The Obama v. Romney Debate Thread, Part II

[Moliere]

After the first debate, all the left could talk about was big bird. Now, after a supposed win and a chance to talk about substance, all my liberal friends can say is "binder of women." Telling.

I'm confused by the binder of women thing. I didn't watch the debate so naturally I have no idea what they are talking about. It seems implausible to me that Mitt has a binder full of women.

[Goatnapper'96]

All the while confirming that he is running against a viable alternative.

[spin]If Romney's goal was to win the debate, he was bested-- but not by much. If his goal was to continue to reaffirm to the nation that he has a plan that will see the country through to an economic recovery, he may well have done it. It was in Denver as it was last night: Obama loses any debate that deals with substance, and can only hope to win by demonizing his opponent.[/spin]

The key to all things in life is figuring out who is really on top. While many right wingers went about hyperventilating about the first debate opening the curtain on Obama, I think it was the opposite. It opened the curtain on Mitt Romney and voters found out despite the brilliant campaigning Axelrod and co had done to paint Mitt as they had done, voters found themselves liking Mitt Romney. With that positions changed quicker than after a whistle blows in a cheap in Chatsworth hotel. The fundamentals of this election have been and will continue to be the economy and whether or not voters can be convinced 1.) Obama has a plan to improve things and if they are not convinced there we move to 2.) Whether or not the challenger does and if he does is he acceptable?

Those are the fundamentals and will continue to be. Even Liberals are not enamored with the job Obama has done. The Obama re-election campaign has offered nothing about Obama and his plan for the future thus conceding defeat on question #1. Their entire plan was to make Mitt unnacceptable and win question #2. I think their plan ran into a napalm attack in debate 1. I don't think last night helped them to recover because now the dynamics have changed and Mitt is on top and once on top you only need a tie.

[byu71]

I'm confused by the binder of women thing. I didn't watch the debate so naturally I have no idea what they are talking about. It seems implausible to me that Mitt has a binder full of women.

You are not from the same era as Mitt and I. Back in college all of us alpha males had what we referred to as a "binder full of women's" names.

Since Mitt was devoted to one woman even then, I suppose he picked the term up from friends who were not so committed yet.

[LA Ute]

You are not from the same era as Mitt and I. Back in college all of us alpha males had what we referred to as a "binder full of women's" names.

Since Mitt was devoted to one woman even then, I suppose he picked the term up from friends who were not so committed yet.

[The_Douger]

It was only a matter of time............

[SeattleUte]

A draw is wishful thinking. Romney got off to a bad start and then never caught up. He answered the initial 20 year old college kid's question by saying probably 20 times, "I know how to get this economny going; I know how to make new jobs." But he never said how; I yelled "say how!" I felt like I was hearing "look into my naked eyes; the Church is true."

Then Obama responded with a detailed three point plan to help the economy continue to recover from the mess the prior Republican adminstration created (as he characterized it).

Romney then said he has a five point plan but, again, didn't say what it was. Then Obama delivered the haymaker -- "He doesn't have a five point plan, he has a one point plan, help the rich!"

After the he said she said about letting Deteroit automakers go bankrupt Romney just sounded on the defensive begging for a chance to give a surreply.

I am for Romney. But at this point I knew he was done.

[LA Ute]

A draw is wishful thinking. Romney got off to a bad start and then never caught up. He answered the initial 20 year old college kid's question by saying probably 20 times, "I know how to get this economny going; I know how to make new jobs." But he never said how; I yelled "say how!" I felt like I was hearing "look into my naked eyes; the Church is true."

Then Obama responded with a detailed three point plan to help the economy continue to recover from the mess the prior Republican adminstration created (as he characterized it).

Romney then said he has a five point plan but, again, didn't say what it was. Then Obama delivered the haymaker -- "He doesn't have a five point plan, he has a one point plan, help the rich!"

After the he said she said about letting Deteroit automakers go bankrupt Romney just sounded on the defensive begging for a chance to give a surreply.

I am for Romney. But at this point I knew he was done.

Troll.

[Omaha 680]

Romney then said he has a five point plan but, again, didn't say what it was. Then Obama delivered the haymaker -- "He doesn't have a five point plan, he has a one point plan, help the rich!"

You misunderstand how the dynamics of the race have changed if you still think that is a haymaker. It's only a haymaker for lefties now. The middle has moved past that junk.

[SeattleUte]

You misunderstand how the dynamics of the race have changed if you still think that is a haymaker. It's only a haymaker for lefties now. The middle has moved past that junk.

You miss that these debates are essentially a cage match.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

One of Romney's better lines from the first debate was how the wealthy will do fine under any administration and they've done just fine under Obama's, he then pivoted away and said his job was to make sure the middle class was doing well. The other thing that played well was talking about Democrats in MA. Romney should have brought up that Obama's budget can't even get votes from his own party.

There are ways of appealing to independents while also making Obama's own supporters question him. Romney accomplished that in the first debate, failed in the second.

The polling on this seems to indicate either a draw or narrow win for Obama. It stops Romney's momentum but it remains to be seen if Obama moves back ahead in the national polls. I thought Romney lost his cool a few times last night. Ryan emerged as the narrow winner in the VP debate precisely because he kept his cool. Let Obama take his outsourcing and Kaymans cheap shots, Romney didn't need to go for tit for tat on that.

Romney did give the most impressive answer of the night which was to the black man who expressed his disappointment in Obama.

[LA Ute]

You miss that these debates are essentially a cage match.

Are you following MMA a lot these days? Your repeated references to cage matches are starting to worry me

[Tex]

I've said this a couple of times over the years, it doesn't matter who "wins," it matters what they do for their ticket. Hard for me to see how last night makes much change to what Romney did in Denver.

Also note: the evening was spent on Romney's messaging. Obama said precious little about a 2nd term, and the debate was all about Romney's positions and Obama's record. How does that help Obama persuade anyone?

Lastly, even polls showing Obama "winning" the debate have disastrous numbers for him on specific issues:

CNN poll
Who won: 46 O / 39 R
Best on economy: 58 R / 40 O
Best on health care: 49 R / 46 O
Best on taxes: 51 R / 44 O
Best on deficit: 59 R / 36 O
Best on foreign policy: 49 O / 47 R
Partisan split: 33 R / 33 D

CBS poll
Who won: 37 O / 30 R / 33 Tie
Best on economy: 65 R / 34 R
Stronger leader: 46 R / 46 O
Likeability: 47 O / 41 R
Does Romney have a clear plan? 49 Yes / 50 No
Does Obama have a clear plan? 38 Yes / 61 No
Partisan split: 21 R / 23 D / 56 unaffiliated

These are not numbers an incumbent wins with.

[All-American]

I've said this a couple of times over the years, it doesn't matter who "wins," it matters what they do for their ticket. Hard for me to see how last night makes much change to what Romney did in Denver.

Also note: the evening was spent on Romney's messaging. Obama said precious little about a 2nd term, and the debate was all about Romney's positions and Obama's record. How does that help Obama persuade anyone?

Lastly, even polls showing Obama "winning" the debate have disastrous numbers for him on specific issues:



These are not numbers an incumbent wins with.

I was looking for those CBS numbers. Good find. That supports the running line: Obama had the better performance, but made little to no progress in securing the election (and may still be losing ground).

[ERCougar]

These are not numbers an incumbent wins with.

Ouch. I didn't realize the numbers were so bad for him. Those are terrible.

[Goatnapper'96]

Ouch. I didn't realize the numbers were so bad for him. Those are terrible.

I think that debate 1 is trully beginning to look like that watershed moment that history will remember. The Obama administration attempted to use the "liar liar pants on fire" campaign after Mitt pounded President Obama and it did not work. I think they are pivoting back to Mitt is an out of touch plutocrat, and perhaps it will work enough to win but I think the debates are giving Mitt the chance to define himself and while he might not be as popular as the President it appears clear that the conclusion the electorate is coming to about Mitt is vastly different than the caricature the Obama campaign so successfully projected.