The real reason Obama didn't do well in the debates (or for the last 4 yrs)...

Jtaw3 said:

Well, I disagree. I mean, political history is pretty consistent when it comes to the presidential debate. Sure, this election COUlD be an outlier where the debates have a huge impact but there would already be specidic indicators that haven't happened.

Click to expand...

Jtaw3 said:

Also, I'm not sure which polls you're paying attention to (Rassmussen or We Ask America, perhaps?) but Gallup had Obama at 49% before the debates and Romney was at 44%, now they both have seen a 1% increase. Pew Research Center has Obama at 51% and Romney at 43%, Real Clear Politics still has Obama at 50% and Romney at 46%, and, as of right now, Obama has an estimated Electoral College vote of 251 and Romney's is at 181 from RCP. The New York Times has Obama at 51.7% and Romney at 47% with 327 estimated EC votes for Obama and 210 estimated EC votes for Romney. Then we factor the lowered jobs rate coming out today, which, whether you like it or not, will boost support of Obama.

Click to expand...

Jtaw3 said:

Oh and The 76 election had a clear winner and it wasn't Ford, BUT his gaffe didn't do any harm to his base. Polls research shows that the outcome of elections is consistent with polls numbers BEFORE the debates... in every election, even in 60, 80, and 2000. Reagan, for instance, only got a small nudge in 80 but was winning before the debates anyway.

Click to expand...

Jtaw3 said:

I'm sorry dude, Romney totally "won" the debate but i don't see it having any real effect on the overall election. I'm not saying he can't win, and I'm not saying that in the next 30 days there wont be some major shifts in the poll numbers. What I am saying, however, is that this debate didn't do anything major for either party. It may have given the Romney base some passion, but they were going to vote for Romney anyway. Now, Independent voters are within close range of each other BUT this was before the recent job numbers happened and they can easily swing back and forth a dozen times before the election for a number of reasons. This debate didn't do anything besides give a number of goofy Repubs some bragging rights. Oh well

Click to expand...

OscarB63 said:

poor liberals. either they are making excuses for why Obama lost, or they are denying that he lost. no win scenario

Click to expand...

helix2048 said:

I don't think either of them won. I watched the debate again just to be sure I didn't miss something. Yes, Obama spewed he usual rhetoric while Romney still failed to give us specifics. I don't think either of them have a concept of what 2 minutes is. But I bet if you got either of them alone, they wouldn't give you 2 minutes of their time to hear you out. Romney got more air time, but I don't think that was a win. It was more like a game of football being pushed up and down the field without reaching a touchdown.

Click to expand...

helix2048 said:

I don't think either of them won. I watched the debate again just to be sure I didn't miss something. Yes, Obama spewed he usual rhetoric while Romney still failed to give us specifics. I don't think either of them have a concept of what 2 minutes is. But I bet if you got either of them alone, they wouldn't give you 2 minutes of their time to hear you out. Romney got more air time, but I don't think that was a win. It was more like a game of football being pushed up and down the field without reaching a touchdown.

Click to expand...

Jtaw3 said:

Fair enough, you're absolutely right about the VP debate and the probability that Joe Bidden will gaffe.
However, I never said that the debate topic was meaningless. I said that there are going to be future opportunities for the candidates to discuss the same topics, e.g. "domestic issues." These will come up again in the town hall meeting on the 16th, where the candidates will be asked questions on foreign policy AND domestic issues.

Also, who cares that Romney won the debate? Historically speaking, debates are not game changers.Political Scientists, historians, and statisticians all agree that if debates have any affect on the outcome of an election it is so minute that its almost untraceable. In fact, there are only three elections between 1952 - 2008 where specialists have agreed that the debates "might" have been a factor - 1960, 1980, and 2000. Even so, there were other factors involved. In the 1980 election,for example, there was only 1 debate between Carter and Reagan and it was a week before the election.
Oh, and to drive this point home, there are countless examples of Presidential candidates making HUGE gaffes in the debates and their approvals suffering no damage - Gerald Ford & his "Soviet domination..." comment in the 1976 debate is a great example.

So, you may ask, why is this the case? Why don't debates have much of any impact on the outcome of the election? Well, its because the people who watch the debates are typically voters that have already made up their minds. Regardelss of the outcomes, rarely do people change their minds.


...and Obama isnt claiming to be stunned either. I was responding to another post where the person claimed Obama looked stunned.

Click to expand...

specklebang said:

I've watched the debate twice. Twice and a half really. One of the viewings was with live commentary by Gary Johnson. These are my thoughts.

As "performance" goes, Romney did very well by comparison. He was interruptive at first and his PBS attack was foolish (IMHO) but otherwise, he was confident and well spoken. I'll need to understand his tax theories better before I can evaluate them. In principle, he seems to be saying that he will cut all tax rates by 20% and make this revenue neutral by eliminating deductions. I will be very surprised if deduction elimination will a) fill the gap and b) be acceptable to his GOP base.

Obama certainly seemed to be off his stride. He was almost too humble. I happen to agree with Al Gore's suggestion that flying that day threw him off. I used to fly extensively and I remember how wiped out I would be.

Johnson disappointed me by his reactions. The only thing he kept repeating was "no taxes" "no taxes" and he had no reaction to anything else. I was kind of disappointed since I planned to use him as my "protest vote".

I've said before, and I'll repeat myself. No matter which one is elected, the spending spree will continue and only some beneficiaries will change.

Click to expand...

helix2048 said:

Wow, I guess you really told me. Now I have a bruise on my chest from your finger poking. I'm not here to argue. At least I know where Obama stands. As for Romney, he has changed his tune too many times for me to like him. It's one thing to adjust your stance when you realize you are wrong, but you need to stand still at some point. That is what I am looking for in a leader. I'm certainly not voting for someone just because he spoke well. You can go to an AA meeting and hear someone speak brilliantly that they are recovered just days after their last drinking binge.

Click to expand...

IndepCentristMA said:

and as with the AA meetings... you don't judge them by what they say... you judge them by what they do... in staying sober and straightening out their lives...

similarly, I'm not voting for Romney by anything he says... I'm voting for him for what he does... which is turn fiscal nightmares around, create growth, balance budgets, make landmark legislative reforms, etc.

We've seen what Obama has said and what Obama has done... neither of them add up to much in the grand scheme of things...

Click to expand...

helix2048 said:

I keep asking for proof, so it looks like I had to find it myself. The Good Points in Romney’s Record as Governor of Massachusetts. Yep, I'm still not voting for him. There are some important (to me) issues I disagree with:



There are some things he did that I applaud and he deserves some credit for the work he has done as governor of Massachusetts. However, he doesn't share my views on the issues I listed above.

One thing that really puzzles me is this:

This is not comparable to our national deficit. Romney still thinks he is going to magically pull money out of the air that doesn't exist to fix our economy. Obama hasn't fixed it either, I realize this. I think Romney is too ambitious thinking he can solve our deficit problems by not raising taxes. Balancing the budget doesn't mean putting a copy if it on your head and walking across the room without it falling off.

Click to expand...

Rainman05 said:

Debates aren't about specifics.

They are about who has the nicest smile and the most charming personality.

And one of Obama's smiles = 3 Romney smiles.

But Romney had a better, more manly personality during the debate.

Click to expand...

lpast said:

Romney did win the debate I admit that and I admit obama didnt intentionally throw it, he outright lost it. Having said that...Romney diid NOT win the debate on substance and he in fact did LIE repeatedly and misstate what hes stated over and over again during the campaign...he won only for two reasons ...1. He was more aggressive and 2. The Moderator had no control over him whatsoever.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

It could be that he won because he said things that were less offensive to the sensibilities of the American people.

Snide, joking half truths, which is the staple of the Obama campaign just don't play well when they are put up against real facts and real real plans.

Obama brought a pillow to a knife fight.

Click to expand...

lpast said:

Could be, but it wasnt...he lied outright about many things hes really about and what hes already told us more than once hes about...I stand by my post fully.

Click to expand...

lpast said:

Could be, but it wasnt...he lied outright about many things hes really about and what hes already told us more than once hes about...I stand by my post fully.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

Is it possible that in the elections that you think the debates did not make a difference that the better debater was already in the lead?

You list the 1976 gaff of Ford, but don't call that an important debate in the election.

Click to expand...

Jtaw3 said:

Lol okay, Listen dude, you can believe all the conservative biased facts you want. In the end, debates DONT have much of any effect on the outcome of the election. If you want to believe it does, okay, well, thats your misguided perspective. History does prove they don't over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over *repeat as necessary.* Here's a website you can start with: Google. Ask it if presidential debates matter, I'm sure you'll find some CRAAAAAZY info that suggests otherwise. If that doesn't suit your likings, ask Bing, or Vivisimo - I don't care. At this point, youre not going to listen. If Romney wins (which, at this point, is unlikely for Numerous reasons besides this debate) ill buy you a coke. Scouts honor.

Do me a favor though, take a gander outside of the Republican/Conservative support group and see how much historical and logical evidence there is against your data.

Oh, and Presisident Bush won the 2000 election before the debates? There's a reason that election went all the way to the Supreme Court and its not because Bush won the popular vote.

Click to expand...

IndepCentristMA said:

LMFAO! If you can't refute the facts that I presented, call them conservative! I took All the stats and facts from the same very sites that you were using, RCP and Pollster reporting of all polling about the presidential race...

(Psst... when you start a post with “LOL Okay, Listen Dude” it's pretty much an indication that you can't refute what I'm saying)

It's a fact, all the polls you mentioned and quoted on RCP are pre-debate or include a significant amount of pre-debate sampling, & they show a large 5-10pt lead for Obama...

The only post debate polls show a 1-2pt lead for Romney. So if you wanted proof that the debate changed things, it's right there in front of you, you just dont want to accept it...

You want to challenge that it was Rasmussen, but even the Rasmussen polls had 2-3 pt leads for Obama pre-debate, then post debate had a 1 pt lead for Romney. So among that 1 polling agency there was a 4 pt swing from the debate...


Oh, and I love the suggestion to use Google.com... since that's obviously the brainchild of human knowledge right now--a liberal based seach engine, that donates to the Democratic Party, and rather than linking to the most impartial and factual sites possible, just comes up with the most read liberal blogs and other such opinionative publications it can find...

I don't have to use "Google" to find information about stuff I already know. I'm a Harvard educated Social Science major with a concentration in History, who has studied presidential elections, the debates, etc. extensively... and seen them all more than once... I don't have to Google for research about things I'm just as much if not more qualified to speak on than the pundits selected by those publications Google is linking to...

I'll use google, wikipedia, etc. to find quick reference guides to link to for the sake of these online discussions, but that's in place of numerous non-fiction books, journal publications, and data sets compiled on the topic which I've dealt with over the years... Not to mention that my girlfriend of multiple years is a specialist in survey design and analysis who knows how and why which surveys are biased and what specifically they've intentionally done to skew their surveys. So we don't have much respect for poll numbers and biased news agencies using stats, since anyone who knows stats well knows you can manipulate them to say anything you want them to.


So let's go back to what I said.

Obama had built a lead up to the point where even a narrow split decision would've had people still saying the election is over. Going into the debates Obama has ALL the momentum, and is expected to be so much smarter than Obama, that he's going to trounce him. Romney had been seen as uncaring, all about the rich, & aloof to average Americans... Instead, at the debates Romney comes off as more alert, compassionate, full of knowledge on the relevant topics, & able to refute all stereotypes that had been built up against him over months of liberal media reports and advertising dollars...

That changed the entire campaign. I didn't say it changed the result, that’s yet to come. I said it changed the outlook of election, which it has.

I also said if Romney goes out and earns just 2 draws he’ll win the election based off the debate performances.


Also, I never said Bush won the election before the debate. I said Bush was losing the election before that debate, it was a 47%-47% that was favoring Gore... Gore had everything going in his favor, by inheriting the Clinton economy and everyone despising the Newt Congress... He wasn't very well liked, and viewed as an arrogant blowhard, who couldn't get things done. While the election went down to late on election night, & a challenge to the Supreme Court. The factors that changed the election, were Gore's poor debate showings in the 1st & 3rd debate & the appearance on a beach with a focus group when it appeared he had lost momentum of the election of what they thought he should do. It indicated he wasn't a leader, but a follower. Bush came off with the appearance as a decisive leader. Also, similarly, Bush was supposed to be viewed as the village idiot that Gore was going to trounce... but with the debates Bush came off as able to hold his own on stage against Gore, and Gore came off as a pedantic blowhard who talked too much... By his obnoxious sighs & walking over to Bush's personal space while he was speaking, Gore came off as a dismissive prick that people didn't want as president. He had all the traditional indicators in his favor to win the election, but he lost it with his performance.


Like I said, the reason most debates haven't changed the election, is because they havent had decisive winners or any real game changing moment to them. Most debates come up as draws with both sides arguing a win, but no one bringing anything new to the table. We just listed 4 instances where the debates had a major impact of the election. That’s 4 out of the 10 of them. For the rest of them, there really haven't been decisive winners, which is why they haven't impacted the elections...

McCain/Obama debates were 3 draws really. The only thing being McCain was supposed to outmanuvere Obama with his experience on foreign policy. When Obama came out and was able to articulate foreign policy matters. It solidified his lead, put to bed the 3am phone call criticism, and ultimate victory. It wasn't the reason people voted for him by their self-identifying measure of wanting Hope, Change, and the first Black President...

Kerry/Bush, were a wash. On the first debate, Bush seemed weak, but by the 2nd day most Republicans felt he had won (it was more of a 55-45 win for Kerry than a 65-35 win like Romney had), then Bush came out and won the 2nd debate by a similar 55-45 measure, with the 3rd debate being a meaningless wash between the candidates and no new news... thus we went to the polls with two evenly unimpressive candidates... both painted as ineffective wishy washy and potentially corrupt...

Bush/Gore as I've discussed, was a potential lead that Gore pissed out of the window by being an arrogant dismissive blowhard, who was contemptuous that he couldn't actually outdebate "the village idiot" who was only there because his father. For that matter, the village idiot actually looked presidential at the debates. It wasn't a huge tipping point, but they were influential on the actual outcome of the race.

Clinton/Dole. These debates didn't really matter in the sense that although Perot's support had drastically diminished, the fact that he was there and attacking Clinton on the same points Dole was split Dole's ability to capture the anti-Clinton vote. The final election results had Perot's support at about the exact difference between Clinton and Dole. Still, in the debates, Clinton came in with a huge lead, played it safe with hollow platitudes & tried to pat himself on the back, while Dole may have won substantively, he stylistically lost heavily, with his age being a major concern of the populace & he looked old, tired, & cranky during the debates. They weren't a game changer, but they did nothing to dispel preconceived notions prior to the debates in order to become a game changer.

Bush/Clinton/Perot was definitely an influential debate season. The fact that Perot got into the debates added legitimacy to the support he was receiving as a 3rd party candidate. Most people thought Perot even won the 1st debate. While Bush & Clinton were fighting each other in a really partisan petty manner, Perot sat back with his "I'm the only one talking to the American People" comments, and was able to poke at both Bush/Clinton, while making himself look good. He potentially could've won it, but when his VP candidate Admiral Stockdale went into the VP debate & made a mockery of the ticket, it furthered the notion that Perot was a crazy loon that wasn't serious about the election. Then, in the Town Hall debate, when Bush was asked "how have you been effected by the recession?" & he fumbled the answer, but Bill Clinton stepped up to say "I think I can answer this" & did his I feel your pain BS, they all fell for it & for Clinton, and further cemented the image of Bush as aloof on the economy...

Bush/Dukakis were not influential debates, because Dukakis had already made a fool of himself with the photo in the tank, that looked like a kid with a Tonka. That & he was hammered by ads on the Willy Horton scandal. In the debates, Bush did an effective job of continually bringing up Willy Horton, Taxachusetts, & every talking point he had. Dukakis was all over the place. It was also one of these debates where the larger more presidential looking Bush peered downward towards the short statured funny eye browed Dukakis. Bush won the debates & the election, not because the debates, but they were part of the overall scheme that was successful in painting Dukakis.

Reagan/Mondale debates were a spectacle. Neither really won them. In many Democratic minds Mondale actually won the debates. Reagan was a great speaker, and despite several key debate quotes, his debate style wasn't very good, his positions weren't easy to articulate, and his opponents often scored major points against him. Mondale lost the election because the economy had a massive turnaround, there was a huge amount of nationalism in the wake of the 84 summer Olympics, & he nominated a female VP candidate really as a stunt that backfired when the controversy about her husband’s wealth came into play.

Carter/Reagan. This debate effected the election, because it was such a process. Reagan's success in the VP debates to fight hard to defeat the challenge of Bush was what propelled his momentum. That the 1st presidential debate was skipped out on by Carter was a telling sign he was an ineffective leader, & Reagan's quote "It's a shame that we are the only two candidates here when our positions are so similar" or something to that extent help solidify him as the opposition candidate. When Reagan chose to agree to have a one on one with Carter he already had a lead. The draw in the debates did nothing to change the momentum. Reagan actually appeared to win, because he framed the election as "are you better off than you were four years ago?" while suggesting a litany of reasons that most people weren't. The debate wasn't the reason Carter lost, he lost because of stagflation, the Olympic boycott, the Iranian hostage crisis, etc. but the debate was the memorable image in people's minds which capped off the Carter presidency.

Ford/Carter was a moot point. You keep going back to this example as how Ford’s “gaffe” isn’t what cost him the election. No, really? In the 1st presidential election since the Watergate scandal broke the debate isn’t what cost Ford? You’re right. Ford had very little chance of overcoming anti-Nixon & anti-Vietnam war sentiment. This was much like 2008 anti-Bush…

Kennedy/Nixon was a HUGE influence on the election, and on politics in general since. I doubt you’d argue that in any way.


So, in the entire course of Presidential debate history, there hasn’t been a single debate to compare to this one… Where you had an incumbent president with a big lead, get sizably beaten in the first debate? The only case was Kerry beating Bush… but, it wasn’t as big a lead for Bush or as sizable a victory by Kerry, and Kerry couldn’t follow it up…

So the 1 debate alone won’t change the result of the election, if Romney doesn’t do well in the other two debates… but the result of this debate changed the outlook of the campaign…

Click to expand...

Jtaw3 said:

Nope, I actually had a long post arguing your points and suddenly realized that I was arguing a fools argument. Who cares if you don't agree? Time will tell.

And I'm not ready ^^^^ that either.

Click to expand...