• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Won?

Who won tonight's debate?

  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .
Obama was definitely holding back. When Romney was talking about cooperating with the Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature, the unspoken elephant in the room was that the Republicans in congress have been astoundingly obstructionist in the last few years. The cooperation that Romney enjoyed has not been extended to the president. There were several such incidents where Obama chose not to say something true that would have caused conflict.

The biggest thing that I disliked was how both candidates kept repeating statistics that the other discredited. Obama repeated the 5 trillion tax cut after Romney said he wouldn't do it, and Romney repeated the 700 billion "stealing" from medicare, even though the president said that wasn't true. That they stuck to their narrative instead of really responding to the other (though the president did a little such responding), made them both look bad.

Romney also largely spoke in vague statements. What exactly does "championing" small businesses mean? It's a good soundbite, but Romney really didn't make his actual plan very clear. He spent a lot more time talking about what he wouldn't do than what he would. Also his math is impossible.

As a matter of confidence and focus, Romney looked better. A later review shows that he was just blowing smoke. I'm not sure which one wins under those conditions. Probably neither one wins anything until Nov. 6.
 

I'd say that's about right. Romney did a good job of defending himself from stuff that was taken out of context or otherwise misrepresented and did so without getting overly animated. He also looked a lot more involved than Obama did. Obama didn't look at Romney while Romney was speaking and thus appeared to be blowing off everything that was said....an impression which was then reinforced by his responses.

Even though I'm not a particularly big Romney fan I was encouraged by what I saw and became a little more confident that his intentions were more in line with what I think needs to be done. I'm still not a big fan of many of his proposals and I still think he's about as milquetoast as they come but he did show a little spine and that's encouraging.
 

Yeah, would definitely have been a hell of a lot more helpful if Obama specified just where he got the $5 trillion figure from instead of just repeating it four times.

As for "soundbites" - debate performances thrive on simple soundbites. Sometimes it's in the debaters best interest to remain as vague as possible.
 
Nah, I judge who "won" by my own standards, not by how it affects the majority of other voters and that's how it should be, at least for me. I care about substance - with how a candidate effects the public constituting a part, not the totality, of that standard.

You're right, the majority of voters use superficial measures and I, like you it seems, view that as problematic. Now, I can either - to use the common quote - be the change I wish to see and judge the debate by more quality standards or I can judge the debate by looks like the American people who, as you said, "are content with nonsense" so that I increase my role in maintaining the problem. I have done and will continue to do the former.

In other words, the main problem with politics is that the public is complacent with superficial standards of determining the quality of policies, debates and candidates. And your answer to that complacency is "oh well, that's the way it is - I guess will just have to keep measuring debates the way the people I think are stupid do." No thanks. That's what keeps the US below its potential in the first place.
 

The thing is, this audience of this debate was tens of millions of Americans, not a squad of debate team judges. In terms of substance you and I probably agree that the President was less full of **** than Romney was, but that standard is completely irrelevant. Who REALLY won the debate is whoever seized the opportunity to help himself the most in terms of affecting the polls and the final election outcome. And last night, it was Romney.
 
I've come to the conclusion that neither won.

And I got the sense that Obama was not adequately prepared for Romney to come at him like that. He looked shocked, annoyed and just generally, as I said, unprepared. I blame that lack of preparation on his strategists or whoever lowered his expectations of Romney. At the same time, I blame Obama's inability to adjust in the situation on Obama and nobody else. He should have assessed the situation, thought quickly and come back at Romney. Instead, he just looked pissed off and weak.

I'm optimistic about the second debate since Obama and his strategists know what they're dealing with. However, I think the best thing for Romney to do next time would be to dial it back in a way that makes the President, who will no doubt be more aggressive, look overly aggressive and disrespectful. If Romney does that and continues to switch up his debate style, he could come out on top.
 
These may all just be excuses for why your chosen guy turned out a poor performance. Romney clearly took this debate and now the Obama diehards have to chalk it up to "ignorant voters". Of course, they're ignorant because they don't worship at the same alter you do.
 
Romney won. Not a total domination, as Obama did hit him on Medicare and managed to get him on a flip=flop, but yeah, still a Romney victory.

Curious to see how the polls play out. Only 15% of voters say the debates would change their mind. Maybe those 15% matter.


We'll know soon enough.
 
Let me ask you a question: If the majority is wrong, should you agree with them because they are the majority?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Let me ask you a question: If the majority is wrong, should you agree with them because they are the majority?
Click to expand...

That's up to you, and each and every one of us to decide how we react to a majority decision. That's not the issue here at all, but a dodge.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Let me ask you a question: If the majority is wrong, should you agree with them because they are the majority?
Click to expand...

No, but that is completely irrelevant. Winning Presidential debates, as I said before, is about perception more than reality, style rather than substance. If you judge who "won" the debate by who spewed less falsehoods and who made better arguments, then I think Obama is the winner, but the truth of the matter is that that isn't what really matters.
 
edeneen said:
it cured my insomnia :lol:
Click to expand...
It told me that Obama's hopes were pinned on anything but the actual debate. His discomfort was tangible.
 
It's funny to watch the partisan-left reactions. Even more considering how different they would have been had Romney screwed up and did good.

At least looking at the poll some of them had the testicles to admit the truth as so many see it... they get credit for that.
 
Considering that question I asked you is the foundation of the point I made which is being criticized by you and TC, it's the most relevant thing in the discussion.

The justification you and others have given for judging debates by looks is, "that's what the majority of citizens care about." Furthermore, you have argued that "Who REALLY won the debate is whoever seized the opportunity to help himself the most in terms of affecting the polls and the final election outcome." In other words, who won the debate is whoever has convinced the majority to vote for him. As a result, your judgement of who "won" the debate rests on what the majority thinks, period, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. My point is that they are wrong and, therefore, judging the debate by their standards and by how most of them feel, is problematic.

So, again: If the majority is wrong, should you agree with them because they are the majority?
 

In an election, it's what "the majority" thinks that matters, is what I'm saying. Winning only has real meaning in practical terms IMO.
 

Saying you don't think Romney won because he didn't win on the method YOU believe should really define who wins a debate even though you acknowledge by the standard way of judging it he probably would...

is kind of like suggesting...

that a high scoring NFL team didn't really "win" their game because you believe football should be about good defense and the team only won because the rules handcuff defenses, despite the fact you recognize that team scored 41 to the other teams 28

You may think that one of them did better for you personally, or you may think the "game" should be played in a particular way, but you also have to deal with reality a bit as well when talking about it from the more macro stand point.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
So, again: If the majority is wrong, should you agree with them because they are the majority?
Click to expand...

No.

But just because you disagree with the majority doesn't mean that reality magically alters and what the majority chooses decides what occurs in this instance.
 
StillBallin75 said:
In an election, it's what "the majority" thinks that matters, is what I'm saying. Winning only has real meaning in practical terms IMO.
Click to expand...
1. My original point - the one that started this - doesn't exclude the importance of the majority. It takes issue with judging who wins debates by looks alone. You and others seem to be arguing that since the majority of the public cares mostly about looks, then that's how debates must be judged. That's one way to handle the problem. Another way is to be the change you wish to see and argue for something more than complacency. I choose the latter.

2. What the majority thinks is the only thing that matters in an election if and only if you decide to make that the only thing that matters to you. The fact is that what "matters" is subjective. When it comes to the election in general, some people are voting 3rd party because their principles matter above everything else and others aren't voting at all because nobody represents what matters to them. When it comes to the debate, you and others have decided that what matters are looks and polls in spite of the fact that you may disagree that looks are the most important thing and that the majority know what they're talking about. I don't agree with that decision.
 
Zyphlin said:
No.

But just because you disagree with the majority doesn't mean that reality magically alters and what the majority chooses decides what occurs in this instance.
Click to expand...
Do you think that you could respond to me without a massive and incredibly condescending strawman?
 

Obama had the moral high ground thing going on in 2008; he doesn't now. What would he claim he cannot compromise on? It's not fair to expect to be dazzled by an incumbent, IMO.
 

I'm not saying that's how debates "should be" or "must be" judged. The simple reality is that, going back to the first debates between JFK and Nixon, that's simply how they ARE judged. Do I wish that debates would be judged differently? Perhaps with factcheckers standing on the sidelines giving out scores and calling out candidates for when they make **** up? Probably so. That doesn't change the reality it's public perception that really matters when it comes to winning these Presidential debates. Everything else is irrelevant.


From an individual standpoint, of course it's subjective. From the standpoint of trying to help yourself win in the polls and subsequently the election? Once again, it's public perception that matters.
 
Pinkie said:
Obama had the moral high ground thing going on in 2008; he doesn't now. What would he claim he cannot compromise on? It's not fair to expect to be dazzled by an incumbent, IMO.
Click to expand...
I would be dazzled if the president actually cut the deficit in half like he said he would.
 
Dooble said:
I would be dazzled if the president actually cut the deficit in half like he said he would.
Click to expand...

Who wouldn't? It's a preposterous, totally unrealistic bit of bull**** that should get anyone who says it a tattoo on their forehead that says "I'm A Liar", but the public keeps expecting it -- hell, even demanding it.
 

I may quibble about the last bit, but the rest of it is spot on. Presidential debates are the act of portraying leadership, rather than demonstrating leadership.
 

Yeah.

It's hard to do much when the time structure pretty much only allows soundbites. If they were given a great deal more time to speak, the generalities would be backed by more numbers (not a quick listing of goals, like Romney eloquently did last night), and there would be less sparring about who stepped over who's time limit. That being said, no one is interested in that style of debate, so no sense fussing about soundbites really at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…