How did the debate go?

October 4, 2012 • 9:01 am

I don’t have time to acccess the U.S. news, but I’ve heard reports that Obama sucked during the debate last night. Frankly, I was surprised, but I’m going to ask readers to let me know what happened? Did Romney really have a coherent plan (as I’ve heard) to improve the economy?

Help out an itinerant Ceiling Cat!

135 thoughts on “How did the debate go?”

  1. Here’s what George Lakoff says:

    “Why Obama Lost the First Debate

    by George Lakoff
    Oct. 4, 2012

    You don’t win a presidential debate by being a policy wonk. Obama violated all the basics of presidential debating. The best defense is a good offense. You have to set the terms of the debate and press those terms. Obama failed. Here are those basics:

    State your moral values. Contrast them with your opponent’s.
    Project empathy and enthusiasm. Connect.
    Communicate clearly and simply.
    Be authentic. Say just what you believe.
    Project trust.
    Present an authentic view of yourself that the public can identify with and be proud of.

    Obama did none of this. Instead he talked about policy details.

    He needed to come on strong from the first sentence.

    Democracy is based on citizens caring about and taking responsibility for both themselves as for the well-being of all. Government is the instrument that citizens use to guarantee protection and empowerment for all. We all, together, provide what is needed for a decent life. Individual accomplishment rests on what other Americans have provided and keep providing.

    Building the economy requires public investment — in public infrastructure, education, research, and much more.

    Success is much more than money. It is your contribution to America as a whole — whether it is teaching, raising children, providing food, healing the sick, making useful products, guaranteeing our rights and our safety, or running businesses that make life better. America needs us all. And we all depend on each other. Personal responsibility is necessary. But it doesn’t

    Obama made a lame attempt to correct Jim Lehrer’s use of “entitlements.” He should have pointed out that such money is earned through a life. People have worked for, and contributed earnings.

    All policies rest on morality — upon being the right thing to do. Obama needed to make the case that it is right, as well as to support women’s rights, and gay rights, safe food, education, basic research, and on and on.

    Obama believes this. To win, he needs to say what he believes, and press Romney.”

    2. All policies rest on morality — upon being the right thing to do.

      huh.

      and how does one go about figuring what the “right” thing to do is?

      no, this is entirely circular reasoning on George’s part.

      1. Assume he means local ideology of “fairness” and some gut sense of yes/no. But am guessing.

        He has extensive writings so assume he explains it somewhere.

  2. I flipped off the debate and flipped between the Yankees/Red Sox and Rays/Orioles… much more enjoyable watching people who know what they are trying to do. 😉

  4. The clips I heard Obama spoke in mini lectures direct to camera & sounded a little distant. Romney’s voice reminded me of Reagan for some reason. It makes little difference to me as which of them wins – neither one will do a damn thing about the environmental issues that really need addressing on a world stage. OK perhaps Obama will pay lip service to them…

    1. Romney’s voice reminded me of Reagan

      I listened to as much as I could stand on the radio, and I noticed that too. Coincidence or clever coaching, I wonder.

    2. “It makes little difference to me as which of them wins”

      I despise people like that so much.

  5. I thought Obama did fine with respect to Romney. Then again, I prefer people who can transition from general statements and vague ideas to detailed specifics when pressed. Apparently, Obama being able to state with some degree (minor though it was) actual details about policy implications is considered by pundits to be a trait that a president shouldn’t have. Or, if s/he does have the ability to do so, should be sufficiently embarrassed about it and never ever display the ability to actually analyze data.

    The funniest part was the small business definition of Romney’s that, according to Obama, includes small businesses/business owners like Donald Trump. Romney responded to that by saying it isn’t just Donald Trump who’d be counted as a small business. I chuckled.

    Otherwise, it was like most presidential ‘debates’ – that is to say it was more of a joint press conference than anything else.

    1. Yeah, I picked up on that “small business” business, too. What I hoped was that Obama come back with Bain as a small business, hedge funds are small businesses.

  6. Romney was aggressive and a liar. He came on like a salesman and was bold and energetic. Obama was too diplomatic and seemed intimidated by the Mormon elder. Jim Lehrer was a lousy moderator. Romney had nothing to lose so he attacked Lehrer and Obama. His gamble paid off. He left the impression that he was a strong executive. Obama was too cordial and lacked the desire to defend his administration with vigor.
    The so called debate was an exercise in smoke and mirrors and Romney lives in and dominates that world.

    1. “Jim Lehrer was a lousy moderator.”

      Pray, tell, how so? What would you have had him do? Throw good manners and decorum to the wind and talk loudly and interrupt Romney and keep talking and interrupting until even Romney backed down? That would have been a real show. Obama was occasionally congenially persistent in pressing beyond Lehrer’s cutoff. Romney was just corporate tyrant rude.

      1. how so??

        Romney stepped on Obama any number of times.

        I rather thought the moderator was supposed to curb that in a debate.

        I suggest you try sitting in on a real debate sometime, as these presidential debates are really more like two guys talking past each other than an actual debate.

        moderators typically play a much more active role.

        that said, again, this IS a presidential “debate”, and as such, the moderator’s role is typically just to present questions.

        they really should just call them “presenters” instead of moderators.

        1. Yes, I’m aware of real debates.

          And, as you say:

          ” . . . that said, again, this IS a presidential “debate”, and as such, the moderator’s role is typically just to present questions. they really should just call them “presenters” instead of moderators.”

          So, if the name of Lehrer’s function was changed to “presenter,” that would put a stop to the invective hurled his way?

    2. Yes, what did you expect Lehrer to do, pound on the table with his shoe Khruschev-like and shout, “GOVERNOR, PLEASE SHUT THE #@<% UP!"???

      AMERICAN POLITICS strikes me as a smoke-and-mirrors enterprise (not just political debates).

      1. That would be awesome, actually. But, no, I don’t think anyone can reasonably expect that.

    1. ayup. best description of Romney’s technique:

      “It was as if Ronald Reagan employed the Gish Gallop.”

  8. I was disappointed with the debate. Romney was loudest, because empty barrels make the most noise, not because he had anything to say, because if he did, he forgot to mention it. This debate was an unpardonable waste of time.

  9. Hoo-boy. Who else needs popcorn!

    On substance, Romney sucked and Obama didn’t suck (but that’s about it).

    On style, Romney was aggressively annoying while Obama was visibly holding very tight on his own reins lest he do something un-Presidential.

    Both men did exactly what they had to do: Romney did better than Obama and Obama didn’t fuck up.

    Romney will get the expected boost that a challenger gets after being on stage with the incumbent, plus a couple points.

    However, that alone isn’t anywhere near enough to overcome Obama’s very solid lead in the electoral college. I’d guess Obama’s odds of winning have gone from above 80% yesterday morning to somewhere in the lower 70% range today. That’s a significant blow, but it’s still a significant advantage.

    Romney could have lost the election last night, but he didn’t. I think that’s the take-away story.

    Also: Jim Lehrer sucked. Badly.

    The biggest remaining question is going to be what happens with Big Bird. I suspect that Big Bird is going to bite Romney in the ass rather hard, probably halving the gains Romney otherwise made last night. But we shall see.

    Cheers,

    b&

    1. I should add: the real losers were the American electorate. It’s inexcusable that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson weren’t on that stage, as well. Were they there, there would have actually been a substantive discussion.

      Oh — and that format wasn’t even a debate. A real debate would have been something like, “Resolved: the federal government should require all citizens to purchase private health insurance or else be fined.” The candidates then could argue either for or against, and the winner would be the answer to the question. Not the candidate espousing the question.

      Last night was nothing more than dueling stump speeches interrupted by heckling from the other candidate.

      Cheers,

      b&

      1. I agree about Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, however impractical some seem them. American democracy, where two slightly different ideas is enough.

      2. I wish more people would realize how difficult third parties are in a first-past-the-post voting system. A popular third party virtually guarantees minority rule in this system. If we changed our voting system, we could have more serious candidates.

        Any range voting or ranked voting system would vastly improve our democracy by allowing people to vote for third parties without handing power to their worst enemies.

        Instant Runoff (The Alternative Vote) would be a straightforward improvement. There is nothing in the Constitution that would conflict with states adopting such a voting scheme in both Presidential and Congressional elections.

        The current systems benefit the two parties, so they don’t want to change. Most voters, if they understood the benefits of modernizing our vote counting, ballot access rules, and districting methods, should enthusiastically embrace such changes regardless of party.

        Here are some instructive videos with information on what is wrong with how we count votes and how we could improve it.

        Ranked Voting
        Instant Runoff Voting
        Shortest Splitline Algorithm Video

        2. Same here in the UK. This is, of course the crux of your statement:
          “Most voters, if they understood the benefits of modernizing our vote counting, ballot access rules, and districting methods, should enthusiastically embrace such changes regardless of party.”

          The two biggest parties, Conservatives and Labour, are both VERY good at misinforming and scaremongering the public (a.k.a. the majority of their voters) into thinking that Every Other System Other Than FPTP Is Nothing Better Than Anarchy. Hence nothing will change in the next fex decades.

      3. Well, they call it a debate, anyhow. It’s more like a talking point recital.

        I’m not concerned with who “won” so much as I am with the candidates articulating their positions. Romney basically lied his way through the thing, while Obama failed to call him on his bullshit.

        And yes, I would have liked to have seen Jill Stein and Gary Johnson for at least one of the debates. There are other choices out there.

    2. Ben’s account is pretty much spot-on. Romney clearly went in with the plan to try to rattle Obama. Obama clearly went in with the goal of not being rattled. Part of me wishes Obama had put a little more sting in his counter-punches. For example when Romney claimed that you can’t balance the budget with higher taxes, Obama could have easily pointed out that that is precisely what Bill Clinton did only a few years ago. That said, Romney needs something drastic for him to win, and this performance while it may have momentarily swung a small number of undecideds was nowhere near the catastrophe-level event that Romney needs. And Obama knows it. Which is probably why he was taking a conservative “stay the course” tactical approach.

    3. I don’t understand why people are piling on Jim Lehrer. He let the candidates get away with going off the schedule a little, which created some actual spontaneity and passion, what we all complain is missing from these “debates.”

      A free-for-all would have been best, but short of that, giving them enough slack to act out a little provided the best moments in the debate.

    4. I would pay money to see Big Bird bite Romney on the ass.

      And I don’t think Romney made that much in the way of gains last night. He blatantly lied the entire time and everybody’s got the video tape and transcripts of all his previous statements to prove it. He may have sounded good, but it’s easy to show that he’s all style and no substance.

    5. re: Ben Goren

      Posted October 4, 2012 at 9:18 am

      Big Bird???? What’s Otis Redding got to do with it?

  10. I didn’t watch and read Sean B. Carroll’s “The Making of the Fittest” instead. Romney is such a slime ball that I can’t bear to witness him repeatedly lying.

    (Good book, btw.)

  11. He did not do well. In fact I have never seen him do so poorly. It was as if his mind was elsewhere or he was trying to be too kind to Romney.

    Romney while seemingly more “lively” was actually very insubstantial. He blatantly told many lies and dodged any pointed questions. He was rude and argumentative with moderator and his entitlement attatude was painfully obvious. The kind of obnoxious attatude that launches wars.

    The first thing an habitual lier does is call the other person a lier. Romney said Obama was not “entitled to his own facts” (clearly a rehearsed zinger). Romney is the type of person who farts and then asks “who farted?”.

    While disappointed with POTUS performance last night it should not be a deal breaker. Fact-checking and candidate/party policies (and Romney’s lack-thereof) will be the deciding factors this election.

    2. Rachael Maddow’s first thing on her show tonight was a history of all the televised Round 1 debates between an incumbent and a challenger. According to her, the only time an incumbent was widely judged to be the winner of the debate was Bill Clinton in 1996 against Bob Dole. Every other first round debate has been considered a victory for the challenger and seems to have had no effect on the course of the actual election.

  12. Romney won on form and lost on content. Obama won on content and lost on form.

    Obama tried desperately to nail the jelly that is Romney to the wall. But he failed to call bs on the man who effectively promised to cut the deficit by reducing revenue and not cutting any spending.

    Efficiency reform reduces cost. Tax breaks create jobs. A conservative mantra that has been proven wrong time and again in the past 30 years.

    Romney failed to elaborate where the 12 million jobs are supposed to come from. Both candidates seem delusional about the state of the US, the dilapidated infrastructure, the broken, deeply fractured society, all of which are the result of less and less government. Yet, he wants to phase down even more.

    Romney said once: “Take a risk. Get the education. Borrow money if you have to from your parents. Start a business.”
    The inherent assumption being that your parents actually have money. That’s all there is to know about this man. His rhetoric performance of last night won’t cover the lack of touch with reality for long….

    1. Both candidates seem delusional about the state of the US, the dilapidated infrastructure, the broken, deeply fractured society, all of which are the result of less and less government.

      If you want to vote for a candidate who understands the vital importance of infrastructure and the role the government has in building it, vote for Jill Stein and her Green New Deal.

      Cheers,

      b&

      1. Since there is not a snowball’s chance that Obama can carry Texas, I can vote for Jill Stein and be quite certain that my vote will officially not matter rather than not matter unofficially.

        1. I’d go one step further and encourage all voters to vote according to their consciences.

          A vote for Dr. Stein (or Mr. Johnson) is “wasted” to the exact same extent that a vote last time ’round for Senator McCain. All those Republicans who went with the sure loser? They wasted their votes.

          What we really need is some form of preferential voting. (Yes, some forms are better than others, but even the worst of the lot is far superior to the first-past-the-post method we have today.) That’d help appease those who’d rather vote for an evil candidate instead of an honest one because they’re terrified of the chance of an even more evil candidate winning.

          Cheers,

          b&

          1. I haven’t seen a third party on the Texas ballot since Ross Perot. I like Jill Stein, and I think people should be allowed to see, hear and learn about all the other candidates.

          2. Ben Goren wrote:
            I’d go one step further and encourage all voters to vote according to their consciences.

            Why? If enough people in certain states vote for Stein, Romney will be elected. This benefits people…how?

          3. The benefit is part of the long game. We will never improve the system until there are more than two viable voices. That’s not going to happen Nov 6, but we need to start somewhere.

            If all you are doing is voting for the lesser of two evils, we all still lose. I prefer to find someone who more closely represents me. It’s like saying Lutherans aren’t as crazy as Catholics, so I guess I’ll be a Lutheran, even if I really am an atheist.

          4. But what if the damage you have decided to risk accepting by playing for the long game turns out to be devastating or fatal? The Bush administration devastated the US. The republican party is arguably even more batshit insane now than it was then. Under these circumstances is it prudent, at this time, to run that risk?

          5. But what if the damage you have decided to risk accepting by playing for the long game turns out to be devastating or fatal?

            in principle, I understand where you are coming from, but really, this is a logical fallacy.

            In practice, can you not see that there really is no other way to change the system in the long term?

          6. That is political suicide. First-past-the-post mathematically encourages two parties. It guarantees minority rule if a third party gets significant support.

            Yes we have to start somewhere: we have to change our voting system to a range or ranked voting system. Instant Runoff (aka the Alternative Vote) is a fairly simple improvement.

            problems with our system

            instant runoff

            After we do this we can vote for first, second, and third parties without fear of undermining our own political interests.

          7. You may be right, darrelle. If Romney is elected, the best we can hope for is a stalemate for the next for years. And, of course, it could be much worse.

            I still think it is time, for me anyway, to try to forge a new path instead of maintaining the status quo. Cheer up! Don’t forget there’s a pending apocalypse in December, and global climate change will render government obsolete in another 50 years, anyway.

          8. I see Jeff has a reasonable interim solution. That should easily pass both houses of congress. 😉

          9. Dave,
            Actually it needs to pass in the state governments. There is no federal law for how states award electoral votes or elect Senators and Congressmen. It’s not impossible. The National Popular Vote has already made substantial progress.

            Both parties are interested in the current system. It perpetuates their power. If voters in large numbers actually become aware that we can vote another way, and what the benefits are, they will demand it regardless of party. It requires a lot of voter education and a long term effort, but it is likely to pay off sooner than trying to build a substantial third party under our current system.

            Just look at the history of third parties in the US. Only one time has a third party won the Presidency: when Republican Abe Lincoln won in 1860. And before that Republicans won a House majority in 1854 in order to establish themselves. This all happened during the lead up to the civil war when Southern Democrats split off into a separate party, and the Whigs were fading and being assimilated into te Republicans. It was an extraordinary political moment, and by 1868 we had consolidated back into a two party system again, the parties that persist today.

            It’s not likely to happen any time soon. Until we get serious about changing how we vote, how we fund elections, how we manage ballot access, and how we draw districts, we won’t improve anything with kamikaze third party voting.

            It is truly a monumental mistake to say the two parties are identically, and that it doesn’t matter who wins. If your on the left and join a large group voting green, you hand power to republicans. To claim that doesn’t matter is simply wrong on too many ways to list.

          10. A. I really prefer daveau or David. Dave makes my skin crawl.

            2. “If voters in large numbers actually become aware that we can vote another way, and what the benefits are, they will demand it regardless of party.”

            You say potato, and I say potato. I just prefer mine mashed rather than baked.

            III. Nobody is saying it doesn’t matter. I have weighed the risks, and come down on the side of voting my conscience.

            d. You’re, not your.

            v. If you are a Poly Sci prof, I resign effective immediately.

            666. You have a valid point or two. I don’t think there is a simple answer. I choose to vote for Stein. Says the guy from Illinois, which will totally go for Obama. But I would vote for Stein, regardless.

          11. I don’t understand the potato remark at all.

            I’m certainly no poly sci professor, but if you are you should resign indeed if you thought we require a vote in Congress to change election procedures.

            I know the difference between a possessive pronoun and a contraction. I am typing on an iPad, which is a bit constraining. Hopefully you were able to discern my intended meaning. It shouldn’t have been too challenging. There could be a connection between the extreme skin sensitivity and the excessive pedantry. Let’s just say I felt there was an insulting tone in your reply.

            There were 97,000 Nader voters in Florida who voted their conscience in 2000. Bush won by 537 votes. This narrow margin was the difference between invading or not invading Iraq.

            I guess I can’t see the reason for a useless high-minded vote rather than a pragmatic one. I understand the sentiment, but I don’t see any value and plenty of harm in a symbolic vote. I expect we will see our voting system change before we see a third party win the Presidency.

            I’m glad you’re (take note of correct usage) in Illinois and not in a swing state, because you are (playing it safe) right, your (again correct) vote is unlikely to affect the electoral college result in your (on a roll) state.

          12. A. Just a preference, which you would have no way of knowing.
            2. We agree on the goal, but do not agree on the means. You’ve seriously never heard that song?
            III. It is not a symbolic gesture. I have always voted for the person who best represents my interests. To do otherwise is disingenuous.
            d. A joke to lighten the mood. I don’t normally pick on typos, because they are just typos. Fair cop.
            v. You are correct here, too. It will be so much easier to get 50 state legislatures to change their procedures for national elections, including adding a second national runoff election, as the states totally control federal election procedures. In my defense, I have a cold.
            666. Well, because you “can’t see the reason for a useless high-minded vote rather than a pragmatic one” makes you correct, I guess. No arguing with that logic.

          13. Jeff Johnson wrote:
            I expect we will see our voting system change before we see a third party win the Presidency.

            Exactly right. Ross Perot got about 20% of the popular vote and zero electoral votes. It is impossible under the current system. What is possible is to work for third party candidates at lower levels, local and state offices, even Congress, but thinking you can ever elect a President this way is simply wishful thinking.

          14. @Daveau

            I’ll vote disingenuously then, in order to be effective. And I’ll support work over the long term toward fixing the problem that causes the dilemma American voters face. I don’t see how pretending the problem doesn’t exist and rejecting remedies to a mathematically flawed system will ever help things.

            In my opinion, trying to vote for third parties within a system that makes them mathematically improbable and ineffective is like beating your head on a wall. You might as well back off and take a broader view of the problem. Their are better tools for knocking over a wall.

            There is no need for a second national runoff. That comment shows that you haven’t yet understood instant runoff voting. Hopefully you could at least bother to understand something before dismissing it.

          15. Ichthyic,

            In turn, I also understand your position and feel the same disgust and frustration that you probably feel. But I don’t agree with your conclusion.

            “In practice, can you not see that there really is no other way to change the system in the long term?”

            Your claim that my position is the result of a logical fallacy rests on that statement. That statement just is not true, at all. There are, at least, two different general strategies that are possible. Accurately assigning probabilities of success to each is the real problem, and maybe where the real disagreement is.

      2. lol. I’ll just write in Micky Mouse and Bill Shatner.

        Ever notice how often the super-duper serious green movement people are so very desperate to hand you some literature? Kind of buggers up the image. It’s kind of like a vegetarian running around eating a steak in front of me whenever I look at them.

        That said, I’m particularly fond of one of their pressing issues: amending the constitution to guarantee people the right to vote. I think it’s about time that we finally start letting people vote too, unlike how it is today.

        But it gets even better!

        They want to review all federal programs to make sure that local democracy is being protected from the over-reaching federal system… after, of course, they’ve amended the constitution to federally protect and require all of their special projects. For better protected local democracy, all private funds will be prohibited in elections, enforced by the federal government of course, and public funds must be used. And, remember folks, it’s your free choice to which day of the week to ask the government for money for your campaign. =^_^=

        The goals they espouse are inconsistent with what steps they claim they’d take. For instance, they want local elections, and local democracy and local governments to be empowered…

        But then they want to prohibit a local community from raising private funds for public campaigns, by amending the constitution. They want to prohibit local polling places from using anything other than paper ballots (green? lol) by amending the constitution to prohibit it.

        And others. And then, after all of that is done, well, we can get on with having local elections and decisions as not decided by the local community.

    2. Last I heard on NPR, 12 million jobs will be added to the economy over the next four years even if either candidate does nothing. In short, Romney isn’t promising a thing.

  14. Romney was glad to admit having said that the Massachusetts health care plan would be a model for the country but argued that he meant that other states should follow the Massachusetts lead, and that it was a bad idea to do this at the federal level. But to expect sparsely populated states like Wyoming or South Dakota or small territories like Guam to be able to effectively implement their own individual Massachusetts style health care systems is illogical and would be wasteful. The reasons for doing it at the federal level seem obvious, but if that argument was made, it failed to register with me.

    1. Can’t you see that having 50 different corporate-friendly state-run health care bureaucracies being pushed around by insurance company bureaucracies, each taking a nice fat slice of your health care dollar is the best way to go?

      1. Exactly. And every corporate merger that’s ever happened has been justified at least in part by the efficiencies of consolidating the office staffs.

        But Mr. Corporate America wants to do just the opposite.

  15. First of three. I really hope that BO’s reticence last night was a calculated and strategically planned bit of rope-a-dope. Hang in for the first round, no big mistakes, give Romney some rope, maybe some overconfidence, and then bring it next time. I hope.

      1. if you look at the reactions from the Obama camp this morning, it’s obvious that they were hoping Mitt would take the opportunity to try and appease the moderate voters.

        now they are taking Romney to task over the vast differences between what he said last night, and what he’s been saying for the last year.

        so, yeah, seems rather calculated to me.

  16. How did the debate go? It is generally agreed that Romney brought his A game, Obama . . . didn’t. The general consensus is that Romney won. It is also generally agreed that Romney was fact challenged, that Obama was tired, too wonky, and let too many easy fly balls drop out of his mitt.

    Regardless of which side you took in the debate, and who you declare the winner, it is overwhelmingly agreed that worst performance was by Jim Lehrer, who lost control of the debate (to Romney) and never got it back. His debate moderation career is over.

    1. His debate moderation career is over.

      One might suggest that he did a Jesus on his debate moderation career; many thought it was over before the last iteration four years ago.

      Luckily, I don’t think it’ll survive the self-inflicted shotgun headshot we witnessed last night. Even Jesus isn’t enough of a zombie to come back from that sort of decapitation.

      b&

      1. IIRC, Jim was brought out of retirement for this.

        I wonder if his performance was deliberate, and intended to be read as:

        “STOP ASKING ME TO DO THIS SHIT! I’m retired, yo!”

    3. What specific recommendations would you give Lehrer – or any moderator for that matter – for maintaining control of the debate while still maintaining some semblance of civility and decorum?

      As another poster said, would you have Lehrer, like Krushchev, bang his shoe on his desk and shout, thereby lowering himself to the level of Mitt the Mouth?

      Just what scintillating pearls of moderating and behavior modification wisdom would you offer Rude Romney to prompt him to give the least bit of consideration and respect to anyone other than himself?

      Romney, accustomed to having been an entitled, self-regarding corporate demigod, is hard pressed to refrain from habitually interrupting and silencing – and addressing and treating others as – subordinates.

      1. Seriously?

        The moderator has all the power. Just imagine if they set the ground rules, warned them, and then followed through? Yes, it might be a short “debate” and result in kicking out one of the candidates but if you want ratings….

        If you don’t want to kick them out, cut their microphones. I think they’d get the point pretty quick. If you think the network or the candidates won’t agree, insist on this at the last minute. After all, this is a LIVE event. It’s just as embarrassing to lose a moderator as a candidate.

        This of course would require a moderator with integrity.

        1. “Seriously?”

          YES, seriously.

          One sees from the first debate the extent of Romney’s narcissistic self-regard and sense of entitlement. He was given every reasonable opportunity to demonstrate some civility and decorum, and he falied to meet the mark. He was given the benefit of the doubt; Lehrer met him more than halfway. Having demonstrated his egotistical modus operandi in the first debate, does he presume to think that he can similarly bull his way around in subsequent debates? All who have had to bear up under his attempt to subordinate them to his corporate tyrant will are forewarned and will compose themselves to stand their ground against this avatar of egotism.

          “The moderator has all the power.”

          Really? Yea, verily, “Seriously”?

          Again, Rude Romney was given every reasonable opportunity to meet Obama and Lehrer at least halfway, and to demonstrate civility and decorum. This scion of the rich elite simply cannot help himself. “By their fruits ye shall know them,” and if he thinks he’s going to be similiar acquiesced to and accommodated in the remaining debates – as is his self-regarding and narcissitic habit – he’s going to be most unpleasantly surprised. Henceforth, Lehrer does not owe him the forebearance and consideration he gave him in the first debate. Rude Romney does not deserve it.

          “This of course would require a moderator with integrity.”

          I vociferously dispute your statement and personal subjective opinion regarding Lehrer’s integrity. He has demonstratred consummate intregrity in his career as a journalist, which has included having to occasionally having to bear up under the obstreporous Philistinism of the likes of a Romney.

          Romney reflects the increased coarsening of civil discourse which has characterized the mass “Amuricun Exceptionalism” popular culture of apporximately the last thirty years.

  17. I think Obama prepared to debate Romney based on his (Obama’s) most coherent guess as to what Romney’s platform is. As has been the case over and over again Romney declared that he didn’t really believe what his past positions were and that he is now in favor of anything that he thinks will get him elected. Unfortunately, people often forget that Romney has been changing his positions to whatever he thinks will get him elected more often than he changes his magical undies. So the consensus seems to be that Romney won. The question is whether the US voters will realize that the republicans and thus Romney are still on board with the policies that brought the world to its knees at the end of the Double U Shrub regime. Romney is gaming the US voter and the game is; First, get elected no matter what.

    I think Obama won but, I’ll take substance over style almost all the time.

  18. Obama sucked and every bit of spin I’ve heard has just hammered home to me how badly he sucked. It would be less evident from a transcript than from watching the televised debate, because it was the visuals that really tripped him up–looking down petulantly whenever Willard spoke, seeming stand-offish in his replies, snarky in his attempts at humor. It was plain awful. What I’d like for him to do now is fire John Kerry’s ass and bring in Bill Clinton, and just say exactly what Bill says to say, no more, no less. Learn how to bite your lip and do that little thumb-and-pointy-finger clicking motion. Whatever. Just be Clinton. Because if that’s how Obama as Obama performs in a debate, he will lose–and us with him.

    My favorite moment was Romney promoting religious tolerance. Right–and while we’re at it, you of the idiotic cult with a demonstrable history of fraud and delusion, let’s not toss each other into the briar patch, nor speak of the emperor’s big hairy scrotum.

    1. ” . . . looking down petulantly whenever Willard spoke . . . ”

      He was looking down at the notes he was writing as Rude Romney pontificated. What kind of look ws he supposed to have on his face? One that says, “Hey, Mitt, anything you say is hunky-dory with me”?

      I noticed Romney kept trying to multitask, trying to take notes and look at Obama at the same time, his head bobbing like an owlet’s.

      They should have the Nixon-Kennedy debate format, where one candidate sits while the other speaks at the podium.

  19. Obama: This is your plan.

    Romney: That is not my plan.

    Obama: I thought you said this was your plan.

    Romney: That is not my plan.

    Obama: Oh.

    Romney: It’s complicated.

    Obama: Oh.

    Romney: Big bird.

    Obama: Healthcare.

    Romney: Endowed by our creator.

    Cut to talking points to appease the middle- class voting populous while retaining the sovereignty of the private sector by avoiding discussions related to social and economic inequality.

      1. It wasn’t so much “I like coal” as “coal executives love me” along with a hearty refrain of “Drill, baby, drill!”

        We are so fucked, even despite the fact that Romney’s still going to lose.

        b&

        1. We hope Romney will lose, but many heard those repeats of “our creator” and swooned. He did miss on the point in the declaration of Independence about the “general welfare” seems that might not fit in with his super special secret plans. I would say that I haven’t seen Romney this animated before, and would guess this aggression comes from fear and not drugs, being Mormon. Nor have I seen him lack even the basic rules of decorum. Obama is a pragmatist, he rarely gets animated, and his doesn’t shout at his opponents.

          1. He did miss on the point in the declaration of Independence about the “general welfare”…

            Maybe because it’s not in the Declaration of Independence, but rather the preamble to the U.S. constitution.

    2. Yep, that is exactly what I took away from it, too. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Romney campaign has been intentionally vague until now because, let’s face it, Republicans are going to vote for him anyway. That is why the Republican convention was all about energy, with almost no real substance in terms of facts or policy. Last night was one of the first times that anyone has heard Romney speak in some detail about his plan (never mind how good one considers it), and it certainly caught Obama off guard. Also, Obama’s energy and demeanor were pathetic.

      1. I was rather grateful for Obama’s laid back-ness, a welcome respite from Romney’s bantam rooster ululations and rude interruptions of and disrespect for Lehrer.

    3. This is much more efficient (and just about as accurate) as actually reading through the whole transcript.

  20. Naturally, nothing of any substance was actually discussed and most of what was discussed was party platform bullshit.

    Romney shapeshifted into a moderate last night, so naturally the whipped press will laude him as the ‘victor’. The only loser last night was the American public.

    1. “Romney shapeshifted into a moderate last night”

      A great opportunity for Obama to bring up the Etch-a-Sketch.

  21. Mittens won no “debate,” as any high school debater can tell you. What he did win is the prize for manic-aggressiveness, which is needed when serial-lying at a shrill level. I thought Romney would need to breath into a paper sack, or perhaps assault Jim Lehrer.

  22. I liked Al Sharpton’s critique of the debate. To paraphrase: Romney took the stand and testified at his trial (debate) with eloquence and energy. In the coming days, however, after the prosecutors (pundits) have time to analyze his testimony, he’ll be indicted for perjury.

    1. Well, it’s hard to say who actually won but I do believe that any candidate who has never been president before has a slight advantage. That is to say, he can speak of hypotheticals all day long without having to prove or defend anything. Obama was always on the defense, and there seemed to be no way out of that. I believe that Obama was in the much more difficult position of having to defend his actions/policies in real-time whereas Romney only had to aggressively cast blame about the state of the Economy, Medicare, and so on.

  24. I knew it wasn’t going well, after I’d yelled at the TV, “Why are you answering it that way”, multiple times in the first 15 minutes.

  25. Being European, I know I really have no say in this, and probably neither one of them cares what happens to the rest of the world as long as the US interests are promoted. But it seems strange how the US presidential campaigns seem to concentrate on the economy. As if there are no other areas of life but money, loans and mortgages.

    Isn’t it clear that one of these guys at least pretends he cares for his 314 million less fortunate fellow Americans and whether their children die or not, while the other guy doesn’t. From my Nordic point of view, one is a smart, decent but boring accountant, while the other one is a selfish oligarch.

    So why split hairs about fiscal details? Of course caring for your fellow people means paying higher taxes, and decent people should be glad to do that. Psychopaths aren’t.

    It should be a no-brainer for Americans. But it never ceases to amaze me why the American lower and middle classes vote for the benefit of the millionaires.

    2. why the American lower and middle classes vote for the benefit of the millionaires.

      Probably has a lot to do with the religion thing, and anti-socialism, which is related to the religion thing.

    3. John Steinbeck: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

    4. It’s far worse than that. When the likes of Romney and Paul talk about `economy’ they mean “the rich are being taxed way too much (anything above 0% is too much for the rich) and the poor who are already badly exploited aren’t being made to pay more”. They have no plan, only mountains of bullshit to sell to fools.

    5. This has been fairly well studied. You’d suspect the answer lies in rugged individualism, a contempt for authority and government or even religious conservatism. But these answers are specious. Of course such strains do exist. But they always have. And yet a critical part of FDR’s New Deal coalition included the deep South. In Eisenhower’s time even many Republicans were to the left of Democrats today. There was a time when prosperity and equality grew hand in hand by leaps and bounds, unions were resplendent, and Gilded Age plutocrats were banished from the mainstream. So there is a deeper explanation for why so many vote against their own interests. Once political allegiances have calcified people cherry pick and rationalize with all sorts of arguments. The root cause of political alignment in this instance is more primordial: antipathy to those outside of one’s own “group.” The real reason why a swathe of people, by and large, vote against themselves can be traced to a single piece of legislation: The Civil Rights Act.
      P.S. Paul Krugman’s “The Conscience of a liberal” is a few years old now but is invaluable to anyone who seeks to understand political history, rendered of course by one of the sharpest minds around.

  26. One day at one of these presidential debates a democrat or independent candidate will counter each lie that the republican candidate throws out head on with the facts, delivered in an effective way. And then the US will spontaneously collapse into a singularity.

    I understand why it is difficult to counter a well executed Gish Gallop kind of attack. Especially if the moderator is biased and or incompetent. But, it is possible. What I don’t understand is why the democrats, Obama in particular, let them get away with it. Somehow I just don’t think that too many people would be any more upset than they already are if Obama said something like, “You are either being intentionally misleading or you are ignorant, here is what actually happened.” I, for one, would cheer. “If they gave you an enema first they could bury you in a matchbox” would have worked well for me last night.

  27. Romney did an etch-a-sketch and became moderate Mitt. He claimed to be a bipartisan, and correctly stated that the President can’t dictate terms to Congress. This he used as the excuse for the vagueness of his budget plan. If any Tea Partiers were watching, and actually understanding what Mitt said, they may be thinking about Gary Johnson right now. But Mitt can probably rely on low-information and partisan blindness to cover for finally tacking to the center. But anyone seriously watching the election should be completely confused about who Romney really is, and whether his shtick is an act for the right or an act for the center.

    Still Romney denied that his 20% across the board tax rate reduction amounted to a ten year $5 trillion reduction in revenue, and failed to explain how with an additional $2 trillion in military spending he could avoid expanding the deficit. On top of that he pretty clearly pledged to not cut education spending at all, and he implied that the creativity of governors could make up for a Medicaid cut of 30% as long as the program was block granted to the states. Nobody with any brains really believes that. He threatened to put big bird out of a job, as if the PBS subsidy could even put a scratch in his $7 trillion baseline deficit expansion. The details of closing that gap are all left up to Congress, and we know from the past what will happen, just as during Reagan the debt tripled, and the debt doubled under Bush, they will deceive themselves into believing overly rosy growth estimates that will never materialize to make up for the budget shortfall they cause. Wrong side of the Laffer curve supply side nonsense all over again is what I see coming if Romney is elected.

    Besides his budget dishonesty, Romney also lied about health care by claiming that he would not hurt patients with pre-existing conditions (under his breath: as long as they are continuously insured from before the time the condition first appeared). Whenever questioned about Medicare he dutifully noted again and again that he will not change Medicare for current seniors or near seniors, while failing to mention that he will gut Medicare in ten years by making it a voucher program. As a 53 year old, I’m pretty pissed at this tactic of holding out “no changes to Medicare” in one hand, which he repeats again and again, while holding the meat cleaver behind his back for everyone 55 and under.

    At one point Obama said “Americans are going to have to ask themselves if Romney is withholding all the details of his policies because they are too good?” I suspect many didn’t catch the irony there. If Romney’s plan for Medicare in ten years is good, why doesn’t he offer it to everyone now? Because it’s poison and he knows it.

    Other huge Romney lies that Obama failed to challenge:
    1. that Obama had doubled the deficit; actually he has decreased it slightly since taking office.

    2. That Obama has cut energy production on federal lands in half; actually production has increased. New leases have been reduced, but the industry is sitting on 7,000 unexplored leases already. We have reduced dependency on foreign oil by 20% under Obama.

    3. That half of all companies receiving energy subsidies under the stimulus have gone out of business. Not even close to true.

    4. That the $90 billion of clean energy subsidies equals 50 years of oil company subsidies. First that 90 has to be divided over three years, so you can cut that 50 by 2/3 right from the start. Also, I don’t think this takes into account the full range of subsidies of oil produced on federally leased land. Regardless of Romney’s exaggerations we need to be investing in green energy anyway, even if it is initially expensive. This isn’t a short term business decision for next quarter’s bottom line, as Romney tends to view things; this is a matter of long term wisdom.

    Romney won the debate in style, but lost in substance. Most viewers will be unable to discern that subtlety. To me Romney was rude and aggressive and showed the superior arrogant attitude of the fully entitled new aristocrat. He interrupted, bullied Jim Lehrer, and he lied outrageously without showing a trace of remorse or uncertainty. He seemed in control, which is the only thing many people will notice.

    CNN put out a post-debate poll of around 500 viewers that said Romney won 67% to 22%. But as reported on TPM, and as can be verified by looking at the breakdowns by age, race, and region, it appears that every respondent was white, over 50, and living in the south. It’s not clear if that is a mistake in the published tables, or if the poll really had that kind of biased sample. It was a fairly even divide of Dems, Rs, and independents, but the age, race, region bias is enough to skew it badly.

    1. Romney looked like he had been cast by MGM and he performed with much alpha male assertive cues. He lied so amazingly that I think Obama couldn’t believe it. Romney looked like he was on caffeine at least and had a series of prepared sentences, which were clever, however untruthful. He was batting the lies and Obama had to defend. Much of the debate on the economy was tedious and difficult to understand (for moi). So, on nonverbals, Obama’s cool was outplayed by Romney’s dance. This is round one, where the truth was dashed. Let’s see what the next round brings.

    2. Good point. I think he should get some grief in the press for this. In the context of claiming he could tell when Obama was lying, without naming a specific lie, he said as a father of five sons he knows when somebody is lying. A pretty ugly statement for a father to make about his sons in a nationally televised presidential debate.

  30. And did the look on Romney’s face indicate that his magic underwear had a kink in the wrong place?

    1. Why, yes, now you mention, yes it did.

      Debate featured Romney’s trade mark smirk, but less of his customary lip smacking, and a little too much watery-eyed, where’s my Visine, my allergies are killing me vibe.

      So yes, his magic undies were clearly wedged in places no one wants to think about, but not least, his brain.

  31. Lehrer was horrible i.e., lost total control over the process right from the start. Romney came across as competent but in a very aggressive manner. His methodology:use verbiage to sound efficacious and stick to ambiguities. He did clearly emphasized his intent to protect the religious rights and freedoms of Americans (yeah, big surprise there!). I was so hoping that Lehrer would take advantage at that time and ask about the “magic underwear” policy of the Mormons; he didn’t. Romney pulled a “a la Trump” by claiming China cheats. Would have been interesting if he was asked to explain what that meant; he wasn’t asked.

    As for Obama, I found it difficult to get any substance from him. He was more diplomatic and reserved compared to Romney. It may have been due to Romney’s unorthodox demeanour during the debate. He definitely came out swinging with a penchant to prove himself. Lehrer’s poor moderation skills seemed to be the main effect.

    1. “Lehrer was horrible i.e., lost total control over the process right from the start . . . Lehrer’s poor moderation skills seemed to be the main effect.”

      Exactly what specific, positive recommendations would you yourself give Lehrer in dealing with an obstreporous, entitled Mitt Romney corporate tyrant windbag mentality, short of throwing courtesy and decorum to the wind? Should he have told Romney to “Be quiet!”? Or, “Shut up!”?

  32. On the bright side, Obama has significantly lowered the expectations on his performance for the next debates.

    All he needs to do is not screw up and simply keep pointing out when Romney flip-flops or lies. Just keep on calling Romney on his lies.

  33. Aspersions have been cast Jim Lehrer’s way. I agree with another poster; Romney is the archetypic private corporate tyrant bully who is used to getting his way. He’s a Scrooge vis-a-vis given decent consideration to others. (Ask the woman confined to her hospital bed, captive to being lectured by him.) He’s accustomed to interrupting others whenever he takes a notion. Lehrer was trying to manage the situation with some reasonable civility. How would he look if he exhibited the same aggressiveness as Ramrod Romney?

    Who would the moderator have to be who would not “suck”? Some Philistine jerk to the second power? Donald Trump? Gordon Ramsey? That noble South Carolina Republican representative who interrupted Obama’s State of the Union address?

    Would that Christopher Hitchens could have been around to moderate one or more of the debates.

    Re: George Lakoff:

    ” . . . Present an authentic view of yourself that the public can identify with and be proud of.

    Obama did none of this. Instead he talked about policy details.”

    Just what is it that the Amuricun public can be bothered to “identify with” that involves straining more than a few of “zee leetle gray cells”? (Poirot) Is it that they can’t be troubled with the specifics of policy details?

    Maybe Mr. Lakoff should moderate.

    The other night I was out of state and eating dinner with several people. One mentioned the upcoming debate. Another intoned, as if from on high, that Obama is “long-winded.” I bit my tongue so as not to differ with him and cast a pallor of disagreement upon the occasion, having travelled a fer piece to git thar. Yea, verily, to “Keep The Peace.” (I guess that I’m an “accommodationist” in that regard.)

    It is just as if not more likely that too many “bread and circuses” Amuricuns have developed shorter and shorter attention spans, and can’t be troubled to undertake a bit of intellectual heavy lifting in order to understand what is going on. (Re: Jacoby’s and Hofstadter’s respective tomes on American anti-intellectualism.)

    In my view Romney maxed out on his aggressiveness to the point of rudeness. Ah, a new moniker – Rude Romney! He may think more of it is good but voters will tire of it. Obama was well-advised to “keep his powder dry” maintain an even-keeled “Presidentialism,” so as to position himself to start firing full salvos in response by the middle of the next debate, with sustained full firepower through to the end of the last one. As Teddy Roosevelt said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”

  34. Not that this should be surprising at all, but I did take notice to this particular utterance from Mittens: “We’re a nation that believes that we’re all children of the same god and we care for those that have difficulties, those that are elderly and have problems and challenges, those that are disabled.” I haven’t been following the campaigns too well, so I’m not sure how common this “children of the same god” business is, but clearly this is not the case. There are probably still millions of American Protestants who refuse to acknowledge Romney as a proper Christian. This seems to be a weird tactic, pretending that religious people all believe in the same god. I don’t get it.

    1. Ha. Religion is all about the power of mental compartmentalization, the ability to believe both A and not-A as the need arises. That is what makes them so infuriating to argue with. They will assert A when it suits them, and not-A when it doesn’t. For them, it’s not even lying. When they offered up A two minutes ago, they believed it. When they offer up not-A now, to refute a different point, they believe that also. The Power of Belief is amazing!

  35. I live in the UK, so there are inevitably many domestic issues that I don’t know enough about, but it was clear from begining to end that Romney was fluent, confident, crisp and that Obama was none of these.

    The dominant tone of the entire exchange was that of a teacher continually correcting an ill-prepared pupil. I have no idea whether Romney’s claims were honest or credible, but he reeked of confidence and authority.

    I was amazed at how poor Obama was in both style and content. e.g. At least three times Obama made much of Romney’s alledged $5trillion tax cut, only for Romney to confidently and very explicitly inform him that that was not his policy. The fact that Obama was unable to cite any supporting evidence for his claim was very obvious and made him look very ill-informed.

    Romney also repeated several times that Obama had wasted a fortune on countless failed Green Energy projects, and when Obama had literally no answer to this it made Obama look incompetent and wasteful.

    I keep hearing about how intelligent Obama is and how stupid the Republicans are, but Obama seemed distracted, tepid, hesitant and often floundering. It looked to me as if his heart just wasn’t in it. Very strange.

    p.s. the moderator was dreadful.

    1. “p.s. the moderator was dreadful.”

      Noted. I say that he was not dreadful. I say that what happened was primarily a function of the insufficiency of courtesy and decorum on the part of the honorable Mr. Romney.

      I wonder if he interrupts his wife much.

      Perhaps Melvyn Bragg should moderate.

  36. I watched the debate, and the first thing that happened after the debate was pundits declaring Romney the winner. I think Gergen outlined their desire best “Now we have a horserace”.

    The debate was a draw. Obama was cool and collected, the same Obama we’ve known for four years. Romney was fidgety and bizarre, his answers appearing out of nowhere (and probably disappearing back to nowhere). It’s the only way he could share the stage with the president. But that means CNN doesn’t have anything to report for October. So they told everyone what to think about Romney’s “win” before asking them, and got the answers they wanted.

    The networks naturally have a winner in mind (the one who will cut their taxes) but for the next few weeks, they need a horserace. So that’s what we have.

    1. I’m quite partisan myself and I don’t discount the role of punditry hunting for tension in the next news cycle or party hacks and their spin. But Obama was awful. Of course Romney lied and Etch-a-sketched himself pale. I agreed with Obama on the substance of issues and was unpersuaded by Romney’s boilerplate Republican talking points. That said Obama lost the debate. He missed opportunities, seemingly conceded when he didn’t have to, and was feckless. These debates aren’t so much about wooing undecideds (a species I don’t believe exists) but making an impression on apathetic and ill-informed idiots who somehow find energy to make it to the booth at the last minute. To them Romney came across as being strong, anchored, and in command.
      We lost buddy (sorry).

    2. “The debate was a draw. Obama was cool and collected, the same Obama we’ve known for four years. Romney was fidgety and bizarre . . . ”

      Just how awful does Obama have to be before some people wake up?

      1. Performance on a stage isn’t the same thing as being qualified to be President.

        What do you mean by wake up? What do you think you see that we don’t?

  38. Dr Coyne you’d be inexcusably remiss not to follow John Cassidy’s blog at the New Yorker during election season. A crack economist in his own right, he is one of the most incisive minds on a host of topics. His assessment of what happened at the debate is thorough and brutally honest (and achingly dispiriting for that matter)

  39. First, in my view, one cannot ‘win’ such a debate, as some like to say or write. Accordingly, the Presidential Debate had no winner.
    Second, both men applied different strategies. Whereas Obama covered a quite wide scope and referred to real causes and consequences, Romney concentrated upon a few core themes appealing to ordinary people.
    The former’s points were mainly that federal health care and regulation of education benefitted everyone in the long run. There were, he said, many families who simply could not afford private health care and could not pay for their children’s education, especially college education.
    The latter’s rhetoric was great, but his points were mostly theoretical. He promoted an economic nationalism which is evidently impossible in a capitalist world: Keep the money in the United States of America and create more jobs. How that is supposed to work, remains an unanswered question.
    The other major point he made was that both education and health care should be privatized because this always worked better. Unfortunately, this is a vain contention. If you compare health care and education worldwide, it becomes clear that the opposite is true. Privatization of health care and education lead to more inequality, since in the long term, only the wealthy can afford them.

  40. As someone also working in science in the US I am very scared by the prospect of Ryan’s budget. So I watched most, but not all, of the debate. I like Obama a lot, but I was disappointed by his performance.
    Clearly he was doing the same thing he did in 2008, making his points and leaving Romney alone to make his, avoiding the appearance of being “angry”. Romney persistently “corrected” Obama, so it looked like “he said, she said”, with Obama never really fighting back. I didn’t like Obama’s closing remarks and turned off before Romney’s.

    I think the reporting is a little biased: Romney’s campaign was basically dead unless he had a great performance; if you listened to conservative talk radio at all, you could hear them hyping up expectations for a few days; they were going to report a stunning Romney victory, whatever happened. Sadly most of the so-called “liberal media” just follows wherever Fox and the wingnuts lead. I thought the moderator, Lehrer, was poor – he let Romney talk over him, but seemed to constantly interrupt Obama. As to what he could do if he cannot cut their mic? I’d think he’d have prepared a few lines like this “Sir, you agreed to the format of this debate. Most candidates wait until after the election to break their promises.”

    Mitt’s style was very dominant and aggressive. But, most of what he said was either a fabrication, stretching the truth, or just a non-sequitur. The $5T tax cut claim was a good example; and also an example of where Obama could have pointed to the evidence “non-partisan studies have shown that there is a $5T hole,” which would have lead to lots of opportunities to present Romney as a smooth-talking con-man who must really know that.

    On substance, Obama was better. Most of his claims were right, with the media (in its attempt to appear “balanced”) only really quibbling over details, such as that he should have pointed out the $5T was over 10 years. I would have liked to see him pick apart Romney’s claims more, and have a few more lines along the lines of “back in March, you said X” ready to refute them. However, Romney is a difficult person to debate in that regard – he can truthfully point out that he has also said the exact opposite at some other time to a different audience on almost any issue.

    I don’t really like the debate format: Unless there is some fact checking, style can triumph over substance. A good example no-one picked up on here was Romney’s claim that gas prices doubled under the president. It’s worth looking at the chart of gas prices. Take day 1 of Obama’s presidency (where gas had a trough due to the recession) to now (where the economy is recovering), and that’s not unreasonable. But it’s also worth remembering that gas went over $4 under Bush, but is rather less than $4 now (even without accounting for inflation). Actually in my area, gas peaked near $5 under Bush and is now closer to $3, so it would also be fair to say it’s 25% cheaper than under the last president. Just presenting a one-liner out of context can be misleading.

  41. Btw I cringed everytime Romney said the phrase “their poor” (as in “so the states can help their poor”). It sounded so condescending in light of the 47% comments he gave when he thought he wasn’t speaking to 58 million people.

  42. I didn’t think Obama sucked. He looked tired. With all that is going on in the world… who knows what he had been up to all afternoon?

    He certainly didn’t look rested. The kind of rested you look when you are on a yacht practicing for your TV appearance.

    Romney did well, at least in terms of presentation. NOT in regard to FACTS. But, hell, facts don’t matter. Right? He didn’t stumble, he didn’t say anything idiotic, and for Romney, he did very well. So, extra points for not fumbling.

    I think that we expected Obama to be a great entertainer and Romney to stumble. Since neither did what many expected, many were disappointed. And isn’t that the often the case in life? We are disappointed not because of what is happening, but because of what we expect?

Comments are closed.