Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

On style-points Romney was the clear winner in the debate, not even close. Obama isn't a good debater.

Reagan proved debates are all about style. So did Bill Clinton. The more charismatic, relaxed, confident guy wins.

Barack is not as convincing any more. Very weak closing remarks. Mitt was just spewing stuff, throwing out numbers but with conviction.

I think we might have a new President this November. Not my choice, but I think that is the way it will go down.

[Nivek]

Romney may have "won" the debate, but I don't think he did enough last night to change the election. This was round one of the debates -- 2 more still to come. Obama left a lot of ammo unfired. And, he didn't need to "win," he needed to avoid screwing up. Which it seems like he did.

In my view, Romney seemed kinda manic. At one point I wondered if he'd taken some speed. I didn't see anything last night that will alter the course of the election.

[montestewart]

So that is what people who are so clueless they don't know who to vote for yet think.

Well, if the people that wanted their votes talked down to them like you do, they'd remain forever independent. I have to say hands146, I always know exactly who you're going to vote for, and yet despite page after page of War and Peace length screeds, complete with multiple links (that almost never actually support the point you think you are making) you always seem pretty clueless to me.

I've never seen persuasive evidence that independent voters are less informed on issues than party committed voters, and that position in fact runs counter to my personal experience and much other evidence. (Spare me your random, unvetted links in support of the contrary, because they surely will not prove your point.)

[payitforward]

As expected, Romney poured everything he had into last night's debate. Obama, on the other hand, seemed preoccupied. As a viewer, and a 1000% Obama supporter, a fan in other words, I was of course disappointed that my guy didn't deliver a knockout. And somewhat surprised by how well Romney performed (independent of how the President did).

Obama didn't come in to attack. This was made obvious by the fact that he didn't raise the "47%" issue. I think he's right not to attack.

There are many openings for him that come out of last night's debate. At some point, for example, I expect him to point out that being President is nothing like being a consultant. And Romney's use of the term "the poor"; I think that will come back to haunt him. Oh, and a quick edit here to say that I agree w/ Kevin that R verged on the manic. There'll be some effort made to frame that for view by the public. No one wants a manic President.

It's hard to defeat a sitting President. US history is littered w/ Romney types who tried and failed. Of course there can be an exception that proves the rule, and we don't want to see that! Still, I'm not worried at this point.

[hands11]

On style-points Romney was the clear winner in the debate, not even close. Obama isn't a good debater.

Reagan proved debates are all about style. So did Bill Clinton. The more charismatic, relaxed, confident guy wins.

Barack is not as convincing any more. Very weak closing remarks. Mitt was just spewing stuff, throwing out numbers but with conviction.

I think we might have a new President this November. Not my choice, but I think that is the way it will go down.

You worry to much.

It was only one debate. All Mitt achieved is getting a second look by people that are undecided which are very few pepole. One focus group that I saw, no one decided for either. Another one. 8 people said they decided for Mitt with eight deciding on Obama, the rest were still undecided.

4 of the 5 last incumbent presidents have lost their first debate. Probably because the incumbent doesn't go through a primary so they are not a practiced.

[hands11]

Romney may have "won" the debate, but I don't think he did enough last night to change the election. This was round one of the debates -- 2 more still to come. Obama left a lot of ammo unfired. And, he didn't need to "win," he needed to avoid screwing up. Which it seems like he did.

In my view, Romney seemed kinda manic. At one point I wondered if he'd taken some speed. I didn't see anything last night that will alter the course of the election.

manic is a good description. He was even interrupting the moderator multiple times. And again, he just outright lied about ideas he had been running on. Lets see how the fact checkers deal with what Mitt said. Lets see what the Obama campaign does with the new Mitt ideas that he flipped. Lets see how Biden uses this stuff against Ryan. Biden is more of an attack dog.

The audience for this was undecided voters and they don't like to see people argue. That was reenforced by the focus groups they interviewed after the debate. They didn't even like the small amount of hard hitting that Obama actually did. That one moment where he nailed Mitt who totally changing his tax cut policy was two of the lower rating moments for Obama. I just don't understand what these people want.

Since most people tend to watch the first debate more, maybe Obama is saying the harder stuff for later. He clearly had easy targets to hit that he does hit on the campaign trail that he left out in this debate. Seems like it was a choice.

[hands11]

So that is what people who are so clueless they don't know who to vote for yet think.

Well, if the people that wanted their votes talked down to them like you do, they'd remain forever independent. I have to say hands146, I always know exactly who you're going to vote for, and yet despite page after page of War and Peace length screeds, complete with multiple links (that almost never actually support the point you think you are making) you always seem pretty clueless to me.

I've never seen persuasive evidence that independent voters are less informed on issues than party committed voters, and that position in fact runs counter to my personal experience and much other evidence. (Spare me your random, unvetted links in support of the contrary, because they surely will not prove your point.)

Not independent voters. Undecided voters.

I was saying that as a group, people that are still undecided with 5 weeks to go are just not informed people. These debates should mean very little to most people. We already know what each would do and who these people are.

[Ruzious]

Romney may have "won" the debate, but I don't think he did enough last night to change the election. This was round one of the debates -- 2 more still to come. Obama left a lot of ammo unfired. And, he didn't need to "win," he needed to avoid screwing up. Which it seems like he did.

In my view, Romney seemed kinda manic. At one point I wondered if he'd taken some speed. I didn't see anything last night that will alter the course of the election.

Yeah, it was like Obama was on weed, and Romney on speed. I was disappointed with Obama's lack of aggression. It was almost as if he was waiting for the moderator to do his job for him. Ask Romney what specific deductions he's planning on taking away to pay for his tax rate reduction. It would be kind of nice to actually know what Romney's plan is. It just amazes me that presidential candidates assume they can get away with being so vague about their plans. Imo, that means they assume Americans are idiots.

And as far as Romney's repeated comments that by lowering the tax rates and taking away deductions to remain revenue neutral, he's creating jobs - ask him what logic he's using. If the rates are lower, they get lower deductions for salary expenses. For example, a 35% tax rate means you get 35 cents benefit per dollar on wage deductions. A 40% tax rate means you get 5 cents more benefit per dollar on deductions; not 5 cents less. Make him be specific, so that he knows he can't just spew nonsense and get away with it.

[Ruzious]

Obama didn't come in to attack. This was made obvious by the fact that he didn't raise the "47%" issue. I think he's right not to attack.

Yeah, he should have made it known that The 47% Solution isn't a book about Sherlock Holmes. I think the most effective thing about Obama's campaign have been his commercials that simply have recordings of Romney speaches. They literally speak for themselves. EDIT - closg made that point on the previous page. I need to start reading the posts on this thread before posting.

[montestewart]

hands, did you watch the debates? If so, why, if they don't tell you anything? Do clearly articulated positions clearly foretell the future? Reagan said he would eliminate draft registration, then never lifted a finger to do anything about it after election. Clinton said he would eliminate the ban on gays in the military, then pretty much abandoned the position after he was elected. Bush, who knows what he said, but he sure didn't promise that. Just a random list off the top of my head, I'm sure others can add to it.

With the corrupting influence of special interest money ever present, "Do you trust them to be what they say they will be?" is a legitimate question that stands apart from stated policy positions. Maybe undecided voters are just less naive than you are, or maybe they have more reliable intuitions. Or maybe they have two jobs and four kids and don't have time to be political junkies. Not having the time to be super-well informed on the issues is not "clueless," and so many apparently well-informed people are still incredibly gullible.

Are you so certain that most decided voters made their decisions based on the issues, rather than voting Republican or Democrat because that's what they've always done, that's what everyone in their area does, that's what their parents did, or that's the opposite of what their parents did?

When I hear people explain why they are voting Republican or Democrat, it sounds to me very much like many of them are parroting a received, bullet-pointed list designed to justify a decision they would almost invariably make regardless, rather than carefully considering multiple options. Most partisan voters sound as "clueless" to me as "undecided" voters, and maybe more so, since so many "undecided" voters perhaps better see the difference between understanding the issues and choosing between a t*rd sandwich and a giant d**che.

[Zonkerbl]

I didn't watch the debates. Don't care. Latest job figures this month will have more influence on the election.

[popper]

The optics of the debate clearly favored Romney. Had the debate been recorded on paper and then read by the audience I think it would have been more of a draw. I'm disappointed with the timing of the debates though and the early voting that takes place before they are even concluded.

Both candidates missed big opportunities to rebut talking points. For instance, when Obama was talking about his budget proposal that would cut $4 Trillion from the deficit over 10 years, Romney should have responded "that not even a single member of the President's own party supported or voted in favor of his proposal. These are serious times and they call out for serious leadership, not political proposals designed to obfuscate the deep economic trouble we face.

I would love to see both candidates forced to submit detailed budget proposals two weeks before a debate leaving enough time for them to be scored by the CBO. Both candidates should use the same set of assumptions, for instance, the budget must balance within ten years, GDP growth will be X, etc.

[Zonkerbl]

Come on, Popper. The Pres' proposal had been obe'd by subsequent negotiation, and that vote was a political trick by the Republicans to score points. Completely misleading and baseless accusation. Why go there?

[hands11]

Romney may have "won" the debate, but I don't think he did enough last night to change the election. This was round one of the debates -- 2 more still to come. Obama left a lot of ammo unfired. And, he didn't need to "win," he needed to avoid screwing up. Which it seems like he did.

In my view, Romney seemed kinda manic. At one point I wondered if he'd taken some speed. I didn't see anything last night that will alter the course of the election.

Yeah, it was like Obama was on weed, and Romney on speed. I was disappointed with Obama's lack of aggression. It was almost as if he was waiting for the moderator to do his job for him. Ask Romney what specific deductions he's planning on taking away to pay for his tax rate reduction. It would be kind of nice to actually know what Romney's plan is. It just amazes me that presidential candidates assume they can get away with being so vague about their plans. Imo, that means they assume Americans are idiots.

And as far as Romney's repeated comments that by lowering the tax rates and taking away deductions to remain revenue neutral, he's creating jobs - ask him what logic he's using. If the rates are lower, they get lower deductions for salary expenses. For example, a 35% tax rate means you get 35 cents benefit per dollar on wage deductions. A 40% tax rate means you get 5 cents more benefit per dollar on deductions; not 5 cents less. Make him be specific, so that he knows he can't just spew nonsense and get away with it.

That is one reason why higher rates with deduction actually works. It encourages people to do what they are wired to do...avoid paying taxes. So you can sit still or you can spend in a way that helps you avoid the highest tax bracket you are in. The higher the bracket, the higher the benefit of doing something. That is why even when the top bracket was 80 or so, we still had I think two of the strongest economics. People don't actually pay that bracket.

And that is what people do. The end result is the low actual tax levels that people actually pay. Right now, we are at historic lows.

I love the idea of a lower flatter tax with less expectations because it is more simple. But it has its short comings because there is less motivation to act ... all things being equal. So when the economy is slow, there is less motivation to do any spending which hurts recoveries.

There is no perfect solution.

[hands11]

Obama didn't come in to attack. This was made obvious by the fact that he didn't raise the "47%" issue. I think he's right not to attack.

Yeah, he should have made it known that The 47% Solution isn't a book about Sherlock Holmes. I think the most effective thing about Obama's campaign have been his commercials that simply have recordings of Romney speaches. They literally speak for themselves. EDIT - closg made that point on the previous page. I need to start reading the posts on this thread before posting.

And commercials are targeted to specific regions. This was a general audience debate. The target in that audience was undecideds mostly. Undecided have said they don't like the bickering stuff.

I polled some people at work today that were Obama supporters. I said, is there anything that you would see in these debates that would change your mind against Obama.... the answer was no. They had already decided from information they gathered over more then 4 years. The debates meant nothing to them in that regards.

The first debate is for the undecideds mostly. Its the local campaign, surrogates and commercials that are there to get out the base.

Mitt looked pretty good up there. I give him that. But he also lied and opened himself up. Obama could have looked better but most incompetent presidents lose the first debate. Obama also needed to not come across attacking if he wanted to reach those undecided voters. Like I said, one focus group I saw split 8 and 8 between deciding who they wanted after the debates even though most said Mitt won.

[Ruzious]

Realistically, there's never going to be a flat tax, because there is always going to be an interest group that "needs" its dedcutions and gets them - and before you know it, you'll have a tax code filled with exeptions and every bit as complicated as the one we have now. Can you imagine having no deduction for mortgage interest? Ain't gonna happen. Housing industry, banking industry, middle class... those are pretty strong interest groups.

[hands11]

The optics of the debate clearly favored Romney. Had the debate been recorded on paper and then read by the audience I think it would have been more of a draw. I'm disappointed with the timing of the debates though and the early voting that takes place before they are even concluded.

Both candidates missed big opportunities to rebut talking points. For instance, when Obama was talking about his budget proposal that would cut $4 Trillion from the deficit over 10 years, Romney should have responded "that not even a single member of the President's own party supported or voted in favor of his proposal. These are serious times and they call out for serious leadership, not political proposals designed to obfuscate the deep economic trouble we face.

I would love to see both candidates forced to submit detailed budget proposals two weeks before a debate leaving enough time for them to be scored by the CBO. Both candidates should use the same set of assumptions, for instance, the budget must balance within ten years, GDP growth will be X, etc.

Excellent post Pops. Very objective and accurate and and interesting suggestions.

Yeah, it is mostly about the optics. I heard one person say, if you want to know who did better, turn the sound off. lol

I agree it would read a lot different. Obama umms to much. It work ok when he is talking one on one but in a debate it doesn't work well at all. I also agree they should have happened earlier if they were to have more of an influence. I also think the mod lost control.

Overall. I don't think it will move the poll numbers much.

[popper]

Come on, Popper. The Pres' proposal had been obe'd by subsequent negotiation, and that vote was a political trick by the Republicans to score points. Completely misleading and baseless accusation. Why go there?

I wasn't trying to be flippant Zonk. My recollection is that the House passed a budget. The Senate refused for the third year in a row to submit one. Repubs forced Senate to vote on Obama's budget and it didn't receive a single Dem vote. Are you saying that it was obe because of the sequestration agreement? If so, the Dems had Obama's budget proposal before sequestration talks began indicating to me that they preferred sequestration to their own leaders proposal. If not they would have introduced Obama's budget for a vote before sequestration talks even began. I think I have the timeline right but feel free to correct me if you have better information.

[Zonkerbl]

That's exactly right, Popper. The President's budget proposal is the first step of a multi-step negotiation. Congress ALWAYS prefers the CURRENT version of the budget that they are negotiating over. Everybody inside the beltway knows that, and to claim that the POTUS' original proposal has any relevance after talks in Congress have already moved on to something else is deliberately misleading, if not outright deceitful.

What if the Republicans had demanded a vote on Obama's budget and they (the Dems) had overwhelmingly approved it? Republicans would have screamed bloody murder that Dems were negotiating in bad faith, because they had already agreed to something else.

Slimy and deceitful. And the reason they get away with it is because people like you go around repeating it like it makes sense, like it wasn't a slimy and deceitful, backstabbing dirty political trick.

Just stop. Ok?

[popper]

That's exactly right, Popper. The President's budget proposal is the first step of a multi-step negotiation. Congress ALWAYS prefers the CURRENT version of the budget that they are negotiating over. Everybody inside the beltway knows that, and to claim that the POTUS' original proposal has any relevance after talks in Congress have already moved on to something else is deliberately misleading, if not outright deceitful.

What if the Republicans had demanded a vote on Obama's budget and they (the Dems) had overwhelmingly approved it? Republicans would have screamed bloody murder that Dems were negotiating in bad faith, because they had already agreed to something else.

Slimy and deceitful. And the reason they get away with it is because people like you go around repeating it like it makes sense, like it wasn't a slimy and deceitful, backstabbing dirty political trick.

Just stop. Ok?

Take a chill pill Zonk. No need to bust a vein over a simple discussion. I would like to clarify a few points but I won't bother. I'm worried you'd hurt yourself.