Presidential Debate #1 - Wednesday Oct 3rd (lobbyist, lobby, voters, Congress)

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

HAHAHAHA...multiple polls show movement and it's statistically irrelevant?!?!? Romney ahead in two of the most important swing states in all polling done after the debate when Obama had been ahead in most polling in those states for a while prior to the debate and it's statistically irrelevant?!?!?!?

Statistically speaking, it is not statistically significant since it did not move outside of the MOE. Still, a slight bounce is evident. I would not get too excited if I were you. They call it a bounce because it comes down too. The basic dynamic of the election is not going to be changed by a debate, I don't think. And with the obvious improvement in the economy, the whole argument for Romney seems a little less compelling now. Romney only got one day in the news cycle for his performance because of the UE number. Enjoy it and rub it in, of course. There has been little good news for Romney supporters in a long time. But, let's see how things look this time next week when we get some non-robo results and a little distance from the debate.

[afoigrokerkok]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Statistically speaking, it is not statistically significant since it did not move outside of the MOE. Still, a slight bounce is evident. I would not get too excited if I were you. They call it a bounce because it comes down too. The basic dynamic of the election is not going to be changed by a debate, I don't think. And with the obvious improvement in the economy, the whole argument for Romney seems a little less compelling now. Romney only got one day in the news cycle for his performance because of the UE number. Enjoy it and rub it in, of course. There has been little good news for Romney supporters in a long time. But, let's see how things look this time next week when we get some non-robo results and a little distance from the debate.

The MOE goes wayyy down when looking at multiple polls so, yes, it is likely statistically significant.

As far as the "obvious improvement in the economy," I wouldn't call 114,000 new jobs "obvious improvement." The establishment survey is more reliable than the household survey, which (speaking of statistics) was likely a statistical fluke and indicated more people working part time anyway. Unfortunately, the media is going crazy over it. That being said, history shows that economic news in October does little to change people's perceptions of the economy before an election. We will see if this is the case this year.

As far as bounces coming down - Obama's convention bounce didn't come down very much until now. Bounces (and especially not debate bounces) don't always come down unless there's a reason. But, I agree, we need to wait and see what happens.

[ambient]

No doubt about it that Romney put on the superior performance in the debate. It seemed to me that Obama just didn't put in the preparation. His vague, amateurish closing statement made me want to reach through the TV screen and slap him awake.

On the basis of the debate performance alone, Romney would get my vote.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by ambient

No doubt about it that Romney put on the superior performance in the debate. It seemed to me that Obama just didn't put in the preparation. His vague, amateurish closing statement made me want to reach through the TV screen and slap him awake.

On the basis of the debate performance alone, Romney would get my vote.

Now there's an informed voter for you!

[florida.bob]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

HAHAHAHA...multiple polls show movement and it's statistically irrelevant?!?!? Romney ahead in two of the most important swing states in all polling done after the debate when Obama had been ahead in most polling in those states for a while prior to the debate and it's statistically irrelevant?!?!?!?

I guess 2 is multiple, but relevant?

[EdwardA]

Originally Posted by ambient

No doubt about it that Romney put on the superior performance in the debate. It seemed to me that Obama just didn't put in the preparation. His vague, amateurish closing statement made me want to reach through the TV screen and slap him awake.

On the basis of the debate performance alone, Romney would get my vote.

I don't think Obama supporters realize how devastating the debate performance is to his reelection hopes. I'm known as a political junkie at work although I work hard to mask my political leanings. Since I'm black most folks assume I'm a liberal and I don't correct them.

Anyway Thursday I was peppered with questions from folks who simply do not follow politics anywhere near the level posters here do. Most were stunned Obama looked so bad and wanted to know my opinions on Romney. Before folks were just mindlessly going to vote for Obama if they even planned to vote at all.

[EdwardA]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Now there's an informed voter for you!

Hey it's you Dems who want to make voting as easy as possible for everyone. The fact is the average voter doesn't care about fact checkers and the minutiae of deficit and tax numbers.

[Gal from the South]

It will be hard to name them all, but let's give it a try!

What else have they said to try to cover up the fact that a sitting president should have the knowledge, leadership, and experience necessary to be effective in a debate.

I was going to start a list, but I found the one below online. I'll add these:

It was unfair that he couldn't use his teleprompter.

Romney was rude.

It was his anniversary.

He was overconfident.

And at least one person on tv said it was a misperception by racists because he is black.


Obama Wins Post-Debate Excuse-athon | WBUR

Here are some of the excuses we’ve heard so far:

High altitude. “Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today — just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet, and you only have a few hours to adjust, I don’t know…” – Former Vice President Al Gore

Intentionally blew it. “There is no better way to motivate a slightly complacent Democratic base than to lose the first debate and make this election look like a fair fight once again.” — Reader comment

Confused by Romney. “Romney told so many lies that Obama didn’t know which one to address first.” — MSNBC host Ed Schultz

Dumb voters. “Average Americans love a chatty performer over a wonk any day of the week.” — Reader comment

Stacked deck. “To be fair, the deck was stacked against Obama, who came into the debate with a lead over Romney plus the baggage of incumbency.
“First, voters expect sitting presidents to win debates and, indeed, polls showed that Obama was favored. That benefits a challenger like Romney who grows in stature simply by standing next to the president.

“Second, challengers have more time to prepare than do busy presidents. Romney was ready. Finally, incumbents aren’t used to being challenged. Obama’s thin skin showed more than his Hollywood smile.” — Ron Fournier, National Journal

Disadvantage – pressure. “Romney’s a high-pressure business guy. He’s used to this type of environment, influencing people and doing whatever it takes to close the deal. This is his world.” — Reader comment

Disadvantage – format. “Why did Romney always get the last word?” — Reader comment

Disadvantage – moderator. “What’s up, Jim Lehrer? Romney was allowed to steamroller over the whole debate.” — Reader comment (Note: Obama spoke four minutes longer than Romney.)

Obama didn’t want to look snide. “I don’t fault Obama for some of his strategic choices. Liberals are stewing over his refusal to slap Romney for his infamous 47-percent riff. I think Obama made the right call. Pretty much anyone for whom that was likely to matter has already heard the Romney recording. By reminding them of it, Obama risked looking overly snide or cutting.” — Noam Scheiber, The New Republic

Winning is too aggressive. “Obama was more statesmanlike, but Romney was more domineering, pushy and aggressive — even intimidating.” — Reader comment

Obama didn’t really lose. “The only person that lost that debate was Jim Lehrer.” — Reader comment

Obama just lost on style. “It is unfortunate, but at this stage, for the undecided people in the middle, substance is a casualty of style. By that measure, Romney outshone the president at this debate.” — Charles M. Blow, New York Times columnist

Debate needs lie-detector. “I think we need a lie buzzer at the debates. Obama should not have to spend his two minutes defending himself from Romney’s lies.” — Reader comment

Should be stricter rules. “Cut off the sound when candidates go over the limit, give a loud noise and light up a sign when they give wrong facts. Moderators should not be wimps about sticking with the rules they were given.” — Reader comment

Denial. “Romney did not win, and Obama did not lose because, despite the bloviators on both sides of the aisle, the facts matter and they are with Obama.” — Reader comment

Foolish focus group. “The ’39 undecided Colorado voters’ seemed to love it when (Romney) spouted platitudes.” — Reader comment

Eyes and ears are deceiving. “If ‘looking and sounding good’ is the criteria for winning debates and elections, Romney was a clear winner… If you want to look at the substance, he failed as usual.” — Reader comment

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

Hey it's you Dems who want to make voting as easy as possible for everyone. The fact is the average voter doesn't care about fact checkers and the minutiae of deficit and tax numbers.

I detest what the Republican party has become including voter suppression, but I am not and have never been a "Dem".

[geeoro]

No excuses............... Democrats have acknowledged that the dabate was a bad night for Obama. Everyone s trying to figure out why Obama had such a bad night and are just putting forward possible reasons..... NOT excuses as we all know Obama was not on his game in the debate............ simple.
As seen in the past. a bad debate does not an election make.