[subego]

I'm actually kinda excited about them. The 2004 debates pissed me off to the point I didn't even watch in 2008.

[OAW]

Excited? Not so much on my part. But I'll definitely watch. The real-time reactions on Twitter ought to be hilarious!

OAW

[subego]

As a nod to the 21st century, I have no cable, so I'm going for the YouTube stream.

[OAW]

Man I wish I could ditch cable. Unfortunately, a lot of the shows I watch regularly aren't available online anywhere. Above and beyond that, my wife is a huge HGTV fan. And as the old saying goes ... 'If the wife is not happy, nobody is happy!".

OAW

[subego]

I hear that. I only had cable because of the little woman. Before we got together I had gone a good 7 years without an actual TV.

Of course, Comcast has it rigged so an Internet connection without a cap costs an ass-load more than cable.

[OAW]

Yeah I've had a Charter cable modem for years (even though I fired them for TV over 10 years ago). Fortunately they have not instituted data caps in my area. We'll see how long that lasts.

OAW

[subego]

I'm watching the pre-debate coverage, and to try and make it all Internet they're discussing "tweet volume".

[subego]

subego's analysis: decisive Romney victory.

[OAW]

OAW's analysis: Romney victory. Vagueness and platitudes delivered with confidence and passion can be more effective to a televised audience than substance delivered with reserve.

OAW

[subego]

There's reserve, and there's phoning it in.

He phoned it in.

[Chongo]

I thought Matthew's head was going to explode!
Chris Matthews Freaks Out At Obama After Debate: Romney Was "Winning"

"Tonight wasn't an MSNBC debate tonight, was it?" Chris Matthews said after the first Obama-Romney presidential debate concluded on Wednesday night.

"I don't know what he was doing out there. He had his head down, he was enduring the debate rather than fighting it. Romney, on the other hand, came in with a campaign. He had a plan, he was going to dominate the time, he was going to be aggressive, he was going to push the moderator around, which he did effectively, he was going to relish the evening, enjoying it," Matthews said.

[Chongo]

I loved it when Obama said “Jim, you may wanna move on to another topic.”

[OAW]

The only thing I can come up with is that this was a deliberate strategy on the part of Team Obama. As Romney threw the right-wing of the GOP under the bus by consistently disavowing previously held positions he took to appease the Tea Party crowd heretofore ... Team Obama now has the ammunition for some pretty hard hitting campaign ads to highlight Romney's unabashed mendacity.

OAW

[subego]

@Chongo

I don't think you heard that right. Lehrer said he wanted to move on and Obama was stating he was going to stay on the same subject.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The only thing I can come up with is that this was a deliberate strategy on the part of Team Obama. As Romney threw the right-wing of the GOP under the bus by consistently disavowing previously held positions he took to appease the Tea Party crowd heretofore ... Team Obama now has the ammunition for some pretty hard hitting campaign ads to highlight Romney's unabashed mendacity.
OAW

If "listless" was part of that strategy, it was a mistake.

[Chongo]

i can’t believe i’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter

— Bill Maher (@billmaher) October 4, 2012

[lpkmckenna]

I watched the debate. Seeing as I was assessing actual facts and policies, Obama killed Romney there. Obama called Romney to task for that ridiculous plan to cut taxes and still make it "revenue-neutral" by closing some unspecified loopholes, which Romney could not adequately refute.

But as we know, debates are not won with facts alone.

I see lots of people online saying Romney won, especially liberals. But when you see what those liberals are saying, the complaint is always "Obama didn't go on the attack." They think "on the attack" equals "winning." It doesn't.

Romney also looked tense and uncomfortable the whole time, while Obama looked relaxed, almost too relaxed. Obama even smiled warmly whenever Romney delivered a semi-effective sound bite, and you could see Obama thinking "That was a good one. Good for him." Romney seemed to get more agitated towards the end of the debate. Some people have stated Romney looked direct and assertive, but to me it came off as flustered bombast.

Regarding Chris Matthews' complaining: I think Obama took the high road, and it works for him. For instance, Matthews wanted Obama to mention the 47% thing, which would have come off as utterly irrelevant and even mean. Obama stuck to the issues of the debate, and will address the 47% thing in ads and speeches. Obama also wanted to give Romney lots of room to step on his own tongue, which Obama would then pounce on. But Romney didn't make any major gaffes, which I think kind of surprised Obama. But overall, Obama looked and sounded more Presidential, while Romney looked like a school kid complaining about the grade the teacher gave him on a test.

A few things stuck with me:

Obama boasted about his $716B in savings in Medicare expenditures early on, knowing Romney was gonna call it a cut to Medicare benefits (which is ridiculous, of course). It diffused the Romney lie before he could utter it.

Obama boasted about the Clinton years instead of the last four years. Hmmm.

Obama twice claimed Romney wanted to spend $2B more on the military than the Pentagon wants, and Romney let it slip both times.

Obama once spoke about the taxes targeted at himself and Romney, and I swear Romney made a face that said "you and I are not in the same tax bracket, small fry." Or maybe that was my imagination.

Romney bragged about his love for education, then pledges to give Big Bird the pink slip. Since Sesame Street is the most successful education program in history, I think that's a mixed message, and probably turned off every mom with young children watching this debate.

Romney's condemnation for $90B in tax subsidies for green energy was the only strong hit he delivered in the entire debate. Since he did this while refuting Obama's plan to end subsidies for oil companies, I think Romney nailed two birds with one stone, disrupting Obama's messaging on tax fairness. And Romney claimed lots of these tax subsidies for oil companies actually benefit small businesses, which sadly will convince some gullible people.

Romney fumbled huge when he told seniors they could stop listening since he wasn't gonna cancel their Medicare, only ruin Medicare for people younger than 55. One, you don't tell people to stop listening, and two, informed voters care about everyone, not just themselves. Telling seniors "don't bother listening, this doesn't affect you" is pretty fncking stupid, since I'm pretty sure those seniors have kids and grandkids who will be affected.

When Romney spoke about the poor, it was "your poor" and "their poor," but not "our poor." To Romney, the United States doesn't have poor people, only the individual States have poor people. And "their poor" is their problem, and the federal gov't just shouldn't give a damn. It was definitely the most Romneyesque moment of the debate.

Romney bragged about working with the opposite party. This is an empty boast given that Democrats are usually open to compromise and (recently) Republicans are not.

I think Obama did a good job outlining that Romney is running as "Obama-lite." Romney will keep the "good stuff" of Obamacare, Frank-Dodds, and so on, and just get rid of the "bad stuff." I think running as a slightly different version of Obama's policies is a failure of strategy and messaging.

Anyways, can we pass a law banning politicians from giving personal anecdotes about "a mom in Ohio who runs her own business" or "a veteran who is worried about cuts to the military." All the sh!t sounds so damn insincere.

[lpkmckenna]

Obama promised in a 2008 debate to take down Bin Laden.

Romney promised in a 2012 debate to take down Big Bird.

Oh yeah, I loved this part: Are you keeping your plans secret because they’re too good?

“But when Gov. Romney says he’ll replace it with something, but can’t detail how it will be, in fact, replaced — and the reason he set up the system he did in Massachusetts was because there isn’t a better way of dealing with the preexisting conditions problem,” the president explained. “He says he will close deductions and loopholes for his tax plan — that how it will be paid for, we don’t know the details. He says that he’s going to replace Dodd-Frank, Wall Street reform, but we don’t know exactly which ones, he won’t tell us. He now says he’ll replace Obamacare — and ensure all the good things in it will be in there — and you don’t have to worry.”

“And at some point I think the American people have to ask themselves: Is the reason that Gov. Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret, because they are too good?” Obama asked. “Is it because that somehow middle class families will benefit too much from them?”

[OAW]

^^^ That was his best jab of the night. But it didn't do as much damage because his delivery lacked energy. Obama needs to step his game up in that regard.

OAW

[subego]

It was a pretty stark contrast to Mitt's almost puppy-like enthusiasm.

[BadKosh]

Chris Matthews having a panic attack was fun to watch.

[The Final Dakar]

Well, from what I watched Romney definitely took it. Not sure what Obama's deal was; He seemed tired and unprepared. Obama didn't have answers for getting lambasted on campaign promises. He got schooled on Solydra.

That said, I'm left a little confused on what Romney is offering, really. Most of what Obama brought up as an asset Romney would agree with and then go on to explain he'd repeal it anyway with the promise of basically making it "betterer."

Specifics? There were little. How will he reduce the deficit and cut taxes? How will he improve banking regulation? How will he improve health care? On the latter two he seemed to partially endorse Obama's approach which was ...confusing.

Unlike the media I'm not ready to hit the panic button yet. Let's see how much Romney gains in the polls and what Obama we get in the next debate.


---


I have to say Romney's debate strategy is somewhat confusing. Did he decide that was the moment to etch-a-sktech? His policy tone seemed much more muted and moderate and I wonder if that didn't add onto Obama's poor showing – he was essentially bullet dodging by changing his stance.


By far the most ridiculous part of the night for me was Romney on medicare. "Vouchers are good – but we're not changing that for you current and soon to be seniors!" Nothing sells the quality of an idea like desperately reassuring a segment of the population that they won't have to deal with it. That's about Obama's only victory on the night.



(Also clever from Romney was waiting til his final statement to break out the 12 million jobs promise, so Obama couldn't rebut that the estimate is President agnostic)

[subego]

I think you have not only the etch-a-sketch, play to the center angle, but Romney needed to take air out of the 47% balloon. There was a lot of "I'm not going to do X to poor people".

[The Final Dakar]

Honestly, I'm mostly curious for what the fact-checkers chip in with. I want to see if Romney's stances last night are as large a departure from his previous ones as I think, because that might end up in campaign ads then.

[ort888]

These things are unwatchable. I always tune in because I feel like they should be interesting, and they are a little, but come on, no one ever really answers any questions. They just pump out a non-stop stream of safe rehearsed non-answers to every question.

What do we really learn? What do they really say? It's so filled with double-speak and he-said/ she said nonsense that you can't even take what either guy says at face value without referring to fact checkers afterwards.

[Chongo]

Gore blames it on a lack of oxygen.

http://youtu.be/mtkw8stAlrM

[video]http://youtu.be/mtkw8stAlrM[/video]

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ort888 

These things are unwatchable. I always tune in because I feel like they should be interesting, and they are a little, but come on, no one ever really answers any questions. They just pump out a non-stop stream of safe rehearsed non-answers to every question.
What do we really learn? What do they really say? It's so filled with double-speak and he-said/ she said nonsense that you can't even take what either guy says at face value without referring to fact checkers afterwards.

There we go: We should have real time fact checking at the bottom of the screen.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

There we go: We should have real time fact checking at the bottom of the screen.

It should be at the bottom of Mainstream Media's 'news broadcasts' too.

[The Final Dakar]

[subego]

[The Final Dakar]

It's odd or completely illustrative of Gen X's coming of age, but the Big Bird thing seems to be the biggest thing from last night that's gaining traction. I'm fascinated.

[subego]

I think a big part of it was the incongruity. The kids like that.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Obama

“When he was asked what he’d actually do to cut the deficit and reduce spending, he said he’d eliminate funding for public television. That was his answer. I mean thank goodness somebody is finally getting tough on Big Bird. It’s about time,” Obama joked. “We didn’t know that Big Bird was driving the federal deficit. But that’s what we heard last night. How about that? Elmo, too?”

[subego]

If he said that about a white muppet everyone would call him racist.

[lpkmckenna]

While everyone will remember this debate for the Big Bird moment, here's the real moment that matters:

Romney's budget plan is to increase military spending by $2B, and cut tax rates from 35% down to 25%, which is about $5B. Then he will find and close $7B worth of loopholes and deductions so that it "revenue-neutral." And then, he will find additional savings on top of that to eliminate the deficit.

Romney is a goddamn joke of a candidate. Obama brought a gun to Romney's nerf tournament.

Here are the magic words that explain the Romney strategy: Starve the Beast. Cause a massive budget shortfall by devastating the tax revenues, then "fix" it all by attacking every government program in sight.

[Chongo]

Elmo and his buddies can kick in some of their merchandizing royalties. That should more than offset anything lost.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

While everyone will remember this debate for the Big Bird moment, he's the real moment that matters:
Romney's budget plan is to increase military spending by $2B, and cut tax rates from 35% down to 25%, which is about $5B. Then he will find and close $7B worth of loopholes and deductions so that it "revenue-neutral." And then, he will find additional savings on top of that to eliminate the deficit.
Romney is a goddamn joke of a candidate. Obama brought a gun to Romney's nerf tournament.
Here are the magic words that explain the Romney strategy: Starve the Beast. Cause a massive budget shortfall by devastating the tax revenues, then "fix" it all by attacking every government program in sight.

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to the Owe-bama admins hideous job of 'fixing the economy.' IT ISN'T WORKING! Its the policies.

Spending more isn't an answer.

Democrats have nothing to offer.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to the Owe-bama admins hideous job of 'fixing the economy.' IT ISN'T WORKING! Its the policies.
Spending more isn't an answer.
Democrats have nothing to offer.

Obamas on pace to create more jobs in his term than George W. Bush in his first. Think about that.

[andi*pandi]

Unemployment down:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57526635/september-jobs-report/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Unemployment down:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57526635/september-jobs-report/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

I'll see your numbers and raise you:

[andi*pandi]

If faking the jobs numbers were so easy, wouldn't you hack it down to 4%?

[BadKosh]

What will McDonalds do with all those Areospace engineers? More LOUSY JOBS. Think about it.

[The Final Dakar]

[Dork.]

I can understand folks attacking it as a statistical fluke. I can also understand folks saying it stems from the fact that many people have given up looking for work -- I remember the same argument used against Bush.

But when elements on the Right say that the Obama campaign is gaming the numbers, that belongs in that Other Thread.. If Obama could "fix" the numbers, don't you think he would have done it already?

[ebuddy]

I'm in agreement with those who question the notion that Obama would "cook the books". There are multiple numbers to watch and a President cannot hide them all. The BLS compiled numbers from household surveys and in fact it shows a decided decline to 7.8% unemployment. I'm cautiously optimistic that this number will hold up as a drop to 7.8% to me suggests actual growth that cannot be explained away by the number of those who've left the labor force, but we'll find out in about a month when the employment numbers are pulled from employer surveys which may show disparity.

As many Democrats have noted, this is no cause for euphoria. Manufacturers' employment has declined for two months in a row and while the health-care sector created approximately 44,000 jobs in fact driving the largest share of jobs gained, the manufacturing sector lost over 16,000 jobs and the number of those without jobs 27 weeks or more remained stagnant at 4.8 million people.

[andi*pandi]

There is also the possibility that some of these jobs are because we are gearing up to the holiday season. My sister for instance, after being laid off from Best Buy in August, got other seasonal retail work starting this week.

(Best buy is a sinking ship).

However, seasonal or no, jobs are jobs.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm in agreement with those who question the notion that Obama would "cook the books". There are multiple numbers to watch and a President cannot hide them all. The BLS compiled numbers from household surveys and in fact it shows a decided decline to 7.8% unemployment. I'm cautiously optimistic that this number will hold up as a drop to 7.8% to me suggests actual growth that cannot be explained away by the number of those who've left the labor force, but we'll find out in about a month when the employment numbers are pulled from employer surveys which may show disparity.
As many Democrats have noted, this is no cause for euphoria. Manufacturers' employment has declined for two months in a row and while the health-care sector created approximately 44,000 jobs in fact driving the largest share of jobs gained, the manufacturing sector lost over 16,000 jobs and the number of those without jobs 27 weeks or more remained stagnant at 4.8 million people.

Well said my friend. From what I've gathered a lot of the drop is due to upward revisions of the last couple of monthly reports which were dismal. So it would seem that they were not as bad as initially reported. In any event, to now have an "official" unemployment rate that's lower than what it was when President Obama took office is a notable accomplishment any way you slice it considering the economic catastrophe he inherited. As partisans we can quibble about whether or not things could be better by now. But as Americans we should all be able to say that is is a really good thing compared to 4 years ago.

OAW

[Chongo]

The New Yorker Magazine's next cover.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hahahaha

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=819q62ZMYVk[/VIDEO]

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The New Yorker Magazine's next cover.

Pretty much nailed it. Also the empty chair meme keeps on giving.