Romney vs. Obama

[VMars]

I am not an audio learner, and wouldn't have watched the debates, but my husband insisted on it. So I barely paid attention to the specifics of what they were saying, but I walked away thinking that Romney clearly won. I thought he seemed much more dominant, and thought that he had a longer time of "possession" (but the newscasters said that Obama actually spoke for 4 minutes longer).

 

I thought that Obama seemed very tired and disorganized, and his leaving the debate floor seemed like a retreat.

 

Debates don't convince me which way to vote (again, not an audio learner), but if I were a personality voter, I would definitely be voting for Romney if this debate were the only idea of their personalities that I had.

[luke warm]

At this point in time, I am hopeful that Obama didn't want to play "the angry black man".

With luck, he was sitting back, letting Romney overextend himself, and is planning to counter-punch with ads.

 

I readily admit that this is probably wishful thinking on my part.

i don't think so, i believe it's already started... what surprised me was the cnn poll immediately after the debate... 67% - 25% for romney.. and @hardball_chris acted like his prom date stood him up

 

thought that he had a longer time of "possession" (but the newscasters said that Obama actually spoke for 4 minutes longer).

i think it was closer to 5 mins, but yes obama had more time

[Phil]

Yes, I think most intellectually honest people will have that feeling. It wasn't even close imo.

 

That said, firing off more on Obama, convinced myself this under 70 % stuff is too lol to pass up.

 

I have a feeling it might drift even lower after the veep debate.

[lalldonn]

I am not an audio learner, and wouldn't have watched the debates, but my husband insisted on it. So I barely paid attention to the specifics of what they were saying, but I walked away thinking that Romney clearly won. I thought he seemed much more dominant, and thought that he had a longer time of "possession" (but the newscasters said that Obama actually spoke for 4 minutes longer).

I can't prove this but maybe someone can. I'm almost certain that although Obama spoke for more time, Romney said more words and statements. Much of Obama's speaking time was waiting for his pauses or "uhhhhh"s.

[luke warm]

I can't prove this but maybe someone can. I'm almost certain that although Obama spoke for more time, Romney said more words and statements. Much of Obama's speaking time was waiting for his pauses or "uhhhhh"s.

so romney was more presidential sounding?

[kenberg]

A few comments on some of the above:

 

I asked Becky who she thought had more time on camera, she thought Romney did. I would have thought the same. It was a surprise to both of us that Obama had more time.

 

I watched the debates on ABC, if that's the network that has Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulis. The reason for this is that this was the channel that the tv was tuned to when we turned it on. I can assure you that we did not tune in to learn what Diane and George thought. I shudder to think of it.

 

The "angry Black man" issue never crossed my mind until I saw it mentioned above. He seemed seriously annoyed though. I imagine he was aware that things were not going well.

 

I have always found Obama difficult to listen to. I have heard worse, of course, but I have never understood the enthusiasm for his style. Still, I expected better. It was not just his style last night, he seemed outgunned.

 

Here is what I think Romney accomplished. From this point on, no one cares how much income tax he did or did not pay, assuming that he paid in accordance with the law. Nor will there be any interest in how his dog traveled on car rides. Scrap the cute cartoons portraying him as a robot. I really hope Obama and his team understand this, they have their work cut out for them.

[cherdano]

It was an obvious win for Romney for sure. Still, he may have paid for that somewhat on substance. E.g. the first two CNN headlines right now:

1. "Obama accuses Romney of dishonesty"

President Obama and his campaign accused Mitt Romney of dishonesty over tax policy and other issues, a day after the president's panned debate showing.

2. "Romney's pledge: No tax cut for the rich"

And the story basically saying that nobody knows how that would work with his plan, and that he isn't saying how he would make it work, either.

 

Other obvious lies ("In fact, I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions.") may hurt him as well. And I would be surprised if he has never said anything during the primaries that explicitly contradicts his debate pledge not to reduce taxes on the rich.

 

Anyway, in case Romney becomes president, I hope it will be the moderate Romney from yesterday, not the primary Romney.

[lalldonn]

so romney was more presidential sounding?

Yes, very. In my opinion Obama clearly doesn't speak as well as he did for the years prior to being elected. Not just debating, but his speeches aren't nearly as impressive as they used to be either.

[kenberg]

About the contradictions: Imagine you are a guy who takes over companies and does something or other with them. How do you go about it? Say any damn thing that you think will work, meaning what will get you control, just don't put it in writing and sign it. That's the way I see the Romney campaign. Of course politicians have been doing this for ages. But Romney has mastered the art. If he gets elected he will do something. What will he do? Who knows? Something.

 

To some extent, it could not be otherwise. No one asked either of the candidates in 2000 what they would do if terrorists flew planes into the twin towers. We elect someone who shares, more or less, our values and who we think can cope with the unexpected. Still, I think Romney is unusually adept at simply saying anything he thinks might get him votes. It sometimes works, just as it does (in the short run) in business.

 

As I have mentioned before, the first vote I cast was for Kennedy in 1960. There was this missile gap ..... And then, in 1964, I worked for Johnson because, in his words, he would not send American boys to do the job Asian boys should do. Then, in 1968, there was...

Oh well.

[jdeegan]

Romney really did smoke Obama I would be surprised if others are saying otherwise. Though I think Cherdano told me that Obamas performance was popular with women?

But again, it doesn't really matter. Here is an article related to that. It wasn't the one I read earlier, but it is much the same.

Nate Silver basically confirms this here. He says that the challenger usually gains a point or two, once he gained 3 points. Twice it has reversed the leader. So it does matter, but not that much, and is only relevant in close races. Since Obama had such a big lead, getting crushed in this debate (which I think he did) is unlikely to matter.

Basically, Romney is too far behind, and it is too late in the game to catch up, imo. Obama just dropping 4-5 points on intrade because of this is really absurd, I am considering buying more. This market is not even close to rational, it is amazing, I think politics just makes people too irrational and intrade is basically too small with too little smart money to adjust completely for the dumb/casual money.

edit: worth noting obama dropped 6-7 points on pinnacle also, but he was at 80 % there lol (more evidence I should be buying more obama!). Can a euro tell me what happened on betfair?

:P It may be that Romney has too big a deficit to make up in key states like Ohio, et.al. However, the Nate Silver ( a hard lefty if there ever was one) notion that the 1960 and 1980 debates were trivial is complete bullshit. Particularly in 1980 it enabled Reagan to overcome about a ten point deficit nationwide. Romney's pre-debate deficit in Ohio - Obama's strongest lead in the battleground states - was about 10 points.

 

For what it's worth, I did see a post-debate TV presentation by Frank Lunz, a very well-regarded pro-Republican pollster. Lunz had a panel of about 30 self-described undecided voters. After the debate, two changed to Obama, and about 15 changed to Romney.

 

The tide is starting to run in Romney's favor. He seems to know how to channel Reagan.

[jonottawa]

I think Intrade has it about right. Obama dropped from about 75% to about 2/3. Saying that debates haven't mattered much before is pretty irrelevant since nobody's ever been beaten as badly before. I had to laugh when Rachel Maddow said at the end of the debate "I'm not sure who won the debate tonight." which meant that Obama had gotten trounced.

 

I'd also add that it's not just about the polls in swing states. It's about the enthusiasm of the respective campaigns. It's about how successful their rallies will be in the coming days. It's about what kind of stories the media will write. It's about the close races that will be lost by Democrats trying to retake the House or keep the Senate. It's about how much clout Obama will be have in January if he does get re-elected. If Barry had had the kind of night that Willard had (and vice versa,) we'd be talking about a Democratic house, we'd be talking about an electoral landslide. Wednesday night was HUGE, perhaps the greatest single failure of the Obama presidency.

[blackshoe]

I saw Newsweek magazine on the stand yesterday. The cover touts Obama as "the Democrats' Reagan". :huh:

[billw55]

I saw Newsweek magazine on the stand yesterday. The cover touts Obama as "the Democrats' Reagan". :huh:

I thought democrats considered Clinton as their Reagan.

[hrothgar]

I saw Newsweek magazine on the stand yesterday. The cover touts Obama as "the Democrats' Reagan". :huh:

 

Said article was by Andrew Sullivan who has great big man crushes on both Reagan and Obama

[luke warm]

:P It may be that Romney has too big a deficit to make up in key states like Ohio, et.al. The tide is starting to run in Romney's favor. He seems to know how to channel Reagan.

some new post-debate polls today are showing some surprising results, if they can be trusted... romney is showing ahead in fl, oh, and va... remember, only about 132M voted in 2008, and more than half that number watched the debate... so it's very possible that any bumps will be historically high

[luke warm]

It was an obvious win for Romney for sure. Still, he may have paid for that somewhat on substance. E.g. the first two CNN headlines right now:

1. "Obama accuses Romney of dishonesty"

President Obama and his campaign accused Mitt Romney of dishonesty over tax policy and other issues, a day after the president's panned debate showing.

2. "Romney's pledge: No tax cut for the rich"

And the story basically saying that nobody knows how that would work with his plan, and that he isn't saying how he would make it work, either.

 

Other obvious lies ("In fact, I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions.") may hurt him as well. And I would be surprised if he has never said anything during the primaries that explicitly contradicts his debate pledge not to reduce taxes on the rich.

 

Anyway, in case Romney becomes president, I hope it will be the moderate Romney from yesterday, not the primary Romney.

yeah, the obama campaign is taking a mulligan on the debate.. the fact is, there were no lies (that can be proven)... his tax plan is very nearly revenue-neutral... anyone see stephanie cutter on erin burnett's show on cnn last nite? erin got steph to pretty much admit that obama pulled the $5T number out of his ass

[awm]

Mitt Romney's own website says that he wants a 20% cut in marginal rates. The total federal income tax revenue for 2012 is estimated at 1.4 trillion. So a 20% reduction means $280 billion. This is on top of the other proposals from Mitt Romney's site; for example extending the Bush tax cuts is about another $100 billion. And tax revenue tends to rise from year to year (inflation, growing economy) so the overall loss of revenue for ten years (the usual measure for these things) will be more than 10x the loss in 2012. Obama's $5 trillion estimate is looking reasonable, and it matches what non-partisan studies have said.

 

Of course, Mitt Romney claims he will cut deductions to make his tax policy revenue neutral. Maybe, but what deductions will he cut? He doesn't like to give specifics on that side of the equation, and you can't make a tax cut revenue-neutral by just declaring it to be revenue-neutral.

[luke warm]

i know this might not mean much... these are Ohio absentee ballot/early voting totals today vs. same point in 2008:

 

• 
   
  
• Champaign County: Was +3% GOP, now +23% GOP – 20-point shift
  
• Columbiana County: Was +9% DEM, now +9% GOP – 18-point shift
  
• Crawford County: Was +3% DEM, now +12% GOP – 15-point shift
  
• Cuyahoga County: Was +36% DEM, now +30% DEM – 6-point shift
  
• Erie County: Was +24% DEM, now +7% DEM – 17-point shift
  
• Franklin County: Was +5% DEM, now +5% GOP – 10-point shift
  
• Greene County: Was +4% DEM, now +19% GOP – 23-point shift
  
• Harrison County: Was +22% DEM, now +5% DEM – 17-point shift
  
• Hamilton County: Was +7% GOP, now +13% GOP – 6-point shift
  
• Licking County: Was TIED, now +16% GOP – 16-point shift
  
• Montgomery County: Was +29% DEM, now +5% DEM – 24-point shift
  
• Muskingum County: Was +1% DEM, now +16% GOP – 17-point shift
  
• Pickaway County: Was +12% DEM, now +15% GOP – 27-point shift
  
• Seneca County: Was +1% DEM, now +13% GOP – 14-point shift
  
• Summit County: Was +33% DEM, now +6 DEM – 27-point shift
  
• Wood County: Was +10% DEM, now +1% GOP – 11-point shift
  

[PassedOut]

Mitt Romney's own website says that he wants a 20% cut in marginal rates. The total federal income tax revenue for 2012 is estimated at 1.4 trillion. So a 20% reduction means $280 billion. This is on top of the other proposals from Mitt Romney's site; for example extending the Bush tax cuts is about another $100 billion. And tax revenue tends to rise from year to year (inflation, growing economy) so the overall loss of revenue for ten years (the usual measure for these things) will be more than 10x the loss in 2012. Obama's $5 trillion estimate is looking reasonable, and it matches what non-partisan studies have said.

 

Of course, Mitt Romney claims he will cut deductions to make his tax policy revenue neutral. Maybe, but what deductions will he cut? He doesn't like to give specifics on that side of the equation, and you can't make a tax cut revenue-neutral by just declaring it to be revenue-neutral.

Hmm. I thought that he had backed away from that during the debate, but I see now that was just an evasion.

 

If the 20% goes through, it will be bad fiscally. A problem that the US has had, beginning with Reagan, is ballooning deficits created by tax cuts without compensating spending cuts. It's easy to get politicians to vote for tax cuts, but it's like pulling teeth to get them to vote for spending cuts. And politicians won't vote to eliminate the deductions that voters have come to love either, so that 20% cut is another recipe for fiscal irresponsibility. That's why Romney can't be specific.

 

When George W. Bush ran on restoring fiscal irresponsibility, eveyone knew what they were voting for. And the Clinton years had cleaned things up enough to take the immediate sting out of it. But in the position the US is in today, we just can't afford another round of fiscal irresponsibility. Romney is claiming to be concerned about the US debt even though his policy proposals say just the opposite. This is scary.

 

We can see from the Bush years that tax cuts won't fix the job growth problem. If you are going to spend $5 trillion, better to rehire teachers and police officers and rebuild schools and highways.

[hrothgar]

i know this might not mean much... these are Ohio absentee ballot/early voting totals today vs. same point in 2008:

 

These are requests for ballots, not voting totals

All this means is that the Republicans were relatively late to adopt early voting

[luke warm]

Hmm. I thought that he had backed away from that during the debate, but I see now that was just an evasion.

he didn't back away from his 20% statement, he didn't back away from anything but obama's assertion of a $5T cost... as i posted earlier, stephanie cutter looked like a fool on cnn last nite trying to defend that statement... even the study obama referenced made a statement asking him not to misrepresent what they show

 

When George W. Bush ran on restoring fiscal irresponsibility, eveyone knew what they were voting for.

what were you voting for with obama? and, if you vote for him again, what do you think you're gonna get?

 

We can see from the Bush years that tax cuts won't fix the job growth problem. If you are going to spend $5 trillion, better to rehire teachers and police officers and rebuild schools and highways.

it's actually been proven that cutting taxes can (and does) increase revenues... the problem comes about with increased spending

[jonottawa]

I saw Newsweek magazine on the stand yesterday. The cover touts Obama as "the Democrats' Reagan". :huh:

I agree with that. They're both overrated, unprincipled, fiscally reckless, brimming with self esteem, not dumb but not terribly quick witted either, favoring style over substance and hailed as able communicators.

[hrothgar]

it's actually been proven that cutting taxes can (and does) increase revenues...

 

The Laffer curve my be true in theory. Almost no one takes it seriously in practice, especially with today's marginal tax rates

[dwar0123]

it's actually been proven that cutting taxes can (and does) increase revenues... the problem comes about with increased spending

Lets cut them all the way to 0 than. Hell, lets make them negative, revenue will rise to infinity!

 

Look, I understand why revenue might go up after cutting taxes, but you treat it like it is a mathematical certainty when in reality it is a fringe case depending on a very unique set of circumstances.

[lalldonn]

it's actually been proven that cutting taxes can (and does) increase revenues... the problem comes about with increased spending

Did the Bush tax cuts increase revenues, even if you ignore additional spending?