Topics for first Presidential Debate on Oct. 3 announced.

[cj863]

*REPORTED FOR CONTINUOUS DOUBLE POSTING* ^^^^^

da interwebz are srs business

 

[futuremd]

If Romney doesn't point out that the large banks are bigger 

Where do you guys get talking points from?

Seriously?

I have friends on wall-street whose entire departments and subsequently company assets were swallowed up by larger firms trying to take the hits of other companies. 

And you'd be foolish to think ROMNEY would dare challenge the banks. Hes not Elizabeth Warren or Eliot Spitzer. 

and that a normal BK process for Detroit would have done the same thing as Obama did without the taxpayer funded bailout of the UAW,

Yeah because losing GM would be better for America in the long run. 

and the abysmal Cafh-for-Clunkers program,

You mean trying to do anything to jump start the economy instead of sitting on money 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ers-a-clunker/2011/11/04/gIQA42EhpM_blog.html

then he's going to lose the economic portion of the debate easily.

Economics are the weakest parts of debates IMO.

Presidents do NOT control the economy...nor are they responsible for job loses. 

I'm mad this talking point even exists.

ALL they can do is try to make policy that makes business more capable of being in business. 

Policy is what matters here...not the distant realm of the markets where politicians have little influence. 

I wish more people would listen to this. Its a complete falsity. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/435/how-to-create-a-job

Its far easier to ruin an economy than to build one up. 

Look, even now people are laughing at Obama for trying to start a public works program...why. So you can say hes not doing anything again? 

Governments do NOT create jobs. This has been a problem 20-40 years in the making and both sides are responsible for it. 

 

[Coupé It]

Which presidents were great debaters?

Any in our lifetime?

 

[RustyShackleford]

I'm some what excited about this debate

But I'm really looking forward to the VP debate and the return of Jumpoff Joey, Biden is gonna hit Ryan with some real daggers.

-Always love that Clinton clip, the look on Papa Bush's face is priceless

 

[futuremd]

Which presidents were great debaters?

Any in our lifetime?

Youtube comment: 

I don't care if you're Democrat or Republican, anyone who studies and appreciates politics can't deny that someone with his raw talent in people skills has not come around for probably 20+ years. He could have convinced that woman to vote for him and suck his **** all at the same time.

If you watch that short documentary I posted, it shows how that was one moment where bush was LEGITIMATELY taken off guard. There was no prep there.

Bill could have smashed that night. 

Hell, you saw that smirk as he turned away at the end. 

 

[rico x hood]

I've said this before and I will say it again, Mitt Romney is not a bad debater at all. His debate performance in the primaries were superb. As well as his debates against Ted Kennedy for his Senate race. A lot of you seem to be under the impression that Barack is a grear debater because he gives great speeches, in actuality they have nothing to do with the other. In all honesty, they are both pretty even when it comes to debates. Both are subpar off the cuff speakers (just watch anything Barack does without his teleprompter). But both are masterful when able to stick to their rehearsed talking points. Both are able to maintain a genial disposition during the debates, and both look presidential. You guys are letting your liberal biases cloud your judgement. But then again, you just may all be that uninformed.

 

[futuremd]

I've said this before and I will say it again, Mitt Romney is not a bad debater at all. His debate performance in the primaries were superb. As well as his debates against Ted Kennedy for his Senate race. A lot of you seem to be under the impression that Barack is a grear debater because he gives great speeches, in actuality they have nothing to do with the other. In all honesty, they are both pretty even when it comes to debates. Both are subpar off the cuff speakers (just watch anything Barack does without his teleprompter). But both are masterful when able to stick to their rehearsed talking points. Both are able to maintain a genial disposition during the debates, and both look presidential. You guys are letting your liberal biases cloud your judgement. But then again, you just may all be that uninformed.

Romney is "good" at debates because of how debates are done these days. He can't stand up to  All of the questions are softballed so he can just stand up there and gesticulate in a grand manner without having any substantial content. Remember, in the primaries, he wasn't forced to say much because everyone else just spoke themselves into a corner. He got by by saying as little as possible. When he DOES speak out, he bets 10K on a silly bet. 

Oh, and I don't know what debates you were watching. Dude trips all over himself:

When he speaks off the cuff or in interviews he falls all over himself, mostly because he does a lot of backtracking and tries to frame his arguments to account for positions hes trying to figure out instead of standing for something.

Obama does pretty well in interviews. Without a teleprompter well I guess thats another story. Its a prepared remark, not a rant. 

Oh and what debate were YOU watching against Kennedy?

 

[essential1]

I think the debates will go slightly Obama.... But Romney needs WAYYYYYY more than the debates to win this election.

Only way the debates help Romney in a significant way is if Obama has a melt down mid-Debate and starts throwing water at the crowd.

 

[essential1]

I've said this before and I will say it again, Mitt Romney is not a bad debater at all. His debate performance in the primaries were superb. As well as his debates against Ted Kennedy for his Senate race. A lot of you seem to be under the impression that Barack is a grear debater because he gives great speeches, in actuality they have nothing to do with the other. In all honesty, they are both pretty even when it comes to debates. Both are subpar off the cuff speakers (just watch anything Barack does without his teleprompter). But both are masterful when able to stick to their rehearsed talking points. Both are able to maintain a genial disposition during the debates, and both look presidential. You guys are letting your liberal biases cloud your judgement. But then again, you just may all be that uninformed.

You did not watch his debate against Ted Kennedy... He got slaughtered against Kennedy...

And anyone can look good against a Anti-Gay Adultery, a psycho religious nut, a closeted Anti-Gay Homosexual, someone who thinks the government should never do anything, a Texan who can't remember the 3 things that are essential to his campaign, a guy whose name makes you fall asleep, and a pizza man

It doesn't matter how close it will be.. Romney needs to have a flawless debate, a few game changers, and a miracle for these debates to mean anything.

 

[crcballer55]

I have friends on wall-street whose entire departments and subsequently company assets were swallowed up by larger firms trying to take the hits of other companies.

Thanks for reiterating my point for me. Did we really need 900 pages in the Dodd-Frank bill when reinstating the 37 page Glass-Steagall which worked well for the previous 70 years would have been fine?

Yeah because losing GM would be better for America in the long run. 

Who ever said we would lose GM? Either Obama has no clue what bankruptcy is, or he's being completely disingenuous and playing people's lack of business acumen against them. Chapter 11 BK is a reorganization of a business with repayment given to creditors first, then shareholders. In Obama's "bailout" the UAW & CAW got a priority stake along with the government while bond & shareholders lost everything.

You mean trying to do anything to jump start the economy instead of sitting on money 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ers-a-clunker/2011/11/04/gIQA42EhpM_blog.html

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. From the article:

"A newly updated analysis from economists at Resources for the Future finds that the actual benefits of the program were pretty meager. The paper examined U.S. car sales using trends in Canada as a control group, and estimated that about 45 percent of cash-for-clunker vouchers went to consumers who would have bought new cars anyway. In the end, the program boosted U.S. vehicle sales by just 360,000 in July and August of 2009 and provided no stimulus thereafter. What’s more, the program increased average fuel economy in the United States by just 0.65 miles per gallon."

Economics are the weakest parts of debates IMO.

Presidents do NOT control the economy...nor are they responsible for job loses.

How come the president keeps blaming his predecessor for his situation then? Like it or not, the economy is always the #1 priority for voters whether it's stated or not. Every incumbent that has been reelected in the past century (except Roosevelt) has done so with a booming economy under their belt.

 

[essential1]

^You're miscounting something about economics... What record is Mitt going to run on. His private sector experience? Easy counter is just list every single plant that Bain has closed and the subsequent jobs lost.. And how much money Romney made, and how many jobs went elsewhere..

Then bring up the 47% he doesn't care about.. Calling them lazy and do not have personal responsibility.


And you're wrong about booming economies... 1984 and Reagan was not a booming economy.

 

[crcballer55]

I think the debates will go slightly Obama.... But Romney needs WAYYYYYY more than the debates to win this election.

Only way the debates help Romney in a significant way is if Obama has a melt down mid-Debate and starts throwing water at the crowd.

There is a long history of elections being won during the debates. Whether you like him or not, Gingrich, as a history professor, wrote some pretty interesting observations from previous presidential debates over the last 50 years and how they can have a dramatic effect on a tight election.

Richard Nixon vs. John Kennedy

In 1960 then-Vice President Richard Nixon turned down professional makeup.

Television was still black and white and the lights were often harsh. Nixon thought a light application of a roll on makeup stick would suffice. His judgment was further flawed by two realities he ignored. First, Nixon naturally had a strong beard and the absence of makeup would give him a five o’clock shadow even if he shaved just before the debate. Second, he had hurt his leg, gotten infected, spent several days in the hospital and lost weight. The result was that he looked gaunt.

The result of these random factors was devastating. People who heard the debate on audio thought Nixon had won decisively. People who watched the debate on television thought Kennedy (who used make up and had a good tan) looked much better and more fit to be President than did Nixon.

Nixon entered the first debate the front runner and left it neck and neck with Kennedy. The Democrats capitalized on the failure by hiring an older woman who stood at the foot of the plane for Nixon’s first post-debate stop and said, “It’s ok, you’ll do better next time.” He did, but it wasn’t enough and Kennedy went on to become President.

Gerald Ford vs. Jimmy Carter

In 1976 President Gerald Ford asserted that the United States did not recognize Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Ford was thinking of the legal status – the United States insisted that Poland and other Eastern European countries were technically sovereign. The press interpreted it to mean that Ford was out of touch with reality and simply didn’t know what he was asking about. This fit into a general media theme that Ford was clumsy and dumb (the Saturday Night Live skits with Chevy Chase as Ford were devastating and made Chase’s career while crippling Ford’s).

Ford was a very well informed president who had a generation of service in the House and knew far more about foreign policy than did Jimmy Carter. However, the news media felt it had an angle of attack and worked on Ford for days. Finally his staff convinced him that he could never get his campaign back on track until he withdrew his words. The damage had been done and a campaign that had been catching up to Jimmy Carter lost enough momentum to lose the election by a narrow margin.

Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Reagan

In 1980 President Carter was in trouble but he had easily defeated Sen. Ted Kennedy for the nomination. The Carter team had contempt for Gov. Ronald Reagan and he was the candidate they most wanted to run against. They got their wish.

Two things happened in the one debate between Carter and Reagan which no one on the Carter team expected. First, Governor Reagan developed “There you go again” as a simple signal that Carter was not telling the truth. It worked like a charm. Without being impolite to President Carter, Reagan defined every one of his attacks as untrue.

Second, strangely, Carter decided the country would be deeply moved by his recent conversation with his teenage daughter about nuclear war. Instead of being seen as a sign of sincerity and humanness it came across as another example of Carter being strange.

After the Reagan-Carter debate the race widened and ultimately Reagan carried more states than Gov. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had carried in 1932 against President Herbert Hoover. The post-debate Reagan surge was so powerful it gave the Republicans control of the Senate when six seats were won by a combined goal of 75,000 votes.

Ronald Reagan vs. Walter Mondale

Reagan repeated his debate dominance in 1984 with a remarkable second debate performance. At the end of the first debate there had not been enough time for the closing that had been planned. Reagan had stumbled badly trying to edit a long story into a short period of time. He had looked lost and bewildered. People worried about whether he was losing his grip. Even his supporters worried about his upcoming second performance.

In the last debate prep meeting just before the second debate, Roger Ailes (then a campaign consultant and now, of course, the creator of Fox News) turned to Reagan and said, “What are you going to do about the age question?” Reagan was startled. None of his traditional advisers had felt comfortable confronting him with how bad the first debate had ended and how concerned the country was about his basic competence.

When Ailes explained the problem Reagan got a big grin. “I know just what to do,” he reassured his staff. “I briefly did a Las Vegas comedy routine and I know what will work.”

Callista and I included this moment of artistic history in our documentary “Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny.”

The very first question of the second debate was about the “age issue.”

Reagan pauses, takes a deep breath as though he is cornered, and says “I will not take advantage of the youth and inexperience of my opponent.” In our documentary you see the look in former Vice President Walter Mondale’s eyes as he joins everyone else in laughing and clearly realizes he just lost the election.

George H.W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis

Vice President George H. W. Bush had a good presidential debate. President George H. W. Bush did not.

In 1988 the moderator asked Vice President Bush what his attitude would be towards someone who raped and murdered his wife. Bush responded in a very human way saying, “How could you ask something horrible like that?” He seemed accessible and approachable and a decent person. Dukakis, asked the same question, came across as cold, pedantic and a professor answering a policy question. The gap between the two men was never wider.

Sadly, by 1992 the world had changed and President George H. W. Bush seemed tired. That image was really reinforced when during one of the debates he looked at his watch. It was as though he was tired of applying for the job and just wanted to get it over. The contrast with the young, enthusiastic, energetic and engaging Gov. Bill Clinton could not have been clearer.

George W. Bush vs. Al Gore

Eight years later, his son, then-Governor George W. Bush won a debate by doing nothing.

Vice President Al Gore had apparently been coached by some behavioral consultant to be an “alpha male.” It apparently had not occurred to anyone in the Gore team, that if you are being coached into alpha behaviors, by definition you aren’t an alpha male.

In one of the funniest moments in presidential debate history, Gore walks over to Bush and gets so close he is clearly crowding his personal body space.

Bush, in a wonderful moment of theater, quits talking and simply turns and looks at Gore as though he has lost his mind and is wandering around the stage.

Gore can’t take the tension and backs off, leaving himself looking goofy and guaranteeing that his strange behavior will be a key part of analysis of the debate.

 

[essential1]

I guess you don't realize how far down Romney is right now.. There is as much of a chance of Obama winning in a landslide, as there is of Romney winning at all per FiveThirtyEight.

 

[rico x hood]

I did not say that Mitt Romney bested Kennedy in the debates. I'm aware that he came out in the bottom. My point in bringing it up was simply to say that Mitt can hold his own. I read many comment in this thread saying how he will get slaughtered as if he's a novice, which is not the case. He has been around the block. Also, I said that both he and Barack are both bad off the cuff speakers. They both trip over themselves when asked unexpected questions. My only point is, debate wise they are both evenly matched.

But seeing that there is this idea that the President will wipe the floor with Mitt, puts Barack at a disadvantage. Romney doesn't have to have a flawless performance to gain favor, he just has to hold his own based on the expectations you guys have for this debate. Both campaigns are aware of this effect which is why they are both attempting to lower the expectations for their performance while raising expectations on the other guy.
But as I said before, my overall point is that they're pretty evenly matched.

 

[crcballer55]

And you're wrong about booming economies... 1984 and Reagan was not a booming economy.

Maybe not by historical standards, but compared to 81 & 82, it was a drastic improvement. Inflation went from 10.3% to 3.2% and unemployment went from 10.8% to 7.2%.

 

[Nike Jordan]

If Willard does poorly in the debates, he'll do what every other Republican does, play victim and blame the media.

 

[Mactastic4167]

***Sarcasm*** No big deal, the war and military members still dying daily overseas is no big deal. I'm in the military, I don't care to know what my future looks like, when I'll leave my family again. No big deal***Sarcasm***

 

[deepinthajeep]

I have friends on wall-street whose entire departments and subsequently company assets were swallowed up by larger firms trying to take the hits of other companies.

Thanks for reiterating my point for me. Did we really need 900 pages in the Dodd-Frank bill when reinstating the 37 page Glass-Steagall
which worked well for the previous 70 years would have been fine?

Economics are the weakest parts of debates IMO.

Presidents do NOT control the economy...nor are they responsible for job loses.

How come the president keeps blaming his predecessor for his situation then? Like it or not, the economy is always the #1 priority for voters whether it's stated or not. Every incumbent that has been reelected in the past century (except Roosevelt) has done so with a booming economy under their belt.

In regards to these two of the points you made:

Wouldn't 2002's Sarbanes-Oxley be that reinstating of legislation you're referring to? I'm no economist or finance person but I don't think Glass-Steagall did much to stop the likes of Enron, Worldcom and others. I don't think "reinstating" legislation that passed 76-77 years prior to Todd-Frank was much of an option. And I don't think Wall-Street regulation should be vilified at all - but that's my opinion.

And.

This is the first time since Roosevelt that we've seen such an economic collapse. One could argue that navigating the country from the brink of a catastrophe is more impressive than a "booming economy under their belt."

 

[thorrocksjs]

Youtube comment: 





If you watch that short documentary I posted, it shows how that was one moment where bush was LEGITIMATELY taken off guard. There was no prep there.

Bill could have smashed that night. 

Hell, you saw that smirk as he turned away at the end. 

MY GOD THAT SWAG WAS UNPARRELLED :x BILL COULD HAVE GOT THOSE AFTER DEBATE YAMBS B.Homie def got those yambs he had too

 

[thorrocksjs]

I could honestly see Obama and Mitt having a hard time in a real debate these dudes are so used to talking points and canned responses.I can see a very good college debator getting them.Baracks style is good but he is a speech guy.In a real debate speech guys get murdered because real facts real life and some memoir esque story will not work.No Michelle here to pepper the crowd.Mitt might be a bit more dangerous in a debate because he crunches real numbers and is a bit colder but his coldness and distance from joe schmoe is what makes him unlikable and makes him a bad debator

 

[SoleByThePound]

Who needs to watch Obama & Romney when we can just listen to the Nike Talk "know it all's" bicker back and forth like they always do?

 

[kdawg]

I'm not denying that Romney isn't smart and a good public speaker - he clearly is. But, he's going to come across as aloof and uncaring about "regular people" and that along with the fact that he's either indecisive or just plain wrong with his opinions will kill him.

 

[crcballer55]

I have friends on wall-street whose entire departments and subsequently company assets were swallowed up by larger firms trying to take the hits of other companies.

Thanks for reiterating my point for me. Did we really need 900 pages in the Dodd-Frank bill when reinstating the 37 page Glass-Steagall which worked well for the previous 70 years would have been fine?

Economics are the weakest parts of debates IMO.

Presidents do NOT control the economy...nor are they responsible for job loses.

How come the president keeps blaming his predecessor for his situation then? Like it or not, the economy is always the #1 priority for voters whether it's stated or not. Every incumbent that has been reelected in the past century (except Roosevelt) has done so with a booming economy under their belt.

In regards to these two of the points you made:

Wouldn't 2002's Sarbanes-Oxley be that reinstating of legislation you're referring to? I'm no economist or finance person but I don't think Glass-Steagall did much to stop the likes of Enron, Worldcom and others. I don't think "reinstating" legislation that passed 76-77 years prior to Todd-Frank was much of an option. And I don't think Wall-Street regulation should be vilified at all - but that's my opinion.

And.

This is the first time since Roosevelt that we've seen such an economic collapse. One could argue that navigating the country from the brink of a catastrophe is more impressive than a "booming economy under their belt."

SOX & Glass-Steagall were completely different regulations. In summary, SOX required stricter accounting requirements for public corporations and required the CEO to personally sign off on the accounting of the company with risk of imprisonment if fraud was found. With Glass-Steagall, it separated retail banks (think deposits. much safer) from investment banks (investors & traders. much riskier). With the removal of that wall, it allowed banks to open investment departments and take bigger risks in order to gain bigger profits. Subsequently, one of the biggest proponents of this model was CitiGroup and was, IMO, the one responsible for TARP being implemented the way it was (forcing all 5 large banks to take it) in order to prevent a bank run on them which the FDIC couldn't afford to fund with the rate of bank failures back in late 2008-early 2009.

For reference, the Enron BK was $65B, Worldcom was $105B. By comparison, Wamu was $327B & Lehman Bros. Was $691B

 

[b smooth 202]

***Sarcasm*** No big deal, the war and military members still dying daily overseas is no big deal. I'm in the military, I don't care to know what my future looks like, when I'll leave my family again. No big deal***Sarcasm***

blame yourself for not challenging them

I swear military dudes sign their reason away on that contract...my grandad and my dad are both retired USAF btw

your not allowed to have an opinion

 

[Betonblck]

I could honestly see Obama and Mitt having a hard time in a real debate these dudes are so used to talking points and canned responses.I can see a very good college debator getting them.Baracks style is good but he is a speech guy.In a real debate speech guys get murdered because real facts real life and some memoir esque story will not work.No Michelle here to pepper the crowd.Mitt might be a bit more dangerous in a debate because he crunches real numbers and is a bit colder but his coldness and distance from joe schmoe is what makes him unlikable and makes him a bad debator

The problem with Romney is he is out of touch with regular people. When he speaks his mind, you get "I'll bet you 10 grand". So he will have a hard time at the debates because he will be trying to make prepared statements and not stray off course by speaking his true thoughts.