Obama and the 2012 Election

@ tempest.
But Obama is the president. You absolutely do not interrupt the president. Did I say Obama was acting flawlessly? No. I acknowledge that both of them have gone over their time, and that Obama is not Suzy Creamcheese. But Romney has only three debates to make himself look good after a year of making himself look like an idiot (and honestly, that's the best word I could think of for him), and he's really not taking advantage of it.

@ Takanori Matsumoto.
I would argue that seeing as it's a debate, they should be treated as equals to one another, so I don't think the fact that Obama is president means that he absolutely shouldn't be interrupted while it's okay if Romney is. Either it's okay for both of them to interrupt each other or it's not.

I don't think the title of President deserves innate respect; you have to earn it. I'd have gladly interrupted George Bush anytime during his presidency.

@ Takanori Matsumoto.
Okay. Double Standards.
You never said that Obama was "acting flawlessly" and I never misquoted you. You never acknowledged it in the first post and that's exactly what I was speaking about. If you don't acknowledge it, who knows. Maybe you didn't know or were avoiding it? Thought I'd point it out.

I disagree greatly.

@ Alex; periphery.
I absolutely agree with you. In a debate setting, there should be an argument and a rebuttal, and that's just not happening. And I acknowledge that both of them are taking digs at each other. But I just feel like one of them is being a bit more respectful about it than the other, and it's just not Romney. Perhaps it's my personal bias - I haven't trusted him from the beginning, so I'm never going to be a fan of the guy - so I apologize for that. I just can't help but make a face when I hear him backtracking and interrupting, and I can't help but think that so much more could have been accomplished in this debate. Romney wanting to "reply to that for just a a second" (and yes, Obama too) just slowed it way down, and it frustrates me. I don't feel like I've really learned anything about either campaign - and isn't that the point of a debate?

@ tempest.
When you put "lol" and "lmfao" in your posts, it sounds very condescending, like you're mocking someone else's opinion. I don't know if you mean it to come off like that, but that's not ok in discussion threads.

Alex; periphery.:

@ Takanori Matsumoto.
I would argue that seeing as it's a debate, they should be treated as equals to one another, so I don't think the fact that Obama is president means that he absolutely shouldn't be interrupted while it's okay if Romney is. Either it's okay for both of them to interrupt each other or it's not.

100%.

Obama was in the shoes of Romney 4 years ago (in the sense that he wasn't a President).

Did anyone watch the streaming debate with third party candidates? Jill Stein pretty much rocked it. She took the gloves off with Romney, and was far more specific than Obama in her policies.

I watched it and have since concluded that you're all bloody mental!

Why oh why is the idea of "competition" in things where people's lives are at risk seen as a bloody good idea? what.

Nice recap of the debate.

---

I know this will probably go against the popular opinion of this thread, but I think Mitt Romney did a far better job than Obama. Romney was more specific (especially about taxation figures) and didn't hold back, and Obama was not prepared to confront economic growth statistics from the past four years, nor was he prepared to confront the large deficit. I also think Romney was more articulate which surprised me. He paused far less and made better use of his time. So many "uhhhs" came out of Obama's mouth, it was just jarring for me because I'm used to him being such a stronger speaker. I hope the next debate goes much better for him.

@ Kurtni
I hope that the next debate goes better, period. I'm extremely concerned by how blanketing all of the questions and topics seemed to be. I want to hear from both of them what they plan on doing about women's rights, marriage equality, the student debt crisis - stuff that really is affecting this country, and I heard nothing about it. All I heard were digs at past records, and that's what I've been hearing for the last year. And honestly, I prefer Obama over Romney (I think that's clear ), but I want to see more of a fight. I want to see this guy dig tooth-and-nail to protect the things that matter to me. I want him to earn my vote. I don't feel that he was nearly as powerful as he could have been, and he just let Romney talk.

Honestly, I find myself disappointed in him just as I'm disappointed with Romney. Romney only did well because Obama stepped back and let him. And honestly, I feel that the only thing he topped at was manners. Other than that, I didn't really feel that spark that, as an Obama supporter, I was looking forward to feeling.

I think that Obama looked very weak and small. Almost naked, in a way. Even if what he was saying was agreeable and honest to me, I'd have a hard time listening because of his body language and lack of eye contact...and that smirk. Wow. He seemed very young, unexperienced, and unprepared. Not like a man who's been in office for 4 years and going for 4 more, in my opinion. Not like a leader at all.

To quote what someone else said:

Romney looked like a salesman. Obama looked like an accountant.

Maybe it's just me being British but take the accountant over the salesman. I'd like to think that British politics rely less on personality and debates like this.

@ joan.
An accountant who couldn't explain where his numbers came from. He kept criticizing Romney's tax plan with the 5 trillion figure and when Romney said that wasn't true/just rhetoric, Obama backed down because he couldn't back up what he's saying. When Romney confronted Obama about the dollar amount of oil subsidies, and the very high amount of green energy subsidies Obama gave out, Obama backed down again. An accountant shouldn't back down from the dollar and cents questions.

I think these debates are very important because candidates draw contrast between each other on topics they don't get to choose. Romney would like to talk about how bad Obamacare is all day, and Obama would go on and on about Romney's corporate welfare until he's blue in the face, but the debates make them confront a wide variety of issues at the same time, so voters can clearly see their differences. I don't think Americans rely on these debates, as most Americans won't even watch the debates, but for independents, they're a valuable tool.

joan.:

I watched it and have since concluded that you're all bloody mental!

Why oh why is the idea of "competition" in things where people's lives are at risk seen as a bloody good idea? what.

It's not just a competition, it's a televised competition which millions of people watch - it's entertainment - and this is one of the major reasons why both parties insist on having debates although there are much more efficient ways of explaining people your platform.

The fate of Obama's image resting in Joe Biden's hands makes me nervous, but I'm optimistically tuning in!

@ Kurtni
Biden cleaned the floor with Ryan. I have never been so excited to see a politician speak. I was so stoked.

Biden totally won that debate.

Biden was more aggressive and on the defensive compared to Obama.... but I'm not sure being aggressive and rash constitutes winning when Ryan was calm and still got to say everything he wanted to.

I thought Biden's explanation of the situation in Libya (and why the administration was so clueless) was terrible, which kind of set a bad vibe for the whole debate. Obama has constantly been slammed (with good reason) for his foreign policy because he lacks experience, and this entire debacle just provided fuel to the fire for how dangerous it is to have an inexperienced leader dealing with the Middle East. Ryan looked competent and Biden looked uninformed. (or got caught in a lie, which I believe is more likely, because there is no way he could be oblivious to the consulate requests for more security, unless he is just 100% an incompetent leader). All he had to say was "Ryan and other Republican congressmen voted to cut our budget and enabled a situation like this to occur," but he didn't. I think this is going to be a nail stuck in the rest of their campaign.

I also thought some of Biden's criticisms were just silly (ie, voting for two wars, voting for Bush tax cuts, etc.) because he (and most Democrats) did the same thing. If that makes Ryan a bad candidate, it makes Biden a bad candidate too.

This debate just made me grouchy. It's not that Biden did terribly, it's just that Obama did so poorly that Biden's performance is not enough to dig their image out of the hole it's in, and I'm not confident about Obama in the next debate. Romney is going to drag him through the mud with this terrorist attacks situation, which will probably continue to look worse and worse as more information comes in about how wrong we were.

Kurtni:

Biden was more aggressive and on the defensive compared to Obama.... but I'm not sure being aggressive and rash constitutes winning when Ryan was more specific/calm and probably more appealing to the undecided voter.

I thought Biden's explanation of the situation in Libya (and why the administration was so clueless) was terrible, which kind of set a bad vibe for the whole debate, where Ryan looked competent and he looked uninformed. (or a liar, which I believe is more likely, because there is no way he could be oblivious to the consulate requests for more security). All he had to say was "Ryan and other Republican congressmen voted to cut our budget and enabled a situation like this to occur," but he didn't.

I also thought some of Biden's criticisms were just silly (ie, voting for two wars, voting for Bush tax cuts, etc.) because he (and most Democrats) did the same thing. If that makes Ryan a bad candidate, it makes Biden a bad candidate too.

I wish I could watch the debates I am glad you brief things out without bias because this allows me to analyze them the next day when they're up on the page I watch them.

I am comparing how the presidential elections work in the U.S. as opposed to Mexico and I was wondering, what would happen in the U.S. if a runner for presidency was suspected to be committing electoral fraud?

In Mexico this occurred this past elections. One of the runners (he would be an equivalent of a republican) bought people's votes with electronic cards in supermarkets; he did this on very poor states and districts; there is documented (video) evidence of him and his campaing doing this algonside with coming into the place where the ballots were being casted and stealing an urn full of votes to erase all of the votes given to the opposing party and replace them with votes for this runner (his name is Enrique Peña Nieto).

If something like this happened in the U.S., how would that proceed?

Here, even with the compiled evidence (videos, photographs, and corporeal evidence of the electronic money cards he gave) he was still declared president of Mexico.