[hrothgar]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-03, 22:38, said:

I thought Romney was much better prepared than Obama. My guess is that the race will tighten up quite a bit.

But I'm even less clear about Romney's actual plans as he seems to have taken positions that vary from those he's been campaigning on. Certainly did not expect that he'd ditch his 20% tax cuts at this point in the race -- although that's a good thing in my opinion.

I certainly agree that Obama didn't have a good showing

[kenberg]

Appearances:

I agree that Obama did not look good. A president has to hold his own in discussions with very smart, very powerful, very determined friends and adversaries. His performance will hurt him.

Romny, otoh, looked pretty good. He looked like a man out to define himself, rather than accept how he is portrayed by others. And he had perhaps the best line of the night. In describing how he would cut programs, he said something like "If a program is not important enough for us to borrow money from China to run it, I'll get rid of it". Of course it's an oversimplification, but elections are won by oversimplifications. Many people, myself included, find finance, and especially international finance, a rather baffling subject. If a guy wants to sum up his approach in one line, I think Romney picked a very good line.

Substance:

First of all, I am happy to say that there was some substance. The ACA, for example. If I understood him correctly (I have not reviewed the text) Romney's idea for replacing ACA is that it will be repealed and then each of the fifty states will come up with their own version. Or not. So we would have national Medicare (which will somehow be fixed but not changed, or something like that) and insurance companies that are nationally based and work across state lines, but we will have state based health plans. This does not sound very workable to me. Not to get embarrassingly personal, but I live in Maryland, my urologist is at George Washington University Hospital in D.C. . I don't want any complications with this. My wife will be needing knee replacements in the not too distant future. Perhaps in Maryland, perhaps not. Healthcare is a national concern. I recall when Dr. Setzer, our family doc, came to our house and treated me. It's not 1945 anymore, whether we wish it were or are glad that it isn't, it just isn't. And I am fine with this appointed board trying to figure out how to keep costs under control.

Both candidates explained that current seniors have nothing to worry about with entitlement reform. Actually, I am not so happy with this, at least in part because I don't believe them. There are ways to do us in while claiming not to have done so, and often these sneaky ways do the most harm. One thing that has concerned me is threats to redefine how cost of living is calculated. This would be much worse than simply saying we have to have an immediate cut based on means testing. The latter could be handled by many of us. But a re-calibrated cost of living increase has an exponential (literally, not metaphorically) cumulative effect that will hit hardest at an age, say 90 or so, when a person is least likely to be able to cope. Advocates always speak of the minor effect it has in any one year. True, and if a person plans to die after that year, no problem. If he has other plans, he should object. Anyway, I don't believe them.

All in all, I thought the debate was far better than usual, and it should lead to some thoughtful discussion. I was actually ok with Lehrer, but I understand why many aren't.


PS. When Obama first referred to the "voucher system" Becky thought he said "vulture system". Probably this renaming won't catch on.

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2012-October-03, 05:59, said:

I don't know the details of the Pennsylvania law or the court ruling, but it should be a simple matter to set things so that the fee is waived for those with minimal incomes. Anyone below the poverty line, for example. Or below twice the poverty line. Perhaps someone knows whether anything like this is part of the Pennsylvania law?

This all adds up to a lot of time and hassle.

andrei, on 2012-October-03, 09:46, said:

I am really confused now. Reading these forums taught me that Republican supporters are mainly no photo-ID "stupid, red-necks"

"Red-necks" have trucks. And they drive them.

[JLOGIC]

Romney really did smoke Obama I would be surprised if others are saying otherwise. Though I think Cherdano told me that Obamas performance was popular with women?

But again, it doesn't really matter. Here is an article related to that. It wasn't the one I read earlier, but it is much the same.

Quote

“There is no case where we can trace a substantial shift to the debates.” At best, debates provide a “nudge” in very close elections like 1960,1980, or 2000.

Nate Silver basically confirms this here. He says that the challenger usually gains a point or two, once he gained 3 points. Twice it has reversed the leader. So it does matter, but not that much, and is only relevant in close races. Since Obama had such a big lead, getting crushed in this debate (which I think he did) is unlikely to matter. This is summed up by silver:

Quote

no candidate who trailed by as much he did heading into the first debate went on to win the election.

Basically, Romney is too far behind, and it is too late in the game to catch up, imo. Obama just dropping 4-5 points on intrade because of this is really absurd, I am considering buying more. This market is not even close to rational, it is amazing, I think politics just makes people too irrational and intrade is basically too small with too little smart money to adjust completely for the dumb/casual money.

Also, it is worth noting the media impact on all of this. Most observers cannot really tell who won a debate, they are naturally biased to begin with and also they are likely to not be smart enough to keep up with things. They rely on the media to tell them who won and by how much. Of course, the media is also biased, and people are likely to be watching networks biased in their own direction, etc etc. Yes, it is only the undecideds who really matter at this point, but lets 50 % watch left leaning channels and 50 % watch right leaning channels, they will walk away with different impressions on how the debates actually went down. In fact, the media analysis of the debates is more important to the candidates than the debates themselves, according to many articles, such as this. The graph in that article, on top of being hilarious, is also really predictable. I have not watched the news coverage yet of the analysis of the debates, but I'm sure fox and cnn have different views on how bad it was for obama/how good it was for romney.

edit: worth noting obama dropped 6-7 points on pinnacle also, but he was at 80 % there lol (more evidence I should be buying more obama!). Can a euro tell me what happened on betfair?

[dwar0123]

I lean quite heavily left and don't watch fox(I refuse to believe there is equivalence in the bias between fox and cnn) and thought Romney clearly won that debate.

Romney lacked substance in that debate, but he never lacked for something to say and he said it all rather confidently. Obama occasionally looked a little lost.

[JLOGIC]

Yes, I think most intellectually honest people will have that feeling. It wasn't even close imo.

That said, firing off more on Obama, convinced myself this under 70 % stuff is too lol to pass up.

[ArtK78]

I was watching MSNBC after the debate. Even MSNBC said that Obama lost the debate. Chris Matthews was nearly appoplectic about the way Obama wouldn't bring up issues like the 47% tape or other issues hurtful to Romney. I thought he might have a stroke on-air.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1937950.html

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-04, 04:44, said:

I certainly agree that Obama didn't have a good showing

that's one way of looking at it... most (even far left pundits) thought obama got crushed... sullivan was clearly depressed

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-04, 13:20, said:

that's one way of looking at it... most (even far left pundits) thought obama got crushed... sullivan was clearly depressed

Sullivan certainly thought Obama got crushed. (Though I'd describe Sully more as manic than depressed)

Personally, I thought that Obama came across as somewhat disorganized.
He meandered way too much for my liking and never went in for the kill.

At this point in time, I am hopeful that Obama didn't want to play "the angry black man".
With luck, he was sitting back, letting Romney overextend himself, and is planning to counter-punch with ads.

I readily admit that this is probably wishful thinking on my part.

[dwar0123]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-04, 13:28, said:

With luck, he was sitting back, letting Romney overextend himself, and is planning to counter-punch with ads.

I doubt this was the plan and would be annoyed if it was, but it is certainty a path forward that I am sure they will seize upon.

[VMars]

I am not an audio learner, and wouldn't have watched the debates, but my husband insisted on it. So I barely paid attention to the specifics of what they were saying, but I walked away thinking that Romney clearly won. I thought he seemed much more dominant, and thought that he had a longer time of "possession" (but the newscasters said that Obama actually spoke for 4 minutes longer).

I thought that Obama seemed very tired and disorganized, and his leaving the debate floor seemed like a retreat.

Debates don't convince me which way to vote (again, not an audio learner), but if I were a personality voter, I would definitely be voting for Romney if this debate were the only idea of their personalities that I had.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-04, 13:28, said:

At this point in time, I am hopeful that Obama didn't want to play "the angry black man".
With luck, he was sitting back, letting Romney overextend himself, and is planning to counter-punch with ads.

I readily admit that this is probably wishful thinking on my part.

i don't think so, i believe it's already started... what surprised me was the cnn poll immediately after the debate... 67% - 25% for romney.. and @hardball_chris acted like his prom date stood him up

VMars, on 2012-October-04, 13:50, said:

thought that he had a longer time of "possession" (but the newscasters said that Obama actually spoke for 4 minutes longer).

i think it was closer to 5 mins, but yes obama had more time

[Phil]

JLOGIC, on 2012-October-04, 11:03, said:

Yes, I think most intellectually honest people will have that feeling. It wasn't even close imo.

That said, firing off more on Obama, convinced myself this under 70 % stuff is too lol to pass up.

I have a feeling it might drift even lower after the veep debate.

[lalldonn]

VMars, on 2012-October-04, 13:50, said:

I am not an audio learner, and wouldn't have watched the debates, but my husband insisted on it. So I barely paid attention to the specifics of what they were saying, but I walked away thinking that Romney clearly won. I thought he seemed much more dominant, and thought that he had a longer time of "possession" (but the newscasters said that Obama actually spoke for 4 minutes longer).

I can't prove this but maybe someone can. I'm almost certain that although Obama spoke for more time, Romney said more words and statements. Much of Obama's speaking time was waiting for his pauses or "uhhhhh"s.

[luke warm]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-04, 14:40, said:

I can't prove this but maybe someone can. I'm almost certain that although Obama spoke for more time, Romney said more words and statements. Much of Obama's speaking time was waiting for his pauses or "uhhhhh"s.

so romney was more presidential sounding?

[kenberg]

A few comments on some of the above:

I asked Becky who she thought had more time on camera, she thought Romney did. I would have thought the same. It was a surprise to both of us that Obama had more time.

I watched the debates on ABC, if that's the network that has Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulis. The reason for this is that this was the channel that the tv was tuned to when we turned it on. I can assure you that we did not tune in to learn what Diane and George thought. I shudder to think of it.

The "angry Black man" issue never crossed my mind until I saw it mentioned above. He seemed seriously annoyed though. I imagine he was aware that things were not going well.

I have always found Obama difficult to listen to. I have heard worse, of course, but I have never understood the enthusiasm for his style. Still, I expected better. It was not just his style last night, he seemed outgunned.

Here is what I think Romney accomplished. From this point on, no one cares how much income tax he did or did not pay, assuming that he paid in accordance with the law. Nor will there be any interest in how his dog traveled on car rides. Scrap the cute cartoons portraying him as a robot. I really hope Obama and his team understand this, they have their work cut out for them.

[cherdano]

It was an obvious win for Romney for sure. Still, he may have paid for that somewhat on substance. E.g. the first two CNN headlines right now:
1. "Obama accuses Romney of dishonesty"
President Obama and his campaign accused Mitt Romney of dishonesty over tax policy and other issues, a day after the president's panned debate showing.
2. "Romney's pledge: No tax cut for the rich"
And the story basically saying that nobody knows how that would work with his plan, and that he isn't saying how he would make it work, either.

Other obvious lies ("In fact, I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions.") may hurt him as well. And I would be surprised if he has never said anything during the primaries that explicitly contradicts his debate pledge not to reduce taxes on the rich.

Anyway, in case Romney becomes president, I hope it will be the moderate Romney from yesterday, not the primary Romney.

[lalldonn]

luke warm, on 2012-October-04, 15:22, said:

so romney was more presidential sounding?

Yes, very. In my opinion Obama clearly doesn't speak as well as he did for the years prior to being elected. Not just debating, but his speeches aren't nearly as impressive as they used to be either.

[kenberg]

About the contradictions: Imagine you are a guy who takes over companies and does something or other with them. How do you go about it? Say any damn thing that you think will work, meaning what will get you control, just don't put it in writing and sign it. That's the way I see the Romney campaign. Of course politicians have been doing this for ages. But Romney has mastered the art. If he gets elected he will do something. What will he do? Who knows? Something.

To some extent, it could not be otherwise. No one asked either of the candidates in 2000 what they would do if terrorists flew planes into the twin towers. We elect someone who shares, more or less, our values and who we think can cope with the unexpected. Still, I think Romney is unusually adept at simply saying anything he thinks might get him votes. It sometimes works, just as it does (in the short run) in business.

As I have mentioned before, the first vote I cast was for Kennedy in 1960. There was this missile gap ..... And then, in 1964, I worked for Johnson because, in his words, he would not send American boys to do the job Asian boys should do. Then, in 1968, there was...
Oh well.

[jdeegan]

JLOGIC, on 2012-October-04, 10:41, said:

Romney really did smoke Obama I would be surprised if others are saying otherwise. Though I think Cherdano told me that Obamas performance was popular with women?
But again, it doesn't really matter. Here is an article related to that. It wasn't the one I read earlier, but it is much the same.
Nate Silver basically confirms this here. He says that the challenger usually gains a point or two, once he gained 3 points. Twice it has reversed the leader. So it does matter, but not that much, and is only relevant in close races. Since Obama had such a big lead, getting crushed in this debate (which I think he did) is unlikely to matter.
Basically, Romney is too far behind, and it is too late in the game to catch up, imo. Obama just dropping 4-5 points on intrade because of this is really absurd, I am considering buying more. This market is not even close to rational, it is amazing, I think politics just makes people too irrational and intrade is basically too small with too little smart money to adjust completely for the dumb/casual money.
edit: worth noting obama dropped 6-7 points on pinnacle also, but he was at 80 % there lol (more evidence I should be buying more obama!). Can a euro tell me what happened on betfair?

It may be that Romney has too big a deficit to make up in key states like Ohio, et.al. However, the Nate Silver ( a hard lefty if there ever was one) notion that the 1960 and 1980 debates were trivial is complete bullshit. Particularly in 1980 it enabled Reagan to overcome about a ten point deficit nationwide. Romney's pre-debate deficit in Ohio - Obama's strongest lead in the battleground states - was about 10 points.

For what it's worth, I did see a post-debate TV presentation by Frank Lunz, a very well-regarded pro-Republican pollster. Lunz had a panel of about 30 self-described undecided voters. After the debate, two changed to Obama, and about 15 changed to Romney.

The tide is starting to run in Romney's favor. He seems to know how to channel Reagan.