Debate # 2

[_Ceeboo]

Hello folks

I thought it was only fair (Mostly because I offered my opinion that Romney destroyed Obama on the first debate) that I weighed in and offered my opinion on the second debate here at MDB.

As I suspected, Obama was much much better this time around. I believe he was prepared, focused, engaging, "presidential" and in my opinion his peformance made him the clear winner of debate #2.

On a side note: I find it fascinating that these Presidential debates (with the very same two debaters) can, and often do, offer different 'winners'......on different days...........at different times. (Perhaps an entirely new thread that would be fun to discuss?)

Anyway, just wanted to be fair with all of my beloved liberal-left friends here at the MDB. (God! That was hard to type)

What say you?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_subgenius]

Hello folks

I thought it was only fair (Mostly because I offered my opinion that Romney destroyed Obama on the first debate) that I weighed in and offered my opinion on the second debate here at MDB.

As I suspected, Obama was much much better this time around. I believe he was prepared, focused, engaging, "presidential" and in my opinion his peformance made him the clear winner of debate #2.

On a side note: I find it fascinating that these Presidential debates (with the very same two debaters) can, and often do, offer different 'winners'......on different days...........at different times. (Perhaps an entirely new thread that would be fun to discuss?)

Anyway, just wanted to be fair with all of my beloved liberal-left friends here at the MDB. (God! That was hard to type)

What say you?

Peace,
Ceeboo

Obama performed better than his first debate, but that was not a difficult bar to get over.
I agree with most of those who watched the debate, it was mostly a tie. Obama by far made the better improvement in style from the first debate and perhaps that is why some people perceive a victory. However, Romney missed a few opportunities...as did Obama.
The most damaging point brought up and ignored by Obama, which reveals Obama's true nature, was the Fast and Furious program.
Obama picked up where Biden left off as to getting their base enthusiastic and letting them know that they do want to get re-elected...but still heard nothing offered for a reason to re-elect Obama except "if you enjoyed the last 4 years, we plan on doing the same thing for the next 4".

[_Drifting]

I'm confused after the debate. Does Romney have a tax plan, and if he does, why doesn't he know what it is?

[_DarkHelmet]

The most damaging point brought up and ignored by Obama, which reveals Obama's true nature, was the Fast and Furious program.

I was interested to hear Obama's explanation of Fast and Furious, but the moderator bailed him out by quickly changing topics before he had to respond. That kinda annoyed me. I was also annoyed that she got in the middle of the Libya argument. During debates all kinds of crazy accusations are hurled, and the fact checkers sort it all out afterwards, so I was surprised she did on the spot fact checking on an issue where both candidates were kinda right but spinning it in their favor. If she was going to do that, she should have done it consistently throughout the debate, or just don't do it at all.

[_Kevin Graham]

Obama picked up where Biden left off as to getting their base enthusiastic and letting them know that they do want to get re-elected...but still heard nothing offered for a reason to re-elect Obama except "if you enjoyed the last 4 years, we plan on doing the same thing for the next 4".

Like most candidates going up against an incumbent, Romney knows he can't hope to win unless he can convince people that they'd had it really bad the last four years. Whether this is true or not doesn't phase him, as he is in this for his own glory. So he focuses on all the possible negatives while ignoring the clear positives. I don't think Obama needs to explain why he should remain President. Most Americans know that he has been President since 2009 and they also know that hyper-inflation hasn't even begun to occur as predicted. They also know that the economy has improved, contrary to Right Wing predictions, and they also know that Obama is hardly the Communist Dictator as predicted either. So at this point all this idiotic fear mongering about Obama the socialist is old news that has been disproved by recent history.

In the end it all boils down to one question: Are we on the right track after four years?

I think the answer is an obvious yes. The economy has turned around in the right direction, even though the velocity of its progress can be disappointing at times. Despite all the spin doctoring from the Right about the "real" rate of employment, the unemployment rate is down nearly three percentage points from what it was in late 2009. Job creation in the private sector is on the upswing, contrary to Right Wing predictions of 2008-2010. The stock market has literally doubled since Obama has been in office, which is what FOX News once called the best indicator of an improving economy. Manufacturing jobs are up, etc. These are positives that the Right Wing media tries to hide from the public because they know that when all the facts are known, there is really no intelligent reason to vote for Romney based on the economic concerns. In fact, there is plenty reason to avoid him, as he is essentially Bush 2.0.

The beauty of Obama's performance was that he didn't let Romney's lies go unchallenged this time. I don't know how anyone can say it was a tie, unless you're grading them on the number of times they tried to become the alpha dog in the debate. The reason Obama won is because he had truth on his side, and he used it to slam Romney to the ground on a number of occasions. I just loved the way the moderator corrected the old lie about how Obama never called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack, and the crowd began to applause when that happened, which was HUGE for Obama because these kinds of reactions have an effect on the broader audience. I know they were supposed to avoid applause, but I'm glad they did it. It just showed how excited they were that finally see we were getting to the bottom of something. No more he said/ he said BS. A claim was fact-checked on the fly and Romney looked like a babbling idiot after that. I mean when you're lying so badly that the moderator has to step in and correct you... WOW.

I loved the way Obama responded to Romney by telling him to "keep going" when he was asking him that question. It was a great technique of giving your opponent enough rope so he could go hang himself with it, and it worked beautifully.

[_krose]

The debates are theatre, with a lot of drama but very little substance.

The script for the first one was Romney being the bully he has always been (true to his childhood roots and his business style) ignoring the agreed-on rules and aggressively shouting down both his opponent and the moderator, both of whom appeared taken by surprise and too timid to fight back. He has benefited greatly from his aggression.

The second debate featured a stronger moderator who refused to give up control, and an incumbent who had learned how to deal with the aggressive challenger. But really, too much of this debate was dumb questions, with even dumber, evasive answers.

[_Ceeboo]

Hi Krose

The debates are theatre, with a lot of drama but very little substance.

Yes!
This is what I was trying to suggest with/to you during our last exchange concerning debate #1 (Perhaps I failed).

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Bob Loblaw]

Whether this is true or not doesn't phase him, as he is in this for his own glory.

Do you have some special access to the inside of Romney's brain? I've had more than a few interactions with politicians from both parties in my lifetime, and they are all in it for the glory. You have to have a massive ego to run for office (see, for example, Obama's obsession with beating everyone at golf and basketball). I'm sure "glory" is involved in Romney's campaign, but you are kidding yourself if you think it isn't for Obama.

You said the other day that you were "passionate" about your political views (no kidding. ). Do you seriously believe that we moocher-hating, baby-eating conservatives are not passionate about our beliefs? Romney's no different from all political candidates, who have to modify (at least publicly) their positions to get elected. Bill Clinton, in my view, had no discernible political beliefs other than wanting to be president. He caved on health care, welfare, taxes, and the budget without blinking an eye because he knew he had to in order to get re-elected. Today we remember Clinton as a budget-cutting, welfare-reforming, tax cutter, conveniently forgetting that he was opposed to all of these until after the 1994 elections.

My two cents on the debate: Obama was much better this time, but there wasn't a clear winner, and as others have pointed out, debates don't affect much other than perhaps slight shifts in momentum. This may slow or stop the trend toward Romney, but I doubt it will reverse it. The post-debate poll by CNN shows him ahead of Obama on most specific issues, including health care, jobs, taxes, and the economy. And for the first time, Romney is ahead by more than the margin of error in the Gallup tracking poll (it's funny to see the same Democrats who mocked Republicans for doubting the polls doing the same this week, whinging about Pew and Gallup being biased). This election is going to be close.

[_subgenius]

I'm confused after the debate. Does Romney have a tax plan, and if he does, why doesn't he know what it is?

you are likely the only person, whom i assumed was literate, that would pose this question...everyone else has a clear understanding of it.

[_krose]

This is what I was trying to suggest with/to you during our last exchange concerning debate #1 (Perhaps I failed).

Or maybe I just don't pay attention to you. Eh? Whatcha think about that, huh?