Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (3 Viewers)

[Jewell]

Mr. President, there currently are rumors swirling around the tabloids (Enquirer, Star, etc.) that you were a regular on the gay bathhouse circuit in Chicago and also that you specifically created a superfluous position on your cabinet for gay actor Kal Penn in order for you two to be 'closer'. Why have you not done more for gay rights in your tenure as president?

I had no clue Kal Penn was gay. Learn something new everyday.

 

[Jewell]

I watched the first debate and thought Romney dominated. I later listened to the first debate and thought the Rmney won, but not as decisively as when I watched. That discrepancy probably has a lot to do with Obama's negative body language which I expect he's worked on and we won't see again tonight.

 

[timschochet]

Abortion will no doubt be a topic of discussion and this will provide him an opportunity to score some points.

Most of your post makes a lot of sense - and I agree with virtually everything posted in terms of what each candidate needs to do. I do have to take issue with one thing you said - the above sentence. Based on recent gallup numbers (here) - If 50% of Americans are pro-life, with only 41% identifying themselves as pro-choice, wouldn't that lose him points? Especially with independent voters, of whom 47% are pro-life as compared to 41% pro-choice. That's a huge swing from where both groups were in 2008. My point is, that in 2008 he could have (and probably did) score points against the Republicans by making his pro-choice stance clear - in 2012, when more independents and more of the general population claim to be pro-life, I am not so sure that will work nearly as well as it did 4 years ago.

You may very well be correct. I think the reason democrats raise the abortion debate more often is because they feel they can energize younger and single women to vote. In their view, a large enough voting bloc of women, who would otherwise stay home, get up and vote if they are convinced republicans are going to take away their "right" to an abortion. They must feel this outweighs the negatives. I guess I just assumed this was correct because you see democrats bringing up pro-choice a lot more often than you see republicans bringing up pro-life. I would be happy to be wrong about this.edited to add: I think Romney would be wise to bring up Obama's support of partial birth abortion.

Ummm...yes.

Wrong. ANY discussion of abortion, including partial birth abortion, only favors Obama. This is because when we go deeper into the numbers, we find that pro-life people who see abortion as a decisive factor are already going to vote for Romney. The ones who are up for grabs are suburban women, who are largely pro-choice. Romney's best option is to simply change the subject. He cannot gain any votes whatsoever by talking about it, even about partial birth abortion.

 

[DoubleG]

Abortion will no doubt be a topic of discussion and this will provide him an opportunity to score some points.

Most of your post makes a lot of sense - and I agree with virtually everything posted in terms of what each candidate needs to do. I do have to take issue with one thing you said - the above sentence. Based on recent gallup numbers (here) - If 50% of Americans are pro-life, with only 41% identifying themselves as pro-choice, wouldn't that lose him points? Especially with independent voters, of whom 47% are pro-life as compared to 41% pro-choice. That's a huge swing from where both groups were in 2008. My point is, that in 2008 he could have (and probably did) score points against the Republicans by making his pro-choice stance clear - in 2012, when more independents and more of the general population claim to be pro-life, I am not so sure that will work nearly as well as it did 4 years ago.

You may very well be correct. I think the reason democrats raise the abortion debate more often is because they feel they can energize younger and single women to vote. In their view, a large enough voting bloc of women, who would otherwise stay home, get up and vote if they are convinced republicans are going to take away their "right" to an abortion. They must feel this outweighs the negatives. I guess I just assumed this was correct because you see democrats bringing up pro-choice a lot more often than you see republicans bringing up pro-life. I would be happy to be wrong about this.edited to add: I think Romney would be wise to bring up Obama's support of partial birth abortion.

Ummm...yes.

Wrong. ANY discussion of abortion, including partial birth abortion, only favors Obama. This is because when we go deeper into the numbers, we find that pro-life people who see abortion as a decisive factor are already going to vote for Romney. The ones who are up for grabs are suburban women, who are largely pro-choice. Romney's best option is to simply change the subject. He cannot gain any votes whatsoever by talking about it, even about partial birth abortion.

You didn't read the link, did you.

 

[sublimeone]

Abortion will no doubt be a topic of discussion and this will provide him an opportunity to score some points.

Most of your post makes a lot of sense - and I agree with virtually everything posted in terms of what each candidate needs to do. I do have to take issue with one thing you said - the above sentence. Based on recent gallup numbers (here) - If 50% of Americans are pro-life, with only 41% identifying themselves as pro-choice, wouldn't that lose him points? Especially with independent voters, of whom 47% are pro-life as compared to 41% pro-choice. That's a huge swing from where both groups were in 2008. My point is, that in 2008 he could have (and probably did) score points against the Republicans by making his pro-choice stance clear - in 2012, when more independents and more of the general population claim to be pro-life, I am not so sure that will work nearly as well as it did 4 years ago.

You may very well be correct. I think the reason democrats raise the abortion debate more often is because they feel they can energize younger and single women to vote. In their view, a large enough voting bloc of women, who would otherwise stay home, get up and vote if they are convinced republicans are going to take away their "right" to an abortion. They must feel this outweighs the negatives. I guess I just assumed this was correct because you see democrats bringing up pro-choice a lot more often than you see republicans bringing up pro-life. I would be happy to be wrong about this.edited to add: I think Romney would be wise to bring up Obama's support of partial birth abortion.

Ummm...yes.

Wrong. ANY discussion of abortion, including partial birth abortion, only favors Obama. This is because when we go deeper into the numbers, we find that pro-life people who see abortion as a decisive factor are already going to vote for Romney. The ones who are up for grabs are suburban women, who are largely pro-choice. Romney's best option is to simply change the subject. He cannot gain any votes whatsoever by talking about it, even about partial birth abortion.

I think you're right about everything but the partial birth abortion bit. Seems most pro-choicers even find this act reprehensible.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

"Mr. President, by all accounts you've squandered many of your opportunities, and failed to deliver on many of your promises. Instead of unifying people, you became combative. Instead of leading a new era of government, you relied on Pelosi and Reid to craft your agenda for you. You didn't close Guantanamo, you didn't get us out of Iraq, our foreign policy is in shambles and the financial recovery has been anemic at best. You were given the trust of the American people four years ago, and you blew it. Honestly, what happened???"

I hate reporters who do this. ("is there a question in there somewhere?")

Congress happened. Next question.

 

[sublimeone]

Abortion will no doubt be a topic of discussion and this will provide him an opportunity to score some points.

Most of your post makes a lot of sense - and I agree with virtually everything posted in terms of what each candidate needs to do. I do have to take issue with one thing you said - the above sentence. Based on recent gallup numbers (here) - If 50% of Americans are pro-life, with only 41% identifying themselves as pro-choice, wouldn't that lose him points? Especially with independent voters, of whom 47% are pro-life as compared to 41% pro-choice. That's a huge swing from where both groups were in 2008. My point is, that in 2008 he could have (and probably did) score points against the Republicans by making his pro-choice stance clear - in 2012, when more independents and more of the general population claim to be pro-life, I am not so sure that will work nearly as well as it did 4 years ago.

You may very well be correct. I think the reason democrats raise the abortion debate more often is because they feel they can energize younger and single women to vote. In their view, a large enough voting bloc of women, who would otherwise stay home, get up and vote if they are convinced republicans are going to take away their "right" to an abortion. They must feel this outweighs the negatives. I guess I just assumed this was correct because you see democrats bringing up pro-choice a lot more often than you see republicans bringing up pro-life. I would be happy to be wrong about this.edited to add: I think Romney would be wise to bring up Obama's support of partial birth abortion.

Ummm...yes.

Wrong. ANY discussion of abortion, including partial birth abortion, only favors Obama. This is because when we go deeper into the numbers, we find that pro-life people who see abortion as a decisive factor are already going to vote for Romney. The ones who are up for grabs are suburban women, who are largely pro-choice. Romney's best option is to simply change the subject. He cannot gain any votes whatsoever by talking about it, even about partial birth abortion.

You didn't read the link, did you.

I don't know a lot about his topic, but I know African-Americans are largely pro-life, yet they are going to vote for Obama by about a 95-5 margin... that's gotta skew the numbers a bit.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Debate is already over - it's meaningless.

Honey Boo Boo has officially endorsed Obama. Game over for Romney with serious backing like this for Obama.

 

[drummer]

Debate is already over - it's meaningless.

Honey Boo Boo has officially endorsed Obama. Game over for Romney with serious backing like this for Obama.

Your running buddy already posted a thread about it.

 

[timschochet]

Abortion will no doubt be a topic of discussion and this will provide him an opportunity to score some points.

Most of your post makes a lot of sense - and I agree with virtually everything posted in terms of what each candidate needs to do. I do have to take issue with one thing you said - the above sentence. Based on recent gallup numbers (here) - If 50% of Americans are pro-life, with only 41% identifying themselves as pro-choice, wouldn't that lose him points? Especially with independent voters, of whom 47% are pro-life as compared to 41% pro-choice. That's a huge swing from where both groups were in 2008. My point is, that in 2008 he could have (and probably did) score points against the Republicans by making his pro-choice stance clear - in 2012, when more independents and more of the general population claim to be pro-life, I am not so sure that will work nearly as well as it did 4 years ago.

You may very well be correct. I think the reason democrats raise the abortion debate more often is because they feel they can energize younger and single women to vote. In their view, a large enough voting bloc of women, who would otherwise stay home, get up and vote if they are convinced republicans are going to take away their "right" to an abortion. They must feel this outweighs the negatives. I guess I just assumed this was correct because you see democrats bringing up pro-choice a lot more often than you see republicans bringing up pro-life. I would be happy to be wrong about this.edited to add: I think Romney would be wise to bring up Obama's support of partial birth abortion.

Ummm...yes.

Wrong. ANY discussion of abortion, including partial birth abortion, only favors Obama. This is because when we go deeper into the numbers, we find that pro-life people who see abortion as a decisive factor are already going to vote for Romney. The ones who are up for grabs are suburban women, who are largely pro-choice. Romney's best option is to simply change the subject. He cannot gain any votes whatsoever by talking about it, even about partial birth abortion.

You didn't read the link, did you.

I looked at it. First off, I have to state that I'm skeptical that a majority of Americans want Roe vs. Wade repealed. But even if you're correct, it's irrelevant. The only numbers that are relevant are those people who will vote in elections with this as a primary issue. Most of the people that will are pro-life conservatives who would never vote for Obama anyhow. The others are suburban women who are largely pro-choice. Therefore, Romney loses if this subject is discussed at length.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Debate is already over - it's meaningless.

Honey Boo Boo has officially endorsed Obama. Game over for Romney with serious backing like this for Obama.

Your running buddy already posted a thread about it.

What? I haven't seen cr8f since Walker won the recall.

 

[drummer]

Debate is already over - it's meaningless.

Honey Boo Boo has officially endorsed Obama. Game over for Romney with serious backing like this for Obama.

Your running buddy already posted a thread about it.

What? I haven't seen cr8f since Walker won the recall.

I meant meatwad. Something about if there were riots.

 

[timschochet]

Abortion will no doubt be a topic of discussion and this will provide him an opportunity to score some points.

Most of your post makes a lot of sense - and I agree with virtually everything posted in terms of what each candidate needs to do. I do have to take issue with one thing you said - the above sentence. Based on recent gallup numbers (here) - If 50% of Americans are pro-life, with only 41% identifying themselves as pro-choice, wouldn't that lose him points? Especially with independent voters, of whom 47% are pro-life as compared to 41% pro-choice. That's a huge swing from where both groups were in 2008. My point is, that in 2008 he could have (and probably did) score points against the Republicans by making his pro-choice stance clear - in 2012, when more independents and more of the general population claim to be pro-life, I am not so sure that will work nearly as well as it did 4 years ago.

You may very well be correct. I think the reason democrats raise the abortion debate more often is because they feel they can energize younger and single women to vote. In their view, a large enough voting bloc of women, who would otherwise stay home, get up and vote if they are convinced republicans are going to take away their "right" to an abortion. They must feel this outweighs the negatives. I guess I just assumed this was correct because you see democrats bringing up pro-choice a lot more often than you see republicans bringing up pro-life. I would be happy to be wrong about this.edited to add: I think Romney would be wise to bring up Obama's support of partial birth abortion.

Ummm...yes.

Wrong. ANY discussion of abortion, including partial birth abortion, only favors Obama. This is because when we go deeper into the numbers, we find that pro-life people who see abortion as a decisive factor are already going to vote for Romney. The ones who are up for grabs are suburban women, who are largely pro-choice. Romney's best option is to simply change the subject. He cannot gain any votes whatsoever by talking about it, even about partial birth abortion.

I think you're right about everything but the partial birth abortion bit. Seems most pro-choicers even find this act reprehensible.

That's because they don't understand it. Partial birth abortions are extremely rare, and 99% of them are used for doomed fetuses, hydrocephalic and similar issues in which birth may present long term harm to the mother. The notion of the woman who decides for no apparent reason to have an abortion at the last second is a complete fabrication. Far from reprehensible, partial birth abortions can be a positive good and I am very glad they are legal.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Debate is already over - it's meaningless.

Honey Boo Boo has officially endorsed Obama. Game over for Romney with serious backing like this for Obama.

Your running buddy already posted a thread about it.

What? I haven't seen cr8f since Walker won the recall.

I meant meatwad. Something about if there were riots.

I don't follow. People are going to riot because of Honey Boo Boo's endorsement of Obama? It's just one shallow clown endorsing another. Why riot?

 

[jon_mx]

Abortion will no doubt be a topic of discussion and this will provide him an opportunity to score some points.

Most of your post makes a lot of sense - and I agree with virtually everything posted in terms of what each candidate needs to do. I do have to take issue with one thing you said - the above sentence. Based on recent gallup numbers (here) - If 50% of Americans are pro-life, with only 41% identifying themselves as pro-choice, wouldn't that lose him points? Especially with independent voters, of whom 47% are pro-life as compared to 41% pro-choice. That's a huge swing from where both groups were in 2008. My point is, that in 2008 he could have (and probably did) score points against the Republicans by making his pro-choice stance clear - in 2012, when more independents and more of the general population claim to be pro-life, I am not so sure that will work nearly as well as it did 4 years ago.

You may very well be correct. I think the reason democrats raise the abortion debate more often is because they feel they can energize younger and single women to vote. In their view, a large enough voting bloc of women, who would otherwise stay home, get up and vote if they are convinced republicans are going to take away their "right" to an abortion. They must feel this outweighs the negatives. I guess I just assumed this was correct because you see democrats bringing up pro-choice a lot more often than you see republicans bringing up pro-life. I would be happy to be wrong about this.edited to add: I think Romney would be wise to bring up Obama's support of partial birth abortion.

Ummm...yes.

Wrong. ANY discussion of abortion, including partial birth abortion, only favors Obama. This is because when we go deeper into the numbers, we find that pro-life people who see abortion as a decisive factor are already going to vote for Romney. The ones who are up for grabs are suburban women, who are largely pro-choice. Romney's best option is to simply change the subject. He cannot gain any votes whatsoever by talking about it, even about partial birth abortion.

I think you're right about everything but the partial birth abortion bit. Seems most pro-choicers even find this act reprehensible.

That's because they don't understand it. Partial birth abortions are extremely rare, and 99% of them are used for doomed fetuses, hydrocephalic and similar issues in which birth may present long term harm to the mother. The notion of the woman who decides for no apparent reason to have an abortion at the last second is a complete fabrication. Far from reprehensible, partial birth abortions can be a positive good and I am very glad they are legal.

If you believe the ultra-pro abortion The Guttmacher Institute, which you always blindly believe ultra-leftist organizations and completely mistrust anything associated with the right. Guttmacher is known to vastly underestimate late-term abortion.

 

[tommyboy]

Obama comes out in gold trousers, with black gloves, he's really worked up. Look at him he looks ready to do some damage tonight.

There they are taking the referees instructions, look at his eyes, have you ever seen such determination Jim?

Jim: no, he looks like he's ready to...

wtf, Obama just uppercut Romney before the ref finished his instruction....

ROMNEY *IS DOWN", ROMNEY IS ON HIS BACK REACHING, the ref marks the count, 3, 4....ROmnney is trying to get to his feet, reaching for the rope....REF Signals 7, 8, 9.

ITS OVER. Obama is jumping up and down, tears in his eye. Have you ever seen such a viscious left uppercut Jim?

Jim: No....

Well that does it for tonight folks, see you in two weeks for the final debate.

 

[Parrothead]

Godfather I or II?

 

[DoubleG]

First off, I have to state that I'm skeptical that a majority of Americans want Roe vs. Wade repealed. But even if you're correct, it's irrelevant. The only numbers that are relevant are those people who will vote in elections with this as a primary issue. Most of the people that will are pro-life conservatives who would never vote for Obama anyhow. The others are suburban women who are largely pro-choice. Therefore, Romney loses if this subject is discussed at length.

First off, in regards to the Roe v. Wade comment, that's not what the article in the link is suggesting - it didn't ask that question - nor is it what Romney's position is.In regards to the bolded, which you keep repeating as if it is fact (that Suburban women are pro-choice - and will automatically side with Obama) - that doesn't appear to be the case universally - and it's shifting: Oct. 11 poll

The link provided is Illinois specific, so clearly doesn't state the case for everyone. But keep in mind, Obama is from Chicago, so he should have a stronger showing in Illinois than anywhere else.

 

[timschochet]

Some liberal on CNN just said that Obama should bring up global warming. Just like Romney with abortion, that would be a huge mistake for Obama, IMO. The last thing people worried about jobs in Ohio want to hear about is climate change.

 

[chet]

Come on Obama, do the country a favor and lay another turd tonight.

 

[DoubleG]

Some liberal on CNN just said that Obama should bring up global warming. Just like Romney with abortion, that would be a huge mistake for Obama, IMO. The last thing people worried about jobs in Ohio want to hear about is climate change.

Now this I agree with you on.

 

[Run It Up]

Alright, Mitt im gonna need you to tell about the same ratio of lies per truths spoken. Something along the lines of 10:1.

Also gonna need people to actually care.

 

[Boston]

Candy looks like an SNL character...

 

[Andy Dufresne]

SHE'S A MAN, BABY!

 

[drummer]

Yo, Epstein!

 

[The Kerminator]

That broad has broad shoulders.

 

[drummer]

*cough, cough*

 

[KiddLattimer]

Kid with the first question looked like he was going to #### his pants

 

[Boston]

Kid with the first question looked like he was going to #### his pants

I'm betting he did...

 

[meatwad1]

Romney hammering on jobs...what will Obama say?

Oh wait...he says the kid's future is bright....oh, he is talking about good paying jobs....what a dolt....

 

[drummer]

I think I might be able to take more than 5 minutes of this crap.

 

[chet]

LOL at telling the college grad he's going to grow manufacturing jobs.

FAIL OBAMA

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Kid with the first question looked like he was going to #### his pants

I'm betting he did...

Cripes, who wouldn't?

 

[PatriotJohn]

Neither is answering the question...just talking points

 

[Ursa M]

Romney is busy giving yet more money away - top 25% of HS getting free college? Is that what he said?

 

[The Kerminator]

Did either one answer the question asked?

 

[drummer]

LOL at telling the college grad he's going to grow manufacturing jobs.FAIL OBAMA

chet keeping score is total lulz.

 

[southeastjerome]

MSNBC just declared Obama the winner.

 

[RBM]

Bad, bad, bull#### answers by both. Neither came close to answering the whippersnappers question.

 

[Plorfu]

Kid with the first question looked like he was going to #### his pants

He was staring dead ahead into the eyes of the only two realistic choices he has for President. I'd #### my pants, too.

 

[GoBirds]

Im sure this kid is pumped for green jobs and manufacturing, ugh

 

[Stinger Ray]

Did Obama just say they have invested in oil?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I hate both those answers.

 

[Boston]

Did either one answer the question asked?

20 seconds after each guy talks you forget what the question was...

 

[Boston]

Im sure this kid is pumped for green jobs and manufacturing, ugh

Just think Kid...you can be just like Laverne & Shirley...

 

[Ursa M]

Romney - regular bankruptcy would have closed GM because no bank could lend them money.

 

[drummer]

Im sure this kid is pumped for green jobs and manufacturing, ugh

It's a job.

 

[The Kerminator]

Isn't this getting tiring Mr. President?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Obama a lot feistier this time around.

 

[Thunderlips]

LOL at telling the college grad he's going to grow manufacturing jobs.FAIL OBAMA

Someone's got to own the factory.