Obamney debate - who performed better?

[strawman]

Attempting to put your own political biases aside, and ignoring the actual content of the debate, who performed better at the US presidential election debate on 3 Oct?

The third option means, "I didn't watch the debate and/or have little to no interest in US politics, and yet I feel compelled to vote in this poll regardless." Only because we all know Jim did a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad job at moderating the debate.

 

[Dave]

Romney "won", but man was he wrong about almost everything he said.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Only because we all know Jim did a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad job at moderating the debate.

Thiiiiiiiis.

Follow SilentJimLehrer on Twitter for ineffective nothingness.

Romney was wrong about everything, but I'm not sure whether or not Obama acted right. On the one hand, he could've been more assertive. On the other hand, he might have been right to not appear the same interrupting jackass as Romney. I don't know.

 

[Covar]

Is it wrong that I would watch 2 hours of just the candidates miked in a room together. Now that would be a debate.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Romney Won on looking smooth. (Which was incredibly shocking and why so many are calling it a win)
Obama Won on content. (Yet all he did was look dejected all night, I'm really hoping for a blasting second debate)

 

[Tress]

Romney was a better performer at the debate. I don't agree with most of his ideas, but he was attentive, engaged, and aggressive. I feel like Obama just tried to coast through the whole thing. That's especially odd given how good he was at the debates four years ago.

And Jim Lehrer was fucking awful.

 

[Necronic]

How can I judge a debate while ignoring the content? If all it takes to win a debate is blind confidence then they should just put up the Jersey Shore guys.

Romney spoke clearly, with few "uhhs", but he was so far off of where he needed to be at so many times. The first time he brought up Solyndra he rushed right through it (he did get it right later on when he described Obama as someone who is great at picking losers). Then he brought up the 740b medicaire thing, which was a no go to anyone who pays attention to the news.

The biggest flub to me was that this was his LAST chance to outline his actual plans, and he refused to do so. He made nonsensical statements about how he would cut taxes for everyone, add funding to medicaire and all these other things, and then reduce the deficit.

You would have to be a moron to have bought that.

And honestly, if its just about appearance, was it just me or did romney look like some kind of Golem throughout the whole event?

 

[Ravenpoe]

I agree that Romney won on looks (which is a terrible way to score a debate, but will be what everyone remembers.) Obama looked tired, and I imagine that being president can often make sometime look like that.

Romney always sounds like the guy that's about to fire you.

 

[Gilgamesh]

5 points I'd love to see brought up by Obama in the next debate (that won't)

1: The 47% comment. Make his ass backtrack on it.
2: Why he refuses to release his tax reforms. What is he hiding?
3: Why he refuses to actually tell us what his plans are and where the money for those plans are coming from instead of: -It's a lengthy discussion, too lengthy to explain here-
4: Why are you still Anti Pro Choice and Anti Gay marriage if you're still Pro-alcohol. It's obviously not a religious reason.
5:Why do you claim to be for Education, yet want teachers to have larger classrooms, smaller budgets to work with and no incentive program for good teachers? Why did you tell the teacher at your round table you didn't want her opinion?

Those are some of the biggest reasons I'm against Mitt Romney.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Obama can pick up his presentation for the next debate.

Can Romney pick up a better campaign plan?

 

[Necronic]

I don't know about that. This debate was the one Obama had the best shot in. The next debates are Foreign policy and Obama is going to be on the defensive because of the Libya situation, particularly after the recent news of the Benghazi folks asking for more security prior to the attack.

 

[Gilgamesh]

The economy was the debate Obama had the best shot on?

I think I disagree with that.

Also I'm loving how none of the Republican Radio shows have brought up the -We have less jobs now than we did when he took office- since it was revealed that from when he started, to now, we have a Job Total gain.

Granted it's not alot, yet, but it will be in the coming months as more jobs are gained than lost.

 

[Zappit]

Romney almost delivered the knockout blow to Lehrer. Seriously, he seemed so aggressive he just needed to actually punch him to cap the night.

Now Obama knows what empty points Romney is going to hammer, and he can counter accordingly. I think he's holding back on the attacks til later, closer to the election when it will be fresher.

 

[Bowielee]

All I know is that Romney strictly REFUSES to outline what any of his plans are. I could sit here and say that I have a plan to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars and reduce unemployment, but if I have nothing to back that up, I'm talking out of my ass. Which appears to be what Romney does best.

 

[Covar]

Hope and change man, hope and change.

 

[Gilgamesh]

All I know is that Romney strictly REFUSES to outline what any of his plans are. I could sit here and say that I have a plan to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars and reduce unemployment, but if I have nothing to back that up, I'm talking out of my ass. Which appears to be what Romney does best.

Despite Covar 's quip, I think my biggest issue is that he runs on a platform of Taxes and yet hides his away due to obvious wrong doing.

 

[strawman]

Nearly every president makes promises prior to gaining office that they have to alter or change completely once they have full information. Take Obamas stance on Guantanimo, for instance, or even his first plan to stimulate the economy. He ultimately went with keeping gauntanimo and allowing Bush's original stimulus plan to take effect during his presidency.

I honestly think Mitt understands that he doesn't have all the answers. He has a vision that encompasses his platform, but he understands that if he comes up with a bunch of ideas now, most of them are going to change once he's in office and has access to a lot more information than he has access to now.

It's been a long time since I've been able to trust a president that "has all the answers" during their campaign. Too many times they'd changed things significantly.

It's like the guy who said, "I used to have seven rules about raising kids. Now I have seven kids and no rules."

Besides, he's running his campaign like he's running a job interview for position of CEO. He doesn't come into the job micromanaging - he comes into saying, "I want America to look like this at the end of my presidency. Now how do we get there?" and he lets his advisers advise him.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Nearly every president makes promises prior to gaining office that they have to alter or change completely once they have full information. Take Obamas stance on Guantanimo, for instance, or even his first plan to stimulate the economy. He ultimately went with keeping gauntanimo and allowing Bush's original stimulus plan to take effect during his presidency.

I honestly think Mitt understands that he doesn't have all the answers. He has a vision that encompasses his platform, but he understands that if he comes up with a bunch of ideas now, most of them are going to change once he's in office and has access to a lot more information than he has access to now.

It's been a long time since I've been able to trust a president that "has all the answers" during their campaign. Too many times they'd changed things significantly.

It's like the guy who said, "I used to have seven rules about raising kids. Now I have seven kids and no rules."

Besides, he's running his campaign like he's running a job interview for position of CEO. He doesn't come into the job micromanaging - he comes into saying, "I want America to look like this at the end of my presidency. Now how do we get there?" and he lets his advisers advise him.

No, he straight out says he has a plan but can't tell you the plan because -it's too lengthy/complicated- and he says one thing, then changes it up the moment it's counted against him (See his tax plan of the last few months and his disavowal of it just 2 nights ago).

I wouldn't care if he didn't have all the answers if he didn't claim to have them but won't tell us what they are.

 

[strawman]

Hm. Well, you might be right, I'm too lazy to go through the transcript and pull out the quotes.

Perhaps you can read http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/TaxPolicy.pdf and tell us how little or how much of his plan is explained in there.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Hm. Well, you might be right, I'm too lazy to go through the transcript and pull out the quotes.

Perhaps you can read http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/TaxPolicy.pdf and tell us how little or how much of his plan is explained in there.

That's even more vague than -It's too lengthy to explain-