ivy, the moderator might not have been up to snuff, but obama talked for 4-5 more minutes than romney did.
i guess i wasn't looking at the times, but rather that romney and the moderator kept butting heads on whether he should be speaking or not.
Apart from the fact that the political science types tend to believe that the debates don't ultimately shift votes, I think there's something important to remember about this debate: there's losing and then there's losing. On the style, Obama's performance was clearly underwhelming. But there was no real water cooler moment where he memorably lost control. He didn't make a big factual misstatement or gaffe. He didn't look at his wristwatch or sigh loudly a bunch of times or wear a lot of bad makeup. This performance was like one of Bush's from 2004, where Bush seemed generally uncomfortable and irritated with the whole process, but didn't do or say anything memorable that ultimately jeopardized his standing with the voters. I could see Romney getting a polling boost from this, but I can't imagine that Obama did lasting damage to himself, or that he's hemorrhaging votes because of this debate.
The sloppiness of the debate was partly Lehrer's fault, partly Obama's fault, and partly the fault of the new freewheeling format. It was wonky and I suspect over the heads of a lot of voters. Oddly, for all of the policy, they didn't talk about much of substance. They spent a half hour arguing like Graham Chapman and John Cleese about whether Romney's tax cut for the rich is a tax cut for the rich. Lehrer's greatest failing was not just that he lost control, but more that he asked bad questions and inane follow-ups. "Do you disagree with each other?" or "Obamacare: what do you guys think about it?" is no way to clarify the issues of a presidential campaign; it just allows both sides to retreat into rehearsed answers. It was also maddening that they spent the whole time in the "jobs" pod talking about tax cuts, and almost the reminder of the debating talking about entitlement spending and the deficit. The entire universe of "domestic issues" consisted of the stuff that consumes Washington op-ed columns. Really terrible.
The Romney statement on preexisting conditions is really misleading. He's basically endorsing a long-standing existing rule that says insurers can't discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions as long as the insured maintains continuous coverage, which of course doesn't benefit almost everyone that the ACA was designed to help in the first place.
Obama will slam him in the next debate for flip flopin. I really did enjoy the fact that Romney straight up told Jim Lehrer he would be out of a job if he was president. Fucking balls on this guy.
I found it odd that he would mention PBS subsidies as a cut, when that money accounts for a freakishly small percentage of the budget. Not only will I mention a monetarily-insignificant cut, Mr. Moderator, but I'll mention one that will affect you personally.
.012% me believes
it's the same as the voter id scare. it's such a non-problem statistically.
A female friend of mine made a fair point that this was a domestic policy debate and not a single policy regarding the "war on women" was discussed. Nothing about violence, equal pay, abortion rights, planned parenthood etc...
The next two are foriegn policy debates. Those should be interesting. Three hours of arguing nuance.
So is it possible, just possible, that maybe Obama was somewhat distracted because they scheduled the debate on the night of his 20th anniversary? Because I thought that was kinda fucked up.
i forget where i read it or what the actual timeframe was (cool story, bro), but i read that republican members of congress submitted roughly 1,200 bills restricting women's access to health care and abortion over like a two year period or something. abortion aside, we cannot afford restrictions on birth control. if men had to take birth control instead of us women, i find it hard to believe this would ever be an issue. men would realize a baby at a young age could threaten their chance at success.
i've also seen a few good arguments that really bring the abortion issue home for me. many anti-abortionists view the argument as though abortion being illegal would mean there would be no abortions. we should protect uneducated and desperate women from hanger methods of birth control by providing a vetted and legal method of abortion. plain and simple. there is a reason we don't have fetus funerals or require all miscarriages to be reported for investigation and to create a death certificate. a first-term fetus is not the same as a life that can live on it's own outside the mother's body.
I hate this election. I'm a Poly Sci grad, but I just despise the idea that half the country wants Mitt Romney to run the show. Retards.
As I'm learning energy policy this semester, it scares me to think of the regulations that sMitt Romney wants to get rid of...
Romney says "that EPA is out of control for making stricter regulations", these restrictions insure people's safety. Coal Sludge has killed tons of people just from cleaning coal. Not to mention the changing of the Clean Water Act to help coal production on mountain top mining...
So the sense I'm getting is that the popular takeaway from the debate 24 hours later is drifting from "Obama got his ass kicked" to "Romney wants to fire Big Bird." Seriously. PBS is dominating Twitter and there are like five or six Politico stories about it now.
This is getting ridiculous.
This shit reminds me of when my 4 year old nephew loses to me in a race across the yard, he always insists that it was a tie. Oh wait never mind this isn't even close, at least he says it's a tie and doesn't accuse me of cheating.
(PF I know there are a couple of words you are not suppose to post here but it is right from the internet on many sites) cr****
10 Reason Snoop won't vote for Romney .......
California Proposition 37.
The republicans have now reached a point of pure meltdown. Wherein lies and deception are now unabashed, full-blown tactics among their campaigns. Every republican that has any semblance of a soul or conscious has clearly left the building.
Here is the Ad Campaign against Prop. 37.
Supporters of "No on Prop. 37 include: Campbell Soup Co. (MSG'ed), Clorox Company, Coca-Cola North America, ConAgra Foods, General Mills, Inc., Hershey Company, Hormel Foods Corporation, Kellogg Company, PepsiCo, Inc.
Actual text on the sample ballot of the description of Prop 37 states:
"Proposition 37. Genetically engineered foods. Labeling. Initiative statute. Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specific ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as "natural." Provides exemptions. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Additional, but likely not significant, governmental costs to address violations under the measure."
Shit is going down this November. Read your ballots carefully, bitches.