Obama Romney 10/3 Debate Discussion

[Voice of Reason]

Let's go ahead and get things rolling. Debate number 1 is tomorrow night. What needs to happen for each candidate? What do you want to hear? If we keep the discussion in this thread during and after the debate, provide your thoughts and feedback.

 

 

Please ... let's have an intelligent discussion without the BS we see in many of the political threads.

[Clyde]

I thought George Will had a great comment in regards to Mr Romney. October is not the time to bring forth new ideas. It's the time for final discussion.

 

I watch the debates purely from an interest viewpoint as rarely is there anything new that comes out of them. Mr Romney summed it up well yesterday when he said that the concept of winning and losing a debate is silly. It's a chance to hear each side say how they plan on moving the country forward.

 

So, it can be entertaining but I just do not see it being a way to determine who one will vote for. I actually would question any one who says they will use the debates to make a decision. That tells me those people have not been paying attention for the last year.

[Randy Parker]

This debate is all about Mitt Romney. Obama's campaign has absolutely crushed Romney's up to this point.

 

Mitt needs to come out swinging early, hard, & often on economic issues. He needs to lay out a solid, understandable plan as to how he would get people back to work, reduce the deficit, etc. He has to win this debate for the other two to mean anything at all IMO. A perceived tie & certainly a loss will be the nail in the coffin for the Romney campaign.

[Clyde]

This debate is all about Mitt Romney. Obama's campaign has absolutely crushed Romney's up to this point.

 

Mitt needs to come out swinging early, hard, & often on economic issues. He needs to lay out a solid, understandable plan as to how he would get people back to work, reduce the deficit, etc. He has to win this debate for the other two to mean anything at all IMO. A perceived tie & certainly a loss will be the nail in the coffin for the Romney campaign.

 

A debate is not laid out to present the ideas you suggest Mr Romney needs to get out.

[Voice of Reason]

Clyde, I think for many voters this is when they really look closely and listen to the candidates. I agree that it isn't about the idealogy and platforms. Everyone knows where each side stands. It is more about image and connecting with voters. This is where a candidate can get an emotional connection with voters - trust and likeability. I wonder how many voters are still undecided? I do think a candidate can change momentum in a debate. Mitt needs to "win" this debate by connecting to the viewers. Right now, I don't think many people like Romney, including many Republicans, and that is what he needs to change more than anything else.

[Clyde]

Clyde, I think for many voters this is when they really look closely and listen to the candidates. I agree that it isn't about the idealogy and platforms. Everyone knows where each side stands. I

 

You give people way too much credit.

 

No way people know where Mr Romney stands.

[Randy Parker]

A debate is not laid out to present the ideas you suggest Mr Romney needs to get out.

 

It's not laid out to present those ideas in an exhaustive fashion, but it is laid out to make succinct distinctions between the two candidates.

[Habib]

I think anyone who expects their candidate to "win" the debate(s) is overconfident. These debates don't lend themselves to "winners" and "losers" simply because they are designed to allow each candidate to give miniature speeches on various topics. Very rarely are there debate-like exchanges. Both of these candidates are perfectly capable of handling that (and is probably why debates rarely matter much).

 

Of course, like most things in campaigns, perception is most important. If a candidate has great, substantive ideas but presents them poorly, the focus will be on the latter. I think this is why so many of the biggest highlights and important moments in previous debates have been issues of perception. It's usually a major gaffe, body language, or other cue that drives perception. From Nixon having the flu during his televised debate with Kennedy, to Reagan's "there you go again" quip, to Dukakis's emotionless response about the death penalty, to H.W. Bush gazing at his watch when Clinton and Perot spoke, to Al Gore audibly sighing as Bush talked, these are what we remember from those debates and what we cite as turning points, not who had the best answers.

 

I do think we can sit around and discuss who had better answers on substance, but I don't think it matters (and that can tie back into perception if a candidate is insistently vague or dodges questions, but they've been giving stump speeches all summer, they should be able to piece together an intelligible answer on most anything). One prediction I'm confident in making is that on Wednesday night right-leaning posters will flood this thread to proclaim what a massive victory Romney had and left-leaning posters will do the same for Obama. The only exception is that if something major happens like I described in the second paragraph we might have a "winner," but we will still hear about how "our side really won, the media is focusing on the wrong thing."

 

So, in short, I wouldn't anticipate much changing barring some sort of major slip-up. Which is also kind of sad.

[Clyde]

It's not laid out to present those ideas in an exhaustive fashion, but it is laid out to make succinct distinctions between the two candidates.

 

If you can't get a full presentation then what would you be basing it on?

[Randy Parker]

If you can't get a full presentation then what would you be basing it on?

 

Cliff's Notes as opposed to reading the whole book.

[bugatti]

If Romney does not hit a HR tomorrow night, this thing is over. May already be, but he has to do well to have any chance. I am predicting vague answers from both, o/u on Obama "ummms..." is set at 147, Romney will look uncomfortable and make himself out to be more of a rich white guy than he already is.

[75center]

The real battle will be the talking heads trying to get the word out about how their particular guy won.

[Clyde]

Some group did a study and found that with only one exception that from 1960 on the candidate that blinks the most during the debate loses. The one exception W.

[Randy Parker]

Some group did a study and found that with only one exception that from 1960 on the candidate that blinks the most during the debate loses. The one exception W.

 

Kind of like the Halloween masks thing.

[mcpapa]

I think anyone who expects their candidate to "win" the debate(s) is overconfident. These debates don't lend themselves to "winners" and "losers" simply because they are designed to allow each candidate to give miniature speeches on various topics. Very rarely are there debate-like exchanges. Both of these candidates are perfectly capable of handling that (and is probably why debates rarely matter much).

 

Of course, like most things in campaigns, perception is most important. If a candidate has great, substantive ideas but presents them poorly, the focus will be on the latter. I think this is why so many of the biggest highlights and important moments in previous debates have been issues of perception. It's usually a major gaffe, body language, or other cue that drives perception. From Nixon having the flu during his televised debate with Kennedy, to Reagan's "there you go again" quip, to Dukakis's emotionless response about the death penalty, to H.W. Bush gazing at his watch when Clinton and Perot spoke, to Al Gore audibly sighing as Bush talked, these are what we remember from those debates and what we cite as turning points, not who had the best answers.

 

I do think we can sit around and discuss who had better answers on substance, but I don't think it matters (and that can tie back into perception if a candidate is insistently vague or dodges questions, but they've been giving stump speeches all summer, they should be able to piece together an intelligible answer on most anything). One prediction I'm confident in making is that on Wednesday night right-leaning posters will flood this thread to proclaim what a massive victory Romney had and left-leaning posters will do the same for Obama. The only exception is that if something major happens like I described in the second paragraph we might have a "winner," but we will still hear about how "our side really won, the media is focusing on the wrong thing."

 

So, in short, I wouldn't anticipate much changing barring some sort of major slip-up. Which is also kind of sad.

 

"Nailed it".

"Hit a home run".

"Knocked it out of the park".

"Spot on".