1st Presidential Debate Denver

mathproblem

Obama actually spoke 4mins more than Romney.. https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/253684874454659072/photo/1

all pure technically detailed waffle, while Romney came back with the succinct pointed counters to finish.

Duck Soup

Great tweet from Al Roker: "I hope Jim Lehrer gets the license plate of the truck that drove over him in this debate."

Duck Soup

One thing to note is that Romney chose this moment to finally do his pivot to the centre. Obama was prepared for all the things Romney had previously said - $5tn tax cut, disowning Romneycare etc - and call him out on it.

Romney just disowned everything he'd been saying for a year and a half and that left Obama just saying "Huh?"

Thrill

Insta poll by cbs

CBS News ‏@CBSNews Out of 533 uncommitted voters in a @CBSNews / Knowledge Networks instant poll 46% say that Romney won, 22% say Obama won, the rest undecided

Chuck Stone

Who gets to craft the questions?

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Who gets to craft the questions?

Apparently they're submitted by the public.

jimmyjon

Well that was a complete blow-out in Mitt's favour. No gaffes, nice and upbeat, even managed to pull off the seemingly impossible task of being aggressive and critical while not being disrespectful.

Don't know what happened Obama but I suspect it has something to do with not having near enough time to prepare for this on account of presidential duties, seemed exhausted and his optics were terrible throughout.

Sad to say this but Mitt is most definitely back in this race!

Amerika

People got to see Obama unfiltered probably for the first time since he became POTUS. And it appears most aren't happy.

jimmyjon

Amerika wrote: »

People got to see Obama unfiltered probably for the first time since he became POTUS. And it appears most aren't happy.

Nonsense, he was unfiltered in '08 when he played Hillary like a violin in the primary debates and he was also a comfortable winner in each of the McCain debates, when he was calm and in complete command, unlike tonight.

I've no doubt he'll be much better in the subsequent two debates, but he's needlessly let Mitt back into the race.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

They're in meltdown over at MSNBC. It's great!

No they're not. Ed doesn't do melt down. They're being rightfully critical of Obamas below par performance.

[-0-]

Terribly disappointing.

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

They were both rubbish...but critiquely Obama was worse...
It has been suggested by observers that mayb Obama has some pice of news on his mind distracting him..

I think maybe he just had a bad night.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ozymandius2011

CNN poll: Romney wins 55-43 on who is best to handle economy. BTW both findings are from the same CNN poll of debate viewers who are registered voters.

Also: 35% more likely to vote Romney, 14% Obama and 47 neither.

Romney seen as stronger leader 58-37.

Romney seen as more likeable 46-45.

Agree with on healthcare: 52% Romney, 47% Obama

Agree with on tax: 53% Romney, 44% obama

Trust to reduce deficit: 57% Romney, 41% Obama

Agree with on role of govt: 54% Romney, 44% Obama

Interestingly Obama and Romney's favourable ratings largely unchanged, with Romney up slightly from 54% to 57%. CNN also admitting sample is a little more Republican than electorate at large because it was of viewers.

CBS poll also has a 2-1 debate win for Romney.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I said vulnerable, not venerable. They're two different words, with completely different meanings.

[/quote]

Auto correct. I would have thought that was obvious, chuckle away though at my stupidity.

I didn't see much of substance in Obama's contributions tonight. The consensus is that he was hazy, rambling, and unfocused for most of the debate.

He gave exact figures and substantive plans unlike Romney. He did ramble a little, but when doesn't he? Who's consensus?

He most definitely looked shaken. Even the liberal media is acknowledging as much.

Watching MSNBC right now, the only liberal media I know of, no one saying he looked shaken.

You're blinded by political leanings.

Ozymandius2011

Chris Matthews looks shellshocked at Obama's poor performance. Saying Obama should watch MSNBC!

Brian?

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Chris Matthews looks shellshocked at Obama's poor performance. Saying Obama should watch MSNBC!

I think he's baffled at why he's sitting outside.

Brian?

Here's the thing. Mitt won the debate by flip flopping again.

Conas

I watched the debate and I can see right true the Republican's lies, and bulls*it. Romney is like Bush in 2000, fill you up with a load of rubbish, convince people that you'll lead the country, then come inauguration day in 2013 hand over the reins to coporate America, and we'll have more of the same GOP havoc for four years. Romney will manage nothing, because he'll do exactly what's he's told. Not one of them in the this debate is going to lead America through anything, because anyone with a brain can see that the President has limited power these days. The Fed runs America, and ever since that tragic day in Dallas on November 22nd 1963, the whole of America's political system has gone to the dogs ever since. America has had puppet Presidents for decades, the last real one was JFK.

Roll on 2016 when they'll have a real President again in Jesse Ventura.

southsiderosie

briankeating wrote: »

He gave exact figures and substantive plans unlike Romney. He did ramble a little, but when doesn't he? Who's consensus?

You can't ramble in a debate.

briankeating wrote: »

Watching MSNBC right now, the only liberal media I know of, no one saying he looked shaken.

You're blinded by political leanings.

Eh, my twitter and Facebook feed are pretty lefty, and most Obama supporters were pretty despondent.

southsiderosie

briankeating wrote: »

Here's the thing. Mitt won the debate by flip flopping again.

He won because if you take it at face value, he came off as calm, coherent, and prepared.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

southsiderosie wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

He gave exact figures and substantive plans unlike Romney. He did ramble a little, but when doesn't he? Who's consensus?

You can't ramble in a debate.

I agree, you shouldn't ramble in a debate. He lost the debate for that among other reasons. It's the level of negativity I am arguing with, not whether he lost or not. Permabear is talking like it was an abject disaster for Obama, it wasn't. It was a poor performance and he was out debated, to say he didn't look fit to be president etc. is completely over the top.

briankeating wrote: »

Watching MSNBC right now, the only liberal media I know of, no one saying he looked shaken.

You're blinded by political leanings.

Eh, my twitter and Facebook feed are pretty lefty, and most Obama supporters were pretty despondent.

I am disappointed myself. It was no disaster though, as I said above it's the hyperbole I take issue with not the result.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not at all. I'm supporting (and voting for) Gary Johnson, who unfortunately was not included in tonight's debate.

But of the two men on tonight's stage, Romney looked confident, energetic, and presidential, while Obama looked confused, shaken, and defensive.

Even Bill Maher, who donated $1 million to Obama's Super PAC, said on Twitter that the president lost the debate and needs a teleprompter.

Andrew Sullivan's analysis:

Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama's meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.

Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn't there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.

The person with authority on that stage was Romney - offered it by one of the lamest moderators ever, and seized with relish. This was Romney the salesman. And my gut tells me he sold a few voters on a change tonight. It's beyond depressing. But it's true.

There are two more debates left. I have experienced many times the feeling that Obama just isn't in it, that he's on the ropes and not fighting back, and then he pulls it out. He got a little better over time tonight. But he pulled every punch. Maybe the next two will undo some of the damage. But I have to say I think it was extensive.

[/Quote]

Show me where I said Obama won? He didn't.

I take issue with your hyperbole; he did not look vulnerable, shaken or unfit to be president.

I would thank you to debate the points I am making instead of picking one line and responding to it.

You lean right and therefore are much more likely to agree with Romeny's love for supply side economics, that's what I thin is blinding you.

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Chris Matthews looks shellshocked at Obama's poor performance. Saying Obama should watch MSNBC!

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/03/chris_matthews_freaks_out_at_obama_after_debate_romney_was_winning.html

MSBNBC's Chris Mathews freaking our over Obamas poor performance.

I think Democratics are feeling their president let them down. He has been weak towards the GOP during his entire presidency. I don't think Dems will ever choose such a bipartisan candidate again. They have gotten nothing they wanted with him.

It has destroyed morale and made them angry.

I have never seen the Dems be 'the angry party' before it's interesting.

Brian?

southsiderosie wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

Here's the thing. Mitt won the debate by flip flopping again.

He won because if you take it at face value, he came off as calm, coherent, and prepared.

Face value is all he has. Behind that is an policy void.

southsiderosie

briankeating wrote: »

Face value is all he has. Behind that is an policy void.

When has that ever stopped American voters?

Brian?

southsiderosie wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

Face value is all he has. Behind that is an policy void.

When has that ever stopped American voters?

Unfortunately never.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

briankeating wrote: »

I am disappointed myself. It was no disaster though, as I said above it's the hyperbole I take issue with not the result.

Yet if it was the other way around you would be claming the end of Romney's policital career! Its hyperbole what you dont agree, its the truth when you do agree.

jank

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This. I have been reading Andrew Sullivan for years and he has been a passionate supportor of Obama well before the love in that happened prior to Obama beating Clinton for the Democtratic nomination. If HE comes out with a statement like that then the Obama camp has to worry.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You might want to tell that to Andrew Sullivan, as fervent an Obama supporter as you'll find. But maybe you think Sullivan is also too blinded by his love for supply-side economics to formulate an objective opinion?[/Quote]

He's blinded by his love of hyperbole it would seem. Maybe I'm alone here, but I can honestly say Obama's performance wasn't that bad. He was poor at times, yes, but never looked shaken or unsettled. The worst he looked was disinterested.

nagirrac

Obama had his ass handed to him tonight (and I am a supporter and up to now thought he would win in a landslide). He missed every opportunity to respond to Romney's hyperbole (how many times did Romney mention $716B cuts in Medicare and Obama never responded forcefully, ffs allowing a Republican accuse a Democrat of cutting Medicare?). Obama was weak, listless, almost disinterested. It was easily his worst performance in a debate I have seen. He has it all to do in the next two debates and has the additional problem that the VP debate is coming up next and Ryan will likely shred Biden. Lots if simularities to 2004 where Bush was terrible in the first debate against Kerry and then bailed out by Chaney in the VP debate. Would not be very confident of that happening this time.
Americans watch the debates to see who is the more presidential as they realize most of whats being said is spin. Romney won that contest hands down tonight.

jank

jank wrote: »

Romney will do better than people will think. People expect Obama to easily win this but he has everything to lose at this stage. Romney knows that he has to come out and do something otherwise all is lost. The first 30 mins are crucial.
Will it be enough? I dont think so but the race will tighten.

You can thank me all later....

Brian?

jank wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

I am disappointed myself. It was no disaster though, as I said above it's the hyperbole I take issue with not the result.

Yet if it was the other way around you would be claming the end of Romney's policital career! Its hyperbole what you dont agree, its the truth when you do agree.

What? There is no basis for that accusation. When have I ever indulged in such behaviour? This election will be decided in the swing states and the national vote will have 1-2% in it either way, no matter what he does Romney will take this election to the wire. I've always said that.

I honestly don't believe this debate will amount to a hill of beans in the long run. Any of the debates actually.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You might want to tell that to Andrew Sullivan, as fervent an Obama supporter as you'll find. But maybe you think Sullivan is also too blinded by his love for supply-side economics to formulate an objective opinion?[/Quote]

If it gives you any satisfaction I just told Mr Sullivan exactly what I think of his conclusion. It's hyperbolic nonsense.

You are blinded by your love of supply side economics, it puts you cosily in bed with Romney. Sullivan is blinded by disappointment and emotion.

Once again I commend you on responding to only parts of what I have to say.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

Mitt Romney won the debate by lying. He did the ultimate flip flop of reversing every single policy that he has been talking about on the campaign trail. Obama looked like he just couldn't believe how bare faced Mitt Romney could be in his total disregard for facts or reality. Just like he couldn't believe in office that republicans would go against the very policies that they themselves proposed.

It's pretty clever strategy by Romney. If Obama focuses on dismantling his lies then he looks like he doesn't have a policy of his own. If Obama focuses on his own policies (which he did for the most part) then Romney lies pass unchallenged. I still think Obama had to be a lot sharper and take Romney to task.

It's the standard GOP tactic of saying a lot of nonsense in a nicely presented package, doesn't matter whether its grounded in reality or not.

20Cent

One thing Obama is famous for is stepping back and letting his opponent talk themselves into a corner. The exact same things were said in 2008 about his cool demeanor. Romney has so many conflicting policies which change sometimes by the day which makes great fodder for tv ads.
He could have taken a leaf from Ted Kennedy's book though, there is a video on youtube of Kennedy debating Romney. Kennedy asked about specifics of Romneys healthcare plan, Romney replied that his people would provide them to him, Kennedy turns to the camera and says its not me you need to tell its the American public. Would have been good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmF3PkyBAYI

TwoShedsJackson

jank wrote: »

You can thank me all later....

Quoting yourself to make sure everyone knows you were right all along makes you look like a twat.

joseph brand

Expectations were high for Obama, but low for Romney.

I reckon there were points where Obama was puzzled, listening to Romney deny policy proposals he made during his campaign. It must have been like debating a stranger (not Romney).

Also, I, like many others, am perplexed as to why Obama didn't administer any killer blows. There's no reason for him to be soft on his opponent, he's not 'afraid' of him, so my only guess is that he's up to something.

Romney looked the more dishevelled, red-faced, irritated and arrogant as the debate went on. He wasn't exactly 'bullying' Obama, but he did make The President look like a calm, reasonable pacifist.

I thought that I could see real hatred and contempt in Romney's eyes, for Obama.

Judging by the polls, even the Fox 'news' poll, Obama's healthy lead meant that Romney had nothing to lose, and everything to gain. He tried to rile up The President but failed, because Obama kept his eyes on the camera, the moderator and his notes. We all know that it's bad to make eye contact his crazy people.

Based on last nights debate, there won't be any shortage of viewers for the next one/ two. The media are loving this.

Memnoch

Personally, I think Obama lost the election last night. I expect to see the polls narrow significantly over the next few days.

Dave!

Memnoch wrote: »

Personally, I think Obama lost the election last night. I expect to see the polls narrow significantly over the next few days.

He's currently ahead, and there are two more debates to come... Calling that putt a bit early.

Duck Soup

11th October - Veep debate

16th October - Town Hall style debate

22nd October - Foreign Policy debate

The dodgy one for Democrats - even though everyone loves plain-speaking old Joe - is the Veep debate.

The last two are the ones with the potential pitfalls for Romney. Town Hall questions are unpredicatable and will take both candidates off-script. Romney doesn't tend to connect very well with ordinary folk (although he could exceed expectations as he did last night) and the questions are likely to be more pointed and possibly more partisan.

If opening debates are where candidates usually get a poll boost, then foreign policy debates are where the incumbent has the edge. The challenger can cram, but the President has to be personally familiar with details of all major US foreign policy.

Manach

For the town hall debates, Obama might have another "Joe the plumber" event, which would raise issues about him and the blue collar working voters.

joseph brand

Stolen from Reddit:

On one hand, I get the feeling that Obama was sideswiped by the lack of adherence to the rules of the debate by Romney and the complete lack of enforcement thereof by Jim Lehrer. But on the other hand, Mr. Obama came off as deferential and at times even demure, hardly the impression that one would expect to be conveyed by the most powerful man in the nation. Mr. Obama was clearly "off his game" tonight but I do think he was able to goad Mr. Romney into making public about-faces on some key campaign points as far as taxes and healthcare that may not play well under pointed scrutiny. Once again Mr. Romney showed himself to be the opportunistic chameleon that has been the hallmark of his political career. He has shown himself to be willing to reverse himself and his previous convictions 180 degrees when it is politically expedient. While this strategy may have served him well in the business environment to "close the deal", I'm HOPEFUL that the American people will see from his performance tonight just how insincere and sinuous this man can be and what that reveals about the true character he would bring to the highest office in the land. In the final analysis, noone trusts or respects a man who will so easily abandon his convictions for the sake of "making the sale"...

The Romney we saw last night was not the Romney from the campaign trail.

"Won't the real Mitt Romney, please stand up, please stand up!"

I wonder what the fact-checkers will have to say about the debate.

Here's one from (Politifact):

[Romney]Says Barack Obama "put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive."
Mostly False. The board doesn't make individual treatment decisions.

In all fairness, Romney showed himself to be a capable debater last night. What he lacks in specifics and details he tries to make up for in aggressive debating skills. His main platform, and the point he seemed to be hammering away at, was; "I wanna create jobs." Well so does Obama. It's just that Obama sees the big picture and he knows that healthcare, Wall St reform and the safe return of troops are also very important. It's a whole package.

The Romney camp must be wondering why Obama never mentioned Romney's Achilles heel. He never mentioned Romney's tax returns, offshore bank accounts or his 47% remark, to name but a few. Romney had it easy, a little toooooo easy.

Theboinkmaster

joseph brand wrote: »

Stolen from Reddit:


The Romney we saw last night was not the Romney from the campaign trail.

"Won't the real Mitt Romney, please stand up, please stand up!"

I wonder what the fact-checkers will have to say about the debate.

Here's one from (Politifact):

[Romney]Says Barack Obama "put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive."
Mostly False. The board doesn't make individual treatment decisions.

In all fairness, Romney showed himself to be a capable debater last night. What he lacks in specifics and details he tries to make up for in aggressive debating skills. His main platform, and the point he seemed to be hammering away at, was; "I wanna create jobs." Well so does Obama. It's just that Obama sees the big picture and he knows that healthcare, Wall St reform and the safe return of troops are also very important. It's a whole package.

The Romney camp must be wondering why Obama never mentioned Romney's Achilles heel. He never mentioned Romney's tax returns, offshore bank accounts or his 47% remark, to name but a few. Romney had it easy, a little toooooo easy.

And didn't Romney pay some low effective tax last year, like 14%? I thought Obama would be all over that one.

Atlantis50

joseph brand wrote: »

Expectations were high for Obama, but low for Romney.

I reckon there were points where Obama was puzzled, listening to Romney deny policy proposals he made during his campaign. It must have been like debating a stranger (not Romney).

Also, I, like many others, am perplexed as to why Obama didn't administer any killer blows. There's no reason for him to be soft on his opponent, he's not 'afraid' of him, so my only guess is that he's up to something.

Romney looked the more dishevelled, red-faced, irritated and arrogant as the debate went on. He wasn't exactly 'bullying' Obama, but he did make The President look like a calm, reasonable pacifist.

I thought that I could see real hatred and contempt in Romney's eyes, for Obama.

Judging by the polls, even the Fox 'news' poll, Obama's healthy lead meant that Romney had nothing to lose, and everything to gain. He tried to rile up The President but failed, because Obama kept his eyes on the camera, the moderator and his notes. We all know that it's bad to make eye contact his crazy people.

Based on last nights debate, there won't be any shortage of viewers for the next one/ two. The media are loving this.

This is by far the worst analysis of the debate I've seen so far.