2nd Presidential Debate - Hempstead, New York

Duck Soup

Topic: Town meeting format including foreign and domestic policy

Air Time: Tuesday October 16, 2012: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time

Location: Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York (Tickets)

Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates

Moderator: Candy Crowley (CNN Chief Political Correspondent)

The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which citizens will ask questions of the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. Candidates each will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion. The town meeting participants will be undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization.

*****************************

I'd say the election could hinge on this one. There's no knowing whether Biden's Veep debate performance, stopping the slide in the polls, is temporary or has altered the dynamics permanently.

I still can't figure out what tactics Obama should pursue. Romney obviously can go for just more of the same from the previous debate; that alone keeps Obama on the back foot. But does Obama go back-and-forth with sideswipes or just deal with it simply as direct responses to the town hall questioners, Bill Clinton style, and ignoring whatever Romney's said?

I can see that the Town Hall format could make it difficult to do Biden-style smackdowns. If someone asks you a question from the audience, they and most of the viewers expect you to respond directly to the issues and concerns raised. On the other hand, Obama needs to push back on pretty much all the evasions, misrepresentations and untruths that have arisen and will arise. It's tricky.

If I can't figure out the style, the substance is easier. Hit Romney on the gaping hole in his $6tn tax cut plan; on the auto bail-out; women's reproductive rights and health (particularly defunding Planned Parenthood); Bain Capital and outsourcing; the 47% remark; and if there's the opportunity, maybe tax returns and voucherization of Medicare.

So no pressure then.

Amerika

Well, the Town Meeting format shouldn’t endure another Murky Malarkey McSmirky type performance, but in another twist the Moderator (CNN’s Candy Crowley), who publicly referred to Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as 'some sort of ticket death wish,’ seems to be channeling her inner Sarah Palin, and has decided to go rogue.

In some recent interviews, Crowley has suggested she will assume a broader set of responsibilities in the Town Meeting debate. She has been quoted as saying "Once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?’"

This was not what both campaigns signed onto as the Moderator's role in the Town Meeting debate, and both the Romney and Obama campaigns in a rare case of unity have formally expressed concern to the Commission on Presidential Debates over the Crowley’s self-described role.

I wasn’t too fond of the Moderators performance in the VP debate, when it often looked like it was Biden and his cheerleader Raddatz (who also allowed Biden to degrade the debate process with his tedious antics) debating Ryan. If the Presidential Debate Commission can’t get Moderators to adhere to the agreed formats for the debates, and provide an impartial role, I think the Republicans should take a stand and consider bypassing the PDC in 2016.

http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/14/moderator-role-under-scrutiny-before-the-debate/

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

I think the Republicans should take a stand and consider bypassing the PDC in 2016.

http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/14/moderator-role-under-scrutiny-before-the-debate/

And go where? There have been constant complaints against the moderators in this election cycle. While the Crawley complaint seems legit, does every single institution related to elections in this country have to be discredited in the name of gaining some kind of (temporary) political upper hand?

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

And go where? There have been constant complaints against the moderators in this election cycle. While the Crawley complaint seems legit, does every single institution related to elections in this country have to be discredited in the name of gaining some kind of (temporary) political upper hand?

Perhaps each campaign could submit a list of acceptable moderators, acceptable formats, acceptable rules, and let the League of Women Voters handle the debates, picking mods which appear on both campaign’s list.

When there is a perceived or possible bias based on some pertinent information, it is best to put the questions out there in hopes some public scrutiny might cause a moderator to think twice about being over aggressive in their moderator responsibilities.

Martha Raddatz interrupted Paul Ryan 31 times (and Biden 19 times). Joe Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times. That’s a total of 113 times in a 90 minute debate against Ryan. And if Ryan got half that time speaking, then he had over 2 interruptions per minute on average. Does anyone here think that is a legitimate way for someone to try and formulate important answers, or would it be a constant distraction to anyone in that position. Do you feel the people were served by Raddatz’s lack of control -- I Dont'! Follow-up questions are legit, but those constant interruptions are not!

I still feel Ryan won on content, but he should have closed with something like… It’s been a pleasure debating the two of you!

MrMister

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps each campaign could submit a list of acceptable moderators, acceptable formats, acceptable rules, and let the League of Women Voters handle the debates, picking mods which appear on both campaign’s list.

What's needed is moderators who will be tough on both candidates.

Amerika wrote: »

Martha Raddatz interrupted Paul Ryan 31 times (and Biden 19 times). Joe Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times. That’s a total of 113 times in a 90 minute debate against Ryan.

Maybe if Ryan actually gave a straight answer he wouldn't have been interrupted so much.

Amerika wrote: »

I still feel Ryan won on content, but he should have closed with something like… It’s been a pleasure debating the two of you!

Ryan won on content? What content? When pressed for specifics he wouldn't answer. How can you trust a guy that won't give you any details?

Amerika

Specifics were in short order… we didn’t get many from either of Biden or Ryan. I’ve talked to a number of people who watched the debate, and asked what they remember about the VP debate. "Malarkey" and Biden smirking… seems to be about it. But the overall feeling is Ryan was more believable.

Neither Romney nor Obama will go much into specifics in the next two debates either IMO. It will be more about getting out their visions for the country. Basically, the way I see it is Obama is promising more of the same that we’ve seen the last four years. Romney did hit a home run stating he wants to eliminate any plan that we have to borrow money from China to pay for it. And that will resonate well with the electorate.

Romney’s job is to let the people see him and here him in his own words, to believe a change in leadership is in order, and that he can be trusted to make improvements over and above what we’ve seen from the Obama administration. The shift in the polls indicate Romney has so far accomplished it. But can he keep the momentum going for the next few weeks is the real question. The bleeding seems to have stopped with the Obama campaign, but it hasn't improved.

MrMister

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve talked to a number of people who watched the debate, and asked what they remember about the VP debate. "Malarkey" and Biden smirking… seems to be about it.

Yeah...but why was Biden smirking? Maybe because Ryan was spouting such BS.

Amerika wrote: »

But the overall feeling is Ryan was more believable.

To whom? And why is Ryan more believable to these people?

Amerika wrote: »

Romney did hit a home run stating he wants to eliminate any plan that we have to borrow money from China to pay for it. And that will resonate well with the electorate.

And let me guess...Romney can't name a specific plan that he'd cut. A bit light on the aul specifics is Mitt. It's just another distracting soundbite that lacks any substance.

Amerika wrote: »

Romney’s job is to let the people see him and here him in his own words

They've already seen and heard him in his own words when he made the 47% remarks.

Overheal

southsiderosie wrote: »

And go where? There have been constant complaints against the moderators in this election cycle. While the Crawley complaint seems legit, does every single institution related to elections in this country have to be discredited in the name of gaining some kind of (temporary) political upper hand?

Agreed. Especially notable when it's been done by pundits - they discredit institution A when it is convenient, then something will happen within a few month or weeks that causes them to require the support of that institution.

Like, say, the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Jon Stewart, pointing out that when it suits them, pundits and politicians treat the USBoLS as a monolith of empirical fact, and when it doesn't it's a conspiracy theory:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-8-2012/the-gripes-of-math

And notice how they always say "A lot of people think that..." or "There is widespread belief..." before they spout this drivel. And then they don't do anything to support this claim. We never get to find out who these widespread people are.

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

Agreed. Especially notable when it's been done by pundits - they discredit institution A when it is convenient, then something will happen within a few month or weeks that causes them to require the support of that institution.

Like, say, the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Jon Stewart, pointing out that when it suits them, pundits and politicians treat the USBoLS as a monolith of empirical fact, and when it doesn't it's a conspiracy theory:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-8-2012/the-gripes-of-math

I can't help notice a trend here. Debate moderators, the bureau of labor statistics, the liberal media bias, the polling organisations etc. everyone is wrong but the GOP. They're all out to win the election for Obama.

The hilarity being that the GOP claim victory post both debates so far, the polls are pretty much a statistical tie and the bureau of labour statistics is completely independent. Some day the GOP may have to look at themselves for answers rather than looking elsewhere.

Duck Soup

In fairness, it's a tricky assignment for Crawley to get the balance between the town hall questioners and the unasked questions of the wider audience. A questioner from the floor might tend to ask in personalized terms - how does this affect my Medicare/401(k)/children's education - after which Crawley can do a number of things. Clarify the candidate's response (or ask they give a straighter answer). Go onto a related point arising from the question. Go into a broader context into which the topic sits - for example, if they talk about Syria, how does the US response to what's happening there sit into a cohesive strategy or doctrine.

So no, I don't buy that Crawley is planning to go off the reservation - I think they're just working the ref pre-game. She's simply looking to get the most information extracted from the two debaters in the time allotted.

I just want to see a moderator, at long last, pin down a single worthwhile detail on the Romney tax policy. You're committed to losing $4.8tn over a decade in revenue; you can't sit there and say "We'll figure out how to make up the shortfall later."

Imagine someone going to Bain Capital with a business plan like that. "Invest $100m with us and I promise you that you'll get your money back and then some." "How so?" "Well, you know. Shít will happen. We'll talk to some people. Let's not get bogged down in the details."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

So a month after the Benghazi attack, and repeated denials (some would claim lies) by this administration, I see Hillary Clinton is now taking responsibility for the failures in protecting embassy personnel.

So… How many think in tonight’s debate Barack Obama will now claim "The Buck Stops With Him" regarding the attack? How convenient for Obama only after Hillary has accepted blame. If he does, the base will eat it up, but everyone else will see it for that it is... shameless politicking. And do you think Crowley will call him on it as part of her rogue X,Y,Z follow up plans, or be silent after being overcome with passionate admiration?

poeticseraphim

Anyone got a live link??? PWETTY PLEASE:p:p:p:p?

Thank you.:)

joseph brand

Amerika wrote: »

So a month after the Benghazi attack, and repeated denials (some would claim lies) by this administration, I see Hillary Clinton is now taking responsibility for the failures in protecting embassy personnel.

GOP cut half billion from embassy security before Libya attack.

So Republicans, for a very long time, have done all they can to cut the State Department’s funds, and Paul Ryan and the Republican House majority were no different.

But that’s not stopping Ryan and the Republicans from now yelling about how much they care about embassy security, after they cut it.

The ugly truth is that the same people who are accusing the administration of not providing sufficient security for the American consulate in Benghazi have voted to cut the State Department budget, which includes financing for diplomatic security. The most self-righteous critics don’t seem to get the hypocrisy, or maybe they do and figure that if they hurl enough doubts and complaints at the administration, they will deflect attention from their own poor judgments on the State Department’s needs.

Has Paul Ryan heard about those who live in glass houses?

I really enjoyed when Biden mentioned those two requests he received from Ryan requesting money to stimulate the economy in his district. Biden was wrong. Ryan sent at least four requests.

There goes the liberal media with their facts again! Conservatives are immune to facts though. Time for plan B: Bigger, fatter lies than those promulgated by the Romney/ Ryan camp)

Duck Soup

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Anyone got a live link??? PWETTY PLEASE:p:p:p:p?

Thank you.:)

I think it's live on Sky News - the last one was. Starts at 2am GMT.

Amerika

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Anyone got a live link??? PWETTY PLEASE:p:p:p:p?

Thank you.:)

Streamed live on C-SPAN.
http://www.c-span.org/

The question is... Will CNN do their homework this time around, or repeat their "don’t ask, don’t tell" attitude like they did last town meeting debate in 2008. A simple online search of the questionaires found many of those supposed "undecideds" (who got to ask the questions), were very much decided in their public online postings, and mostly in the (D) camp?

It should be a good debate nonetheless. Obama should do a lot better with this one, as long as he looks like he wants to be there, doesn’t stumble too much, shows empathy, and "feels their pain." The challenge for Romney will be to show that he connects with average Americans.

Brian?

joseph brand wrote: »

There goes the liberal media with their facts again! Conservatives are immune to facts though. Time for plan B: Bigger, fatter lies than those promulgated by the Romney/ Ryan camp)

In fairness it's not just the Romney/Ryan camp, it's the entire GOP fog machine. They love to spray out enough half truths to fog the issue so much it's impossible to see the truth. It's like extremely dense spin.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

It should be a good debate nonetheless. Obama should do a lot better with this one, as long as he looks like he wants to be there, doesn’t stumble too much, shows empathy, and "feels their pain." The challenge for Romney will be to show that he connects with average Americans.

Agreed. I can't see Romney doing well tonight the format shouldn't suit him, he's far too wooden. I could well be wrong though, he might bully his way through again .

Can Romney shoes he connects with the average American? I seriously doubt it. He's campaigning to be Americas CEO, I think he would do far better to stick to that than trying to convince middle class people he feels their pain. Obama should do a far better job with that side.

IMO what Obama needs to do tonigh is go after Romneys business record, bring China up a lot. He should also hammer Mitt on his flip-flops and complete lack of specifics. Being nice is no good to him.

Amerika

Duck Soup wrote: »

In fairness, it's a tricky assignment for Crawley to get the balance between the town hall questioners and the unasked questions of the wider audience. A questioner from the floor might tend to ask in personalized terms - how does this affect my Medicare/401(k)/children's education - after which Crawley can do a number of things. Clarify the candidate's response (or ask they give a straighter answer). Go onto a related point arising from the question. Go into a broader context into which the topic sits - for example, if they talk about Syria, how does the US response to what's happening there sit into a cohesive strategy or doctrine.

If she does, she’ll never be invited back. The Commission on Presidential Debates has informed Crowley that they do not want her to reinterpret audience members' questions. "Our only issue is that the citizen questioners get their chance to pose the question without reinterpretation from the moderator," CPD co-chairman Mike McCurry.

The problem is once Crowley gets the stage, what’s to stop her from going rogue. Can you see the CPD hauling her off in the middle of the debate? I think the CPD is pretty worried over this one. If Crowley ignores their instructions, especially since both campaigns complained to the CPD over her public comments regarding her "perceived" role, the Commission on Presidential Debates may become a thing of the past.

I just want to see a moderator, at long last, pin down a single worthwhile detail on the Romney tax policy. You're committed to losing $4.8tn over a decade in revenue; you can't sit there and say "We'll figure out how to make up the shortfall later."

No, countering points is the candidates job, not the moderator.

Imagine someone going to Bain Capital with a business plan like that. "Invest $100m with us and I promise you that you'll get your money back and then some." "How so?" "Well, you know. Shít will happen. We'll talk to some people. Let's not get bogged down in the details."

That’s exactly what happens when you go to a venture capitalist. You ask for money and present your plan on growth, with the hopes of success and everyone profiting. If there wasn't high risk, then they could get their money from a bank.

Duck Soup

Amerika wrote: »

If she does, she’ll never be invited back. The Commission on Presidential Debates has informed Crowley that they do not want her to reinterpret audience members' questions. "Our only issue is that the citizen questioners get their chance to pose the question without reinterpretation from the moderator," CPD co-chairman Mike McCurry.

Yep, what the CPD signed with the campaigns was a Memorandum of Understanding. That's what the CPD agrees to, and it's unsigned by the moderators themselves. The CPD then undertakes that "the commission shall provide each moderator with a copy of this agreement and shall use its best efforts to ensure that the moderators implement the terms of this agreement". After that, it's up to the moderator to interpret their role.

There's never been a town hall presidential debate where the moderators didn't press the candidates for greater clarity or honesty. To paraphrase The Guardian, the campaigns are worried that Candy Crowley might "commit journalism" during the debate. God forbid the American public should get straight answers.

Amerika wrote: »

That’s exactly what happens when you go to a venture capitalist. You ask for money and present your plan on growth, with the hopes of success and everyone profiting. If there wasn't high risk, then they could get their money from a bank.

I've actually presented the occasional business plan. You lay out, in the greatest detail possible and to the best of your abilities, how much it will cost, how much you expect to sell, who your customers are, what the projected sales trajectory is and how much you're allowing for contingencies.

Go in to Bain Capital with "It's going to cost $100m and I've no idea how I'll get the money back" and you're less likely to get the money and more likely to leave with the imprint of a well-heeled shoe on your arse.

joseph brand

Brian? wrote: »

In fairness it's not just the Romney/Ryan camp, it's the entire GOP fog machine. They love to spray out enough half truths to fog the issue so much it's impossible to see the truth. It's like extremely dense spin.

In both senses of the word.

Be like Nutella

I am 100% expecting Romney to come out tonight and clearly explain how this -20% Tax plan makes sense, mathematically. I fully expect to be left with my jaw ajar as I am awestruck by the genius of his precise explanation.
Why?
Well obviously because anything else surely means all the world is mad... at this point ... and so I am literally hoping he does that... explains it successfully... and wins tonight convincingly and then goes on and wins the election and carries out this genius economy saving idea with vigor and the world will duly thank him for it. Genuinely I hope that's what happens in less than an hours time. It would greatly renew my faith in people if that happens. I will personally send him a thank you letter for finally making any sense of this crazy explanation free mad hatters tea party him and Ryan have decided to host in the last hours of this monumentally embarrassing exhibition of politics that is, the 2012 US Presidential Election.

C'mon Romney!! Please oh please make some god dam sense and explain how the hell this thing works... for me... so that I can sleep. Bring on the explanation!!! lets have it. IF he does, and it makes sense mathematically then he genuinely definitely deserves to be the next US president. I fully expect to be standing clapping at my TV in awe of his explanation in about 40 mins time and I shall be utterly disappointed if he doesn't.

The Bishop!

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I am 100% expecting Romney to come out tonight and clearly explain how this -20% Tax plan makes sense, mathematically. I fully expect to be left with my jaw ajar as I am awestruck by the genius of his precise explanation.
Why?
Well obviously because anything else surely means all the world is mad... at this point ... and so I am literally hoping he does that... explains it successfully... and wins tonight convincingly and then goes on and wins the election and carries out this genius economy saving idea with vigor and the world will duly thank him for it. Genuinely I hope that's what happens in less than an hours time. It would greatly renew my faith in people if that happens. I will personally send him a thank you letter for finally making any sense of this crazy explanation free mad hatters tea party him and Ryan have decided to host in the last hours of this monumentally embarrassing exhibition of politics that is, the 2012 US Presidential Election.

C'mon Romney!! Please oh please make some god dam sense and explain how the hell this thing works... for me... so that I can sleep. Bring on the explanation!!! lets have it. IF he does, and it makes sense mathematically then he genuinely definitely deserves to be the next US president. I fully expect to be standing clapping at my TV in awe of his explanation in about 40 mins time and I shall be utterly disappointed if he doesn't.

:pac:

joseph brand

Streams?

C-span died! Overloaded?

Found one here

IvySlayer

Amazing, Romney didn't answer the question.

IvySlayer

joseph brand wrote: »

Streams?

C-span died! Overloaded?

Sky News website maybe?

nagilum2

Not a sharp first answer from Romney. Obama looks a lot more animated & is talking much faster and cleaner. They definitely gave him a couple Red Bulls before this one, ha.

The Bishop!

IvySlayer wrote: »

Amazing, Romney didn't answer the question.

"More debt. Less jobs. We're gonna change that"

How Mitt? How??

IvySlayer

Wow, Obamas going aggressive, very early!

Aykina

Barack is back :-)
About time, but finally appears to have deigned to join the fray!

Hazys

Obama showing a bit of a bite....thank god

The Bishop!

http://www.wptv.com/generic/news/political/Presidential-debate-live-video

Duck Soup

Nice smackdown from Obama to finish the jobs question. Got in all his points, especially the auto bailouts and Romney's reaction to it.

Overheal

honestly i think his "1 point plan" attack on romney seemed too un-presidential. Like he was actually pissed off as he said it.

nagilum2

Overheal wrote: »

honestly i think his "1 point plan" attack on romney seemed too un-presidential. Like he was actually pissed off as he said it.

It was a bit, but he was clearly wound up to attack, so I'm not surprised if he's a little calibrated more toward the attack mode.

Romney doesn't look nearly as comfortable. Great job by Obama circling back to the original question on jobs with respect to the energy question.

Aykina

Overheal wrote: »

honestly i think his "1 point plan" attack on romney seemed too un-presidential. Like he was actually pissed off as he said it.

Agreed - it's a fine line for him to tread though: last time out he tried to rise above it and it backfired. I'm hoping America wants to see a bit of aggression and fight...

LizT

Sorry if this is a stupid question but can anyone explain the undecided voters graphics with the + and -. What does it mean?

IvySlayer

Energy independent, pipeline from Canada, again :P

IvySlayer

Obama nailed him there!

Romney actually shut down a coal plant?

nagilum2

Obama has clearly been told to harp on the "that simply isn't true" line.

IvySlayer

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!

Hazys

oh it's on!

nagilum2

I can never recall seeing anything like that exchange in any US presidential debate. Ever.

The Bishop!

nagilum2 wrote: »

Obama has clearly been told to harp on the "that simply isn't true" line.

Another "That's just not true"

IvySlayer

Romney 'I will fight for oil, coal and gas'

Except for the coal plant I shut down...

Aykina

Dreadful body language from Obama there, turning his back like that. He does come off as quite disdainful and arrogant...

GRMA

Romney is quite impressive

nagilum2

Amazing. I actually think it's Romney who is hurting himself with over aggression in response to Obama. That's the opposite of what I would have predicted.

Obama's answer on the economy collapse causing the price of oil was a very effective zinger.

dropkickrugby

Aykina wrote: »

Dreadful body language from Obama there, turning his back like that. He does come off as quite disdainful and arrogant...

completely disagree. Romney was on the attack and up in his face.

Obama far ahead already, which is a relief, because if ROmney makes it to the whitehouse we're all f**cked

IvySlayer

Romney trying to bully the moderator again :P

Duck Soup

Oh Romney's tax plan and the deductibles! This should be good.