Official 2012 Presidential Debate Thread

**Crumbled_pavement** · September-26-12, 06:10 AM

The Schedule:

DATE	TIME [[EDT)	TOPIC	LOCATION	FORMAT	MODERATOR
Wed, 10/3/12	9pm - 10:30pm	Domestic Policy	U of Denver, CO	Standard	Jim Lehrer
Thu, 10/11/12	9pm - 10:30pm	VP Debate Foreign/Domestic	Centre College, Danville, KY	Standard	Martha Raddatz
Tue, 10/16/12	9pm - 10:30pm	Foreign/Domestic	Hofstra Univ, Hempstead, NY	Town Hall	Candy Crowley
Mon, 10/22/12	9pm - 10:30pm	Foreign Policy	Lynn Univ, Boca Raton, FL	Standard	Bob Schieffer

from: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81467.html

The Contestants:
Presidential Candidates: Barack Obama, [[D) vs. Mitt Romney, [[R)
VP Candidates: Joe Biden, [[D) vs. Paul Ryan, [[R)

*Gary Johnson will be left out of the debates because he did not meet minimum polling requirements [[i.e.: the Dems and Reps have a deal to keep third parties out).

This is the official thread to propose questions that both candidates should be asked, debate on what answers they give or fail to give, words or phrases or concepts or talking points they repeat over and over like a broken record, and critique of their overall debate performance.

To get this topic started, I have linked an article from Politico that outlines 10 questions the candidates should be asked.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...682.html?hp=f1

Let the games begin!

**firstandten** · September-26-12, 07:58 AM

I read that Romney has been doing a lot of debate prep. Obama because of his schedule as Pres and Campaigning not as much. The Obama people would like for him to have more debate prep because even though he knows the workings of gov't inside out because he has the job, they feel he may have problems explaning his answers without losing his audience. I believe this first debate which will be on domestic issues will be Romney's best and maybe last chance to get back in the race

**rb336** · September-26-12, 10:09 AM

And Romney only has a chance if the questions are totally predictable and he stays to the memorized script/answers

**Crumbled_pavement** · September-26-12, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by rb336

And Romney only has a chance if the questions are totally predictable and he stays to the memorized script/answers

Both candidates always know what the questions are before they are asked. Neither party will stand for their candidate really having to answer tough questions. Sad, but true.

**firstandten** · September-26-12, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

Both candidates always know what the questions are before they are asked. Neither party will stand for their candidate really having to answer tough questions. Sad, but true.

Thats too bad, because the questions put forth in the Politico piece are the type the people want to hear asked.

**Crumbled_pavement** · September-26-12, 11:37 AM

Gary Johnson isn't taking this laying down.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/Ken...ential-debates

**Crumbled_pavement** · September-28-12, 06:12 PM

And of course no presidential debate can be complete without the drinking game:

http://www.debatedrinking.com/

**Crumbled_pavement** · October-03-12, 09:57 PM

Wow. No one has any comment on the first debate at all?

I think Romney came out a little more crisp that Obama. Romney really needed the win and you can tell he went for it. He had some good answers on healthcare as well as the role of government. Obama basically kept it close, there was no blowout victory for Romney.

Mostly I'd call this a draw or a slight Romney victory. Truth be told, neither candidate said anything new and basically continued saying the exact same things they had been saying. So really, if you missed this debate, no matter what side you're on, you didn't really miss anything.

**3WC** · October-03-12, 10:36 PM

Romney 1 Obama 0

Every commentator I've seen tonight [[on CNN and Fox) has given Romney the victory in the first debate. Every one. Those that didn't claim it was a game changer say it was a momentum changer. A lot of people were shocked and/or enlightened tonight.

**firstandten** · October-03-12, 10:37 PM

I would agree that Romney did well. If nothing else he probably helped with his likeablity ratings. I think that people wanted to see Obama in attack mode and thats just not his style and never has been. Remember I told you a couple of years ago that Obama is as a politican more of a counter-puncher than attacker to use a boxing term. Now we know why Romney hasn't been very specific in his platform up to now. He wanted to save it for the debate, a lot of the stuff he says still doesn't add up but he added some specifics which I predict will come back to haunt him, in the next few debates.

One area that Romney will probably impress people with was early in the debate when he was talking about creating 12 million jobs based on tax breaks to businesses. Now that all sounds good... if you believe the premiss
that tax breaks creates jobs. I happen to believe that tax breaks are good but the driving factor in job creation is demand for your good or service. Tax breaks are just the icing on the cake.

He also gave some convoluted answer about how he will change deductions and exemptions in reforming the tax code. Again, sounds nice but the devil is in the details.

On a bunch of statements Romney came back to the middle especially on the program areas he knew people liked which will probably upset his base.

All in all I thought Romney gave a good performance at a critical time in his campaign. I think that if he didn't he was all but done

I think moving forward now that Obama finally got Romney to pin down some of his plans he will go more in attack mode in the next two debates and Biden will definitely be in attack mode against Ryan.

**rb336** · October-03-12, 10:41 PM

I agree. Neither won any converts, neither lost anyone. The thing is, Romney, after a year of pandering to the right, shook the etch-a-sketch and tried redrawing himself as a moderate

**oladub** · October-03-12, 10:47 PM

First impressions: I watched the event on Cspan to avoid spin. No knockout blows. Both said about what one would expect them to say. Romney had an edge with numbers. Obama was more likable. Both said things the other refuted and then went back to repeating their original points. Romney was a bit more aggressive and not as smooth about demanding and using extra time [[cringe). I would be for cutting mikes when candidates went over. Obama mentioned tax benefits for moving jobs overseas. Romney challenged saying he knew of no such benefit. Obama didn't respond; small point Romney. At the end, both families and candidates were cordial. It was so civilized. However, Romneys outnumbered Obamas and Romney lingered longer for more family camera time. I wondered if that Romney moment was calculated. There was a girl on stage at the end with the families. Anyone know who that was? Cspan just pointed the camera with no explanation. Chris Matthews was disappointed.

**Papasito** · October-04-12, 06:45 AM

Biden will definitely be in attack mode against Ryan.

To Biden's opponents, Biden's Mouth is the gift that keeps giving.
That guy does more bad lines than Tony Montana

**noise** · October-04-12, 07:51 AM

Romney certainly commanded the debate, but as usual, had little substance. That said, Obama was mediocre at best. And that's why he lost. Of course, it probably changes nothing overall.

I'm looking forward to the VP debate. Paul Ryan is obviously not afraid to blatantly lie in public and Joe Biden has absolutely no shame. I am expecting it to be much more entertaining.

**Vic_doucette** · October-04-12, 08:09 AM

I watched the Tigers game. It was more believable.

**Papasito** · October-04-12, 08:24 AM

I'm not Romney's #1 sheep, but theres some things about him a lot of people don't know, and that he's not very good at letting people know about:

Romney donated inheritance money he received from his father:

And while Romney inherited much of his father’s fortune when he died, he did not keep it, instead donating it to charity.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...spoon-comment/

Attacking Romney for paying a 15.4% tax rate is an attack on retirees and seniors who have invested and worked their entire lives [[Romney is 65 years old). Furthermore, Romney donated 16% of his income to charity. [[The Left's constant bombardment of the tax rate paid on investment and interest income gives the obvious perception that they want retirees to pay a working wage earner's tax rates!!)
Obviously anyone who hands over 31.4% of their income in the post-career phase of their life is not as greedy as opponents are implying. Keep in mind, this figure does not include state or local taxes, sales taxes paid on purchases, and other fees and duties. Factor in all the kids he has to raise and a stay at home mom for a wife, and you can see he has a lot on his plate.

Estimated 2011 Tax Return for RomneysHere are details of the estimated 2011 tax return for the Romneys:

Income: $20,908,880
Capital Gains Income: $10,700,179
Dividend Income: $1,905,753
Adjusted Gross Income: $20,901,075
Itemized Deductions: $5,688,179
Charitable Donations: $4,020,572
Taxes Paid: $3,226,623
Effective Tax Rate: 15.4%

Mitt Romney has been scrupulous about observing the requirements of the tax code. His income is reported and taxed in full compliance with U.S. law, and he has paid 100 percent of what he has owed," the campaign said.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Campa...ax-Returns.htm

Here's a shocking fact: Obama is rich, too!

The 44th president of the United States, author and the most popular person in the world, Barack Hussein Obama II, has a net worth between $2,801,012 and $11,830,000, according to analysis of his 2012 financial disclosure forms. Excluding the $1.4 million in Nobel Prize money he donated to charity and his primary home.
http://www.therichest.org/celebnetwo...ama-net-worth/

Not to say money is a bad thing. Personally, I'd prefer someone who has a track record of success as the CEO of America. This used to be a country where success was admired and encouraged.... until all this class warfare crap started. The modern left basks in class warfare, economic envy, and share the wealth., not individualism and definitely not American exceptionalism. JFK and the great Democrats of old would not even recognize the mess this once-great Party has become. Politics first, Country last. Complaining because their opponents won't compromise while NEVER compromising for their opponents. Sending budgets that don't get a single vote. And this is supposed to be a leader.

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...d-99-0-senate/

Last night he looked like a Community Organizer taking on a Statesman.
What a difference it makes when he's not debating a 71 year old man who is afraid to say his middle name...

Don't forget he used to run unopposed when he got his seat...

**noise** · October-04-12, 08:35 AM

It looks to me like the "class warfare" stuff just keeps coming from the conservatives and is not in any way based on the reality of the arguments being made.

Myself, I'm not a lapdog that believes the boss is always right. I don't have much faith in a CEO making the right decisions for the people of this country. Being the president should involve more than looking at numbers.

**Mikeg** · October-04-12, 10:10 AM

President Obama was anything but "presidential" last evening and even his most die-hard supporters in the media were disappointed in his performance.

Joe Klein, Time magazine: “Barack Obama lost it. I mean, he got his butt kicked. It was, in fact, one of the most inept performances I’ve ever seen by a sitting President. . . . Obama’s cool was ice cold. It was 30 minutes into the debate, by my count, before he mentioned an actual human being. Romney was talking about actual people who were ‘crushed’ and ‘buried’ — pace Joe Biden — and ‘hurting’ in his very first answer.”

Ed Schultz of MSNBC: “I think [[Obama) was off his game. I was absolutely stunned tonight.”

Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Beast: “He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.”

Bill Maher, HBO: “Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter.”

Howard Fineman, editorial director of the Huffington Post: “It’s a big wake up call to the Obama campaign with 34 days to go.”

[source]

Ron Fournier, National Journal: "President Obama fell victim Wednesday night to high expectations, a short fuse, and a hungry challenger.... The president looked peeved and flat as he carried a conversation, for the first time in four years, with somebody telling him he’s wrong."

[source]

Mark Halprin, Time Magazine: [Obama] lacked fire and inspiration.... seemed more nervous and tentative than his challenger.....Was frequently scattered and uncertain, almost passive. At other times, tired and disengaged......rarely spoke directly to the American people...... He defended his deficit record by blaming George Bush and claiming credit for spending cuts, then wandered around the topic, getting uncharacteristically lost in the weeds.

[source]

Even the President knew when he was beaten: "Jim, I — you may want to move on to another topic…"

**noise** · October-04-12, 11:31 AM

While most media sources appear to claim Romney won the debate, and rightfully so, I cannot find a single source that discusses the substance of his answers [[outside of the usual fact finders). Clearly, the American people are more interested in a "crisp" presentation than the facts or substance contained in the answers.

**oladub** · October-04-12, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by noise

While most media sources appear to claim Romney won the debate, and rightfully so, I cannot find a single source that discusses the substance of his answers [[outside of the usual fact finders). Clearly, the American people are more interested in a "crisp" presentation than the facts or substance contained in the answers.

Try this:

The First Debate: Mitt Romney's Five Biggest Lies

or this:

12 Obama Debate Lies And Counting…

And then there are 'lies' of omission. In a discussion about the economy, the elephant in the room was the Federal Reserve which we found out in its 2010 partial audit had secretly printed and distributed $16T to banks and, more recently, has instigated QE-Infinity. Neither candidate even mentioned the Fed.

**firstandten** · October-04-12, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by noise

While most media sources appear to claim Romney won the debate, and rightfully so, I cannot find a single source that discusses the substance of his answers [[outside of the usual fact finders). Clearly, the American people are more interested in a "crisp" presentation than the facts or substance contained in the answers.

Thats a good point ! In a debate format such as that. You can say I know of six studies that said the moon is made of green cheese. If you say if with enough conviction and a smile on your face people will actually believe you. The average person doesn't know what to believe when a politican starts throwing out facts like he really knows what he's talking about. Your average person not knowing the facts or context of the statement will fall back on "does it sound reasonable ? " and when I look at this man can I believe what he is saying. Mitt looks charming enough with that big wide grin and the average person starts to buy what he is selling.

Then something like this comes out

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...-during-debate

**Mikeg** · October-04-12, 08:24 PM

Roger Simon, Politico, April 3, 2011, on President Obama: "We will stipulate that he's the greatest orator of modern times."

**noise** · October-05-12, 08:42 AM

Yeah, okay, President Obama said "uh" a lot [[like everyone else in the world) and Romney lied with every answer.

I'm glad our voters are concerned with the important issues. Quick, somebody make a teleprompter comment!

**Papasito** · October-05-12, 10:29 AM

lol Romney "lied".
Ha ha ha

Why don't you just admit when the lord thy god Obama has a bad day?

**firstandten** · October-05-12, 10:30 AM

But noise thats what debates are all about. The focus is on the superficial,,,

Does he look presidential enough ? Did he crack under the pressure ? Did he throw enough zingers or gotcha points out there ?

Now days we should know what the candidates stand for with wall-to-wall media coverage, websites and on and on.

People are getting all wound up over this debate because one candidate was off his game and the other shape-shifted all over the place.

I think its political entertainment pure and simple. I really wonder how many people will truly become enlighten and educated about the candidates as a result.

Also historically and this dates back to Carter and you know we have had mostly repubs presidents during that time that sitting presidents often lose the first debate. There's a lot of reasons for that but one that strikes out is that the challenger can promise the moon on different issues, but the sitting president already knows how unrealistic those promises are but can't go negative without making seem like he's making excuses.