Mittens v. Obama 2 - THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL: the second 2012 presidential debate thread

Sure to hit 2,354 posts by Wednesday

If you need me I'll be watching through my fingers

so what's the deal with this one? has O successfully lowered expectations, or will anything other than a mind-blowing performance tonight be considered another failure?

You read my mind man

I think the tough part for Obama is the town-hall setting--he's got to figure out a way to glide past the questioners and go after Romney. That would have--should have--been so much easier last time, when Lehrer pretty much ceded the floor to the two of them.

The good news, I guess, is that expectations are higher for Romney tonight. Can't remember where, but yesterday I read that it's gone from 50-30 that Obama would "win" the first debate to something close to even this time. And I still think Romney has it in him to rise to the occasion and say something stupid.

The headline here made me laugh:

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/showmanship-and-other-items-on-obamas-debate-checklist.php?ref=fpa

So if Obama gets off one really good line, he should do a George Constanza and leave the stage immediately: "That's it for me!"

Lol

Obama needs to come out like "fuck Obamacare" and reverse a couple established positions, then whip out that smile and say "just joshing, did y'all see what I did there"

Alternately he could bring Propagandhi onstage and sing lead on "Anti-Manifesto"

If he's too diplomatic and refuses to call Romney on misleading specifics I'll be totally bummed but not surprised.

Instead of a debate, they should just have Romney and Obama participate in this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u0QF5GJ730

With so much fallout from the first debate, I actually would be majorly surprised if Obama doesn't go after Romney tonight. I just think, for a variety of reasons, it's trickier to do so this time.

no it's not.

that makes no sense

in fact, it would trickier *not* to go after Romney, because Obama has one more debate after this one, one more chance to shore up his standings with the undecideds.

Different setting--there was the famous moment from '92 when the questioner complained about the negative tone and Bush backed off. Different expectations--everyone knows Obama's faltering in the polls, so any kind of aggressiveness may be seen as desperation by people in the middle. (Not saying that's a certainty, just that it's a possibility.) Crowley is supposedly going to force the two of them to address the questions that are asked--if you've got a prepared line of attack, that makes it more difficult to get it in (certainly more difficult than last time, where they were given space to talk about whatever they wanted).

There are, I realize, advantages Obama can seize. But I don't see how you can say "makes no sense." There are obvious challenges.

eh you can get all around that stuff if you strike the right tone and you're well prepared. i don't see how this debate is trickier to do all of those things

Aren't all the questions pre-screened anyway? Leaving this effectively no different than a 'typical' debate with a moderator asking the questions, i.e., really the town hall setting is just different stage dressing?

We don't disagree that he can get around all that if he strikes the right tone. We do disagree on the degree of difficulty involved.

i don't see how any of the things you listed are difficult or tricky or different than any other debate.

On Romney's side, his biggest challenge is that he'll be interacting with...people. He's never proven particularly adept at this.

Crowley is supposedly going to force the two of them to address the questions that are asked--if you've got a prepared line of attack, that makes it more difficult to get it in

I mean, either of these guys should be able to get around Crowley with no problem, she can't "force" them to do anything

either of these guys should be able to get around Crowley with no problem

I'm calling on every last ounce of human decency left in me here to resist the obvious joke.

"[T]he Commission shall take appropriate steps to cut-off the microphone of any...audience member who attempts to pose any question or statement different than that previously posed to the moderator for review."

clemenza, this is a political thread: we shredded human decency after 1792.

I mean, either of these guys should be able to get around Crowley with no problem, she can't "force" them to do anything

O rllly?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d9/Aleister_Crowley_in_Hat.jpg/200px-Aleister_Crowley_in_Hat.jpg

Also formidable:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HO8GPxnR44I/Svd-ktbvRWI/AAAAAAAABPU/UxEKJgvM5qA/s320/scan0007.jpg http://theatre1100.wikispaces.com/file/view/boys-in-the-band.jpg/183957215/230x344/boys-in-the-band.jpg

so I guess there is a pre-written agreement that this debate will not spark any actual discussion or generate any controversy whatsoever

I believe that was a rider in the USA PATRIOT Act

the pre-written agreement is seriously so sad and ugly. "this is theater and is mainly to get people to look at TV; please, no actual content of any kind" is its essential substance. glad I will be at work when this goes down

P.S. Josh that is the pic of the day & I thank you for it

"this is theater and is mainly to get people to look at TV; please, no actual content of any kind" is its essential substance.

and yet it seems to affect the polls and possibly the vote. crazy shit.

The thing is--this was a story yesterday--Crowley has made it clear she will follow up when a candidate dodges the question and launches into something unrelated.

Not sure why I phrased that as "a candidate"...

http://gothamist.com/attachments/nyc_chrisrobbins/101512president.jpg

who is the venriloquist?

@DennisThePerrin
De·bate (/diˈbāt/) n: A bipartisan arrangement among political elites where the concerns of citizens don't mean shit. (See also: sham)

^^ It is important to remember that the majority of these wonderful citizens either don't vote, or vote rarely, so they basically guarantee that their concerns won't mean shit to politicians. The majority of those who do vote regularly still give only a pittance of their attention to the issues. If they by some chance have an issue that means a lot to them, the odds are great that their approach is purely emotional and their emotions are easily manipulated, so politicians have no incentive to address the issue itself, rather than the emotions of the voters.

It's a miracle the government functions even as poorly as it does. /Socratesmode

But giving ppl new reasons to vote were what Obama 08 pretended to be about.

Socrates otm

I don't know - that strikes me as a little condescending.

it raises the problem that if everyone believed that, no one would vote

Socrates was nothing, if not condescending.

Socrates fondled greek boys, what did he know

Nice display name, Alfred.

it raises the problem that if everyone believed that, no one would vote
--cancer, kizz my hairy irish azz (Dr Morbius)

well if people were completely rational about voting they also wouldn't vote

so voting is like dating

except you get fucked even if you don't

That a majority of eligible US citizens either do not vote at all or else vote very sporadically can be deemed a fact and not a belief. As for the rest, it is cynical and overstated, but at least it rests on a lifetime of observation.

The great unwashed demand a good reason to vote! Like, what is your longterm vision for Libya? Huh? Nothing? Didn't think so. And that's why I'm staying home.

gas charts depress me. i've got a photo of my first year in l.a. somewhere and a gas station behind me has regular at $1.10 iirc. that was in 1999.

Rumors say that in exchange for driving Sadaam out of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, the Saudis signed a secret agreement with Bush Daddy to produce enough to keep oil prices way down for ten years. Empirical evidence does not refute the truth of this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html

the video was part of the motivation all along.

ok, I VOTED.

Is it over yet?

what a shitty campaign

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/republicans-empty-binder.php?ref=fpblg

A look into a world where humor mystifies and terrifies.

kind of funny how something that got some cheap internet lulz and has 0 impact on the race is earning a response from republicans

waiting for binders full of big birds

Empirical evidence does not refute the truth of this.

It's a wee bit more nuanced than just that though not by much. '73 scared the Saudis 'cause of what it did to the global economy and as scared as they were of Saddam, they didn't want any kind of backlash against them to imperil their rather huge financial interests in the West and elsewhere. The Gulf War was bad for the global economy anyway and the one way they could provide was a stabilizing influence on world crude prices and they had to fight off Iran and Venezuela repeatedly (iIrc, perhaps others) in their attempts to manipulate the global price of a barrel of crude.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XUUPpszbFCE/T_GPQlvK8_I/AAAAAAAADkA/P1mywEKgpNs/s1600/snoop-dogg-penguins-gin-juice.jpg
I got a binder full of women and my homeboys do to

has 0 impact on the race is earning a response from republicans

I was reading not long ago (Silver?) that women tend to decide later than men and one of the biggest shifts in Mittens' post first debate bounce was amongst women. Saying that he had binfers of women and understood that they needed flexibility in their work schedules in order to go home and cook roasts for their children has not gone unnoticed amongst not only working class women but more affluent, perhaps Republican or Independent tending women, who balk not only at the old-school patriacal nature of the statement but also the blitheness of a businessman who apparently never saw or noticed the issues of families, let alone women in the workplace.

it's a world gone crazy keeps a woman in binders

Whenever gas prices come up, I remember fall 2008--I had a six-week gig with a long drive, and in September 2008 it was at an all-time high and only went down in late October. Haven't looked up the specifics, but it's not like it was $2.50 all that year.

see the graph I posted upthread

I guess I see republican-leaning women as already acting against their own best interests, so the binder comment would prolly get forgiven as another example of mitt clumsily forming the words that come out of his speech maker and nbd

xps

or I don't care if you're sexist, just fix the economy goddamnit

but if it shaves some points off romney's vote count I'm all for it

I don't have a good feeling about this election tbh

Pray God you can cope
I stand inside
This woman's binder
This woman's folder
Ooooh it's hard on the spine
To be between two flaps
Now starts the life of a dossier

I don't have a good feeling about this election tbh

Fair enough, considering the options.

I still think Barack Obama would have to eat a baby on live tv to lose this.

Ironically, that's the only way he could get Morbs' vote.

Would this be funnier if I remembered anything about LOTR?

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/misc/BIND-THEM-COMP_8.gif

Probably not.

I thought that Romney's gaffe that about having come "through small business" was kind of revealing. I guess that strictly by the number of employees that may have been true, though Bain is hardly anyone's idea of a small business. But when he talks about wanting to cut taxes for small business, it's pretty clear this is what he means: cutting taxes for highly profitable partnerships like Bain, whose profits are taxed at personal income rates, not about the little Mom & Pop operations.

gif is more annoying the more you know about LOTR, tbh.

http://www.romneytaxplan.com

^^ bit o' fun that

A fool's errand, indeed.

Romney's dorkiness is weirdly translated in infomercial-like ads that appear on the TV channel that is sometimes on in the exercise room in the basement of my apartment building and appeared at points during the debate as this particular kind of impatience bordering on fidgetiness. So if this is what their last-minute ad campaign blitz will be like, is there much to fear?

Good job there Tagg

http://gawker.com/5952745/tagg-romney-wanted-to-punch-obama-during-tuesdays-debate

real charmer that one

i'd been wondering about this weird ass phrase: http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/108724/brief-history-trickle-down-government

in some ways those are the biggest lapses of judgment because its like some code phrase that only plays to people who
a. pay attention to details
b. are already gonna vote for him

and even then its not some booming zing or anything.

yeah i was shocked to discover it had ever been used in a context where the phrase made sense. still think it's just weird as hell for romney to use it as it never entered the common lexicon (i mean you have the new republic going 'wtf is trickle down govt?', what does it mean to average american???), it was clearly only used as a dumb comeback to trickle down economics, and even when the phrase 'trickle down economics' was in common campaign usage, ie TWENTY YEARS AGO, no republican got any traction w/ it. seems like just another way to grunt 'GOVERNMENT BAD' but not as effective even as when he blurted out 'government doesn't create jobs. government doesn't create jobs.' during the end of one of obama's answers last night.

yeah that lasted for 2 seconds but in isolation was one of his ugliest moments

just seemed like an old man at a bus stop muttering to himself

that moment was terrific, maybe i imagined this but i remember him backing away as he said it like the ghost in hamlet woooooooing as he heads offstage

i guess that is a pretty goofy production of hamlet i'm asking you to imagine there

it's a pretty goofy play

from the "lol, CNN is irrelevant" file:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/opinion/bennett-romney-obama/index.html?hpt=op_t1

William J. Bennett, a CNN contributor, is the author of "The Book of Man: Readings on the Path to Manhood."

"Betcha $20 you can't read just one page!"

how long til they're using the huffpost 'citizen journalist' model

Particularly Chuckle-worthy...he explicitly Says that Obama spoke too much about Bush and tried to tie Romney to Bush. Funny Considering the civilian who asked the question asked both candidates about how similar Romney was to Bush.

Bennet: "Obama needed a convincing win Tuesday night, and he did not get it."

He then goes on to produce not one shred of argument as to why anyone would accept either half of that statement as true.

Particularly the first, since he's projecting at around 285 electoral votes right now (comfortably)

yeah i was shocked to discover it had ever been used in a context where the phrase made sense. still think it's just weird as hell for romney to use it as it never entered the common lexicon (i mean you have the new republic going 'wtf is trickle down govt?', what does it mean to average american???), it was clearly only used as a dumb comeback to trickle down economics, and even when the phrase 'trickle down economics' was in common campaign usage, ie TWENTY YEARS AGO, no republican got any traction w/ it. seems like just another way to grunt 'GOVERNMENT BAD' but not as effective even as when he blurted out 'government doesn't create jobs. government doesn't create jobs.' during the end of one of obama's answers last night.

― balls, Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:03 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah that lasted for 2 seconds but in isolation was one of his ugliest moments

― iatee, Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:04 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

just seemed like an old man at a bus stop muttering to himself

― iatee, Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:04 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

best part though was when obama reassured us that govt does not create jobs and that he believes the free enterprise system (those texas textbooks are working!) was the best system ever developed

Someone needs to bring back "voodoo economics" and whip it on Mitt.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R300JT745JOIWZ/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R300JT745JOIWZ

best part though was when obama reassured us that govt does not create jobs and that he believes the free enterprise system (those texas textbooks are working!) was the best system ever developed

Yeah, this was just stupid

i just love how mr. anti-government romney is now the jobs candidate. jobs jobs jobs! the government doesn't create jobs we built it wait no i'm going to create jobs for everyone!

i also liked when he threw that number out there during the tax debate too. say you get....hmmmm....20,000 dollars! i think that was actually code for "i will give everyone who votes for me 20,000 dollars." which i would totally take, by the way.

i did love that debate. i guess i really do miss boxing after dark on hbo.