who won the presidential debate?

[Trivers]

What say yea?

[banyon]

Originally Posted by Saul Badguy

Why did you vote it a tie?

I think when I clicked the box, I went with my gut reaction. I thought it was a tie after the debate was over, but then I factored in my strong dislike of Romney and realized that I was probably shortchanging him on a few of the exchanges.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Or perhaps it was the fact that he was too arrogant to take or be bothered by criticism in his practice sessions and/or too undisciplined to practice enough to know his stuff to the point of it being second nature.

Perhaps. That's a common foible of incumbent Presidents in debates. Bush's first debate against Kerry was horrific for that very reason.

Originally Posted by patteeu

You can't sit back passively and let misrepresentations of your positions go just because the moderator would like to move on to another topic.

Right, but there are ways to do it and there are ways to do it.

That doesn't change the fact that squabbling with the moderator is universally unpopular in debates.

Originally Posted by patteeu

Not strange at all, and not inconsistent with his overall campaign. If you were under the impression that Romney or conservatives are against all regulations, you've been dealing with a cartoon version of your opposition instead of the real thing all along.

Heh.

Originally Posted by patteeu

A 500 person debate watch party? What kind of dorky freak are you?

I really enjoyed the experience.

Originally Posted by patteeu

Agree wholeheartedly on the format. Disagree about Lehrer.

How so? You didn't think Lehrer was terrible?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't agree, I thought it was a weird line of attack. Specifically because trickle down economics is a big, big part of modern conservativism.

It wasn't a weird line of attack at all.

It's a perfect illustration of Obama's hypocrisy.

The left wants to cry all the time about trickle down economics as if it's evil incarnate.

Yet they ALL WANT trickle down economics, they just want THEMSELVES to be at the top instead of private business.

[banyon]

Always easier to think of questions in hindsight, but I think Obama missed an opportunity when he had Romney's (very lame) excuse that he wouldn't provide details about the deductions in his tax plan.

I think you follow up your question and his excuse with one of the following:

1) Ok, let's accept that you want Congress, who has an approval rating of under 10% in some polls, to be in charge of coming up with the details of your plan. Can't you at least tell the American people which deductions that are large enough to make up the difference in revenues would be considered and on the table or which ones you would rule out? We all know there's only a few.

or

2) So, let me get this straight, in your tax plan, you can tell us what the specific rate would be for different income groups and THAT isn't a detail that has to be negotiated in Congress, but the question of what major deductions would be able to close the revenue gap can't be discussed because it must be negotiated. What's the difference between putting ourt specific rates and specific deductions?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You didn't think Lehrer was terrible?

You didn't like Lehrer because he didn't step in and keep Obama from getting bloodied.

Just admit it.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

It wasn't a weird line of attack at all.

It's a perfect illustration of Obama's hypocrisy.

The left wants to cry all the time about trickle down economics as if it's evil incarnate.

Yet they ALL WANT trickle down economics, they just want THEMSELVES to be at the top instead of private business.

Sounds reasonable.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You didn't like Lehrer because he didn't step in and keep Obama from getting bloodied.

Just admit it.

I didn't like Lehrer because it's easy for these formats to wander a bit on topics if there's no time limit.

I like a moderator with much more Tim Russert-like gusto.

[banyon]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

It wasn't a weird line of attack at all.

It's a perfect illustration of Obama's hypocrisy.

The left wants to cry all the time about trickle down economics as if it's evil incarnate.

Yet they ALL WANT trickle down economics, they just want THEMSELVES to be at the top instead of private business.

What's trickling down? Who is accumulating the money at the top?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by banyon

What's trickling down? Who is accumulating the money at the top?

It's self-evident.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Perhaps. That's a common foible of incumbent Presidents in debates. Bush's first debate against Kerry was horrific for that very reason.



Right, but there are ways to do it and there are ways to do it.

That doesn't change the fact that squabbling with the moderator is universally unpopular in debates.

I don't believe that to be true.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Heh.



I really enjoyed the experience.



How so? You didn't think Lehrer was terrible?

I thought he did a good job of not becoming a factor in the debate. I thought this format, along with the lack of interference from Lehrer, allowed the candidates to go back and forth answering each others assertions and questions pretty well. I don't think that either candidate should feel like they didn't get a fair opportunity to fully explain themselves.

It seems to me like some liberals are mad at Lehrer for not ringing the bell and saving their guy like a fighter who is getting pummeled at the end of a boxing round.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

It wasn't a weird line of attack at all.

It's a perfect illustration of Obama's hypocrisy.

The left wants to cry all the time about trickle down economics as if it's evil incarnate.

Yet they ALL WANT trickle down economics, they just want THEMSELVES to be at the top instead of private business.

Absolutely.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't believe that to be true.

In debates that allow audiences to participate, it's almost always boo'd when it's done in excess.

The GOP primaries were the perfect example of that rule.

Originally Posted by patteeu

I thought he did a good job of not becoming a factor in the debate. I thought this format, along with the lack of interference from Lehrer, allowed the candidates to go back and forth answering each others assertions and questions pretty well. I don't think that either candidate should feel like they didn't get a fair opportunity to fully explain themselves.

That's fair.

Originally Posted by patteeu

It seems to me like some liberals are mad at Lehrer for not ringing the bell and saving their guy like a fighter who is getting pummeled at the end of a boxing round.

I didn't like Lehrer because it's easy for these formats to wander a bit on topics if there's no time limit.

I like a moderator with much more Tim Russert-like gusto.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by banyon

What's trickling down? Who is accumulating the money at the top?

The government. That's why he called it trickle down government.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It seems to me like some liberals are mad at Lehrer for not ringing the bell and saving their guy like a fighter who is getting pummeled at the end of a boxing round.

This.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

In debates that allow audiences to participate, it's almost always boo'd when it's done in excess.

The GOP primaries were the perfect example of that rule.

I haven't heard anyone but democrat spin merchants saying that about Romney last night. I thought he respectfully asserted his reasonable right to respond to direct criticisms last night. He rarely interrupted Obama while Obama was launching these attacks, but when they were done, he had a right to respond and I think most people would see it that way.