• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Won?

Who won tonight's debate?


  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .
I'm not saying that's how debates "should be" or "must be" judged. The simple reality is that, going back to the first debates between JFK and Nixon, that's simply how they ARE judged. Do I wish that debates would be judged differently? Perhaps with factcheckers standing on the sidelines giving out scores and calling out candidates for when they make **** up? Probably so. That doesn't change the reality it's public perception that really matters when it comes to winning these Presidential debates. Everything else is irrelevant.

From an individual standpoint, of course it's subjective. From the standpoint of trying to help yourself win in the polls and subsequently the election? Once again, it's public perception that matters.
1. Since you "liked" Tucker post when he said that debates "should be" judged that way and then proceeded to defend the point, I took your argument to be that it "should be" that way as well. Moreover, you are, in fact, disagreeing with me according to how I think debates should be judged - which is by substance not the majority - so you are, in fact, arguing for how debates should be judged.

2. If you aren't arguing for how debates should be judged and are instead just stating how debates are judged, period, then we don't disagree. The majority of people judge who won a debate by looks and by who appealed more the public. That is a fact. This fact is never what I disputed. I took issue with people's decision to go along with that standard of judgment.

3. I don't disagree. Relative to winning, public perception is what matters. But that's not the point I'm making. My point is that the decision in and of itself to judge a debate performance relative solely to that standard is subjective. I have decided not to judge campaigns by the standard. TC, you and others disagree with that and that disagreement is subjective.

In sum, I know that public perception and the majority are the most important thing for winning. This was never something that I contested. MY point has always been that we shouldn't judge debates by looks just because most of the public does and just because looks are the most important factor in winning. If you agree with that, great. If you don't, you're part of the problem.
 
In sum, I know that public perception and the majority are the most important thing for winning. This was never something that I contested. MY point has always been that we shouldn't judge debates by looks just because most of the public does and just because looks are the most important factor in winning. If you agree with that, great. If you don't, you're part of the problem.

Eh, I say embrace it. Lose the idealism ;)
 
Eh, I say embrace it. Lose the idealism ;)
Haha, well that seems to be the consensus, but many people in IRL have tried to crush the idealism out of me and it hasn't worked yet. There isn't a single influential change in the world that hasn't been brought about by seemingly naive idealism. Since that fact will never change, I suspect I won't either.
 
Romney did a good job at coming across as presidential and thought his best moment was when he brought up working with the Democrats in Massachusetts. Thought he came up with a good line "trickle down government". It was good to hear he has a more sophisticated understanding of regulation than typical far right rhetoric. Disappointing he won't in a wise fashion cut the bloated defense budget.
 
No, but that is completely irrelevant. Winning Presidential debates, as I said before, is about perception more than reality, style rather than substance. If you judge who "won" the debate by who spewed less falsehoods and who made better arguments, then I think Obama is the winner, but the truth of the matter is that that isn't what really matters.

Leadership, confidence, diplomacy, negotiation, all of these things can and typically are driven by perception. Perception IS one form of substance for executive positions. Sometimes (maybe even typically) it's valued more than all other narrowly defined "substance" combined.

For example, if the lobbyists and high-powered substance people get in a room with either candidate, who appeared to be better able to wrangle them, and not just roll over? Is that perception or substance? And while that's hypothetical and overly dramatic, remember Bush and it's not so hypothetical. Clinton in contrast to Bush, wasn't one to be out-gunned in a discussion either. Clintons intelligence and his folksy charm, that too was substance. Not really comparing the two, just that certain qualities have real substantial value for leaders.
 
Mitt Romney said: he wants to eliminate government service departments BY ATTRITION. Translation: he just takes away their money and then calls that their fault! No wonder this crook was a job destroying CEO. Is his name Mitt, because his mother got fed up with him when he kept losing his Mittens?
 
Although, not a Romney fan, I would have to give the edge to him otherwise, it would have been the scrap heap of history for him. I am not in agreement over his lack of giving details such as what deduction he will get rid of. He still strikes me as a used car salesman using all the guile he could muster to get people to buy into his fold.

I am not sure about Obama. He missed opportunity after opportunity. Why? What the heck was the matter with him last night? He came across as unprepared. Was he just being lazy as Sununu was heard to describe him today? If Obama does not shape up on the next two debates he will probably be on the scrap heap of history.

But I pray Romney will not be elected. God help this country from him if he does win. The mantra of the Republican Party is that this country be a plutocracy and not a democracy. This party only wants to give the illusion of a democracy. Plutocracy: rule by a wealthy few (billionaires, millionaires, the big corporations).
 
Leadership, confidence, diplomacy, negotiation, all of these things can and typically are driven by perception. Perception IS one form of substance for executive positions. Sometimes (maybe even typically) it's valued more than all other narrowly defined "substance" combined.

For example, if the lobbyists and high-powered substance people get in a room with either candidate, who appeared to be better able to wrangle them, and not just roll over? Is that perception or substance? And while that's hypothetical and overly dramatic, remember Bush and it's not so hypothetical. Clinton in contrast to Bush, wasn't one to be out-gunned in a discussion either. Clintons intelligence and his folksy charm, that too was substance. Not really comparing the two, just that certain qualities have real substantial value for leaders.

That's true, although it should be pointed out that it is possible for great leaders to be quiet, unassuming, low-key, and uncharismatic, while the reverse is true as well.
 
Mitt Romney said: he wants to eliminate government service departments BY ATTRITION. Translation: he just takes away their money and then calls that their fault! No wonder this crook was a job destroying CEO. Is his name Mitt, because his mother got fed up with him when he kept losing his Mittens?

You may know this and just using sarcasm but he meant he'd lower federal workforce by just not replacing those retiring or leaving government. As far as destroying jobs in private sector, that is necessary if a company is inefficient. If widespread inefficiency in economy, costs would go up and living standards down. We do not need inefficiency just for jobs sake, we can have that now, we could hire 100,000 people at $20 an hour to rearrange picnic tables at public parks all day but that kind of policy would not only bankrupt us but that 100,000 could be utilized creating real wealth which increases growth, tax base, higher living standards across the board. What needs to happen is a great efficiency/quality control program across government done in the least painful way as possible and have an amazingly great job training program utilizing a national virtual university, free and easily accessed world class training for all.
 
In sum, I know that public perception and the majority are the most important thing for winning. This was never something that I contested. MY point has always been that we shouldn't judge debates by looks just because most of the public does and just because looks are the most important factor in winning. If you agree with that, great. If you don't, you're part of the problem.

I agree, but what should be and what is are two different things altogether. You seem to take the position that we should have higher expectations for the general electorate. I'm not really all that optimistic - you can call it complacent if you want, but it's simply how I view the realities of group behavior. I think it's absolutely unrealistic to expect the general electorate to judge a debate based on facts and strength of arguments rather than style points.
 
Mitt Romney said: he wants to eliminate government service departments BY ATTRITION. Translation: he just takes away their money and then calls that their fault! No wonder this crook was a job destroying CEO. Is his name Mitt, because his mother got fed up with him when he kept losing his Mittens?

actually, as a federal retiree, that was one of the things i most liked among romney's debate proposals
first, because his downsizing would be via attrition, that means the union members, with contract protections, will be largely spared, exposing those who are not represented by unions - especially middle managers, who largely contribute nothing to the government effort
second, because the number of federal employees, military and civilian is quite excessive, any position which is found not to be inherently government should be considered for either termination or oursourcing
 
You may know this and just using sarcasm but he meant he'd lower federal workforce by just not replacing those retiring or leaving government. As far as destroying jobs in private sector, that is necessary if a company is inefficient. If widespread inefficiency in economy, costs would go up and living standards down. We do not need inefficiency just for jobs sake, we can have that now, we could hire 100,000 people at $20 an hour to rearrange picnic tables at public parks all day but that kind of policy would not only bankrupt us but that 100,000 could be utilized creating real wealth which increases growth, tax base, higher living standards across the board. What needs to happen is a great efficiency/quality control program across government done in the least painful way as possible and have an amazingly great job training program utilizing a national virtual university, free and easily accessed world class training for all.

This actually opens another efficiency related question, that none of them addressed yet. Every paid vacation is an inefficiency. When will American employees get raised to the level of paid vacations that Europeans and Chinese and Indian and Australian ... employess already have, all over the industrial world?
 
Romney's flag lapel pin was bigger. I'd say he won.
 
Curious to see how the polls play out. Only 15% of voters say the debates would change their mind. Maybe those 15% matter.

Those 15% matter more than anything in the world of US politics right now.
 
I bothered not as to watching these so-called debates.
Actually - true debates are neither won nor lost.
And Romney "liking Big Bird" displays his intellect (childish)..

Now that is really silly comment
 
Now that is really silly comment
I love all the people on here before the debate saying how badly Obama would win the debate because of how smart and charismatic he is over Romney, and how Romney would do terrible... and look what actually happened.
 
I love all the people on here before the debate saying how badly Obama would win the debate because of how smart and charismatic he is over Romney, and how Romney would do terrible... and look what actually happened.

I don't think anyone with an IQ above say 115 believes that Obunny is smarter than Romney
 
I don't think anyone with an IQ above say 115 believes that Obunny is smarter than Romney
I tested at 117, and I wouldn't be surprised if Obummer was at the same IQ level as Romney. It would be foolish to say that Obama is an idiot. It would not, however, be foolish to say that he could very well be insane.
 
I tested at 117, and I wouldn't be surprised if Obummer was at the same IQ level as Romney. It would be foolish to say that Obama is an idiot. It would not, however, be foolish to say that he could very well be insane.

Obama is not stupid. But those Obama slurpers who claim he is a genius are morons or have a man crush so heavy they cannot see straight. the smartest presidents in the last 75 years were

Nixon, Bush I, and Clinton. Obama is not in that group. Romney might be
 
Ugh I watched the debates twice then talked about them at work and everybody I know pretty much feels the same way.

nobody won that debate,it was pretty standard stuff, information and rhetoric wise.

Now of course there are those biased people that are pro-obama or anti-obama that are going to vote how they want no matter what. But those people are the minority in my real life.

Now what i will say and its how most people at feel that I know, Obama performed below his ablity in the debate and Mitt did 3 times as good as most people expected.

This caused some diehards to be all pumped and say stuff like he (Mitt) nailed it and murder him (obama) etc etc but the reality is for a presidential debate it was poor.

For me there was no "winner" just Mitt doing way better than failing on his face which many thought would be the case and Obama performing below his capabilities.

Hey you never know maybe that was the plan by Mitt lol Act like a bench warmer at best, make so solid plays and look like an average starter at best. Then the star player will think this is just gonna be a blow out and come to the game not expecting the last place team to put up any fight lol
 
Last edited:
Americans have always loved a good comeback story.
 
0bserver92,
ab9924,
AliBaba,
gavinfielder,
Pinkie,
straykatz,
waas

Seriously, people? How on earth do you think Obama won this debate?
 
Romney did a good job at coming across as presidential and thought his best moment was when he brought up working with the Democrats in Massachusetts. Thought he came up with a good line "trickle down government". It was good to hear he has a more sophisticated understanding of regulation than typical far right rhetoric. Disappointing he won't in a wise fashion cut the bloated defense budget.

Ya, "trickle down government" was genius.
 
0bserver92,
ab9924,
AliBaba,
gavinfielder,
Pinkie,
straykatz,
waas

Seriously, people? How on earth do you think Obama won this debate?

In my case, confirmation bias. Romney seemed disrespectful and haughty to me.

Really, what else is this but performance art? It isn't as if I watched, waiting for some erudition on either man's positions.
 
Back
Top Bottom