2012 Debates

[Monketi Ghost]

Actually, Barack announcing new free stuff might be a great idea. Or not. But something "new". They ought to make a major announcement from the Oval Office (not Obama but a spokesperson) of some harmless new policy that sounds like it should scare the troglodytes. "The President had to leave for the Debate, but asked us to announce that he is recommiting the EPA to the standards set during the Roosevelt administration and to continue monitoring the quality of Dihydrogen Monoxide, even in the face of adversity and complaints, especially dihydrogen monoxide provided by local and state authorities and the transportation of same across state lines."

That one might be too blatant, but I'm sure the creative minds around here could come up with harmless yet fearful-sounding regulations for them to announce.

Or any curve ball. They've been prepping him to defend every wart, wrinkle and waffle. Create one they haven't heard of and watch the Mittster ad lib for major comedy value.

Jeez, this is good, right down to Dihydrogen Monoxide, which is an old gag I'd bet would actually work, and send Romney into a tailspin of silly-sounding panic statements.

My guess though is nothing new and sadly that response #1 is basically correct.

 

[Travis]

I'm surprised the debate isn't at Washington University in St Louis. Seems like there is always a debate being held there each election cycle.

 

[Olowkow]

I think it was at the Kennedy museum that I heard that people who listened to the debates on the radio thought that Nixon had won, those who saw them on the TV thought Kennedy had won.

I am taking a class with a prof who seems to know what he is talking about, and he claims this is a myth of sorts based on a cocktail party after the debate. A dozen or so people were arguing about who won, and someone noted that those who listened on radio happened to think Nixon won, and those who thought Kennedy won, as it turned out, viewed it on TV. This meme quickly went viral, because it seemed to make sense.

He has offered $20 to students every time he teaches the class to a student who can document any research other than the cocktail party to back up this anecdote. So, anybody have a link? If so, I'll split the $20 with you.

 

[Puppycow]

Romney has some canned zingers ready to go.

http://nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/10/zingers-wont-save-you-mitt

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/10/the_day_in_100_seconds_zingers.php

 

[Baylor]

I'm surprised the debate isn't at Washington University in St Louis. Seems like there is always a debate being held there each election cycle.

Missouri has been a competitive and important swing state and until last election, had the longest "winning" streak. Not so true anymore.

 

[Caper]

What would happen if one of the candidates wet themselves on stage? I mean seriously. Lets say Obama comes out from behind the podium to speak to the audience....... and then he just wets his pants. Could that swing the election? Would that be a huge boon for Romney? Or when the right over played their hand, would people feel sympathetic and make people run to support Obama. What if it was Romney that wet his pants? Could he possibly rebound?

I write this kind of chuckling..... but I really wonder how such an event would effect the outcome. I wonder if the candidates fear such an event.

 

[Baylor]

It would be more likely to happen to Romney than Obama since Romney is 14 years older and can have bladder problems or bening prostatic hyperplasia. If any candidate has a history of wetting their pants then I'm sure they would take preventive measures. No offense, but that's a dumb question.

 

[Olowkow]

The "debates" are not debates any longer, ever since the League of Women's Voters gave up on them because of the unreasonable demands of the parties. It is a bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates which is responsible for negotiating the minutiae and hundreds of details of what is billed as a debate, but is in reality designed to avoid any untoward occurrences by either side. One cannot "win" a debate as designed by this commission, but one can lose.

My understanding is that there will be no "follow up" questions allowed, and no one-on-one on the part of the participants, so it is possible just to ignore the moderator's question and run out the clock while spewing memorized stump speech stuff.

 

[not_so_new]

My understanding is that there will be no "follow up" questions allowed, and no one-on-one on the part of the participants, so it is possible just to ignore the moderator's question and run out the clock while spewing memorized stump speech stuff.

While I do think this is possible in theory, in practice there is only so much misdirection they can do without suffering consequences. As you correctly pointed out above, there isn't a real "winner" but a debate can be lost by doing too much a dodge'n and a weave'n.

The debates are a battle for the votes of the undecided. Spewing a memorized stump speech will not turn off a voter who has already decided to vote for the candidate nor will it sway a voter who has already decided to vote of the other guy.

The problem for the candidate who attempts to dodge too many questions is that they are not going to sway the opinion of the undecided voter or, worse yet, they are going to turn them off entirely. There just isn't enough time to win back lost votes from a poor showing in a debate.... again, there are probably no real winners from a debate but losing can have some major implications and doing too much dancing around questions is a dicey proposition.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It's sort of like two people giving speeches in parallel more than an actual debate.

Still gonna watch .

 

[Puppycow]

It's thought that bad body language is one way to lose the debate. E.g. Bush Sr. looking at his watch or Al Gore sighing and rolling his eyes.

 

[12AX7]

What would happen if one of the candidates wet themselves on stage? I mean seriously. Lets say Obama comes out from behind the podium to speak to the audience....... and then he just wets his pants. Could that swing the election? Would that be a huge boon for Romney? Or when the right over played their hand, would people feel sympathetic and make people run to support Obama. What if it was Romney that wet his pants? Could he possibly rebound?

I write this kind of chuckling..... but I really wonder how such an event would effect the outcome. I wonder if the candidates fear such an event.

Some gun forum R.wingers believe Obama won't show up.

 

[Caper]

Some gun forum R.wingers believe Obama won't show up.

I do find it quite amazing, just the amount of pure hatred there is for Obama out there. Have you ever read a cnn article about anything? No matter what it is, you can rest assured when you read the comments, someone is blaming Obama. Some of the comments are quite funny actually... if not a bit nuts.

 

[SkepticalDrew]

I hope this level of contempt doesn't show up in the debates. Still I found it interesting.

"Obama really doesn’t like, admire or even grudgingly respect Romney. It’s a level of contempt, say aides, he doesn’t even feel for the conservative, combative House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the Hill Republican he disliked the most. “There was a baseline of respect for John McCain. The president always thought he was an honorable man and a war hero,” a longtime Obama adviser said. “That doesn’t hold true for Romney. He was no goddamned war hero.”
Time and again Obama has told the people around him that Romney stood for “nothing.” The word he would use to describe Romney was “weak,” too weak to stand up to his own moneymen, too weak to defend his own moderate record as the man who signed into law the first health insurance mandate as Massachusetts governor in 2006, too weak to admit Obama had done a single thing right as president."

Harsh.

 

[RandFan]

I hope this level of contempt doesn't show up in the debates. Still I found it interesting.

"Obama really doesn’t like, admire or even grudgingly respect Romney. It’s a level of contempt, say aides, he doesn’t even feel for the conservative, combative House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the Hill Republican he disliked the most. “There was a baseline of respect for John McCain. The president always thought he was an honorable man and a war hero,” a longtime Obama adviser said. “That doesn’t hold true for Romney. He was no goddamned war hero.”
Time and again Obama has told the people around him that Romney stood for “nothing.” The word he would use to describe Romney was “weak,” too weak to stand up to his own moneymen, too weak to defend his own moderate record as the man who signed into law the first health insurance mandate as Massachusetts governor in 2006, too weak to admit Obama had done a single thing right as president."

Harsh.

I gotta say, I honestly can't tell you what Romney stands for.

 

[BenBurch]

I hope this level of contempt doesn't show up in the debates. Still I found it interesting.

"Obama really doesn’t like, admire or even grudgingly respect Romney. It’s a level of contempt, say aides, he doesn’t even feel for the conservative, combative House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the Hill Republican he disliked the most. “There was a baseline of respect for John McCain. The president always thought he was an honorable man and a war hero,” a longtime Obama adviser said. “That doesn’t hold true for Romney. He was no goddamned war hero.”
Time and again Obama has told the people around him that Romney stood for “nothing.” The word he would use to describe Romney was “weak,” too weak to stand up to his own moneymen, too weak to defend his own moderate record as the man who signed into law the first health insurance mandate as Massachusetts governor in 2006, too weak to admit Obama had done a single thing right as president."

Harsh.

Truth often is harsh.

 

[Olowkow]

I gotta say, I honestly can't tell you what Romney stands for.

I gotta say, I honestly can't tell you why anyone is pro Romney. The lack of position and all the lies don't seem to matter.

The only answer I ever get is "anti Obama", and some vague mumbling about "his policies". It always sounds like a memorized response from some right wing source.

And why is there not a single republican taking the high road and expressing outrage about voter suppression tactics?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm surprised the debate isn't at Washington University in St Louis. Seems like there is always a debate being held there each election cycle.

We've had the first debate here for several elections in a row. Not sure why they didn't do that again.

I think Missouri lost our status as a bellwether state by going for the loser last time around.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's a pretty good analysis of their strengths and weaknesses as debaters by a debate coach:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/opinion/graham-presidential-debate/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

[grunion]

And, just in, a leak from the Romney campaign of his debate warmup (this one is about education reform):



I thought he looked damn good, but obviously could use a little tightening up on the pauses and "um"s. Certainly enough to claim victory.