presumably be in the lower and middle classes. Let's say it's shifted enough to the middle class that the overall tax revenue generated by the middle class is higher than it is now... even so, that would be with (1) lower unemployment in the middle class and (2) lower taxes per middle class person/family.You seem to be somehow characterizing that situation as a negative for the middle class. Hence the

I do consider it a negative since the ONLY guarantee in any of that equation is the shift of liability. There is no guarantee that the middle class will "grow" and if my guess is correct on what "loopholes" he plans on cutting, I'm even less confident that it will "grow" enough to make a difference. Even if we assume his number of 12 million in new jobs is correct, that's still not enough to account for his proposed tax reductions. Math doesn't add up any way you go on this...like with Obama's healthcare proposal.

Okay, but that is a different issue than what I thought we were discussing. Yes, the math may not add up. But I thought you were saying that a middle-class tax cut was bad for the middle class. Which makes no sense.

 

[ArbyMelt]

It is true, IMO, that part of Romney's victory last night was a result of his having more energy, and speaking faster than Obama. His style was simply better.

But there is another truth as well: Romney's overarching theme last night, that the private sector works more efficiently than government does, is something that most Americans have always believed in. Putting aside the details of the two men and their specific plans, it still comes down to one guy preferring government solutions, and the other guy preferring private sector solutions. In terms of economics, the majority of the public has always believed, rightfully IMO, that the private sector is preferable. That was the essence of last night's message and the main reason, IMO, why Romney won and may yet win this election.

The private sector in preferable but only with the right regulations in place to protect the public from predatory business practices, and business practices that endanger the entire economy of western civilization.

That is true, and based on what he said last night, Mitt Romney would agree with you.

What else did Romney say that adhered to his entire campaign?

In order to win the nomination, Romney was forced to spew out a bunch of Tea Party garbage. Last night proved what we all knew all along anyhow: he doesn't believe any of it. The Tea Party populist no regulations-no taxes under any circumstances! crap is 180% from the moderate, centrist, pro-business guy we saw last night. If Romney is elected, it will hopefully be the end of all this tea party nonsense.

So he frames anything convenient to make what whoever wants to hear happy. That isn't anything new here. What incredibly ridiculous is that you find some integrity within that. Aw hell, you're tim. Wishy-Romney is your wheelhouse.

Umm, did you listen to your man speak (most notably his accent) in 2007 to the Hampton University crowd. EVERY politician does this. Do you support a politician that doesn't do this? If so, please tell me his name.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Perhaps the m.o. here is that no one likes an odds-on favorite. Obama was turning into that going into this debate, and had he won, he would've been the overwhelming favorite.Perhaps by sandbagging this debate, he can come out guns blazing after Romney regains some of his shine, and really knock him down.The people like their political narratives to have plot twists, and perhaps team-Obama is just delivering the drama the people want. Perhaps he wants people to think the outcome is in doubt and they need to go to the polls to ensure it. Perhaps he wants the narrative to be "Romneys surprise comeback" for a week or two, only to be battered and bashed after 2 weeks to ride the victory to the finish line and the election.Or perhaps I'm just imagining rationale that never existed in order to make up for a poor performance by Obama and poor strategy by his team...nah.

This is awesome. Too bad it's too long for a sig.

 

[timschochet]

It is true, IMO, that part of Romney's victory last night was a result of his having more energy, and speaking faster than Obama. His style was simply better.

But there is another truth as well: Romney's overarching theme last night, that the private sector works more efficiently than government does, is something that most Americans have always believed in. Putting aside the details of the two men and their specific plans, it still comes down to one guy preferring government solutions, and the other guy preferring private sector solutions. In terms of economics, the majority of the public has always believed, rightfully IMO, that the private sector is preferable. That was the essence of last night's message and the main reason, IMO, why Romney won and may yet win this election.

The private sector in preferable but only with the right regulations in place to protect the public from predatory business practices, and business practices that endanger the entire economy of western civilization.

That is true, and based on what he said last night, Mitt Romney would agree with you.

What else did Romney say that adhered to his entire campaign?

In order to win the nomination, Romney was forced to spew out a bunch of Tea Party garbage. Last night proved what we all knew all along anyhow: he doesn't believe any of it. The Tea Party populist no regulations-no taxes under any circumstances! crap is 180% from the moderate, centrist, pro-business guy we saw last night. If Romney is elected, it will hopefully be the end of all this tea party nonsense.

So he frames anything convenient to make what whoever wants to hear happy. That isn't anything new here. What incredibly ridiculous is that you find some integrity within that. Aw hell, you're tim. Wishy-Romney is your wheelhouse.

You knew all along that corporate-business Romney is the real Romney. Don't pretend that this version is as false as the others. This is the real guy. As to the integrity part- it infuriates me that in order to have a centrist Republican in the White House, the guy is going to have to be dishonest, because that's the only way to survive in the current insanity that passes for the GOP base. But that's the way it is- I want a centrist Republican in the White House, so that's the price I have to pay.

 

[John Bender]

Perhaps the m.o. here is that no one likes an odds-on favorite. Obama was turning into that going into this debate, and had he won, he would've been the overwhelming favorite.

Perhaps by sandbagging this debate, he can come out guns blazing after Romney regains some of his shine, and really knock him down.

The people like their political narratives to have plot twists, and perhaps team-Obama is just delivering the drama the people want. Perhaps he wants people to think the outcome is in doubt and they need to go to the polls to ensure it. Perhaps he wants the narrative to be "Romneys surprise comeback" for a week or two, only to be battered and bashed after 2 weeks to ride the victory to the finish line and the election.

Or perhaps I'm just imagining rationale that never existed in order to make up for a poor performance by Obama and poor strategy by his team...nah.

Honestly, I thought this same thought last night after the debate was over.

Bull####. Nobody "sandbags" debates. 50-60 million people watched last night. Most of them don't watch the news on a regular basis. This chance will not come again. The next debate won't be watched by close to half of that number.

Obama was lousy last night. He lost, plain and simple. He wasn't sandbagging, he wasn't trying to lose, there was no secret "ploy" in mind. He just lost. Whether he loses the election over it is an open question for later. But last night he tried as hard as he could, and was awful.

You've reached your monthly usage limit.Mods> please handle this immediately.

 

[timschochet]

I want a centrist Republican in the White House

For most intents and purposes, particularly when it comes to economic policy, you have one now.

Not true. What I have is a centrist Democrat. And that's fine. If Obama is re-elected, I won't be too disappointed. But I would prefer a centrist Republican. The difference is that Obama has more faith than I do in government solutions. He has more faith than I do in solar and wind energy. He has more faith than I do in his Obamacare act. So as much as I like him, he's not my preference.

 

[Jim11]

I want a centrist Republican in the White House

For most intents and purposes, particularly when it comes to economic policy, you have one now.

Nice try.

 

[drummer]

It is true, IMO, that part of Romney's victory last night was a result of his having more energy, and speaking faster than Obama. His style was simply better.

But there is another truth as well: Romney's overarching theme last night, that the private sector works more efficiently than government does, is something that most Americans have always believed in. Putting aside the details of the two men and their specific plans, it still comes down to one guy preferring government solutions, and the other guy preferring private sector solutions. In terms of economics, the majority of the public has always believed, rightfully IMO, that the private sector is preferable. That was the essence of last night's message and the main reason, IMO, why Romney won and may yet win this election.

The private sector in preferable but only with the right regulations in place to protect the public from predatory business practices, and business practices that endanger the entire economy of western civilization.

That is true, and based on what he said last night, Mitt Romney would agree with you.

What else did Romney say that adhered to his entire campaign?

In order to win the nomination, Romney was forced to spew out a bunch of Tea Party garbage. Last night proved what we all knew all along anyhow: he doesn't believe any of it. The Tea Party populist no regulations-no taxes under any circumstances! crap is 180% from the moderate, centrist, pro-business guy we saw last night. If Romney is elected, it will hopefully be the end of all this tea party nonsense.

So he frames anything convenient to make what whoever wants to hear happy. That isn't anything new here. What incredibly ridiculous is that you find some integrity within that. Aw hell, you're tim. Wishy-Romney is your wheelhouse.

You knew all along that corporate-business Romney is the real Romney. Don't pretend that this version is as false as the others. This is the real guy. As to the integrity part- it infuriates me that in order to have a centrist Republican in the White House, the guy is going to have to be dishonest, because that's the only way to survive in the current insanity that passes for the GOP base. But that's the way it is- I want a centrist Republican in the White House, so that's the price I have to pay.

If you wanted a moderate who stood by his positions, then you wanted Huntsman. Being that Huntsman isn't the Snake Oil salesman of Wishy-Romney- who panders to whoever will help him raise $$ or win a Primary - I guess he didn't have the strategy or be willing to conmpromise principles to convince a squishy guy like you. I've seen the Corporate Romney - that's the 47 percent guy speaking to crowd like he would shareholders.

It was pure Romney, and not near Presidential material.

 

[drummer]

Perhaps the m.o. here is that no one likes an odds-on favorite. Obama was turning into that going into this debate, and had he won, he would've been the overwhelming favorite.

Perhaps by sandbagging this debate, he can come out guns blazing after Romney regains some of his shine, and really knock him down.

The people like their political narratives to have plot twists, and perhaps team-Obama is just delivering the drama the people want. Perhaps he wants people to think the outcome is in doubt and they need to go to the polls to ensure it. Perhaps he wants the narrative to be "Romneys surprise comeback" for a week or two, only to be battered and bashed after 2 weeks to ride the victory to the finish line and the election.

Or perhaps I'm just imagining rationale that never existed in order to make up for a poor performance by Obama and poor strategy by his team...nah.

Honestly, I thought this same thought last night after the debate was over.

Bull####. Nobody "sandbags" debates. 50-60 million people watched last night. Most of them don't watch the news on a regular basis. This chance will not come again. The next debate won't be watched by close to half of that number.

Obama was lousy last night. He lost, plain and simple. He wasn't sandbagging, he wasn't trying to lose, there was no secret "ploy" in mind. He just lost. Whether he loses the election over it is an open question for later. But last night he tried as hard as he could, and was awful.

You've reached your monthly usage limit.Mods> please handle this immediately.

Board Nazi's. Shame on you.

 

[maxwelledison]

I'm a pretty liberal guy and Romney rolled Obama last night. Most distressing was I found myself agreeing with many of his points and, while it won't change my vote due to fundamental social disagreements, give credit where it's due.

 

[timschochet]

It is true, IMO, that part of Romney's victory last night was a result of his having more energy, and speaking faster than Obama. His style was simply better.

But there is another truth as well: Romney's overarching theme last night, that the private sector works more efficiently than government does, is something that most Americans have always believed in. Putting aside the details of the two men and their specific plans, it still comes down to one guy preferring government solutions, and the other guy preferring private sector solutions. In terms of economics, the majority of the public has always believed, rightfully IMO, that the private sector is preferable. That was the essence of last night's message and the main reason, IMO, why Romney won and may yet win this election.

The private sector in preferable but only with the right regulations in place to protect the public from predatory business practices, and business practices that endanger the entire economy of western civilization.

That is true, and based on what he said last night, Mitt Romney would agree with you.

What else did Romney say that adhered to his entire campaign?

In order to win the nomination, Romney was forced to spew out a bunch of Tea Party garbage. Last night proved what we all knew all along anyhow: he doesn't believe any of it. The Tea Party populist no regulations-no taxes under any circumstances! crap is 180% from the moderate, centrist, pro-business guy we saw last night. If Romney is elected, it will hopefully be the end of all this tea party nonsense.

So he frames anything convenient to make what whoever wants to hear happy. That isn't anything new here. What incredibly ridiculous is that you find some integrity within that. Aw hell, you're tim. Wishy-Romney is your wheelhouse.

You knew all along that corporate-business Romney is the real Romney. Don't pretend that this version is as false as the others. This is the real guy. As to the integrity part- it infuriates me that in order to have a centrist Republican in the White House, the guy is going to have to be dishonest, because that's the only way to survive in the current insanity that passes for the GOP base. But that's the way it is- I want a centrist Republican in the White House, so that's the price I have to pay.

If you wanted a moderate who stood by his positions, then you wanted Huntsman. Being that Huntsman isn't the Snake Oil salesman of Wishy-Romney- who panders to whoever will help him raise $$ or win a Primary - I guess he didn't have the strategy or be willing to conmpromise principles to convince a squishy guy like you. I've seen the Corporate Romney - that's the 47 percent guy speaking to crowd like he would shareholders.

It was pure Romney, and not near Presidential material.

Huntsman was too honest to win the nomination. He had no chance given his integrity. I would have voted for him for sure.

 

[John Bender]

Perhaps the m.o. here is that no one likes an odds-on favorite. Obama was turning into that going into this debate, and had he won, he would've been the overwhelming favorite.

Perhaps by sandbagging this debate, he can come out guns blazing after Romney regains some of his shine, and really knock him down.

The people like their political narratives to have plot twists, and perhaps team-Obama is just delivering the drama the people want. Perhaps he wants people to think the outcome is in doubt and they need to go to the polls to ensure it. Perhaps he wants the narrative to be "Romneys surprise comeback" for a week or two, only to be battered and bashed after 2 weeks to ride the victory to the finish line and the election.

Or perhaps I'm just imagining rationale that never existed in order to make up for a poor performance by Obama and poor strategy by his team...nah.

Honestly, I thought this same thought last night after the debate was over.

Bull####. Nobody "sandbags" debates. 50-60 million people watched last night. Most of them don't watch the news on a regular basis. This chance will not come again. The next debate won't be watched by close to half of that number.

Obama was lousy last night. He lost, plain and simple. He wasn't sandbagging, he wasn't trying to lose, there was no secret "ploy" in mind. He just lost. Whether he loses the election over it is an open question for later. But last night he tried as hard as he could, and was awful.

You've reached your monthly usage limit.Mods> please handle this immediately.

Board Nazi's. Shame on you.

Sorry my friend. Someone has got to keep you lunatics in line, just trying to do my civic duty.

 

[drummer]

It is true, IMO, that part of Romney's victory last night was a result of his having more energy, and speaking faster than Obama. His style was simply better.

But there is another truth as well: Romney's overarching theme last night, that the private sector works more efficiently than government does, is something that most Americans have always believed in. Putting aside the details of the two men and their specific plans, it still comes down to one guy preferring government solutions, and the other guy preferring private sector solutions. In terms of economics, the majority of the public has always believed, rightfully IMO, that the private sector is preferable. That was the essence of last night's message and the main reason, IMO, why Romney won and may yet win this election.

The private sector in preferable but only with the right regulations in place to protect the public from predatory business practices, and business practices that endanger the entire economy of western civilization.

That is true, and based on what he said last night, Mitt Romney would agree with you.

What else did Romney say that adhered to his entire campaign?

In order to win the nomination, Romney was forced to spew out a bunch of Tea Party garbage. Last night proved what we all knew all along anyhow: he doesn't believe any of it. The Tea Party populist no regulations-no taxes under any circumstances! crap is 180% from the moderate, centrist, pro-business guy we saw last night. If Romney is elected, it will hopefully be the end of all this tea party nonsense.

So he frames anything convenient to make what whoever wants to hear happy. That isn't anything new here. What incredibly ridiculous is that you find some integrity within that. Aw hell, you're tim. Wishy-Romney is your wheelhouse.

You knew all along that corporate-business Romney is the real Romney. Don't pretend that this version is as false as the others. This is the real guy. As to the integrity part- it infuriates me that in order to have a centrist Republican in the White House, the guy is going to have to be dishonest, because that's the only way to survive in the current insanity that passes for the GOP base. But that's the way it is- I want a centrist Republican in the White House, so that's the price I have to pay.

If you wanted a moderate who stood by his positions, then you wanted Huntsman. Being that Huntsman isn't the Snake Oil salesman of Wishy-Romney- who panders to whoever will help him raise $$ or win a Primary - I guess he didn't have the strategy or be willing to conmpromise principles to convince a squishy guy like you. I've seen the Corporate Romney - that's the 47 percent guy speaking to crowd like he would shareholders.

It was pure Romney, and not near Presidential material.

Huntsman was too honest to win the nomination. He had no chance given his integrity. I would have voted for him for sure.

Well cool, but being less honest or totally fabricated like Romney doesn't add more integrity to Romney.

 

[drummer]

Perhaps the m.o. here is that no one likes an odds-on favorite. Obama was turning into that going into this debate, and had he won, he would've been the overwhelming favorite.

Perhaps by sandbagging this debate, he can come out guns blazing after Romney regains some of his shine, and really knock him down.

The people like their political narratives to have plot twists, and perhaps team-Obama is just delivering the drama the people want. Perhaps he wants people to think the outcome is in doubt and they need to go to the polls to ensure it. Perhaps he wants the narrative to be "Romneys surprise comeback" for a week or two, only to be battered and bashed after 2 weeks to ride the victory to the finish line and the election.

Or perhaps I'm just imagining rationale that never existed in order to make up for a poor performance by Obama and poor strategy by his team...nah.

Honestly, I thought this same thought last night after the debate was over.

Bull####. Nobody "sandbags" debates. 50-60 million people watched last night. Most of them don't watch the news on a regular basis. This chance will not come again. The next debate won't be watched by close to half of that number.

Obama was lousy last night. He lost, plain and simple. He wasn't sandbagging, he wasn't trying to lose, there was no secret "ploy" in mind. He just lost. Whether he loses the election over it is an open question for later. But last night he tried as hard as he could, and was awful.

You've reached your monthly usage limit.Mods> please handle this immediately.

Board Nazi's. Shame on you.

Sorry my friend. Someone has got to keep you lunatics in line, just trying to do my civic duty.

You're not Pickles bro.

 

[John Bender]

Perhaps the m.o. here is that no one likes an odds-on favorite. Obama was turning into that going into this debate, and had he won, he would've been the overwhelming favorite.

Perhaps by sandbagging this debate, he can come out guns blazing after Romney regains some of his shine, and really knock him down.

The people like their political narratives to have plot twists, and perhaps team-Obama is just delivering the drama the people want. Perhaps he wants people to think the outcome is in doubt and they need to go to the polls to ensure it. Perhaps he wants the narrative to be "Romneys surprise comeback" for a week or two, only to be battered and bashed after 2 weeks to ride the victory to the finish line and the election.

Or perhaps I'm just imagining rationale that never existed in order to make up for a poor performance by Obama and poor strategy by his team...nah.

Honestly, I thought this same thought last night after the debate was over.

Bull####. Nobody "sandbags" debates. 50-60 million people watched last night. Most of them don't watch the news on a regular basis. This chance will not come again. The next debate won't be watched by close to half of that number.

Obama was lousy last night. He lost, plain and simple. He wasn't sandbagging, he wasn't trying to lose, there was no secret "ploy" in mind. He just lost. Whether he loses the election over it is an open question for later. But last night he tried as hard as he could, and was awful.

You've reached your monthly usage limit.Mods> please handle this immediately.

Board Nazi's. Shame on you.

Sorry my friend. Someone has got to keep you lunatics in line, just trying to do my civic duty.

You're not Pickles bro.

I'm disappointed in him in here for not keeping these things in check.

 

[Jim11]

If you wanted a moderate who stood by his positions, then you wanted Huntsman. Being that Huntsman isn't the Snake Oil salesman of Wishy-Romney- who panders to whoever will help him raise $ or win a Primary - I guess he didn't have the strategy or be willing to conmpromise principles to convince a squishy guy like you.

I've seen the Corporate Romney - that's the 47 percent guy speaking to crowd like he would shareholders.

It was pure Romney, and not near Presidential material.

Oh horrors, a politician who panders. Now that's something Obama never does.

 

[drummer]

Perhaps the m.o. here is that no one likes an odds-on favorite. Obama was turning into that going into this debate, and had he won, he would've been the overwhelming favorite.

Perhaps by sandbagging this debate, he can come out guns blazing after Romney regains some of his shine, and really knock him down.

The people like their political narratives to have plot twists, and perhaps team-Obama is just delivering the drama the people want. Perhaps he wants people to think the outcome is in doubt and they need to go to the polls to ensure it. Perhaps he wants the narrative to be "Romneys surprise comeback" for a week or two, only to be battered and bashed after 2 weeks to ride the victory to the finish line and the election.

Or perhaps I'm just imagining rationale that never existed in order to make up for a poor performance by Obama and poor strategy by his team...nah.

Honestly, I thought this same thought last night after the debate was over.

Bull####. Nobody "sandbags" debates. 50-60 million people watched last night. Most of them don't watch the news on a regular basis. This chance will not come again. The next debate won't be watched by close to half of that number.

Obama was lousy last night. He lost, plain and simple. He wasn't sandbagging, he wasn't trying to lose, there was no secret "ploy" in mind. He just lost. Whether he loses the election over it is an open question for later. But last night he tried as hard as he could, and was awful.

You've reached your monthly usage limit.Mods> please handle this immediately.

Board Nazi's. Shame on you.

Sorry my friend. Someone has got to keep you lunatics in line, just trying to do my civic duty.

You're not Pickles bro.

I'm disappointed in him in here for not keeping these things in check.

Maybe we need more Marvin.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Obama: ‘I Met This Very Spirited Fellow Who Claimed to Be Mitt Romney’

 

[John Bender]

One or the other works for me.

I feel like

Pickles and/or Marvin> I tried, these circus animals are all yours.

 

[drummer]

One or the other works for me.

I feel like

I guess it's back to the wagering thread fer ya.

 

[dparker713]

It is true, IMO, that part of Romney's victory last night was a result of his having more energy, and speaking faster than Obama. His style was simply better.

But there is another truth as well: Romney's overarching theme last night, that the private sector works more efficiently than government does, is something that most Americans have always believed in. Putting aside the details of the two men and their specific plans, it still comes down to one guy preferring government solutions, and the other guy preferring private sector solutions. In terms of economics, the majority of the public has always believed, rightfully IMO, that the private sector is preferable. That was the essence of last night's message and the main reason, IMO, why Romney won and may yet win this election.

The private sector in preferable but only with the right regulations in place to protect the public from predatory business practices, and business practices that endanger the entire economy of western civilization.

That is true, and based on what he said last night, Mitt Romney would agree with you.

But would Mitt agree with Mitt?

 

[HellToupee]

Perhaps the m.o. here is that no one likes an odds-on favorite. Obama was turning into that going into this debate, and had he won, he would've been the overwhelming favorite.

Perhaps by sandbagging this debate, he can come out guns blazing after Romney regains some of his shine, and really knock him down.

The people like their political narratives to have plot twists, and perhaps team-Obama is just delivering the drama the people want. Perhaps he wants people to think the outcome is in doubt and they need to go to the polls to ensure it. Perhaps he wants the narrative to be "Romneys surprise comeback" for a week or two, only to be battered and bashed after 2 weeks to ride the victory to the finish line and the election.

Or perhaps I'm just imagining rationale that never existed in order to make up for a poor performance by Obama and poor strategy by his team...nah.

Honestly, I thought this same thought last night after the debate was over.

Bull####. Nobody "sandbags" debates. 50-60 million people watched last night. Most of them don't watch the news on a regular basis. This chance will not come again. The next debate won't be watched by close to half of that number.

Obama was lousy last night. He lost, plain and simple. He wasn't sandbagging, he wasn't trying to lose, there was no secret "ploy" in mind. He just lost. Whether he loses the election over it is an open question for later. But last night he tried as hard as he could, and was awful.

quite simply