Early indications such as this poll on CNN seem to indicate that a consensus is emerging: Romney failed to improve on his last performance, while Obama (having, let’s face it, no worse to do) greatly improved his. It appears the general mood is that Obama successfully defeated his opponent in this second debate, and it will be interesting to see what impact this has on the popularity of both candidates.
I have yet to watch it all so don’t want to form my own conclusion just yet, but it does at least sound like Obama didn’t give Romney quite such an easy ride.
16 Responses to Stronger Obama Looks to have Triumphed?
Robert October 16, 2012
and it will be interesting to see what impact this has on the popularity of both candidates.
I would assume that winning a more recent debate is at least somewhat more valuable than winning an older one, because it will be fresher in people’s minds on election day. That being said, I can’t see a win giving him more than a few percentage points – although that *might* be enough to win a close election. But of course, there’s still one more debate left. I’m gonna go ahead and predict that whoever wins that goes on to win the election.
Here’s some polls for reference, let’s check back tomorrow and see if anything changes: http://www.politico.com/p/2012-election/polls/president/national/national-12-president-general-election-216/
Gil Sanders October 17, 2012
My biggest problem with Romney in this debate: 1) He missed his chance to attack the president on Libya, 2) Shot himself in the foot by mentioning the 47% in the closing, 3) it seemed to lack some of the rhetorical force he had in the previous debate, and 4) he was more rude here. Against a “tougher” Obama, this is not something you can afford to lack in. So I can see how the general public could see this as a clear win for Obama. On the other hand, I would object and say that Romney won on the basis of argument. But meh, that doesn’t matter because the public focuses on the rhetoric. The PPP does say it is a tie, though, but it does remain clear that Romney did not have a victorious win like he did before. This is not good news for me, I am disappointed, but I will call it a loss when it’s a loss.
Justin October 17, 2012
“He missed his chance to attack him on Libya”
It was likely he was too embarrassed to go back to that after this:
Gil Sanders October 17, 2012
It was likely he was too embarrassed to go back to that after this:
That’s what I was referring to! Romney did horribly, he missed an opportunity there and ended up looking like a fool chocking on his own tongue. The strange thing is, he should’ve known how to respond to that… but perhaps the pressure of the debate got to him. It might have also been because the moderator tried to “fact check” in the middle of a debate, which was completely uncalled for.
Justin October 18, 2012
To be honest, I wouldn’t say “fact checking” was completely uncalled for, as Obama was called out for something. He just asked her to read the transcript, and it backed him up. It wasn’t as if she interrupted him while he was blatantly lying. At least there was no more talks about binders full of women on his side though.
How should he have responded to that?
Gil Sanders October 20, 2012
Professional debates do not involve the moderator butting in and making their own comments. This should be dealt with by the candidates themselves. I mean come on, do you really see that kind of crap going on in a debate with someone like William Lane Craig verses Christopher Hitchens? However accurate she was, this is not how you moderate a debate. And unfortunately, she admitted that her “fact check” was false. Obama lied about Libya, which is in my opinion a very serious thing in comparison to this “binder” nonsense. I see nothing wrong with finding qualified woman who are good for the job, it’s not insulting at all.
As for how he should have responded, it’s simple: “Mr President, if this is true, then you said the exact opposite on The View and to the U.N. Your administration said it was due to the video for TWO weeks. This could have easily been corrected, but you said that the cause of the attack was still being “researched” even though you now proclaim to have known what the cause was all along (an act of terror). So which is it, Mr President, did you lie to the American people or are you just incompetent?”
Justin October 21, 2012
The thing that lost Romney the debate was this Libya thing was where he should have scored the most points, but he got absolutely embarrassed in front of 80 million people. In the next debate I don’t think he’ll fare better, as Mitt Romney doesn’t have much experience in foreign policy. Obama will need to focus on things like Osama Bin Ladin if he wants to win as well.
As far as the moderator butting in with her own comments, Obama asked her for a fact check. He said “read the transcript” and her comment wasn’t bias. I’ve seen moderators butt in several debates, including WLC debates but I have never seen you complain about that. For example, the “Take that up your pipe and smoke it” when he debated Peter Atkins. We must remain consistent in our outrage.
Lerrrr October 17, 2012
Having just watched the debate start to finish: in my opinion Obama looked a lot better than Romney on both content and delivery. I think he looked stronger, more presidential and flat out more convincing. To me, this had the feel of a debate hosted by the president to which Romney had been invited (and didn’t look comfortable).
Overall I think Obama has a slight lead right now, but I don’t think he should get complacent because I do think this last debate will have the potential to swing it the other way.
Gil Sanders October 20, 2012
Are you evaluating that in terms of who “looked” better or are you evaluating that on the basis of the actual arguments made? If the former then I would agree to an extent, that seems to be the general impression of the public. If the latter I would disagree, it seemed Romney was much more powerful as far as the economy and the like was concerned, no?
Lerrrr October 20, 2012
Actually both; I think Obama looked stronger without a doubt, but also Romney has not convinced me as far as the economy (and also his tax plan) goes.
Gil Sanders October 21, 2012
Whose views would you align to more as far as offering a solution for this economic mess? And what do you find questionable about Romney’s economic plan, exactly?
Lerrrr October 21, 2012
Neither fully, but leaning more towards Obama’s. I believe Romney has fallen prey to a fallacy which has been common in conservative economic thinking for many years: that the super-wealthy want what is best for everybody. That the reason for a lack of growth is simply that America is not “attractive” enough to the super wealthy. It stems from a use of pure reason (which I warned against in another post) to make the [seemingly] logical point that by lowering corporate taxes, minimizing all regulation (and so on), rich people will then automatically invest more of their money into business, which will reduce unemployment and promote growth.
While there are observed CORRELATIONS between some of these things, history has shown that things don’t tend to work this simply. The reason being that the argument only appears logical on paper, and only because it assumes that (1) humans all act logically and (2) that rich people want what’s best for everybody.
He proposes eliminating loopholes that allow corporations to dodge current taxes (yes, he points out that corporate tax rate in the US is 35%, but he doesn’t point out that because of current loopholes most corporations pay nothing CLOSE to 35%…..which would seem to make America pretty attractive to them….or so you would think). He also seems to have been very quiet/ambiguous about EXACTLY WHICH loopholes he is going to eliminate. Perhaps I have just missed that, but I certain didn’t see any specific mention in the debate (it’s a fairly major thing he needs to clear up, as it is one of only a few things which give his tax plan the appearance of fairness).
He mentioned in the debate that high income earners will see no change to the taxes they pay – and kept belabouring this point as if this was somehow a nod at fairness? Because he wouldn’t be actively CUTTING taxes for the super-wealthy? Of course, everybody knows he plans to continue with the Bush-era tax cuts for those income brackets rather than letting them expire……so while he may not be actively cutting their taxes, he is certainly doing so implicitly by MAINTAINING a tax cut which would otherwise expire.
He mentioned the repeal of Dodd-Frank (and has done elsewhere), a move which I cannot fathom in the wake of events over the last 5-6 years at least. Sure, you might want to reform aspects of it…….but DEREGULATING banks and the finance industry?!! I can think of no other way to describe this than stupid.
P.S In response to your above comment to Justin: The president’s best counter-attack to your point would be to simply ask for the evidence that the Patriot Act (for example) contributed in any way (at LEAST directly) to the operation which eventually killed Osama Bin Laden. It is fallacious reasoning to assume that because Bush put certain policies in place that those policies therefore WORKED just because Bin Laden was eventually found. May I point out that you mention Bush’s invasion of Aghanistan…….this was back in 2001! So Bush conveniently failed to deliver for 8 YEARS……then gets the credit when his successor achieves what he could not?
I would also turn your final point around: how convenient that the former Republican president would like to take credit for the killing of Bin Laden (despite failing to achieve it in either of his 2 terms in office….), and yet the Republican party is eager to blame President Obama for the state of the economy! Obama inherited much more than just Bush’s foreign policy.
I could ramble on longer, but the point is that in my opinion I don’t think either candidate has a magical, fix-all answer to the economic woes, but I believe on the basis of what Romney has said that he has a major bias towards the wealthy, has little sympathy or understanding of the difficulties faced by the poor, and that his policies are likely to reflect these values – which I do not share (and in fact abhor; I believe many of the super-wealthy in america and around the world today to be some of the greediest, immoral individuals to walk the earth). It’s more a “lesser of two evils” scenario for me – if I was in America I wouldn’t be voting for Obama because he is Obama, I’d be voting for him because he’s not Romney.
Gil Sanders October 21, 2012
Justin,
I think the best counter-attack to Osama Bin Laden is to note that it was Bush’s own policies that made this possible (e.g, PATRIOT act, Gitmo, Afghanistan invasion, etc). You’re certainly right on, that would be Obama’s best strategy, but if Romney steps up his lousy act, he could easily create a powerful counter-attack: “Mr President, you should be thanking Bush for putting in place the conditions necessary for Osama Bin Laden’s capture. You seem so eager to put all the blame on him, but whenever something good happens, you’re eager to take all the credit.” As an added bonus, I’d point out that if it was so shameful to “politicize” Libya, then it should cut both ways… it should be shameful to politicize Osama Bin Laden for his political gain.
Wait, what? I don’t remember Obama “asking” her for a fact check, she just interrupted. Frankly, I never watched this debate that you are referring to but I don’t think that’s justified either. I am more interested in the debate, not what the moderator has to say.
Justin October 21, 2012
He asked her to “get the transcript”. Go back to my video I posted and check it out.
The problem is, I’m not interested in Romney OR Obama lying.
Gil Sanders October 21, 2012
Lerrrr,
That’s a handful to address, but you are great at writing out your thoughts. You never cease to amaze me with that
So I respect your views because you have clearly given this more thought than others have, even if I disagree! This reminds me of our TS days, and you are once again showing how good you are XD But anyways, yeah, I just want to put that out there because I don’t want there to be any hard feelings as we debate this!
There’s the opposite fallacy, however: That the government knows and wants what is best for everybody and has the resources to achieve it. This robin hood mentality against the rich is highly misguided, it is not class warfare that is going to solve our economic problems. How does one even define how much the rich ought to pay in taxes? Unless there is some guideline for fairness that we can discuss here, I don’t see how it is a particularly compelling argument. Ironically, there are a good handful of “rich” people in congress that get over $100,000 for their work and give themselves raises in the process! The amount of wasteful spending going on in the government is crazy, it requires cutting our budget in ways that matter, which is what Romney at least plans to do. Obama, on the other hand, did so bad in terms of his budget that it got slammed down in congress by democrats and republicans. Ever since then, there hasn’t been a new budget for 2-3 years. Even if we took all the money from the rich, it wouldn’t be enough to cover the spending of the government.
And these loopholes that you mention, they still apply now! What has Obama done to fix them? Businesses like banks should have failed on their own, that’s how corruption comes to bite rich men in the butt (along with a good judicial system). This is the natural process of things, but if the government comes to save their butts (as Bush and Obama have done) then we have a HUGE problem. As far as deregulating, I haven’t heard what Romney has said exactly but Paul Ryan denied that this is what they plan to do. He agreed that they should take good aspects of the Dodd-Frank but it needs to be reformed. But it’s interesting that you mention the Bush tax cuts since it was Obama HIMSELF that renewed the tax cuts! So if anything, you don’t have much of an edge as far as the two candidates are concerned.
As for Libya, I think your counter-attack just misses the entire point. Notice that I said we should thank Bush for “putting in place the conditions necessary for Osama Bin Laden’s capture”, I did not say that they were sufficient conditions. The problem here is twofold: 1) Without the invasion of Afghanistan, we could not keep Osama Bin Laden at bay, and 2) the president himself argued against the two wars for being on a credit card. I think (1) is just obvious, and (2) just shows that the president is undercutting his own success! There’s no problem accepting the fact that he made the call to raid OBL’s camp, but he cannot take FULL responsibility. His rhetoric is inconsistent because he’s quite willing to use OBL as a reason to vote for him but then doesn’t give at least some credit to where it is due! More ironic is how he used OBL for political purposes but refuses to let Libya be used against his competence because it’s somehow “shameful politics”.
Lerrrr October 21, 2012
Man, TS seems like a million years ago! But thankyou, and likewise you have a great/clear writing style which makes conversation enjoyable rather than a mission
And dude there are no hard feelings, I don’t identify strongly with either the right or left; I live in New Zealand right now and at the last election I voted for the National Party (the equivalent of your Republican Party). I judge it as I see it, one election at a time (or at least I try to, I should say).
I fully agree that we should be as suspicious of government as we are of the super-rich, and I agree that class warfare will not do the economy any good. You need a balance. I think the problem is that increasingly people in lower income brackets feel like class warfare is coming to them regardless of their own decisions. This is no doubt due in large part to the nature of the financial crisis and the fact that in that case, it was precisely due to a LACK of sufficient government intervention in the form of regulations, that very wealthy people were allowed to take unacceptable gambles with money that didn’t belong to them. They got richer, while the middle and working classes lost out in a very big way. There is a great deal of animosity now towards rich bankers who continue to give themselves enormous bonuses, wealthy oil companies posting RECORD profits (the environment and fossil fuel issues are another area where I disagree with Romney, but that’s another conversation) and companies who claim that they are being forced to send work overseas because things are so tough for them in America (I’m inclined to say “boo-hoo”!).
You mention that Romney plans to cut your budget in ways that matter – what about your military expenditure? You have the most over-inflated, disproportionate military budget in the entire history of the planet. You spend more than the next 5 top military powers combined (possibly more than 5, I can’t remember), and your military budget is greater than the GDP of several nations in the developed world. And as I understand it, Romney actually wishes to INCREASE your military spending (not by a huge amount if memory serves, but still). I feel it is hypocritical of him to complain about excessive government spending, when it seems most of the government spending he sees as “excessive” relate to social programs that benefit primarily lower income households.
I don’t think you can simply dismiss the “fairness” point as not compelling by introducing philosophical questions about the nature of fairness into the mix; articles like this clearly suggest that there is an issue with lower income households paying a far higher percentage (relative to the basic minimum requirement for a living budget) of their disposable income than higher income households. This is one of the biggest issues working class and middle class Americans have with the super-wealthy today, and I think it is not reasonable to dismiss the concern on the grounds that we do not have the time in this conversation to philosophically derive a universal “fairness rule”. Most reasonable people would agree that it is not fair for a poor person to spend such a high percentage in taxes that they are virtually broke at the end of the financial month, whereas a wealthy person barely notices the payment of income tax because they have so much left over afterwards (and STILL complain that they want tax cuts….).
Yes, loopholes need to be closed, and DEFINITELY yes banks should fail on their own. That is healthy capitalism – and it is something Obama has not done a great job of promoting, but something that since the 80′s (and Reagan) I believe the Republican party has done a profoundly BAD job of promoting. Like I said, lesser of two evils! Dodd-Frank is a great piece of legislation that should be added to in some areas…….but certainly is not a FAILING of Obamas as it was presented by Romney in the debate. And Obama plans to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, which is why I brought it up. There’s not much of an edge between the two as far as I’m concerned, but ANY edge is enough of an edge. If if I think Obama is only SLIGHTLY preferable to Romney, that is enough of a reason for me say I would vote for him (if I could!).
Well as far as I’ve seen his rhetoric simply involves pointing out that Bin Laden was killed under his administration. I didn’t see him go on about that too much in the debate as if it was a MASSIVE selling point! I don’t get the impression he has overstated anything, and I certainly don’t think he is under any obligation to say “Bin Laden was killed under my administration – but I owed this in large part to the policies of my predecessor”. Would Romney say that if the tables were turned? I very much doubt it. The fact that he complained about the Iraq war would be irrelevant anyway, so that doesn’t undercut his success. And the fact that he complained about the Afghanistan war doesn’t NECESSARILY undercut his success either. Perhaps he feels that Bush’s approach to the war was a failure? Perhaps he feels that Bush’s particular strategy/tactics failed and this lead to an unnecessarily long (and costly) war? The point is, while it is arguably true that the invasion of afghanistan was a necesary condition for the capture of Bin Laden – that doesn’t really say a lot. It doesn’t mean that the way Bush went about the invasion was necessary, or the way that Bush carried out the war over his two terms was necessary. Perhaps Obama would have got the job done in half the time? We’ll never know (and I’m not saying that’s likely), I’m simply saying that I think he is entitled to mention the killing of Osama under his administration, and I think he is under no obligation to publicly credit the Bush administration for that operation.
Like I say, I’m no massive Obama supporter, I think he has failed in plenty of ways and probably would do so if re-elected as well. I just see him as marginally preferable to Romney in several areas (relating to the economy, taxes, the environment, and foreign policy).