By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Who won the debate? Romney or Obama?

 

Who won the debate?

President Barack Obama 220 34.65%
 
Governor Mitt Romney 265 41.73%
 
Nobody 141 22.20%
 
Total:626
theprof00 on 04 October 2012
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Media consensus seems to be that Romney won, so now we're going to get subjected to a week (or however long it is until debate #2) of constant media analysis over whether this is a game-changer or not.

I will be interested to see if it has any impact on the polls. Everyone talks about Kennedy-Nixon, but honestly Kennedy-Nixon (the entire election) was one of those "too close to call" things that could have gone either way on election day, statistically.

I just read that apparently at the end of the debate Obama said "Good job, you probably won." 

Either way, this could be surprisingly deadly for Romney.

I mean, if he doesn't get a bump from this at all?  Or even just a small one.

THAT becomes the story... and he's toast.

I wouldn't be shocked if the popular vote is closer then the polls say though.  If your familiar with how poll modeling works.  State wise Obama should still take it pretty easy though.  The Electoral Map is just too heavily tilted towards democrats.

Expectation management is part of it, and what you said could be a possibility. I am not sure, in the day of the Internet, where all you have to do is google to get info, if the debates really do much.  So not sure why there would be much of a game changer out of it.  So, what can be said is true. The goal is to win elections, and debates, at best, have some sort of unindentifiable possible impact on the election that isn't quanitifiable.  The debates aren't sporting events, which produce won-loss records.

In 2004, GW Bush was pretty bad in a number of debates, and people though Kerry won.  It didn't have an impact on the end result.  Kerry still lost.

Kerry won the popular vote



Around the Network
gergroy on 04 October 2012

there is one thing that I didn't understand that Romney said. Hopefully somebody can explain this to me. When Romney was talking about his tax plan, he talked about how he would close loopholes and stuff to such a point that people wouldn't see a huge difference in the tax's that they are paying. He then asked the question as to why he would want to lower the rates if people are going to pay the same. Then he said the reason he wanted to lower rates was to help small business as it would help some of them pay a lower rate.

This is the part I don't understand. So, if he is lowering rates to help the small businesses (non incorporated I assume) wouldn't closing loopholes hinder the small businesses out there as well? I'm sure businesses have loopholes and stuff that they use as well. I can see how lowering rates and reducing deductions would be able to reduce the workload on government and possibly even allow for some downsizing in the IRS, I just don't understand the benefit to business that Romney was talking about. Can somebody explain it to me?



gergroy on 04 October 2012
theprof00 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Media consensus seems to be that Romney won, so now we're going to get subjected to a week (or however long it is until debate #2) of constant media analysis over whether this is a game-changer or not.

I will be interested to see if it has any impact on the polls. Everyone talks about Kennedy-Nixon, but honestly Kennedy-Nixon (the entire election) was one of those "too close to call" things that could have gone either way on election day, statistically.

I just read that apparently at the end of the debate Obama said "Good job, you probably won." 

Either way, this could be surprisingly deadly for Romney.

I mean, if he doesn't get a bump from this at all?  Or even just a small one.

THAT becomes the story... and he's toast.

I wouldn't be shocked if the popular vote is closer then the polls say though.  If your familiar with how poll modeling works.  State wise Obama should still take it pretty easy though.  The Electoral Map is just too heavily tilted towards democrats.

Expectation management is part of it, and what you said could be a possibility. I am not sure, in the day of the Internet, where all you have to do is google to get info, if the debates really do much.  So not sure why there would be much of a game changer out of it.  So, what can be said is true. The goal is to win elections, and debates, at best, have some sort of unindentifiable possible impact on the election that isn't quanitifiable.  The debates aren't sporting events, which produce won-loss records.

In 2004, GW Bush was pretty bad in a number of debates, and people though Kerry won.  It didn't have an impact on the end result.  Kerry still lost.

Kerry won the popular vote


no, he didn't.  Gore did, Kerry did not.



richardhutnik on 04 October 2012
theprof00 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Media consensus seems to be that Romney won, so now we're going to get subjected to a week (or however long it is until debate #2) of constant media analysis over whether this is a game-changer or not.

I will be interested to see if it has any impact on the polls. Everyone talks about Kennedy-Nixon, but honestly Kennedy-Nixon (the entire election) was one of those "too close to call" things that could have gone either way on election day, statistically.

I just read that apparently at the end of the debate Obama said "Good job, you probably won." 

Either way, this could be surprisingly deadly for Romney.

I mean, if he doesn't get a bump from this at all?  Or even just a small one.

THAT becomes the story... and he's toast.

I wouldn't be shocked if the popular vote is closer then the polls say though.  If your familiar with how poll modeling works.  State wise Obama should still take it pretty easy though.  The Electoral Map is just too heavily tilted towards democrats.

Expectation management is part of it, and what you said could be a possibility. I am not sure, in the day of the Internet, where all you have to do is google to get info, if the debates really do much.  So not sure why there would be much of a game changer out of it.  So, what can be said is true. The goal is to win elections, and debates, at best, have some sort of unindentifiable possible impact on the election that isn't quanitifiable.  The debates aren't sporting events, which produce won-loss records.

In 2004, GW Bush was pretty bad in a number of debates, and people though Kerry won.  It didn't have an impact on the end result.  Kerry still lost.

Kerry won the popular vote

I think you are confusing Kerry with Al Gore there, and the 2000 election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

 

Nope, unless you want to argue for voter fraud, you are thinking the 2000 election.



theprof00 on 04 October 2012

Or like, when Obama says "there is a credit you can take for moving jobs overseas", and Romney counters "i've been in business 30 years (or whatever) and I have no idea what you're talkign about". Obama shoud've countered,
"don't you mean you've been shipping jobs overseas for thirty years? It's called the foreign tax credit, and the problem isn't with the workers who are actually going overseas. Their credit can stay, but the companies who are getting rich of those workers backs, those people's hard work comes back to an American and sold. You ship out jobs, save a bundle on paying them, and get zero tax burdern"



Around the Network
theprof00 on 04 October 2012
gergroy said:
theprof00 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Media consensus seems to be that Romney won, so now we're going to get subjected to a week (or however long it is until debate #2) of constant media analysis over whether this is a game-changer or not.

I will be interested to see if it has any impact on the polls. Everyone talks about Kennedy-Nixon, but honestly Kennedy-Nixon (the entire election) was one of those "too close to call" things that could have gone either way on election day, statistically.

I just read that apparently at the end of the debate Obama said "Good job, you probably won." 

Either way, this could be surprisingly deadly for Romney.

I mean, if he doesn't get a bump from this at all?  Or even just a small one.

THAT becomes the story... and he's toast.

I wouldn't be shocked if the popular vote is closer then the polls say though.  If your familiar with how poll modeling works.  State wise Obama should still take it pretty easy though.  The Electoral Map is just too heavily tilted towards democrats.

Expectation management is part of it, and what you said could be a possibility. I am not sure, in the day of the Internet, where all you have to do is google to get info, if the debates really do much.  So not sure why there would be much of a game changer out of it.  So, what can be said is true. The goal is to win elections, and debates, at best, have some sort of unindentifiable possible impact on the election that isn't quanitifiable.  The debates aren't sporting events, which produce won-loss records.

In 2004, GW Bush was pretty bad in a number of debates, and people though Kerry won.  It didn't have an impact on the end result.  Kerry still lost.

Kerry won the popular vote


no, he didn't.  Gore did, Kerry did not.

oh right, my bad.

I think voter-fraud was an issue on the table with Kerry, but he declined to pursue it.



Kasz216 on 04 October 2012
theprof00 said:
Or how about when Romney says like 'those 3% of small business employ 50% of the workforce'.
THOSE AREN'T SMALL BUSINESSES. They make hundreds of millions. You can't stand on one side of the fence and say "i'm for the little guy", and then say "those fucking massive giant companies are little guys too". But that shouldn't come to any problem for Romney because he thinks people who make 250k are middle class.

Obama was the one who reffered to them as small buisnesses in the first place.



Kasz216 on 04 October 2012
theprof00 said:
Or like, when Obama says "there is a credit you can take for moving jobs overseas", and Romney counters "i've been in business 30 years (or whatever) and I have no idea what you're talkign about". Obama shoud've countered,
"don't you mean you've been shipping jobs overseas for thirty years? It's called the foreign tax credit, and the problem isn't with the workers who are actually going overseas. Their credit can stay, but the companies who are getting rich of those workers backs, those people's hard work comes back to an American and sold. You ship out jobs, save a bundle on paying them, and get zero tax burdern"

Sure... if Obama wanted to lie... that's not how the foreign tax credit works.

The foreign tax credit only gives you credit for taxes you've already paid in another country.

A lot of these things Obama "should of pounced on" aren't actually factually true and just campaign spin.



mrstickball on 04 October 2012
gergroy said:
there is one thing that I didn't understand that Romney said. Hopefully somebody can explain this to me. When Romney was talking about his tax plan, he talked about how he would close loopholes and stuff to such a point that people wouldn't see a huge difference in the tax's that they are paying. He then asked the question as to why he would want to lower the rates if people are going to pay the same. Then he said the reason he wanted to lower rates was to help small business as it would help some of them pay a lower rate.

This is the part I don't understand. So, if he is lowering rates to help the small businesses (non incorporated I assume) wouldn't closing loopholes hinder the small businesses out there as well? I'm sure businesses have loopholes and stuff that they use as well. I can see how lowering rates and reducing deductions would be able to reduce the workload on government and possibly even allow for some downsizing in the IRS, I just don't understand the benefit to business that Romney was talking about. Can somebody explain it to me?

Loopholes are generally taken advantage of by the better off - its a known fact. Its the same thing with small and smaller businesses. Closing loopholes usually effects those with creative accountants first.

So what happens is that you have a lower rate for those that play by the rules, and a higher rate for those looking to get off easy.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

theprof00 on 04 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Or how about when Romney says like 'those 3% of small business employ 50% of the workforce'.
THOSE AREN'T SMALL BUSINESSES. They make hundreds of millions. You can't stand on one side of the fence and say "i'm for the little guy", and then say "those fucking massive giant companies are little guys too". But that shouldn't come to any problem for Romney because he thinks people who make 250k are middle class.

Obama was the one who reffered to them as small buisnesses in the first place.

And he should have clarified how they are not small businesses. He says donald trump fits into that small business category. Why didn't he expound?