The 2012 debates!

Forums: Politics, 2012 Elections, Obama, Romney, President
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The Commission on Presidential Debates has decreed that the candidates will meet for three separate prime-time debates in October, for ninety minutes each, with the debates being moderated by one person each, that person TBD at a later date. Here’s the schedule:

The first, which will focus on domestic policy, is set for Oct. 3 at the University of Denver in Denver, Colo., the city that hosted the 2008 Democratic convention. A second meeting in a town-hall format will take place Oct. 16 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., and the final meeting, focusing on foreign policy, will be held Oct. 22 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla.

The vice presidential contenders – incumbent Democrat Joe Biden and the not-yet-named GOP candidate–will debate only once, on Oct. 11 at Centre College in Danville, Ky., over domestic and foreign policy.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 16 • Views: 4,285 • Replies: 50

@McGentrix,

Thanks for the heads up McGentrix. Smile

0 Replies

Man. I really can't wait for these debates! I think there are just too many points that will be very difficult for Romney to defend when confronted head-on by an aggressive interlocutor.

Most people don't realize that he never really faces questions on these matters personally - his campaign fields them and responds with bullshit. Or, in the rare case of an interview, he personally responds with bullshit and our compliant media just moves on to the next question. Obama won't do that - he'll keep pounding away and pointing out the BS until Romney cracks, just as he did a few times in the GOP primary debates.

Does anyone believe that Romney stands a good shot of winning these debates?

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

His only shot is to have his people approve all of the questions in advance and to lock down (forbid) on the moderator's ability to improvise questions and ask followup questions.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Does anyone believe that Romney stands a good shot of winning these debates?

I don't like him or Obama. In my opinion they are exactly the same. The only difference being in how they dodge or beat around answering questions. It usually comes down to who says their response better with the fewest amount of insulting or bigoted word usage.

I think their political agendas are exactly the same. Don't care for either one. Who ever wins won't make anything better, things will just continue to get worse no matter which one wins because they aren't in it for the people. They are in it for the wealthy and elite.

Although typically during bad economic voting sessions the current presidents rarely ever get re-elected. So if this rule holds true there is a higher chance for Romney. Not sure how much the economy will effect this election since there is so much lying coming out of both sides and americans are to the point where they just don't care about number crunching or digging for the truth.

So in other words it won't really matter who wins.

2 Replies

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

His only shot is to have his people approve all of the questions in advance and to lock down (forbid) on the moderator's ability to improvise questions and ask followup questions.

Are you talking about Obama and his people? Obama is notoriously bad without the teleprompter. Like W bad.

Romney will easily win the debates unless the above happens. Obama is just not good at improv. Look at all the messes he gets himself into every single time he tries to go off script. Ends up with weeks of apologies and "That's not what I meant" messages.

3 Replies

Romney seems to have one stock answer, which takes various forms but is, in canonical form, "When I am president, I'll work with Congress and all the interested parties to fashion a viable, long-term solution to that". All too often he gets off with that, which is a total, utter, and complete non-answer.

Obama over Romney by 6 points in the latest poll.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Are you talking about Obama and his people? Obama is notoriously bad without the teleprompter. Like W bad.

This is a ridiculous myth that has been promulgated on your side. I would recommend that you review his debate performances in '08. He didn't have a teleprompter in any of them, and he trounced Hillary several times and beat up on McCain pretty badly. The guy actually has a very, very good record in debates.

I can't think of a single debate he participated in last cycle in which he WASN'T judged the winner by the pundits and the polls taken afterward. And he had several rhetorical zingers and answers which really bolstered his candidacy. That doesn't happen when you are 'like W bad' at public speaking.

Quote:

Romney will easily win the debates unless the above happens.

He didn't easily win debates in the GOP primaries. Remember?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Are you talking about Obama and his people? Obama is notoriously bad without the teleprompter. Like W bad.

I really, really love this meme. So much.

And really looking forward to the debates!!

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Yes, that sounds so much like "I'm a uniter, not a divider".

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Yes.
I'm hoping the right keeps passing this 'gotta have a teleprompter' thing around because come October they will get the surprise of their lives. I guess they haven't been watching Obama on C-span do his thing on the trail in front of thousands
on an open stage
in the round.

(He is so comfortable in spaces that resemble Ovals)

He talks on his feet, he takes questions, he jokes, he gets deadly serious.

The only guy I ever seen better live in front of an audience than Barack is ~~wait for it~ Bill Clinton.
(He could be wonky one minute, naming off, without notes, the top ten States receiving Medicaid money and full of ah-shucks the next when someone mentioned his weight loss.)

Neither guy is a put-up job. Is it practiced? ****, yes. That's their job.
Communicating.
For all of Ronald Reagan virtues and faults, his stage presence did more to bring him through than his actual ability to answer questions: "There you go again."was not an answer to a question, it was a practiced retort.....and it worked like a dream because Jimmy Carter didn't see (or hear) it coming.

If I was on the Romney campaign, I'd put three people in front of screens to watch the President work an audience and take good notes about his abilities.
Of course, about the only thing they could honestly write down would be:

Joe("****, we are in so much trouble.")Nation

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

I don't like him or Obama. In my opinion they are exactly the same.

Quote:

So in other words it won't really matter who wins.

I appreciate that you have the right to your opinion, Krumple, but in MY opinion, you could not be more wrong.

Obama and Romney are worlds apart...and it most assuredly matters tremendously who wins.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

He talks on his feet, he takes questions, he jokes, he gets deadly serious.

You've hit on it here. It's Obama's ability to pivot from being light-hearted to serious so quickly, and back, that makes him effective in these environments. It's a good rhetorical trick...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Not even sure why people care about these debates. It is not like they will really do what they say they plan to do nor would anyone hold them to it. It's like a competition who can say the best solutions but then never actually do them. Just a bunch of tongue and cheek to see who can lie the best.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Not even sure why people care about these debates. It is not like they will really do what they say they plan to do nor would anyone hold them to it. It's like a competition who can say the best solutions but then never actually do them. Just a bunch of tongue and cheek to see who can lie the best.

I generally find such 'I'm above it all, they all suck' attitudes to be amusingly ignorant. It DOES make a difference who gets elected, in terms of both policy and law; if for no other fact than the prez gets to make SC appointments, which have more impact upon our daily lives than almost anything else our gov't does.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I generally find such 'I'm above it all, they all suck' attitudes to be amusingly ignorant. It DOES make a difference who gets elected, in terms of both policy and law; if for no other fact than the prez gets to make SC appointments, which have more impact upon our daily lives than almost anything else our gov't does.

Cycloptichorn

The problem is this two party system where nothing other than the forced two parties are allowed in. You can't see how this is political collusion? This is what the problem is. They use this two party system as a distraction and to prevent actual good quality potential candidates. They have essentially rigged the system to maintain the ideals of these two parties that are essentially the same.

No one wants to admit or they just can't see the absurdity that this whole system is ran under. Clearly A or B is never the best when it comes to making a proper decision when there are other options but if those other options are not allowed to enter then you know there is corruption involved.

The two party system is an illusion of choice but once they are in office they just continue with the same hidden policies that only help the elite bankers and businesses. They don't honestly care about the people or we wouldn't be in this mess. The people are dumb down and lack education to realize what is going on and this was by design so that they couldn't make well thought out decisions or see that these candidates really don't have their best interests in mind.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

The problem is this two party system where nothing other than the forced two parties are allowed in.

This is a false statement. I have voted for a third party candidate at every level - local, state and for president. If these candidates 'weren't allowed in,' that wouldn't have been possible.

The fact is that a developed third party in this country hasn't garnered the support it needs to win any significant number of elections. There are a variety of factors behind this, but the system itself prevents that from happening in no fashion at all.

Remember 1992?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

Ross Perot got almost 20% of the vote that year. That pretty much destroys your above statement that such things can never happen. They can. There just has to be a societal push large enough to establish this third party. Right now, there is none. That's not the fault of the system.

Quote:

They have essentially rigged the system to maintain the ideals of these two parties that are essentially the same.

You're totally wrong. This probably sounds profound in your head, but it's not supported by any facts.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Are you talking about Obama and his people? Obama is notoriously bad without the teleprompter. Like W bad.

"End of quote" Romney can't even get it right when he does have a teleprompter.

This meme is busted. Move on.

Edit: I see that this has already been addressed by several folks. Sorry.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

The problem is this two party system where nothing other than the forced two parties are allowed in.

This is a false statement. I have voted for a third party candidate at every level - local, state and for president. If these candidates 'weren't allowed in,' that wouldn't have been possible.

The fact is that a developed third party in this country hasn't garnered the support it needs to win any significant number of elections. There are a variety of factors behind this, but the system itself prevents that from happening in no fashion at all.

Remember 1992?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

Ross Perot got almost 20% of the vote that year. That pretty much destroys your above statement that such things can never happen. They can. There just has to be a societal push large enough to establish this third party. Right now, there is none. That's not the fault of the system.

Quote:
They have essentially rigged the system to maintain the ideals of these two parties that are essentially the same.

You're totally wrong. This probably sounds profound in your head, but it's not supported by any facts.

Cycloptichorn

Funny, you are talking about me not knowing the facts. In some states you can not even vote unless you say you are a democrat or republican. If you say you are an independent, by law you can't vote.

Not only that but they don't even allow independent parties on the ballots in some states. They only have two options, dem or rep. You can't be of any other party. Sure you can write in what your choice as an independent but they just toss them out.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I just hope there isn't backlash on Obama for being "mean."

Bentson absolutely nailed Quayle with the line about Kennedy, but then everyone felt sorry for Quayle.

If you want to play in the big leagues....

0 Replies

The 2012 debates!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know