Who won the 16 Oct Presidential Debate

Anagram said:

You could be right, but I would like to point out most of the polling that came out today was done before the debate took place. If the debate had an effect we wouldn't have seen it yet.

Edit: Oh, and welcome to DP.

Click to expand...

Well the tracking polls would have at least 1 day of polling from after the debate, and none of the tracking polls moved in Obama's direction so my point is that the day after the debate was not better for Obama than the day it replaced. I at least expected Romney's lead in the Gallup poll to go down but it went up further surprisingly.

Tom Bombadil said:

Well the tracking polls would have at least 1 day of polling from after the debate, and none of the tracking polls moved in Obama's direction so my point is that the day after the debate was not better for Obama than the day it replaced. I at least expected Romney's lead in the Gallup poll to go down but it went up further surprisingly.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but Gallup and Rasmussen only poll about 400 people a day in their tracking polls. That gives a big margin of error of 4.9% for each day of tracking. We need to wait a few days before we know for sure what effect the debate has.

Tettsuo said:

Mitt Romney



2. he had a conversation with staff about getting more women applicants - Lie, they came to him before he was even governor
3. we (literaly him and his staff, or we as in his staff?) made an effort to go find women - Lie, they came to him before he was even governor
4. he went to multiple women's groups and asked to for help - Lie again, they did all the work and came to him

Click to expand...

If you want to go over the debate for picky lies, Barack Obama's pension is actually much larger than Mitt Romneys.

Tettsuo said:

Mitt Romney



2. he had a conversation with staff about getting more women applicants - Lie, they came to him before he was even governor
3. we (literaly him and his staff, or we as in his staff?) made an effort to go find women - Lie, they came to him before he was even governor
4. he went to multiple women's groups and asked to for help - Lie again, they did all the work and came to him

Click to expand...

What wheres the proof? All you have is a statement from someone. How is that more true than a statement from someone else, Mitt ROmney?

I like that the OP gave that third option because in the end we all lose with these two candidates.

Tettsuo said:

They brought him binders, but not because he asked for it. They did the work and gave him the binder without Romney even involved.

Mitt Romney

Click to expand...

But again, theres no proof there. The article links to a liberal political blogger who is repeating the same statements from the group that opposed Mitt Romney. Its he said, she said. And again, one group saying they approched him first does not negate the claim that he approached other groups first.

None of this matters of course. This is a nothing issue, at the worst involving nothing more than standard political spin. But its fun to play logical games of semantics.

jonny5 said:

But again, theres no proof there. The article links to a liberal political blogger who is repeating the same statements from the group that opposed Mitt Romney. Its he said, she said. And again, one group saying they approched him first does not negate the claim that he approached other groups first.

None of this matters of course. This is a nothing issue, at the worst involving nothing more than standard political spin. But its fun to play logical games of semantics.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. It's already a fact that Mitt had binders, but he didn't initiate the request for those binders. His entire story was about receiving these binders. The dude lied. Why can't you simply accept that fact and move on? I certainly accept that fact that Obama screwed up regarding the death of those folks in Benghazi... can't you do the same?

Tettsuo said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. It's already a fact that Mitt had binders, but he didn't initiate the request for those binders. His entire story was about receiving these binders. The dude lied. Why can't you simply accept that fact and move on? I certainly accept that fact that Obama screwed up regarding the death of those folks in Benghazi... can't you do the same?

Click to expand...

You feel that the events in Libya are as important as something about binders???

Barack Obama "lied" about his pension versus Romney's. Do you feel that is also as important as lying about the four American deaths in Libya?

Did you also yet discover whether those Americans had weapons with bullets in them, how many attackers they managed to kill, how they were murdered?

It's all lies, secrecy and spin and you're talking about binders!! Can the Obamaniacs be any more petty and shortsighted than this??

Tettsuo said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. It's already a fact that Mitt had binders, but he didn't initiate the request for those binders. His entire story was about receiving these binders. The dude lied. Why can't you simply accept that fact and move on? I certainly accept that fact that Obama screwed up regarding the death of those folks in Benghazi... can't you do the same?

Click to expand...

How many people died because of the binders?

Grant said:

You feel that the events in Libya are as important as something about binders???

Barack Obama "lied" about his pension versus Romney's. Do you feel that is also as important as lying about the four American deaths in Libya?

Did you also yet discover whether those Americans had weapons with bullets in them, how many attackers they managed to kill, how they were murdered?

It's all lies, secrecy and spin and you're talking about binders!! Can the Obamaniacs be any more petty and shortsighted than this??

Click to expand...

LOL, you guys are funny with your faux outrage! Obama didn't cause the deaths of those people and I certainly didn't imply the binders were more important.

Just admit Romney lied... it's okay, you don't have to ignore reality anymore. It isn't the end of the world if Romney lied to you and you believed it. You trusted him.

Sadly, I know many of you can't man up and admit it. I kinda feel sorry for you if you can't.

tres borrachos said:

How many people died because of the binders?

Click to expand...

Maybe this organization can help you.

Reading Is Fundamental

Tettsuo said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. It's already a fact that Mitt had binders, but he didn't initiate the request for those binders. His entire story was about receiving these binders. The dude lied. Why can't you simply accept that fact and move on? I certainly accept that fact that Obama screwed up regarding the death of those folks in Benghazi... can't you do the same?

Click to expand...

Because there is no evidence that he lied.

Tettsuo said:

LOL, you guys are funny with your faux outrage! Obama didn't cause the deaths of those people

Click to expand...

Someone in his administration certainly did and they are passing the buck and taking blame at the same time.They are clearly and hopelessly inept.

and I certainly didn't imply the binders were more important.

Click to expand...

Then why mention them at all? Do you really believe these binders are an election issue? You are not scoring political points here, you are only trivializing yourself and the Democratic Party.

Just admit Romney lied... it's okay, you don't have to ignore reality anymore. It isn't the end of the world if Romney lied to you and you believed it. You trusted him.

Click to expand...

He lied about binders?? This is an issue for the Leftists? With all the problems Americans are facing I don't know how you can further disgrace yourself than debating whether Mitt Romney lied or got it wrong about binders. Did you see Barrack Obama lie about Mitt Romney having a larger pension than him? That is a lie! But of course Obama didn't realize he was lying so people cut him some slack from his other, more legitimate, lies. Meanwhile the Dems continue to slide in the polls because no one can take them seriously anymore. They are not demonstrating any seriousness.

Sadly, I know many of you can't man up and admit it. I kinda feel sorry for you if you can't.

Click to expand...

Man up?? From a leftist wanting a nanny state? The irony whizzes right by you.

BayToBay said:

I think you guys are seeing things in the Benghazi incident that are just not there for most people. Maybe, some easily frightened and misinformed voters are moved by it. I think, Romney's flub may close the door on it.

I don't know where you guys keep getting that Romeny is so much better on economics. He is not and shows no backbone. He is vague about everything but more spending on military and big savings from Big Bird. You gotta be some real suckers to fall for that again or maybe you are just wet behind the ears. His threats about China were very alarming. Obama actually seemed to be more in support of free trade and rational on that issue.

Click to expand...

I said I still think Romney wins on the economy. This widely reflected in multiple polls, you can't argue that point. Your personal interpretation of his plan is irrelevant, over 50% of American voters feel more confident with Romney's handling of the economy.

Trust on Issues: Obama v. Romney - Rasmussen Reports™

affalcon12 said:

I said I still think Romney wins on the economy. This widely reflected in multiple polls, you can't argue that point. Your personal interpretation of his plan is irrelevant, over 50% of American voters feel more confident with Romney's handling of the economy.

Trust on Issues: Obama v. Romney - Rasmussen Reports™

Click to expand...

Sure, I can argue whether he won on the economy. My interpretation is just as relevant as yours or anyone elses. Such a strange response... Since I won't be voting for either my interpretation is also less likely to be biased by partisanship.

I did not argue about whether it was perceived that he won on the economy. So, your poll would not be relevant even if it did deal with the debate, which it does not.

BayToBay said:

Sure, I can argue whether he won on the economy. My interpretation is just as relevant as yours or anyone elses. Such a strange response... Since I won't be voting for either my interpretation is also less likely to be biased by partisanship.

I did not argue about whether it was perceived that he won on the economy. So, your poll would not be relevant even if it did deal with the debate, which it does not.

Click to expand...

Your original quote stated, "I don't know where you guys keep getting that Romeny is so much better on economics." So dont know where you guys are getting this from? Um, well we are following the majority opinion of the electorate. For you to not know why/where people get the message that Romney is winning on the economy is ludicrous. This is the whole foundation of his campaign and arguably the only reason he is leading in the polls. Simply, I am arguing that, based on his private sector experience, he is far more qualified to speak on the economy and the majority of the American people agree with that. You do not graduate from HBS, start the most successful private equity company in America, and balance the budget in a largely Democratic state for four years without some sense of how the economy works. You are very bias if you can honestly question Romney's understanding of economics.

affalcon12 said:

Your original quote stated, "I don't know where you guys keep getting that Romeny is so much better on economics." So dont know where you guys are getting this from? Um, well we are following the majority opinion of the electorate. For you to not know why/where people get the message that Romney is winning on the economy is ludicrous. This is the whole foundation of his campaign and arguably the only reason he is leading in the polls. Simply, I am arguing that, based on his private sector experience, he is far more qualified to speak on the economy and the majority of the American people agree with that. You do not graduate from HBS, start the most successful private equity company in America, and balance the budget in a largely Democratic state for four years without some sense of how the economy works. You are very bias if you can honestly question Romney's understanding of economics.

Click to expand...

Yeah we were discussing the debate not partisan spin or how hes doing on the polls. What he said in the debate, concerning China, was quite alarming. Obama actually took a position that sounded like he was more pro free trade than Romney. That is an alarming shift. If I believed Romney were telling the truth about how he would handle China I might vote for Obama. But its just more of his lies on the fiscal. He wont do that or cut PBS. I do believe when he says he want to spend more.

BayToBay said:

Yeah we were discussing the debate not partisan spin or how hes doing on the polls. What he said in the debate, concerning China, was quite alarming. Obama actually took a position that sounded like he was more pro free trade than Romney. That is an alarming shift. If I believed Romney were telling the truth about how he would handle China I might vote for Obama. But its just more of his lies on the fiscal. He wont do that or cut PBS. I do believe when he says he want to spend more.

Click to expand...

This is Mitt Romney's stance on China. (straight off his website) Not exactly as extreme as you paint it to be. He is a tough business man, he knows the danger of starting a trade war with China, he's not an idiot, but he also knows the potential America could realize if China were to just play fair. I believe, IMHO, that he has a strategy and tactics from his past experience, which he will use to get China to work better with the United States. He wants us to work well with each other. HE doesnt want to start a war or cut them off. This will benefit both nations in the long run. Obama has no such record of that. Obama has allowed China to rip off American goods and manipulate its currency throughout his entire administration. Obama has no defense on trying to state he will be tough on China. BTW, this is the actual transcript from the debate and Romney's answer on China
"Now, we're going to have to make sure that as we trade with other nations that they play by the rules. And China hasn't. One of the reasons -- or one of the ways they don't play by the rules is artificially holding down the value of their currency. Because if they put their currency down low, that means their prices on their goods are low. And that makes them advantageous in the marketplace.
We lose sales. And manufacturers here in the U.S. making the same products can't compete. China has been a currency manipulator for years and years and years. And the president has a regular opportunity to label them as a currency manipulator, but refuses to do so.
On day one, I will label China a currency manipulator, which will allow me as president to be able to put in place, if necessary, tariffs where I believe that they are taking unfair advantage of our manufacturers."

IMO, that is a reasonable stance for US President. I do not believe that is a "scary" stance at all. China knows it has been getting away with this. They realize that their relationship with us is far too important. It will be good to finally have someone in the White House who calls them out what they have been doing over the past two decades. And finally, we may see some of the so many lost manufacturing jobs return to America in the process. Something we know Obama has not been able to do.


Read more: Transcript of second presidential debate | Fox News

This is nonsense. Obama has been strong on China. He has filed trade complaints against them specific in areas where it was determined that they were dumping. In fact China has allowed its currency to appreciate, due in part to pressure from Obama. The Republican golden boy, Marco Rubio, agrees with Obama that it would be a bad idea to label China a currency manipulator.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on Tuesday said Mitt Romney’s policy toward China “could kick off a trade a war that would be bad for the economy."*

Rubio: 'I Agree with Obama' on China Currency Issue - Yahoo! News

Romney has vowed to declare China a currency manipulator on the first day of his presidency*for artificially depressing the value of its currency.

China's currency manipulation makes its products cheaper, boosting Chinese exports while contributing to its trade surplus with the United States and other partners.

While the president has filed trade complaints against United States’ second-largest trading partner in specific industries like automobile and solar panels, he has not declared the country a currency manipulator, a move that could further strain the countries’ trading relationship.**

“I agree with Obama one that one,” Rubio told Bloomberg*of the president’s refusal to escalate the trade dispute.

Click to expand...