Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Tonight's Presidential Debate

At least Obama showed up tonight.  Of course, he had to, given his prior performance.

Romney didn't do as well this time as he did last time, but then again when you blow someone away it's nigh impossible to do as well the next time.  Obama was much more in his element than he was last time.

Romney whiffed on the Benghazi issue.  Crowley, of course, took a bullet for the president in that exchange, but Romney still didn't do as well as he should have.

By and large, the questions were pathetic. 

On style it was fairly even, I might even give the president a slight edge.  On substance I thought both of them were pretty bad, perhaps giving a slight edge to Romney.  Obama kept talking about what he'd do if he wins the election, as if he hadn't already been president for almost 4 years.

A wash.  I'm sure the commentariat will give it to the president, but it certainly wasn't anywhere close to the lopsided event from two weeks ago. 


Anonymous said...

I love how you say Candy "took a bullet" for him. She read the transcript.

No shame in admitting defeat!

Dean Baird said...

Obama did what he needed to do. Things are back on track. And the Internet has a new meme: "Binders full of women." I'd tell you to look for it, but I don't think you'll need to.

mmazenko said...

Well, it certainly changed things. No doubt about that. My perception is the Romney was quite agitated - and even desperate sounding. And I can't really justify why he would feel that way. But he certainly wasn't the Romney from the campaign trail or the previous string of Republican debates. In terms of content, we know they are both full of crap. It's a matter of whose crap you prefer to buy.

Darren said...

First off, the moderator should not interject herself into the debate. At all. And second:
"CROWLEY (to David Axelrod): I am joined by Obama campaign senior adviser David Axelrod. I want to pick up on what John McCain and I were talking about. There's a back and forth now about why didn't this administration -- why did it take them until Friday after a September 11th attack in Libya to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved. John McCain said it doesn't pass the smell test, or it's willful ignorance to think that they didn't know before this what was going on. Your reaction?"

Dean, you like this fake "War on Women" thing. I encourage Democrats to keep bringing that up. It's not helping you. Yes, CNN is harping on the "binders of women"; perhaps you in your liberal echo chamber don't know how desperate that sounds, but the rest of us do.

Darren said...


Today on CNN, Crowley backtracks on her backtrack. She got the facts wrong, but in smug MSM fashion, refuses to admit it.

“Listen, what I said on that stage is the same thing I said to you actually last night,” she Soledad O’Brian. “[W]e got hung up on this ‘yes he said,’ ‘no I didn’t,’ ‘I said terror,’ ‘you didn’t say terror.’ … So I said, [President Obama] did say ‘acts of terror, call it an act of terror, but Governor Romney, you are perfectly right that it took weeks for them to get past the tape.’”
Asked if that was a backtrack, Crowley said, “No. The question was — we got so stuck on that ‘act of terror.’ Now, did the President say this was an act of terror? The president did not say — he said ‘these acts of terror,’ but he was in the Rose Garden to talk about Benghazi, so I don’t think that’s a leap.” (The exact phrase Obama used: “no acts of terror.”)

mmazenko said...

Uh ... D ... you seem a bit agitated, too, like Romney. I'm sensing an uneasy sense of foreboding in your words.

Darren said...

Not at all. Unlike you lefties, I can admit when my guy didn't hit it out of the park. He did OK, but obviously didn't mop the floor with Obama as he did a couple weeks ago.

All indications are that things are looking better for Romney every single day. I'm cautiously optimistic.

mmazenko said...

Actually, I quite publicly criticized Obama for his last debate and conceded your points. And, of course, my status as "left" of you simply puts me in the moderate middle - not the liberal lefties. That, of course, also doesn't make Obama "my guy."

I am quite disappointed in Obama and the Democrats and I don't fully support them. However, like Middle America I am equally put off by the inanities of the GOP platform and am not willing to continue barking up a silly tree of supply side tax cuts. Interestingly, I was quite intrigued by Romney four years ago - and was ready to support him a year ago. However, the problem for the GOP - and you - is you can't figure out why your extreme and naive economic and social views keep alienating moderates like me and millions of other Americans. Romney should be coasting to victory among us in the middle. But as much as we are disappointed in Obama, we see Romney as no better and potentially worse. And, that's why, much to the sadness of moderate conservatives like me and David Brooks and Bruce Bartlett and David Frum and David Walker and Olympia Snowe, etc.

And, of course, you may have a rebuttal about dismissing me or the others as "conservative" or "moderate." But that would fail to explain why your guy can't win my vote - especially when I will vote for two other Republicans at the state level. You simply have no answer for that ... and that's the GOP's and Mitt Romney's problem.

Quite sad.

Dean Baird said...

Looking better every day? You must be glued to Rasmussen. Check in with Nate Silver's blog.

The Romney debate bounce is over. The Biden/Ryan debate might be responsible for that cusp. In any case, the corner's been turned. In a couple of days the effects of last night's debate will materialize, and you'll blame the liberal media or some such. Have at it.

Romney had his moment. The moment appears to be over.

Ellen K said...

1. I wonder if Gallup, in selecting the audience members, oversampled liberals as they so often do in their polling.
2. Why were the audience members all from the same county?
3. Why was the format so dreadfully unformatted? The rules seem cast in Jello with the "moderator" making the decisions which ones to enforce and when.
4. Why did Obama ignore that he also has accounts with investments in the Caimans and China? Furthermore, do we have any idea if he has stock in Soros related companies? I think that's a huge revelation if true.
5. If, as he claimed, Obama knew that the attack in Libya was terrorism why did he get on a jet and head for Vegas for a fundraiser. Isn't this far more damning than a president continuing to read to small children to avoid scaring them?

Darren said...

Dean, if you get comfort from such beliefs, I wish you well. I, however, remain cautiously optimistic, with the polls trending my way.

This is not Obama's election to lose. It is, however, Romney's to win.

Dean Baird said...

My evidence of Romney's party being over.
Five Thirty Eight

Silver nailed the 2008 Electoral College and is all about being right. He takes great care in being right. He sifts through the data, evaluates it, weights it, etc. He shows a significant Obama slide post Debate I. The polls *were* trending your way. But they didn't trend far enough. And the slide is over.

I'm keen to see the reality-based source of your optimism. I am skeptical of its existence/validity.

allen (in Michigan) said...

Dean Baird wrote:

Obama did what he needed to do.

Har! Yeah, come to terms with the positively incredible possibility that he might not get re-elected.

There's your explanation for why he was such lump in the first debate - why bother? There's no possibility that he won't get re-elected so the whole charade of debates is pointless and a bore.


So he had to do what he almost certainly hasn't had to do very often in his life and resents bitterly those instance when he had - work hard. And lo! His performance went from unignorably abysmal to mediocre. Hurrah! Let's all dance like epileptic saints! The anointed one didn't sleepwalk through another debate!

There's your fountain of hope and change not that you care or can.

Darren said...

From Gallup's web site today:

Likely Voters

7-day rolling average

From today's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll at Rasmussen:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 49% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47%.

From today's RealClearPolitics.com amalgamation of several polls from the past 10 days or so:
RCP Average 10/7 - 10/17 -- -- 47.7 46.7 Romney +1.0

Those are the sources of my cautious optimism.

Dean Baird said...

Rasmussen is, in essence, Karl Rove's polling firm. No reason to take it seriously. Ever.

Gallup is a fine old name in polling, but they've gone rogue, and have a track record of being wrong under such conditions:
Gallup vs. The World

The veracity of Nate Silver's meta-analysis is far more credible than throwing in with cherry-picked individual polls. Unless you're in a position of grasping at straws. Which is where Romney supporters are at the moment.

Popular vote percentages are a complete and utter waste of time. The Electoral College is all that matters.

And as of now, Romney has a 1 in 3 chance of winning the Electoral College.

I like Obama's chances.

Darren said...

I agree that the electoral college is where it's at--but even there I like Romney's chances. RCP has him leading Obama by a few electoral votes now.


W.R. Chandler said...

You mean the same Nate Silver who recently wrote in the New York Times that according to his calculations, Romney has only a 25% chance of winning the election?

Silver is a left-wing hack who will do what is necessary to get that fraud in the White House another term in office.

Hube said...

Anyone who parrots the bullsh** "War on Women" garbage is NEVER to be taken seriously. Especially since his preferred candidate is loath to use the term "war" where it should be applied.

Dean Baird said...

Ha ha ha, WR. That's what I like to see: "He's wrong because his reality-based conclusions don't conform to my ideological dreams."


"Left-wing" positions and reality are commonly tied to one another. Evolution happened, Climate Change is real, and so on. Silver is all about being right, as he was on the 2008 Electoral College. (Did Rasmussen even have Obama winning that one?)

RCP has PA as a toss up. Even the Romney camp has ceded that state. Honestly! Romney might get FL, but OH, WI, and MI? Not a reasonable chance.

Dean Baird said...

Latest from Pew, if you're into popular vote.

50%-47% Obama

Nate Silver has Obama's likelihood over 80%, if you're into Electoral College statistical analysis.