Official Debate Thread Round III

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
The trend is toward Romney at the moment. I agree it is good, but the movement in the polls today was in Romney's direction. I didn't see anything at all tonight that will change that trend. Romney didn't let them draw him into something foolish and was playing a defense that worked for the Lutz focus group and for many.

If what I saw is right, I'm very happy with the result of tonight's debate.

I was watching CNN's comments and James Carville acts like he wants to be Obama's love slave.
 
Obama won the debate on the merits. I think few people are debating that at this point.

But we have talked about this again and again, that winning on the merits doesn't necessarily translate to gaining votes.

I think romney did a cost benefit analysis before going into this debate, which would have followed this logic:

1) Americans ultimately rank foreign policy as one of their least important issues for this election
2) If romney wins the debate on foreign policy . . . so what? No one cares about foreign policy anyway, however;
3) If he comes off as hawkish, or a warmonger, or a "scary iran bomber" that could drastically hurt him with women and independent voters.
4) Solution: agree with the president on 80% of what he says. Try not to fuck up and don't look crazy. What is the president going to do? Blast him on foreign policy in attack ads over issues that don't register with american voters anyway? Nope. The president can't even go after him that hard on this because he would just be wasting money on something Americans don't care about.

So now we come away with the more broader implications of this debate.

1) Who looked more presidential?
2) Who looks like a strong leader?
3) Who are you more likely to vote for?

These are the results of CNN polling those that watched the debate tonight:

On the question of Can You be Commander in Chief?:

Obama:
63% yes, 36% no.
Romney: 60% yes, 38% no.

Which candidate is more likeable?

Obama:
48%
Romney: 47%

Who are you more likely to vote for?

Obama:
24%
Romney: 25%
No change: 50% (LOL)
 
I didn't listen to Frank Luntz or Fox, or anyone else, really. I made that assessment on my own and stand by it. The problem you're having is the same problem many highly-paid Washington elites and poli-wonks are having, don't feel bad. You simply think of the debate like a simple game, where both candidates are competing on the same terms for a win, and that isn't the case. They are competing for a win, that is for certain, but the criteria for a win is different for both candidates. Romney accomplished his criteria better than Obama, who failed to accomplish his. Romney didn't bury Obama, but he didn't have to. Obama looked petulant and snarky, not like a confident leader at all, and it won't play well for him in the overnights. This will all be reflected in the coming days through polling data, but for now, you pinheads blow a fuse proclaiming victory! Because THAT will just make kicking your asses ever more sweet to me!

You are clearly delusional. Romney is still behind.
 
3) If he comes off as hawkish, or a warmonger, or a "scary iran bomber" that could drastically hurt him with women and independent voters.

Which is exactly why I point out the comments about Ahmadinejad and China. Once more people start talking about his comments those will hurt. Both statements are just nuts and he is trying to tone it down. He can't afford to keep etch a sketching either. The apology tour stuff will also be discredited again.

Obama is now going to go to work on showing Romney has no real plan and is not a serious candidate. He has plenty with which to work.
 
Which is exactly why I point out the comments about Ahmadinejad and China. Once more people start talking about his comments those will hurt. Both statements are just nuts and he is trying to tone it down. He can't afford to keep etch a sketching either. The apology tour stuff will also be discredited again.

Obama is now going to go to work on showing Romney has no real plan and is not a serious candidate. He has plenty with which to work.

they are basically tied on able to be commander in chief, they are tied on likeability, and there are only 2 weeks left in the campaign. And on top of it all, americans don't care about foreign policy as a electoral issue in comparison to the economy, jobs, and taxes.
 
because you are socialist america haters and jealous of us.

If the entire world hates you it is time you understood that you are doing something wrong.
Oh, and please believe this, there is very little that you have or are that makes the rest of the world jealous of you.
You have compromised your freedom.
You remain the most arrogant people on earth.
You invented but no longer understand the concept of marketing.
You are poorly educated.
You believe in fairies,
It is difficult to start a business.
Too many of you are poor.
Millions on food stamps.
No proper health service.
Kill prisoners.
kill school children.

No. Not much to be jealous of.
 
If the entire world hates you it is time you understood that you are doing something wrong.

no, maybe we just have different values. For instance, we like our country and aren't socialist takers like you guys are.

Oh, and please believe this, there is very little that you have or are that makes the rest of the world jealous of you.

you are definitely jealous. look how insecure you are when I say a quick quip about it. If Albania or some other shitty country said America was jealous of them I would probably chuckle for 2 seconds and go about my day. But when we say it to you, it reallllly rustles your jimmies. It gets under your skin because you know it's true :)

You remain the most arrogant people on earth.

Haha, you are about to cry now . . this is great. ;_;

You invented but no longer understand the concept of marketing.
You are poorly educated.
You believe in fairies,
It is difficult to start a business.
Too many of you are poor.
Millions on food stamps.
No proper health service.

Zl07W.gif



Kill prisoners.
kill school children.

I love killing prisoners.

Kill school children? Yes we have an american epidemic of school children always being killed. Holy potatoes what a strawman
 
If the entire world hates you it is time you understood that you are doing something wrong.
Oh, and please believe this, there is very little that you have or are that makes the rest of the world jealous of you.
You have compromised your freedom.
You remain the most arrogant people on earth.
You invented but no longer understand the concept of marketing.
You are poorly educated.
You believe in fairies,
It is difficult to start a business.
Too many of you are poor.
Millions on food stamps.
No proper health service.
Kill prisoners.
kill school children.

No. Not much to be jealous of.

Are you so dense that you're unable to understand that we don't give a rat's ass, about what YOU think.

Now, go think about the past days of the Once Great Britian.
 
no, maybe we just have different values. For instance, we like our country and aren't socialist takers like you guys are.



you are definitely jealous. look how insecure you are when I say a quick quip about it. If Albania or some other shitty country said America was jealous of them I would probably chuckle for 2 seconds and go about my day. But when we say it to you, it reallllly rustles your jimmies. It gets under your skin because you know it's true :)



Haha, you are about to cry now . . this is great. ;_;



Zl07W.gif





I love killing prisoners.

Kill school children? Yes we have an american epidemic of school children always being killed. Holy potatoes what a strawman


You, honestly, have absolutely no idea of what a socialist is nor have you the vaguest understanding of how important to your welfare are the countries that Obama has convinced not to cast you onto the waste tip of history, which is where you were heading under bush, cheney, rumsfeld and the farcical Project for the New American century.

It's being so thick that makes you the butt (in all its meanings) of humour world wide.
 
Why do you think almost every other country supports Obama?

The same reason most mom and pop businesses in a given town "hates" Walmart. When a Republican is president, it generally means huge economic growth and prosperity for the US, which in turn, means the US gets a bigger piece of the worldwide economic pie... other countries want their usual portion of pie, therefore, they support the non-republican candidate.

The thing you should ask yourself is, why in the living fuck would we give two shits what other countries think or who they support?
 
Which is exactly why I point out the comments about Ahmadinejad and China. Once more people start talking about his comments those will hurt. Both statements are just nuts and he is trying to tone it down. He can't afford to keep etch a sketching either. The apology tour stuff will also be discredited again.

Obama is now going to go to work on showing Romney has no real plan and is not a serious candidate. He has plenty with which to work.

I notice you didn't bother to specify what his comments were and why they were "just nuts" and instead, just interjected your opinion without debate on that subject. Guess what, BOZO, the country doesn't all think and act like you, and doesn't share your fucked up opinion the majority of the time. So you're probably just flat out wrong, as usual... but we can't confirm that because you didn't bother to specify what you thought was nuts.
 
Obama won the debate on the merits. I think few people are debating that at this point.

I'll debate it, because it isn't true.

What the hell does that even mean? Merit? Is that "code word" for he lied more than the other guy did? If that's the case, he won on merit! No moron, Obama didn't "WIN" any goddamn thing. You can think that if you like, or you can say that if you think it consoles the pinhead masses to hear it, but it's just not the reality of the situation.


But we have talked about this again and again, that winning on the merits doesn't necessarily translate to gaining votes.

There is no "winning on merit" and it doesn't matter because the purpose and objective is to gain VOTES! THAT IS THE ONLY "MERIT!"
 
I think romney did a cost benefit analysis before going into this debate, which would have followed this logic...

There was no "cost benefit analysis" here, it's like I explained earlier, you had two candidates who both had to do completely different things to "WIN" the debate. You're using a simple-minded analysis, presuming they had to both do the same thing to win... score "merit" points, or whatever. And you somehow think Obama scored more of these "merit" points than Romney, who was somewhat subdued.

Obama LIED his ass off, all the way through the debates. CNN has already called him out on some of his whoppers... CNN! In my book, if you stand up there in front of the American people and just fucking tell one lie after another, that isn't scoring "merit" points, that's burying yourself politically. But Obama didn't have a choice, his criteria for winning the debate was to humiliate Romney, and he FAILED to do that. He tried! He pulled out all the stops, he sneered, snarked, and looked like a petulant teenager, not an incumbent president. Romney's criteria for a win was much less difficult, he merely had to present himself honorably, and make a good impression. He did that, in spades. He didn't get tricked into attacking Obama, he didn't take to the gutter, he remained above the fray and looked very presidential. HE WON... hands down! Because he did what he needed to do better than Obama, who FAILED.
 
Most americans ultimately don't rank foreign policy very high on their list of priorities. So how do the candidates grab voters with a debate format that lends itself to discussing something everyone is ambivalent about?

Keyword: Broad Strokes

Tonight is all about who will be seen as

1) a more capable leader
2) more trust worthy
That may be true Grind but that's a shame and it shows a lack of understanding that implementing foreign policy is a Presidents most important job. Look at what an unmittigated disaster George W. Bush was because of his incompetence at foreign policy. Due to it not only did over 100,000 innocent people die but it also accounts directly or indirectly for more than half of our national debt.
 
That is NOT what was said.
He said you have less (sic) bayonets and horses than you had in 1916.
LOL I think the debate was fairly even. An incumbant President usually has the advantage in foreign policy....W being an exception. Obama had the best two zingers of the night "The 80's have called, they want their foreign policy back" and "We have these things called aircraft carriers and submarines and we also have less horses and bayonets"
 
Back
Top