2012 U.S. Elections - President Obama Re-elected

[sees_all1]

Obama won quite clearly, although Romney did better than I expected him to in this format. Romney's biggest mistakes came when he tried to attack the president, especially on Libya which should have been an easy chance for Romney to get some free shots in at Obama, but ended up being his worst moment of the night.

Obama lied then, and then the moderator covered for him. She then walked back her statement in an interview later, saying Romney was right, but he chose "the wrong word."

 

Yeah, Romney did pretty well considering it was 2 on 1. More evidence of this - the moderator interrupted Romney 28 times, while only interrupting the President 9 times. 3 of those times for the President was to tell him that his 2 minutes were up, but ended letting him continue anyway.

[jasignhagj]

Are you seriously calling the moderator biased? Romney got interrupted because he kept trying to argue the rules.

 

As for Libya, Obama did call it an act of terror, so Romney was wrong. If Romney had said Obama never called it a planned terrorist attack or something along that line he would have been right, but he didn't.

[sees_all1]

Are you seriously calling the moderator biased? Romney got interrupted because he kept trying to argue the rules.

 

As for Libya, Obama did call it an act of terror, so Romney was wrong. If Romney had said Obama never called it a planned terrorist attack or something along that line he would have been right, but he didn't.

When the President used "acts of terror" in his speech, it was non-specific (notice plural, not singular), and 3/4ths of the way through the speech.

The President and his administration called it a demonstration against a youtube video / riot for the 2 weeks following the attack. The ambassador to the U.N. went on 5 television shows the Sunday afterwards and said it was definitely not a terrorist attack. The President went on the View, Letterman, and even in his speech to the U.N. he blamed the video.

 

I'd call it an outright lie, and the moderator's "fact check" was a lie.

 

The transcript from the Rose Garden the morning after:

[hide]

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

[/hide]

[jasignhagj]

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.

 

He clearly was saying the attack in Libya was an act of terror, even if it wasn't clear if it was spontaneous or planned.

[champion]

I think the fact that Sees is only arguing about things like moderators allegedly being unfair and people interrupting says a lot about who really won the debates.

[sees_all1]

I'd tell you my opinion who won, but I don't think you'd care. I can, however, point out things that went on during the debates.

But as to who won, I'll take their words for it:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/luntz_focus_group_of_mostly_former_obama_voters_switch_to_romney.html

[sees_all1]

Romney did a hell of a lot of talking out of turn and arguing that will generally make him seem like a dick to most undecided voters.

Fortunately for Romney, his likability rating isn't what's keeping this election close.

[stevepole]

The moderator was slightly biases towards Obama, but I thought she did a decent job at not swaying the outcome of the debate, except for when she did do that on the spot fact-check.

[Estonian dude]

Random fact:

I got chosen to be one of 10 students in my school to be picked to watch the US presidential elections and maybe comment on them on our national broadcasting channel. LIVE. Thing is, that stuff starts at 6 AM on a wednesday... (7th of Nov)

And I really haven't made myself familiar with the basic electoral platforms this year...

[sees_all1]

the moderator interrupted Romney 28 times, while only interrupting the President 9 times.

That's like saying referees in a football game are biased towards one side because the other team got more penalties. Without a complete breakdown of the interruptions that statistic means nothing.

"I'm going to chose to ignore this statistic because it doesn't fit my narrative."

This isn't a football game. The only real "penalty" a candidate could have is going over the time limit, but even after she called the President out on it, she still didn't enforce it.

[Tesset]

the moderator interrupted Romney 28 times, while only interrupting the President 9 times.

That's like saying referees in a football game are biased towards one side because the other team got more penalties. Without a complete breakdown of the interruptions that statistic means nothing.

"I'm going to chose to ignore this statistic because it doesn't fit my narrative."

This isn't a football game. The only real "penalty" a candidate could have is going over the time limit

Or lying

Or making things up

Or talking about something other than the question

etc.

[sees_all1]

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.

 

He clearly was saying the attack in Libya was an act of terror, even if it wasn't clear if it was spontaneous or planned.

Immediately before he used the word terror, he talked about the world trade center attacks, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "No acts of terror" is non-specific, doesn't particularly refer to what happened in Libya.

 

Also, it's a moot point because for two weeks after that, the administration talked about how a random youtube video incited protests and then spontaneous riots (specifically denying a terrorist attack) in Libya, which was an outright lie.

 

 

 

the moderator interrupted Romney 28 times, while only interrupting the President 9 times.

That's like saying referees in a football game are biased towards one side because the other team got more penalties. Without a complete breakdown of the interruptions that statistic means nothing.

"I'm going to chose to ignore this statistic because it doesn't fit my narrative."

This isn't a football game. The only real "penalty" a candidate could have is going over the time limit, but even after she called the President out on it, she still didn't enforce it.

That's not what I said at all. You said that she interrupted Romney more times than Obama as if that had any bearing at all. With no context, that statistic has no meaning. Maybe Romney spoke out of turn more or got away from the topic more often - that statistic in and of itself doesn't actually shed any light on whether or not the moderator was biased. Also, if memory serves, there were several points where Romney and Crawley were talking over each other and interrupted each other numerous times while Obama was quiet - were those occasions counted separately in this figure?

 

You just posted a number as if it meant something without providing any kind of background to go with it. So sarcastically quote me all you want, the fact is that the statistic you quoted is not actually indicative of bias at all.

I can go through the debate and identify each and every time she interrupted, but that still probably wouldn't convince you that she was biased.

I can easily identify three times when Romney was making a point that was devastating against the President, and immediately after she changed the topic.

1 - When Romney was pointing out that the President was hypocritical and had investments in China too, she changed the topic

2 - When Romney was pointing out the failures of the President's administration with regards to Fast and Furious, she redirected the topic to some arbitrary point about assault weapons.

3 - When Romney was pointing out the President's misinformation on Libya, she intervened and killed the point.

 

I challenge you to find counter examples to this bias, either where the moderator specifically helped Romney or specifically hurt Obama, because I don't think they exist.

[The_Gabe]

I wanted to slap that moderator. It's a bit sad that the past 3 moderators have all been Liberals. Candy completely interrupted Romney and gave an incorrect fact MID FREAKING DEBATE. You cannot insert yourself into a presidential debate, stupid woman.

[jasignhagj]

I wanted to slap that moderator. It's a bit sad that the past 3 moderators have all been Liberals. Candy completely interrupted Romney and gave an incorrect fact MID FREAKING DEBATE. You cannot insert yourself into a presidential debate, stupid woman.

 

 

You have a very loose definition of Liberal.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Why aren't we talking about what they actually stand for? We're talking about moderators and politeness when, actually, there's some real and very serious issues at hand. Isn't that a bit pretentious?

[nine naked men]

Wise men talk of facts, fools talk of factcheckers.

 

Proverbs 22:85

[obfuscator]

Wise men talk of facts, fools talk of factcheckers.

 

Proverbs 22:85

 

Have my babies

 

obfuscator 1:1

[lordkafei]

Tennesseean Endorses Romney

 

Time for another change

 

Gov. Romney: This endorsement was not an easy decision. You owe the American people more details about how you will keep taxes low, preserve social programs and build up the military, all while reducing the debt. You must be your own man, and not kowtow to special interests whose millions helped propel you to the Republican nomination.

 

Be the man who governed Massachusetts, and youll reunite America.

 

The Tennesseean traditionally endorses Democratic candidates, and is considered to be a left-leaning newspaper.

[Randox]

Why aren't we talking about what they actually stand for? We're talking about moderators and politeness when, actually, there's some real and very serious issues at hand. Isn't that a bit pretentious?

I am wondering the same thing. It's sort of like the media, which doesn't cover anything of importance because if its important, most people either find it too boring to pay attention to, or can't understand it anyway. Instead we elect based on who can talk trash about the other, because what the candidate did 10 years ago matters. I'd like to start the election season with a criminal record check made public so we can see how they moved through any life of crime (or just take a guess at how good they are at not getting caught), make sure they aren't part of a fanatical religion (quite frankly, I prefer to my politicians to be atheists as part of separation of church and state), and then put a moritoriam on schoolyard antics.

 

Also, why is your election season still so insanely long? It's bad enough having policy dictated by getting elected in 4 years (rather than what is good in the long run) without a 6 month election season. I grasp why it used to need to be so long, but seeing as we sort of invented air transportation since the founding of america, I would have thought at some point you guys would you know, make it short enough for people to pay attention to, and use less money. Just doesn't make any sense to me.

[sees_all1]

Last debate over. Moderator did a decent job.

 

Other people's thoughts?

 

E: Time - President spoke for 42:11, Governor spoke for 41:30. Interesting that the incumbents spoke longer during all 4 debates.

[Hamtaro]

They pretty much agreed on everything in the first third of the debate. Obama won, though.

[sees_all1]

I think the President had a few more digs in at Romney, but in the end Romney accomplished what he wanted to accomplish: not screw up. Romney agreeing with the President made it difficult for the President to contrast and make his foreign policy look better - in effect neutralizing any advantage he may have.

 

Romney looked more like an incumbent President than Mr. Obama. I doubt this debate will shift opinion in the polls.

[stevepole]

I didn't watch tonight's debate. From what I saw yesterday, it looked like the discussion was primarily on foreign policy which was brought up quite a bit in the previous debates. I didn't think I needed to sit through another debate listening to the same things rehashed.

 

If anyone has any decent videos or articles that are worth checking out that aren't overly biased, please share.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I thought Romney came out slightly better on the economy, if not necessarily in terms of future direction, but because the economy is just so poor right now, and that made it very easy to discredit Obama's handling of it. The only exception to that was the part about spending on the Navy, the "we don't have as many horses and bayonets either" line was a good soundbite which seemed to put Romney on the back foot from thereon on the issue. Obama came out on top in the foreign policy section quite easily, though.

 

The post debate snaps seemed to give Obama a significant lead (8 points to Obama was the most favourable I have seen to Romney). That's not good news for him given the debate took place in a state he really has to win.

[Da Pirates]

#Barack2012