Presidential Debates

[kataklysm336]

So, after many months of hearing both candidates trash talk one another, they both faced off on a single stage in last night's debates. Who do you think won the debates, and why? What was the point that hit closest to home for you?

For me, I think it was pretty much dead even. Romney was more aggressive and passionate but was vague about his policies, while Obama was more subdued, and avoided opportunities to challenge Romney on the "facts", but had a clearer plan and better articulation. The moderator did an awful job, and I felt the debate could have been handled better, and the moderator should have pushed both Romney and Obama on things that were unclear or controversial. Overall, the subject on the economy was the tipping point for me. While it took up about 3/4 of the debate Romney just wasn't clear about his policies and reverted to blanket statements like "I want to create jobs and grow our economy" and "My solution to the problem is letting the states decide on it".

So what do you guys think? Obama? Romney? Tie? and what subject did you connect with most?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Romney I think said something to the effect at one point in the debate that he didn't have to explain how he was going to produce jobs, someone correct me if I'm wrong on that point.

Anyways, yeah, the format was just freaking dumb. Of course it wasn't followed almost at all. I understand, perhaps, the point was to educate the Americans on the differences between the two, to contrast, for that was the focus, but giving two minutes to opposing tribe leaders discussing their plans is going to be messy, going to result in speaking over the time limits, going to result in ambiguity, lost opportunities, and this ultimately results in the lack of the education of the voter, which was the POINT of it all.

Now, I don't know much about politics or the economy, but from my admittedly limited research, a lot of the things I hear about Romney are things like the "military-industrial complex" and that he keeps flip-flopping on his plans to tax the rich. I mean, I've read an article, and I've read all of the satirical pictures about Romney, and they all say that he didn't want the rich to be taxed more (or something to that effect), yet he absolutely denied that last night. A lot of it has left me confused, though as a result, I just feel safer with voting for Obama, presently. Obama also seems to be less keen on being in Iraq (though he doesn't seem to be wanting us out of there?) which is good to me, and that he isn't as religiously motivated (this wouldn't factor in at all if it wasn't for the fact that Mitt always has people around him talking about how this is a Christian nation and that we need God back in our homes, schools, etc.)

So basically I don't know much, politics is pretty daunting to me, but I'd like to vote, and therefore I need to at least change the fact that I don't know much at least a little bit. So far, Obama is kind of what I'm going for. In terms of who won the debate, I wouldn't say there was a winner easily because what you describe is exactly what happened, Mitt was vague and confusing, and the president didn't really defend himself well. No one won.

 

[Parasol]

If you judge the candidates purely on their presentation and approach, Romney easily manhandled the night. But if you were looking for any substance or specifications on policies, it was all-around a flat debate. Not much was accomplished other than the two going in circles and coming to agreement on what America needs. But how--directly how--they will revive America they left all too vague. This was a seriously disappointing debate, and mostly I blame the moderator for utter weakness and disorganization.

The domestic affairs is America's greatest area of concern, and all we got to see was differing definitions of small business and differing tax approaches. I can't imagine the Vice Presidential debate will offer much more content than what we've already seen from the two trashy campaigns. And the foreign affairs topic should merely fluff the simple and obvious directive: get out.

 

[GoldShadow]

There's also all the internet and media fact-checkers have been talking about, which doesn't bode well for Romney.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The only thing I've been seeing on Facebook are pictures about Mitt Romney having lied like 27 times or whatever.

Well, that, and pictures of ****ing Big Bird.

 

[theeboredone]

There's also all the internet and media fact-checkers have been talking about, which doesn't bode well for Romney.

It's good for people like us who do use the internet, but those who still rely on TV might not be as much informed. I'm talking about people like my parents.

 

[kataklysm336]

Romney I think said something to the effect at one point in the debate that he didn't have to explain how he was going to produce jobs, someone correct me if I'm wrong on that point.

Not sure about your first point. He did evade responsibility on several occasions though. When asked how he would handle certain issues, he often responded with "I'll let the states handle it", which, to me, is just a cop out. If someone asks you how you plan to fix things you don't say your plan is to let other people deal with it.

If you judge the candidates purely on their presentation and approach, Romney easily manhandled the night. But if you were looking for any substance or specifications on policies, it was all-around a flat debate. Not much was accomplished other than the two going in circles and coming to agreement on what America needs. But how--directly how--they will revive America they left all too vague. This was a seriously disappointing debate, and mostly I blame the moderator for utter weakness and disorganization.

Television has ruined debates as far as I am concerned. Everyone puts way to much focus on how they look and their presentation. Every year since the Kennedy/Nixon debates for the 1960 election fist utilized TV, the media overemphasizes the appearance of the candidates and mostly ignores their points and rebuttals.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I absolutely love Stephen Colbert's thoughts on the debate. In one part of that episode they show a guy who is talking about the body language of Romney, describing his half-smile, and how it isn't a smirk.

I was like wut

 

[Deleted member]

So basically I don't know much, politics is pretty daunting to me, but I'd like to vote, and therefore I need to at least change the fact that I don't know much at least a little bit.

Yeah, same with me (wish I'd retained the information I have in government and economics). It really bothers me that I've been raised to only vote Republican instead of voting for who I wish (which I feel would be the best route). Trying to be informed is going to be so hard.

But from my limited information, I'll probably want to vote for Obama. There are things I like about both candidates, but I'm leaning towards him for now since I like his stance on the environment, how he has ended the war in Iraq, focused more on giving gays rights, and that the economy is recovering under him. That said, I feel as Romney has better experience with businesses (which could help speed up recovery), but I am concern about the potential of yet another war (this time with Iran) when we're already trying to end one in Afghanistan. But again, I wish I was more informed on the subject.

 

[theeboredone]

Debates should also be willing to have two more candidates up there, even if they are in the minority. Their voices need to be heard just as much. A shame that we are so fixated on Republican vs Democratic.

 

[Deleted member]

Debates should also be willing to have two more candidates up there, even if they are in the minority. Their voices need to be heard just as much. A shame that we are so fixated on Republican vs Democratic.

That's a major problems I have with debates; they never let minority get a chance to share their own opinion.

While I'm not too fond of the third-parties in general (except maybe Libertarian), it would breath in some serious fresh air and get people to consider other options.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Suffice it to say that presidential debates on television have become naught but clown shows. This is why I don't put much faith in debates, and instead, look at the history of the candidates, such as accomplishments and failures via the Internet to determine whom I'll vote for come voting day.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm a bit frustrated without how our country is run. If democracy is the best way to go, why don't we go all the way with it instead of making it so we vote for people instead of directly at the issues. When we vote for people, it makes it personal (mud-slinging, confirmation bias, tribal,), it makes it loaded (you now have to put abortion, gay-marriage and other issues in the backseat because you are voting for MULTIPLE beliefs with a single vote, one that won't perfectly assimilate your views, and thus, not creating an accurate picture of the "general will"), and it makes this country just kind of seem laughable and frustrating (lots of emotions, forces a "choose the lesser of the two evils" mentality). Isn't this all common sense?

As for the vice-presidential debate, I really love how Paul Ryan said that you cannot separate your private life from everything else, essentially giving a good theoretical argument for not electing the more religious people? Paul and Mitt always talk about religious freedoms, but if you are saying that abortion and gay-marriage is wrong because of religion, they are absolutely contradicting themselves and morphing something that is secular into something religiously biased. And yet Joe, who while saying he was very religious, was unwilling to impose his Catholic beliefs on others. Though I'll admit that Paul Ryan was more aggressive and is going to be considered the victor, at least by a little bit.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Paul Ryan? Agressive?

I felt like Biden was close to running the show

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I heard that in the first half that was the case, I saw the latter half, where Paul pretty much spoke for the entirety of it, and was articulating himself a little better is all I mean. My apologies if I am wrong on that point.

Edit: Wow, watching the first half now, Biden is absolutely in hysterics when Paul Ryan says pretty much anything. lol what the heck?

 

[theeboredone]

I watched the whole debate and here are my notes on it.

1. Biden smirked/laughed too much. Had he done it a few times, then it would have made those occasions more memorable, therefore making his "counters" that much stronger. Doing it after every statement negates that effect.

2. I was watching this on CNN, so I got the luxury of seeing the "like" meter when both were speaking. And this is where I am about to go on a rant...

A: After watching the debate between Obama/Romney and now this, it's just maddening how politicians can get away with being so vague about their ideas. I remember Obama asking Romney during the debate "how?" on one of Romney's arguments. As in, "how are you going to do this?" So just like that, Ryan was very vague on how he plans to run the country, especially with how he plans to tax America. It was maddening to see the "like" meter shoot up whenever either candidate was being so vague. Are we that stupid as a country? To the point we don't need any details of how a politician plans to run the country, and we'll just follow them like sheep? While I will say Biden was definitely throwing more numbers and concrete details in regards to his plans, I don't think it was enough. Ryan just failed on that end, and it's absolutely pathetic that we the viewers can fall for such BS.

B: I'm sorry, but we need to get rid of televised debates. Remember how people considered JFK the winner on TV, but radio listeners thought Nixon won? Well, this would be the same case here. While Ryan is considered a winner "barely", there's no doubt in my mind...because Biden did express more details in his ideas that he would have been the winner had it been over the radio. It's not about content, but context. I am really annoyed by a lot of America today at falling for such things, and it's sad so many of us fall for this stuff every single day.

3. That last question about the former soldier's statements on campaigns being negative? Both guys dodged the question so hard. Imagine how beneficial would it have been to either candidate if they said, "You know what? He's right. Let's stop bashing each other, and let's promote our own ideas. Let's have the people decide." Like I said though, they totally dodged the question.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I don't think Biden was laughing for the effect, I think he was laughing because he was appalled by the things he was saying and he had trouble controlling himself. It's debatable whether he can be blamed for that, if Paul was saying as many incorrect things as Biden said he did, it would indeed be a shame and a fiasco to be discussing with a person like that in such an occasion to the point where it would be hard to believe.

As for the vagueness, it's part their faults, and partly the fault of the format (or at least I hope?).

 

[theeboredone]

A simple "shake my head" or various other sorts of expressions could have been used. Let's assume for a second that Ryan was that bad with his lying and misleading statements, no one is going to know given the circumstances of being a Live TV debate. Once again, presentation matters, and Biden overplaying the smirk card made it lose its effect.

Vagueness just comes from watching the news/debates on TV. Go listen to the news on the radio or read internet articles, and it's just shocking how much more detail there is.

I know there was a study done earlier in the year saying how CNN, MSNBC, and Fox had lost a lot in TV ratings due to the rise of internet blogging/news sites. I hope that trend continues, because I do believe access to the internet can be used to educate citizens more on politics and current events.

Seriously, how many of citizens are gonna go online and read articles from "fact checkers"? There's only so much you can get from watching CNN or the other networks.

 

[rvkevin]

I have two comments about vagueness:

1. If you think this is simply a result of the debate format, find me a news article or press statement from their campaign that details their plan, addresses the criticisms of their plan, and/or references the studies that they claim support their plan. If you can't, I think you need to conclude that they are being intentionally vague.

2. It's good strategy. People take vague statements and apply their own meaning to them and look for agreement. If two people are looking for a common activity for a date, an interest in going to concerts might look promising until you find out that one is interested in rap and the other in country. If they didn't go into details, they would mark it up as having something in common, even though they can't stand each others taste in music. The same applies for national interests. Everyone is in favor for freedom and liberty, but what does that specifically entail to each person? Radically different things. This is why you say you are for those things, but don't go into details because then you lose people who actually disagree with your notion of it. This is basically a formulation of the Forer effect (think horoscopes), vague statements apply to everyone, but when you start going specific you have a chance of being wrong, so stay vague. Plus, due to the Forer effect, people will consider you accurate for being vague so there's no benefit in trying harder.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well from what you two have said there's conflicting views on whether there are vague things outside of the debates or not, so I'll just pass over that.

And I have to disagree about presentation, I don't really care about that, I care about the content. Although, true enough, post people tend to care about the presentation, so I guess it would have been better had he not done that, but that's because they just suck and can't think outside of the more shallow aspects.

As for vagueness being useful, you're right I can't really fight that, especially considering Ryan's "high point" was when he was dishing out a bunch of platitudes (one woman put it rightly like that on television last night). Even Joe's high point I think was him saying that he wasn't willing to let anyone get a hold of weapons or something, it really just depended on how nice the things they said were. Though, if they wanted to avoid accuracy, it would have been in their best interest to not drop numbers down for the internet to pounce on. Granted, the people who just use the television don't get to see that, and its debatable whether it would affect their feelings at that point.

 

[Muhti]

The reason Biden probably laughed was because Ryan was spewing nonsense. I can't trust Mitt/Ryan. Mitt says one thing during campaigns, days another in the debates. While we have jobs in another country Mitt is talking about Big Bird. Are you kidding me?! I think Biden served Ryan during the debate in my opinion. Yes but I am Republican, but I don't trust Mitt/Ryan.

1. Ryan went out and said he didn't have a plan for something (I forgot to be honest) 3 weeks before elections. They just shows these two aren't ready for the big league.

2.Mitt looks like he will start a war with Iran, China, and Russia. And he also wants to cut military. I don't think so.

 

[GreenKirby]

1st debate: Romney won. Then again, lying through your teeth and yelling at the moderator is apparently "presidential" to some people. It didn't help that Obama looked like he was taking a nap.

VP debate: Biden won. And I didn't mind him smirking. He at least looked like he was having fun.

2nd debate: Obama woke up from his nap and curbstomped Romney. The crowning moment of awesome was when Romney shot himself in the foot about Libya.

3rd debate: Again, Obama wins. It also didn't help Romney when his entire foreign policy was basically "same as Obama's, but since I'm white, it means you should vote for me"