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

[dickey moe]

I think the takeaway from the debate is that the President is very effective when he gets to speak from prepared remarks. When he has to think on his feet...not so much.

He's never been scolded to that degree in his life. He was totally unprepared for it.

 

[Jim11]

Well I didn't watch live but I did a lot of reading and clip watching after. The president seems to have been about what I expected. He isn't a great debater. Romney was aggressive and on message. He "won" but my guess is the Democrats were ready for that. And Romney set himself up for a lot of follow up ads going after his loose facts. I think they decided to let him punch himself out, then they go to ads to call him on issues until the next debate and get to the townhall where the President is more in his element. At least that's the way I'd go.

He isn't a great president either. Pretty good at class warfare though. That's the main thrust of his campaign.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

This answer was more coherent than some the President gave last night.

 

[NCCommish]

Well I didn't watch live but I did a lot of reading and clip watching after. The president seems to have been about what I expected. He isn't a great debater. Romney was aggressive and on message. He "won" but my guess is the Democrats were ready for that. And Romney set himself up for a lot of follow up ads going after his loose facts. I think they decided to let him punch himself out, then they go to ads to call him on issues until the next debate and get to the townhall where the President is more in his element. At least that's the way I'd go.

He isn't a great president either. Pretty good at class warfare though. That's the main thrust of his campaign.

Class warfare has been going on for a long time and as Warren Buffet said:

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think last night showed that a)Mitt himself really is a pretty good candidate but b)his campaign is absolutely terrible.

Romney has always been pretty good in debates, but being a good debater isn't the same as being a good candidate. Good candidates don't stumble their way into sig-worthy lines like "corporations are people, my friend" and the whole 47% fiasco. (I know you know this already -- just being pedantic).

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Name one policy which Bush did which caused the housing bubble and financial collaspes.

Kept Greenspan as Fed ChairRelaxed lending standards to up homeownershipEnacted tax cuts which were never paid for2 wars, 1 of choicePrescription drug benefit No Child Left BehindGutted the SEC budgetGutted bankruptcy lawThats just off the top of my head. Both Bushes deserve plenty of the blame for the 2008 collapse, as does Clinton. To give Dubya a pass because he helped prevent a total collapse from a problem he helped create is nothing short of partisan hackery.

Can you explain how No Child Left Behind caused the financial crisis? That's a new one.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Name one policy which Bush did which caused the housing bubble and financial collaspes.

Kept Greenspan as Fed ChairRelaxed lending standards to up homeownershipEnacted tax cuts which were never paid for2 wars, 1 of choicePrescription drug benefit No Child Left BehindGutted the SEC budgetGutted bankruptcy lawThats just off the top of my head. Both Bushes deserve plenty of the blame for the 2008 collapse, as does Clinton. To give Dubya a pass because he helped prevent a total collapse from a problem he helped create is nothing short of partisan hackery.

Can you explain how No Child Left Behind causes the financial crisis? That's a new one.

The economy is a lost child?

 

[NCCommish]

Name one policy which Bush did which caused the housing bubble and financial collaspes.

Kept Greenspan as Fed ChairRelaxed lending standards to up homeownershipEnacted tax cuts which were never paid for2 wars, 1 of choicePrescription drug benefit No Child Left BehindGutted the SEC budgetGutted bankruptcy lawThats just off the top of my head. Both Bushes deserve plenty of the blame for the 2008 collapse, as does Clinton. To give Dubya a pass because he helped prevent a total collapse from a problem he helped create is nothing short of partisan hackery.

Can you explain how No Child Left Behind caused the financial crisis? That's a new one.

Yeah that should be an interesting explanation.

 

[jdelsas]

That was Obama without a teleprompter, pretty much clueless and unable to think for himself. Romney wiped the floor with him so bad last night that not even CNN and MSNBC could spin it in a good direction.

Can't wait for the VP debates...anytime you put a microphone in front Joe Biden, you never know what is going to come out of that mouth.

 

[jon_mx]

I think a second Obama term would be worse than Bush II's second term.

Thinking Romney is a better option than Obama, fine. I don't agree, but thats atleast in the realm of possibility. But worse than Dubya's second term? You mean the President that was in office for the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression? That's just absurd.

And that was Bush's fault? It had nothing to do with a housing bubble which was caused mostly by policies that were in place long before Bush was in office? The difference with Obama, a lot of the problems we have is because he has implimented a lot of dumb policies which are hurting the economy more than helping.

Let me see if have your position straight. The collapse of 2008 was not Dubya's fault because of policies of prior adminstrations and legislatures, but Obama is solely responsible for not completing a recovery from that same collapse inside of 4 years?That's Boston level homerism there.

Name one policy which Bush did which caused the housing bubble and financial collaspes. Bush was the only politician in DC who even attempted to do anything before it burst, but Barny Frank would have no part in that. The securitization of home mortgage loans lead to horrible practices in giving out terrible loans was the primary cause and was implimented under Clinton. Yes, Bush could have screamed louder and done more, but the animals had already left the barn. That bubble was going to crash. Bush's TARP was a huge success and by far the most important policy leading to our short-lived recovery. Under Obama, his policies of focusing on trying to keep government jobs, infastructure projects, green energy and demand side economics completely failed at producing long term results. That $800 billion stimulus should have focused on giving small businesses incentives to hire people. That would have produced real self-sustaining long terms jobs instead of the temporary ones which dry up as soon as government money goes away. The results of us headed back into decline was easily predictable based on Obama's stupid short-sided policies.

Kept Greenspan as Fed ChairRelaxed lending standards to up homeownership

Enacted tax cuts which were never paid for

2 wars, 1 of choice

Prescription drug benefit

No Child Left Behind

Gutted the SEC budget

Gutted bankruptcy law

Thats just off the top of my head. Both Bushes deserve plenty of the blame for the 2008 collapse, as does Clinton. To give Dubya a pass because he helped prevent a total collapse from a problem he helped create is nothing short of partisan hackery.

Relaxing of the lending standards was an SEC action. Supposedly an independant non-partisan quasi-regualatory agency, but the chairmans are appointed by the president, so there is some accountability there for Bush. Greenspan did a reasonably good job. He kept the economy moving. He could have put us in a recession, but that would have just made the bubble burst sooner. Your other points had no bearing what so ever on the housing bubble and financial crisis, just your partisan hackery that you threw which contributed nothing.

 

[The Commish]

I think a second Obama term would be worse than Bush II's second term.

Thinking Romney is a better option than Obama, fine. I don't agree, but thats atleast in the realm of possibility. But worse than Dubya's second term? You mean the President that was in office for the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression? That's just absurd.

And that was Bush's fault? It had nothing to do with a housing bubble which was caused mostly by policies that were in place long before Bush was in office? The difference with Obama, a lot of the problems we have is because he has implimented a lot of dumb policies which are hurting the economy more than helping.

Let me see if have your position straight. The collapse of 2008 was not Dubya's fault because of policies of prior adminstrations and legislatures, but Obama is solely responsible for not completing a recovery from that same collapse inside of 4 years?That's Boston level homerism there.

Name one policy which Bush did which caused the housing bubble and financial collaspes. Bush was the only politician in DC who even attempted to do anything before it burst, but Barny Frank would have no part in that. The securitization of home mortgage loans lead to horrible practices in giving out terrible loans was the primary cause and was implimented under Clinton. Yes, Bush could have screamed louder and done more, but the animals had already left the barn. That bubble was going to crash. Bush's TARP was a huge success and by far the most important policy leading to our short-lived recovery. Under Obama, his policies of focusing on trying to keep government jobs, infastructure projects, green energy and demand side economics completely failed at producing long term results. That $800 billion stimulus should have focused on giving small businesses incentives to hire people. That would have produced real self-sustaining long terms jobs instead of the temporary ones which dry up as soon as government money goes away. The results of us headed back into decline was easily predictable based on Obama's stupid short-sided policies.

Kept Greenspan as Fed ChairRelaxed lending standards to up homeownership

Enacted tax cuts which were never paid for

2 wars, 1 of choice

Prescription drug benefit

No Child Left Behind

Gutted the SEC budget

Gutted bankruptcy law

Thats just off the top of my head. Both Bushes deserve plenty of the blame for the 2008 collapse, as does Clinton. To give Dubya a pass because he helped prevent a total collapse from a problem he helped create is nothing short of partisan hackery.

Relaxing of the lending standards was an SEC action. Supposedly an independant non-partisan quasi-regualatory agency, but the chairmans are appointed by the president, so there is some accountability there for Bush. Greenspan did a reasonably good job. He kept the economy moving. He could have put us in a recession, but that would have just made the bubble burst sooner. Your other points had no bearing what so ever on the housing bubble and financial crisis, just your partisan hackery that you threw which contributed nothing.

You don't think the wars had a big impact on our revenue pools?

 

[matuski]

I didn't watch the debate, haven't read the thread.

Can I assume the righty nutjobs here think Romney just won the election, and the left thinks Obama won the debate?

Let me know how far off the mark I am here. TIA.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

My overall impression was that Obama spent too much time trying to explain things, getting bogged down in details. Lehrer, as ineffectual as he was, kept trying to get him to point out the difference between his platform and Romney's. He could have done this easily by sticking the the overall philosophy. He touched on it, but then he'd get off track. And once he realized Romney was going to deny whatever specifics he mentioned, he should have scrapped that strategy and gone with broader statements. I didn't think Romney came off particularly well. I don't think he took the debate and won it. But he wasn't as ineffective as Obama, who while I think he's clearly the better candidate did not explain why he is. It was like a schoolyard argument where one kid keeps defiantly saying "No I'm not" and the other kid doesn't have an answer.

Where Obama failed is that Romney was specific about policies and Obama was specific about individual stories. By the time Obama told the backstory of what he was trying to introduce, you had totally lost the thread of what he was trying to say. And frankly, to me it came off as evasive. You're the president. Talk in big ideas not small focuses. Talk about how Romney's math just doesn't work. Push him for even broad specifics on his plans. Talk about big swathes of what your medical plan does, what it will do, and why it's better than the alternatives. And do it without stammering, looking down, or losing your train of thought mid-sentence.

What I found interesting watching the CNN undecideds turn their dials was that when Obama tried to pin down Romney on his lousy math, they hated it. In fact, they said that was Obama's low point of the night. Bizarro world.

 

[dickey moe]

I didn't watch the debate, haven't read the thread.Can I assume the righty nutjobs here think Romney just won the election, and the lefty nutjobs thinks Obama won the debate?Let me know how far off the mark I am here. TIA.

Fixed

 

[Slapdash]

I think a second Obama term would be worse than Bush II's second term.

Thinking Romney is a better option than Obama, fine. I don't agree, but thats atleast in the realm of possibility. But worse than Dubya's second term? You mean the President that was in office for the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression? That's just absurd.

And that was Bush's fault? It had nothing to do with a housing bubble which was caused mostly by policies that were in place long before Bush was in office? The difference with Obama, a lot of the problems we have is because he has implimented a lot of dumb policies which are hurting the economy more than helping.

Let me see if have your position straight. The collapse of 2008 was not Dubya's fault because of policies of prior adminstrations and legislatures, but Obama is solely responsible for not completing a recovery from that same collapse inside of 4 years?That's Boston level homerism there.

Name one policy which Bush did which caused the housing bubble and financial collaspes. Bush was the only politician in DC who even attempted to do anything before it burst, but Barny Frank would have no part in that. The securitization of home mortgage loans lead to horrible practices in giving out terrible loans was the primary cause and was implimented under Clinton. Yes, Bush could have screamed louder and done more, but the animals had already left the barn. That bubble was going to crash. Bush's TARP was a huge success and by far the most important policy leading to our short-lived recovery. Under Obama, his policies of focusing on trying to keep government jobs, infastructure projects, green energy and demand side economics completely failed at producing long term results. That $800 billion stimulus should have focused on giving small businesses incentives to hire people. That would have produced real self-sustaining long terms jobs instead of the temporary ones which dry up as soon as government money goes away. The results of us headed back into decline was easily predictable based on Obama's stupid short-sided policies.

Kept Greenspan as Fed ChairRelaxed lending standards to up homeownership

Enacted tax cuts which were never paid for

2 wars, 1 of choice

Prescription drug benefit

No Child Left Behind

Gutted the SEC budget

Gutted bankruptcy law

Thats just off the top of my head. Both Bushes deserve plenty of the blame for the 2008 collapse, as does Clinton. To give Dubya a pass because he helped prevent a total collapse from a problem he helped create is nothing short of partisan hackery.

Relaxing of the lending standards was an SEC action. Supposedly an independant non-partisan quasi-regualatory agency, but the chairmans are appointed by the president, so there is some accountability there for Bush. Greenspan did a reasonably good job. He kept the economy moving. He could have put us in a recession, but that would have just made the bubble burst sooner. Your other points had no bearing what so ever on the housing bubble and financial crisis, just your partisan hackery that you threw which contributed nothing.

You don't think the wars had a big impact on our revenue pools?

Wars are like tax cuts, they pay for themselves.

 

[saintfool]

I didn't catch the debate last night, as I was out on a date.

That is all.

 

[jamny]

I didn't watch the debate, haven't read the thread.Can I assume the righty nutjobs here think Romney just won the election, and the left thinks Obama won the debate?Let me know how far off the mark I am here. TIA.

Completely off.

 

[jamny]

I didn't watch the debate, haven't read the thread.Can I assume the righty nutjobs here think Romney just won the election, and the left thinks Obama won the debate?Let me know how far off the mark I am here. TIA.

Maybe 1/3 of the people on the left here think Obama won the debate. The other 2/3s are right.Seem about on the mark for the right nutjob reaction. The right centrists are taking a more measured approach although Obama's odds of winning the election did take about a 5-8% hit on the different election markets.

Which right wing nutjobs are saying Romney just won the election with his debate performance?

 

[LHUCKS]

I think the takeaway from the debate is that the President is very effective when he gets to speak from prepared remarks. When he has to think on his feet...not so much.

I'm voting for Romney, but to be fair the to the President, Romney has had months to prepare for this debate while Obama was running the country.That being said, although Romney won the debate I didn't think it was a "steamroll."

 

[Slapdash]

My overall impression was that Obama spent too much time trying to explain things, getting bogged down in details. Lehrer, as ineffectual as he was, kept trying to get him to point out the difference between his platform and Romney's. He could have done this easily by sticking the the overall philosophy. He touched on it, but then he'd get off track. And once he realized Romney was going to deny whatever specifics he mentioned, he should have scrapped that strategy and gone with broader statements. I didn't think Romney came off particularly well. I don't think he took the debate and won it. But he wasn't as ineffective as Obama, who while I think he's clearly the better candidate did not explain why he is. It was like a schoolyard argument where one kid keeps defiantly saying "No I'm not" and the other kid doesn't have an answer.

Where Obama failed is that Romney was specific about policies and Obama was specific about individual stories. By the time Obama told the backstory of what he was trying to introduce, you had totally lost the thread of what he was trying to say. And frankly, to me it came off as evasive. You're the president. Talk in big ideas not small focuses. Talk about how Romney's math just doesn't work. Push him for even broad specifics on his plans. Talk about big swathes of what your medical plan does, what it will do, and why it's better than the alternatives. And do it without stammering, looking down, or losing your train of thought mid-sentence.

What I found interesting watching the CNN undecideds turn their dials was that when Obama tried to pin down Romney on his lousy math, they hated it. In fact, they said that was Obama's low point of the night. Bizarro world.

As much as liberals wish he would have gone after this harder, I think it just doesn't work in the debate format. Gore tried to do this to Bush and it didn't work well there either. Save it for the attack ads.

 

[Joe T]

It is hard to speak for an hour and a half of blaming someone else for the issues in the US and not having a plan to fix any of the problems. Let's cut the guy some slack.

 

[Politician Spock]

Are we seriously debating that Obama's second term will or won't be as bad as Bush's second term?

Is this all our country has left?

"At least our guy won't be the worst guy in history! YEAH!!! "

 

[Goat Herders]

I think a second Obama term would be worse than Bush II's second term.

Thinking Romney is a better option than Obama, fine. I don't agree, but thats atleast in the realm of possibility. But worse than Dubya's second term? You mean the President that was in office for the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression? That's just absurd.

And that was Bush's fault? It had nothing to do with a housing bubble which was caused mostly by policies that were in place long before Bush was in office? The difference with Obama, a lot of the problems we have is because he has implimented a lot of dumb policies which are hurting the economy more than helping.

Let me see if have your position straight. The collapse of 2008 was not Dubya's fault because of policies of prior adminstrations and legislatures, but Obama is solely responsible for not completing a recovery from that same collapse inside of 4 years?That's Boston level homerism there.

Name one policy which Bush did which caused the housing bubble and financial collaspes. Bush was the only politician in DC who even attempted to do anything before it burst, but Barny Frank would have no part in that. The securitization of home mortgage loans lead to horrible practices in giving out terrible loans was the primary cause and was implimented under Clinton. Yes, Bush could have screamed louder and done more, but the animals had already left the barn. That bubble was going to crash. Bush's TARP was a huge success and by far the most important policy leading to our short-lived recovery. Under Obama, his policies of focusing on trying to keep government jobs, infastructure projects, green energy and demand side economics completely failed at producing long term results. That $800 billion stimulus should have focused on giving small businesses incentives to hire people. That would have produced real self-sustaining long terms jobs instead of the temporary ones which dry up as soon as government money goes away. The results of us headed back into decline was easily predictable based on Obama's stupid short-sided policies.

I'm a huge fan of W but this is not accurate. Using the state of the union to declare that everyone should be able to own a home was just the tip, but even that would be enough.

 

[CrossEyed]

I didn't catch the debate last night, as I was out on a date. That is all.

Pics, or it didn't happen. Your date, not the debate.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Anybody else see that CNN's post-debate snap poll was conducted exclusively with white, college educted, Southerners over 50 years old? Uhhh...

 

[Mr. Pickles]

My overall impression was that Obama spent too much time trying to explain things, getting bogged down in details. Lehrer, as ineffectual as he was, kept trying to get him to point out the difference between his platform and Romney's. He could have done this easily by sticking the the overall philosophy. He touched on it, but then he'd get off track. And once he realized Romney was going to deny whatever specifics he mentioned, he should have scrapped that strategy and gone with broader statements. I didn't think Romney came off particularly well. I don't think he took the debate and won it. But he wasn't as ineffective as Obama, who while I think he's clearly the better candidate did not explain why he is. It was like a schoolyard argument where one kid keeps defiantly saying "No I'm not" and the other kid doesn't have an answer.

Where Obama failed is that Romney was specific about policies and Obama was specific about individual stories. By the time Obama told the backstory of what he was trying to introduce, you had totally lost the thread of what he was trying to say. And frankly, to me it came off as evasive. You're the president. Talk in big ideas not small focuses. Talk about how Romney's math just doesn't work. Push him for even broad specifics on his plans. Talk about big swathes of what your medical plan does, what it will do, and why it's better than the alternatives. And do it without stammering, looking down, or losing your train of thought mid-sentence.

What I found interesting watching the CNN undecideds turn their dials was that when Obama tried to pin down Romney on his lousy math, they hated it. In fact, they said that was Obama's low point of the night. Bizarro world.

As much as liberals wish he would have gone after this harder, I think it just doesn't work in the debate format. Gore tried to do this to Bush and it didn't work well there either. Save it for the attack ads.

Yeah, that had to be part of the strategy. I felt like these guys were agreeing with each other more than any debate I've ever seen. One of the undecideds in particular said that she thought the president "wasn't listening" when he was castigating Romney over the tax cut math. Apparently she felt like Obama should have just accepted what he was peddling even though he was walking back his own plan. I don't think anyone with that kind of mindset is reachable.

 

[CrossEyed]

I think the takeaway from the debate is that the President is very effective when he gets to speak from prepared remarks. When he has to think on his feet...not so much.

I'm voting for Romney, but to be fair the to the President, Romney has had months to prepare for this debate while Obama was running the country.That being said, although Romney won the debate I didn't think it was a "steamroll."

And just to clarify, I don't think a person's ability to debate or give speeches should determine whether or not he's qualified to be POTUS. But when your supposed strength is speaking and communicating and you get owned like Obama did (yes, I did think he got steamrolled, for the most part) that's not a good thing.

 

[dhockster]

Name one policy which Bush did which caused the housing bubble and financial collaspes.

Kept Greenspan as Fed ChairRelaxed lending standards to up homeownershipEnacted tax cuts which were never paid for2 wars, 1 of choicePrescription drug benefit No Child Left BehindGutted the SEC budgetGutted bankruptcy lawThats just off the top of my head. Both Bushes deserve plenty of the blame for the 2008 collapse, as does Clinton. To give Dubya a pass because he helped prevent a total collapse from a problem he helped create is nothing short of partisan hackery.

Can you explain how No Child Left Behind causes the financial crisis? That's a new one.

The economy is a lost child?

The puppy who lost his way was like industry?

 

[Slapdash]

Anybody else see that CNN's post-debate snap poll was conducted exclusively with white, college educted, Southerners over 50 years old? Uhhh...

Link?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Truth matters -- and in one of the few times that I've ever agreed with Newt Gingrich -- it will be on the innate dishonesty in Mitt Romney. He's certainly had practice lying in business -- it's highly unlikely he told Kaybee toys that they planned to bankrupt their decades-old company and lay off 15,000 workers, but they did., and Ampad, and others.. Not too mention his taxes.

Prime example last night.

Romney's charge on Obama's $716-billion Medicare cut.

Mitt Romney repeated a somewhat misleading claim that President Obama cut $716 billion out of the Medicare program for current beneficiaries.

The president's healthcare law does reduce future spending on Medicare, but those savings are obtained by reducing federal payments to insurance companies, hospitals and other providers, and do not affect benefits for people in the Medicare program.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

It is hard to speak for an hour and a half of blaming someone else for the issues in the US and not having a plan to fix any of the problems. Let's cut the guy some slack.

I thought Romney did OK. Don't be so harsh on him.

 

[timschochet]

The factors which should affect undecided voters in the swing states are:

1. Impressions of the two men prior to last night's debate.

2. Last night's debate and the coming 3 debates.

3. The barrage of ads, most of them negative, that are about to deluge the television screens of every swing state.

Which of these factors will be the biggest? IMO, by far #3.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Anybody else see that CNN's post-debate snap poll was conducted exclusively with white, college educted, Southerners over 50 years old? Uhhh...

Link?

Actually came back to delete that post. Josh Marshall at TPM said it appears that's what happened and is looking for more info. Not confirmed yet I guess.Actually the post has been updated since it got to my RSS feed last night:

Getting a massive amount of coverage this morning is the CNN snap poll of the debate, which showed Romney winning the exchanged overwhelmingly.But the internals of the poll look really strange. If you look at the breakdown of the sample, it doesn’t appear to contain anyone (or doesn’t appear to contain any representative sample) under 50, anyone outside of the South or anyone who’s not white. (See page 8 of this pdf.)I doesn’t make sense to me that they’d do or release a poll like that. So really curious if anyone has an explanation.Late Update: We’ve dug in a little deeper on this, and there seems to be a straightforward non-nefarious explanation. It appears that where the subgroups within CNN’s representative sample of 430 voters were too small to yield statistically valid conclusions about the subgroups themselves, CNN declined to publish those results simply because they were not reliable on their own. We’re seeking confirmation from CNN, but this is the most likely explanation — one that is valid. —dk

I guess that those segments were the only ones big enough to be reported as separate.

 

[Sam Quentin]

nice move by Romney to wait for Obama to bring up the correct causes of the financial meltdown and then highlighting it.

 

[Slapdash]

I'm a little surprised that most of my co-workers I've talked this morning had such a lukewarm reaction to the debate mentioning how it was painfully boring and lacking specifics.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Name one policy which Bush did which caused the housing bubble and financial collaspes.

Kept Greenspan as Fed ChairRelaxed lending standards to up homeownershipEnacted tax cuts which were never paid for2 wars, 1 of choicePrescription drug benefit No Child Left BehindGutted the SEC budgetGutted bankruptcy lawThats just off the top of my head. Both Bushes deserve plenty of the blame for the 2008 collapse, as does Clinton. To give Dubya a pass because he helped prevent a total collapse from a problem he helped create is nothing short of partisan hackery.

Can you explain how No Child Left Behind causes the financial crisis? That's a new one.

The economy is a lost child?

The puppy who lost his way was like industry?

Children and puppies buying houses?

 

[Slapdash]

Anybody else see that CNN's post-debate snap poll was conducted exclusively with white, college educted, Southerners over 50 years old? Uhhh...

Link?

Actually came back to delete that post. Josh Marshall at TPM said it appears that's what happened and is looking for more info. Not confirmed yet I guess.Actually the post has been updated since it got to my RSS feed last night:

Getting a massive amount of coverage this morning is the CNN snap poll of the debate, which showed Romney winning the exchanged overwhelmingly.

But the internals of the poll look really strange. If you look at the breakdown of the sample, it doesn’t appear to contain anyone (or doesn’t appear to contain any representative sample) under 50, anyone outside of the South or anyone who’s not white. (See page 8 of this pdf.)

I doesn’t make sense to me that they’d do or release a poll like that. So really curious if anyone has an explanation.

Late Update: We’ve dug in a little deeper on this, and there seems to be a straightforward non-nefarious explanation. It appears that where the subgroups within CNN’s representative sample of 430 voters were too small to yield statistically valid conclusions about the subgroups themselves, CNN declined to publish those results simply because they were not reliable on their own. We’re seeking confirmation from CNN, but this is the most likely explanation — one that is valid. —dk

I guess that those segments were the only ones big enough to be reported as separate.

I hate it when that happens.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

It is hard to speak for an hour and a half of blaming someone else for the issues in the US and not having a plan to fix any of the problems. Let's cut the guy some slack.

I thought Romney did OK. Don't be so harsh on him.

To be fair, Romney has a plan to cut taxes, raise defense spending, raise medicare spending, balance the budget, and buy puppies for orphans. We just aren't privy to the details, other than cutting PBS funding, of course.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I think the takeaway from the debate is that the President is very effective when he gets to speak from prepared remarks. When he has to think on his feet...not so much.

I'm voting for Romney, but to be fair the to the President, Romney has had months to prepare for this debate while Obama was campaigning coast to coastrunning the country.That being said, although Romney won the debate I didn't think it was a "steamroll."

 

[dparker713]

Name one policy which Bush did which caused the housing bubble and financial collaspes.

Kept Greenspan as Fed ChairRelaxed lending standards to up homeownershipEnacted tax cuts which were never paid for2 wars, 1 of choicePrescription drug benefit No Child Left BehindGutted the SEC budgetGutted bankruptcy lawThats just off the top of my head. Both Bushes deserve plenty of the blame for the 2008 collapse, as does Clinton. To give Dubya a pass because he helped prevent a total collapse from a problem he helped create is nothing short of partisan hackery.

Can you explain how No Child Left Behind caused the financial crisis? That's a new one.

Yeah that should be an interesting explanation.

It increased federal, state and local costs of primary and secondary education without a means to pay for such an increase. Therefore, it increased the federal deficit, restricted the ability for municipalities to maintain their job force, and contributed to the increased percentage of GDP occupied by state and local governments.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Truth matters

Well then the subject of Lybia in the next debate ought to be fun.

 

[LHUCKS]

I think the takeaway from the debate is that the President is very effective when he gets to speak from prepared remarks. When he has to think on his feet...not so much.

I'm voting for Romney, but to be fair the to the President, Romney has had months to prepare for this debate while Obama was campaigning coast to coastrunning the country.That being said, although Romney won the debate I didn't think it was a "steamroll."

That's a mischaracterization at best.

 

[LHUCKS]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.

Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

 

[Politician Spock]

Truth matters

Well then the subject of Lybia in the next debate ought to be fun.

Some truth is classified.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I think the takeaway from the debate is that the President is very effective when he gets to speak from prepared remarks. When he has to think on his feet...not so much.

I'm voting for Romney, but to be fair the to the President, Romney has had months to prepare for this debate while Obama was campaigning coast to coastrunning the country.That being said, although Romney won the debate I didn't think it was a "steamroll."

That's a mischaracterization at best.

So is the suggestion that Obama didn't have time to prepare for this debate. If that were true maybe he should have skipped his appearances on The View, Letterman, Oprah, Ellen, and Opie and Anthony.

 

[Slapdash]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

But, as I pointed out to you and you alluded to last night, Romney has no plan for fiscal responsibility.

 

[Politician Spock]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.

Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

What are you talking about? Obama has delivered on every one of his 2008 campaign promises.

 

[LHUCKS]

Truth matters --

Then voters should go back and watch the 2007 debates where Obama lied about his healthcare intentions.

 

[Jackstraw]

If there was ever evidence we are in a "post truth" political world last night was it.

Romney won but I will be interested to see how much pushback they get on several blatant lies.

In particular the 5 trillion tax cut that seems to have vanished.

I think O was pulling some O/T on the Turkey/Syria deal and it showed.

 

[Politician Spock]

Also, I'm fine with Romney lying if that's what it takes to get more fiscal responsibility into the oval office.Obama lied, so I'll consider the parties even if Romney gets in.

But, as I pointed out to you and you alluded to last night, Romney has no plan for fiscal responsibility.

Other than he intends to work positively with congress instead of Obama's negative working relationship with congress (both pre and post 2010)... and congress is where the fiscal responsibility needs to happen. The president can't dictate fiscal policy to congress like Obama has tried over and over again.