EBC Presidential Debate Live Blog

Obama

Recession prompted by excessive behavior

Banks making money hand over fist churning out products that nobody understood

Toughest reforms since the 30s

Can't engage in risky behavior

Living will for banks who fail

Bailouts got paid back with interest

In the past Romney has said Dodd Frank should just be repealed

There was not too much oversight and Wall Street regulation

Romney

Gave banks blank check

Big penalties for unqualified mortgage, but don't know what are qualified, didn't anticipate clear regulation

Don't hurt the functioning of our marketplace
 
Romney

People dropping insurance

Cost of healthcare is prohibitive

CBO says Obamacare will cost $2,500 more

$716 billion in Medicare

Unelected board that tells people what treatments they can have

3/4 of people surveyed said its more likely to cause them to drop insurance

Craft a plan at the state level

Obama

Wasn't just that small businesses were seeing coverage skyrocket but it was families were worried about going bankrupt if they got sick

Preexisting conditions would cause them to not get coverage or face arbitrary limit

Worked on this alongside working jobs

Keep your own plan and doctor but insurance companies can't jerk you around

Kids on plan until 26, give out rebates if more on administrative

Set up group plan that has 18% lower rates

Had five seconds before you interrupted me

Model worked really well in Massachusetts, Romney set up identical model that hasn't destroyed jobs, have the opportunity

Five seconds went away a long time ago

Romney

Like the way we did it in Massachusetts with cooperation

Pushed it through without any Republican votes with Nancy Pelosi's support

200 legislators in Mass only 2 voted against it

Didn't raise taxes in Mass, didn't cut Medicare, didn't have unelected board, didn't cause people to

20 million people will lose insurance, 30% of businesses will drop people

Why people don't want Obamacare!

Something this big has to be bipartisan

Obama

Was a bipartisan basis, was a Republican idea

Fact of the matter is we used same advisors and its the same plan

Group of healthcare experts who figure out how to reduce cost of healthcare in system overall

Simply leave a bunch of people to fend for themselves

OR how to make cost of care more effective

Cleveland Clinic provides great care cheaper than average by getting all doctors together and do one test instead of ten, pay providers on performance instead of procedures

Institutionalize good things that we do

When Obamacare is fully implemented, costs will go down, costs have gone up in two years but slower than past fifty years

Replace it with something, hasn't described other than leaving it to states

No indication that it will help buy insurance

By repealing Obamacare 15 million people

Romney

Pre-existing conditions are covered, young people are covered

Has appointed board to decide what treatments you will have, government is not effective at reducing costs

Free people and free enterprise are more effective because they compete with each other

Consult to hospitals and providers astonished by innovation

InterMountain, Mayo, Cleveland doing it well

Not having government telling providers what to do

Private market and individual responsibility

Obama

Board can't make decisions about treatments

Romney plans to duplicate what is already the law: insurance companies can't deny you if you three

Wasn't a government takeover in Mass, largest expansion of private healthcare

When Romney says he will replace it

Says he's going to close deductions, says he's going to replace Dodd Frank reforms, says he replaces Obamacare, but not explaining anything, are the plans too good? The reason is when we reform Wall Street and preexisting conditions these are tough questions and he doesn't know

Romney HAVE TO RESPOND TO THAT

Not going to force something through

Follow Bowles Simpson, put a ceiling for deductions...

Federal government taking over healthcare and removing Tenth Amendment is not the way to go
 
Mission of federal government

Obama

Basic function is to keep people safe

Federal government has ability to create opportunity

Genius of America is free enterprise and opportunity

Abraham Lincoln says we can do things better together

Financed Transcontinental Railroad, land grant colleges, National Academy of Sciences

Doesn't restrict freedom, increases it

Race to the Top- give states more money if you make reforms, 46 states made a difference, hire 100,000 math and science teachers

Government can't do it all, but can help

Romney

Mass schools are #1 and I believe

Look behind us, Declaration of Independence and Constitution needs to be defended

Believe in maintaining American military

Maintain commitment to religious freedom and pursuit of happiness

Make sure that we all care for those who need help

Maintain for individuals freedom

Trickle down government thinks it can do better than people pursuing their dreams

The proof of that...

50% of college graduates can't find work :eek:

Federal government can help local and state education

Likes most of Race to the Top

Disabled kids who get IDEA funds will get money to go to school

Obama

Significant reforms with Race to the Top

Cut taxes for rich people, and cuts

Ryan put forward a budget

Not very detailed

Cutting education budget by 20%

Community colleges designing training programs for people to get jobs that

$60 billion to banks as middleman, banks were taking billions out of the system, millions more students get money on student loans

Not focusing on making sure kids get to college

Romney

Entitled to your own plane and own house but not own facts

Place you put your money shows where your heart is

Put $90 billion into green jobs, would have hired 2 million jobs, and these businesses were owned

Government is not for picking winners and losers

Can take their child to a school that's more effective

Massachusetts schools ranked #1

Jim Lehrer says only three minutes left
 
What would you do about partisan gridlock

Romney

Legislature was 87% Democrats

Reached across aisle

Sit down with Democratic Congress

Have to work on a collaborative basis to find common ground

The reason I'm in this race is that people are suffering

In Middle East there are developments of

Democrats and Republicans both love America but we need

Obama

Repealing Obamacare on first day not going to sit well with Democrats

Philosophy has been take Dem or Rep ideas as long as they are advancing this country

Repeated DADT

Went after Al Qaeda

Pulled out of Iraq

Being a leader is describing what plan you have

Occasionally say no to people in your own party even

Both saying what it is that you are for and saying no

Romney has not been able to say no
 
Romney elected to go last after winning coin toss to go first

Obama

Four years ago we were going through a major crisis

Faith and confidence in American future is undiminished

North Carolina woman who's 55 went back to school

Minnesota company gave up perks for executives

Auto companies in Toledo and Detroit take pride in cars

Build on those strengths

Closing loopholes for overseas job shippers and giving breaks for

All the things he's tried to do can channel

Everybody's getting a fair shot and fair share

Obama said he wouldn't be a perfect President

Fight every single day on behalf of middle class and American people, fight just as hard

Romney

Bigger than us, bigger than parties

What America do you want?

Two paths lead in very different directions

Look at not just words but

Middle class squeeze under President, I'll get incomes up

Unemployment is up, 12 million new jobs with rising incomes

Obamacare will be fully installed, or put state plan from Mass in

$716 billion in Medicare, 4 billion people who will lose Medicare Advantage

The president will cut the military, NOT cut our commitment to our military
 
I caught about half of this with little to no sound (it actually was on at the pub-who would have thought?). If you had to gauge who "won" the debate, who would it be? Select carefully, as I will base my vote on this and this alone. :ph43r:
 
Elias Greyjoy said:
I caught about half of this with little to no sound (it actually was on at the pub-who would have thought?). If you had to gauge who "won" the debate, who would it be? Select carefully, as I will base my vote on this and this alone. :ph43r:
Click to expand...
:lol:

I think that Obama won. Romney didn't do nearly as terribly as I expected him to, but his performance sounded awfully rehearsed on the points he remembered. At least he had a position though. And he also tried too hard to sound human and kept interrupting Jim Lehrer and throwing out zingers.
 
If he was throwin' out singers, I think he woulda lost. I dunno if it was the zingers he was practicin', but Romney got three times as many laughs as Obama. I counted.

I think he gets the win based on improved likeability alone.
 

Romney obviously won last night. Whether that win translates to an improved chance of winning the election is an open question -- presidential debates don't change minds as much as they did 30 years ago, and there are fewer undecided voters this year than usual.
 
Skizzy Grey said:
Romney obviously won last night. Whether that win translates to an improved chance of winning the election is an open question -- presidential debates don't change minds as much as they did 30 years ago, and there are fewer undecided voters this year than usual.
Click to expand...
All Obama had to do was stay defensive to prevent Romney from wiping the floor completely with him, and in that respect, the President won. Besides, he stayed cool and on message with the American people and Romney just interrupted all the time, took the debate away from Jim Lehrer, who was a terrible moderator with weak questions, and sounded like my grandfather used to whenever he couldn't hear what we were saying half a foot away from him, and peddled us his usual pablum. That's just my personal and obviously biased opinion however. And now the gloves are probably going to b off for the next three debates.
 
I'll repost what I said in TNI, which also happens to have my own answer to Skizzy's question:

I found this analysis of the debate by Bill Keller at the New York Times to be spot on: http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04...le/?ref=opinion

The debate was overall a letdown. Very low on substance, badly moderated, boring questions.

Romney was surprisingly assertive and bold. A lot of Romney's strategy relied on evading questions, denying his own previous policy statements, or just making absurd false claims. Obama looked like he had been forced to attend and had made no preparation whatsoever. He was very generous to his opponent and did not challenge him on anything.

Romney did make a much better impression, and was certainly the "winner" of the debate. However, in absolute terms, both of their performances was at best mediocre. Taking this into account, I would say the title of this thread [[note: in TNI, this was posted in a thread with title "Romney just destroyed Obama"]] is an exaggeration. A more appropriate title would be "Romney did better than usual and won over an underperforming Obama."

Concluding, I would say that this debate is very unlikely to affect any undecided voters, which is the part of the electorate at stake at this point of the campaign.
Click to expand...
 
r3naissanc3r said:
I'll repost what I said in TNI, which also happens to have my own answer to Skizzy's question:

I found this analysis of the debate by Bill Keller at the New York Times to be spot on: http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04...le/?ref=opinion

The debate was overall a letdown. Very low on substance, badly moderated, boring questions.

Romney was surprisingly assertive and bold. A lot of Romney's strategy relied on evading questions, denying his own previous policy statements, or just making absurd false claims. Obama looked like he had been forced to attend and had made no preparation whatsoever. He was very generous to his opponent and did not challenge him on anything.

Romney did make a much better impression, and was certainly the "winner" of the debate. However, in absolute terms, both of their performances was at best mediocre. Taking this into account, I would say the title of this thread [[note: in TNI, this was posted in a thread with title "Romney just destroyed Obama"]] is an exaggeration. A more appropriate title would be "Romney did better than usual and won over an underperforming Obama."

Concluding, I would say that this debate is very unlikely to affect any undecided voters, which is the part of the electorate at stake at this point of the campaign.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I disagree with that analysis, but fine. If anything people are going to most likely influenced by the last debate. Next debate, Obama now knows the gloves have to be off. This is not an election about facts and never has been. This is an election about likability. Romney was way too forced about it, and Obama was cool like he was supposed to, but needs to look up at the camera and at Romney, and to get his own punches in.
 
GAR said:
r3naissanc3r said:
I'll repost what I said in TNI, which also happens to have my own answer to Skizzy's question:

I found this analysis of the debate by Bill Keller at the New York Times to be spot on: http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04...le/?ref=opinion

The debate was overall a letdown. Very low on substance, badly moderated, boring questions.

Romney was surprisingly assertive and bold. A lot of Romney's strategy relied on evading questions, denying his own previous policy statements, or just making absurd false claims. Obama looked like he had been forced to attend and had made no preparation whatsoever. He was very generous to his opponent and did not challenge him on anything.

Romney did make a much better impression, and was certainly the "winner" of the debate. However, in absolute terms, both of their performances was at best mediocre. Taking this into account, I would say the title of this thread [[note: in TNI, this was posted in a thread with title "Romney just destroyed Obama"]] is an exaggeration. A more appropriate title would be "Romney did better than usual and won over an underperforming Obama."

Concluding, I would say that this debate is very unlikely to affect any undecided voters, which is the part of the electorate at stake at this point of the campaign.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I disagree with that analysis, but fine. If anything people are going to most likely influenced by the last debate. Next debate, Obama now knows the gloves have to be off. This is not an election about facts and never has been. This is an election about likability. Romney was way too forced about it, and Obama was cool like he was supposed to, but needs to look up at the camera and at Romney, and to get his own punches in.
Click to expand...

GAR, your post reiterates the things I said in mine.
 
r3naissanc3r said:
GAR said:
r3naissanc3r said:
I'll repost what I said in TNI, which also happens to have my own answer to Skizzy's question:

I found this analysis of the debate by Bill Keller at the New York Times to be spot on: http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04...le/?ref=opinion

The debate was overall a letdown. Very low on substance, badly moderated, boring questions.

Romney was surprisingly assertive and bold. A lot of Romney's strategy relied on evading questions, denying his own previous policy statements, or just making absurd false claims. Obama looked like he had been forced to attend and had made no preparation whatsoever. He was very generous to his opponent and did not challenge him on anything.

Romney did make a much better impression, and was certainly the "winner" of the debate. However, in absolute terms, both of their performances was at best mediocre. Taking this into account, I would say the title of this thread [[note: in TNI, this was posted in a thread with title "Romney just destroyed Obama"]] is an exaggeration. A more appropriate title would be "Romney did better than usual and won over an underperforming Obama."

Concluding, I would say that this debate is very unlikely to affect any undecided voters, which is the part of the electorate at stake at this point of the campaign.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I disagree with that analysis, but fine. If anything people are going to most likely influenced by the last debate. Next debate, Obama now knows the gloves have to be off. This is not an election about facts and never has been. This is an election about likability. Romney was way too forced about it, and Obama was cool like he was supposed to, but needs to look up at the camera and at Romney, and to get his own punches in.
Click to expand...

GAR, your post reiterates the things I said in mine.
Click to expand...
Well, OK, but I think Obama won. But maybe it's just that I'm not easily persuaded by charlatans and want the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top