by CBS poll, CNN poll, James Carville, Van Jones, John King, Anderson Cooper, Eugene Robinson, Howard Fineman, and even Chris Matthews. I didn't see any of the analysis on FOX, but I'll bet they were having a field day.
What was wrong with Obama? He didn't seem to bring his A-game. I never expected Romney to do that well against the POTUS.
The fact checkers were busy on CNN. By the time I switched over to MSNBC, they had scored 6 points, and the two men were neck-and-neck in the falsehoods, with Obama having a slight "edge." Obama had 1 true and 2 falses, and Romney had 1 true, 1 false, and 1 incomplete.
As much as I ate to say it, Romney clearly was tonight's winner. Obama seemed really off; almost vague and not as sure of himself as he normally is. I am very disappointed in his performance tonight as I was so confident that he would steal the show. :-(
I was in shock, Obama just wasn't himself and he was too nice. I don't know if he was trying to keep up his likeability numbers, but I like him better when he's a bad ass:) I can't believe he didn't shred him for lying about his tax plan, the 47%, Bain, etc. He seemed blown away that someone would get up there and lie like a rug, but he should have seen that coming.
One of the moderators afterwards was saying how Romney kept hard hitting that $90 bil, and Obama didn't explain how much was involved there with infrastructure, etc. I don't know, he was off his game to be sure!
One thing is for certain... Romney threw out a lot more facts and figures than Obama, he even corrected Obama on one of them. So, by its very nature, there are more hard figures for Romney to be wrong about. It will be interesting to watch.
I couldn't believe how much Obama kept pushing falsehoods though. He was straw-manning Romney like crazy.
He threw out figures, but not facts.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/11943-at … 38-minutes
That source cites everything it claims, so if you disagree, you can't just dismiss the source out of hand.
2 and 3 are proven wrong. Do I need to go further?
Well they are quoting a non partisan group that even Romney's campaign has praised in the past from an actual legitimate study so you need to do better than "they have been proven wrong".
I have already, twice in the last 2 days.
The effective rate that the top 1% pay is 24%.
If we lowered the marginal rate to 24%, and took away all deductions, exemptions, and credits, they would still pay 24%.
Result: Lower marginal rates. Same revenue.
As I say this study (linked at bottom) rather disagrees... Forgive me if I go with the professionals until I have more time to research it.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploaded … Reform.pdf
"Because many of the largest tax expenditures benefit middle- and lower-income households, deep reductions tax expenditures can alter the distribution of the tax burden. To illustrate these tradeoffs, we examine as an example a set of tax rate reductions specified in Governor Romney’s tax plan. We show that given the proposed tax rates and proscription against reducing tax expenditures aimed at saving and investment, cutting tax expenditures will result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers—even if individual income tax expenditures could be eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible."
If you lower the tax rate to the same level as the effective rate, and get rid of deductions, what happens to the effective rate?
Ah no, I see the problem here. You are just working off the top 1% and the impact on them, the point being made by the study is that the exceptions plan does not just affect the 1%, to do what is being suggested the plan needs to get rid of a massive quantity of tax reduction programs (including the charity deduction which would be disastrous) but more crucially getting rid of those deductions and programs affects the middle class much more because reductions are aimed at reducing taxation on the middle class far more than on the top 1% (because of progressive taxation) therefore to do what he is promising and not raise tax on the middle class (as he has promised) Romney would need to accumulate about 5 trillion dollars in debt over the next ten years.
Bad idea all round from the looks of it.
No, I focus on the 1% because it's an example. You can bring down rates, without affecting effective rates. Makes things more fair, I figured you would support that.
Besides, what if the deduction limit was set to $100,000? I don't think that would affect any middle income at all(unless you want to agree with Romney that middle-income goes up to $250,000)
You are completely correct. It is possible to bring down rates without changing the affective rate. I guess it's theoretically possible to reduce rates to 20% and still keep the same revenue coming in, but someone's deductions gotta go.
But Romney has refused to explain how exactly he is going to achieve this. That's part of the problem.
He has given examples of two different ways to handle the situation.
Clearly, both methods would need to be analyzed by the CBO, but it's pointless to try and pick out which deductions are going to go... that's a huge time-waster if you decide to simply limit deductions.
He has actually been specific on this issue. He said all deductions would be on the table, or we could simply limit total deductions to a dollar amount.
It doesn't make a difference if you get less deductions but also a lower tax rate. The end result is the same.
But that's the point, the study that says it's impossible ignores half of his stated plan.
The Tax Policy Center did not say it was impossible to keep the same affective rate and lower rates. It stated it was impossible without raising taxes on the middle class,because there aren't enough deductions for the wealthy that could pay for it all.
Which isn't true. You could lower marginal rates on the wealthy all the way down to 24%, and still theoretically not impact their effective rate at all.
There are ENOUGH deductions to bring the marginal rate on the wealthy down to 24% without affecting their effective rate.
Several issues with that.
#1 To do what Romney is promising the charity deduction would have to be removed = Very bad.
#2 When Romney says he won't raise taxes on the middle class I assumes he means it as he defined it?
#3 If the deduction limit were set to 100 000 then maybe that would be a good thing (I need to set out a scale and do my research) but that is not what he is proposing at all. Such a limit would also raise the tax burden significantly on the wealthy which i support but I rather imagine Romney supporters would not.
#4 You can't bring down rates without affecting effective rates without impacting heavily on lower income brackets. Unless you focus these measures just on the super wealthy in which case you provide an incentive for people to drop their income so they can be applicable for all sorts of deductions.
Here's another one(ignoring that they basically made the same point 5+ times)
9 - Public debt under the president.
They use total debt, not public debt. Romney said debt held by the public. Just another stupid attempt to make a truth a lie.
I watched the entire debate and Romney was terrific. He did what others said he had to do. He was on the offensive all night and Obama was on the defensive. When Obama make statements about what Romney was going to do Romney came back big time to refute the statements all night long. I agree Romney was the undisputed winner in the debate. I cannot wait for the other two Presidential debates and the Vice-Presient debate.
Romney back-pedaled and outright lied enthusiastically, and Obama was off his game.
I think Romney may have done some damage to Obama by his spirited responses to the questions and zealous redirects but I was really surprised with Obamas linear responses to some of Romneys claims. For instance that the key to Romneys plan to create more jobs relies on the same trickle down strategy applied by the former administration was a flaw in Romneys assertion. Obama dropped that totally. In reaction to Romney liking parts of Dodd-Frank yet Obama not pushing him on Gass-Steagall to further confound would be gambling banks using FDIC insured money to float their liability.
It should not be a surprise that Obama performed poorly as he has a past of poor study habits and maybe it just came down to a bad nights sleep. Let see what happens in the next debate to see if he is up to the challenge.
After being coddled by his teleprompter and the fawning media for the past four years it must be unnerving for the president to suddenly get confronted with actual facts.
To be honest, I wasn't impressed with either one of them. Bottom line, for the Government to have more money, you either have to cut spending or raise taxes. Both of them are against raising taxes but neither one has any clear cut plan to cut government spending, either. Obama wants to cut back the military and Medicare. Romney doesn't, but he doesn't say what he will cut, either.
It's all just rhetoric.
Except, one of them has a record of balancing, not only every single one of his own budgets, but the budget that was already in effect when he took office.
The other one has never even presented a budget with less than $1 trillion in deficits.
I don't recall the States having a balanced budget since before Bush, so I don't know who you could possibly be talking about. At that point, we were spending less than we were taking in, so it wasn't really balanced then, either, but balanced in favor to us.
First, a balanced budget is when you aren't spending more than you are taking in.
Second, Romney balanced every state budget when he was governor. Not only his own 4 budgets, but he even retroactively balanced the budget that was made the year before he was elected. That's not a question, it's a matter of fact.
When I said States, I meant United States of America; not individual states for which Romney was governor.
Romney hasn't had an opportunity to balance the federal budget.
Obama has, he hasn't done it. Romney has had a chance to work with a state budget, and he balanced that.
Who do you think is more likely to get it done? That's my point, Romney has a valid record to run on.
I think they are both capable, Obama in my opinion doesnt have the right priorities at the moment.
Obama has had the opportunity to submit 4 budgets. 4.
Every single one of them asked for at least $1 trillion in deficits for the first year alone.
That was kind of my whole point. If you look at their records, you have someone who has balanced budgets, and someone who hasn't come close.
Obama doesn't want to balance the budget... he just wants to spend. He promised to cut the deficit in half, he hasn't come close. He said it's immoral, but he's still doing it.
If he wanted to do it, it would start with submitting a balanced budget.
Well Obama's charm couldn't help him win this one. It's about time people start to see America doesn't need a charming, smiling, always cracking jokes person in charge of the country. We need a president. Good for you on this one Romney but I'm still disappointed with my presidential choices yet again. Maybe next election.
Unfortunately, I had to miss most of the debate. However, in the ten minutes that I saw, Romney was talking about how he would fix public education by "grading the schools." I hated that he was so uninformed that he didn't know that schools all over the country have been doing that for years. Hasn't done a thing to improve education here in the state of Florida.
But that's because parents don't usually have a choice as to where their kids go. Romney wants to give parents choices. If their kids are in bad schools, the parents can send them to another, better school.
Here in Florida, there is school choice in our county. There is also a voucher program in place. My problem is not for the students who get the vouchers to go to other "better" schools, but they don't ALL go. What about the ones left behind? My other problem is that voucher programs send kids to for-profit schools and, with all the problems in the post-secondary level of for-profit education, I just do not see giving our public school money to private industry. I am a firm believer that profit has no business in education, the prision system and healthcare (and that is not saying that people should not make a living, just not huge profits!).
Well, look at the bigger picture. There should be no "bad schools" Period. Fix them all so any and all parents who don't have the luxury to travel their kids to the "better" schools can have the same chance for the kids.
I am sorry, for a man running for President that has a quarter of a billion dollars in the U.S., who conveniently took his mission to France right about the time the draft was in place, who only paid 13% taxes while the middle class paid well over 20%. then referred to the lower class as "the poor people" last night, didn't sit well with me at all. Not to mention, he spent over 50 hours "practicing" his debate to prepare.
Sorry folks, when you are elected in office, there is no practice run.
I really wish we the middle class would just join hands, come together, and make a stop to this big government that has taken over our freedom. Remember, they work for us; however, they are making all the decisions for us. We hold the power, we can ultimately stop the nonsense. We just have become too afraid, to beaten down, to blinded with empty promises, to fight.
Could you imagine if we the majority took back the banks, took back the school systems, took back the health care industry. Also remember how Ben Franklin began, he relied on the local community to build the schools, a library, and only gave the Government a limited amount of access in running their people.
Okay, stepping off the soap box....
Obama appeared to have stomach pains.
But really, if you're not feeling 100%, like, if you have a headache or diarrhea...you won't be your best.
I was very surprised by Romney though. He sounded a lot more intelligent than HP topic threads would lead one to believe
kathleenkat: Romney may have "sounded intelligent", but if you really listened to him, you would have seen that he had only about 6 or 7 "talking points" that he kept repeating. This is because his "spinners" taught him to stick to those things and not go off the track. ie...saying again and again that Obama reduced Medicare by 716 billion dollars is a total lie that sounded good and that many seniors would believe...this required no real knowledge...heck, I could have done as well and so could you! Romney is not intelligent, he is a puppet who can mouth the words other give him to say...he's a poor excuse for a Presidential candidate.
Pretty harsh to call someone unintelligent. They are both educated and informed. As for talking points, Obama did the same thing with " Romney wants a $5 billion tax cut" . They both spin things out of proportion to make the other look bad.
1. Its 5 TRILLION
2. He is on record as saying he wants to cut tax rates by 20 percent. From multiple sources, that equates to 5 trillion dollars.
1. Oops, sorry. I knew that. MY MISTAKE.
2. If you watched the debate, Romney clearly states that is not what he wants several times.
Haha, OK I'll forgive you.
Seriously though, go look it up, Romney wants a 20 percent tax cut across the board. It has been estimated that it will cost 4.8 trillion dollars. He hasn't backed away from his promise of tax cuts.
A 20% tax cut, coupled with decreases in deductions and exemptions.
Why does everyone keep ignoring that?
KathleenKat: The difference was that, if you look at the facts, Romney actually IS calling for a 5 billion tax cut...The 716 figure was skewed and is not the truth...Obama is NOT cutting that amount of money from Medicare.
kathleenkat: Being educated is not the same thing as being intelligent. And I question how really "informed" Romney is when I hear some of the stupid things he says. Obama has a brilliant mind, Romney is just average intelligence wise. There is nothing wrong with being average, but there is a big difference in mental capabilities between these two people. I personally like both men, but the differences between them are quite obvious.
Agreed. Romney mopped the floor on Obama tonight.
He was a lot more animated, really aggressive.
I want to smack Obama, really.
He should have anticipated the big "points" Romney was going to keep making.
Yet he simply lets them go by. Every time!
For example: Romney keep harping that Obama's going to cut $716 billion from Medicare.
So instead of correcting him flat out and saying to the camera "I am NOT cutting anyone's benefits. Not now. Not ever!" what does he do?
Obama goes into the microissue of preexisting conditions.
MM, do you really think there won't be any negative consequences to paying people less for providing services to Medicare beneficiaries?
To the level Romney was claiming? Doubtful....
Here's what I do not believe.
I do not believe that Obama would "rob" an existing health plan for seniors to pay for a health plan for the rest of the country.
It makes no logical sense. His goal is to cover ALL Americans. Not deprive anyone of their benefits. That is what Romney is making it sound like -- trying to scare seniors into believing Obama is going to CUT their Medicare.
It's too late at night for me to go into my "other side of the equation" spiel.
Suffice to say, cost controls are essential to the future of our health care system.
Providers need to become more efficient. They need to cooperate with each other.They need to be incented in different ways that reward wellness and efficiency over big ticket tests and critical care.
So you can look at it as "paying less for providing care to Medicare beneficiaries."
Or you can look at it in a positive way, that because of the positive changes being made (preventive care, better care coordination, elimination of duplicate and/or unnecessary care, etc) that Medicare beneficiaries will actually need less "care."
Even if the Medicare Trustee's Report verifies that millions will lose coverage?
You're right though, it doesn't make sense. Lots of things about Obama don't make sense.
Or, that they will find it more and more difficult to find a provider, who gets paid even less than he used to for the same treatment.
We can do a lot to lower healthcare costs... forcing providers to accept less compensation or refuse to take Medicare patients isn't the way to do it.
Honestly, he should have said that. I agree with you that he should have disputed the points, if they were wrong.
The thing that disappointed me the most about this debate was that Obama seemed like he was distracted, or not listening to a word Romney said. The Prezzy should give his full attention, especially at a momment when most of the country is listening. How many times did Obama say Romney wanted a 5 trillion dollar tax cut? And how many times did Romney flat out say he didn't want that?
I agree Obama looked down at his notes too much.
I don't fault him for not looking at Romney. I would have wanted him to look at the audience or at Jim Lehrer though.
You raise a perfect example, KK.
Every time Obama said Romney wants a $5 trillion tax cut, Romney got apoplectic.
"That's NOT what I want!."
So what does Obama do when Romney says, for the 20 millionth time,
"He wants to cut Medicare by $716 billion!"?
He shakes his head and goes into some side issue.
What we needed was a "READ MY LIPS" moment.
Using emotional words, not wonk words.
"All you seniors out there, and all you Baby Boomers and those with retirement on your minds, listen to me. I am NOT taking ANYTHING away from your MEDICARE benefit! I am not changing your plan. It's solid. Your Medicare is safe."
We are right back to the same old problem the Dems always paint themselves into (not Clinton -- he knows how to do this really well). It's called framing the issue.
Unfortunately, Obama had a handful of really strong frames he could have leveled at Romney. But never uttered a single one. WTF?!!!!
The mind is boggled.
I am very boggled, too.
There could be any combination of these three things:
-He wasn't feeling well
-He didn't care
-He thought Romney was right
I have definitely seen more spirit and fight in Obama, that's for sure.
We should start a new thread on what the heck was up with the POTUS last night?
I think we could have some fun with that.
Only Obama knows for sure.
In basketball parlance he was double teamed!
Perhaps he and Michelle had some "alone time" together right before the debate in celebration of their anniversary.
- OR -
Maybe Ann promised Mitt some "alone time" if he did well in the debate.
Or Michelle put Obama in the doghouse for working on their 20th anniversary!
I thought of that, too.
What a crappy way to spend your 20th wedding anniversary!
Maybe Rick Perry finally came through with that $10,000 bet!
JaxsonRaine: Medicare Advantage plans have been on the chopping block for quite some time...long before Obama came to power...because they are costing Medicare an extra $15 billion annually. Furthermore, original medicare costs no more than Medicare Advantage and in many cases can wind up costing less.
Another interesting point is that MA plans are PRIVATE PLANS, they are NOT Medicare plans...Romney made a big deal about how private plans would save money...these plans are a perfect example of why that simply is not true. Romney did not do his homework and Obama should have called him out on that one.
Excuse me, but it was rope a dope and Romney was the dope. President was dealing with an escalation of tensions between Turkey and Syria all day. Syria fired on a Turkish village and now the tensions are entering a second day. A stupid Tea Party styled "gotcha" vs a potential war.
Obama won for staying cool under real grownup pressure.
That's the spirit, Xeno.
Even when your guy loses - stay the course.....
I personally think he was feeling more pressure from spending his wedding anniversary on the debate stage than anything else.
And, he is indeed the POTUS. Given the current state of foreign affairs, he might have asked that the debate be moved to a day when there isn't chaos overseas.
Oh, wait, that's right. That will probably never happen.
I hope you're wrong, Motown. If the President of the United States of America is shaken by his wedding anniversary - we're in worse shape than I thought...
On demeanor and performance, Romney was vastly better. Obama was off his game. On substance, I call it a draw. Romney lied confidently; Obama's claims were muddled.
Methinks one candidate spent more hours prepping than the other, which makes sense because one is "unemployed" (his words) and the other is POTUS. lol
True. Romney certainly prepared. I think Obama had underestimated Romney and didn't "brush up" enough.
I’m sure Obama prepared, he just prepared for the wrong thing. He must have thought his talking points and those of his party and his campaign were going to be enough and that his orchestrated "sound bites" would not be challenged.
Everything Obama said was not only challenged, he got schooled. There is a real difference between an ideologue and a chief executive. Romney clearly demonstrated the difference.
I can't wait for the next one when Obama surely will come out swinging. I think he'll be punched out by round two
That's the curse of the incumbency, Panther. It happens to every Pres running for a second term. Obama's biggest problem is that he has no record to defend. Except for taking out bin Laden, his record is lackluster.
The debate far exceeded my expectations on both sides of the podium. For the first time in a very long time, I finally witnessed two politicians engaged in some discussions which had substance and detail. I found myself quite pleased that such a moment could still exist in America. ~WB
Once again Romney 'modifies' his platform. I think Obama may have actually played his cards smarter than he is being credited for. Romney bulldozed himself through the debate with more lies about the very policies he's been campaigning on. I laughed quite a few times at his boldness in refuting statements by simply denying that they were true!
Bold lies about Big Oil! They get to write off their intangible drilling costs. And he said oil subsidies go to smaller companies. He forgot to say how many billions of $$ go to the big companies.
Of course oil companies get to write off drilling costs. They are valid operational expenses.
There are massive intangible 'drilling' costs which are used for tax write-offs. He made it sound like there are no subsidies going to major oil companies which we know is not true.
True. Romney was reaching out to those independents who haven't made up their mind, so he had to become more moderate than conservative, thus 'modifying' his policy platform.
The thought of Obama being at risk of losing the election would only serve to galvanize his supporters, and put an even bigger critical spotlight on Romney
Yesterday will not change the outcome of the election. In fact, the only thing that will change the outcome is something drastic like a collapse of the stock market.
Its the economy, stupid...... and the economy was broke when Obama got there.
Romney pointed out the two years spent pushing for healthcare while evading the economy. Combine this with the fact that the majority of Americans did not want the legislation, and you have a recipe for defeat. Obama could have tried to defend his actions, but in reality, there is no defense.
that won't wash... he didn't 'evade' the economy.. and healthcare is an important issue for a family and it's ability to make ends meet financially.
American's don't have such a short attention span that they will forget the party the President belong to when the economy turned south
True, he passed an almost one trillion dollar failure of a stimulus package. So he did not evade the economy, his policies just failed to help!
Yes, and had he resisted the urge to lock out opposition and pass the legislation in the middle of the night behind closed doors, perhaps the majority of Americans would not hold such opposition to the law. Combine that with the lies of it not being a tax, you have another instance of Obama misrepresenting himself and his policies. Transparent and bipartisan my left ankle!
Four years! He had four years to make things better. Americans attention span would include:
“Look, I’m at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years,”
“A year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress,” said Obama. ”But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
Wow.. you want your President to actively try to control the economy to reverse the damaging effects left be 8 years of Bush???
May a suggest a slight change to your avatar, RB?
If I am understanding you correctly you blame Bush for the state of the economy but Obama gets a pass in fixing it? Either the POTUS can affect the economy or he/she cannot.
You know I respect you. I cannot and would not presume to challenge every point you make.
I will, however, stand up against the same old lies being perpetuated about Obamacare.
As Mr. Romney stated last night (in a brilliant play), repeating the same lie over and over does not make it any truer.
Please review this extensive factchck on healthcare.
The American people have been scared into -- and continue to be scared into -- deceptions about what the law is/is not and will/will not do for them.
If it is so outlandish, outrageous and awful, how do you explain all of the major hospital system heads in my region coming together to talk about the urgent need to work together and do exactly what Obamacare is saying needs to be done (and also provides funding to support)?
Forget the insurance side for a minute -- although the insurance companies are gaining a shitload of new paying customers in the deal.
On the provider side to reduce the cost of care delivery, we must:
Coordinate care. Cut redundancy. Channel patients out of the expensive ER and nonurgent environments. Have a central point of care for each patient. Use telemedicine for nonurgent consults. Incent doctors and care providers to enhance wellness rather than illness.
The list goes on.
But the right wing talking points persist.
My point is not the law itself but the way in which it was passed. We know that the majority of Americans will not take the time to research the issue. All that they are aware of is that it was done in secret with the "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it" mentality. There is plenty of negative propoganda coming from the right concerning the issue. This is enhnaced by the multitude of quotes and soundbytes that is going to be used against Obama.
If Obama had insisted in working with the opposition, this legislation would be a homerun success. As it is perception is reality for many, and the perception for many is that the law was passed in a strongarmed manner. Instead of it being a positive for the president, it is now being used to criticize his leadership. I support healthcare for all, I just believe it should be done at the State level. viva Massachusetts!
Good luck if you live in a red state, then.
Or a broke state.
Well ok. If the major objection to the ACA is the manner in which it was passed,
if the American people are more concerned about "how" legislation gets through as opposed to "what" the legislation does for them,
Where is the hue and cry over all the blocked bills (such as JOBS bills)? Where is the complete outrage over how the debt ceiling debacle got offloaded onto a special committee that failed miserably?
I mean, you wanna get your panties in a bunch over PROCESS, I'll see you one health care bill and raise you 2 solid years of GOP taking the American people hostage for the sole purpose of making Obama a one-term president.
MM, why has the president and his supporters concentrated on Mitt's tax returns instead of bringing these issues before the American people. I heard not one word of any of this from the president. If there was political points to be earned, only the Democrats can be blamed for not making the most out of the opportunity.
I watched the debates (shattered today, they didn't air here till 2am) and I was very much under the impression that Obama let Romney talk, just a bit too much. Romney has been known to back peddle and flip flop and he hasn't been the most consistent of candidates, I can't help but think that Obama is storing Romney's words to use against him at a later debate.
One thing that's obvious about Obama, he's thoughtful, methodical and a strategist. If I were Romney, I wouldn't underestimate him.
It did seem a very civilized and respectful debate though, which is obviously good.
Whereas before I say that being rich should not be a liability, of course you protect your investments and money, it is your choice in a capitalist mode of economy, but flip flopping, lies and grandstanding Romney did those last night. He never seems to speak the word middle class, but last night, oh well.
Big O is tired, we all know he is better than that, he must not be feeling well.
We need to stick to the facts and not the performance of the candidates. Answering under pressure is important but not as important as the acts and whether or not they can do what they say they can.
"Opinion polls have shifted by an average of less than 1 percent in the wake of the 16 presidential debates that have taken place since 1988, according to research by Tom Holbrook, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee.
The biggest shift came in 2004, when Democratic challenger John Kerry gained 2.3 percent points on Republican President George W. Bush. Bush won the election.
People who have made up their minds to vote against Romney won't change their minds no matter how presidential he looks in debates, said Popkin, author of "The Candidate: What it Takes to Win - And Hold - the White House."
"If you think he's a selfish person who's out for the rich, you can still think he's a confident, comfortable, genial executive who fires you with a smile," he said."
It's unlikely that Romney's performance in the debates will alter his fate one way or another, anyway.
I agree. Debates rarely make much of a difference.
I suppose in some ways they just help the electorate to be absolutely clear about the policies of each candidate, and also give the candidate the opportunity to re-emphasize what their policies actually are and how they would affect society.
Obama seemed thrown that Mitt essentially made up stuff as he went along about his positions on the issues and contradicted statements he's been campaigning on for the last 18 months. Given the guy's history of flip-flopping, I think Obama should have been better prepared for that possibility and hammered him on it. Instead, it just became a game of "he said, she said" and since Mitt came off as more confident, he won, despite the fact that he was lying to our faces.
I think Obama had a tough time dealing with the intense power of Mitt's magic underwear.
Every time that Mittens was asked to explain how he'd do something he just talked about his plan, but wouldn't elaborate how he would achieve the desired results. Also, he kept holding his hands out (he talks with his hands doesn't he) I kept thinking, if we stuck a fez on Mitt's head he'd be the absolute double of Tommy Cooper.
Obama "How can you achieve deficit reduction...blah, blah, blah,"
Romney "Just like that"
I apologise in advance to all those who have no idea who Tommy Cooper was and have never heard of his infamous punchlines.
So what if he talks with his hands? He also faced the person to whom he was speaking. Obama talked with his face down at the podium; I thought that was pretty rude of him. It at least gave the impression that he didn't care what Romney had to say. POTUS should always care, and be all ears, especially when he is being spoken to directly.
Huh! Was just an observation, chill out! And which person exactly was he talking to? He was addressing an audience at the university and viewers at home. Or, do you believe that the candidates job is to address one another, excluding all others, clarify? Romney looked like he was talking into the camera to me. Talk about gushing, game show host!
You thought it was pretty rude of Obama to refer to his notes? Now, that does make me laugh. Would you prefer that he grabbed numbers out of thin air? The candidates role is, believe it or not, to present their case to the public, not to the opposition.
And yes, Mittens talks with his hands, Obama pauses, Hilary says er, rather a lot. Politicians do tend to have specific and individual gestures, that's not necessarily a criticism of them ,rather an observation.
Now we see the reason for the ever present teleprompters. We have to remember that this is the first time that Obama had a record to defend, and he was simply not up to the task. Until now, and with no record to speak of, Obama has always relied on memorized talking points in his debates, and we all thought (wrongly) that he was brilliant on his feet.
For the last four years, Obama has had a free ride from an adoring media who never questioned him, but last night, they could not defend him, and he was all alone with a formidable opponent armed with facts and figures. Obama was simply overwhelmed by a superior debater. It was a stunning defeat.
Last night’s debate clearly illustrated for all to see. Mr. Obama is clearly in over his head. Let’s face it, with no teleprompter, or biased media puppet master filtering and feeding him his talking points. The man had no idea how to respond in real time.
Sick and tired, maybe who wouldn’t be faced with the responsibility of defending his record, and lack of appropriate responses to current situations going on in the world today as a result of his administration’s failed foreign and domestic policies
Mr. Obama did lose the debate last night however, the war is far from over. Just a word of caution, the anti Mitt zeolites will do everything in their power, stopping at nothing to get Mr. Obama reelected.
Setback, fasten your seat belts and pour another tall glass of your favorite cool-aid and enjoy the show, it promises to get nasty.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
Well, don't hold your breath. Mitt beat him pretty well. Obama can't respond with simple platitudes, ingratiations and smiles. Words like "status quo" "change the status quo" and "change" like he used in his first election will not work this time. He smeared Mc Cain that time. I thought Romney would not be able to debate Obama. I seriously had my doubts about this debate.
Mitt did a very fine job, and I think he will continue to do so.
reminds me of the Regan - Mondale debates...
Mondale put up a good show,... but didn't help him much
Ronald Reagan was simply more likeable. He pulled a big DIM vote because he was well liked by many.
Your basic point is correct though. But, it is the way we have become: that is, we love celebrity and fame more than it makes sense. Not I, but many.
Obama is out there today whining about Romney and a five trillion dollar tax cut. He sounds flummoxed, obviously he is not used to anyone questioning his awesomeness.
Thank you for finally putting to rest all those Obama is a Muslim rumors.
LOL, I could care less if he worshiped a cabbage.
Mitt clearly won this debate in spite of how I personally felt about his ability to do so.
He did fail to answer Obama's insinuations that Republicans are to blame for Corporations moving thier factories overseas, or, that Republicans are responsible for the Housing Market collapsing under the Bush Administration.
Clearly, the Democratic Party passed GATT/NAFTA under William J. Clinton. That caused Corporations to move factories overseas or outsource in able to stay compedative in our American markets. Jobs are moving overseas in vast numbers.
Additionally, during the Clinton Administration, around 1993-95, banks were urged to change their formulas for Mortgage lending because minorities were unevenly effected by the old formula, which required a good down-payment/credit and ability to pay based on 30% of the top bread earners wage/salary. Subprimes started affecting the markets by 1997. The bubble was created by liberal progressive policies put forth by Democrats during the Clinton Administration.
This is easily proven with very litte Internet research or a good long term memory. Mitt Romney missed a chance to make major points with the public and conservatives throughout the country. He needs to take off the gloves during his next debate.
I think Mitt was the winner and congratulate him here.
I did not know this. This is very interesting. I was a kid when Clinton was around, and honestly all I can remember about him is his "indiscretion."
I think housing lenders are going back to the days of yore, though. Even with good credit and and the ability to make a substantial down payment, other factors, like employment history and length of time at employment are drawn in. Banks don't want to get screwed by loaning hundreds of thousands of dollars to people with poor credit history, or low-income, and can you blame them?
No, I think the Banks will return to the old formulas. Counting 30% of Two incomes as ability to make payment does not make sense. One lost job equals one lost mortgage.
Hey: I think that some banks are owned by Corporate owners whom are Democratic. Heck, even they would have sense to return to a formula that has worked for centuries.
When I went in for a loan, they approved me for 45% of my income. Conventional loan 3%. They said they don't do that for anyone with a credit score of under 700, and its damn near impossible to get approved with a score of under 600. Of course I can only speak for this particular bank. Of course if I also lost my job I'd be screwed.
Well, you must of had a good credit score at least? The Banks do differ as you've said. The socialist pergressive liberal agenda started in 1989 while George H.W. Bush was in office. The result was that Banks were made to feel that they were being prejudiced towards minorities and low income families if they did not count two incomes and apply a 25%-30% formula against the ability to pay the mortgage. Banks were afraid of the racist reatoric that followed in the press, and changed formulas by 1993. We now see that socialism is not the answer. If you can't afford a house you should not be given the credit to buy one period.
Yes, it's all about good credit and proof of steady income.
Nothing to do with race. If your household has dual incomes that can afford you less of a loan than one single person with a higher income, that's nothing to do with race. Forcing banks to loan to people with bad credit, or low income, seems very illogical to me. Seems like that fueled the whole "housing bubble pop."
Nowadays, it doesn't seem like banks will loan the way they did before the housing market crashed. Like I said, you need credit in the 700s to even think of getting a loan for higher than 30% of your income, let alone 40%.
There is this agenda among democrats that wants everyone to be able to afford a house. That's great, and all, but if you think about it in the most simple of terms, it'll simply pull the average cost of housing down. That means, anyone involved in the process of homeselling (builders, agents, banks, inspectors, etc...) will get a pay cut. That means jobs will be lost.
I did not know this. This is very interesting. I was a kid when Clinton was around, and honestly all I can remember about him is his "indiscretion."
That's a pity. Even the UK most of remember him for so much more than that. There again, events and facts rarely reach the psyche of the Fox/media/celebrity culture generation.
Let us not forget Mr. Clinton rewarded China with the preferred trade status.
Yes, he did. That was right after passage of the Global Alliance on Trade and Tariffs, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Clinton did in fact give China favored nation status. Is it any surprise that everything is made in China now, and, your shoes are made of Plastic? Yeah now, don't feed your baby or pet any foods made in China.
Barack Obama - 99 Problems
This video is just too funny!
Edit: technically a surplus isn't balanced, but mostly we are concerned with the negative effects of debt.
And what a winner? The perfect idiot. Several times Obama nailed him on economical questions and nobody saw it. What does that mean? Do Americans really watch and understand debates or do they pretend? What does he have to propose? Nothing. How many of us don't belong to the poorer class or the middle class to vote for him? Who among the listeners will give me a detailed list of his American plan? Or are they congratulating him on his proposition full of air? Or his perfect smile?
Here were the representatives of the future of America? On one hand an idiot puppet and on the other a smart puppet! What a choice!
If you don't like America, please leave. It's not like we're North Korea; you can leave if you don't like it.
That is such a tired old argument. Love everything your country does or leave it.
Clearly you aren't aware of the thread he started about how victims of 9-11 aren't worth remembering. Then, even with you not being American, you might suggest that he leave a country that he keeps complaining about.
Seems the man has no respect for the American Democratic process of checks and balance. If you don't think your vote counts, and don't vote, then you can have nothing to say, just leave the Country and go somewhere that YOU can find greener pastures.
Mitts not an idiot with a perfect smile. Neither candidate can lay out a clear and detailed economic plan in a two (2) minute segment of time. Obama on the other hand had Four (4) full years to make progress with a plan he never articulated clearly to anyone. "Change the status quo", "Change" and European Social Politics have not been successful for him. On "one hand and Idiot Puppet and the other a Smart Puppet". Mitts is not an idiot, don't really like him much, but, Obama is a puppet for the socialist progressive liberal Democrat agenda for sure. He should be smarter than that, but unfortunatelly he is not.
I think they both failed. Obama bad performance and Romney's reluctance to answer the voucher question.
by Susan Reid5 years ago
Good for Soledad O'Brien!CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien debunked the pervasive right-wing media falsehood that President Obama "stole $700 billion" from Medicare. Right-wing media have repeatedly claimed that the...
by k12rswow5 years ago
When Romney caught Obama regarding "a terrorist act in Benghazi" and then pointed out the White House didn't make that known for 2 weeks.Tomorrows headlines will be buzzing.
by Sooner285 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 … 29455.htmlHe is done .
by Holle Abee5 years ago
To Obama, I'd say to be more engaged and show a little more passion. Act like you WANT to be POTUS for 4 more years.To Romney, I'd say, "Calm down!" I thought he did a good job in the last debate, but at...
by Holle Abee5 years ago
Just thought I'd get a jump on the MSM. Many right-leaning reporters are already saying if Obama shows up tonight, the left will declare him as the ultimate, supreme, audacious, awesome, comeback winner. lol
by Susan Reid5 years ago
I do not feel anger, contempt or scorn. I do feel pride, but not what I believe this article is talking about (e.g., egotistical, self pride).If that is what you value, your choice for president is clear.Vote for Mitt...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.