2012 Presidential Debate Thread - Obama/Biden vs. Romney/Ryan - October 3rd-22nd: Live 9 PM EST Toni - Polidicks

He also wanted to know if it was credible.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37911462]more like learn to google? rather than asking us. It's not about you not knowing about the blog, it's about your posting about it.[/QUOTE] Sorry for asking a question.

[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;37911472]He also wanted to know if it was credible.[/QUOTE] asking other people about credibility is silly in general. If I want to know whether something is credible I search for it myself.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37911489]asking other people about credibility is silly in general. If I want to know whether something is credible I search for it myself.[/QUOTE] Well most people here know not to trust Fox News on their information. People have fallen for dailycurrent articles before. FP usually knows who's who.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37911475]Sorry for asking a question.[/QUOTE] It's ok. We'll just kill you tomorrow. [editline]4th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Alxnotorious;37911287]My view is that Gary Johnson is the candidate America needs, and so I'll vote for him. Obama's a good backup, and I'd rather he win than Romney. [/QUOTE] That's awesome. Only thing i'm against are the 30% of USA voting for Romney without backing him totally. If you want opression, you better WANT it.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;37911563]It's ok. We'll just kill you tomorrow. [editline]4th October 2012[/editline] That's awesome. Only thing i'm against are the 30% of USA voting for Romney without backing him totally. If you want opression, you better WANT it.[/QUOTE] I imagine its because its the only republican candidate with a big chance of winning.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37911664]I imagine its because its the only republican candidate with a big chance of winning.[/QUOTE] Newt Gingrich 2012

Zombie Reagan/Robot Nixon 2012

[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;37911679]Newt Gingrich 2012[/QUOTE] My dad believes in this.

[QUOTE=Ridge;37911792]My dad believes in this.[/QUOTE] I guess I share his pain with GJ then, but at least he didn't lose to anyone. Except maybe Ron Paul...

I didn't watch the debate, but inferring from my school today and this page, apparently Romney won the debate, Obama didn't break eye-contact with his notes, what Romney said during the debate were mostly lies to win the debate, and polls are lying. Am I correct? Also, can someone briefly make a summary of the subjects touched last night and each Candidate's general opinion on it?

[QUOTE=Yogkog;37911900]I didn't watch the debate, but inferring from my school today and this page, apparently Romney won the debate, Obama didn't break eye-contact with his notes, what Romney said during the debate were mostly lies to win the debate, and polls are lying. Am I correct? Also, can someone briefly make a summary of the subjects touched last night and each Candidate's general opinion on it?[/QUOTE] Fact checkers said Obama lied more apparently.

[QUOTE=Yogkog;37911900]I didn't watch the debate, but inferring from my school today and this page, apparently Romney won the debate, Obama didn't break eye-contact with his notes, what Romney said during the debate were mostly lies to win the debate, and polls are lying. Am I correct? Also, can someone briefly make a summary of the subjects touched last night and each Candidate's general opinion on it?[/QUOTE] Obama: Romney has a 5 trillion dollar tax cut plan. Romney: No I don't. They also talked a lot about medicare and public vs. private sector for health. Lots of policy talking

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37912000]Fact checkers said Obama lied more apparently.[/QUOTE] can we get some links? All I'm finding is GOP.com and Rush Limbaugh touting the headline "12 obama lies and counting", and an endless sea of everyone else talking about Romney's "27 lies in 38 minutes"

[QUOTE=daijitsu;37912097]can we get some links? All I'm finding is GOP.com and Rush Limbaugh touting the headline "12 obama lies and counting", and an endless sea of everyone else talking about Romney's "27 lies in 38 minutes"[/QUOTE] ABC reported it last night. I didn't bother tallying them up off their horrible web page, though.

[QUOTE=Ridge;37912119]ABC reported it last night. I didn't bother tallying them up off their horrible web page, though.[/QUOTE] I've noticed a LOT of people saying romney clearly won last night, but this morning it seems people started to realize what he was saying/doing and opinions are hazy and swaying, though even the more hardcore lefties I see are wary of the fact obama didn't jump on some glaring opportunities to get a punch in.

[QUOTE=Habsburg;37910883][url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139682/-So-about-that-CNN-Snap-Poll] so it seems that most guys polled for that cnn poll were southern white over 50 guys[/url][/QUOTE] You omitted the correction posted on that blog post: [QUOTE]Apparently, as noted below in the comments, the N/A on the crosstabs is listed to denote that the sampling range places the margin of error below statistical significance. So, there were presumably under 50's, minorities, and non-southerners sampled. It's still odd, to me at least, that only southern, 50+ whites were sampled enough to get a significant MOE on the results, when I'm sure there was probably a sizeable nationwide debate audience. Maybe that has something to do with the willingness of the original respondents to be bothered with a second phonecall survey.[/QUOTE] In fact, CNN did not only poll white southern seniors....

[QUOTE=Ridge;37912119]ABC reported it last night. I didn't bother tallying them up off their horrible web page, though.[/QUOTE] politifact and washington post seem to be rather neutral on the issue. It's all very hazy.

While I only looked through ~25 minutes, it wasn't apparent to me that Obama was doing badly. Politifact seems to have reported evenly between Obama and Mitt Romney, and that's really what I'm gonna go on. In general Mitt Romney seems to skew reality more, so I'm gonna assume Obama is half-way right at least. Was a bit skeptic about the "$5 trillion" he kept taking up, but it's apparently half-true.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37912304]You omitted the correction posted on that blog post: In fact, CNN did not only poll white southern seniors....[/QUOTE]Not a statistically significant number though. So few that they could be eliminated entirely by the margin of error.

To be fair it's kind of hard to attack Romney when he keeps changing his views spontaneously

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;37912344]While I only looked through ~25 minutes, it wasn't apparent to me that Obama was doing badly. Politifact seems to have reported evenly between Obama and Mitt Romney, and that's really what I'm gonna go on. In general Mitt Romney seems to skew reality more, so I'm gonna assume Obama is half-way right at least. Was a bit skeptic about the "$5 trillion" he kept taking up, but it's apparently half-true.[/QUOTE] from what I'm reading/hearing, it's being listed as a lie/half false statement because Romney isn't in fact planning anything directly figured to the 5 trillion. The idea is that if the plan he wants to run with was allowed to run for 10 years (I'm not sure how long the plan is actually intended to last), it would apparently reach that number, not counting whatever he does to counter-balance it. Sounds like numbers are based on a worst-case-scenario, not an outright "throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks" figure

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;37912365]Not a statistically significant number though. So few that they could be eliminated entirely by the margin of error.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sam Fiest of CNN]“The N/A in the demographic columns were there because the sample size was not sufficient for cross-tab demographic comparisons. Every reputable pollster uses N/A in its crosstab columns like that in order to make sure that nobody tries to make scientifically valid comparisons using relatively small sample sizes. But TPM mistakenly interpreted the data to suggest that we had not polled in certain demographic or geographic groups.” [/QUOTE] TPM, one of the first blogs to raise the issue, notes: [QUOTE]Late Update: We’ve dug in a little deeper on this, and there seems to be a straightforward non-nefarious explanation. It appears that where the subgroups within CNN’s representative sample of 430 voters were too small to yield statistically valid conclusions about the subgroups themselves, CNN declined to publish those results simply because they were not reliable on their own. We’re seeking confirmation from CNN, but this is the most likely explanation — one that is valid. —dk Later Update: CNN provided us with the internals of the poll, and the demographics of the poll respondents are very much line with normal standards for randomized sampling. —dk[/QUOTE] [URL="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/10/were_trying_to_figure_this_out.php"]http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/10/were_trying_to_figure_this_out.php[/URL] Nate Silver has commented on this poll, and referred to it multiple times on 538. He is an expert statistician.

I don't understand what people are talking about. Romney literally talked about nothing most of the time. His points were vague and idiotic at times, especially on issues he's already been called out on yet refuses to accept the results of non partisan analysis. He will say whatever it takes for him to win support. Taxes? Oh yeah, not gonna raise them (he even said he'll lower them by 20%). The math just does not add up for any of his plans though, yet he doesn't go into any sort of detail explaining how he'll cut the deficit, he just says he'll do things. His performance in the debate was rated "mostly fiction" by fact checkers. He literally made so many claims that it put Obama on a defensive stance without giving him any reasonable time to refute his claims. It's a debate strategy known as Gish Gallop where the person just makes multiple claims and half truths hoping to keep the opponent from dismantling them in a reasonable amount of time. We're all sitting here with our internet and real time fact checkers and wondering why Obama didn't refute his claims, but I would bet he was sincerely taken off guard and didn't know which of his claims were true and couldn't risk debating against all Romney's half truths in fear of Romney stretching the truth and just making Obama look bad for trying to correct him. I certainly think Obama should have done a better job refuting some of Romney's claims though. He should have concentrated on that actually. I mean, he knew Romney just lies all the time and if he would have gone to the debate ready to just show how much bs Romney says maybe it would have made the people realize Romney's true platform is shaky and reliant on lies and half-truths. The majority of people who watch the debates aren't gonna go home and fact check the debate either way, so that's why people say Romney "won". He thought he could say anything and just get away with it, coming off as the "winner" of the debate, when he really didn't make any good points. He had no platform to stand on and constantly flip flopped on previous positions, but people didn't seem to notice that (he backed out on his own tax plan). He was able to sling bs the farthest and that apparently made him win the debate. [U]FACT CHECKING[/U] Romney: [url="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/"]http://thinkprogress...-in-38-minutes/[/url] Both: [url="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/fact-checking-the-presidential-debate-in-denver/"]http://abcnews.go.co...bate-in-denver/[/url] And all the fact checking on both Obama and Romney Obama [28% false - 72% true]: [url="http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/"]http://www.politifac...s/barack-obama/[/url] Romney [42% false - 58% true]: [url="http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/"]http://www.politifac...es/mitt-romney/[/url]

The US should cut its military 1/2, then all budget issues would magically whisk away and you could spend money you spend on guns on other things that are actually important, such as education.

I also think that, with the next debate, Romney will have to find another trick from this one. He played his hand too early and came out swinging immediately. But he has more to go and if he doesn't find another clever trick to try and sway people, Obama will quickly learn from it and counter him hard. He could find himself worse than he started by the end of this otherwise. Not that I have a problem with that, watching Romney's campaign go up in flames might make me dance a jig in a busy part of town. I think I'd smile for a week.

Damn, republicans are going to need to start changing their deep rooted policies on things such as gays if they want to start winning elections.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37914199]Damn, republicans are going to need to start changing their deep rooted policies on things such as gays if they want to start winning elections.[/QUOTE] They tried that 4 years ago, the big republican talking point was about 'changing the GOP platform', they gave up on that rather quickly though.

[QUOTE=Medevilae;37914368]and then they didn't win the election, and doubled down on the crazy because sensible didn't work[/QUOTE] Making sense is unimportant when we can just kill people for fun!

[img]http://i.qkme.me/3r77hc.jpg[/img]