V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
If the person that isn't doing their job, like Lehrer wasn't doing lastnight, then get someone else. Boom. Job opening created.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
2012 First U.S. Presidential Debate |OT| OK Libya... We need a leader, not a reader.
- Thread starter deviljho
- Start date
- Status
If the person that isn't doing their job, like Lehrer wasn't doing lastnight, then get someone else. Boom. Job opening created.
As far as this thread is concerned, I've never seen an explosion of emotion like this before in my life on an internet message board. The confident, cocky "I can't wait til Obama rips Romney a new one" leading up to the debate, into what it was here immediately afterwards was really an arc I would have never foreseen.
Obama supporters are feeding into the media's narrative.
It's kinda weird coming on here and hearing the majority of GAF say that Obama was destroyed in the debate. I tried to watch the debate with as little bias as possible, and I thought that Obama won...if ever so slightly.
After reading a few comments here, I'm starting to wonder if people were grading the debaters' styles well over their respective arguments' substance. I understand that critiquing both is the proper way to judge debate performance in this day of an overzealous media and public scrutiny, but I only judged each of the candidates' performances based on whether or not they had clear direction of argument, supportive evidence, and delivery.
Romney had his arguments and delivery, but there was practically very little substance. No details, timelines, figures, just platitudes. Obama pretty much stated his opinion on most of the ideas, backed them up with historical data that show his ideas would work, and set a few timelines for completion (given that congress complies).
Can someone tell me why I am wrong in my assessment?
After reading a few comments here, I'm starting to wonder if people were grading the debaters' styles well over their respective arguments' substance. I understand that critiquing both is the proper way to judge debate performance in this day of an overzealous media and public scrutiny, but I only judged each of the candidates' performances based on whether or not they had clear direction of argument, supportive evidence, and delivery.
Romney had his arguments and delivery, but there was practically very little substance. No details, timelines, figures, just platitudes. Obama pretty much stated his opinion on most of the ideas, backed them up with historical data that show his ideas would work, and set a few timelines for completion (given that congress complies).
Can someone tell me why I am wrong in my assessment?
oktarb
Member
Lehrer got run over by both sides but that doesn't justify the cutting of an entire Public Broadcasting system. not to mention its such a minute drop in the bucket of the deficit. I'm speaking to the point that he touts about job creation and then proceeds to 'fire' people.
Should a new moderator come into play, sure maybe. I don't want to harp on Big Bird trending but man under a hypothetical Romney universe I would have no Sesame Street memories.
NullPointer
Member
This is the kind of thing I could see SNL doing.
"Sorry Jim, I like you, but you're the first thing I'm cutting."
(Jim Lehrer sulks and walks off stage)
"Bring out Big Bird, Elmo, Bert and Ernie. YOU'RE FIRED!"
"I'm also reducing the number of debates to just one. That should be good enough for you people to decide on the kind of President I would be."
Just before he looks into the camera "Sorry C-Span, but you're not worth borrowing money from China".
Pulls plug. Bloop. Cut to static.
I must have missed it. But then again I watched the debate through a C-Span stream, with no extra fuss. Didn't even read or post on GAF so I could soak it all in. Maybe by the time I returned to the thread the freakouts were mostly over. Dunno.
This is pretty much what I came away with and as I mentioned earlier, I was surprised to see people saying Obama did poorly or Romney had actually won. Sadly, sytle > substance for most things in this world.
oktarb
Member
lol static turns to:
(I kid, I'm not trying to start some Romney/Big Brother diatribe)
NullPointer
Member
Its because style drives the media narrative more than substance.
And therein lies the overall problem. Let's hope we can live long enough to see some progress on this issue.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
You make some good points. I love PBS. I have fond memories of Sesame Street, Electric Company, and Zoom. But, PBS is small potatoes. Not even a drop in the bucket as far as what's driving this deficit.
I love News Hour too. But, I think it's time Lehrer hung up his spurs as a moderator. He's had a great run.
Shrennin
Didn't get the memo regarding the 14th Amendment
That's fine. I understand that not everyone holds the same view as I do -- much like, say, euthanasia (which I am also against). I hold life in such a way that I believe it is a right that cannot be taken away (or at least should not be) by anyone, even that person. This is due in part to the fact that I am a Christian so I have a certain view of life. I also understand that many don't believe the unborn baby to be a human being (in that stage of life) but since I do then I cannot in good conscience be okay with abortion simply because of that differing view (because I do believe that unborn baby is a human being despite what others may believe). With that said, I also understand the woman's plight in all of this so there is always that very fine line -- I think a baby's life overrides the woman in that particular instance, but I don't believe in blaming the woman for having an abortion (because I don't believe it's really the woman's fault - societal and familial pressures factor a lot into what a woman ultimately decides).
... damn it now we're getting into a debate. Sorry lol
Haha it was bound to happen. As long as the arguments are civil (which they are) then I don't mind casually debating, I just don't want to get into a deep discussion on the intricacies of when is human life, human life definitively (does it start when a baby is born, is it before that, etc.). I honestly don't mind talking about why I believe what I believe, I just don't have the time to debate what I mentioned haha
Yeah, I'm really disappointed that this is how most opinions are formed in this day of constant overexposure.
Yeah, but why is the general consensus here basically the same as the media's? The media's profit motive is what drives its "style over substance" narrative, but why must we conform to this as well? Especially here on GAF, we tend to be a little more...analytical...than the general public. Even then, both sides are saying that Romney was the clear winner. Is that their own opinion, or are they looking at it from what they believe is the general public's own perspective?
Souldriver
Member
There are similarities in that they both skew very much to a political ideology. However, FOX News is a full blown propaganda machine, something MSNBC is not (even if they would like to be).
The last 24 hours are a perfect illustration of that. Obama loses, and all of MSNBC is completely pissed at how Obama could squander his opportunities and let Romney dominate. Had Romney lost however, FOX would go to immense lengths to still present him as the winner of the debate, to create a narrative favorable to the GOP. MSNBC are fanboys, FOX News is the GOPs spinning machine.
Edit: they're both awful though, no question about that.
Exactly
he was obviously prepared to attack his positions but suddenly... Romney denied having those positions and claimed he is a moderate!!!
so BO was like WTF!?
he was definitely caught off guard, never recovered. It won't happen again.. BO will hold his own just fine in 2-3 since Romney can not pull that shit twice
NullPointer
Member
Maybe this place is just being pragmatic. I know I was thinking of conservative family members I know that still find themselves leaning Obama, but are easily swayed the other direction. I can imagine how they took that performance last night.
Look at Obama's weak performance, and by performance I mean body manner, ability to articulate his his ideas in an engaging way, and to seize upon opportunities to shut down Romney's attacks - that weak performance is perfect fodder for the talking heads, who will amplify it. He wasn't fired up, he wasn't ready to go, and he didn't give much for those on his side marginally to cement that support. Not that night anyway. Maybe things will be different once people look into the details.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
That's a good point.
Honestly when I made that post I was thinking of Maddow and Schultz to O'Reilly and Hannity.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I hadn't even considered that. That's a really good point.
Sir Alemeth
Member
WTF you guys chill. Obama's got this, it's all part of the strategy.
The is NO WAY Romney would win. These debates mean NOTHING.
Relax!
The is NO WAY Romney would win. These debates mean NOTHING.
Relax!
This is actually true. Nothing that happens really matters, we all know who is going to win in the end.
Souldriver
Member
Yeaaaah no. It was obviously a miscalculation from the Obama team. It might end up not being a devastating one, but it's a miscalculation none the less.
thanks... how do you prepare for that? even now you have to take a completely different tact in 2&3. I am certain one main goal of last night for BO was do not come off as angry or attacking. A lot of people (women especially) like how nice a human being he is. so he was saving face in his mind but being steamrolled by a smiling snake who at that moment he felt helpless to attack without jeopardizing the niceness angle. In hindsight bad choice but at that moment I read it as he looked trapped by that
I wouldn't know where to start in 3 (2 is town hall) but rule number one is prepare for the unexpected. He came in there ready to debate the positions each had been claiming... going forward, with Romney denying those positions Obama IMO needs to forget about what Romney may or may not do anymore. he must focus completely on what and why he has done and will do... and be Bill Fucking (Boss man) Clinton clear about it when he tells us.
NullPointer
Member
Yes. And if anything its all the "relax" talk that's getting to me ;P
Obama didn't do well last night, and he's taking his lumps for it. Things are as they should be.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah, Obama was clearly prepared to talk about what Romney will do, and that failed spectacularly. I think his strongest moments in the debate were when he was talking about what Romney has done, and I think that's where he needs to focus
yes... he made it very clear that Romney created the Obamacare model.
Romney was prepared for that too though and turned a devastating example of hypocrisy into BO's lack of ability to be bi-partisan. what pissed me off most was BO's silence at that moment...
but what to do? if he said your party is a bunch o obstructionist haters... the result is "ok Obama won't be able to work in Washington to get anything done", so not good. but for crying out loud tell us WHY it had to be pushed through... be more clear to the benefits to most Americans again and again ... half of the population still mistakenly believes it's some sort of government controlled program and that these "councils" are deciding everyone's individual coverage per incident.
IrishNinja
Member
pretty obvious here that this is his only option, man.
...are you serious with this garbage? that's one of the weakest fallacies here yet, and you've repeated it several times now.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
America has a clear choice. Save the welfare pigeon, or save America. Pretty easy choice for me.
War on Big Bird just got real.
No we didn't. The only time we really seemed to have talked up Obama is when someone came in trying to spout off that Mitt would be sure to mop the floor and turn the race around, or when they brought up his early debates as evidence. I don't think that many people in there assumed he'd trounce him. Most of us saw and acknowledged that quite a few challengers beat the incumbent on the first debate. There were a few that were really worried, too, since Romney's been practicing hard on this stuff for the past few weeks and Obama hasn't had time, since, you know, he's still the president right now.
teruterubozu
Member
I don't know, there were quite a few "Wednesday is going to be gloooooooorious posts" I must admit.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
haha wow
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
Believe it or not, we don't move as a group. There were definitely a few posters saying that Obama was going to destroy Mitt. There were others saying that historically we should expect Mitt to do well and probably win, since incumbents almost always lose the first debate and Mitt is a seriously underrated debater (mostly because of how terrible he has been this year at literally everything), but that it's still possible that Mitt would fuck everything up as he has consistently done.
Don't confuse PoliGAF with "the liberal posters on GAF." There are quite a few liberals who don't post in PoliGAF for, really, much the same reasons that some conservatives don't go to PoliGAF: an allergy to evidence.
Snowden's Secret
Banned
At home, watching the debate: "Romney is a lot more aggressive, but I'm not sure his points hold water. Romney on style, Obama on substance, slight advantage Romney"
On GAF, right after debate: "Romney lied and bulldozed himself to a slim but clear victory over a clearly disinterested Obama"
At work, the next day (deep red state): "DID YOU SEE THE DEBATE LAST NIGHT? OBAMA FOR HIS ASS WHOOPED"
On GAF, right after debate: "Romney lied and bulldozed himself to a slim but clear victory over a clearly disinterested Obama"
At work, the next day (deep red state): "DID YOU SEE THE DEBATE LAST NIGHT? OBAMA FOR HIS ASS WHOOPED"
Ahahaha, yeah. I'm not even in a deep red state and that's what I got at work. I was drowning in teleprompter jokes.
Also I heard the most appalling thing from one dude. He said, almost word for word: "When Obama started out wishing his wife happy anniversary I was just like 'come on, go fuck yourself Obama.'"
...yeah
speculawyer
Member
You don't even have to speak English to know the biggest topic . . . Big Bird.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
It's hard to imagine the kind of mindset that would compel someone to want to say something like that in a non-joking fashion.
Excellent.
You don't even have to speak English to know the biggest topic . . . Big Bird.
lol.
I found the irony incredible.
I was simply dumbfounded. Just dumbfounded. I mean the guy saying it is generally, from what I can tell, a pretty decent dude. At least he doesn't come off as a huge dick or anything (I just started working there temporarily this last month or so). And it's weird, you would think he could sympathize since he just got married like a month or so ago, too. The debate was on their anniversary. Let him say something. Do you really have to attack him on that!? It's just crazy.
Ahahaha, fucking ouch. I have an innate fear that one of my tweets or facebook posts will someday accidentally go out on the company's account. I try and check ferociously before I post anything on my phone. Such an awful tweet to have slip through, too, wow.
Even Obama has no idea what just happened.
http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/10/...t-nights-debate-youre-going-to-love-this.html
http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/10/...t-nights-debate-youre-going-to-love-this.html
That was my take. Obama was weird.. but Romney didn't really defend what he has been claiming for the trail. He kinda pretended he never said any of the things he said? Can't really debate with that. Even when called out about a lack of a plan...
He says he plans to have one...
Romney won by dumbfoundment. Obummer fell in its wake.
teruterubozu
Member
Clint Eastwood talking to ghost Obama, doppelganger Romney raiding the podium. WTF is this election?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll