The Debates

[Duck Rodgers]

I wanna see a Ryan / Biden debate, lol

Yeah, I take back my..."I can't watch these anymore" statement for that one. That one is going to be must see TV.

 

[Stoked]

They majority of CNN analysts are saying Romney won. That Romney has made this a horse race. I really want to see their poll of voters on who won.

 

[Julie Greengiant]

Romney stop obfuscating please

 

[sirkickyass]

CNN came out and said Obama's claim was false. Then they talked about how Romney has not claimed how he would offset tax cuts.

So False with a but.

Did they say why it was false?

The quick take I've found on it:
https://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-03#sha=b84167e95

A number of readers have asked the following question: “How accurate are President Obama’s claims about Mitt Romney’s $5 trillion tax cut?”

In the first debate segment, Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney repeatedly sparred over whether or not Mr. Romney has proposed a $5 trillion tax cut.

It is true that Mr. Romney has proposed “revenue neutral” tax reform, meaning that he would not expand the deficit. However, he has proposed cutting all marginal tax rates by 20 percent — which would in and of itself cut tax revenue by $5 trillion.

To make up that revenue, Mr. Romney has said he wants to clear out the underbrush of deductions and loopholes in the tax code. But he has not yet specified how he would do so, opening himself to persistent Democratic attacks.

This week, in an interview with a Colorado television station, Mr. Romney did shed some light – floating the idea of capping each household’s deductions at $17,000.

“As an option, you could say everybody’s going to get up to a $17,000 deduction. And you could use your charitable deduction, your home mortgage deduction, or others, your health care deduction, and you can fill that bucket, if you will, that $17,000 bucket that way,” he said. “Higher-income people might have a lower number.”

The deduction cap has the virtue of avoiding the tough negotiations over which tax expenditures to unwind. Many tax expenditures are highly popular, like the deduction for charitable giving. Moreover, many are important to the stability of the economy. Suddenly ending the home mortgage interest deduction, for instance, would threaten destabilizing the housing market.

But a number of unanswered questions about Mr. Romney’s tax plan remain.

For instance, Mr. Romney did not address how his proposed cap on deductions would affect tax credits. (Generally, deductions lower a given family’s level of taxable income and credits erase part of their overall tax bill.)

It is also unclear whether his proposal to cap deductions would raise enough revenue to pay for his income tax rate cuts – at least not without increasing the tax burden on families making less than $200,000 a year, which Mr. Romney has vowed that he will not do.

I wish Obama had clarified that $5 trillion was the cost of reducing all marginal tax rates by 20%. That would have at least forced Romney to state whether he's abandoning that statement or state why that doesn't cost a significant amount of money. Not certain why it would be "false" by CNN unless Mitt has explicitly disavowed his previous plan.

I will say that Obama's far far ahead in Electoral College projections and debated like he was solely playing defense, trying to avoid mistakes instead of gain ground. Romney's game plan seemed to be to say that "you know nothing of my positions" and openly cut off the far right portion of his base that he pandered to for months in order to just say he was for every popular thing mentioned in the debate. That's smart strategy from an electoral standpoint, but it is just a further embodiment of being a smiling chameleon.

 

[Stoked]

Did they say why it was false?

The quick take I've found on it:
https://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-03#sha=b84167e95



I wish Obama had clarified that $5 trillion was the cost of reducing all marginal tax rates by 20%. That would have at least forced Romney to state whether he's abandoning that statement or state why that doesn't cost a significant amount of money. Not certain why it would be "false" by CNN unless Mitt has explicitly disavowed his previous plan.

I will say that Obama's far far ahead in Electoral College projections and debated like he was solely playing defense, trying to avoid mistakes instead of gain ground. Romney's game plan seemed to be to say that "you know nothing of my positions" and openly cut off the far right portion of his base that he pandered to for months in order to just say he was for every popular thing mentioned in the debate. That's smart strategy from an electoral standpoint, but it is just a further embodiment of being a smiling chameleon.

They said false becasue Romney is saying he has plans to offset the loss of revenue of 5 trillion however there were not enough facts to tell if Romneys claim was true. That is the "but"

 

[Dr. Jones]

Or a well meaning opportunist..

 

[Scorpjazz]

When Romney changes ideas or words at all, he is a chameleon, or flopper.
Obama does it, he is evolving, willing to embrace new ideas...what a crock

Was fun debate. It seems that most people will see their guy as the winner, like usual. But, the undecideds are what matter. I dont honestly know how you can be undecided at this point anyway, but I guess some people are.

 

[candrew]

They majority of CNN analysts are saying Romney won. That Romney has made this a horse race. I really want to see their poll of voters on who won.

Only until the next debate.

GW Bush completely whiffed on his first debate with John Kerry in 2004. He only managed to exhibit the fact that he had a pulse in the second debate and all the news stories were about Bush's big rebound. All of a sudden no one cared about the first debate and he rode that momentum to a second term.

Obama and his people have run a calculated, aggressive and sometimes vicious re-election campaign - I only wish he'd approach his job in the same manner. I have no doubt his passivity was planned all along.

 

[sirkickyass]

They said false becasue Romney is saying he has plans to offset the loss of revenue of 5 trillion however there were not enough facts to tell if Romneys claim was true. That is the "but"

Isn't that saying the claim is true though? Obama didnt' claim that Romney had no plans to cut spending, but that he starts with a $5 trillion scoop coming out of the revenue side.

If Romney says he's not proposing a $5 trillion tax cut, regardless of what else he plans to cut to offset revenue, then the claim that he's proposing a $5 trillion decline in the revenue side is true. I suspect Romney is arguing that he's growing the pie to make it revenue neutral because he tossed out a "accounting for growth" proviso at the end, but then we're in voodoo territory where we're assuming the problem away.

 

[Stoked]

Only until the next debate.

GW Bush completely whiffed on his first debate with John Kerry in 2004. He only managed to exhibit the fact that he had a pulse in the second debate and all the news stories were about Bush's big rebound. All of a sudden no one cared about the first debate and he rode that momentum to a second term.

Obama and his people have run a calculated, aggressive and sometimes vicious re-election campaign - I only wish he'd approach his job in the same manner. I have no doubt his passivity was planned all along.

Well...yeah. That is a given. We are talking about the first debate becasue that is the only one that has happened so far.

 

[Stoked]

Isn't that saying the claim is true though? Obama didnt' claim that Romney had no plans to cut spending, but that he starts with a $5 trillion scoop coming out of the revenue side.

If Romney says he's not proposing a $5 trillion tax cut, regardless of what else he plans to cut to offset revenue, then the claim that he's proposing a $5 trillion decline in the revenue side is true. I suspect Romney is arguing that he's growing the pie to make it revenue neutral because he tossed out a "accounting for growth" proviso at the end, but then we're in voodoo territory where we're assuming the problem away.

Yeah it seemed kind of washy by CNN but that is their take.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Only until the next debate.

GW Bush completely whiffed on his first debate with John Kerry in 2004. He only managed to exhibit the fact that he had a pulse in the second debate and all the news stories were about Bush's big rebound. All of a sudden no one cared about the first debate and he rode that momentum to a second term.

Obama and his people have run a calculated, aggressive and sometimes vicious re-election campaign - I only wish he'd approach his job in the same manner. I have no doubt his passivity was planned all along.

I agree it was planned. I'm not certain that he can show a command of the issues any better than he did, though. I don't think Romney killed Obama, but I also don't believe we'll see much better out of either as we move to new debates.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Very disappointing performance tonight by Obama. Kudos to Romney for finally looking like a viable option.

Romney was the aggressor the entire time. Obama was way too passive.

Should we start calling Obama Rocky? Gets his butt kicked in the first battle, but the passive strategy wears the other guy out in the end?

Obama was in defense all night. He let Romney off the hook on way too many points. Very disappointing showing by Obama.

 

[Stoked]

CNN poll of "registered voters" who watched the debate have Romney winning in a landslide.

Romney at 67% and Obama at 25%. Wow...

 

[Stoked]

Very disappointing performance tonight by Obama. Kudos to Romney for finally looking like a viable option.

Romney was the aggressor the entire time. Obama was way too passive.

Should we start calling Obama Rocky? Gets his butt kicked in the first battle, but the passive strategy wears the other guy out in the end?

Obama was in defense all night. He let Romney off the hook on way too many points. Very disappointing showing by Obama.

Only time Rocky ever used a passive strategy was in Rocky 3. Every other time was the outmached aggressor who just outlasted his opponet.

Edit: That would be closer to Obama/Rocky comparison.

 

[sirkickyass]

CBS snap poll of uncommitted voters (532 voters, didn't say location, demographics, or how they found them):


Question: Who won the Debate?

Romney: 46%
Obama: 22%
Tie: 32%

Serious question: who's really unsure at this point? Did they just wake up from comas?

 

[Stoked]

CBS snap poll of uncommitted voters (532 voters, didn't say location, demographics, or how they found them):


Question: Who won the Debate?

Romney: 46%
Obama: 22%
Tie: 32%

Serious question: who's really unsure at this point? Did they just wake up from comas?

Undecideds could be people who agree with both candidates on certain issues and have not determined what issues are more important to them.

 

[Stoked]

Romney cleaning up in the polls.

Stronger leader
Won the debate
On the economy
Better on the facts


Obama will be mush stronger int eh follow up debate, he has more ammo now. But so does Romney. I do not think he used all his bullets.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Romney cleaning up in the polls.

Stronger leader
Won the debate
On the economy
Better on the facts


Obama will be mush stronger int eh follow up debate, he has more ammo now. But so does Romney. I do not think he used all his bullets.

I think Obama was better on the facts. But everything else about the debate was Romney in a landslide.

 

[sirkickyass]

Undecideds could be people who agree with both candidates on certain issues and have not determined what issues are more important to them.

But seriously, who are those people?


There might be something to the notion that the challenger always has more to gain from these things than the incumbent. That's why we're hearing about Kerry/Bush '04 tonight.