Fall Debates

[WhyteRain]

It seems fairly clear to me that Perry's poor debate performances were, at least in part, caused by the pain medication that he was taking for his back. I would not have suggested that 20RP12 or anyone else support him, but WhyteRain is correct in objecting to your dismissing Perry over an overplayed gaffe.

Which was the icing, not the cake.

What was the cake?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

WhyteRayne, while Romney won't be a disaster at the debate, neither will he be able to land a heavy blow.  A tie works to Obama's advantage not because of how the MSM might spin it but because Romney will likely be in the position that Gingrinch was in during the primaries of needing to land heavy blows on his opponent and his campaign crumbling when he failed to land them.

I don't think Romney needs to "win" the debates.  As I said, I thought Bush lost all three debates in 2000, but he still won.  But while I thought Bush "lost", I thought he never lost BADLY.  He did decently -- in boxing terms, Gore was winning by close decisions, not knockouts.

Bush still needed unintended help from Nader to win, but if anyone is hurt by the third parties this year it is more likely to be Romney than Obama.  Also, if one is going to compare Gore and Bush to Romney and Obama, I'd say Gore is more like Romney than Obama and Bush is more like Obama in terms of their political abilities which is what will matter most to voters who don't decide based purely on the issues.  Issues voters aren't likely to be swayed at all by the debates.

[WhyteRain]

WhyteRayne, while Romney won't be a disaster at the debate, neither will he be able to land a heavy blow.  A tie works to Obama's advantage not because of how the MSM might spin it but because Romney will likely be in the position that Gingrinch was in during the primaries of needing to land heavy blows on his opponent and his campaign crumbling when he failed to land them.

I don't think Romney needs to "win" the debates.  As I said, I thought Bush lost all three debates in 2000, but he still won.  But while I thought Bush "lost", I thought he never lost BADLY.  He did decently -- in boxing terms, Gore was winning by close decisions, not knockouts.

Bush still needed unintended help from Nader to win, but if anyone is hurt by the third parties this year it is more likely to be Romney than Obama.  Also, if one is going to compare Gore and Bush to Romney and Obama, I'd say Gore is more like Romney than Obama and Bush is more like Obama in terms of their political abilities which is what will matter most to voters who don't decide based purely on the issues.  Issues voters aren't likely to be swayed at all by the debates.

I agree.  Good comment.

[Comrade Funk]

Write-in: Rick Perry.

Compared with the two mooks the major parties will nominate, the three-term governor (and former lieutenant governor, which in Texas is an even more powerful post than governor) of America's most successful big state looks really attractive.

However, you needn't waste energy on a write-in ballot.  Vote for Gov. Gary Johnson (R-NM).

No he doesn't

[Dumbo]

I think Obama will win the debates, because he has a lot more to lose than does Romney.  If Obama loses just one of these debates, with the current state of the economy, he'd better start packing his bags and hiring some movers for Sunday, 20 January 2013.  I think he knows it, too.  If Romney loses the election, he doesn't lose a whole lot except, possibly, the potential of a 3rd run at the White House in 2016.  If Obama loses, not only will he lose his job, but his reputation will largely be damaged on the fact that he promised hope and change, but nothing happened.  He can blame the Republican Congress all he wants, but, ultimately, the American People place all the blame and credit on the President.  The Republican Congress will have their "day in court" on Tuesday, 4 November, 2014.

I do not agree. Romney has much more to lose.

1. These politicians have a dream, a dream to be president of the United states, whether for
    4 or for 8 years. If Romey loses, his dream is over. Obama was President, no one can take
    his time in the White House away.
2. If Romey wins, his campaining in 2007 - 2012 with all these speeches, debates, financial
    and physically efforts led to a (glory) victory. If not he will ask himself or his family will ask
    him whether it was worth it. Obamas campaining 2007/2008 was successfull and his
    campaining in 2012 is part of his White House-job. He will never get the feeling all was
    for nothing.
3. To lose in times with great economic problems is not a desaster, Carter did ist, Bush sr.
    did it. The expectations today should be that the opponent wins, not the president.
 
    

[Indy Texas]

Nevermind that he's had the most successful tenure of any big state governor probably in all of U.S. history

...the @#$%?!

[sentinel]

Nevermind that he's had the most successful tenure of any big state governor probably in all of U.S. history

...the @#$%?!

Trolling!

[WhyteRain]

Nevermind that he's had the most successful tenure of any big state governor probably in all of U.S. history

...the @#$%?!

Trolling!

Why do my posts leave so many spluttering, speechless observers in their wake?

I mean, people please -- If you're going to go to the trouble of an ad hominem attack, why not attach the semblance of a thoughtful rejoinder while you're at it?

You could have mentioned Gov. Huey Long (D-LA) or Gov. DeWitt Clinton (D-R-NY) as having been more successful governors.  (I would've objected to Long as Louisiana isn't a "big state", but I'd probably have to concede on Clinton.)

If you don't have the wits or you just don't want to engage in dialogue, I wish you wouldn't clog up the scroll with typed manifestations of your mental heart-burns.  Take some Tums in the form of a good book.

[modify:]  I need to go for a bit.  BBL

[Maxwell]

I disagree. The prettier speaker won the 2008 Democratic Primaries. And I have a feeling most people would agree, in hindsight, that the other chick mighta made the better president.

yeah... no. The whole time would've been spent being like WOW WHAT IF OBAMA WON, or it would've just been the republican.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I think Obama will win the debates, because he has a lot more to lose than does Romney.  If Obama loses just one of these debates, with the current state of the economy, he'd better start packing his bags and hiring some movers for Sunday, 20 January 2013.  I think he knows it, too.  If Romney loses the election, he doesn't lose a whole lot except, possibly, the potential of a 3rd run at the White House in 2016.  If Obama loses, not only will he lose his job, but his reputation will largely be damaged on the fact that he promised hope and change, but nothing happened.  He can blame the Republican Congress all he wants, but, ultimately, the American People place all the blame and credit on the President.  The Republican Congress will have their "day in court" on Tuesday, 4 November, 2014.

I largely agree with this, except that Obama won't win the debates.  But he doesn't have to.  All he has to do is earn a "tie", as he did in 2008 when he kept saying "John is absolutely right" (eight times!).  With a tie, Obama will be proclaimed the winner by the Obamamania media.  He just has to keep it close and not make any major mistakes.  (Btw, I said in 2000 that I thought Gore won all three debates with Bush, so I'm not being partisan here.)

Obama's problem this year is that, yes, he's a lawyer -- that is, he has years of experience in thinking on his feet and sounding reasonable even if he has to say something silly -- but for the first time, he's going to be facing another Harvard Law School graduate.

I recall watching the 2011-12 GOP debates, and, trust me, I wanted Romney to fall on his face so badly -- just one time!  He didn't, to my chagrin.  So, Obama cannot count on Romney making any mistakes in October.  He's going to have to be flawless, too, to earn the "tie" that will get him proclaimed the winner.

Obama was a lawyer, BRIEFLY, and can think on his feet, if the debates with Hillary and McCain proved anything. And there's a video of Obama on YouTube from 2010 at the Republican Caucus Dinner where they asked him questions and he answered every one with ease and humor.
Romney is NOT a Harvard Law Graduate. He graduated from the business school. InRomney's profession he never had to think on his feet. He was a CEO. He only gave power point presentations. There's a reason he never gives many press conferences or interviews to anyone but Fox News Sunday.

[WhyteRain]

I think Obama will win the debates, because he has a lot more to lose than does Romney.  If Obama loses just one of these debates, with the current state of the economy, he'd better start packing his bags and hiring some movers for Sunday, 20 January 2013.  I think he knows it, too.  If Romney loses the election, he doesn't lose a whole lot except, possibly, the potential of a 3rd run at the White House in 2016.  If Obama loses, not only will he lose his job, but his reputation will largely be damaged on the fact that he promised hope and change, but nothing happened.  He can blame the Republican Congress all he wants, but, ultimately, the American People place all the blame and credit on the President.  The Republican Congress will have their "day in court" on Tuesday, 4 November, 2014.

I largely agree with this, except that Obama won't win the debates.  But he doesn't have to.  All he has to do is earn a "tie", as he did in 2008 when he kept saying "John is absolutely right" (eight times!).  With a tie, Obama will be proclaimed the winner by the Obamamania media.  He just has to keep it close and not make any major mistakes.  (Btw, I said in 2000 that I thought Gore won all three debates with Bush, so I'm not being partisan here.)

Obama's problem this year is that, yes, he's a lawyer -- that is, he has years of experience in thinking on his feet and sounding reasonable even if he has to say something silly -- but for the first time, he's going to be facing another Harvard Law School graduate.

I recall watching the 2011-12 GOP debates, and, trust me, I wanted Romney to fall on his face so badly -- just one time!  He didn't, to my chagrin.  So, Obama cannot count on Romney making any mistakes in October.  He's going to have to be flawless, too, to earn the "tie" that will get him proclaimed the winner.

Obama was a lawyer, BRIEFLY, and can think on his feet, if the debates with Hillary and McCain proved anything. And there's a video of Obama on YouTube from 2010 at the Republican Caucus Dinner where they asked him questions and he answered every one with ease and humor.

I can't recall any "boffo" debate performances by Obama.  Now, Newt Gingrich had some "boffo" debate performances and they almost lifted his unlikely candidacy to the top.  I don't think anyone doubts that he would have chewed up Obama like a sophomore seminar student.  The Republicans in 2010 -- like the Democrats and the media in 2008 -- were terrified of making Obama look bad for fear of being called "racist".  Recall that 2008 SNL skit mocking the debate moderators asking "tough questions" of Obama like "Are you comfortable?", "Would you like another glass of water?"  That skit wasn't far off.  Poor George Stephanopolous -- visions of his career circling the drain -- desperately threw himself in front of Obama when Obama said something about "my Muslim faith"; "You mean your Christian faith!" hissed Stephanopolous.  Can you imagine any reporter, if Mitt Romney said something about, say, "my illegal immigrant employees" breaking in to correct him, "You mean your legal immigrant employees!"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course he is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes ... Here, I'll make it simple for you:  Obama graduated from Harvard Law School; Bush graduated from Harvard Business School; Romney graduated from both.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hardly ever watch Fox and I hardly ever watch interviews with politicians.  (I figure if anything exciting happens, I'll hear about it and can watch it on YouTube.)  Maybe Romney's following the "WhyteRain Advice For Conservatives", which is "Never allow yourself to be interviewed by a journalist who cannot show you that he or she has been a fair interviewer with other conservatives in the past."  That eliminates nearly every TV journalist that isn't working for Fox.  (Obviously Sarah Palin never heard of the WhyteRain Advice.)

[Themistocles18]

The CW here seems seriously, embarrassingly wrong.  I've watched every debate, Republican and Democrat- excluding a few candidate forums- since '08.  I thought Obama lost or tied all but one of the '08 primary debates (he won, at least rhetorically, the one with the "likable enough" comment).  Of course he shellacked McCain three times; but McCain was, bar-none, the worst debater in the Republican field.  Romney repeatedly shellacked him.  McCain won exactly one of those debates with Romney and exactly one exchange- the infamous "timetable" debate, where he managed to make Romney seem weak and weaselly.  Other than that, he was awful.  More to the point, Romney was the candidate winning most of those debates.  This isn't just me talking.  Go back and look at the contemporaneous reporting.  Until the late Fall when Huck surged, Romney was repeatedly- I'd wager 50-60% repeatedly- proclaimed debate "winner".  In total (including post-Huckabee surge) Romney clearly won a plurality of debates.  Rudy won one or maybe two, McCain won one, and Romney and Huckabee pretty much split the remainder.  Romney also had some notably successful debates against Jane Swift in '02, the last of which resulted in something like a 5 point swing in the election (i.e, the last of which made Romney governor).  And of course, in this campaign Romney won the overwhelmingly majority of debates- including a few where, when all the chips were on the line, he brutalized Newt and Santorum; a fact that helps explain his nomination despite significant opposition among Republican primary voters.  So Romney is a fine debater.  We have lots of evidence of this.  Plenty of people have said so, while the debates were going on, though many seem to forget this after the fact.  Obama, in comparison, has only seemed like a particularly fine debater in comparison to a particularly awful debater (McCain) and was, at best, sub-par against the only fine debater he's faced (Hillary).  There's no way- none- that the like 4 to 1 Obama advantage in this poll is an accurate reflection of the disparity between the two men's debating ability.  If Obama won- flat-out- even one of the debates I'd be shocked.  He'll probably manage one tie and two narrow losses.  But there's definite potential for a significantly worse outcome. 

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

The CW here seems seriously, embarrassingly wrong.  I've watched every debate, Republican and Democrat- excluding a few candidate forums- since '08.  I thought Obama lost or tied all but one of the '08 primary debates (he won, at least rhetorically, the one with the "likable enough" comment).  Of course he shellacked McCain three times; but McCain was, bar-none, the worst debater in the Republican field.  Romney repeatedly shellacked him.  McCain won exactly one of those debates with Romney and exactly one exchange- the infamous "timetable" debate, where he managed to make Romney seem weak and weaselly.  Other than that, he was awful.  More to the point, Romney was the candidate winning most of those debates.  This isn't just me talking.  Go back and look at the contemporaneous reporting.  Until the late Fall when Huck surged, Romney was repeatedly- I'd wager 50-60% repeatedly- proclaimed debate "winner".  In total (including post-Huckabee surge) Romney clearly won a plurality of debates.  Rudy won one or maybe two, McCain won one, and Romney and Huckabee pretty much split the remainder.  Romney also had some notably successful debates against Jane Swift in '02, the last of which resulted in something like a 5 point swing in the election (i.e, the last of which made Romney governor).  And of course, in this campaign Romney won the overwhelmingly majority of debates- including a few where, when all the chips were on the line, he brutalized Newt and Santorum; a fact that helps explain his nomination despite significant opposition among Republican primary voters.  So Romney is a fine debater.  We have lots of evidence of this.  Plenty of people have said so, while the debates were going on, though many seem to forget this after the fact.  Obama, in comparison, has only seemed like a particularly fine debater in comparison to a particularly awful debater (McCain) and was, at best, sub-par against the only fine debater he's faced (Hillary).  There's no way- none- that the like 4 to 1 Obama advantage in this poll is an accurate reflection of the disparity between the two men's debating ability.  If Obama won- flat-out- even one of the debates I'd be shocked.  He'll probably manage one tie and two narrow losses.  But there's definite potential for a significantly worse outcome. 

You're right, Romney was a fine debater. Not good, not bad, only fine. During the primaries of 2012, he didn't do anything in the debate that made him win them, he only made sure he didn't make mistakes. But Governor Rick Perry really got under his skin in the debates, as you can see from the links below.
Immigration- http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XQYg9dTE0vo
Bets- http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0CPQMDS_XO0
And that's what Obama is most likely gonna do in the debates. He's gonna try and unnerve Romney, he gonna get him off his game and get under his skin. Obama doesn't have to win the debates, he just has to keep Romney on the defensive, and not allow for a Reagan-Carter debate moment. And Obama is pretty good at taking down Republicans and defending his record from 2010 when he took on the entire Republican Issues Caucus Confernce.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w1-jasxb7NY

[Themistocles18]

The CW here seems seriously, embarrassingly wrong.  I've watched every debate, Republican and Democrat- excluding a few candidate forums- since '08.  I thought Obama lost or tied all but one of the '08 primary debates (he won, at least rhetorically, the one with the "likable enough" comment).  Of course he shellacked McCain three times; but McCain was, bar-none, the worst debater in the Republican field.  Romney repeatedly shellacked him.  McCain won exactly one of those debates with Romney and exactly one exchange- the infamous "timetable" debate, where he managed to make Romney seem weak and weaselly.  Other than that, he was awful.  More to the point, Romney was the candidate winning most of those debates.  This isn't just me talking.  Go back and look at the contemporaneous reporting.  Until the late Fall when Huck surged, Romney was repeatedly- I'd wager 50-60% repeatedly- proclaimed debate "winner".  In total (including post-Huckabee surge) Romney clearly won a plurality of debates.  Rudy won one or maybe two, McCain won one, and Romney and Huckabee pretty much split the remainder.  Romney also had some notably successful debates against Jane Swift in '02, the last of which resulted in something like a 5 point swing in the election (i.e, the last of which made Romney governor).  And of course, in this campaign Romney won the overwhelmingly majority of debates- including a few where, when all the chips were on the line, he brutalized Newt and Santorum; a fact that helps explain his nomination despite significant opposition among Republican primary voters.  So Romney is a fine debater.  We have lots of evidence of this.  Plenty of people have said so, while the debates were going on, though many seem to forget this after the fact.  Obama, in comparison, has only seemed like a particularly fine debater in comparison to a particularly awful debater (McCain) and was, at best, sub-par against the only fine debater he's faced (Hillary).  There's no way- none- that the like 4 to 1 Obama advantage in this poll is an accurate reflection of the disparity between the two men's debating ability.  If Obama won- flat-out- even one of the debates I'd be shocked.  He'll probably manage one tie and two narrow losses.  But there's definite potential for a significantly worse outcome. 

You're right, Romney was a fine debater. Not good, not bad, only fine. During the primaries of 2012, he didn't do anything in the debate that made him win them, he only made sure he didn't make mistakes. But Governor Rick Perry really got under his skin in the debates, as you can see from the links below.

And that's what Obama is most likely gonna do in the debates. He's gonna try and unnerve Romney, he gonna get him off his game and get under his skin. Obama doesn't have to win the debates, he just has to keep Romney on the defensive, and not allow for a Reagan-Carter debate moment. And Obama is pretty good at taking down Republicans and defending his record from 2010 when he took on the entire Republican Issues Caucus Confernce.

I meant "fine" as in "of very good quality", of course.  Some Romney's early debate wins were as you described; i.e, Romney just being technically competent and cautious.  That does not describe Romney's performance destroying Gingrich in the two Florida debates, or his performance destroying Santorum in the Arizona debate, just to give a few examples.  

Romney has lost no more than a handful of exchanges with other candidates since he started running for President in '06.  When he's lost debates, it's typically been because other candidates had big moments, either displaying humor, or attacking the moderator; or because Romney tripped himself up while answering the moderator (think the tax return dodges in the South Carolina debate).  Even the first exchange you highlighted is an example of this; yes, Perry "got under his skin".  Perry nonetheless lost decisively. Not only did Romney pull the alpha routine and shrink Perry (an alpha himself) but he plainly had a better command of the facts.  Nor is it obvious to me that a testy debater is a bad debater.  All of Romney's best moments in debates have come when he was "testy".  He does testy well.  He gets pissed and summarily garrotes him opponent.  It works.  

Obama's performance at the Republican Issues Conference is not particularly relevant.  Debates aren't Q & A sessions where Obama can leisurely opine and filibuster.  General election debates especially are full of exchanges.  I.e, one candidate says something, the other responds, and they start beating the hell out of each other.  Romney is demonstratively excellent at these types of exchanges.  Obama's shakier and is, at any rate, rusty.  To give you a modest example (a lot more modest than an actual general election debate), recall the health care hearings, where mild-mannered Paul Ryan seriously took Obama off his game.  

[President von Cat]

Are we talking about the same Mitt Romney? Because the Mitt Romney I watch never does well under pressure during debates, in fact, a great deal of Romney's biggest gaffes came when he was being cornered, including 10,000 bucks, corporations are people too, and that one about how he can't hire illegals because he's running for office (for Pete's sake).

Romney is beyond horrible when testy.

[Maxwell]

Are we talking about the same Mitt Romney? Because the Mitt Romney I watch never does well under pressure during debates, in fact, a great deal of Romney's biggest gaffes came when he was being cornered, including 10,000 bucks, corporations are people too, and that one about how he can't hire illegals because he's running for office (for Pete's sake).

Romney is beyond horrible when testy.

his interview with Bret Baier comes to mind for some reason... lol.