Thrilla or Vanilla?
October 3, 2012 9:23 AM Subscribe

It's D-Day: Governor Mitt Romney debates President Barack Obama in Denver, Colorado. Will we see an epic game-changer or an airless, pre-orchestrated zinger-swap?

The consensus is that Mitt badly needs a moment and the hype machine is in full swing, with surrogates running to downplay expectations, media round-ups of past famous debate moments, an emphasis on fact-checking, and even some suggestions for a sweet debate drinking game.

posted by sallybrown (3008 comments total) 69 users marked this as a favorite

Just out of morbid curiosity, does anybody think that the debates are going to change anybody's minds?

This election cycle and the previous one have been some of the most divisive that I've seen on my short time on this planet, and it's hard to imagine anybody walking away from these thinking something like "oh, I didn't realize he actually thought that."
posted by Blue_Villain at 9:28 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I really hope Obama uses 5 minutes of his time to dance like Sam Rockwell.
posted by elizardbits at 9:29 AM on October 3, 2012 [22 favorites]

THANK YOU FOR THIS my browser is doing a juice-cleanse now
posted by lazaruslong at 9:32 AM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

My prediction is that it will be a total snooze. These two are too conservative (personality-wise) for anything that entertaining to emerge during the debates.
posted by murfed13 at 9:32 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE DRINKING GAME

1. When the debate begins, take a drink.
2. Check if you have any alcohol left. If you do, take a drink.
posted by theodolite at 9:32 AM on October 3, 2012 [177 favorites]

I really wish we could institute a system for this that was designed to downplay the effect of low-level cognitive biases on the process. The fact that a brief history of public reaction to presidential debates reads like this:

The most memorable moments — Richard Nixon's sweaty face (1960), Ford's gaffe on Eastern Europe (1976), Michael Dukakis' reaction to the hypothetical rape and murder of his wife (1988), George H.W. Bush's ill-timed glance at his wristwatch (1992) — were all mistakes.

...is just fucking embarrassing. At least if we could just limit it to audio-only broadcasts to filter out some of the more egregiously irrelevant events that would be an improvement.
posted by invitapriore at 9:32 AM on October 3, 2012 [13 favorites]

does anybody think that the debates are going to change anybody's minds?

Yes and no. The substance of the debate is unlikely to change anyone's mind, but the media spin, largely about the candidates' comportment, might.

Eg. if they decide Romney was looking natural, rather than like he has a huge Romney-shaped stick up his ass, that might give him a boost.
posted by Beardman at 9:33 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Obama is a well known commodity at this point. He's not going to fuck up the debates. Romney has to have a game changing moment, but people kind of already think he's an asshole, so he can't go after Obama too hard or it will backfire. I think it'll be a snooze fest.
posted by empath at 9:33 AM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

One of the great beauties of the American political system is how Americans take it very very seriously indeed, and yet ridicule it relentlessly. It's almost like Americans are large, and contain multitudes.
posted by chavenet at 9:33 AM on October 3, 2012 [18 favorites]

Mitt's best chance to score points is to rattle-off some completely out-of-left-field, hard-core tea-bag nuttery that no one would ever imagine a Presidential candidate stooping to, and, thus, catching Obama without a prepared response.

I'll be watching movies tonight, though.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:33 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Please remember that Barack Obama is a highly skilled and eloquent debater who can't get through a speech without a teleprompter, an academic professor that spent too much at Harvard who actually isn't very bright, and a radical Muslim who hangs out with Jeremiah Wright.
posted by 0xFCAF at 9:33 AM on October 3, 2012 [78 favorites]

I'd like the debate format to include, for the second and third debates, a preamble that discussed in some detail how factual each candidates was in the previous debates. And for the final debate, a substantial analysis covering the third debate and looking back on all three.

Because the debates themselves are not much more than a beauty contest held on a tightrope where each contestant must smile sweetly while maintaining their balance.
posted by MuffinMan at 9:34 AM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

the debate is Mittens' chance to come across as 'presidential'. which, so far, I don't feel like he's been able to do. it IS important to have the candidates directly speak to one another in front of an audience. no matter your personal opinion of Obama, he certainly has the ability to convey his stance on presidential matters in a clear, educated way while relating to his audience. can Romney do the same thing? cause so far he seemingly stumbles when talking off-the-cuff and ends up with a news-cycle gaffe.
posted by ninjew at 9:34 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

elizardbits: "I really hope Obama uses 5 minutes of his time to dance like Sam Rockwell."

* the President shoots a 3-pointer *

"WHOOO!"
posted by boo_radley at 9:34 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

THANK YOU FOR THIS my browser is doing a juice-cleanse now

There's a non-negligible chance this thread will also get to 4000 comments before the debate starts.
posted by painquale at 9:35 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'd really love for the debates to have questions that came from actual humans, not questions that were chosen by huge corporations and vetted by the parties.
posted by DU at 9:35 AM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

also I know what a juice cleanse is now, so, you know, thread validated and everything.
posted by boo_radley at 9:35 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh how I wish Obama was so confident in his victory that he could waste America's time by rating the superhunks.
posted by yellowbinder at 9:36 AM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

I read that Romney has been training LIKE ROCKY with the zingers for months. I'll be curious to see if he delivers any of them with the same leaden, graceless, robotic stridency on display from 2008, when he stood there bellowing "Have you forgotten 9/11? Have you forgotten 9/11?" as if saying it enough might cause Rudy Giuliani, of all people, to actually suddenly forget 9/11 and deliver a win to Mitt, who was the only one who remembered.
posted by mph at 9:36 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Bit late for me to watch live here in the UK, but, like Apple product announcements, I'll have to watch the whole thing the next day rather than trusting what $news_agency_of_choice chooses to show me. Also, I will be scrolling this thread alongside, so try to keep it under 2,000 comments, okay?
posted by Happy Dave at 9:37 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Tonight's magic phrase is "I'll never apologize for America." If you hear that phrase, you must chug your entire drink, pull your pants down, and slap your butt.
posted by perhapses at 9:37 AM on October 3, 2012 [42 favorites]

Just out of morbid curiosity, does anybody think that the debates are going to change anybody's minds?

I'm always shocked when calling/canvassing how many people identify themselves as undecided. Still, now, really? I understand the partisan people on both sides, and the people opposed to politicians and voting, although I don't agree - but undecided?

Or maybe I should admire their open minds. I don't know.
posted by R a c h e l at 9:37 AM on October 3, 2012

We've all forgotten Poland.
posted by Aquaman at 9:38 AM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

THE SNORE-ADO IN COLORADO
posted by AugieAugustus at 9:38 AM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

I do wonder if the immense pressure on Mitt to make it a game-changer and what sounds like almost over-preparation by him will short circuit the Rombot and cause some bizarre outburst on stage.

(I also wish the fact-checking included a button the moderator could press that just shouted YOU LIE! ala Joe Wright.)
posted by sallybrown at 9:38 AM on October 3, 2012 [10 favorites]

Also please keep me and the other Coloradoans in your thoughts because CDOT and the Secret Service are shutting down six dang miles of the dang old aterial highway in Colorado starting at 5 freaking o'clock.
posted by boo_radley at 9:41 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Nobody's undecided at this point. They just don't want to tell you.
posted by Suddenly, elf ass at 9:41 AM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

I also predict Obama wishing his wife a happy 20th anniversary. Romney will then feel the need to mention his wife and offspring and their offspring's offspring.
posted by murfed13 at 9:42 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

murfed13: "I also predict Obama wishing his wife a happy 20th anniversary."

I heard that today is their actual anniversary. What an amazing gift for him.
posted by boo_radley at 9:43 AM on October 3, 2012

I'm waiting for the Veep debates I mean c'mon Smug, Petulant Teen Frankenstein VS. Everyone's Favorite Uncle!
posted by The Whelk at 9:44 AM on October 3, 2012 [46 favorites]

Note - YouTube is streaming the debates live.
posted by cashman at 9:44 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I can't wait to see the big board on CNN with the zinger count. I like how we've all agreed to call them 'zingers'.

Yeah, I'll be watching, excitedly, but there is absolutely zero chance of this debate changing my mind about either candidate. The most I am hoping for is some sort of car crash (which seems unlikely, admittedly) that might change the minds of people on the fence to vote for my guy.

But yeah: I fear that I agree with Suddenly, elf ass - "undecided" voters are primarily people who think it looks intellectually forward to not have made up your mind about something, when in fact the have known for a long time.
posted by dirtdirt at 9:44 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

That's a sitcom right there.
posted by Kabanos at 9:44 AM on October 3, 2012

Romney megathread 4eva!!!

j/k, can't wait to read the liveblogging in this thread later tonight.
posted by Theta States at 9:44 AM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

Romney will then feel the need to mention his wife and offspring and their offspring's offspring.

MY LINE IS QUITE VIRILE AND NUMEROUS IN THE MANNER OF YOUR EARTH RODENTS.

I MEAN OUR RODENTS. ON EARTH.
posted by The Whelk at 9:44 AM on October 3, 2012 [74 favorites]

As President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney square off in the first presidential debate in Denver on October 3, Democracy Now! will broadcast live from Denver with a special expanded presidential debate from 8:30 to 11:30 p.m. ET. We will air the debate, pausing after questions to include equal time responses from two presidential contenders who were shut out of the official debate: Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party.

posted by anarch at 9:45 AM on October 3, 2012 [17 favorites]

I thought the All Things Considered previews for Romney and Obama made for a good summary, and considering it boiled down to Romney needs to stop being spontaneous because he says the wrong thing, and Obama needs to be less wordy, I'm expecting a pretty Vanilla debate.
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:45 AM on October 3, 2012

Happy debate memory: My favorite political science professor hosted a viewing of the '88 vice presidential debate, where Bentsen delivered the "No Jack Kennedy" putdown to Dan Quayle. We all hooted like drunken gibbons. Even the peace studies kids.
posted by mph at 9:45 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

God, what a circus. You guys are fucked if you choose that other guy, but even the guy you have now is so scary conservative.
posted by clvrmnky at 9:46 AM on October 3, 2012 [19 favorites]

I feel, with the polls the way they are, that Romney's best chance is to start his opening address in this manner.

Oh please oh please oh please let this happen.
posted by Wordshore at 9:46 AM on October 3, 2012

. . . an airless, pre-orchestrated zinger-swap?

The interview with George Farah, founder of the bipartisan Open Debates, on "Democracy Now" this morning provides some critical context.

From Open Debates' site:

Presidential debates were run by the civic-minded League of Women Voters until 1988, when the national Republican and Democratic parties seized control of the debates by establishing the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Posing as a nonpartisan institution, the CPD has often run the debates in the interests of the national Republican and Democratic parties, not the American people.

Since 1988, negotiators for the Republican and Democratic nominees have secretly drafted debate contracts that dictate how the presidential debates will be structured. The CPD, which is co-chaired by leading figures in the Republican and Democratic parties, has implemented those contracts.

CPD control of the presidential debates has harmed our democracy. Fewer debates are held than necessary to educate voters. Candidates that voters want to see are often excluded. Restrictive formats allow participants to recite memorized soundbites and avoid actual debate. Walter Cronkite called CPD-sponsored debates an "unconscionable fraud."
posted by ryanshepard at 9:48 AM on October 3, 2012 [56 favorites]

Boston Magazine: Mass Revolt - Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts just six years ago. Today he’s so unpopular here he’s barely bothering to campaign in the state. There are reasons for that—and they could spell doom for his presidential campaign.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:49 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Just out of morbid curiosity, does anybody think that the debates are going to change anybody's minds?

In a recent aggregate of actual studies done on how debates have affected the outcomes of presidential elections, it seems they don't really change anyone's minds.

However, you all are welcome to take a look at this video of the dress rehearsal for the debates and decide for yourself.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:49 AM on October 3, 2012

I liked Ezra Klein's comment re zingers. "If your strategy to turn the presidential election around relies on Romney’s sense of comic timing, you might want to prepare a Plan B, as well."
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:49 AM on October 3, 2012 [28 favorites]

clvrmnky: “God, what a circus. You guys are fucked if you choose that other guy, but even the guy you have now is so scary conservative.”

You kinda tipped your hand with the last word there.
posted by koeselitz at 9:49 AM on October 3, 2012

I would give just about anything to have the League of Women Voters running the debates again.
posted by Aquaman at 9:49 AM on October 3, 2012 [16 favorites]

I'd love to see debates with real meat to them, I'm sure I'm not alone.

It's gotten to the point that I can't even imagine this. What would they say? Candidates are basically forbidden from articulating the particulars of their proposed policies, forbidden from doing anything, really, except delivering platitudes and casting aspersions on their opponents by taking facts (or half-truths) out of context. And anybody who could conceivably change that seems to like it that way.
posted by uncleozzy at 9:50 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Notes on format: a coin toss decided The President opens the debate, and Romney closes.

Topics:

Jim Lehrer has selected the topics for the first meeting between President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

This domestic policy debate will feature six, 15-minute segments:

Three about the economy
A discussion on health care
The role of government and governing

Lehrer noted the topics could change based on news developments, and will not necessarily be in that order.

The Oct. 3 forum at the University of Denver will begin at 9 p.m. ET and last 90 minutes.

Tickets were not available to the public, but were given out to University of Denver students.
posted by cashman at 9:51 AM on October 3, 2012

The one thing that could make the debates interesting is that Romney needs something big to shift the polls. With little time left, he's going to have to try something outside his comfort zone.
posted by drezdn at 9:51 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney's best or only chance is to start his opening address in this manner.

Heeeey, Wealthy Ladies!

Also on Youtube.
posted by zarq at 9:51 AM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

CSMonitor - Presidential Debate: What To Look For Beyond Who Wins or Loses

In a wide-reaching discussion Monday with journalists and academics – including veteran broadcast journalist Sander Vanocur, who served as a panelist in the first Nixon-Kennedy debate in 1960 – the Newseum's First Amendment Center and the National Communication Association explored what else citizens watching the debates should look for to get the most insight into the candidates.

posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:52 AM on October 3, 2012

Just in case anyone should have high expectations of me going into tonight's debate, I'd like to be clear that I'm really not much of a debater. I'm sure the other guy will do much better. I'm just not that kind of zinging, mix-it-up kind of fellow. I'm sure the other guy, with his years of experience with argument, will walk all over me. In fact, I don't really like arguing at all. I haven't won a debate in thirty years. There was a mock debate once in middle school, and when Ms. Jensen reminded me to make eye contact with my opponents, I curled up into the fetal position and started rocking while humming "This Land Is My Land" until the school nurse drove me home in the back of her station wagon. Flashbacks still make me freeze up at critical moments. My god, that station wagon was so warm and womb-like. In fact, I don't like speaking at all if I can avoid it. Sentences confuse me, unlike that big-shot other fella, who's going to be tap-dancing all around me for sure tonight with his fancy syntax. I wouldn't expect syntax out of me, or even words or basic hygiene. No, I think I'd count it a win if I was simply able to get through the night without dressing up in a clown suit and humping the podium until being dragged away by the secret service, and my dear old mom, murmuring "oh, there he goes again!" I hope you tune in.
posted by bicyclefish at 9:53 AM on October 3, 2012 [10 favorites]

CheeseDigestsAll: "I liked Ezra Klein's comment re zingers. "If your strategy to turn the presidential election around relies on Romney’s sense of comic timing, you might want to prepare a Plan B, as well.""

There's probably a GOP adviser tenting his fingers right now: "What if we... reintroduce him? Let the voters, you know, get to know him? Sort of... thing? Right?"
posted by boo_radley at 9:53 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm so excited I stayed home from work!

Actually, I'm working from home because I drive by DU every day, but tonight that section of I-25 will be closed and I really don't want to mess with traffic.
posted by jazon at 9:53 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

"I'll never apologize for America."

to be rejoindered by, "But America would have to apologize for you."
posted by edgeways at 9:54 AM on October 3, 2012 [22 favorites]

Just out of morbid curiosity, does anybody think that the debates are going to change anybody's minds?

They might if one of the candidates is new on the political scene, but generally I think it makes more sense to look at them sort of like the superbowl or world series. Just a chance to cheer for the home team in the gladiator's arena.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:54 AM on October 3, 2012

There's probably a GOP adviser tenting his fingers right now: "What if we... reintroduce him? Let the voters, you know, get to know him? Sort of... thing? Right?"

If that's true, then there will be a whole cadre of Obama advisers tenting their pants right now over how easy the win will be.
posted by chavenet at 9:55 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

jazon: "I'm so excited I stayed home from work!

Actually, I'm working from home because I drive by DU every day, but today that section of I-25 is closed and I really don't want to mess with traffic."

You lucky guy. I'm going from Englewood to Eire RIGHT AT FIVE. All of the light rail stations north of DU were full up, too.
posted by boo_radley at 9:55 AM on October 3, 2012

My fellow Americans... tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!!!.
posted by anarch at 9:55 AM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Tonight's magic phrase is "I'll never apologize for America." If you hear that phrase, you must chug your entire drink, pull your pants down, and slap your butt.

I have to wait until then?

*puts down drink*

*rebuckles belt*

*pouts*
posted by xingcat at 9:56 AM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

he's going to have to try something outside his comfort zone.
posted by The Whelk at 9:56 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

MetaFilter: epic game-changer or an airless, pre-orchestrated zinger-swap?
posted by Horace Rumpole at 9:56 AM on October 3, 2012 [17 favorites]

I will watch this, and watch it hard, but let me register my disgust at how we treat this stuff like a big fricking football game.
posted by Think_Long at 9:57 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

So we basicaly have 2 robots ignoring the questions, sticking to their scripts, and hoping to avoid statements that will be edited in to attack ads within 12 hours?
Yes, please, drinking game for me.
posted by Theta States at 9:57 AM on October 3, 2012

First Debate Often Helps Challenger in Polls (Nate Silver @ FiveThirtyEight)

The number of presidential elections decided by debates? Zero. (Ezra Klein @ WaPo)

News Coverage of Debates Matters More Than the Debates Themselves (Kevin Drum @ Mother Jones)

Debate Bumps, 1988-2008: The Chart (John Sides @ The Monkey Cage)

Presidential Debate Holds Slim Chance Of 'Game Change,' Polling Shows (Mark Blumenthal @ HuffPo)

Be Like Bill (David Kusnet @ American Prospect)

Why the Denver Debate Could Matter (Bob Moser & Jamie Fuller @ American Prospect)
posted by zombieflanders at 9:57 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm looking forward to the moment where Romney calls Obama a liar about something or other, and Obama cuts him off by catching the fly buzzing about with his bare hands.
posted by mkultra at 9:57 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

There's probably a GOP adviser tenting his fingers right now: "What if we... reintroduce him? Let the voters, you know, get to know him? Sort of... thing? Right?"

There is no probably about that 9at least the first part). Part of the Romney expectation of the debate is to "Introduce him to the American people".. no shit.
posted by edgeways at 9:58 AM on October 3, 2012

MY LINE IS QUITE VIRILE AND NUMEROUS IN THE MANNER OF YOUR EARTH RODENTS.

I MEAN OUR RODENTS. ON EARTH.

*bzzt* *sparks* *commercial break*
posted by ninjew at 9:58 AM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

You have to smoke a huge blunt if Romney says "Earthman" during the debate.

EDIT: You should probably smoke one anyway.
posted by Mister_A at 10:00 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

I was thinking that having members of the public ask the questions would be the best way to inject some real impor into this. But then I realized that those questioners are probably vetted and pre-screened to within an inch of their lives, aren't they?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:01 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Heh, edgeways, I just went looking for your comment in the other thread quoting that line!
posted by TwoWordReview at 10:02 AM on October 3, 2012

There is already an open post on tonight's U.S. presidential debate ...
posted by mrgrimm at 10:02 AM on October 3, 2012

Slugfest
posted by zarq at 10:02 AM on October 3, 2012

Just putting my placeholder in for the liveblogging* tonight. I'm far more excited to see the zingers MeFites come up with about Romny than any potential "zingers" the Romney camp cooked up about Obama.

*I typed this as "lieblogging" at first, and seriously considered keeping the typo.
posted by Phire at 10:03 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

As far as debates mattering or not, I think the Bush/Gore debate changed a lot of minds. Gore whupped up on Bush, and went a long way towards not appearing like an animate log.

It wasn't enough, of course, but I think it made an impact.

For this debate, I'll just say: Barack him, Obamadeus.
posted by BeeDo at 10:03 AM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Romney will be all prescripted speeches and canned "zingers" but the zingers will suffer from his utter lack of timing and connection to his audience. If Obama can pull him off-script, he'll get flustered.
posted by tyllwin at 10:03 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Leaked debate footage.
posted by drezdn at 10:04 AM on October 3, 2012

The debate may not change people's minds or sway the fabled undecided voter, but the after-debate spin could really help/harm the candidates in terms of

1) donations- no one wants to give money to a big loser. Better to give to a close Senate race, etc.

2) voter turnout. (this point is especially important for people who don't like Obama and would vote Romney but just find him so unappealing. But it also applies to Obama- can he rally the troops like he did in 2008?)
posted by murfed13 at 10:05 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

You have to smoke a huge blunt if Romney says "Earthman" during the debate.

My plan calls for me to ram my ovadespositor down your throat and lay eggs in your chest.
posted by The Whelk at 10:05 AM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

please keep me and the other Coloradoans in your thoughts

I grew up in a house less than a mile from the DU campus. My parents have left town completely for the debate. I told them they should have rented out their house to the press.
posted by ambrosia at 10:06 AM on October 3, 2012

I'm personally pretty happy that the structure is going to be a little tighter than usual, as it may help them stay on point, and for CNN to voluntarily engage in post-debate fact checking is a real improvement. But it's still boring.

I mean seriously - you watch these things in the hopes to see your guy lay down the ICE BURN on the other guy, or to see the guy you dislike do something truly embarrassing, like fart audibly or accidentally swallow his microphone. I'm sure somewhere there's folks who sit down calmly in front of the TV with a yellow legal pad that has a ROMNEY and OBAMA column and take dutiful notes, but for most, I'd venture debates are the political equivalent of a pro wrestling match, only without so much integrity and honesty.

So if we're going to have the major networks hijacked by shameless peacocking, how about having these two do something truly entertaining? Like, run a Men Of Ninja Warrior obstacle course, or a Hell's Kitchen style cook-off, a dance contest, karaoke, solo battles against each other with their musical instrument of choice? Some combination of some or all of these? Because I'd totally vote for the guy who could hit the high parts of "Whenever I Call You Friend."
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:06 AM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

"You're using 'your' in a nonspecific way," he said hopefully.

EDIT: @TheWhelk
posted by Mister_A at 10:07 AM on October 3, 2012

You want zingers?

In the course of his debates against Stephen Douglas -- a man of short stature but towering rhetoric -- Abraham Lincoln is supposed to have re-purposed a humorous story he'd been telling for years (paraphrasing):

The Senator reminds me of a trifling little steamboat I once made the acquaintance of, which used to bustle and puff and wheeze about the Sangamon River. It had a five-foot boiler and and a seven-foot whistle, and every time it blew the whistle, it stopped. Also, he's no Jack Kennedy.

Anyhow, that's how my granddaddy told it me.

posted by Herodios at 10:07 AM on October 3, 2012 [12 favorites]

"I liked Ezra Klein's comment re zingers. "If your strategy to turn the presidential election around relies on Romney’s sense of comic timing, you might want to prepare a Plan B, as well.""

Then they're in trouble, because Republicans really hate Plan B.
posted by curious nu at 10:07 AM on October 3, 2012 [43 favorites]

edgeways: "Part of the Romney expectation of the debate is to "Introduce him to the American people".. no shit."

The guy has run for President twice and has committed some major gaffes. How often are they going to pull this "political dark horse" bullshit?
posted by zarq at 10:07 AM on October 3, 2012

Obama is one of the great orators of this generation. No matter who you are, pinning your hopes on winning a debate against him is like betting on the 30-1 longshot at the track.

And if you have Romney's history of coming across like a badly programmed robot, it's more like betting on the 100-1 longshot.

Actually, there is one time where Romney didn't come across as a robot, and that was on the secret fundraiser film where he started talking about the 47%. You could see his pulse quicken and his tempo increase as he explained about these freeloaders who don't contribute -- you could tell that this was genuine, this was something he actually believed in. Too bad it's not something you dare say in public if you want those people to vote for you.
posted by localroger at 10:08 AM on October 3, 2012 [12 favorites]

wp on Lincoln-Douglas:

The format for each debate was: one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate was allowed a 30-minute "rejoinder."

[ . . . ]

Modern presidential debates trace their roots to the Lincoln–Douglas Debates, though the format today is remarkably different from the original.

Indeed.

posted by Herodios at 10:08 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

lots of video ahead:

Obama, Romney Set To Spar Amid Video Controversy

oh, livestream!

What You Need To Know Before Tonight's Debate!

ABC News Politics Center

ABC News Live Video Coverage

YOUTUBE LIVESTREAM LINK
8 pm Eastern Standard Time

iPhone, iPad and Android links
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:10 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Romney will have an excellent opportunity to introduce himself to the American people in his concession speech.
posted by 2bucksplus at 10:10 AM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

How often are they going to pull this "political dark horse" bullshit?

Probably as often as the one about how W Bush was a folksy guy from Texas, and not a part of the political machine from Connecticut.
posted by inigo2 at 10:11 AM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

I would love to see Obama counter Romney's 47% speech with something like "My opponent has said it's not his job to worry about those of you who don't support him. For four years now, I have been President of people who support me and like me, of people who don't support me and dislike me, even of people who believe I lie about my religion and my place of birth. Every day of those four years, I have worked to make life better for each and every one of you, no matter your feelings about me, and I will continue to do so if you re-elect me. I consider it my job to worry about every single person in this country."
posted by sallybrown at 10:11 AM on October 3, 2012 [16 favorites]

YOUTUBE LIVESTREAM LINK

I am proud to be the first person in the world to "thumbs down" that video
posted by theodolite at 10:11 AM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Debates have never, ever changed the course of an election. Ever. Not even in 1960.
posted by Foosnark at 10:12 AM on October 3, 2012

Jim Lehrer has selected the topics for the first meeting between President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

OMG Jim Lehrer, with his big brown button teddy bear eyes. I love him.
posted by ersatzkat at 10:12 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I actually think the "zingers" leak is a Romney headfake. It's so out of character for him (he's a horrible showman) and it would play to Romney's weakness, not his strength. The only way for Romney to succeed in this debate is for him to know his stuff inside and out and beat Obama on points, not style. Obama gets flustered when he begins to doubt that he's the smartest man in the room. If Romney has done his homework on the federal budget, the debt and the economy, he has a shot at this. Leave the zingers out.
posted by BobbyVan at 10:13 AM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

This'll be interesting for people looking for either candidate to make an ass of himself (or being made one) through one, condensed, beautiful moment – that they can latch on for until November, as if it is somehow emblematic of everything that candidate represents.
posted by flippant at 10:14 AM on October 3, 2012

With those questions planned that pretty much means no moderator is going to ask the candidates any questions about "women's issues". Birth control, abortion, Lilly Ledbetter (sp?) Act...
posted by edgeways at 10:14 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Romney will have an excellent opportunity to introduce himself to the American people in his concession speech.

They won't really get to know him until his cryogenically preserved kidneys debate an Uplifted dolphin in 2348.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:14 AM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Float like a butterfly
Sting like a bee
His zingers can't hit
Because he's Mitt Romney (for Pete's sake)
posted by tonycpsu at 10:14 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I might watch the Democracy Now version though, with Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson.
posted by Foosnark at 10:15 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Nobody's undecided at this point. They just don't want to tell you.

I used to believe that, until I genuinely found myself undecided about this election. Should I be pragmatic and vote for Obama, or should I vote my conscience and favor Stein? I live in Maryland, a reliably blue state, so it wouldn't really matter. In the end I decided that I'll vote for Obama and donate some money to the MD Green Party instead, but for a moment there I really was an undecided voter. It actually happens.

(Of course, anyone who says they're undecided between Obama and Romney is either lying or an idiot. Or a lying idiot.)

I am proud to be the first person in the world to "thumbs down" that video

I was the second.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:15 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

PBS Newshour Stream

NPR live chat
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:17 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama gets flustered when he begins to doubt that he's the smartest man in the room.

[citation needed]

Also, while Romney certainly knows more than most of us about how to dodge taxes (legally of course) and hide income overseas and making money by gutting the ruins of floundering companies, it is plain to see that he has a vast ignorance on little matters like foreign policy or what it's like to be poor, and no amount of cramming is going to fill that void.
posted by localroger at 10:17 AM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

I'm going to pretend that Jim Lehrer is PeeWee Herman.
posted by perhapses at 10:17 AM on October 3, 2012

I actually think the "zingers" leak is a Romney headfake.

Probably right... remember how "tough" McCain was going to be?

Uplifted dolphin in 2348.

no way he has the musical ability to be Uplifted into a dolphin. Perhaps if they start uplifting cacti.
posted by edgeways at 10:17 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

If nobody is truly undecided, what would have to happen at the debate to make you reconsider your choice? I mean, even if my guy dropped his pants and started screaming profanity, I'd still be inclined to think, "Well, we all have days like that."

(Wait, you mean you DON'T have days like that?)
posted by Longtime Listener at 10:19 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Kaiser Health News is offering a BINGO game ("DEBATE-O") for the segment on health policy.
posted by Snerd at 10:19 AM on October 3, 2012

I'm prepared for this debate to be boring, but unlike many people I think there's the possibility for something exciting to break out for one simple reason:

Mitt Romney clearly does not think highly of President Obama (or most people) because Mitt Romney is That Rich Guy. Conversely, it has been quite clear all through this campaign that not only does Obama not like Romney, he doesn't respect Romney either.

Mutual intense dislike might not be enough to get some real sparks flying, but it's a better chance than anything else.
posted by mightygodking at 10:19 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

At last we'll get our leaders on the hot chair. President Obama, can you explain how Homeland won both the Golden Globe and Emmy over Downtown Abbey, Breaking Bad, Boardwalk Empire AND Game of Thrones?

Easy; the overlap between fans of the other programs split the vote. There's an important lesson there about 3rd party candidates, the ballot system and game theory.
posted by 2bucksplus at 10:20 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Obama, Romney Set To Spar Amid Video Controversy

Tucker Carlson Wants You To Enlist In Race War Against Jive-Talking President
posted by homunculus at 10:21 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

localroger: Actually, there is one time where Romney didn't come across as a robot, and that was on the secret fundraiser film where he started talking about the 47%. You could see his pulse quicken and his tempo increase as he explained about these freeloaders who don't contribute -- you could tell that this was genuine, this was something he actually believed in. Too bad it's not something you dare say in public if you want those people to vote for you.

Yeah, that was the first time I ever believed anything Romney said. That was absolutely genuine, the real Mitt.

That's why he's so hard to read, most of the time, and why he doesn't seem to have any consistent positions. Demanding money from the 47% is his real position, but he can hardly go telling the 47% that.
posted by Malor at 10:21 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Over on the monster thread Phrie recently added

"Since you guys are the only ones I know who would care:

John Hawkins: "A white woman voting for Barack Obama is like a black woman voting for the KKK."

Follow-up: "Conservatives, including Mitt, have similar things said about them every day of week. The dif is Obama actually is a racist."

Who is John Hawkins, you ask? A blogger for Mitt Romney's official website.

So yeah."

posted by edgeways at 10:21 AM on October 3, 2012 [15 favorites]

It might be a head fake, but zingers are an accurate representation about what people remember from the debates.

Since Mitt's been prepping them since August, I'm hoping he drops something out of date....

Like "Obama is so misguided he thinks Detroit could get to the World Series, or Arizona could win the Super Bowl."
posted by drezdn at 10:21 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Just out of morbid curiosity, does anybody think that the debates are going to change anybody's minds?

No, but like some co-dependent democracy addict, I'll tune in anyway and hold up my lighted iPhone in the darkness of the living room.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:22 AM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

If Romney has done his homework on the federal budget, the debt and the economy, he has a shot at this

Fat chance. Romney has refused to get specific about his tax and economic plans, for the obvious reason that they simply don't add up. And after the Bush presidency -- if not Reagan's -- the old voodoo economics arguments just don't work any more.
posted by Gelatin at 10:23 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama gets flustered when he begins to doubt that he's the smartest man in the room.

Please link to one, single clip of a flustered Obama.

Just one.
posted by adamdschneider at 10:24 AM on October 3, 2012 [20 favorites]

This page is already over 120 comments. At this rate it'll be bigger than the Romney gaffe page before the debate starts.
posted by nushustu at 10:25 AM on October 3, 2012

Still, now, really? I understand the partisan people on both sides, and the people opposed to politicians and voting, although I don't agree - but undecided?

There could be people who were considering voting Green. I was, before Bill Clinton happened at the Dem con.
posted by Malice at 10:27 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm going to wake up at 4am here in England so I can watch this. I'm particularly listening for dogwhistles...there's been a few that have been floating around this election season (illegals, voter ID, women's health, etc.) and I'm trying to update a paper with current data (so I can submit it to a journal for publication, hopefully). 2008 was rich, but that was oh so long ago.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:29 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Hi new thread! Make us proud.
posted by diogenes at 10:30 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Please link to one, single clip of a flustered Obama.

Not even yogurt can break Obama's Jedi-like powers of composure!
posted by sallybrown at 10:30 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Obama gets flustered when he begins to doubt that he's the smartest man in the room.

Huh?

If Romney has done his homework on the federal budget, the debt and the economy, he has a shot at this.

Of course, the easy response to this is simply for Obama to ask how his economic ideas differ from W.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:30 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Romney has refused to get specific about his tax and economic plans, for the obvious reason that they simply don't add up.

And this has me completely freaking puzzled. You're a politician, right? Been doing this for a while? Lie! At least make the effort! For God's sake, Obama is touting sequestration as the first step in his budget plan!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:32 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Please link to one, single clip of a flustered Obama.

Some analysis I've seen that makes sense to me is the concept that Romney's failing to break through with independent voters in part because he's attacking an Obama that only exists in the 27%-crazification-factor, Tea Party, wingnut imagination. He has to keep attacking strawman-Obama to maintain any enthusiasm among his rabid base, but after four years of a mild, Eisenhower Republican-style presidency, most people just don't see him that way. (Case in point: the recent Drudge Report flop.)

That, and I agree that his Randian 47% comment is about the most genuine Romney has seemed in this election cycle.
posted by Gelatin at 10:32 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Even more unlikely than finding a clip of Obama being flustered is one that shows Obama doubting he's the smartest man in the room. I'm pretty sure that same confidence that makes me like him is what makes a lot of people not.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:33 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Conversely, it has been quite clear all through this campaign that not only does Obama not like Romney, he doesn't respect Romney either.

More than that -- he thinks it's a miracle that this guy is his opponent. An out-of-touch rich guy who wants to cut taxes on the rich and dismantle the welfare state, all while radiating contempt for the commoners? It's like a bad novel.
posted by leopard at 10:35 AM on October 3, 2012

I just hope Romney wears a monocle tonight, that's all I'm asking for!

EDIT: Also ROMENTUM BABY
posted by Mister_A at 10:36 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

And this has me completely freaking puzzled. You're a politician, right? Been doing this for a while? Lie! At least make the effort!

But he has been. Romney and Ryan have been saying for a while now that they can cut taxes for the rich, not cut benefits for or raise taxes on the middle class, and not explode the deficit. We've heard that song before*, though, and there's just no getting around the fact that the numbers just don't add up.

*Remember back in 2000 when George W. Bush complained about Al Gore's "fuzzy math"? Good times...
posted by Gelatin at 10:37 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

If you're interested in the history of the debates, UChicago Press is giving away an ebook.
posted by Runes at 10:37 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

I like the raspberry Zingers.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:37 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

you watch these things in the hopes to see your guy lay down the ICE BURN on the other guy, or to see the guy you dislike do something truly embarrassing, like fart audibly

I could imagine Romney, stressed, farting audibly and starting to crack up, and descending into uncontrollable laughter. Sadly for him, it's about the most winning and endearing thing I could imagine him doing at this point.
posted by msalt at 10:38 AM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

BobbyVan: “Obama gets flustered when he begins to doubt that he's the smartest man in the room.”

A few people have demanded citations for this. I don't want to just add to the chorus, so I'll be as blunt as I can about how this seems to me:

The biggest liability Obama has is his extraordinary confidence, which borders on arrogance when he knows he's right. It reads as arrogance with conservatives, although most voters haven't picked up on that quite yet.

If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what the Romney camp is hoping for as they head into this debate. They've had Romney stress that 'this isn't about winning or losing,' and while that's a standard hedge, I think it's fair to say that everything is planned on their side right now. I have a strong feeling that what they're hoping for is to make Romney look more human by catching Obama on the attack, by letting Obama come out with guns blazing (like I'm sure he wants to) and letting him appear to be a colossal jerk who's full of facts and figures but doesn't care who he hurts. That would humanize Romney greatly, and if Romney played it right it could be a win.

I have to say, though, that the idea that "Obama gets flustered" in any situation seems categorically wrong to me. Frankly, that's what conservatives generally hate about him so much – his ingrained confidence in anything and everything he does in public, and his refusal to let even the most dire situation unnerve him. Conservatives read that as arrogance – cold, untempered, unshakeable arrogance – and it seems to be a key part of their dislike of him.

But then, I'm not a conservative, so you can correct me if you think I'm wrong there.
posted by koeselitz at 10:38 AM on October 3, 2012 [13 favorites]

Who is John Hawkins, you ask? A blogger for Mitt Romney's official website.

Yeah, this was predicted in the MegaThread, too: now that he's behind and losing ground, they are going to uncork all of the nastiest, low-down attacks they can, and pray one of them sticks. Apparently, race baiting is the only hope Mitt has left in the swing states, and that's pretty sad.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:39 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

If Romney has done his homework on the federal budget, the debt and the economy, he has a shot at this.

If it was about doing "homework" Romney would be arguing for a second stimulus and a modest tax increase on the wealthy. The Republicans' economic theories don't line up with realistic goals, let alone their stated goals.

This has nothing to do with being the smartest person in the room; it's about how well Romney can sell and/or hide an ideological view on fiscal matters that would, in economic terms, objectively disadvantage most Americans.

The sort of fact-based prep you are talking about only works in empirical arguments when everyone more or less agrees on fundamentals and overarching goals. Romney and Obama do not share a consensus on reality, goals, or both. So this debate at best is a normative one, but more likely will have virtually no substance. Hence, "zingers" to hide an ideology.
posted by spaltavian at 10:40 AM on October 3, 2012 [11 favorites]

... I er.. kinda want the president to be the smartest man in the room. One of the things I disliked about Bush Jr. and Reagan for that matter was the certainty they where not all that smart. Bush Sr. I disliked on policy alone, but respected his intelligence. Which is why, I suspect, Bush Sr. is actually seen pretty favorably by both B. Clinton, and Obama. Clinton spends a lot of time with Bush Sr. And will even drop by unannounced.

He even has a (kinda positive) nickname amongst the numerous Bush clan.
posted by edgeways at 10:40 AM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

I don't have anything meaningful to contribute, but every time I read or hear the word "zing" or "zinger", I hear the "Zing of the day!" jingle from Radio Free Sealab.
posted by frijole at 10:41 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Here's the real drinking game:

Watch the debate.

Realize these two are literally the best people either party could find to put forward for presidency of a fading superpower.

Drink.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 10:42 AM on October 3, 2012 [11 favorites]

mightygodking: “Conversely, it has been quite clear all through this campaign that not only does Obama not like Romney, he doesn't respect Romney either.”

Absolutely. That's Obama's biggest liability here. In 2008, Obama had an opponent he respected – and incidentally who respected him. That was good for Obama, I think, because it pushed this personal stuff to the background and made the issues a lot clearer.

This debate is Obama's to lose. The easiest way for Obama to lose it, I think, would be for him to go all attack-dog on Romney and make it clear how much he despises him. Which would be very easy, frankly.
posted by koeselitz at 10:43 AM on October 3, 2012

Please link to one, single clip of a flustered Obama.

I think his exchange with Paul Ryan at the Blair House on health care is a good example of this. Ryan takes apart the President's health care plan with facts and statistics, and Obama responds rather weakly by saying "there are disagreements about the numbers" and totally avoids the substance of Ryan's critique by claiming that he doesn't want to get "bogged down" with details. Much of the remainder of his response is a defensive dodge, addressing Medicare Advantage and not Ryan's argument about the President's health care bill.
posted by BobbyVan at 10:43 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Or this version of the drinking game: Get really drunk before the debate begins. At some point during the debate, vomit.
posted by perhapses at 10:43 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

God. I just realised I need to wake up at 3am, not 4am.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:44 AM on October 3, 2012

It reads as arrogance with conservatives, although most voters haven't picked up on that quite yet.

It might be that it comes across as arrogant to conservatives because they already dislike him, and if someone you don't like acts confident it always comes across as arrogance - most voters might not pick up on that because they aren't predisposed to disliking him.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:44 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I just hope that people keep pumping nickels into the Romney Mechanical Turk so he doesn't seize up mid sentence.
posted by klangklangston at 10:45 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Frankly, that's what conservatives generally hate about him so much – his ingrained confidence in anything and everything he does in public, and his refusal to let even the most dire situation unnerve him.

I see that as being because conservatives want to see liberals and Democrats as losers and weaklings (hence the Republicans' ineffective attempts to paint Obama as an "appeaser" and generally cast him as Jimmy Carter Redux -- except that Obama's no Carter and, more importantly, Romney is no Reagan).

Even Bill Clinton's success was built in part around "triangulation" -- that is, appropriating, and therefore conceding, Republican frames. Obama is painted as "divisive" because he won't accept the standard Republican definition of "bipartisanship": Doing what the Republicans want.

Like Clinton -- whose confidence, I suspect, was part of what got under Republican skin too -- Obama just won't fit the weakling stereotype. Remember all the Republican whining when Obama meets with their leadership and refuses to concede their bogus math?
posted by Gelatin at 10:47 AM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

I'm more worried Mitt will just have a complete meltdown onstage, when it becomes evident that none of his zingers went off correctly and time has basically run out. He doesn't seem to have any kind of history of losing gracefully, and his wife's comment about mental health struck me as ominous and weirdly candid. For these debates to 'work' for Obama, Willard has to be able to soak up some damage.
posted by newdaddy at 10:48 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I don't think Obama is going to go on the attack. He has no reason to. He's winning.
posted by empath at 10:51 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

By contrast, Mitt Romney and Ryan get flustered when asked for specific details about anything, instead trying to defer until after the election.
posted by cashman at 10:52 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

I just hope that people keep pumping nickels into the Romney Mechanical Turk so he doesn't seize up mid sentence.

I've said this before: He slowly winds down like HAL dying in mid-speech
posted by The Whelk at 10:53 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Mitt Romney also gets flustered when asked why he won't release a good amount of tax returns like other candidates for president do. Or when he is asked about his offshore accounts, and how there is almost no way he didn't get tax breaks as a result.
posted by cashman at 10:53 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

BobbyVan: “I think his exchange with Paul Ryan at the Blair House on health care is a good example of this. Ryan takes apart the President's health care plan with facts and statistics, and Obama responds rather weakly by saying "there are disagreements about the numbers" and totally avoids the substance of Ryan's critique by claiming that he doesn't want to get "bogged down" with details. Much of the remainder of his response is a defensive dodge, addressing Medicare Advantage and not Ryan's argument about the President's health care bill.”

This isn't "facts and figures." It's rambling, and it roams from a few numbers about the Senate bill (not "the President's health care plan" – Paul claims the Senate bill is "similar" and then goes on to talk as though they're exactly the same thing) to deeper issues about whether "the American people" want "a government takeover of health care." The latter, which constitutes the bulk of Ryan's question, is not a factual discussion; it is (quite frankly) a discussion laden with inflammatory posturing and deceptive phrases like "government takeover."

This guarantees that Obama's answer has to be abstract. And as Obama says at the beginning of his answer, there are significant disagreements about the numbers that Ryan quotes – numbers which are, in my view, entirely unreliable and not applicable to the bill in question.

More to the point, there is clearly no point at which Obama acts as though he's "flustered." If you see flustered there, you haven't watched many politicians before. One can claim that Obama is totally dodging the question, and that's fair (even if I disagree with it) but he does it confidently.
posted by koeselitz at 10:54 AM on October 3, 2012 [14 favorites]

Mitt Romney's head could fall off halfway through the debate, and as it rolls across the stage splashing gore on a horrified crowd Fox News will be be declaring him the winner based on his bold new approach to self-decapitation.

I predict a boring evening of predictable sound bites confirming my pre-existing prejudices.

Fortunately, I have beer!
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:55 AM on October 3, 2012 [14 favorites]

Oh, that's good, Whelk:

Jim Lehrer: Final statement, Governor Romney?
MITT ROMNEY: WILL I DREAM
posted by boo_radley at 10:56 AM on October 3, 2012 [37 favorites]

I don't think Obama is going to go on the attack. He has no reason to. He's winning.

Yeah, I can't really imagine Obama going into attack mode here, either. And not just because he's winning; it's sort of his whole raison d'etre to be the cool cucumber in the midst of a debate. It's likely his responses will be impassioned, but not fighty. Romney's camp, by contrast, have already said that Mitt intends to be more aggressive. As easily as Mitt gets all blithery and uncomfortable any time speaking off the cuff is required, it will likely be a somewhat dull affair to see Obama respond to him. The least ABC could do was hire Ashton Kutcher to stand off-stage and yell "BURRRN!" every now and then.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:56 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I just hope that people keep pumping nickels into the Romney Mechanical Turk so he doesn't seize up mid sentence.

I've said this before: He slowly winds down like HAL dying in mid-speech

His head makes one complete revolution just before that happens.
posted by Phyllis Harmonic at 10:56 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

What I would give anything for is a few inspired questions, ones that they can not give canned speech answers to.

"The US government has a complex and archaic structure for interacting with its Native American population. What works? What doesn't? What would you change?"

"This has happened to you many times in your life. A person on the street asks you for money. What is your response? And why?"
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:57 AM on October 3, 2012 [24 favorites]

Also, I remember watching that hearing that was linked, when it was happening. Barack was facilitating the meeting, and working with Republicans. It wasn't a debate. It was a place to get things done and solved, not to shout down Paul Ryan or eviscerate the points he made during 6 straight minutes of speaking.

And regardless, Obama goes into the details and talks about the purposes of the program. It's a great example of facilitating a meeting and trying to find agreement with people in the opposing party. And you finding that as a moment of weakness, is telling. As Jon Stewart said - you're hurting our country. Government representatives are supposed to work together when they disagree (but need to come to an agreement to get things done), and that was a moment of facilitation.
posted by cashman at 10:59 AM on October 3, 2012 [21 favorites]

Allow me to express my sincere doubt that Romney can go 'on the offensive' without saying something ...offensive.
posted by obscurator at 10:59 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

"An out-of-control train is hurtling towards a group of people, and the only way to stop it is to push a man next to you onto the track ..."

"Beatles or Stones, and why?"

"What is best in life?"
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:59 AM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Romney has two possible strategies. One would be to come out and completely dazzle. Not necessarily in terms of personal charm, but in laying out a complete budget/healthcare plan. Actually show the business acumen he keeps claiming. Obama's lead is small enough that such a move, if it resonates, could actually turn things around on him. The other is to go on all-out attack and hope to win the public impression that way.

The problem with the second strategy is that Obama, as the current leader, will be completely unwilling to join a heated argument. The problem with the first strategy is that if Romney could do any of that stuff he wouldn't have waited for October.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:00 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Obama has the luxury of a lead; he will almost certainly try and get Romney so aggressive that he starts to drift away from looking presidential. Amusingly enough, it's exactly the game Romney played during the primaries. Obama has more to lose and the Angry Black Man thing to fight against, so it's hard to see what the advantage is for him in being the risk-taker.
posted by jaduncan at 11:00 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Right now in a secret bunker: Romney Training Montage!
posted by seanmpuckett at 11:01 AM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

I think his exchange with Paul Ryan at the Blair House on health care is a good example of this. Ryan takes apart the President's health care plan with facts and statistics, and Obama responds rather weakly by saying "there are disagreements about the numbers" and totally avoids the substance of Ryan's critique by claiming that he doesn't want to get "bogged down" with details. Much of the remainder of his response is a defensive dodge, addressing Medicare Advantage and not Ryan's argument about the President's health care bill.

Hilariously, almost every site that links to this video is from the Breitbart and right-wing bloggers fist-pumping how Ryan flustered Obama for all of 5 seconds, so way to go on following the talking points.

As for the substance, disregarding the problem for Mitt Romney in that he is neither as good with numbers nor as personable as Ryan, much of the gist of the argument was about Medicare and bluster about evil gubmint takeovers. So talking about Medicare Advantage isn't necessarily a dodge. And despite the fact that Obama says he doesn't want to get into the numbers, within a minute or two, that's exactly what he does.

And let's not forget that at the time, Ryan's plan wasn't getting mainstream Americans' attention. Now that it has, they really really don't like it, at least not outside the hardcore GOP base. So much so, that when pressed on it, Romney had to say that the Ryan plan wasn't the Romney plan (although that was a blatant lie). And unless he's come up with an entirely new tax plan, one that isn't scored by everyone but his campaign staff to massively jack up taxes on the lower and middle classes while slashing the taxes on top earners, I'm not sure where he's going to come up with a good economic argument without straight-up lying, which I don't see scoring him any points, rhetorical or otherwise.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:03 AM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

BobbyVan: "I think his exchange with Paul Ryan at the Blair House on health care yt is a good example of this."

In addition to endorsing koeselitz's comment that Obama was in no way flustered at any point during that video, I'd like to point out that Paul Ryan had the same "half a trillion" (actually $716 billion) in "cuts" to Medicare in his own budget. Talking about "raiding" a trust fund in the context of the federal budget is an old Republican trick, because though most funding programs like Social Security and Medicare come from dedicated taxes, they are not required to be firewalled from the federal budget, and since money is fungible, what really matters is the total funding for the program, not which revenue stream it comes from.

Ryan's complaint about a bill that the CBO couldn't score is particularly rich in light of how he instructed the CBO to look at his budget without detailing how he'd make the numbers add up.

The thing about these cuts is that they’re not really thought through. Ryan hasn’t said which programs they’ll hit. And he doesn’t have some theory about how we can spend less and get more, as he does for Medicare with his voucher plan. He’s just slashing things to make his numbers add up. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ran the numbers and said two-thirds of Ryan’s cuts will end up falling on programs for the poor.

The reason he’s got to do that is that Ryan doesn’t raise taxes. But here’s the magic trick of Ryan’s budget, and this is really important. Ryan extends all the Bush tax cuts, and then he adds a bunch of new tax cuts costing more than $4.5 trillion. So how does he pay for them?

He doesn’t. But he told Congress’s budget guys to assume he’d figure out how to pay for them later. To pay for those, you’d need to eliminate almost everything else in the tax code — the home mortgage interest deduction, the Child Tax Credit, the deduction for state and local taxes, most all of it. Ryan hasn’t named one that he’d eliminate. So there’s a mystery $4.5 trillion in tax increases sitting at the center of Ryan’s budget promises.

So every time you see anyone say that Ryan’s budget reduces the debt, they’re assuming he really will find some way to pay for his tax cuts. If he doesn’t, then his plan blows a multitrillion dollar hole in the budget, even after cutting all that spending.

But I should know better than to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:03 AM on October 3, 2012 [13 favorites]

This guarantees that Obama's answer has to be abstract. And as Obama says at the beginning of his answer, there are significant disagreements about the numbers that Ryan quotes – numbers which are, in my view, entirely unreliable and not applicable to the bill in question.

Exactly -- Obama refuses to concede Ryan's premise, and given that the latter dishonestly describes a health reform plan that originated with the American Enterprise Institute as a "government takeover," he's right to do so. (I'll admit that one well might be flustered at the breaqthtaking dishonesty of Republican operatives during the health care debate, but that's another issue, and anyway Obama didn't seem so.)

And yet, simply by refusing to accept false Republican premises, it's Obama who's labeled as "uncivil" and "divisive."

All of which whining, really, is an admission that Ryan's little speech doesn't stand on its merits.
posted by Gelatin at 11:03 AM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Foosnark: I might watch the Democracy Now version though, with Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson.

Yeah, me too. Either that, or I run down the street yelling whatacrock at the top of my lungs.

Okay, wait. I gottabetteridea.

No debate. They play cribbage. Lehrer handles the cards. If Obama wins I vote for him. If Romney wins, I vote for Obama.
posted by mule98J at 11:07 AM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

God. I just realised I need to wake up at 3am, not 4am.

Iamkimiam, London is five hours ahead of ET, no? So you'll need to get up at 2am to see a debate that begins at 9pm ET, unless I'm being stupid about this for some reason. (I was already thinking about this because I had to call London earlier today.)
posted by Mothlight at 11:09 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

In the opposite universe, Obama is always flustered. Also wears a goatee. Still fucking sexy as hell.
posted by angrycat at 11:09 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

I remember I mentioned it somewhere during the Republican debates, but really there isn't any reason why we can't have some live fact checking during the debates. Before asking a question to the candidate, the moderator can list all of the things that the candidate said in his last answer that were wrong. (My other suggestion for the primary debates, waterboarding the candidates before asking them the questions, doesn't really apply as well here).

Alternate debate suggestion, since we've given up on substance in debates anyway, is to lock someone in a room and make them think they're doing a Turing test when instead they are actually asking the debate questions. My prediction is that both candidates would be ruled to be computers.
posted by ckape at 11:14 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

(Forgive me if this has already been voiced in the above comments)

Unless Mitt Romney faints, vomits or otherwise physically melts down on stage, the media will be all atwitter about how well he did and how this changes the race. It is in the media's best interest. Romney has done them the favor of having a craptastic, self-inflicted-woundfest of a September, but this only adds to the drama of a surprising reversal... and so that's what we will be told will happen.

It hardly matters what they say. It hardly matters which of them actually does well. The media machine (regardless of its leanings) needs the drama, and so the machine will create it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:16 AM on October 3, 2012 [27 favorites]

OMG Jim Lehrer, with his big brown button teddy bear eyes. I love him.

Wow. Never really thought of the country's most respected news person and it's widely recognized, if unofficial, Dean of Journalism and ex-marine as a teddy bear with "big brown button eyes," but I think you're totally right...

He's a bit of hero of mine, mostly because he's so imminently professional, but also because he knows when he's hit a nerve and it's time to probe a bit, and I'm really hoping he gives Romster enough time and enough angles of gentle encouragement with follow-up questions about his "47%" comment to basically allow the man to self-combust once in for all tonight and supernova himself spectacularly as a lesson for one and all on the dangers of vanity, vapidity, self-absorption, hubris and mistaking wealth for inner wisdom or leadership skills.
posted by Skygazer at 11:18 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Iamkimiam, London is five hours ahead of ET, no? So you'll need to get up at 2am to see a debate that begins at 9pm ET

Correct. It's 02:00 UK time.
posted by jaduncan at 11:19 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

DreamLehrer: You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?

But it'll never happen, as the Voight-Kampff test would be decried for being biased against replicants.
posted by frimble at 11:21 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I remember I mentioned it somewhere during the Republican debates, but really there isn't any reason why we can't have some live fact checking during the debates.

Honestly, I would like if they just put the full text of the question on the screen as each candidate answers.
posted by spaltavian at 11:21 AM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

I don't know if this is really a good article or not, but I think it solidified in my head the underlying philosophies on either side. It also makes me a bit more enthusiastic about voting for Obama as it reminds me that the jobs issue is about demand and not supply.
posted by charred husk at 11:22 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney spikes to 29.1% on Intrade!
posted by Theta States at 11:22 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

As an Obama fan, I'm okay with the idea that the media may spin things in Romney's favor no matter what, to heighten the drama of the horse race. It will drive me nuts and force me to change channels during the news lest my mood be ruined, but it will probably also help keep me, and others like me, from getting too complacent about Obama's chances in the election.

I think democratic turn out will be higher if the election looks likely to be reasonably close than if Romney continues to look so politically weak. His perceived non-threatening-ness might be one of his biggest assets at this point, suppressing turn out among his opposition. So, okay, let the media play up his chances, and fire up his opposition.
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:23 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama gets flustered when he begins to doubt that he's the smartest man in the room.

That's bullshit. I don't particularly like his record, but I have never once seen him get flustered. Not even with Ryan's proposal. Citation please.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:23 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Lehrer: The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that, Mitt?
posted by entropicamericana at 11:24 AM on October 3, 2012 [13 favorites]

Beaten by frimble, blast it!
posted by entropicamericana at 11:25 AM on October 3, 2012

That's bullshit. I don't particularly like his record, but I have never once seen him get flustered.

Yeah, his MO is to be chilled so the other person turns up the volume and looks unreasonable.
posted by jaduncan at 11:25 AM on October 3, 2012

Obama gets flustered when he begins to doubt that he's the smartest man in the room.

I'm seconding B. Pileon. That's a load of horse-pucky. Obama simply does not do "flustered."
posted by Skygazer at 11:26 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

In a new study, Chuck Blahous, who is a public trustee for Medicare and Social Security, concludes that the 2010 health law will add at least $340 billion to the federal deficit from 2012-2021. This is contrary to the official estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, which initially figured the Affordable Care Act would reduce the deficit by about $132 billion from 2012-2019.

Paul goes on further to say that the big difference between his party and the President is that "We don't want government to be in control of all of this. We want people to be in control of all of this."

Unless, of course, those people elect politicians who promise to introduce health care reform.

That's my basic problem with the Romney/Ryan ticket. They campaign under the idea that they are the defenders of freedom, but when you look at their record, they defend private wealth and power, period. Instead of being conservative on tax policy, including rolling back the tax breaks for the wealthy that we can no longer afford, they are staunchly set against any tax increases for the wealthy. They oppose reductions in "defense" spending. The are only conservative about money when that money goes to help anyone they don't approve of. Take a look for yourself:

In 2001, Ryan led a coterie of conservatives who complained that George W. Bush’s $1.2 trillion tax cut was too small, and too focused on the middle class. In 2003, he lobbied Republicans to pass Bush’s deficit-financed prescription-drug benefit, which bestowed huge profits on the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. In 2005, when Bush campaigned to introduce private accounts into Social Security, Ryan fervently crusaded for the concept. He was the sponsor in the House of a bill to create new private accounts funded entirely by borrowing, with no benefit cuts. Ryan’s plan was so staggeringly profligate, entailing more than $2 trillion in new debt over the first decade alone, that even the Bush administration opposed it as “irresponsible.”

Romney's record surely doesn't need an accounting, but if you've been living under his car elevator for the last ten years, I can provide more detail about his unwavering support for all Americans who are exactly like himself.

The bottom line is that claiming to state facts and actually stating facts are not the same thing, especially concerning Paul Ryan. I'll give him credit for at least reading bills, but let's leave the parades of adoration for the day when he understands them.
posted by deanklear at 11:28 AM on October 3, 2012 [19 favorites]

Things would have to be vastly worse for Obama to be in danger of losing it. He may get cocky, he may come off as too cerebral or arrogant or whatever, but an Obama meltdown/tantrum/ragefest would indeed be a genuine shocker, and only a fool would put money on that.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:29 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Man, if Lehrer were to get all Paxman during the debate and keep repeating the Voight-Kampff question until he got a straight answer or Romney walked out, it would be one of the most gorgeous TV moments ever.
posted by frimble at 11:29 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Guys, he would say, well, of COURSE I would turn the turtle over and that's what the churches do, turn turtles over, but why did the turtle get on its back in the first place? ENTITLEMENT CULTURE OF DEPENDENCIES TEACH A MAN TO FISH BUT DON'T FEED THE FISH
posted by angrycat at 11:32 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm fine with the debate format. Because if you have watched the "debates" on the Sunday morning talk shows, you know that just because people are live, with questions coming at them they don't know in advance - it means nothing.

They still give non-answers, turn everything to what they want to say, misstate and mischaracterize the opposition, and just run out the clock until the host has to move on to the next question that will be not-answered.

It is infuriating.

There is no way we can have a debate in the society we live in because someone aside from the debate participants will always go the low, cheap, easy route. I wish we could have a real debate. I mean how is it that you have NFL games that last 4 hours easily, preceded by 4 hours of actual analysis and stories, and followed by an hour or two of breakdown, but we're choosing a president and it's only 90 minutes long.

It should be an all-day event, like a retreat. Like a planning session. The candidates should go through everything point by point. With Cameras on them, they should have the internet and an agenda, and they should source their statements and fact check things and actually do a thorough review of "women's issues", the environment, health care, the economy, national security and war, race relations - everything. And the entire month of October should be that.

In America, sometimes it just feels like we're in a toy society. A bunch of children afraid to get serious and work on things in a way that results in a largely stable society where things make sense.
posted by cashman at 11:32 AM on October 3, 2012 [41 favorites]

My debate fantasy: Match Game format!

"Inflation has finally hit Fairy Land. Times are so bad, that the Little Old Lady Who Lived in a Shoe just had to move into a ______."
posted by Room 641-A at 11:32 AM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

They still give non-answers, turn everything to what they want to say, misstate and mischaracterize the opposition, and just run out the clock until the host has to move on to the next question that will be not-answered.

And that's why, today, I give myself a moment to mourn the loss of Governor Perry from this race. A candidate who shows up to a debate a little buzzed is a leader who knows what makes good live television.
posted by gladly at 11:34 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

his refusal to let even the most dire situation unnerve him

There was a piece in the Sunday New York Times a ways back about Obama's childhood in Jakarta, and how badly he was teased for being foreign, mixed race, not muslim. I can't remember now whether it was explicitly stated in the article, or a comment from mr. ambrosia (who lived in Indonesia for a while), that it's really important in Indonesian culture to never lose your cool. No matter how angry or upset you are, showing it is a terrible loss of face. That's why we see him as unflappable: he learned at an early age never to give them the satisfaction of pissing you off.
posted by ambrosia at 11:35 AM on October 3, 2012 [21 favorites]

Instead of being conservative on tax policy, including rolling back the tax breaks for the wealthy that we can no longer afford, they are staunchly set against any tax increases for the wealthy.

That'd be bad enough, but they actually favor further tax cuts for the wealthy.
posted by Gelatin at 11:37 AM on October 3, 2012

Dawson/Reilly in 2016!

Sure they're dead, but they're still more fun than the Republicans.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 11:38 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

humans are pack animals, politics is just a substitute for sniffing behinds and biting throats. We repeat the attack lines often times with minimal thought because the pack does
posted by edgeways at 11:39 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

the country's most respected news person and it's widely recognized, if unofficial, Dean of Journalism

I wouldn't contest this characterization, but, weirdly, I still think of him as Robert MacNeil's sidekick.

Democracy Now! will air the debate, pausing after questions to include equal time responses from two presidential contenders who were shut out of the official debate: Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party.

Really, anyone can join the debate. Just pause after each question and deliver your answer.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:39 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

No debate. They play cribbage. Lehrer handles the cards.

Obama: Look. That's 15-2, 15-4, 15-6, 15-8, run for 3, another run for 3, another run for 3, and a double for 2.

Romney: His nobs.
posted by Beardman at 11:39 AM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

Right now in a secret bunker: Romney Training Montage!

Right now in a secret bunker: Romney ~~Training~~ Reprogramming Montage!

very concerned looking nerds with laptops connected to Romneybot with cables while guys in suits in the background rack the slides and fill the magazines on their sidearms
posted by ninjew at 11:39 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

very concerned looking nerds with laptops connected to Romneybot with cables while guys in suits in the background rack the slides and fill the magazines on their sidearms

And one...just one at the back with a sinking feeling thinking that they should really have updated him from Windows 98.
posted by jaduncan at 11:42 AM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

I still think of him as Robert MacNeil's sidekick.

Me too! Calling the PBS news program: The Newshour, with Jim Lehrer, has never flown off the tongue as elegantly or happily, as The McNeil-Lehrer Newhour.

Even if McNeil is still present in the deep background as executive producer. (I believe that's his title?)
posted by Skygazer at 11:43 AM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

No matter how angry or upset you are, showing it is a terrible loss of face. That's why we see him as unflappable: he learned at an early age never to give them the satisfaction of pissing you off.

Yeah, they tell you that over and over again in teacher credentialing classes: never let students see you upset, 'cause it gives them the power and lets them feel like they've won, etc. In general I'd say this is good advice, but sometimes you run into students who honestly think you don't care about their behavior--or about them as people--until you get upset at them.

Lotta mixed expectations in the world.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:43 AM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

cashman: Your last line from that comment is absolute gold and sums up a key aspect of the experience of living in America better than I've seen before. The really frustrating thing is that there are a ton of people working their damnedest to do grownup things within American political culture, and it's hard to tell exactly who's to blame for the dangerously childish mode we're forced to operate in. I want to jump up and down and shout media media IT'S THE MEDIA OUR MEDIA ARE CAUSING THIS, but it's never quite so simple as all that -- and it's been this way all the way through at least one major shift¹ in how our media works.

1: I'm convinced television will be almost completely irrelevant in 2020 at the latest (or rather, that the broadcast aspect of television will become more and more of a retro appendix associated with a few major websites)... but I'm also convinced that our media in 2020 will be nearly as stupid as our media today, unless the global climate disaster forces us to stop paying attention to the awkward mix of lullabies and horror stories we're getting today and forces us to engage with reality.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:45 AM on October 3, 2012

I am having the hardest time not trying to reconstruct that cribbage hand from the information we've been given...

[on edit: wait, can it work? how do you get three runs and only one pair? wouldn't you have to have a triplet?]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:47 AM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Matt Taibbi: "This presidential race should never have been this close. [...] Romney is an almost perfect amalgam of all the great out-of-touch douchebags of our national cinema: he's Gregg Marmalaard from Animal House mixed with Billy Zane's sneering, tux-wearing Cal character in Titanic to pussy-ass Prince Humperdinck to Roy Stalin to Gordon Gekko (he's literally Gordon Gekko). He's everything we've been trained to despise, the guy who had everything handed to him, doesn't fight his own battles and insists there's only room in the lifeboat for himself – and yet the Democrats, for some reason, have had terrible trouble beating him in a popularity contest."
posted by daniel_charms at 11:48 AM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Being correct about anything comes off as arrogant to conservatives.

It's their natural cognitive defense mechanism.
posted by Aquaman at 11:50 AM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

You Can't Tip a Buick: "I am having the hardest time not trying to reconstruct that cribbage hand from the information we've been given...

[on edit: wait, can it work? how do you get three runs and only one pair? wouldn't you have to have a triplet?]"

The hand, having scored 19 points, is apparently impossible. (cite)
posted by boo_radley at 11:52 AM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

You do have to give the Republicans credit for vast improvements on their technology with the Romneybot. Remember that debate between Bush and Kerry where W. had the earpiece and the lump under his jacket?
posted by perhapses at 11:53 AM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

We are an enigma, wrapped in mystery, infatuated with electronic communication devices.
posted by mmrtnt at 11:54 AM on October 3, 2012

Matt Taibbi is a terrible writer. Romeny is really none of those things; in terms of public persona he's stiff and awkward; a Republican John Kerry, in essense. It's only quite recently that his ugly side what displayed to everyone and his popularity has directly suffered, negativing Taibbi's over-heated thesis.

The election is close because the economy is terrible. It's Obama's strengths, Romney weaknesses and memory of the Bush catastrophe that have made this Obama's election to loose. Taibbi is petulant because he doesn't understand why his personal distaste for Romney isn't the default feeling of everyone else.
posted by spaltavian at 11:55 AM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

NYT should have given Romney red hands, let Obama keep the blue hands:

What Romney and Obama’s Body Language Says to Voters
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:57 AM on October 3, 2012

Dear You Can't Tip A Buick and boo_radley, it makes me feel much better to realize I wasn't the only one to look at that count, try to reconstruct in my head, and go "hey waitagoshdarnminute..."
posted by Tknophobia at 11:59 AM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Thank you for this FPP ... now our browsers get some relief!
posted by ericb at 12:03 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama gets flustered when he begins to doubt that he's the smartest man in the room.

Must be on the Republican Talking Points list for today! As always, not based in reality.
posted by ericb at 12:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

In an interesting third-party twist, Democracy Now! will be live-broadcasting an "expanded debate" containing equal-time responses from Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson alongside the two major-party candidates.

Oh for fuck's sake.

I have the exact same chance of being elected president as either of the two of them and will receive the exact same percentage of the popular vote as them on Election Day, factoring in a 2% margin of error. Yet somehow my cries of injustice that I am also not given free time to discuss my thoughts on Presidential policy with the only two people on earth who will have the possibility to actually enact Presidential policy in January go unjustly ignored.

The two people actually on the stage will be able to dodge the questions asked because there won't be another candidate up there willing to actually answer the questions.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 12:08 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

The two people actually on the stage will be able to dodge the questions asked because there won't be another candidate up there willing to actually answer the questions.

Woosh!
posted by zombieflanders at 12:08 PM on October 3, 2012

ericb:
"Thank you for this FPP ... now our browsers get some relief!"

The debate isn't on for another six hours and this post has picked up over 200 comments in the last two. Your browser will be in tears again before the night is over.
posted by charred husk at 12:10 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I am part of the problem!
posted by Mister_A at 12:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Yet somehow my cries of injustice that I am also not given free time to discuss my thoughts on Presidential policy with the only two people on earth who will have the possibility to actually enact Presidential policy in January go unjustly ignored.

I have no idea what you are whining about. Demands from third parties for inclusion (ed.) in the electoral process are ALWAYS ignored.

You think that giving third-party candidates a outlet on Democracy Now is some sort of injustice?!?!?! What on fuck has Nader Scapegoating wrought?
posted by mrgrimm at 12:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

The Whelk: I'm waiting for the Veep debates I mean c'mon Smug, Petulant Teen Frankenstein VS. Everyone's Favorite Uncle!

I'll be disappointed is Biden doesn't take off his shirt and start at Ryan with, "Come at me, Bro!"
posted by ob1quixote at 12:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Speaking as a Canadian, here are two ways your debates could be made more interesting.

1) Add a Spanish language debate. I've noticed that seeing candidates debate in something other than their first language often reveals a lot about their character and the way they think. Take Gilles Duceppe, who typically presented himself as a firebrand true believer in the French debates and a detached ironist in English.

2) Go multipartisan. Minor party leaders have less to lose, so they tend to be far more aggressive and interesting. Nobody pushed Stephen Harper harder on Canada's involvement in the Afghanistan war than Green Party leader Elizabeth May. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson aren't going to get many votes, but they could force the big two to answer some uncomfortable questions if they had the chance.

I'm aware that there is zero chance of either of these happening in America.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

The hand, having scored 19 points, is apparently impossible.

You guys, these are the kind of gotcha questions that make Americans lose faith in politics.
posted by Beardman at 12:18 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Fred Barnes, Mine Canary

[H]e’s just not the kind of guy who is likely to lob grenades into his “own” camp. And as recently as September 24, he was penning a column blaming Obama’s lead mostly on media bias and the power of incumbency.

His latest essay is a pretty clear sign that if Romney plays small-ball tonight, and it doesn't work, the entire conservative media universe is going to start preparing itself to blame Mitt for an eventual loss due to his stubborn refusal to run as an updated version of Barry Goldwater. When you are a Republican presidential candidate and you lose Fred Barnes, you better hope you know something he doesn't know.

posted by zombieflanders at 12:20 PM on October 3, 2012

When I think of Jim Lehrer, I don't think of bears OR deans, I think of birthday cakes.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 12:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Somehow, I just can't imagine Romney speaking Spanish. I mean I can't formulate a mental movie of it.
posted by angrycat at 12:22 PM on October 3, 2012

Note: In Canada the debates do matter. Jack Layton crushed Gilles Duceppe in the French language debate in the last election by arguing (apparently successfully) that a nationwide leftist party could represent Quebecois values better than a literally provincial leftist/sovereigntist party. The debate shifted the election results by dozens of seats and made the socialist NDP our official opposition.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Here's something interesting, if people have the stomach for it – the full debates between Ted Kennedy and Mitt Romney in 1994. Debate 1 / Debate 2. This was Romney up against an incumbent, making a lot of the arguments he's making now: the incumbent has had a chance but it's time to try something else, etc.

In my opinion, Romney's shining moment was his rebuff of Kennedy in the midst of a discussion of crime. Kennedy brings up gun control, apparently because it's a good way to change the subject and to refer to his brother John's assassination:

Kennedy: "... let's hear on those three issues where you stand about guns. I'm not yielding to anyone about guns in our society. I know enough about them, Mr Romney."

Romney: "You do know enough about it, Senator – we've heard that before. That's the last resort each time this question comes up. But it's not necessary here. The question was..."

It seems like, if Romney's prepped for certain lines of attack, he can handle them well. I don't know that there are any easy lines of attack here, though – that is, I think Obama's people are pretty good at mixing it up and not relying on the same tactics over and over again the way that a Senator might have had to in debates.
posted by koeselitz at 12:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

ob1quixote: "I'll be disappointed is Biden doesn't take off his shirt and start at Ryan with, "Come at me, Bro!""

Biden cracks a beer, hands it to Ryan. Ryan looks at it, unsure of what to do. They sit on the back porch. Biden squints at the sunset, dipping over a stand of trees. "Hard time out there with the big guy, I'm guessing?". Ryan sips at the beer, nods unsteadily as his eyes become bright and shiny. He remains composed, though. "It can be hard, champ", Biden says. He claps the younger man on the back. The cicadas start whirring as twilight falls. "It can be hard."
posted by boo_radley at 12:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [37 favorites]

Honestly, I see Romney more as a Lundburgh archetype than a Gordon Gekko. Ah yeah, we're ah, gonna need you to go ahead and give up your dependency culture here. Go ahead and be a team player.
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

We have friends that share an apartment with Jill Stein's son, and they really want her to win so they can have Secret Service protection.

If Romney wins, I expect him to knock down the White House so he can build a bigger mansion on top of the remains, something with an elevator for his many Cadillacs.
posted by backseatpilot at 12:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I still think of him as Robert MacNeil's sidekick.

Me too! Calling the PBS news program: The Newshour, with Jim Lehrer, has never flown off the tongue as elegantly or happily, as The McNeil-Lehrer Newhour.

You'll perhaps be pleased to know that since the various format changes and de-emphasis on Lehrer as a sole anchor it's now just PBS Newshour. (I admit I occasionally refer to PBS news as "MacNeil-Lehrer" too.)
posted by aught at 12:31 PM on October 3, 2012

Unless Mitt Romney faints, vomits or otherwise physically melts down on stage, the media will be all atwitter about how well he did and how this changes the race...
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:16 AM on October 3 [+] [!]

Exactly. I predict the first words out of the mouth of whichever talking head gets the first post-debate word will be "Mitt Romney came out and did what he had to do tonight." And then some stuff about how he proved he could "stand toe-to-toe with the president" and debate the issues without getting flustered. Oh, also about how one or another of his quips (or "zingers", as we've decided to call them) showed a more "human side" of the challenger. And, of course, the obligatory closer: "Hold onto your hats, folks, this race just got a whole lot more interesting!"
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:37 PM on October 3, 2012 [17 favorites]

So basically Barack Obama wasn't satisfied with playing 12-dimensional chess and decided to start playing impossible cribbage too?
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:38 PM on October 3, 2012 [20 favorites]

In my opinion, Romney's shining moment was his rebuff of Kennedy in the midst of a discussion of crime. Kennedy brings up gun control, apparently because it's a good way to change the subject and to refer to his brother John's assassination

It's probably an understatement to say that there's a big difference between the debate styles of Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:39 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

@deo rei inre a sampling of racial diversity among past & present presidents/prime ministers in South America

Leonel Fernandez Reyna, afrodominican, President, Dominican Republic
Juan Evo Morales Ayma, Native Aymara, President, Bolivia
Kamla Persad-Bissessar, Indo-Trinidadian, Prime Minister, Trinidad&Tobago
and of course, there's the ultimate mestizo, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez
posted by liza at 12:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [11 favorites]

So basically Barack Obama wasn't satisfied with playing 12-dimensional chess and decided to start playing impossible cribbage too?

I think you mean Creebage.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Tonight a white man and a black man are fighting for a chance to become President. The black man is winning. I don't see this happening in Europe or China or India in the next 20-50 years. Not even in South America.

Yeah, the hell with all those women Prime Ministers!
posted by alex_skazat at 12:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [16 favorites]

As far as debates mattering or not, I think the Bush/Gore debate changed a lot of minds. Gore whupped up on Bush, and went a long way towards not appearing like an animate log.

It wasn't enough, of course, but I think it made an impact.

From the mega-thread (courtesy of Secret Life of Gravy):

Mother Jones: News coverage of the debates matters more than the debates themselves

Test subjects who just watched the debate itself thought Kerry won in a landslide. Test subjects who watched the debate plus 20 minutes of analysis on NBC thought Bush won in a landslide. And test subjects who watched the debate plus 20 minutes of CNN commentary were more likely to think that neither candidate won. Obviously public perception of a debate can depend pretty heavily on the spin given to it afterward by the news coverage.

Whoever spins last wins.

Atom Eyes: I predict the first words out of the mouth of whichever talking head gets the first post-debate word will be "Mitt Romney came out and did what he had to do tonight."

I initially rejected the Think_Long's notion that the presidential debates are treated like "a big fricking football game," until I read Atomic Eyes' comment, and realized it was true.

"His head was in the game, and he pushed where he could, and stood his ground. He played the game as best he could." -- It could be about sports or the debate. It's empty talk, trying to make up something quickly to say about a vanilla debate. Things only get interesting A) once there is more detailed criticism of the debate, or B) if someone says or does something really dumb.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I have the exact same chance of being elected president as either [Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson] and will receive the exact same percentage of the popular vote as them on Election Day, factoring in a 2% margin of error. Yet somehow my cries of injustice that I am also not given free time to discuss my thoughts on Presidential policy with the only two people on earth who will have the possibility to actually enact Presidential policy in January go unjustly ignored. Shame. SHAME, I say!

"Exigology (noun): A statement whose converse is its own explanation."
posted by invitapriore at 12:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

What Romney needs to win this thing is some sort of image makeover. A new look perhaps...
posted by billyfleetwood at 12:44 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

If I was king of the world, well, first, we wouldn't be having debates or elections, but assuming I had granted some sort of dispensation, I'd love to see how either Obama or Romney fared against Deep Blue. If it can beat Ken Jennings, it may have some real answers that the American people need to hear! (In the form of a question.)
posted by klangklangston at 12:45 PM on October 3, 2012

Because the debates themselves are not much more than a beauty contest held on a tightrope where each contestant must smile sweetly while maintaining their balance.

Jim Lehrer:

Governor Romney, during this campaign we have heard very little to none of your plans for reforming education in this country. Along those lines, why do you think one-fifth of Americans can't locate the United States on a map?

Governor Romney:

I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don't have maps and uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as, uh, in South Africa, and uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uhhh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, should help South Africa, it should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us.

Mr Lehrer: Mr. President, your rebuttal.

President Obama:

That's an easy one. Homeschooling with text books which devalue science, geography, and other important subjects. Oh, and the fact that many in the Tea/Republican party consider a college education to be only for snobs!

posted by ericb at 12:47 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

What Romney needs to win this thing is some sort of image makeover. A new look perhaps...

I'm Mitt Rom Burgundy?
posted by zombieflanders at 12:49 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

billyfleetwood: "What Romney needs to win this thing is some sort of image makeover. A new look perhaps..."

Que es mas macho? Obama? O Romney?
posted by boo_radley at 12:49 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Somehow, I just can't imagine Romney speaking Spanish. I mean I can't formulate a mental movie of it"

Apparently he knows how to say "I'm a big fan of vagina." but the Fidel Castro language tapes aren't really helping.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

liza, none of them is "black" in the US sense, i.e. they more or less fit the majority racial profile, granting that in SA it's difficult to say what that is - more prosaically, they are not significantly more dark-skinned than their countrymen, which seems to be the criterion that dooms individuals the world over - you might have mentioned Venetiaan in Surinam as a better example.
posted by deo rei at 12:53 PM on October 3, 2012

"...and yet the Democrats, for some reason, have had terrible trouble beating him in a popularity contest."

Really, Matt? The economy is crap, and yet the incumbent Democratic Party has maintained a consistent lead since the start of the year, which only grew once people started paying attention. And the fact that they are not somehow winning by a larger margin is their fault?

Matt Taibbi has his moments, but when he's not writing about a story that conforms to his particular worldview, he's patently awful. He's like Tucker Carlson with better reporting skills and profanity.
posted by breakin' the law at 12:57 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

none of them is "black" in the US sense

But you have to change your frame of reference to fit the country. Go look at every president of Bolivia prior to Evo Morales, for example, and you will see a string of white men going back to independence.
posted by ambrosia at 12:57 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

I hope you all wait until Thursday's Fox and Friends before you come to any conclusions about the debate:

We'll break down the results from the crucial first presidential debate with Ann Coulter, Rick Santorum, Michelle Malkin and Larry the Cable Guy.
posted by Killick at 12:57 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Matt Taibbi has his moments, but when he's not writing about a story that conforms to his particular worldview, he's patently awful. He's like Tucker Carlson with better reporting skills and profanity.

Hmm, I hadn't really thought of this before, but now that you mention the name Tucker, really the person whose writing style Taibbi's reminds me of the most is Tucker Max.

:P
posted by adamdschneider at 12:59 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Tonight a white man and a black man are fighting over who will become President. The black man is winning. I don't see this happening in Europe or China or India in the next 20-50 years. Not even in South America.

I will be *very* surprised if the debate ever ends up being a black man and a white man to be President of China.
posted by FatherDagon at 1:00 PM on October 3, 2012 [21 favorites]

Hey, the president of Africa is a black guy.
posted by Mister_A at 1:01 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm looking forward to the moment where Romney calls Obama a liar about something or other, and Obama cuts him off by catching the fly buzzing about with his bare hands.

For those not familiar with this reference here is Obama doing just that in an interview on CNBC (July 2009)
posted by ericb at 1:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Tonight a white man and a black man are fighting over who will become President. The black man is winning. I don't see this happening in Europe or China or India in the next 20-50 years. Not even in South America.

I think that America got very, very lucky when Obama was born here. Otherwise we might not have had a black president for another 20 to 50 years.

Now that I have caught up with this thread, I am off to the gym. But when I get back I have cleared the decks and have nothing else to do. I bought the large bottle of Findandia and I have an unopened can of Habanero BBQ almonds. But I do have to pace myself-- I don't want to run out of favorites before the debate even starts.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:10 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

OMFG!!11one

Barak Obama... flyslayer.
posted by RolandOfEld at 1:12 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama is touting sequestration as the first step in his budget plan!

And Romney would likely be touting sequestration and dressage for the 1%.
posted by ericb at 1:13 PM on October 3, 2012

File this as a mouse fart of a rumor (being ever so faint), but there is at least some talk that if/when Obama wins Paul Krugman may replace Alan Krueger as the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.
posted by edgeways at 1:13 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

But you have to change your frame of reference to fit the country.

The countries in South America are somewhat special in the sense that, like in most if not all ex-colonies, the ruling class, esp. the figure-head, is drawn from a minority population. What we see there in the example of eg. Morales is not so much increased acceptance of darker skinned folks, which is at least nominally what's happening in Obama's case - never mind that I know Finns who are darker skinned than he is - but change from minority to majority rule brought about by decolonization, emancipation, self-actualization, etc.
posted by deo rei at 1:16 PM on October 3, 2012

Tonight a white man and a black man are fighting over who will become President. The black man is winning. I don't see this happening in Europe or China or India in the next 20-50 years. Not even in South America.

What an ignorant thing to say. Lets just look at Mexico.

Vicente Guerrero was half Spanish and half African/Amerindian when he was elected president of Mexico in 1829.

Benito Juarez was a full Zapotec indian who was president of Mexico 5 times, elected for the first time in 1858.

If the USA is already behind Mexico at least 150 years. I find it hard to believe there will be a Native American president of the USA in the near future..
posted by Doroteo Arango II at 1:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [14 favorites]

Why the debate is crucial for Obama too by David Gergen

I don't think anyone has posted this link yet. He has an interesting take on the election in that if Obama can win big, he can claim a mandate and use that to progress his second term agenda.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 1:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

doroteo, I'm well aware of that, but I think there is a big difference between the examples you mention and the presidency of mr. Obama. These people were simply not significantly more dark skinned than the majority population. But I will grant that the race situation in SA is wonderfully complex and it is my firm hope that SA can help lead the world in exploding the entire notion over the next century.
posted by deo rei at 1:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Vicente Guerrero was half Spanish and half African/Amerindian when he was elected president of Mexico in 1829.

Benito Juarez was a full Zapotec indian who was president of Mexico 5 times, elected for the first time in 1858.

If the USA is already behind Mexico at least 150 years. I find it hard to believe there will be a Native American president of the USA in the near future..

That doesn't make any sense. The majority population in those countries are at least mixed-race. Your argument is like saying we're behind China because they had an Asian leader before we did.
posted by spaltavian at 1:31 PM on October 3, 2012

SA has some pretty major governmental systemic problems right now, from lack of textbooks due to apparent kickback schemes to Jacob Zuma's ever long list of potential corruption charges, which just this week includes the story of him diverting 24 million to upgrade his personal private residence.
SA is not, and should not be leading anyone anywhere until it gets it's collective shit together. the ANC has been pretty horrible in a lot of respects.
posted by edgeways at 1:38 PM on October 3, 2012

On lack of preview, deo rei's argument looks a lot better after his clarification, but it still has the lingering smell of American Exceptionalism.

I see some members of currently or formerly oppressed classes doing great in world politics. We have yet to see a viable presidential candidate in the USA who is openly atheist or gay, for example.
posted by Doroteo Arango II at 1:39 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Spaltavian:

I specifically picked Guerrero because there is a tiny minority of African or African/Amerindian people in Mexico. There is also a small minority of full blooded Amerindians. And both classes of people had been considered subhuman up until the 1820s.

The equivalent would be the USA having a black or Native American president 30 years after the emancipation proclamation.
posted by Doroteo Arango II at 1:41 PM on October 3, 2012

This debate will require popcorn coated vicodin.
posted by clavdivs at 1:54 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Britain had a Canadian Prime Minister in the 1920s. I reckon America should try that next.
posted by dng at 1:55 PM on October 3, 2012

How Obama handles discussing Republican obstructionism in Congress will be key. Has to nail that without looking whiney.

And yeah, watching the spin is often more entertaining and ultimately meaningful for end result purposes than watching the debates themselves.
posted by Rumple at 1:57 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Just as long as it's not sweater vest Haaaarper
posted by edgeways at 1:58 PM on October 3, 2012

....Mr. Lehrer, the former anchor of “PBS NewsHour,” has been seething. He said he was outraged by suggestions that he was a “safe” and uninspired choice to moderate the first of four debates. And he is offended by reports that questioned whether this — his 12th presidential debate — might be one too many.
posted by mediareport at 2:01 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Twitter Launches Dedicated Presidential Debate Page -- "Political junkies and first-time debate watchers alike can get the latest punditry and reaction to the first face-off between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney tonight on Twitter's special page."
posted by ericb at 2:03 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

An online metafilter cribbage group would be fun, we're such a thing possible.
posted by Rumple at 2:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm trying to picture Jim Lehrer in a seethe, and it just doesn't work. The best Imaginary Jim can manage is an annoyed Colbert Eyebrow.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:09 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Cribbage

Paul Ryan: I got 19
Joe Biden: Bullshit you little weasel, and I got 29
posted by edgeways at 2:10 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

crush up some vicodin nice and fine and sprinkle generously over the popcorn...
posted by supermedusa at 2:10 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

8 memorable moments from Obama and Romney's past debates
posted by zombieflanders at 2:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

The quote that I can't get out of my head from the other thread:

filthy light thief: "Ann clarifies: "Mitt doesn't disdain the poor" The leaked video was all taken out of context.
"Mitt wants to bring better economic oportunities to the country. ... It's what we're facing in America. More and more people will become dependent on the government, and he doesn't want that.

... Women are coming to me. I have a lot of time to talk. They are hoping that Governor Romney will have answers.

[Mitt] doesn't need to do this for a job, he honestly believes he can help many Americans by getting in there... and bring more certainty to women.

The one story I love for people to know... [Mitt visited with a family who had a boy dying of leukemia, and Mitt was there, you know, as a human friend]"

Even Ann seems to feel the need to use the qualifier "human" when referring to her husband.
posted by futz at 2:27 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

....Mr. Lehrer, the former anchor of “PBS NewsHour,” has been seething. He said he was outraged by suggestions that he was a “safe” and uninspired choice to moderate the first of four debates. And he is offended

Imagining Lehrer seething is kind of unsettling. I expect he would get a little bit of spittle in the corner of his mouth, his eyes would roll over like a shark's and he would just start wailing on you like "Answer the QUESTIONNNN!".
posted by cashman at 2:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Cribbage is okay but I think euchre is where it's at if we're going to perform a head to head evaluation of the two President/Vice President teams.
posted by Fezboy! at 2:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I have a little bit of trouble with the notion that the "zingers" stuff is just a smoke screen being put out there to misdirect the Obama campaign. It's not because I think OFA is too smart for it, although they probably are, but just because at this point, it's hard to ascribe intent to what looks like yet another pandering mistake. I think I said something similar before, but it's not like the Romney campaign has been so competently run that a basic mistake like telegraphing that they have a terrible strategy the day before their critical moment is beyond them. Maybe this is just my own partisan bias, but at this point it's just really hard for me to see anything the Romney campaign does as being strategic at all.
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:31 PM on October 3, 2012

About that top secret Obama video that was released earlier this week...

[People will say] this has already been reported. Actually, it hasn’t been reported. I know because I reported it the first time.

--Tucker Carlson
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 2:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

I think this thread has already shown that, if the presidency were decided on zingers, Metafilter would be hosted from the Oval Office.
posted by Panjandrum at 2:35 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

GOP operative Bob Price registers on Something Awful Dot Com, posts a dumb, leading question thread about the debates, gets caught by moderators, currently getting a beating in the face and ass. A beating that includes a favorite theme here on metafilter:

Senior Woodchuck posted

Bob Price, you’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, crawling toward you. You, Bob Price, reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping, Bob Price. Why is that?

posted by boo_radley at 2:35 PM on October 3, 2012 [17 favorites]

GOP operative Bob Price registers on Something Awful Dot Com, posts a dumb, leading question thread, gets caught by moderators, currently getting a beating in the face and ass.

"I am a proud Obama voter who supports gay marriage, Affirmative Action and gun control."

Oh god, this is like that scene where Pee Wee Herman goes to the biker bar, only I reckon this will not end with being lent a motorcycle.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:42 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

NPR: How Politicians Get Away With Dodging The Question, and how to identify a 'pivot.'
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Heh, that SA thread has the best shill statement ever from Price:

"TexasGOPVote.com is not owned by or affiliated with any political party. We just bring conservative political news."

posted by jaduncan at 2:44 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Tonight a white man and a black man are fighting over who will become President. The black man is winning. I don't see this happening in Europe or China or India in the next 20-50 years. Not even in South America.

Nelson Mandela just called. All he said was, "stranger things" and then hung up.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 2:45 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

I can't imagine what Bob Price thought was going to happen.
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:46 PM on October 3, 2012

Oh god, this is like that scene where Pee Wee Herman goes to the biker bar, only I reckon this will not end with being lent a motorcycle.

falsetto voice: "I say we let him go."
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:46 PM on October 3, 2012 [11 favorites]

Just out of morbid curiosity, does anybody think that the debates are going to change anybody's minds?

The only two debates that were found to have a notable effect on the election was the first televised debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960 and a debate between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000.

The Gallup report calls these particular debates the “two exceptions” to the rule “whereby the ultimate winner moved from a deficit position to front-runner.”
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:47 PM on October 3, 2012

[People will say] this has already been reported. Actually, it hasn’t been reported. I know because I reported it the first time.

--Tucker Carlson

Brilliant! He needs to use this in an ad for his show: "When Tucker Carlson reports something, it hasn't been reported." *swooshy graphics*

He DOES have a show, right?
posted by AugieAugustus at 2:50 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Aside from SA googlebombing Bob Price, one comment made a very good point:

Pipski posted:
If you'd checked it out a little more thoroughly, you'd have found that, in the last month, your preferred candidate tried to publicly exploit the murder of one of our site's members for political gain - so the prevailing sentiment here tends to be that he's a vacuous loving shitbag pillock with the morals of a vampire. Go to hell."

posted by inigo2 at 2:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [21 favorites]

He DOES have a show, right?

Are we counting when he goes home, puts his head inside a cardboard box and shouts at an empty chair representing his crushed dreams and Jon Stewart?
posted by jaduncan at 2:53 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

What about his crushed dreams about Jon Stewart?
posted by subbes at 2:55 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

What about his crushed dreams about Jon Stewart?

No, no. Every night of his slumber Jon loves him, it's only when Tucker wakes up that nobody returns his calls.
posted by jaduncan at 2:57 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Clinton on Romney: "Now, the guy with a tax account in the Cayman Islands is attacking other people for not wanting to pay income tax? I mean, you've got to give him credit."
posted by ericb at 3:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

And, of course, the obligatory closer: "Hold onto your hats, folks, this race just got a whole lot more interesting!"

And those "objective" observers, of course, have no personal interest whether or not the election is close, lol.

Cribbage is okay but I think euchre is where it's at if we're going to perform a head to head evaluation of the two President/Vice President teams.

No, Pitch (though I'd bet Biden is a master at stealing the deal in Euchre.)
posted by mrgrimm at 3:06 PM on October 3, 2012

If Lehrer is offended by being viewed as a safe choice, maybe he should actually moderate the debates instead of letting the the candidates ramble on with their preferred talking points and instead keep them to the question that was asked.
posted by winna at 3:07 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

Astrophysicist who correctly predicted last two elections, predicts again:

"This week, their method places Obama with 348 electoral votes. Governor Mitt Romney trails with 190. The only place Colley sees room for Romney to gain electoral votes without great difficulty would be North Carolina." *

posted by ericb at 3:07 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

The two people actually on the stage will be able to dodge the questions asked because there won't be another candidate up there willing to actually answer the questions.

This, but also something more important. Right now, Romney can attack Obama from the right, and Obama can attack Romney from the left, and all they have to do is be more conservative/liberal than their opponent to get damn near half the country walking in lockstep behind them. Stein's presence, however, would force Obama to defend from the left, and show his actual positions there - as Johnson would force Romney to defend from the right.
posted by corb at 3:08 PM on October 3, 2012

Every time he appears it's very clear that Bill Clinton is having the time of his life being on the campaign trail again. This time he's also a bit less fettered as he's now not the candidate. It's taken years off his face.
posted by jaduncan at 3:11 PM on October 3, 2012

Today I'm in Chicago visiting the Obama campaign office. The lead up the the debate tonight has been interesting to say the very least. I tend to avoid debates knowing that I'll catch the salient points in the post-game, but I'm really looking forward to experiencing the debate with the staff.
posted by FlamingBore at 3:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Johnson would be a great wildcard. Somebody coming at Romney from the right on spending, coming at Obama from the left on drug policy, and coming at both of them from whatever-direction-sane-is on defense would be a nice break from “talking point, talking point, EMPHATIC TALKING POINT, focus-tested zinger, talking point.”
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Tonight a white man and a black man are fighting over who will become President. The black man is winning. I don't see this happening in Europe or China or India in the next 20-50 years. Not even in South America.

I know your point has been pretty much rebutted, but for good measure, here's a foto of #1 and #2 in the most powerful country in Europe.
posted by Jehan at 3:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Although a tiny part of me wants to stay up and watch the debate, I think I'm going to collapse into bed.
posted by knapah at 3:33 PM on October 3, 2012

Stein's presence, however, would force Obama to defend from the left, and show his actual positions there - as Johnson would force Romney to defend from the right.

Which of Romney and Obama's opinions are you not clear on?
posted by spaltavian at 3:37 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

This is a crummy image, but here's a convoy of police vehicles and unmarked SUVs preparing to SHUT DOWN I-25

It would have been better but I was driving, etc, etc.
posted by boo_radley at 3:40 PM on October 3, 2012

If Lehrer is offended by being viewed as a safe choice, maybe he should actually moderate the debates

Yeah, I don't get the Lehrer love from some folks above; I've been watching him for decades and he's always seemed a remarkably tame presidential debate moderator with only rare moments of holding his subjects' feet to the fire. It's no secret he's preferred by candidates of both parties, and has been for years, as a safe choice who won't rock the boat, and it's outright bizarre of him to suddenly act outraged about that.

We can only hope his seething actually gets him off his ass and asking sharp questions over and over again. That's the only thing I can think of that will make tonight's puppet show something other than a snoozefest.
posted by mediareport at 3:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Does anyone know if the debate will be available on youtube in full later on tonight, after the live youtube broadcast?
posted by Lutoslawski at 3:41 PM on October 3, 2012

Does anyone know if the debate will be available on youtube in full later on tonight, after the live youtube broadcast?

Yes, it will.
posted by jaduncan at 3:42 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

It would have been better but I was driving, etc, etc.

America is tired of excuses. We're tired of being let down. We need a radley that can return us to the glory days of well-photographed highway stoppages.
posted by cortex at 3:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

Thanks, jaduncan.
posted by Lutoslawski at 3:44 PM on October 3, 2012

From the 8 Memorable Moments link posted by zombieflanders

3. Romney's problems with "illegals" surface... again
Perry had a knack for getting the best, or worst, out of Romney. In another back-and-forth over illegal immigrants working at Romney's house, Mitt explained that he had gone to a company that was doing a project for him and said, "look, you can't have any illegals working on our property. I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals." Sometimes its hard to square the candidate on stage with the real person underneath, says Jonathan Chait at New York, but this "one delicious, authentic moment" was an instant classic because it offered ammunition to critics looking to paint Romney as a calculating elitist.

I gotta say that as little as I like Romney, he was in a lose-lose situation here. If he had not checked and it turned out illegals did some construction work that would be bad, so he did check...and that was bad. What was he supposed to do? Hold all remodeling until after his political career was over?

This is one of those things (like smoking pot) that is a minefield for politicians today. Maybe I sympathize just because I used to live in California where illegal immigrants fill the domestic service, restaurant, and landscaping industries which makes it difficult not to have some interaction with them. Hell, I married an illegal immigrant. So I guess I will never be able to run for political office. I should have thought of that when I was 22 and in love.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:44 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Secret Life of Gravy. Think the particular issue with that quote(in my mine at least) is that he was only worried about their being illegals there BECAUSE he was running for office. The jive I get, is that he wouldn't care if he weren't running.
posted by Twain Device at 3:46 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm not seeing the convoy in that photo.
posted by perhapses at 3:47 PM on October 3, 2012

My first comment after the Edit button pony and I get to actually use it. Not sure if fail or win.
posted by Twain Device at 3:48 PM on October 3, 2012

here's a convoy of police vehicles and unmarked SUVs preparing to SHUT DOWN I-25

Is...is that a dog on the roof of that SUV?
posted by Room 641-A at 3:48 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

is Jim Lehrer pissed off? that's effing awesome. a pissed off Lehrer with something to prove should make for an interesting debate tonight. let's see if he takes the dare and comes out swinging with the "47%" or, hey! even NDAA (if only)...

btw: at what time is the debate and on which channel? (i know, i suck)
posted by liza at 3:49 PM on October 3, 2012

It was a lose-lose situation, but Romney, as per his chief talent, made it even worse.

"Look, you can't have any illegals working on our property. I think employing illegals is wrong because it only encourages more illegals to come here and I'm against any violations of our southern border."

This puts Romney on a moral stance and not openly admitting he did something solely because he worried what voters would think. You never ever admit that.
posted by honestcoyote at 3:49 PM on October 3, 2012

Tonight a white man and a black man are fighting over who will become President. The black man is winning. I don't see this happening in Europe or China or India in the next 20-50 years. Not even in South America.

It's probably not happening in Europe or China because the "black" populations there are so much smaller than in the US. Probably because so many of the people from Africa sold into slavery were sent to the Americas. And, as others have noted, things are much more complicated in Central & South America because the die-off of Native Americans wasn't as thorough as it was in North America.

So while I got a nice little kick out of voting for an African-American in 2008, I don't feel the same desire to brag about it.
posted by benito.strauss at 3:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Think the particular issue with that quote(in my mine at least) is that he was only worried about their being illegals there BECAUSE he was running for office. The jive I get, is that he would care if he weren't running.

Yeah I can see that. But again I ask, what should he have done? Should he have not said the part about running for office-- to me that just sounds like he was underlining the importance of not having illegals working for him.

I think employing illegals is wrong because it only encourages more illegals to come here and I'm against any violations of our southern border."

That makes him sound worse-- like he is a prissy little Goodie-Two-Shoes.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:52 PM on October 3, 2012

cortex: "We need a radley that can return us to the glory days of well-photographed highway stoppages."

cortex, other members of metafilter: Let me be clear. I understand your desire -- your need -- for clear highway stoppages. But I had, in my car, my dear dog spispopd. Now, as some of you may know, spispopd has just been released from the vet after a leg amputation. He's been a huge part of my family and I know that my wife and my son (both of whom are looking at or around me right now) have loved spispopd since he was a tiny puppy we rescued from the humane society. I also know that they would have been devastated if my three-legged dog, spispopd, were to no longer be with us. The radley family spent no expense -- no expense! -- on our beloved pooch. Part of this meant giving up my dream for a wonderful high resolution Nikon camera, but if you're a dog lover like me and my family and our spispopd, you'll understand that no picture of any highway stoppage -- I-25, I-80, even the venerable Pennsyvania Turnpike -- can replace a beloved pet. Is the picture the best? No, absolutely not. Am I a proud American who's happy to be with his three-legged dog. Undoubtably.
posted by boo_radley at 3:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [27 favorites]

i know that's the term Perry & Romney used, but just saying this as a reminder that "illegal", especially used as a noun, is a slur that many latin@s consider to also have racist connotations. please let's not use it liberally in these here parts of the interwebs. thanks!
posted by liza at 3:54 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

he was in a lose-lose situation here

That one is easy: he sends a trusted adviser to explain/demand the worker situation to the subcontracting company. The adviser takes the heat for being extra diligent because of the upcoming campaign. Romney himself maintains deniability of any undocumented workers and of the request.

Do you really want someone handling international diplomacy who can't avoid embarrassing himself when dealing with the people working on his house? Or who doesn't have the sense not to mention it during an interview on stage?
posted by ceribus peribus at 3:57 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

"Al Jazeera wants the Reddit community's live opinion on tonight's Presidential Debate!"
posted by humph at 3:59 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I also know that they would have been devastated if my three-legged dog, spispopd, were to no longer be with us.

Look, if you've got a dog, if you've got a license for a pet, if you've bought dog food to feed it, if your dog is missing a leg, it's—you didn't build that. Someone along the line helped out, created a licensing bureau, invented cell division, created the infrastructure for having fewer legs than other dogs.
posted by cortex at 3:59 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

That interview with the Open Debates founder linked early in this thread is a must-read for anyone who wants to know the bullshit history of the Commission that hired Lehrer, et al:

GEORGE FARAH: The best part of the history starts in 1980. In 1980, John B. Anderson, an independent candidate for president, runs against Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. President Jimmy Carter absolutely opposed independent candidate John Anderson’s participation in the presidential debates, and The League had a choice; do they support the independent candidate’s participation and defy the wishes of the President of the United States or do they capitulate to the demands of President Jimmy Carter? The league did the right thing, it stood to the President of the United States, invited John B. Anderson. The President refused to show up. The League went forward anyway and had a presidential debate that was watched by 55 million Americans. You fast forward four years later, Amy, and the Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan campaigns vetoed 80 of the moderators that The League of Women Voters had proposed for the debates. The were simply trying to get rid of...

AMY GOODMAN: Eighty?

GEORGE FARAH: Eighty. They were trying to get rid of difficult questions.

AMY GOODMAN: Eight-zero?

GEORGE FARAH: Eight-zero. Eighty. And The League didn’t just say, OK that’s fine we’ll allow you to select a moderator that’s going to ask softball questions, The League held a press conference and lambasted the campaigns for trying to get rid of the difficult questions. Of course there was a public outcry. So The League marshaled public support to criticize when they attempted to defy our democratic process and the result was fantastic. For the next debate, the campaigns were required to accept The League’s proposed moderators for fear of an additional public outcry. And you fast forward four more years later and you have the Michael Dukakis and the George Bush campaign’s drafting the first ever 12-page secret debate contract. They gave it to The League of Women Voters and said please implement this. The League said, are you kidding me? We are not going to implement a secret contract that dictates the terms of the format. Instead, they release the contract to the public and they held a press conference accusing the candidates of "perpetrating a fraud on the American people" and refusing to be "an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American people."

Well, Amy, conveniently, just a year earlier, the Republican and Democratic parties had ratified an agreement "to take over the presidential debates, and they created this artifice, this commission, and the commission was waiting in the wings and stepped right in and implemented the very same 12-page contract that The League had so effectively denounced, and ever since we’ve had a contract.

AMY GOODMAN: Since The League did release it — The League of Women Voters at the time — what was in this 12-page contract, at least then?

GEORGE FARAH: The 12-page contract then said very specific provisions that the candidates cannot actually ask each other any questions during the debates, that no third party candidates would be permitted to participate in those events, that there would be a certain number of audience members that would be supportive of the various candidates. Actually, it is quite tame compared to the contracts we have seen in recent years.
posted by mediareport at 4:00 PM on October 3, 2012 [22 favorites]

Here's another fave bit:

GEORGE FARAH: Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk were the original co-chairs on the Commission on Presidential Debates. Frank Fahrenkopf is the former hair of the Republican party, and Paul Kirk is the former chair of the Democratic party. When they created the commission, for 15 months, they simultaneously served as co-chairs of their respective parties and the commission, so, it was of course by definition an entity that was absolutely loyal to the two parties. Well, guess what, Frank Fahrenkopf still is co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates, decades later. And he has one other job, his day job; he is the director of the American Gaming Association. In other words, he is the nation’s leading gambling lobbyist
posted by mediareport at 4:01 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Three-legged dogs are fine and all, but as someone whose dog had to have its dog amputated, I sympathize but have to ask if your privilege of having a dog with three quarters of its legs has blinded you to the fact that there are those of us holding an empty leash? A clear photo of a string of SUVs would have been something to see.
posted by maxwelton at 4:02 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Okay, the only one I've found so far is being done by a guy who claims he's the most unbiased reporter ever whose page is covered with crazy anti-Obama stuff. I have class tonight. Anybody know of somewhere online that will have a live text transcript, even if it's not a pretty one? I don't care if it's not pretty, I just can't watch something with audio.
posted by gracedissolved at 4:02 PM on October 3, 2012

maxwelton: " I sympathize but have to ask if your privilege of having a dog with three quarters of its legs has blinded you to the fact that there are those of us holding an empty leash?"

Maxwelton, this is a fair point. I invite you, and I also invite Cortex to my place. We will have a milkbone summit and a brief ceremony for those among us who have lost our dear four legged family members.
posted by boo_radley at 4:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

AMY GOODMAN: Eighty?

GEORGE FARAH: Eighty. They were trying to get rid of difficult questions.

AMY GOODMAN: Eight-zero?

GEORGE FARAH: Eighty.

AMY GOODMAN: Ten times eight?

GEORGE FARAH: Eighty.

AMY GOODMAN: Five times sixteen?

GEORGE FARAH: Eighty.

AMY GOODMAN: One hundred minus twenty?

GEORGE FARAH: Eighty.
posted by perhapses at 4:05 PM on October 3, 2012 [15 favorites]

The youtube feed will likely be closed captioned if that helps.
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:06 PM on October 3, 2012

mediareport, do you have any suggestions for getting rid of this scripted nonsense? Because I was actually thinking about this very topic on the way to the gym and I feel completely powerless to affect a change.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Being aware of the scam that is the Commission on Presidential Debates - and how completely ridiculous it is for Jim Lehrer to "seethe" at accusations that he's a nice safe pet for both candidates - is as good a place to start as any, I guess.
posted by mediareport at 4:08 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

mediareport, do you have any suggestions for getting rid of this scripted nonsense? Because I was actually thinking about this very topic on the way to the gym and I feel completely powerless to affect a change.

Don't watch.
posted by junco at 4:10 PM on October 3, 2012

....Mr. Lehrer, the former anchor of “PBS NewsHour,” has been seething. He said he was outraged by suggestions that he was a “safe” and uninspired choice...

Lehrer: Speak! Romney! Governor! Do not sit in silence and allow the blood that now boils in my veins to ooze through cavities of unrestrained passion and trickle down to drench me with its crimson hue!
posted by mcmile at 4:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [13 favorites]

Don't watch.

Ouch. Well I won't be watching it on TV so there's that.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:19 PM on October 3, 2012

OMG Jim Lehrer, with his big brown button teddy bear eyes. I love him.

You mean, he's The Cinnamon Bear, with the shoe-button eyes?
posted by msalt at 4:30 PM on October 3, 2012

He has an interesting take on the election in that if Obama can win big, he can claim a mandate and use that to progress his second term agenda.

That "mandate" sounds like GWB's "Political Capital"

I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That’s what happened in the — after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I’ve earned capital in this election — and I’m going to spend it for what I told the people I’d spend it on, which is — you’ve heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.

I think it would be easy enough to replace "political capital" with "mandate," and replace the war on terror with something else. I know, Obama would say it differently and with less bravado, but given that political elections are so divisive, and won by a simple majority, claiming that "the people" gave him anything sounds (to me, at least) that he's disregarding the significant portion of people who voted for the other guy.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I posted this elsewhere, but it's just as relevant here: Rigging the Presidential Debates

Both Parties agreed that they would:
(1) not request any additional debates,

(2) not appear at any other debate or adversarial forum with any other presidential or vice presidential candidate, and

(3) not accept any television or radio air time offers that involve a debate format. Were this deal to be between two corporations, they could be prosecuted for criminal violation of the antitrust laws.
posted by dunkadunc at 4:35 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Thanks for the photo, boo_radley. Makes me extra glad I stayed home. Good luck to dear old spispopd.
posted by jazon at 4:40 PM on October 3, 2012

Debate drinking game for Mormons: drink every time Mitt discusses his policy details.
posted by triggerfinger at 4:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [15 favorites]

I feel pretty bad for Jim Lehrer. He's just one employee in a vast media structure that perpetuates the debate system as it is now. There are a lot of his bosses and other higher-ups to call out.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:43 PM on October 3, 2012

FLT,

To be fair, Gergen was talking about a significant victory something on the order of 54%-55% of the popular vote.
W claimed a mandate w/ a much slimmer victory
posted by JKevinKing at 4:44 PM on October 3, 2012

It's probably not happening in Europe or China because the "black" populations there are so much smaller than in the US. Probably because so many of the people from Africa sold into slavery were sent to the Americas.

A wonderful twist for a people who didn't want to pick their own goddamn cotton.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:44 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I just want to wish you all good luck. We're all counting on you.
posted by zardoz at 4:46 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Holy shit mediareport. I knew that there was some behind the scenes wrangling but had no idea of the history. Thank you.
posted by futz at 4:56 PM on October 3, 2012

I know, Obama would say it differently and with less bravado, but given that political elections are so divisive, and won by a simple majority, claiming that "the people" gave him anything sounds (to me, at least) that he's disregarding the significant portion of people who voted for the other guy.

Considering the Rs in house and senate are doing everything they can to disregard the MORE people that voted for Obama (how many times did they try to repeal healthcare, or just generally be obstructive, rather than doing something productive?), maybe he needs to be a bit more forceful.
posted by inigo2 at 5:01 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

They aren't going to get rid of the scripted nonsense.

Neither candidate wants to hear any hard questions, because both candidates agree on the answers to the hard questions. They aren't going to turn the Bill of Rights back on, they aren't going to stop assassinating people at will, they aren't going to stop spying on us, neither war criminals nor financial criminals will see the inside of a court room let alone a jail cell, they aren't going to legalize pot nor dial back the war on drugs, and they aren't going to do anything significant about climate change "because jobs".

This is as usual just a sports event. The only excitement worth seeing is if someone actually makes a "terrible mistake" - but frankly, even gaffes aren't going to change anyone's mind - or if there's some other catastrophe like a candidate having a heart attack or something...

I shall be having a peaceful night at home listening to music and not paying the slightest bit of attention to this pointless timewaster.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:02 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

Debate? Where are their giant cases of evidence, and a strict adherence to Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality and Significance?
posted by drezdn at 5:03 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

frankly, even gaffes aren't going to change anyone's mind - or if there's some other catastrophe like a candidate having a heart attack or something...

Gallup: "83% of Americans who say they will vote for either Obama or Romney claim there is nothing that the other candidate could do or say in the debates that would cause them to change their mind."
posted by jaduncan at 5:09 PM on October 3, 2012

The Obama surprise break to pray in the direction of Mecca and call all Christian babies heathens who deserve death may stretch that 'nothing' though.
posted by jaduncan at 5:11 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Just out of morbid curiosity, does anybody think that the debates are going to change anybody's minds?

THis morning I asked a close friend a similar question - whether the debates as theyexist right now actually serve any purpose of necessity in our democratic process. His (quite good, I thought) response was that, yes, we need to see these two stand on the same stage without a firefight breaking out.

I also think that, yes, it will change some minds and help make up quite a few more. We have fun with the undecideds because we see them as people who still, still somehow can't discern between these two guys? how is that even possible after all this!? But the truth is that the undecideds right now are disaffected voters, mostly self-identified Republicans, if I had to guess, who can't get excited about Romney because it is almost impossible to get excited about Romney, and have seen the GOP move pretty swiftly from "more or less accurately reflects my values" to "batshitinsane." They don't like Obama, but they aren't in the 27% crazification factor either.

Similarly, I know some disaffected libertarian-leaning liberals who are looking for Romney to say anything that will make them believe he could be a decent alternative to Obama.

My own belief here (and I am pretty firmly in the Obama camp and in no way in the Romney camp) is that while Obama will almost certainly kick Romney's ass tonight (and in the others) this will still lead to greater ground gained for Romney. Basically, he's the guy with something to win here. I feel like in a country this deeply divided, Obama is pushing at the upper limit of the support he's going to reach. There's also the expectations game, which after The West Wing exposed it so much I'm still surprised to see played so baldly.

BobbyVan got a lot of shit for his comment way above about Romney possibly flustering Obama. While I agree that "flustered" simply isn't an emotion that Obama can exhibit, I think there was something astute beneath all of that: Romney's best shot for tonight is letting himself be Mitt Romney. Romney is so uncomfortably awkward in the "candidate suit" that his whole campaign has been a variation of the Dukakis tank picture. If there's a zone that he can get in (like he was in during the leaked 47% video) then he has a shot of making up a terrifying amount of ground tonight. I don't think his numbers can sink much lower and people HATE him in the "candidate suit," so drop it already and just say what you mean, Mitt.

All of that said, unlike Obama, Mitt gets flustered at the drop of a hat. He can't handle confrontation and generally wears an exasperated expression of one incapable of suffering fools, who must somehow find a way to do so anyway. If he gives up trying, tonight, the debate is his to "win," even if he won't have facts or rhetoric on his side.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:11 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's almost like Americans are large, and contain multitudes.

WE ARE! AND WE DO!
posted by QueerAngel28 at 5:14 PM on October 3, 2012

As lupus_yonderboy says, basically it is a debate between a Protestant and Catholic on who gets to have the religious facility and, more importantly, the tithe -- for the next four years. It's not like Judaism or Islam or Buddhism is in the room much less on the table. We'll be queueing up before the altar of the Almighty no matter what, the only difference being whether the poor get wafers or a kick in the ass.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I asked my husband if he was going to watch the debates with me and he said "Why? Nothing that will happen on them is going to make me vote for Romney, so why would I bother?" Which...ya know...makes sense.

I think if I weren't looking forward to reading the liveblogging here and the Monster Thread of Evil Romney; I'd probably just go play a game.
posted by dejah420 at 5:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

David Gergen on CNN that Romney always has a notecard on the podium with the word 'Dad.'

The talking heads were just now debating his 'Daddy' issues ... Oh, my.
posted by ericb at 5:17 PM on October 3, 2012

Now, they're talking about Clinton and Obama's relationship with their fathers.

BREAKING NEWS: Lucy Van Pelt has just constructed her fruit stand booth (Psychiatric Help -- $5 -- adjusted for inflation and health care taxes) in the media 'spin room!'
posted by ericb at 5:20 PM on October 3, 2012

Ahahaha Sam Donaldson is bugging out.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 5:21 PM on October 3, 2012

ericb, for real? Not Onion?
posted by futz at 5:22 PM on October 3, 2012

That makes sense. Sam Donaldson is at least 50% insect.
posted by Atom Eyes at 5:22 PM on October 3, 2012

a reminder that "illegal", especially used as a noun, is a slur that many latin@s consider to also have racist connotations.

"Illegal immigrant" is not a slur and should not be interpreted as one. It's an accurate descriptor neutral enough for Wikipedia an the New York t
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 5:23 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney's dad issues sort of push him from the category of comic relief to slightly tragic
posted by angrycat at 5:24 PM on October 3, 2012

Me on Romney in the other thread: Romney is a man who spent his life and sold his soul trying to do what his daddy couldn't, and is about to fail anyway.
posted by jaduncan at 5:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Illegal immigrant" is not a slur and should not be interpreted as one. It's an accurate descriptor neutral enough for Wikipedia an the New York t

Man, I bet you're glad for that edit window. Also, calling someone 'an illegal' is a smidge different than calling them 'an illegal immigrant'.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 5:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

They showed Reince Priebus and I hissed at the screen.
posted by cashman at 5:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

BobbyVan: "addressing Medicare Advantage and not Ryan's argument about the President's health care bill."

It strikes me as unlikely that you can't understand the relation between the two.
posted by wierdo at 5:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

CNN is having obsessive coverage of the debate, pre debate. They're also having a hilarious amount of technical issues.
posted by hellojed at 5:26 PM on October 3, 2012

Will there be holograms this year?
posted by Atom Eyes at 5:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Tonight a white man and a black man are fighting over who will become President. The black man is winning. I don't see this happening in Europe or China or India in the next 20-50 years. Not even in South America.

Btw, the first lesbian (Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, Iceland) and gay (Elio Di Rupo, Belgium) elected heads of government were European and the mayors of Paris and Berlin didn't have much trouble getting (re)elected. I love this part: When Hamburg's former vice mayor Ronald Schill outed the city's Mayor Ole von Beust at a press conference in 2003, Germans mocked Schill, and Von Beust went on to win the 2004 elections in a landslide. It's not a contest about who's more open-minded. Other places should look to the U.S. for inspiration and vice versa. Having an African-American serve as POTUS for 8 years is undeniably great though.
posted by ersatz at 5:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

lupus_yonderboy: "They aren't going to get rid of the scripted nonsense.

Neither candidate wants to hear any hard questions, because both candidates agree on the answers to the hard questions. They aren't going to turn the Bill of Rights back on, they aren't going to stop assassinating people at will, they aren't going to stop spying on us, neither war criminals nor financial criminals will see the inside of a court room let alone a jail cell, they aren't going to legalize pot nor dial back the war on drugs, and they aren't going to do anything significant about climate change "because jobs"."

Don't vote Obama or Romney - Vote Wikileaks in 2012

Neither party is going to stop the abuses, because the abuses have bipartisan support. It's time we had a regime change.

Organizations like Wikileaks are what's going to change things, by undermining and delegitimizing the current regime. If the USG gets scared enough, they will lash out and alienate everybody.
posted by dunkadunc at 5:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Don't blame me, I'm voting for Kodos.
posted by subbes at 5:30 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

OK, so I have the following television-related things:

A huge television
A complete lack of television service (no cable, no satellite, no rabbit ears)
An XBox 360
An XBox Live account
Streaming Netflix
Amazon Prime
A laptop running Windows 7
Windows Media Center running on that laptop
Potentially other things that I don't know are applicable to the current situation

Is there a way for me to watch the debate on my huge television rather than on my laptop?
posted by Flunkie at 5:30 PM on October 3, 2012

I imagine that at the end of every day Wolf Blitzer goes home and just screams into a mirror for like 20 minutes straight.
posted by hellojed at 5:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

My Xbox has been excitedly suggesting to me that I use it to watch the debates, so that should probably do you.
posted by cortex at 5:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

OKAY LETS DO THIS I have this tab, this tab, and this one open (and this metafilter thread open), a tasty 6-pack of local beer, and a healthy disregard for the health of my liver. LET'S GET THIS GOING.
posted by lazaruslong at 5:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yeah, illegal immigrant isn't a slur or super offensive, "illegals" is. "Illegals" is dehumanizing and reduces a whole group of people to their legal status and gets into uncomfortable "your existence is illegal" places. I think "undocumented worker" is one of the more neutral terms if you're trying to avoid any judgment about legality/illegality at all.
posted by yasaman at 5:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

The ABC YouTube stream is doing it for me.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 5:32 PM on October 3, 2012

Yes, it's on Xbox Live and (amusingly) if you watch 3 out of the four debates on XBL you get a free suit of CUSTOM HALO ARMOR!!!
posted by jaduncan at 5:33 PM on October 3, 2012 [13 favorites]

free suit of CUSTOM HALO ARMOR

oh my god you weren't kidding.
posted by xbonesgt at 5:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Thanks cortex!
posted by Flunkie at 5:34 PM on October 3, 2012

But... but... MST3k is also streaming on Xbox Live...
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:36 PM on October 3, 2012

Can MST3k get me a suit of Halo armor?
posted by Flunkie at 5:37 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

ABC youtube keeps crashing for me, but then, youtube on mac sucks across the board -- I'll try PBS.org when the thing actually starts.
posted by Rumple at 5:37 PM on October 3, 2012

Are undecided voters just slack-jawed yokels or what. Fuck, people.
posted by angrycat at 5:39 PM on October 3, 2012

Yes. Servo Armor.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:40 PM on October 3, 2012

The suspense is probably knocking a few seconds off my total lifetime.
posted by drezdn at 5:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Make sure you signed up for XBOX Live Rewards or it doesn't get you the armor set.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 5:42 PM on October 3, 2012

No, Flunkie, but it can get you a new trucker body.
posted by Countess Elena at 5:42 PM on October 3, 2012

I think some people are just really indecisive. Like the person who can't make a decision at the restaurant until the waitress is waiting to take their order, like the person who fills up a shopping cart and then winds up putting most of it back, some people are just fundamentally incapable of making a decision until they are standing in the voting booth.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 5:43 PM on October 3, 2012

awwwwwwww
posted by cashman at 5:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Make sure you signed up for XBOX Live Rewards or it doesn't get you the armor set.

It's the armor that comes with the surely widely desired special 'now also a target for political voice chat' feature in multiplayer.
posted by jaduncan at 5:44 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I immediately regretted that comment. Sorry, undecided. Don't understand you, but hey, you're probably okay.
posted by angrycat at 5:44 PM on October 3, 2012

(Those people make me crazy, BTW).
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 5:45 PM on October 3, 2012

ZOMG cashman that's adorbs
posted by angrycat at 5:46 PM on October 3, 2012

Custom halo armor might make me watch instead of just following this thread.
posted by mrzarquon at 5:47 PM on October 3, 2012

Someone should live write a fanfic of a romance between Barack and Mitt during the debate, based on what they say.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:48 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

The suspense is probably knocking a few seconds off my total lifetime.

The XBox thingy that's going to show the debate now actually has a COUNTDOWN TO THE DEBATE clock, ticking down second by second. 11:28! 11:27! 11:26! It's killin' me!
posted by Flunkie at 5:48 PM on October 3, 2012

Wait, they're playing Halo? That's not a debate.
posted by dirtdirt at 5:49 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's a little awkward how hard I ship Barack and Michelle Obama. I actually got a little misty-eyed when Obama's tumblr had a picture of the two for their anniversary.
posted by yasaman at 5:49 PM on October 3, 2012

Sorry, Romney family, but if you're playing Jenga and it doesn't involve getting a good windup and knocking a piece out with a swung butter knife, you're not playing real Jenga.
posted by cortex at 5:49 PM on October 3, 2012

I immediately regretted that comment. Sorry, undecided. Don't understand you, but hey, you're probably okay.

NPR was interviewing an undecided voter I think about a week ago. The conflict (for the voter) was that she was a women, but also a small business owner. In her mind, Romney would be good for business, but bad for her as a woman RE: health and reproductive rights.

Like, no one should have to make that choice. Basically.
posted by hellojed at 5:50 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney is going to score easy points by congratulating Barack and Michelle on their 20th anniversary - and if his advisers didn't tell him to do this they should be fired.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

OK PEOPLE AM FULL OF DELICIOUS PERNIL LET'S DO THIS!!!!!!!
posted by liza at 5:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yeah!!!!!!!! We live a mile up the road from DU. All the roads are shut down or empty. I-25 was nearly empty when I walked over the bridge and there were several groups waiting with cameras to photograph it in its empty state. I've never got to the liquor store and back with so little traffic.
posted by NailsTheCat at 5:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

While preparing my evening of pumpkin cider, live (debate) action, and sweatpants, I did receive the strangest text from "romneywins0@obamaloses328.com" which read, in toto,

Romney Defeats Obama in Debate!

Is this some weird torture inflicted on residents of real states? I've never gotten to vote for real electoral votes before*, but either this is the weirdest attempt to get me to buy Viagra or the least-targeted Mittens fervor ever.

* sorry DC I love you so much but you are 99% blue and burdened with so few electoral voters
posted by jetlagaddict at 5:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney is coming in from the Left and Obama from the right?! Oh that is so wrong.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:53 PM on October 3, 2012

Wait, they're playing Halo? That's not a debate.

That actually sounds substantially more entertaining and possibly more informative than the actual debate...
posted by jetlagaddict at 5:53 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

COME ON MEFI, I GOTS MY BEERS AND AM READY TO ROLLLLLL!

(ps: anyone have a youtube livestream that isn't ABC News? I don't want to listen to commentators predicting the tweets volume...)
posted by Theta States at 5:53 PM on October 3, 2012

CNN needs to start playing this over their pre-debate commentary
posted by hellojed at 5:54 PM on October 3, 2012

ABC has a person who has promised to report back with the most shared .gif on Tumblr.

Guys, can you smell the Pulitzers in the air tonight?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 5:55 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Theta States, here is the PBS UStream.
posted by davidjmcgee at 5:55 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Debate is already breaking Twitter, it's sloooooow.
posted by emjaybee at 5:55 PM on October 3, 2012

First up -- oh, they're complaining about the XCom demo. There's a crowd pleaser.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 5:57 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney is going to score easy points by congratulating Barack and Michelle on their 20th anniversary - and if his advisers didn't tell him to do this they should be fired.

Or they should just be fired anyway.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:57 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

They're telling humorous anecdotes about dark monitors on PBS.
posted by winna at 5:58 PM on October 3, 2012

I'm doing PBS but the sound keeps cutting in and out.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:58 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm reminded of the first words uttered (by Brian Johnson) at the start of an AC/DC concert I attended not too long ago: "The party starts RIGHT NOW!"
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 5:58 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney is coming in from the Left and Obama from the right?! Oh that is so wrong.

That's to match up with the backwards political colours.
posted by pompomtom at 5:59 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney is going to score easy points by congratulating Barack and Michelle on their 20th anniversary - and if his advisers didn't tell him to do this they should be fired.

And, while he first shakes his hand, he'll ask: "Hey. Can I call you Barry?"
posted by ericb at 6:00 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Awww, come on. XBox counts down to zero seconds, shows me an ad for XBox, and then errors out.
posted by Flunkie at 6:00 PM on October 3, 2012

ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL
posted by cortex at 6:00 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

IT BEGINS
posted by qnarf at 6:01 PM on October 3, 2012

Here is the YouTube link for 2012TheVoiceOf (?) livestream.
posted by davidjmcgee at 6:01 PM on October 3, 2012

And, we're off!
posted by ericb at 6:01 PM on October 3, 2012

AND ITS ONNNNNNNN
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 6:01 PM on October 3, 2012

its go time! Jim Lara in the house!
posted by rebent at 6:01 PM on October 3, 2012

oMG SHUT UP DAVID BROOKS.
posted by emjaybee at 6:01 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

I just want to wish you all good luck. We're all counting on you.
posted by zardoz at 6:02 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Wow, Jim Lehrer is positively seething!
posted by Servo5678 at 6:02 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Red tie on Jim Lehrer. Surprised that wasn't part of the negotiations, neutral colours.
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:02 PM on October 3, 2012

Wow. I was rolling my eyes about the armor but it even works on MeFites. Can't argue with results, I guess. Now let's go go go.
posted by jaduncan at 6:02 PM on October 3, 2012

DABESTIC ISSUES - LETS GO
posted by cashman at 6:02 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Politifact live fact-checking
posted by rebent at 6:02 PM on October 3, 2012

OH SHIT LEHRER DIDN'T ASK THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL

HELMETS ON
posted by cortex at 6:02 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Does Jim Lehrer have eyes?
posted by Flashman at 6:03 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

He said emphasis on specifics... hahahaha.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 6:03 PM on October 3, 2012

Lehrer can't keep a straight face when mentioning that the audience has promised to remain quiet.
posted by qnarf at 6:03 PM on October 3, 2012

I'm watching the C-SPAN live stream and it has no talking head douchebag commentary, just the feed.
posted by Rhomboid at 6:03 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

here we gooooo!
posted by Theta States at 6:03 PM on October 3, 2012

Lehrer looks like a silent film star.
posted by mynameisluka at 6:04 PM on October 3, 2012

So exciting...shhh...
posted by Skygazer at 6:04 PM on October 3, 2012

I am pondering why "You can't stop Katy Perry" is listed as a related post
posted by angrycat at 6:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I love Lehrer talking about how there is to be no noise so we won't be distracted from the important content of the debate while ABC smothers half the screen in useless blowhard bullshit Twitter comments.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 6:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

MSNBC has not had any commentary over the debate so far either.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:04 PM on October 3, 2012

I love that Obama has a blue tie and Romney has a red tie.
posted by hollygoheavy at 6:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Is anyone else nervous? I AM.
posted by murfed13 at 6:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Aww, anniversary mention.
posted by Phire at 6:04 PM on October 3, 2012

Awww...
posted by Skygazer at 6:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Obama's playing it safe...
posted by JoeXIII007 at 6:05 PM on October 3, 2012

Come on Obama, get angry. He looks bored already.
posted by zardoz at 6:05 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Awww he calls her sweetie.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012

I wish everything could come with an undecided voter gauge.
posted by mynameisluka at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012

When you say 'resilience', I hear 'Brazilians'.

ECONOMIC RECOVERY THROUGH WAXING
posted by mikurski at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I feel bad, but even when he's "relaxed" Romney's smirky expression grates on me.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's my birthday, and I'd like Obama to cream Romney for my birthday present - go Pres!
posted by syzygy at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012

ha, "helping companies that invest in the unitied states".

ZING
posted by Theta States at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012

shout out to education!
posted by angrycat at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012

MSNBC has not had any commentary over the debate so far either.

I'm in favor of semi-random Chris Matthews "HA!" interjections throughout the debate.
posted by palidor at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama won the coin toss, he is Fortuna's chosen.
posted by homunculus at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

CBC showing it live in Canada.
posted by arcticseal at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012

"a new economic patriotism.' good line.
posted by qnarf at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012

Barack is rusty on the debate stage - as I expected.
posted by cashman at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012

He's looking right at me!
posted by Babblesort at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Economic Patriotism. It's about time.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

HUMOR MODULE ACTIVATE
posted by goHermGO at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I love that Obama has a blue tie and Romney has a red tie.

It's so they don't kill their own team members.
posted by Theta States at 6:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [13 favorites]

A "tender topic"?
posted by zardoz at 6:07 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

oh man, Romney. That was actually kinda funny.
posted by murfed13 at 6:07 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

And there's the Romney-anniversary compliment!
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:07 PM on October 3, 2012

I'm listening to it on NPR, and periodically checking a CNN window. I like that CNN has the question posted.
posted by dejah420 at 6:07 PM on October 3, 2012

Holy shit! Mitt made a funny that didn't suck!
posted by Skygazer at 6:07 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Tender topic? What is?
posted by angrycat at 6:07 PM on October 3, 2012

I thought the crowd was supposed to be silent?
posted by inigo2 at 6:07 PM on October 3, 2012

CBC is showing it? With or without vacuous commentary?
posted by maudlin at 6:07 PM on October 3, 2012

"Sorry, you're the 47%, I can't help you"
posted by arcticseal at 6:07 PM on October 3, 2012

Boy that was a real grin from Obama over Romney's mention of his anniversary
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:07 PM on October 3, 2012

Oh god, the humanising anecdotes for Romney.

The answer was yes? Surprised. I was banking on "I'll never convince you people".
posted by jaduncan at 6:07 PM on October 3, 2012

yup. romney is explaining his "plan" - why didn't he do this weeks ago?
posted by rebent at 6:07 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Crack down on China? That's...strongly stated.
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:08 PM on October 3, 2012

And here comes the tide of bullshit
posted by angrycat at 6:08 PM on October 3, 2012

Did Romney seriously just say the U.S. doesn't have the best schools in the world?
posted by MegoSteve at 6:08 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney wants to get small businesspeople growing again.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:08 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

romney looks knife edge. he started this question very relaxed, and the more he talks, the more his mouth starts to run from him.
posted by qnarf at 6:08 PM on October 3, 2012

I know what it takes to get small businesses growing. BULLSHIT, Flippy.
posted by ericb at 6:09 PM on October 3, 2012

Youtube Livestream's debate dial is a skeuographic (?) GUI from a recent dystopian movie. Unnerving.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:09 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Trickle down government is a good phrase.
posted by bq at 6:09 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama taking Romney's lead on the numbered arguments.
posted by murfed13 at 6:09 PM on October 3, 2012

Did he just say that Obama's plan was "trickle down economics"?!? wtf
posted by Rhomboid at 6:09 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Did...did Lehrer have his eyelids done?
posted by emjaybee at 6:09 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's sad / funny / not even remotely surprising when they don't even try to answer the question.
posted by insectosaurus at 6:09 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney: scribblescribblescribble
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 6:09 PM on October 3, 2012

BULLSHIT, Flippy.

His new nickname, courtesy the 47% remark thread, is "Alternator".
posted by cashman at 6:09 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

"tell me about trickle down"

"OK, well let me tell you about something else entirely..."
posted by Theta States at 6:10 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

It's true what he says about small business--my dry cleaner is now sending all my shirts to India.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:10 PM on October 3, 2012

Mittens is smirking. Why is Mittens smirking?
posted by dejah420 at 6:10 PM on October 3, 2012

This is not an answer damnit
posted by aspo at 6:10 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney is going to attack in seconds, I think.
posted by cashman at 6:10 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney is playing OPPOSITE DAY by calling Obama's plan "trickle down economics". i can't.
posted by liza at 6:10 PM on October 3, 2012

CNN, you're men's focus group response line obscures the line for the women in our focus group. A little awkward...
posted by dry white toast at 6:10 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Did he just say that Obama's plan was "trickle down economics"?!? wtf

No, he said "trickle down government", flipping the idea.
posted by Jahaza at 6:10 PM on October 3, 2012

It's early, of course, but we're going with the traditional "give the prepared speech which is at least tangentially related to the question" approach I see.
posted by Justinian at 6:10 PM on October 3, 2012

The Twitter feed at the bottom . . . man, as a lifelong MSTie, I never thought I'd say this, but there really is such a thing as too much talking during the show, even if you're funny.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:10 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Erg. Why did Obama twice say he and Romney agree?
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:10 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama's warming up now. Getting into his stride. Saving his white hot/ fastballs arm for the later innings....
posted by Skygazer at 6:11 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama actually looks nervous. I'm assuming he's going to warm up.
posted by jaduncan at 6:11 PM on October 3, 2012

He's kind of smirky.
posted by bq at 6:11 PM on October 3, 2012

I'm hoping they get all their talking points out of their system soon and then start answering questions!
posted by iamkimiam at 6:11 PM on October 3, 2012

all three of them seem drunk.
posted by qnarf at 6:11 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Trickle down government was supposed to be a zinger but he muffed the delivery.
posted by ghharr at 6:11 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I still think all politicians' "A citizen I met" stories should be in limerick form.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:11 PM on October 3, 2012 [30 favorites]

Ooh, direct question - there's a good one.
posted by koeselitz at 6:11 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney is smirking. He just can't help himself.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:11 PM on October 3, 2012

I'd like to read Romney's paper. Bet it says "ohshit ohshit ohshit"
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 6:11 PM on October 3, 2012

OMG direct questions. IT'S ON.
posted by jaduncan at 6:11 PM on October 3, 2012

It's cute that Lehrer thinks he can actually make them answer his questions.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:11 PM on October 3, 2012 [12 favorites]

Romney seems to be attacking Obama from the left. What the hell?
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:12 PM on October 3, 2012

This doesn't sound like a question to me.
posted by insectosaurus at 6:12 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Oh fuck you Romney. You really care about the middle class, you super douche...
posted by Skygazer at 6:12 PM on October 3, 2012

slo42, CSPAN shows both heads right next to each other - no frills. Pretty great.
posted by troika at 6:12 PM on October 3, 2012

"middle class has been buried" has just entered the argument – yeah, they'll hit that hard.
posted by koeselitz at 6:12 PM on October 3, 2012

what Romney is a middle class champion now?
posted by zardoz at 6:12 PM on October 3, 2012

The Economy Tax? Oh Mitt, you can't play populist now...
posted by dejah420 at 6:12 PM on October 3, 2012

Middle income according to Romney: $200,000-$250,000
posted by obscurator at 6:12 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

romney is talking to obama like, this is stuff obama has never heard before. Which is kinda true... no one has heard this from romney before... they've heard it from obama
posted by rebent at 6:12 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romeny is on right now, you guys.
posted by murfed13 at 6:12 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney: "High income people are doing just fine in this economy." Will be a soundbyte.
posted by beagle at 6:12 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

someone told obama: do not make eye contact with romney. don't show him the respect.
it's already making romeny mad, every time.
posted by qnarf at 6:12 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Getting it live in Canada, because if I get a job in Van I'll want to know if the loonie will drown on the back of a sinking american dollar and if I don't get a job in Van I want to know if I'll drown on the back of a sinking american dollar.

Also, WTF ROMNEY just claimed he wouldn't cut 1% taxes, tries to take Obama's middle class policies as his own.
posted by Slackermagee at 6:12 PM on October 3, 2012

DRILL BABY DRILL
BALANCE THE BUDGET
KILL REGULATION
VOTE ROMNEY
posted by angrycat at 6:13 PM on October 3, 2012

Oh NOW Romney is all worried about the middle class.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:13 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yeah, this is the longest question in history.
posted by koeselitz at 6:13 PM on October 3, 2012

sooooooooooooooooo scripted.
posted by futz at 6:13 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama actually looks nervous. I'm assuming he's going to warm up.

He's rusty. People kept assuring me he wasn't, and that Mitt hadn't already been through 20 debates this year, but the start of this debate looks just like I thought it would. Mitt is doing well. Barack is rusty.
posted by cashman at 6:13 PM on October 3, 2012

Gas prices have doubled in the last four years?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:13 PM on October 3, 2012

I'm hoping they get all their talking points out of their system soon and then start answering questions!

Oh wow Kim, you're up at 3AM watching this?
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:13 PM on October 3, 2012

I like Coal. Fuckwit.
posted by arcticseal at 6:13 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

"I like coal."
posted by xbonesgt at 6:13 PM on October 3, 2012

He MENTIONED CUTTING TAX DEDUCTIONS.

That will go over like a lead balloon with middle income people.
posted by winna at 6:13 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

"I like coal!!!!"
posted by rebent at 6:13 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

WHOA PIPELINES FOR EVERYONE

I LIKE COAL

(was coal/crushed a pun? I HOPE SO)

(drinking now)
posted by jetlagaddict at 6:13 PM on October 3, 2012

ROMNEY LIKES COAL!
posted by jazon at 6:14 PM on October 3, 2012

I'm waiting for Obama to respond with, "Heh. Okay Mitt."
posted by Room 641-A at 6:14 PM on October 3, 2012

I LIKE COAL MY CORE CAN BE RETROFIT TO RUN ON COAL
posted by qnarf at 6:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [13 favorites]

drill baby drill. And coal! He is an 1850s villain!
posted by dejah420 at 6:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I LIKE COAL
posted by ocherdraco at 6:14 PM on October 3, 2012

I LIKE LAMP, I MEAN COAL!
posted by Windigo at 6:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

"And by the way, I like coal." *twirls moustache*
posted by mynameisluka at 6:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Clean coal? Really?
posted by SillyShepherd at 6:14 PM on October 3, 2012

'And by the way, I like coal!"

O.0
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 6:14 PM on October 3, 2012

"Clean coal"? Romney's trying to bait him into losing Pennsylvania.
posted by Navelgazer at 6:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

OBAMA GET ANGRY PLEASE
posted by zardoz at 6:14 PM on October 3, 2012

Ah yes - sweet. sweet. CLEAN coal!
posted by obscurator at 6:14 PM on October 3, 2012

He likes Coal's contributions to his campaign war chest.
posted by arcticseal at 6:15 PM on October 3, 2012

With all this "North America" talk, seems Mitt is thinking that if this whole President of the U.S. thing doesn't work out, he could maybe apply for King of Canada.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

So apparently we NONE of us misheard the coal bit.
posted by Windigo at 6:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

TWO am! I went to bed at 8.30.
posted by iamkimiam at 6:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama is taking Romney's "I'm not raising taxes, I'm cutting deductions" and shoving right up Romney's ass.
posted by xbonesgt at 6:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

obama is relaxing into this in a hurry.
posted by qnarf at 6:15 PM on October 3, 2012

Gas prices have doubled in the last four years?

Yeah but that's only because it dipped dramatically right when the economic crisis hit in the last months of Bush's presidency.
posted by cashman at 6:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Oh here we go, Obama's getting poised...squared...

Romney's going to blow a CPU unit any minute...
posted by Skygazer at 6:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm a little bummed that Ghost Hunters didn't have a special debate episode tonight.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Come on Obama, go for his throat
posted by angrycat at 6:15 PM on October 3, 2012

Clean coal? Really?

Romney 2012: A chimney-sweep for every middle class family!*

*renters need not apply
posted by jetlagaddict at 6:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

here comes the math!
posted by jazon at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2012

122 new comment holy looooool
posted by boo_radley at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2012

Gas prices have doubled in the last four years?

Only if you forget that gas was cheap in late 2008 because the economy had tanked.
posted by drezdn at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Don't interrupt Jim.
posted by bq at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2012

Crap, Romney seems more engaged and is talking in shorter sentences. I hope people are actually listening.
posted by rmless at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2012

Oh god yes, clean coal, please talk more to me about that...

Mmm...

What, I LOVE fantasy.
posted by Imperfect at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2012

Wipe the smirk off your face, Romney. It's reminiscent of Gore's audible sighs.
posted by ericb at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2012

Thank You, Obama, for throwing the numbers back in his smarmy, entitled face.
posted by Slackermagee at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2012

Which swing states are coal states?
posted by The Hamms Bear at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2012

STOP SMIRKING YOU BASTARD, I'M RUNNING OUT OF BEER!
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

LEHRER quiet RAGE
posted by goHermGO at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

but but but but but
posted by murfed13 at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Lehrer is fucking awful.
posted by inigo2 at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

oh, jim, you just lost control.
posted by qnarf at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012

Yeaaaahhh rom on the defensive, wires starting to fray
posted by rmless at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012

Ohio. Romney is going for the Ohio vote with that coal talk.
posted by zardoz at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Refusing to reveal details of your plan and then accusing your opponent of misrepresenting it is such an amazingly brazen move.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [10 favorites]

Zinger.
posted by glhaynes at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012

OH GOD

"This plan I've been promoting isn't my plan at all! I've got five boys who are full of shit! Like you!"
posted by rebent at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

OOO. Zinger alert!
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

He all but called Obama a liar. Gah.
posted by jaduncan at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

And Mitt's first zinger!
posted by zardoz at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012

I HAVE FIVE BOYS AND THEY ARE FIVE OF THE WORST FUCKING LIARS IN THE WORLD I AM USED TO LIARS
posted by qnarf at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [13 favorites]

Oh my god Romney just compared Obama to his kids telling lies but keeping repeating it.
posted by winna at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012

Ohio is a coal state.
posted by drezdn at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012

Did Romney just Godwin the debate?
posted by Yowser at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012

Calling your sons liars is kind of a weird joke.
posted by Jahaza at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [18 favorites]

"I'm used to talking with people who peddle inaccuracies"

COMEDY GOLD.
posted by Slackermagee at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

"I've got five boys" – there's HUMANIZIN' moment, folks
posted by koeselitz at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012

I'm note sure comparing Obama to a petulant child is good tactic.
posted by Panjandrum at 6:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I thought Romney couldn't use contractions?
posted by mediated self at 6:18 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney tries the I'm Rubber, You're Glue strategy: "No, YOU'RE going to raise taxes!"
posted by maudlin at 6:18 PM on October 3, 2012

Mitt's getting croaky and about to blow.
posted by arcticseal at 6:18 PM on October 3, 2012

so is mitt straight up lying?
posted by changeling at 6:18 PM on October 3, 2012

No YOU are going to raise taxes
posted by rmless at 6:18 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Wow, he's just lying outright while calling Obama a liar.
posted by wierdo at 6:18 PM on October 3, 2012

Holy crap, Romney took the bait on taxes.
posted by ob1quixote at 6:18 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Shit is boring. I tuned in for zingers and I am getting two dudes arguing about loopholes. This shit won't last even 1 season if all the episodes are like this.
posted by Ad hominem at 6:18 PM on October 3, 2012 [23 favorites]

I has seen a study y'all, 6 uther ones in fact... that beat your 1
posted by JoeXIII007 at 6:18 PM on October 3, 2012

So he is not cutting taxes or raising rates. Got it. Just closing loopholes.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:18 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney's gonna crack.
posted by snsranch at 6:18 PM on October 3, 2012

"His big bold idea is - NEVERMIND"

Got him.
posted by cashman at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I thought these debates were supposed to be moderated.
posted by mikepop at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Nevermind!
posted by Babblesort at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

math math sweet math, mr. president!!
posted by jetlagaddict at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

"NOT POSSIBLE" oh god yes, call him out on that shit.
posted by Imperfect at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I have five sons, by which I mean corporations, who are people my friend.
posted by obscurator at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

OH YEAH OBAMA!!!
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

arithmetic. nice.
posted by xbonesgt at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama: Now Romney says "Nevermind"

HA HA~~!!!
posted by Skygazer at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think Mittens just accidentally called his five sons liars.
posted by Dr. Zira at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

Note the stress blinking in both men. Very intense.
posted by Algebra at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

Never Mind.

/Emily Litella
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney has dry mouth.
posted by futz at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

My feed is clearly behind all of yours. It was really disconcerting reading through this discussion, before I realized that.
posted by meese at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

Now we know why Romney won't give details on his plans, so he deny anything that's said about them.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

IT'S MATH, BITCH
posted by chaff at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Never mind". First actual zinger goes to Obama.
posted by gimonca at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

But will he raise taxes on higher-income families?
posted by SillyShepherd at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

i came here for zingers. i am thus far disappointed.
posted by qnarf at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

nevermind.
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

Arithmetic!
posted by JakeEXTREME at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama is loosening up a little.
posted by winna at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

To be fair, Obama is as handsome as Tugbg Romney.
posted by drezdn at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

*yawn*

I think I heard Mitt say "I will not lower the taxes paid by higher-income Americans", though, which seems interesting.
posted by frijole at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2012

Mitt, stop linking your chops and squinty your gaze when the President speaks. Makes you look weak.
posted by ericb at 6:20 PM on October 3, 2012

So I am watching this on my Roku and I'm clearly a couple minutes behind the actual love debate, so reading this thread is like a glimpse into the near future. Wooo time travel debates!
posted by DiscourseMarker at 6:20 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Did Romney just actually compare Obama to his sons? Really? Did that really just happen?
posted by cjelli at 9:18 PM on October 3 [+] [!]

Worse, he called them "boys."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:20 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Ha! TRUMP BURN!
posted by maudlin at 6:20 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

sorry
posted by chaff at 6:20 PM on October 3, 2012

See, you don't address the entire nation, you speak to the states where you need votes.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 6:20 PM on October 3, 2012

For a second, I thought when Obama said, "it's math," what he had said was "it's mad." I sort of wish for that.
posted by Countess Elena at 6:20 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Wow. Mitt's got the "Deer in the Headlights" smirk, now. I didn't expect him to break so soon.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:20 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Is romneys mouth frozen like that?
posted by rmless at 6:20 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Donald Trump doesn't like to think of himself as small anything - O

BA BAM
posted by Slackermagee at 6:20 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

'I know Donald Trump doesn't like to think of himself as small anything.'
posted by winna at 6:20 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney looks like he's holding back tears.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:21 PM on October 3, 2012

Trump bashing? Come on, Obama. Bust out the good zingers.
posted by zardoz at 6:21 PM on October 3, 2012

did romney really call obama boy??!?!?!

No.

A Trump joke? FFS.
posted by Jahaza at 6:21 PM on October 3, 2012

Ha. The undecided men did not appreciate the Trump remark; women did.
posted by mynameisluka at 6:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I can't READ ALL THE THINGS and actually absorb any of this! How are you people doing this?
posted by gladly at 6:21 PM on October 3, 2012

Both candidates: "The rich will be fine. The real people who are suffering and need our help are middle-income Americans."

So I guess the poor just don't exist?
posted by lostburner at 6:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Romney's being so rude to Jim!
posted by murfed13 at 6:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Oh my god who is this moderator?
posted by Defenestrator at 6:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate" - this is only true because nobody knows what his tax plan actually entails.

So... I think I've just nailed down the Romney campaign strategy.
posted by honeybee413 at 6:21 PM on October 3, 2012

romney defines this as fun?
posted by qnarf at 6:21 PM on October 3, 2012

Now we know why Romney won't give details on his plans, so he deny anything that's said about them.

To be fair, it is literally Electioneering 101 for a challenger candidate to be vague, for exactly this reason.
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Lehrer: "We're way over the first fifteen minutes, but... if you don't have a problem, I don't have a problem."

Good thing he's not letting the candidates run the debate. Such a strong moderator!
posted by koeselitz at 6:22 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Obama, don't even look at him. Don't act like you're hearin it
posted by rmless at 6:22 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney's plan is transparent. Deny his plan is his plan and dare Obama to call him a liar.
posted by Justinian at 6:22 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

The poor exist, they just don't vote.
posted by murfed13 at 6:22 PM on October 3, 2012

Uh oh, small business electronics store story coming in.

Also, when did Obama say he was going to raise taxes to 40% on business?

The hell did that come from?
posted by Slackermagee at 6:22 PM on October 3, 2012

romney has talked to a man with a very small business.
posted by qnarf at 6:22 PM on October 3, 2012

I am super distracted by Romney's USA/China pin.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:22 PM on October 3, 2012

Man, Mitt is just so rude. I get that Lehrer isn't standing up for himself very well, but dude, would it kill you to be polite?
posted by jetlagaddict at 6:22 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Okay... I'm drunk. But is Romney really saying that he won't make any tax cut that reduces revenues?

Really?

OMYGODEDITWINDOW
posted by deanklear at 6:22 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Thinks that an urge to puke or cry while debating the President is the first sigh of humanity exhibited by Romneybot.
posted by wintermind at 6:22 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Now Obama's turn to smirk.
posted by zardoz at 6:22 PM on October 3, 2012

Obamasmirking
posted by HyperBlue at 6:22 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I can't READ ALL THE THINGS and actually absorb any of this! How are you people doing this?

We're ignoring what they're actually saying. Sad but true.
posted by benito.strauss at 6:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

So much for Lehrer.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think Obama has got a handle on business-speak w/o sounding like a boring asshole, as most business speakers sound. While Romney sounds like he's overheating by trying to sound sincere.
posted by angrycat at 6:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Math, bitches,!!!
posted by rmless at 6:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Also, cut deductions? Like the ones for your horse share? Because your horse is worth more in deductions a year than I am.
posted by jetlagaddict at 6:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

i see obama's point here, but he's articulating it poorly.
posted by qnarf at 6:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm as big an Obama fan as they come, but I feel like he's smirking and it's not doing him any favors. He needs to put on his professor face.
posted by anastasiav at 6:23 PM on October 3, 2012

Math, common sense and our history show this will not work.

BURN

And then he rams Bush's economic policies down Romney's throat!
posted by winna at 6:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Oh ho ho, nice comeback with the Bush smear.
posted by jaduncan at 6:23 PM on October 3, 2012

The poor exist, they just don't vote.

More to the point, if they do vote, they are not undecided.
posted by jessamyn at 6:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

FOX News tomorrow: Obama says to Americans: "Governor Romney's plan may work for you"
posted by shortfuse at 6:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Obama just used the "C" word-- commonsense.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:24 PM on October 3, 2012

By saying "jobs" as often as he can, Romney's helping employ one of his key constituencies: robots in the machine transcription sector. (Like how Nixon won in that Futurama episode).
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:24 PM on October 3, 2012

Anyone got a link to a site where they're doing live fact checking?
posted by arcticseal at 6:24 PM on October 3, 2012

They're both very technocratic guys when they want to be, aren't they?
posted by benito.strauss at 6:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama is now equating Romney with W (without mentioning W). Interesting move.
posted by koeselitz at 6:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

cnn's SCIENCE TRACKER is really bored by obama's pushback on romney.
posted by qnarf at 6:24 PM on October 3, 2012

I GET THE LAST WORD.

-Entitled.
posted by Slackermagee at 6:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Throw a tantrum, Mitt!
posted by absalom at 6:24 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama: Maybe we should move on, but... let me talk on anyway!

Romney: I get the last word!
posted by jazon at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012

"The rich will be fine. The real people who are suffering and need our help are middle-income Americans."

So I guess the poor just don't exist?

Didn't Ryan basically say the same thing yesterday? And how the middle-class like owning homes or something?
posted by Room 641-A at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012

OOh, Romney's being a dick. He lost his good start.
posted by cashman at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012

Wow, Romney is rude!
posted by insectosaurus at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012

Wow Romney is very obviously panicking.
posted by Defenestrator at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

My plan is made from magical fairy dust.
posted by arcticseal at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

How is Romney being crazy rude to the moderator playing with the focus group?
posted by winna at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012

why does Lehrer not have two big red buttons that disconnect each candidate's microphone?
posted by xbonesgt at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [11 favorites]

Governor Romney, heh.
posted by SillyShepherd at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012

JESUS CHRIST LEHRER SHOW A SPINE!
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm judging it pretty smirk-neutral so far. Neither candidate is winning there.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012

JIM JIM THE RULES I KNOW THE RULES I HAVE THE RULES PROGRAMMED INTO ME JIM JIM I HAVE THE BOOK OF RULES I STAYED UP LATE READING THE RULES JIM I WILL SPEAK NOW IT IS THE RULES
posted by qnarf at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [27 favorites]

Money paid to employees is a business expense and is thus 100% subtracted from taxable earnings, no? How is it rational to say raising taxes on small businesses would cause them to forego potentially necessary (and tax deductible) business expenses?
posted by nobody at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

JIM, JIM, JIM, I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT I DEFINE THE RULES OF THE DEBATE HERE JIM
posted by Flunkie at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Lehrer! MODERATE! Tell Romney it's time to step away from the thread!
posted by Panjandrum at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

The undecided tanked when Mitt shouted over Jim.
posted by dejah420 at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Is it just me, or does Mitt Romney come across as an insufferable asshole?
posted by syzygy at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

(preferably Romney's spine)
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012

I can't READ ALL THE THINGS and actually absorb any of this! How are you people doing this?

Read less. Drink more.

Yikes... Romney is the interrupting cow.
posted by zennie at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [12 favorites]

How can anyone know your fucking plan when you won't tell us?!!!!
posted by zerbinetta at 6:25 PM on October 3, 2012

This moderator couldn't moderate his way out of a wet paper bag.
posted by Dr. Send at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I dunno, I think Romney is doing not too badly. I mean, I hate what he's saying but he's delivering his message.
posted by Rumple at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Uh oh, I missed it. What was point 1 again?
posted by birdheist at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2012

Wow, Romney's plan has never been tried before. Does he not remember the Tax Reform Act of 1986?
posted by wierdo at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney ----> ABORT ABORT ABORT!!!!
posted by Skygazer at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney is looking sweaty and nervous. His voice is on the edge of breaking.

Christ, he's practiced that smile, though.
posted by dunkadunc at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2012

Lehrer: "Aaaaight...."
posted by Mapes at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2012

My plan is not the plan that you are thinking it is...my plan is MAGIC magic that has never been seen before.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney likes that number 47, doesn't he?
posted by SillyShepherd at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2012

ha ha i am jim lehrer and i have completely blown this ha ha
posted by qnarf at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

The moderator should have two "cut the mike" buttons. And should be willing to use them.
posted by Flunkie at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Damn, that's all I can watch. Off to the salt mines. I hope Romney trips up, but he's a pretty decent debater. Obama needs to get a LOT angrier and put Romney in a corner he has to fight his way out of. then we might see some panic.
posted by zardoz at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2012

I'm voting for an emergency swap with jessamyn. This needs people to follow the rules and not derail.
posted by jaduncan at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [20 favorites]

Is Lehrer the moderator for the other debates?
posted by inigo2 at 6:27 PM on October 3, 2012

deficits are immoral? that's a weird way of putting that.
posted by qnarf at 6:27 PM on October 3, 2012

Big Bird and Obamacare? what the fuck is Romney going on about?
posted by xbonesgt at 6:27 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

"I like it!"

Ha. Nice riposte.
posted by absalom at 6:27 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

OH NO HE DINNENT (threaten PBS to Jim PBS Lehrer)
posted by HyperBlue at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Is Lehrer the moderator for the other debates? Nope - Candy Crowley, and the other one is Bob Scheiffer.
posted by cashman at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

"I love Big Bird"
posted by MegoSteve at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

What is this about Big Bird, what did he even just say

what
posted by jinjo at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

inigo2: "Is Lehrer the moderator for the other debates?"

I hope not.
posted by dejah420 at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Stop the subsidy to PBS. That seems gutsy.
posted by koeselitz at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

He's attacking PBS now?!?
posted by Rhomboid at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

We're in 26 minutes and ROmney's going to choke. He's over-extended....

I LIKE BIG BIRD!!!

Squee...
posted by Skygazer at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

OMG Romney is going to kill Big Bird what?
posted by Room 641-A at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney just said that he'd kill Sesame Street? Really?
posted by wintermind at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

Hey Romney, very little of federal borrowing comes from China.
posted by wierdo at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

When Romney's pitch goes up he sounds just like George HW Bush.

Also he loves Big Bird. And coal.
posted by Pallas Athena at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think he likes Guy Smiley more.
posted by Navelgazer at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

did he just threaten PBS's subsidy WHILST ON PBS?
posted by jetlagaddict at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [11 favorites]

Oh man unraveling
posted by angrycat at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

WELL BIG BIRD DOESN'T LIKE YOU.
posted by changeling at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [19 favorites]

I can't watch; it's too awful. I decided to try reading this thread as proxy, but it's still making me sick to my stomach. Ugh. Can't we just vote now?
posted by tzikeh at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

cut pbs
posted by HyperBlue at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

BIG BIRD GO BYE BYE, BITCHES.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

HA HA JIM I AM GOING TO CUT YOUR FUNDING AND SEND YOU TO JAIL WITH BIG BIRD YOU WILL DIE IN A HOLE HA HA
posted by qnarf at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

He will pry PBS from my cold, dead hands!
posted by Diagonalize at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

HOLY COW HE SAID HE'S CUTTING PBS. And then he referenced Big Bird! Yes, Romney is going to cut Big Bird.
posted by winna at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney likes lots of of the things he wants to kill.
posted by zennie at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

You are fired Jim! Love, mitt
posted by rmless at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

oh my big bird he is off the rails
posted by iamkimiam at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Top things not to say to the moderator:

1. I'll be cutting funding for your job.

WTF Mitt!
posted by cashman at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

WOOOOOOOWOOOOOOOOO

Romney's train is jumping the rails!
posted by Slackermagee at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

MITT ROMNEY WANTS TO CANCEL SESAME STREET!
posted by inigo2 at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

"I like Big Bird" Really?!!!
posted by nooneyouknow at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

My Facebook feed (which is full of idiots) thinks, pretty much across the board, that Romney is knocking it out of the park here.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

"I'm going to cut the subsidy to PBS."
Wow, Romney just put out a cigar on Jim Lehrer's forearm.
posted by obscurator at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

That's it, Lehrer's out of there. Put Jessamyn in.
posted by benito.strauss at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [10 favorites]

The president doesn't have a line item veto. He can't just slash programs like that.
posted by Jahaza at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

This Romneytude is going to piss off people. But he likes Big Bird.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012

ROMNEY LIKES COAL AND LOVES BIG BIRD! I HAD HIM ALL WRONG! I LOVE YOU MITTENS!
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 6:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mr. ~~Dennit~~ President, with all due respect, and remember I'm sayin' it with all due respect, that idea ain't worth a velvet painting of a whale and a dolphin gettin' it on.
posted by frijole at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Is Romney word-spamming the word-clouds-to-be?
posted by SillyShepherd at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney is killing it.
posted by Perplexity at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012

I'm sure cutting the PBS subsidy will just about eliminate the deficit by itself.
posted by SubterraneanRedStateBlues at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Cut ALL the programs!

You're program gets cut! and Your program gets cut! And Your program gets cut!
posted by jazon at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

What other programs could be run more efficiently at the state level?

Can you imagine Sesame Street, Arkansas?

Downton Abbey, New Mexico?
posted by goHermGO at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

"I Love Big Bird" Romeny Autotune in 5...4...3...2...
posted by nosila at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Clearly Mitt has never watched Mr. Rogers defend PBS funding.
posted by thack3r at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Aww, how could Romeny cut Big Bird. Why does Romeny hate Big Bird?
posted by Ad hominem at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012

Mittens: OK, senior citizens who have Medicare and people who love Sesame Street, may I have your attention? I HATE YOU. YOU ARE COMMIE CHINESE SYMPS.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012

I want to see Lehrer get really passive aggressive. "*sigh*, we were only supposed to only spend 15 minutes on that question, and I thought it would be time to move on by now, but it's not like I was ever a governor or president so what do I know?"
posted by mcmile at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

LEAVE BIG BIRD ALONE!
posted by ericb at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mitt Romney: I LIEK BIG BIRD.
posted by InsanePenguin at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney likes Big Bird. I like Big Bird too, but Romney looked like he was losing his shit there. Let the man rant.
posted by marxchivist at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012

Hey, Big Bird, I'ma let you finish, but not-you is the best thing to fund of all time

OF ALL TIME
posted by cortex at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

Days like this, the favorites cap needs to be lifted. LIFT THE CAP MATHOWIE!
posted by drezdn at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012

inigo2: "Is Lehrer the moderator for the other debates?"

Is he the moderator for this debate?
posted by mikepop at 6:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [43 favorites]

Romney: I like to fire people...and Big Bird.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:30 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Obama's poised, he's paced, precise, polite, pithy and professional....

This is ON MOTHERFUCKERS!

Romney is FUCKED.
posted by Skygazer at 6:30 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Big Bird is a little large to be considered a varmint.
posted by Flunkie at 6:30 PM on October 3, 2012

smarmy sumbitch - no way someone can look at Romney and like the guy.
posted by syzygy at 6:30 PM on October 3, 2012

obama is winning this by being boring. every time he says things my brain turns off and i think 'i like him'. when romney speaks he talks about murdering a beloved childhood icon of mine.
posted by qnarf at 6:30 PM on October 3, 2012 [11 favorites]

What's the highest res live debate feed?
posted by nosila at 6:30 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney mad cuz he knows The Count is way better with numbers.
posted by raztaj at 6:30 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

It's on the website and you can look at the numbers. Where are your numbers Mittens?
posted by arcticseal at 6:30 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama needs to come back with "and Mitt, leave Big Bird out of it."
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:30 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Jesus. If he'd said he'd cut Elmo, I might see his point. But Big Bird? Asshole.
posted by Lulu's Pink Converse at 6:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Put Jessamyn in.

I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected.
posted by jessamyn at 6:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [57 favorites]

Perplexity: “Romney is killing it.”

Surveys are still out on what "it" is, however.
posted by koeselitz at 6:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

My husband won't let me mute Romney. *sigh* maybe just turn it off.
posted by Kronur at 6:31 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama is not doing well, he's wandering and imprecise.
posted by Rumple at 6:31 PM on October 3, 2012

I hope that Obama stays chill while Mitt bursts a gasket.
posted by murfed13 at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012

any club that would have you as a member is probably a club you don't want to be a member of :-)
posted by syzygy at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012

The Twitter feed on ABC News is occasionally hilarious: "I am watching this at the same time as Paranormal Activity and I'm not sure which is freaking me out more."
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oooh, finally getting heated back-and-forth
posted by koeselitz at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama barely held from bursting out laughing when Romney said that he wouldn't do Simpson-Bowles, he has "his own plan".
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012

I have my own "plan" but you have to guess what it is.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Did Romney not recognize Simpson-Bowles?
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mitt Romney hates yellow birds.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

"You've been President for four years!"
posted by koeselitz at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

XBOX says 69% for Obama 27% Romney
posted by JakeEXTREME at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama please just shhh and let mitt keep digging himself deeper.
Maybe he will kill Raffi next
posted by rmless at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Jesus. If he'd said he'd cut Elmo, I might see his point. But Big Bird? Asshole.

Them's fighting words. Leave Elmo alone.
posted by Skygazer at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

men really like it when mitt starts yapping FOUR YEARS at obama, according to cnn's TRACKING OF THE UNDECIDED. women seem... concerned by it.
posted by qnarf at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012

Mittens got claws!
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012

Jill Stein is making me hungry for bread.
posted by homunculus at 6:32 PM on October 3, 2012

PBS just chunked out on me. GRAR
posted by winna at 6:33 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama is gonna get angry and say what he really thinks. GAME OVER ROMNEY.
posted by snsranch at 6:33 PM on October 3, 2012

For those not watching, under a Romney administration Big Bird is toast. No word yet on Santa and the Easter Bunny.
posted by any major dude at 6:33 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney was doing well up until he pledged to kill PBS. I wish they would just spend the rest of the debate actually nailing down the impossibility of Romney's budget plan, though: Like Obama said, there just aren't enough loopholes for the rich to offset the tax cuts.

There's already a lot more substance than the 2008 debates, though.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 6:33 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't want to kill jobs, just Big Bird.
posted by dirtdirt at 6:33 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

We missed the small detail of Mitt's plan - he'll cut programs if it's not worth borrowing money from China. Implication: he'll fund the government by borrowing 100% from China! He can cut taxes all he wants, just take out another loan!
posted by jazon at 6:33 PM on October 3, 2012

SPAIN... SPAIN

He doesn't want to go down the path to Spain!
posted by winna at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2012

I would like to go to Spain thanks
posted by rmless at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

deficits are immoral? that's a weird way of putting that.

It's from the Pope, among other places as excerpted in this article:

Pope Benedict XVI was asked recently about morality the accumulation of colossal debts by governments, with particular reference to Germany. His interviewer Mr. Peter Seewald finished his question asking, "Isn't that also an insanely big moral problem?" The Holy Father responded:
Naturally, because we are living at the expense of future generations. In this respect it is plain that we are living in untruth. We live on the basis of appearances, and the huge debts are meanwhile treated as something that we are simply entitled to. (Light of the World, Ignatius Press, 2010, p. 47.)

posted by Jahaza at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

After seeing how you behaved in the UK, pretty sure Spain doesn't want you to come over either.
posted by goHermGO at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

THE REVENUE I GET IS BY MORE PEOPLE WORKING
FOR ME
I WILL MAKE YOU WORK FOR ME
SPAIN SPAIN SPAIN SPAIN
I HATE SPAIN I AM MITT ROMNEY I WILL GO TO WAR WITH SPAIN
posted by qnarf at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

I think Lehrer is throwing this so no one fucking bothers him again.
posted by Slackermagee at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [10 favorites]

MISTER PRESIDENT, YOU'VE GOT SOME ENSPAINING TO DO
posted by cortex at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

The pain in Spain stays mainly on the JOB CREATORS.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2012

"I don't want to go down the path to Spain" - MR

mixed metaphor fail.
posted by iamkimiam at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2012

It must be hard to advocate your own policies when you don't know what they are.
posted by rtha at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

YOU WON'T LIKE MITTENS WHEN HE ANGRY.
posted by Theta States at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2012

What's CNN / Youtube audience polling saying so far? Is there a clear trend?
posted by dontjumplarry at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2012

THE JOBS PROBLEM IS A DEMAND PROBLEM NOT A SUPPLY PROBLEM. SAY IT OBAMA SAY IT.
posted by charred husk at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Oh here comes Corporate Welfare!
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney THE VULTURE CAPITALIST believes in getting more people working for higher wages. What a crock.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:35 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Well I've never been to Spain, but I sure do like the music...
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 6:35 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I wonder how many supercarriers Spain has?
posted by rosswald at 6:35 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mitt Romney: Big Bird Killa.
posted by honeybee413 at 6:35 PM on October 3, 2012

Zing!
posted by Dr. Send at 6:35 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

So Romney's proposing major income tax hikes on the hypothetical "middle-class" jobs that he plans to create, as part of the welcome package?
posted by obscurator at 6:35 PM on October 3, 2012

Exxon Mobile and corporate jets! You tell him, President Obama.
posted by misha at 6:36 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

yeah honestly if this were the path to Spain I would expect substantially better tapas in my face. but I see no tapas, Mittens. Team Tapas.
posted by jetlagaddict at 6:36 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Wait, it's 9:36. Are they still on question 1?
posted by anastasiav at 6:36 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's from the Pope, among other places as excerpted in this article:

i get it, it's just... unusual to put it that way? religiously bent, but in a backhanded kind of way? if that makes sense?
posted by qnarf at 6:36 PM on October 3, 2012

Uh oh, don't do it Obama, don't go to the 'I met a guy/gal who knew...'
posted by Slackermagee at 6:36 PM on October 3, 2012

Or how many supermax prisons
posted by Rumple at 6:36 PM on October 3, 2012

Did Romney not recognize Simpson-Bowles?

No, and in fact he had referred to it earlier before the most recent time it was brought up.
posted by Jahaza at 6:36 PM on October 3, 2012

I like this debate so far. Romney has had his jackass moments, but he's still hanging right there. Obama needs to raise the republican obstructionism somewhere in here. How can I get shit done when your party keeps blocking everything we try to do to fix it? And bam, bring in the Veteran Jobs bill the republicans scuttled last week.
posted by cashman at 6:36 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama keeps bringing it around to education.
posted by jazon at 6:37 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama looks flustered. Asking moderator to change subject was weak... As is his tendency to look down when Romney delivers attacks. Romney was smart to leave most of the zingers out...
posted by BobbyVan at 6:37 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama: please don't talk about the chicks you met in Vegas. It should stay in Vegas!
posted by kmay at 6:37 PM on October 3, 2012

mister president needs to speed it up.
posted by changeling at 6:37 PM on October 3, 2012

The lack of practice is hurting Obama...a lot of Um's and Ah's.
posted by packfan88c at 6:37 PM on October 3, 2012

They're going to cover 2 questions if they're lucky. If I was Jim Lehrer I would just drop the mic and walk out at this point.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:37 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Is anyone else noticing on CNN how there's almost always a gap between men and women when Obama is talking (with men lower than women)? It doesn't seem like it's there when Romney is talking. I'd loooove to see the statistics on that.
posted by Osrinith at 6:37 PM on October 3, 2012

this debate isn't so much moderated as it is watched by a tired, shrimpy old man with tiny button eyes
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 6:37 PM on October 3, 2012 [13 favorites]

how can you like coal AND clean energy?
posted by xbonesgt at 6:37 PM on October 3, 2012

Mitt, do NOT try to defend the Oil&Gas companies. That's not going to go well.
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:38 PM on October 3, 2012

Oil industry tax breaks largely go to small businesses? Seriously?
posted by koeselitz at 6:38 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

XBOX says 69% for Obama 27% Romney

You don't say.
posted by MrBadExample at 6:38 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney just called Tesla losers.
posted by MegoSteve at 6:38 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Fuck your oil addiction. Give me solar.
posted by benito.strauss at 6:38 PM on October 3, 2012

"I had a friend say"... cowardly move there Mitt.
posted by cashman at 6:38 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Zing! Losers!
I am a mitt winner job creator words!
posted by rmless at 6:38 PM on October 3, 2012

Mrs A is so bugged by Romney speaking that she's put headphones on.
posted by arcticseal at 6:38 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

"I don't want to go down the path to Spain" - MR

Well, no, he is Mormon. His running mate is Catholic, so Ryan is more likely to be found on the trail to Santiago de Compostela.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:39 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Poor Jim.
posted by absalom at 6:39 PM on October 3, 2012

Lipstick Thespian: "ROMNEY LIKES COAL AND LOVES BIG BIRD! I HAD HIM ALL WRONG! I LOVE YOU MITTENS!"

I PLAN ON PUTTING BIG BIRD IN A COAL MINE HA HA GUESS HE'LL HAVE TO BEND OVER A BIT HA HA
posted by boo_radley at 6:39 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

I like the way Obama slows down. Romney starts speaking too fast which is from a combination of nerves and trying to cram too much information into a two minute segment. Obam sounds more authoritative and in command just by speaking slower.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:39 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I like that Obama speaks slowly. Romney sounds frenzied and nonpresidential.
posted by murfed13 at 6:39 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney's an asshole, but he's doing OK, mostly by walking all over Lehrer.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:39 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Anyone else enhancing their viewing experience by playing "Duel of the Fates" in the background?
posted by mediated self at 6:39 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Romney: "let me correct a thing or two about shipping jobs overseas..."
posted by Theta States at 6:39 PM on October 3, 2012

DO NOT MITT ROMNEY START TALKING OUT YOUR ASS ABOUT CARING FOR THE POOR YOU SUNAVABITCH OHGOD
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 6:39 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama really needs to stop nodding on Romney's attack lines.
posted by jaduncan at 6:39 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Via twitter: Hmm. Obama & Romney spent 22 min on job-creation with hardly a sentence on the seminal role of sci-tech innovation in 21st century economies.
posted by jazon at 6:39 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

I NEED TO GET AN ACCOUNTANT THAT WILL TELL ME HOW TO GET TAX BENEFITS FOR SHIPPING JOBS OVERSEAS.
ALL THE JOBS I SHIPPED OVERSEAS WERE SIMPLY TO HEAR THEIR CHILDREN CRY, NOT FOR TAX PURPOSES.
posted by qnarf at 6:39 PM on October 3, 2012 [15 favorites]

Obama looks flustered.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
posted by inigo2 at 6:39 PM on October 3, 2012 [12 favorites]

Wait..."your poor"? Whose poor? Obama has his own personal poor?
posted by Diagonalize at 6:39 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

The way Romney says the word 'poor' says it all, really. He can't hide the loathing - it's like he's holding the word with tongs.

Also, Romney has talked way more than his share in my perception.
posted by winna at 6:40 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Wait, it's 9:36. Are they still on question 1?

They've just moved to segment three, but the first two were largely on the same topic.
posted by Jahaza at 6:40 PM on October 3, 2012

xbonesgt: "how can you like coal AND clean energy?"

Because it's clean coal. What else are we going to do with those unicorns that eat coal slurry and shit rainbows?
posted by tonycpsu at 6:40 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ooooo entitlements. The hot topic. Be wary.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:40 PM on October 3, 2012

I think Romney has that sort of professional sports broadcaster false urgency going on. Sort of an inarticulable rage.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:40 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney looks like he has a huge Romney-shaped stick up his ass.
posted by syzygy at 6:40 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Ugh, are they ever going to get to other domestic issues - what health care can your employer choose to deny you?
posted by Kronur at 6:41 PM on October 3, 2012

Also, I wish when Romney was talking about not saving money sending jobs overseas, Obama had just said "well, why did you keep doing it?"
posted by inigo2 at 6:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Stop trying to make 'flustered' happen, dude.
posted by cashman at 6:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Noooo, Obama, you're better than grandma stories.
posted by Diagonalize at 6:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

That was not a graceful pivot, Mr.president. And now slowly talking about you grandma...
posted by charred husk at 6:41 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney likes big bird - can't wait for him to flip-flop on this.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:41 PM on October 3, 2012

Needs much more focused questions. These open ended ones are just an invitation for a firehouse of talking points.
posted by Rumple at 6:41 PM on October 3, 2012

I think Obama sounds authoritative and Romeny sounds like an Internet crank who just googled a bunch of shit and is trying to spit it all out before he forgets it.
posted by Ad hominem at 6:42 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Eponysterical, Inigo!
posted by BobbyVan at 6:42 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Very good that Obama calls out the nastiness of the term "entitlements".
posted by maudlin at 6:42 PM on October 3, 2012

Yeah go to Medicare!!
Remind everyone to boo Ryan!
posted by rmless at 6:42 PM on October 3, 2012

no, it's good to do the granma story to remind women & elderly why they need to rage against the capitalist.
posted by liza at 6:42 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama looks flustered. Asking moderator to change subject was weak... As us his tendency to look down when Romney delivers attacks. Romney was smart to leave the zingers out...

You seem kind of flustered... all these ellipses...
posted by stavrogin at 6:42 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Noooo, Obama, you're better than grandma stories.

The CNN line for undecided female voters moved UP during that. Not a bad move.
posted by maudlin at 6:42 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney: I'm a bigass hog that's going to talk over Jim Lehrer every chance I can get, because I'M ROMNEY BOT AND BZZZ SPSSSTTTZZZ BRRIIIIIZZZ!!!
posted by Skygazer at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

inigo2: "Also, I wish when Romney was talking about not saving money sending jobs overseas, Obama had just said "well, why did you keep doing it?""

The Republican-Democrat debate agreement only allows them to ask questions about hypotheticals.
posted by dunkadunc at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2012

Mitt: Earmuffs, Grandma!
posted by goHermGO at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mitt: If you're old, stop listening.

WHAT
posted by troika at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Facebook just got a Save Big Bird page
posted by obscurator at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

UH OH HERE COME ZINGER
posted by qnarf at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2012

"You have two minutes to answer... HAHA LOL j/k you can just talk over me its cooool."
posted by zennie at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2012

Did he just Shell Game retirees?
posted by JakeEXTREME at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2012

The same 716 that Ryan has in his budget plan...
posted by packfan88c at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Now Obama only has to say that he thought Romney didn't have to care about those people. (Seniors depending on entitlements)
posted by JoeXIII007 at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2012

Hey olds, you can stop listening to me now.
posted by Babblesort at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I can't believe Romney keeps repeating the Medicare cut line.
posted by murfed13 at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Did you know that if you're old, you don't give a fuck about what happens to anyone else?
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

If you are 60....damn. I turned 55 this year. Sucks to be me.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2012

"Their poor", "our seniors" ... dear Mitt, these are actual PEOPLE you're talking about.
posted by Lulu's Pink Converse at 6:44 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

That was a terrible "oops I forgot about this" twist to get to the supposed $700B cuts.
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:44 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh I just thought of one? Are you in 7th grade?
posted by aspo at 6:44 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Viewers' reaction shot
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:44 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Mitt: If you're old, stop listening.

WHAT

It was a trick, he's now going into some kind of mathemagic about how Obama 'cut' Medicare.
posted by winna at 6:44 PM on October 3, 2012

Time out! I need a new Lie Meter. Romney broke mine.
posted by snsranch at 6:44 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney is quintipling down on the 716 billion dollar cut LIE.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:44 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

IF ONLY WE HAD UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, MITT, JUST LIKE MASSACHUSETTS
posted by jetlagaddict at 6:44 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

whenever romney speaks... passionately to obama, he starts to look like he's just seconds from throwing his podium aside and slamming his fists into the ground over and over again
posted by qnarf at 6:44 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney, are you not aware that Medicare Advantage costs more than regular Medicare, and that providers agreed to the Medicare cuts in exchange for the individual mandate?
posted by wierdo at 6:44 PM on October 3, 2012

murfed13: "I can't believe Romney keeps repeating the Medicare cut line."

Programming fail. Stuck in a loop.
posted by Lulu's Pink Converse at 6:44 PM on October 3, 2012

If you had 716 billion on your bingo drinking card, get to a hospital now.
posted by mikepop at 6:44 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Christ, Romney's strident arrogant tone, just makes me want to punch him.

GAHHH...
posted by Skygazer at 6:44 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

And what would those proposals be, sir?
posted by blurker at 6:45 PM on October 3, 2012

Amy Goodman is having a much easier time moderating the third party candidates. Go figure.
posted by homunculus at 6:45 PM on October 3, 2012

I'm so confused.
posted by bq at 6:45 PM on October 3, 2012

THAT'S FOR FUTURE PEOPLE
posted by qnarf at 6:45 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Future People!
posted by hellojed at 6:45 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

finally, a Ryan mention.
posted by xbonesgt at 6:45 PM on October 3, 2012

if you're 55, might wanna listen.
boom.
posted by qnarf at 6:45 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Romney is blinking more than Hugh (Blinky) Grant does in any given movie!
posted by ericb at 6:45 PM on October 3, 2012

We're overtime, handball on the right hand foul, move back five bases and repeat first down.
posted by Slackermagee at 6:45 PM on October 3, 2012

Did you know that if you're old, you don't give a fuck about what happens to anyone else?

If the retirees in my Y can be judged as a sample, lots of them don't.
posted by winna at 6:45 PM on October 3, 2012

Oh oh oh My president just told me to listen! Shout out to the 55ers
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:46 PM on October 3, 2012

Are we absolutely sure that Romney doesn't take caffeine?
posted by Flunkie at 6:46 PM on October 3, 2012

remember how i had a grandmother, guys? i mentioned her earlier. anyway, mitt romney wants to kill and eat her.
posted by qnarf at 6:46 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

It's a blink a second! One Mississippi, Two Mississippi ...
posted by ericb at 6:46 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

If Obama doesn't get around to stomping on the $716 billion crap, I will be very angry.
posted by koeselitz at 6:47 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I don't know. Are we listening to the same debate? I'm an Obama supporter, and I'm surprised at Obama's lack of edge in this debate. As much as you want to believe that Romney sounds "falsely urgent" or whatever, my Republican relatives are out of their seats cheering at this point. Sorry.

What I wish I had was a "Ryan-cam" right now, because some of these economic issues that Romney is taking a stand on is not what Ryan has said he believes will reduce the deficit. It will be interesting to see the size of the smoke screen the GOP has to create in order to avoid reconciling that.
posted by jeanmari at 6:47 PM on October 3, 2012 [18 favorites]

Christ, Romney's strident arrogant tone, just makes me want to punch him.

I think that is what is really, really hurting him. He's okay with what he's saying for the most part, but he's just being a colossal dick up there. Interrupting Jim, interrupting Obama. Hell, he even interrupted himself.
posted by cashman at 6:47 PM on October 3, 2012

gifwich is killing it, right now.

some favorites:

posted by heeeraldo at 6:47 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

"I support no change for current retirees"

But everyone else...vouchers
posted by packfan88c at 6:47 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

GAH how could you let that go, Barack? How could you not address that?
posted by koeselitz at 6:47 PM on October 3, 2012

"I have become fond of this term...ObamaCare." OH SNAP.
posted by Dr. Zira at 6:47 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'm worried that the press will label Romney's stridency and breathlessness as showing passion strength, and Obama's calmer tone as hesitancy and sluggishness.
posted by shortfuse at 6:48 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Are we absolutely sure that Romney doesn't take caffeine?

Fuck that. He's acting and sounds like he's been snorting crystal meth...
posted by Skygazer at 6:48 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Man, Jim is getting bullied all over the stage by Mittens.
posted by dejah420 at 6:48 PM on October 3, 2012

I LIKE TO FIRE COMPANIES TOO
posted by qnarf at 6:48 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney: "I'm rich enough to buy whatever healthcare I want, so fuck everyone else."
posted by xbonesgt at 6:48 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Because I like firing people!
posted by blurker at 6:48 PM on October 3, 2012

Hey, the crazy rich guy prefers having a private health plan, who knew??
posted by inigo2 at 6:48 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Romney's smirk comes off as him not use to listening to people.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:48 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

TWO free plans IMPROVES efficiencies. OF COURSE.

WTF?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:49 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama's missing opportunities for death hugs.
posted by stavrogin at 6:49 PM on October 3, 2012

This voucher system is a nightmare, and I hope Obama points out that the last thing that the elderly want to do is fucking pore through the minute details and differences of healthcare plans, on a screen or in a gigantic paper packet.
posted by cashman at 6:49 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Oh well, at least Romney considers me young.

Heh! Romney prefers private health care-- Gee I wonder why?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:49 PM on October 3, 2012

If I weren't listening to any actual words that are being said during this debate, I'd say that Romney is killing it. :/
posted by thack3r at 6:49 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mitt Romney is by far and away the Angriest Politician I've ever seen - he looks just like Michael Douglas from Falling Down in this debate.
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 6:49 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I don't know. Are we listening to the same debate?

You're watching the one Andrew Sullivan is.
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:49 PM on October 3, 2012

Getting all gestalty here with the CNN live tracker, I can see Romney consistently moving the needle on undecided men, while Obama consistently appeals to undecided woman. Put aside the media spin, and it looks like a draw so far.
posted by maudlin at 6:50 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Wow. So Obama's team clearly decided to completely ignore the "$716 billion" accusation. Wow.
posted by koeselitz at 6:50 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Also @bigbirdromney https://twitter.com/bigbirdromney
posted by honeybee413 at 6:50 PM on October 3, 2012

EVERYONE YELL EVERYONE YELL
posted by qnarf at 6:50 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

LEHRER IS HOPELESS.
posted by shortfuse at 6:50 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Mitt is just being a huge ass. He's really hurting himself.
posted by cashman at 6:50 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney's blinking so much his eyes are getting red ... and soon he's gonna break out crying like the prep school classmate he pinned down and forcefully cut his long blond hair.

Come on ... Mitt start bawling like Scot Farkus.
posted by ericb at 6:50 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

ssssssssssssssshhhh

shushushush
posted by jinjo at 6:50 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I have never seen any reason to be frightened of saying ~~Voldemort’s name~~ Obamacare.
posted by frijole at 6:51 PM on October 3, 2012

Can the two of you agree that I'm the damn moderator?

No?

Oh, carry on then.
posted by absalom at 6:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Mr. Moderator, you are being a weenie. There, I said it.
posted by Diagonalize at 6:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Why the hell can't Romney seem to keep himself from interrupting Lehrer? Is he running for debate moderator or president?
posted by saulgoodman at 6:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

OMG, what a fucktard. The schnapps are kicking in (sent straight from my girlfriend's aunt's mountain farm in the Austrian Alps).
posted by syzygy at 6:51 PM on October 3, 2012

is there an @jimleherer meme twitter ye that just says 'aaawwwraaaight'?
posted by qnarf at 6:51 PM on October 3, 2012

I work in a hospital that's usually about 55-60% Medicare patients. I really need more information than this, gentlemen.

Every four years I forget that I hate the modern debate format. Fool me (*counts on fingers*) six times as a voter. Maybe they should just do an AMA together and let Reddit handle it.
posted by catlet at 6:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

You're watching the one Andrew Sullivan is.

I'm watching CSPAN. Is Sullivan watching CSPAN? Believe me, I want Obama to crush this guy. But I'm not seeing it happening. (And I'm a decided woman who would never vote for Romney.)
posted by jeanmari at 6:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Mitt can not stand the fact that he can't control the debate. STFU. STOP INTERRUPTING THE MODERATOR.
posted by ericb at 6:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yay, private health insurance companies have done such a great job of lowering costs. Magic of the market place and all that.
posted by octothorpe at 6:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Banks are underregulated?
posted by benito.strauss at 6:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

yeah, screw you health care company, you don't want to pay for my hip replacement? I'll get rid of you and find another insurance company that is happy to fork over the 50k for the procedure in my first year with them. The free market saves the day!
posted by any major dude at 6:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

BRB, opening a bank out of my garage.
posted by mynameisluka at 6:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [12 favorites]

I don't think Obama's doing well but Romney just said "Regulation is essential."

Also he wants to fire Big Bird. And wants banks to fail, presumably as long as they're New York banks, and not Swiss banks.
posted by jetlagaddict at 6:52 PM on October 3, 2012

Is he now crying? He has started to rubbing his eyes. Boo--hoo, hoo, Mittens.
posted by ericb at 6:52 PM on October 3, 2012

"Let's not!"
posted by goHermGO at 6:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Maybe they should just do an AMA together and let Reddit handle it.

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
posted by Jahaza at 6:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I would love to see Linda Ellerbee moderate.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

YAY JIM LEHRER, finally!
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Finally Jim stands up to Romney.
posted by mediated self at 6:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

NO LET'S NOT.
Thank you.
posted by charred husk at 6:52 PM on October 3, 2012

Awh, I've hit my favorite limits for the day...
posted by dejah420 at 6:52 PM on October 3, 2012

Mitt's interactions with Jim are just painful to watch.
posted by cashman at 6:52 PM on October 3, 2012

oh man, obama can barely contain himself. romney just shit the bed over dodd frank. what a terrible answer.
posted by qnarf at 6:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Obama just chuckled.
posted by SillyShepherd at 6:53 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney sounds panicked

good for you Jim
posted by hellojed at 6:53 PM on October 3, 2012

There you go Jim!
posted by ReadEvalPost at 6:53 PM on October 3, 2012

Genuine Obama smile in the midst of horribly rude Interruptasaurus.
posted by gladly at 6:53 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

You could just as easily make the argument that Romney speaks quickly because he thinks quickly, he is familiar with facts and is a passionate politician.
posted by quosimosaur at 6:53 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I agree Romney is interrupting Lehrer but Obama is TALKING FOREVER. Don't open your mouth and remove all doubt. BE QUICK ABOUT IT!
posted by glaucon at 6:53 PM on October 3, 2012

At this stage Romney has gotten combative with the moderator. Obama has kept his cool. What impact does this dynamic have on those watching?
posted by ericb at 6:53 PM on October 3, 2012

"LET'S TALK ABOUT..."

"Well, no, let's not."

Finally, Lehrer.
posted by Flunkie at 6:53 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney, the champion of small banks. LOL
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 6:53 PM on October 3, 2012

Yeah, I agree with jeanmari. I have a feeling that a lot of people are going to view this as a Romney win.
posted by Windigo at 6:54 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama keeps having slow starts and lots of pauses as the beginnings of his answers but he picks it up every time
posted by rmless at 6:54 PM on October 3, 2012

I agree. If you don't know about the details of the system, it sounds like Romney's "It's so simple just do this" approach sounds good.

I agree too. Romney has said some things that I'd like if I believed him --- he deeply misrepresented his own budget plan in the beginning. And now Romney is championing regulations? What is this bizarro-world shit? Romney will gut regulations if elected.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 6:54 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama isn't killing it, but he doesn't have to. Romney does and he isn't. Obama is doing what he usually does, appear calm and Presidential, as opposed to flailing around as Romney is.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:55 PM on October 3, 2012

WALL STREET ZING.
posted by Theta States at 6:55 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Given the challenges this format presents to having a substantive discussion, I've taken to wondering about more picayune matters. Like, what the heck is that black spot on Romney's tie pin? "An antenna for the aliens?"
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:55 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Can't we get Judge Judy to moderate these things? The moderator is just a sham anyways, at least SHE wouldn't be walked all over
posted by packfan88c at 6:55 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

Romney is winning this debate because he's changed his positions since two days ago, and Obama didn't see it coming.
posted by koeselitz at 6:55 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Obama has had a few chances to make very hard strikes. Being too polite...maybe.
posted by snsranch at 6:55 PM on October 3, 2012

I agree. If you don't know about the details of the system, it sounds like Romney's "It's so simple just do this" approach sounds good.

See, this is what I'm most worried about. Many of the Republicans in my family are judging the debate thusly:

1) Does my guy sound like a fighter? I like a fighter!
2) Is he stomping all over that commie moderator from PBS? Suck it, liberal moderator!
3) Does my guy sound like a fighter? Hell, yeah! I want a fight!

Yeah, want to come over for Thanksgiving dinner? Good times.
posted by jeanmari at 6:56 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

ROMNEY IF YOU INTERRUPT ME ONE MORE TIME I'M GOING TO KICK THE FUCK OUT OF YOU
posted by nushustu at 6:56 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Lehrer: "Aaaaaight."

"Er..."

"Kay..."
posted by Mapes at 6:56 PM on October 3, 2012

ooo, healthcare. BRING THE PAIN
posted by qnarf at 6:56 PM on October 3, 2012

I really want to see the breakdown of talking time by each candidate. Romney is just running all over the time, and jumping on Obama. I'm coming close to thinking that Obama is clearly losing this partly by having maybe a third less time?
posted by jaduncan at 6:56 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I wolfed down my dinner and came back to find 150 new comments! Romney hasn't exploded yet?
posted by arcticseal at 6:56 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney has gotten combative with the moderator.

And the moderator is a known Liberal Media Hack so he's winning points with the Conservative Base.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:57 PM on October 3, 2012

BITCHSLAP HIM JIM!!! DAMMIT I'M JUST A VIEWER NOT YOUR ASSISTANT!!

JIM!! JIM!!! JIM!!!

YELL AT ROMSTER...
posted by Skygazer at 6:57 PM on October 3, 2012

AP: Romney's lapel pin has the Secret Service logo - a star - on it. The Secret Service agents who protect him gave it to him.
posted by Rangeboy at 6:58 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Skygazer: "Romney: I'm a bigass hog that's going to talk over Jim Lehrer every chance I can get, because I'M ROMNEY BOT AND BZZZ SPSSSTTTZZZ BRRIIIIIZZZ!!!"

LOVE ME
posted by boo_radley at 6:58 PM on October 3, 2012

SHUT UP ABOUT SMALL BUSINESSES

NOT ALL OF US ARE RANDIAN FUCKSTICKS WITH VC CAPITAL AND A BUSINESS PLAN WRITTEN ON A COCKTAIL NAPKIN
posted by hellojed at 6:58 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

"I don't want an unelected board deciding what medical treatments I can have," because an unelected, opaque profit-making company makes much better decisions about that!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:58 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

Ooooh, death panel dog whistle. I honestly wasn't expecting that!
posted by Flunkie at 6:59 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

IT ISN'T AN ENTITLMENT WHEN YOU PAY INTO THE SYSTEM
posted by ninjew at 6:59 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

I think Romney just perfectly cued up "716 billion" PERFECTLY for Obama. Take it! Take it! (It might need a zinger added to get the attention of the mouthbreathers.)
posted by maudlin at 6:59 PM on October 3, 2012

actually, CNN is showing the amount of time each candidate speaks, and they're pretty neck and neck.
posted by nushustu at 6:59 PM on October 3, 2012

I have to agree Mitt Romney is losing the debate. Badly. It's kind of embarrassing for CEOs everywhere. He thinks that by lying about his positions in a way that cuts off Obama's criticisms of them, he can fool people into forgetting what he's been caught saying at private fund raisers and has actually put forth as proposals and in campaign ads for the last 18 months. Does he think we're so dumb we'll forget all the things he's been saying up until now because we're dazzled by his subtle rapid eye-blinking hypnosis technique?
posted by saulgoodman at 6:59 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

THE STATE LEVEL IS MAGICALLY NOT GOVERNMENT
STATE LEVEL STATE LEVEL STATE LEVEL
posted by qnarf at 7:00 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

death hug!
posted by stavrogin at 7:01 PM on October 3, 2012

Expensive things hurt families. Isn't Mitt an Expensive Thing?
posted by jazon at 7:01 PM on October 3, 2012

Restore Glass–Steagall!
posted by homunculus at 7:01 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romneycare!
posted by octothorpe at 7:01 PM on October 3, 2012

The fact checkers MIGHT be finished by the next debate.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:02 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama interrupts and it's a funny moment between him and Jim. More and more this is just a sloppy debate overall.
posted by cashman at 7:02 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Did he just *blame Obama* for 'pushing through Obamacare without a single Republican vote'?...
posted by jinjo at 7:02 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Please, please, please, please, please keep the topic on Romneycare=Obamacare. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.
posted by Slackermagee at 7:02 PM on October 3, 2012

#OCCUPYSESAMESTREET
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:02 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Obama isn't answering shit. That really pisses me off.

And I disagree, saulgoodman. Romney is winning this debate. He's putting up obnoxious, false talking points, and Obama is letting them stand so he can explain stuff.
posted by koeselitz at 7:02 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Is anyone keeping count of the 716 billion dollar mentions?
posted by murfed13 at 7:03 PM on October 3, 2012

Look UP Obama - don't look down, it looks like defeat.
posted by syzygy at 7:03 PM on October 3, 2012

i think mefi's server is sweating under the load of all of this silliness.
posted by qnarf at 7:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Oh NOW he wants to own RomneyCare. He has been running away from it the entire campaign.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:04 PM on October 3, 2012

Adam Nagourney in NYT has started this BS already: Obama Passive, Romney Assertive
posted by shortfuse at 7:05 PM on October 3, 2012

Say no to Voodoo Economics!
posted by homunculus at 7:05 PM on October 3, 2012

Actually I'm surprised at how civil everything's been so far.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 7:06 PM on October 3, 2012

Fuck you, Mitt Romney. Blue Cross Blue Shield has a board. I can't vote for it. I can't afford to.

My mother's replacement thyroid medicine was denied despite it being essential to her life.

Oh, we fixed it. But fuck you. There are already boards voting. For profit.
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

I have a feeling that a lot of people are going to view this as a Romney win.

Won't matter.

1) Does my guy sound like a fighter? I like a fighter!
2) Is he stomping all over that commie moderator from PBS? Suck it, liberal moderator!
3) Does my guy sound like a fighter? Hell, yeah! I want a fight!

Won't matter.
posted by mediareport at 7:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama: I had five seconds left before you interrupted me... now let me talk for 45.

THE STATE LEVEL IS MAGICALLY NOT GOVERNMENT

It's not that it's not government, but it is closer to the people and more responsive. There's a reason we have state governments.

Obama is saying, "It's the same plan," but really it's not, because doing something at the federal level is a key difference from doing it at the state level.
posted by Jahaza at 7:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

That's already offered in the private marketplace (keeping your kids till 26 on your policy).

YEAH, BECAUSE OF OBAMACARE. FUCK YOU AND YOUR HALF-TRUTHS, MITT.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:08 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Greg Nog: "QUESTION: what is the black thing on Romney's american flag pin?"

According to the BBC live blog, it's the US Secret Service star. I guess that's Romney's attempt to put himself on the same level as the President. Sort of like when your kid wears a sheriff's badge when he's playing cops and robbers.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:08 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

DEATH PANELS!
posted by zennie at 7:08 PM on October 3, 2012

is "mandate" a dogwhistle?
posted by rebent at 7:08 PM on October 3, 2012

Metafilter's Down (And So I Hit F5)
posted by Flunkie at 7:09 PM on October 3, 2012

I wish Obama would stop defending and start attacking
Don't let mitt run this!
posted by rmless at 7:09 PM on October 3, 2012

Thread is locking up for me. I think Obama saw it coming, koeselitz - hence the "Mitt's big bold idea - Nevermind". But I do agree he is leaving a lot of things unchallenged.
posted by cashman at 7:09 PM on October 3, 2012

I'M A BUSINESSMAN! I KNOW BETTER THAN TO THINK THAT A HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE WOULD BE A GOOD THING!
posted by cortex at 7:09 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

HOT DOG ROMNEY
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:09 PM on October 3, 2012

Did we break metafilter?
posted by insectosaurus at 7:09 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

TIMED OUT BY THE SERVER ALL MY LIFE!!
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 7:09 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

something fell down behind obama while romney was talking. obama looked over, made a funny face. romney just kept spitting words. sorta the difference between the two, there.
posted by qnarf at 7:09 PM on October 3, 2012

Do you think Romney purposely wore an American flag pin that would be larger than Obama's?
posted by Windigo at 7:10 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama is wasting time reasonably explaining everything, but Mitt's at 12 lies/minute
posted by Theta States at 7:10 PM on October 3, 2012

Thread is locking up for me.

I think it's the auto-update stuff; F5 is working a lot better than that for me. (Though, does that mean I'm just increasing load? Sorry if so...)
posted by inigo2 at 7:10 PM on October 3, 2012

yeah, wow, you worked with democrats in a congress that was 83% democratic? no shit? I wonder why? Meanwhile Obama is not getting the votes of any Republicans in congress and somehow this is because Obama is partisan? Get fucked Mitt.
posted by nushustu at 7:10 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Obama's big talking point is that Romney won't talk specifics. I'm getting bored with it.
posted by gaspode at 7:10 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama hammers on this whole secret plan nonsense.
posted by winna at 7:10 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I just realized that this is a red tie vs. blue tie debate, and I think most of us know who is likely to win in a visibly red vs. blue match... hopefully we have an outlier here...
posted by JoeXIII007 at 7:10 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

ColdFusion ran out of beer for a minute, no worries.
posted by cortex at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

is the reason that governor romney keeping these plans secret because... HE IS GOING TO SMASH YOU WITH HIS IRON CLAWS?
posted by qnarf at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2012

One hour in, Obama finally goes on the offensive. Thank god.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2012

This shit about panels. He has obviously never had to rely on private health insurance for the big bills. If Ann needs something that her insurance doesn't cover you can bet that Mitt has no problem paying out of pocket.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Smirk. Blink. Smirk. Blink. Smirk. Blink. Smirk. Blink. Smirk. Blink.
posted by ericb at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Romney is definitely doing much better than I expected...Anti-Christ anyone? Great talk, all talk, horrible atrocious personal philosophy.

Obama has missed too many chances to really drop the hammer and break the Romney.
posted by snsranch at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

nooo Metafilter don't leave me drinking alone nooo
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney really is just ignoring Lehrer isn't he?
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2012

Ah, memories of jrun!
posted by ericb at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

THE GIPPER THE GIPPER THE GIPPER THE GIPPER
posted by Slackermagee at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2012

Jim, stand up out of your chair and cut him the fuck off!
posted by rmless at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2012

it's the US Secret Service star.
So... it's a government handout.
posted by Oddly at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

FOR FUCK'S SAKE, JIM
posted by cortex at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Someone screengrab Lehrer, finger up, eyes closed, letting Romney step all over him again.
posted by shortfuse at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2012

From my Facebook feed: "Does Romney sound like Daniel Plainview?"
posted by You Guys Like 2 Party? at 7:12 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Lehrer closes his eyes, mouths "i hate you i hate you i hate you"
posted by cortex at 7:12 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

Obama has ruined everything, but my plans keep everything that his plans do - plus unicorns!

That's some stupid fucking logic, there.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:12 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

I'm pretty much like Reagan, people.
posted by Theta States at 7:12 PM on October 3, 2012

Didn't debates used to have buzzers when the candidate went overtime?
posted by octothorpe at 7:12 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I HAVE A PLAN !
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 7:12 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Lehrer makes L-shape with hand, mimes blowing his own brains out
posted by cortex at 7:12 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

No kidding - Anyone else think Lehrer will never get invited to do another one of these?

TOTAL failure to control the stage.
posted by pla at 7:13 PM on October 3, 2012

"I do have a plan. And it's a good one. And when I tell you about it, you'll be all, 'Whoa, that's the best plan ever!' So take that!"
posted by Diagonalize at 7:13 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

People disagree about things. It's a fact! Personally, I'm incredibly put off by controlling, type-A personalities like Romney's.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:13 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama has missed too many chances to really drop the hammer and break the Romney.

It's clear that isn't his goal for this debate. He's not trying to lang a knock out punch or score points.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:13 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

So much blinking! He must have just had those eyelids installed.
posted by painquale at 7:13 PM on October 3, 2012

Lehrer googles "knitting basics", start working on needle discipline
posted by cortex at 7:13 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

Role of government: how quick will we get to the 47% comments?
posted by Lemurrhea at 7:13 PM on October 3, 2012

Dammit, Jim! You're a moderator, not a lump of warm butter!
posted by koeselitz at 7:13 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

This would be the right place to bring up the 47% thing -- will he ?
posted by Perplexity at 7:13 PM on October 3, 2012

Didn't debates used to have buzzers when the candidate went overtime?

A gong would be more appropriate for this one...
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 7:13 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Hasn't Lehrer moderated like a dozen debates? Maybe it's time to hang up the spurs, Jim.
posted by Panjandrum at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012

I thought that Jim was bad last time, but he was Bismarck in comparison to this one.
posted by winna at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012

And there it is! Mitt goes faux tenther!
posted by tonycpsu at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012

When can Obama tap out so Bill can come in and finish?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Sure obama, we can start a business, but can't open a bank in a garage.
posted by hellojed at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

the first role of the government is to keep american's safe. like, you know, osama bin laden being dead now.
posted by qnarf at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Single-payer system!
posted by homunculus at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012

Didn't debates used to have buzzers when the candidate went overtime?

I'm sure that's one of the many rules they agreed on secretly beforehand.

Fuck Jim Lehrer. When the goddamn League of Women Voters is your go-to bulldog, you know you're in trouble.
posted by mediareport at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

No kidding - Anyone else think Lehrer will never get invited to do another one of these?
He's spineless just like the debate council wants. If they wanted real moderation the League of Women's Voters would still be running the show.
posted by charred husk at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [12 favorites]

Romney knows he better answer this question right or Grover Norquist will storm the stage and try to drown him in the bathtub.
posted by You Guys Like 2 Party? at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012

How about playing music if the candidates begin to speak overtime? Like the Oscars. Except get the Roots or something.
posted by shortfuse at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Come on, quote the Preamble to the Constitution... "promote the general welfare"... do it do it do it
posted by Flunkie at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

This would be the right place to bring up the 47% thing -- will he ?

*FINGERS CROSSED*
posted by Panjandrum at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama is talking about Lincoln. Awesome.
posted by koeselitz at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012

Why doesn't Romney just slug ol' Grampa Lehrer in the nose and get it over with -- you can tell he wants to. Jesus, Mittens.
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Are we forgetting that Obama's not allowed to come across as too angry or aggressive lest he be confused with a scary angry black man in the press?
posted by saulgoodman at 7:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [19 favorites]

This would be better if Lehrer were also playing a drinking game, instead of letting Romney get away with saying things like "NO BUT I NEED TO TALK" and then five seconds later "But I'm good with people and bipartisanship."
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Remember that news item about how Lehrer was "seething" about people complaining about him? Where's that anger now?
posted by shortfuse at 7:15 PM on October 3, 2012

seriously, though, where are the zingers?
posted by qnarf at 7:15 PM on October 3, 2012

saulgoodman : People disagree about things. It's a fact! Personally, I'm incredibly put off by controlling, type-A personalities like Romney's.

I don't think either of them wins the moral high-ground there... Obama sounds a bit cooler, but neither has exactly followed the rules of the debate. :)
posted by pla at 7:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

The neighbors are having a drum circle right now. Makes this kind of surreal.
posted by charred husk at 7:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Obama, again, brings it back to education. And Mitt gives teachers some lip service too.
posted by jazon at 7:16 PM on October 3, 2012

Oh NOW he loves teachers.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think Romney's running the pursuit of happiness kritik.
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I only vote for candidates who observe proper debate decorum.
posted by You Guys Like 2 Party? at 7:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

lehrer looks even stupider for having "bristled" earlier in the day when it was expected that he would be a doormat. this is what happens when reporters have a cozy relationship with politicians.
posted by twist my arm at 7:16 PM on October 3, 2012

Yes! Let Lehrer drink and give him a baseball bat!
posted by rmless at 7:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

seriously, though, where are the zingers?

They're out, plenty of Swiss cake rolls, though
posted by hellojed at 7:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Massachusetts, our schools are ranked number 1

So let's follow that model then, instead of whatever mystery magic Romney is proposing?
posted by Panjandrum at 7:16 PM on October 3, 2012

"I love great (private) schools."
posted by clearly at 7:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mitt Romney is coming off like a hectoring, meth-fueled trucker
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 7:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Romney's voice sounds JUST LIKE REAGAN... my skin is crawling.
posted by Wordwoman at 7:16 PM on October 3, 2012

Okay, if Romney gives one more frickin' numbered list... Argh!

/ Takes another drink
posted by pla at 7:16 PM on October 3, 2012

You could cut our military by half and it would still be second to none, Romney.
posted by charred husk at 7:16 PM on October 3, 2012

The key to great schools is having a culture that values education, which you have significantly more of in Massachusetts, and is why I now live here.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

the less fortunate must care for one another?
did romney just say that?
posted by qnarf at 7:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

he's going to start singing, isn't he?
posted by benito.strauss at 7:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Are we forgetting that Obama's not allowed to come across as too angry or aggressive lest he be confused with a scary angry black man in the press?

I agree, but we have seen him be forceful, like when he was hitting mccain with the "You were wrong" thing in the 2008 debates. Granted, the right wing did go batshit insane painting him as angry black kenyan blah blah, but I do think he can do more challenging of Mitt than he has been.
posted by cashman at 7:17 PM on October 3, 2012

Key difference between the candidates: Obama is <ul>, Romney <ol>.
posted by cortex at 7:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [11 favorites]

Wow, there comes the god card. He sounded arrogant as hell doing it.
posted by obvious at 7:17 PM on October 3, 2012

Jesus H. Christ and the Angel Moroni, is this really the direction Mittens wants to go?
posted by Diagonalize at 7:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama needs to point out that 'we have a duty to care for the less fortunate' isn't what Romney thinks when he's at his swanky 50K dinners.
posted by winna at 7:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Mitt Romney: Massachusetts could be a model for national health care reform.

Flip. Lie. Flip. Lie. Blink. Smirk. Blink. Smirk.
posted by ericb at 7:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney: EXHIBIT Q!!!!
posted by mikepop at 7:17 PM on October 3, 2012

"We are a nation that believes we are children of the same god." err.... we do?
posted by murfed13 at 7:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Romney hits LSD-subroutine.
posted by Skygazer at 7:17 PM on October 3, 2012

Religous tolerance, if you don't tolerate people not tolerating your lack of religion then you're fired.
posted by Slackermagee at 7:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Jesus what would have happened if one of them had shown up with a green tie? Would they lose voters?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:17 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

"The helpless should take care of each other."
posted by StickyCarpet at 7:18 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Lehrer: Let's go through some specifics.

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!
posted by Panjandrum at 7:18 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

This is SHIT!

Obama never gets to properly address Romney's kak...WTF...
posted by Skygazer at 7:18 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

the "trickle-down government" thing again? It doesn't work that way, sorry.
posted by xbonesgt at 7:18 PM on October 3, 2012

mittistalkingsofastrightnow
posted by qnarf at 7:18 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney is pushing hard, like a guy down in the polls who needs a win.

Obama is playing it laid back, playing defense like a guy in the lead.

I honestly don't know who is doing better.
posted by Frayed Knot at 7:18 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

This just sounds like a kid trying to get elected president of the senior class in high school. Life! Liberty! Children of the same God! What are you even talking about? The pursuit of happiness? Why? Free people? This is just a gibberish mismash of platitudes and Magnetic Poetry Declaration of Independence quotes.
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:18 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

Seems like a tie. Lot's of noise, nothing special. Both sides will claim victory, but Romney'desperation won't play well.
posted by rosswald at 7:19 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney says "poor," and "lower income." F**k knows what his metrics are for those terms...
posted by obscurator at 7:19 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama needs to point out that 'we have a duty to care for the less fortunate' isn't what Romney thinks when he's at his swanky 50K dinners.

Obama seems to be almost not attacking at all. So many things to hit Mitt on, and he isn't doing it. How do you not bring in the 47%?
posted by cashman at 7:19 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I like Big Birds and I cannot lie.
posted by Dr. Zira at 7:19 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

obama is talking so slowly
posted by qnarf at 7:19 PM on October 3, 2012

I'm not loving Obama's holding a giant cheeseburger hand gesture ho ho ho.
posted by winna at 7:20 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

If I met either of these two men for the first time politically during this debate, I would in no way trust Romney. He's a syllable away from foaming at the mouth. Scary Pol Blinks and Foams.

MITT FRIGHTENS HORSES!
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 7:20 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

You other muppets can't deny.
posted by cortex at 7:20 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Secret Life of Gravy: "Jesus what would have happened if one of them had shown up with a green tie? Would they lose voters?"

I don't know, maybe ask Bob Dole.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:20 PM on October 3, 2012

Señor Chang for President!
posted by Diagonalize at 7:20 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm a little tired of hearing what Obama and Romney agree on.
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:20 PM on October 3, 2012

Sidebar: I am running out of snack mix. What should I chomp on nervously for the second half?
posted by rmless at 7:20 PM on October 3, 2012

obama wins by not losing, here. he's got no reason to attack, particularly, unless he sees blood in the water. if romney looks like he's really about to lose his mind, he'll go in, otherwise his job is to just not have a 'who am i, why am i here' moment.
posted by qnarf at 7:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Barack must be saving it for the next 2 debates. Because he's just up there like this is an interview. Maybe he'll attack in the next 2 debates, and hit back on Mitt's lies. But during this one, he is content to....well, be content I guess.
posted by cashman at 7:21 PM on October 3, 2012

And yet Obama has spoken for five more minutes than Romney. The art of talking slowly or seekrit librul conspiracy with the moderator?
posted by charred husk at 7:21 PM on October 3, 2012

I feel like Obama is tripping all over his words. Romney is coming across much more clearly.
posted by !Jim at 7:21 PM on October 3, 2012

And Obama is the g-d President - why is he begging for time to speak from the moderator and Foamy McMormonton is rasping all over everyone like some hideous undead lich from Dungeons and Dragons????
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 7:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I honestly don't know who is doing better.

There is relief on the GOP side that Mitt isn't totally fucking this up. He'll probably get a bounce for coming off as knowledgable, but it won't matter in the end.

Obama could be better, but he's not terrible.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Well, I'm certainly voting Jim Lehrer for nothing ever.
posted by jaduncan at 7:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

Sidebar: I am running out of snack mix. What should I chomp on nervously for the second half?

You know, doesn't tuna casserole sound good right now?
posted by cashman at 7:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Borrow from your parents, ZING!
posted by blurker at 7:22 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Right now Biden is driving the country around in a joyride-jacked Vette, shirt off, chucking beers at old high school jerks.
posted by cortex at 7:22 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

cortex: "Key difference between the candidates: Obama is <ul>, Romney <ol>."

Romney is one of those tech support sites that you would assume has helpful information based on its popularity, but when you try to go there it's just blurred text underneath a prompt for your credit card info.
posted by Riki tiki at 7:22 PM on October 3, 2012 [11 favorites]

From the Huffington Post twitter: @HuffPostHill: Don't worry, Jim Lehrer, it gets better. #stopbullying
posted by Windigo at 7:22 PM on October 3, 2012 [10 favorites]

There's one of those Zingers! And, predictably, it fell flat.
posted by Frayed Knot at 7:22 PM on October 3, 2012

'You're entitled to your own house, but not to your own facts.'

OH HO HO I THINK WE HAVE ONE OF THE ZINGER SUBROUTINES RIGHT HERE
posted by winna at 7:22 PM on October 3, 2012

Mitt: I won't cut Education! (guess that's worth borrowing money from China for!)

(p.s. PBS is 0.012% of Federal Budget)
posted by jazon at 7:23 PM on October 3, 2012

AIR FORCE ONE IS AN ENTITLEMENT!
posted by clearly at 7:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney has not claimed he would be cutting ANY spending and has emphatically claiming he won't cut this and that but he says he'll cut taxes... MATH!
posted by JakeEXTREME at 7:23 PM on October 3, 2012

So, whatever else happens, we can mark this debate as the moment when the Etch-A-Sketch got shaken: suddenly Mitt Romney doesn't want to cut taxes that much, wants to save Medicare, wants to regulate banks, wants to save schools, and wants to make sure health care is affordable to people.
posted by koeselitz at 7:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

~~disabled kids~~ kids with disabilities
posted by Hicksu at 7:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

WHY ARE YOU PUTTING 90 BILLION INTO GREEN JOBS FOR FUTURE PEOPLE
WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE FUTURE PEOPLE AND THE VOUCHERS THEY'LL DIE HOLDING AND THE JAIL THEY'LL GO TO WITH JIM AND BIG BIRD
posted by qnarf at 7:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Can't believe that Romney just flat called Obama corrupt by accusing him of steering green energy money to his supporters. Bold.
posted by wintermind at 7:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

"Forgive me sir!"
posted by jessamyn at 7:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

obama: you've done a great job.
jim: no.
posted by qnarf at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

YOU HAVE DONE A POOR JOB, JIM!

F-
posted by Panjandrum at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

yes, let's definitely see where the energy companies are spending their monies, Mr. Clean Coal and Unicorn-Staffed Pipelines
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think we can all agree that Teddy Roosevelt was the real winner tonight.
posted by schmod at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Speaking of Dodd-Frank: Wall Street Rolling Back Another Key Piece of Financial Reform
posted by homunculus at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

"You've done a great job." Biggest lie of the night, Obama.
posted by Diagonalize at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

can't believe romney is going to get through this entire debate without some sort of "REPUBLICANS ARE SCARY CRAZY PEOPLE WHY ARE YOU PRETENDING OTHERWISE" moment.
posted by twist my arm at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012

"YOU'RE LIKEABLE ENOUGH, LEHRER."
posted by Mapes at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Oh Jim, don't go fishing for compliments like that.
posted by Lemurrhea at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama told Lehrer "You've done a great job." Was that a jibe at Mr. Bossypants?
posted by obvious at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012

Lehrer: "I'm not going to grade you on your response times, or say... uh... that I've done a bad job...

Obama: "You've done a great job, Jim."
posted by koeselitz at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012

I expect Obama will learn from this debate. He is a brilliant politician and he will look at the tapes and see what he needs to change. In other words no one could have predicted that suddenly Romney is busting out all kinds of new crazy shit-- absolutely making stuff up that goes against what he has been saying all along. So Obama will learn from that. Plus I guarantee that Romney will be overweening-- taking faster and telling more lies and making up new plans on the spot because he will think he got away with it.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

how much time do we have Jim?
posted by Jahaza at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012

I don't know. Are we listening to the same debate? I'm an Obama supporter, and I'm surprised at Obama's lack of edge in this debate. As much as you want to believe that Romney sounds "falsely urgent" or whatever, my Republican relatives are out of their seats cheering at this point. Sorry.

Agreed. I'm not sure it's the calamity that Andrew Sullivan is calling it, but I keep wanting to yell WAKE UP at the president. He doesn't seem all that engaged. Likable, thoughtful--but not urgent at all. Also, a lot of you seem to think Romney's coming off as scary--to me it just comes off like he's talking fast and getting a lot more of his points made than Obama is.

Okay, that "entitled to your own house and airplane" bit just now was assholish and WAY tone deaf coming from Romney.
posted by torticat at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

"WE ONLY HAVE 3 MINUTES LEFT.... so remember we only have 3 minutes ... so I want to say ... and remember we only have 3 more minutes ....."

SHUT UP JIM LEHRER !
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

How do we only have 3 minutes left? Didn't I watch the fucking Packers play Seattle longer than this? Isn't the future of our country dependent on this? Ridiculous.
posted by cashman at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

I want a wind farm on top of every mountain pass. They'd look pretty baller.
posted by dobi at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2012

i hope for his closing statement obama holds up osama bin laden's lime-preserved head and does the running man to the big daddy kane song
posted by elizardbits at 7:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [12 favorites]

Obama: "You've done a great job, Jim"
Fact checkers: *explode*
posted by Defying Gravity at 7:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [11 favorites]

Romney is really moving to the center now,. He should have done this before, but the 47% gaff pushed him back to the right. His tax deductibles cap seems increasing taxes on the rich - if he would actually follow through on it which is dubious. Someone really needs to talk to Norquist about this. The GOP must have muffled him.

I like Obama's response that the reason Romney won't tell you the details of his plan isn't because they are so good for everyone, it's because they will hurt the middle class. He needs to hammer on this point. Probably what will happen is Romney's plans will star to look more and more like Obama's.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Is it perhaps three minutes?
posted by Jahaza at 7:25 PM on October 3, 2012

Jim in these last three minutes, I'm grading your performance. D - .

Would have been an F, but I adjusted for the curve.

Maybe time to retire?
posted by ericb at 7:25 PM on October 3, 2012

"Let me emphasize this: we have THREE MINUTES, so whoever starts talking better milk that shit because who knows what'll happen. See you in ten minutes."
posted by cortex at 7:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

I said to another when this thing started, 'The only way this thing can come across as a success is if Jim has a stroke live on TV.' Having watched Jim loose control early on, I suspect I was right.

I hope Gwen Ifill host EVERYTHING PBS DOES IN THE FUTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(and I pay for PBS)
posted by QueerAngel28 at 7:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

I hope Romneys secret plans are better than the plans he is telling us about.

I dunno guys, Romney has been defending his supposed plans all night and we don't even know what they are. All I know is he loves teachers, hates big bird and wants to cut like 1000 trillions dollars.
posted by Ad hominem at 7:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

You can't sit down with the teachers on day one - that's the day you're gonna repeal Obamacare!
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm an Obama supporter, but I have to agree with people who are getting the sense that Romney is running away with this debate. Obama is just letting Romney repeat lie after lie after lie (e.g., that 700 billion cut to Medicare for example). Repeat a lie enough times.....
posted by longdaysjourney at 7:25 PM on October 3, 2012

Waiting for Mitt to rip off his disguise to reveal he is actually LieBot.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

The reason I'm in this race is because there are people who are really hurting in this country..."

...and I can't resist kicking someone when they're down.
posted by Lemurrhea at 7:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Governing in a state with an 87% Democratic majority is easy; you don't even get an option to veto anything.
posted by clearly at 7:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Romney is like a stock photo of the search term "politician".
posted by ninjew at 7:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

LEADERSHIP! IF I SAY IT LOUD ENOUGH, PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE I AM A LEADER!
posted by Diagonalize at 7:26 PM on October 3, 2012

ZING! FINALLY.
posted by nushustu at 7:26 PM on October 3, 2012

I beat the prez to that one.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

wants to cut like 1000 trillions dollars.

cutting faster dollars an hour!
posted by clearly at 7:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama does this every time he speaks. He refuses to go for the fuckin' jugular. So many lost opportunities. Not just tonight but every day for the duration.
posted by snsranch at 7:27 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think that first day zing backfired.
posted by murfed13 at 7:27 PM on October 3, 2012

"You're going to have a busy first day, Cutting obamacare while meeting with democrats"

yessss
posted by hellojed at 7:27 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Don't cry, Mittens.
posted by You Guys Like 2 Party? at 7:27 PM on October 3, 2012

Bin Laden! BINGO!
posted by dejah420 at 7:27 PM on October 3, 2012

So Obama gets closing statement right??

I mean RIGHT?? Since FATMOUTH COULDN"T STFU!
posted by Skygazer at 7:27 PM on October 3, 2012

Okay ... Girding my loins for watching the 'spin room' and talking heads, pundits and surrogates. Dammit ... Wish I had another bottle of wine.
posted by ericb at 7:27 PM on October 3, 2012

Occasionally you have to say No.

SAY NO!
SAY NO NOW!
posted by RedOrGreen at 7:27 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama is not effectively responding to the "you have your own facts" thing. They need to do that, absolutely need to do that. It's a character issue, and they need not to cede that ground.
posted by jaduncan at 7:27 PM on October 3, 2012

I'm shocked that the PBS/CTV people hadn't already locked down the @bigbird twitter account. Elmo & Cookie Monster, yes, but not Big Bird? They're kicking themselves.
posted by anastasiav at 7:27 PM on October 3, 2012

can't believe romney is going to get through this entire debate without some sort of "REPUBLICANS ARE SCARY CRAZY PEOPLE WHY ARE YOU PRETENDING OTHERWISE" moment.

Dude, so wrong on this. Mitt is plenty scary up there right now and has been all night. I've seen rabid animals being shot who had more sensitivity and awareness.
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 7:27 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Obama gets opening statement first, Romney gets closing statement last. I believe.
posted by shortfuse at 7:28 PM on October 3, 2012

"I'll sit down with the Democratic leaders..."
And do what when they filibuster every damn thing?
posted by charred husk at 7:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Did Obama forget where he was for a second?!
posted by Yowser at 7:28 PM on October 3, 2012

"Romney is not willing to say no to the more extreme members of his party." BOOM. And with no time for a rebuttal. ULTRAZING
posted by gimonca at 7:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney just wiped the spittle off his mouth. Bad body language!
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 7:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

snsranch : Obama does this every time he speaks. He refuses to go for the fuckin' jugular. So many lost opportunities. Not just tonight but every day for the duration.

In this case, it has worked to his advantage, because comes off a bit less like a rabid wombat.

A bit.
posted by pla at 7:29 PM on October 3, 2012

I'm repeating what I posted September 18th in the 47% thread:

"Mitt has been debating a good amount of this year. Nobody said it would win him the debate or the election. 20+ debates is not like 3, or 4. Mitt sounded confident in the video about his debate skills, and the President has not stepped on a debate stage in years. I'd love for Obama to wipe the floor with Mittens, since Mitt seems to not care about being president to help the country. However, Obama is rusty, and Mitt has had lots of practice. Those are just the facts. It doesn't mean Mitt will win the first debate, but it does mean that he should fare pretty well. It doesn't mean Obama will lose the first debate, but it does suggest that he will fail to capitalize on some opportunities, and in general, look rusty debate-wise."
posted by cashman at 7:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

So I guess the Democrats aren't trying to cast the GOP as "The party of 'no,'" anymore?
posted by Jahaza at 7:29 PM on October 3, 2012

Yeah, the Republicans have much to cheer about after this one. They like bullies. They like "brash, bold statements" even if they have nothing to do with reality. I think the POTUS played it too cool.
posted by dejah420 at 7:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

In other words no one could have predicted that suddenly Romney is busting out all kinds of new crazy shit-- absolutely making stuff up that goes against what he has been saying all along.

I don't know. That's actually one of the most consistent things about the guy.
posted by weston at 7:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

The debates almost over and I'm calling it -
Obama's definitely using Grecian formula on his temples.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 7:30 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Unless Obama pulls an ace out of his sleeve right now in the closing comments, he's going to come out of this looking weak and unfocused. I wasn't really worried before, but I am now. I know that Romney is full of shit, but a lot of "undecided" voters don't and are lapping his shit right up.
posted by lydhre at 7:30 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Fivethirtyeight's "Now-Cast" is showing a 96.9% chance of Obama winning the election...was not that high earlier today.
posted by obscurator at 7:30 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney: I'M NOT CUTTING ANYTHING... EXCEPT TAXES!
Obama: MATH DAMMIT!
HyperBlue: MOAR WHITE RUSSSSSSIANS!!!!111!
posted by HyperBlue at 7:30 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

*Flicks V's at Romney's fake concern*
posted by arcticseal at 7:30 PM on October 3, 2012

He etchasketched. Again.
posted by jaduncan at 7:30 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

concerned mitt is concerned.
posted by qnarf at 7:30 PM on October 3, 2012

Did he just thank Obama for "tuning in"? As opposed to dropping out?
posted by blurker at 7:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think mitts closing is going better. I wish Obama had rehearsed his more
posted by rmless at 7:31 PM on October 3, 2012

Heh, YouTube just cut the live stream at the start of Willard's statement.
posted by waitingtoderail at 7:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Youtube just cut off Romney's closing because of the time limit. WHOOPS!
posted by Lemurrhea at 7:31 PM on October 3, 2012

"Mr. President, thank you for tuning in this evening."?
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Aaaand Youtube just cut Romney off at 10:30.
posted by Yowser at 7:31 PM on October 3, 2012

Both candidates needs to fire up the base, and woo the undecideds.

I've been watching Twitter this whole time, and it's clear Romney's base loves him right now. They see him as "kicking ass" and "talking tough."

Obama's base is very "meh," more pissed at Romney for interrupting and "acting like a jerk" then pleased with Obama's "lackluster" performance.

On the "Fire Up the Base" front, Romney won this debate, hands down.

The polling over the next 24 hours will tell us what happened on the undecideds.
posted by Frayed Knot at 7:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

fack youtube
posted by syzygy at 7:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

The President needs to come out next time and bring his "Angry Tired Babysitter" mode a la "Let Us Be Clear...."
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 7:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

What kind of America do you want to have for yourself, and for your children, and maybe fuck other people if necessary.
posted by cortex at 7:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Mitt, your magic 12 million jobs are the ones forecast to be created anyway, with or without you.
posted by xbonesgt at 7:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

The last 4 year aren't the problem...it was the PREVIOUS 8 YEARS! GWB and 911!
posted by snsranch at 7:31 PM on October 3, 2012

12 million new jobs, yo! (Ask me about how many jobs we'd have if I did nothing at all.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 7:31 PM on October 3, 2012

And yeah, Obama and Romney hate each other.
posted by jaduncan at 7:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

He continues to blink ... eyes reddened. Let's see if pundits comment on it, as previous ones did on Nixon's slop sweating. His voice is also cracking.
posted by ericb at 7:32 PM on October 3, 2012

"If I'm elected we won;t have Obamacare ... also 716 Billion dollars something something..."
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 7:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=raMaxA7hsCs
posted by smithsmith at 7:32 PM on October 3, 2012

YOU LYING PIECE OF TURD TWADDLE.

/Rom's close
posted by Skygazer at 7:32 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney lied very well tonight.
posted by Navelgazer at 7:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

Reminiscent of the Lyon MacKenzie King/James Shaver Woodsworth debate of 1939.
posted by i_have_a_computer at 7:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

That was crap.
posted by benito.strauss at 7:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

lydhre : but a lot of "undecided" voters don't and are lapping his shit right up.

Don't believe it - As an undecided (or rather, still trying to decide whether to go for Stein or one of these two clowns) - I honestly feel a bit more favorable toward Obama after this.

Probably not enough, but more.
posted by pla at 7:33 PM on October 3, 2012

So, in summary--

ROMNEY: You're a liar.
OBAMA: No, you're a liar.
LEHRER: Uhhhhhh...
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 7:33 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Lipstick Thespian, i mean, obama didn't call romney on the republican obstructionism and tea party nastiness. also i feel romney will not look crazy to people who are holding their nose and voting for him. they already knew what he was.
posted by twist my arm at 7:33 PM on October 3, 2012

Also, say "your own state" one more time, Mittens. Maybe you should tell them that most of us here in MA think you're a bag of poop.
posted by lydhre at 7:33 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

So the negative take is, Obama failed to sufficiently kick Romney ass. Positive is, Obama's just biding his time and will have lots to work with/be less rusty next debate. Also the slim hope that pundits will talk about how full of shit Romney was. Yes? Not the slam dunk I wanted.
posted by emjaybee at 7:33 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

obama spoke for 4 minutes longer than romney.
posted by qnarf at 7:33 PM on October 3, 2012

I have to agree with people who are getting the sense that Romney is running away with this debate

Won't matter.
posted by mediareport at 7:33 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm worried :(
posted by peacheater at 7:33 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh lord, no now I really do not agree with Andrew Sullivan, who just posted:

How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Definitely some missed opportunities for the president tonight, but there is no way that debate swung the election. Good grief.
posted by torticat at 7:33 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Bag of gas now fully deflated.
[aah, the relief]
posted by obscurator at 7:33 PM on October 3, 2012

I wish Obama did an eminem style "here's what he's going to say about me ...716 billion..." and then Romney wouldn't have been able to change course bc he practiced and memorized his shtick and choked.
posted by rmless at 7:33 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Wow, Rachel Maddow's first comment was something like "I don't know who won, but I think we saw this debate format die a painful death tonight."
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [31 favorites]

it's interesting though: if you watched this on CNN, they had a little ticker at the bottom w/ undecided voters. during the final speeches, the undecideds really really liked what obama was saying, but they were pretty much flatlined for Romney's final speech.
posted by nushustu at 7:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Boy, in all honesty, the whole Jim Lehrer thing was just sad.
posted by Flunkie at 7:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

That was the rhetorical equivalent of a plastic shopping bag caught in a tree branch in the wind.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 7:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [10 favorites]

OBAMA: You're wearing a red tie.
ROMNEY: I'm not wearing a red tie. I don't know where you get these crazy ideas. $716 billion.
OBAMA: [fails to rebut point]
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 7:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [15 favorites]

Well that was depressing.
posted by Afroblanco at 7:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Flustered.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:35 PM on October 3, 2012

Right off the bat PBS gives it to Romney.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:35 PM on October 3, 2012

WORST DEBATE EVAR
posted by armage at 7:35 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

As an undecided (or rather, still trying to decide whether to go for Stein or one of these two clowns)

If my own experience is correct, I'm not sure that makes you really "undecided" vis a vis Obama or Romney. I'll be voting Stein (because my presidential vote never matters, thanks Electoral College!), but I'd eat a shit sandwich before voting for the shit sandwich that is Romney.
posted by Panjandrum at 7:35 PM on October 3, 2012

Andrew Sullivan (and a lot of other people who watch politics closely) tends to really mess up his reading of Obama in situations like this. Sullivan wants Obama to talk to him -- the rabid politics-junkie who wants blood and gore and already trusts that Obama is on the right track. Sullivan is eternally disappointed that in events like this, Obama is calm, pleasant, and agreeable. And, heck, I'm disappointed as well -- I want blood and gore and to see Obama just punch Romney in the gut.

But Obama doesn't need to convince me, or Sullivan. He's not talking to us. He's talking to the people who need to be convinced that he's calm, pleasant, and agreeable.

Maybe this is me putting too much trust into the three-dimensional chess... But I think Obama did what he wanted to in this debate. Probably not as well as he would have liked, but I think he hit the target he was aiming for.
posted by meese at 7:35 PM on October 3, 2012 [19 favorites]

He may even have lost the election tonight.

Hahahahahahahaha.

*wipes eyes*

Oh, that Sullivan. What a clown.
posted by mediareport at 7:35 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

The coin flip gives Obama the red tie next time.
posted by StickyCarpet at 7:35 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

oh crap. even the spin on msnbc is sounding terrible for the Pres.
posted by murfed13 at 7:36 PM on October 3, 2012

the NARRATIVE is going to be that romney WON and this is a GAME CHANGER.
it's not.
obama didn't go for a knock out, and romney managed to not punch himself in the dick. obama didn't punch himself in the dick either, and that's what's important when you're leading. shoot big, miss big. no reason to do so, when leading.
posted by qnarf at 7:36 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Taking some solace in believing that really you don't easily budge the electorate, media narrative notwithstanding.
posted by ghharr at 7:36 PM on October 3, 2012

I don't think the debates are going to change who wins, and I think Obama is pretty sure he will win. In that situation, it seems his style is to be (infuriatingly) conciliatory.

I'm all about peace and love, but it would be nice if just once the President of the United States would call bullshit.
posted by Mooski at 7:36 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Right off the bat PBS gives it to Romney.

That's the Stockholm Syndrome talking.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:37 PM on October 3, 2012 [13 favorites]

It isn't the first debate that matters the most, but the last. Obama needs to get a bit sharper, but he's doing fine. Romney needs to be less Romney. He's still not going to go over well with the independents.

I'll call this a draw. Romney did better than expected and Obama could have definitely been better. But I suspect Barack still came off as more President, as the guy more people want in the White House.

Andrew Sullivan is pretty far off the mark.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:37 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Romney : I'll give you a pony!
Obama : Where are you going to get all these ponies?
Romney : I'll give you a pony AND you won't have to pay for it!
Obama : Where are you going to get all these ponies?
Romney : LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA PONY PONY PONY PONY PONY!
posted by Afroblanco at 7:37 PM on October 3, 2012 [33 favorites]

I have to say, this debate was surprising.

I mean – a lot of people felt that he was going to choke, that he wouldn't make it through this debate alive, but really he did okay. There were a lot of moments when he seemed to be apologizing for even being up on stage, but a lot of other moments where he did lay down the law and insist on being heard out. Still, he was sure to make himself appear to be human and accommodating by never being too forceful. I read a few analyses that claimed that his performance in this debate would mean he'd be facing retirement in a few weeks, and while I can't deny that that's probably true, I think he didn't embarrass himself too bad.

So I guess what I'm saying is that Jim Lehrer probably still has a few good years in him, even if they won't be on television.
posted by koeselitz at 7:37 PM on October 3, 2012 [25 favorites]

Dude, quit trying to make flustered happen.
posted by cashman at 7:37 PM on October 3, 2012 [11 favorites]

oh crap. even the spin on msnbc is sounding terrible for the Pres.

That's because he lost, badly, and MSNBC isn't (quite) Fox.
posted by The Bellman at 7:37 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

"When was the last time you heard a Republican talk about the need for more regulation?"

Yeah PBS is lapping up Romney's new moderateness.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:37 PM on October 3, 2012

David Gergen on CNN "A week ago we were saying this was over. Now we have a horse race."
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 7:38 PM on October 3, 2012

At least Al Sharpton is defending him.
posted by murfed13 at 7:38 PM on October 3, 2012

Mitt Romney keeps saying "I have a Plan!"
But then again so did the Cylons
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 7:38 PM on October 3, 2012 [10 favorites]

I wonder if Obama was taking it easy because he's ahead in the polls. Really should have gone all out.
posted by hellojed at 7:38 PM on October 3, 2012

the NARRATIVE is going to be that romney WON and this is a GAME CHANGER.

I agree with your general point. Furthermore, there's almost zero chance the narrative would've been anything else.
posted by meese at 7:38 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Obama's closing statement really sucked.
posted by smithsmith at 7:39 PM on October 3, 2012

Yeah, Al Sharpton is kinda rockin'.
posted by The Bellman at 7:39 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney : I'll give you a pony!

To me, it seemed a bit more:

Romney: I'llgiveyouapony!Ilikeponies!Ihavenothingagainstponies!NooffensetoponiesbutI'mgoingtokillalltheponies!ButIlikeponies!Sevenhundredsixteenbilliiondollars!
posted by Flunkie at 7:39 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

horse races can be won by a nose.
they can also be won by many, many lengths.
posted by qnarf at 7:39 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Chris Matthews is totally dissing the debate
(actually he's going a bit apoplectic about it)
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 7:40 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney said he isn't against regulations, doesn't want to cut taxes, and that he is proud of Romneycare. The base might be fired up in the heat of the moment but how does that play tomorrow?
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:40 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

This made the bottom drop out of my stomach. If Romney lies, Obama needs to say so. Right now there's Romney repeatedly calling Obama a liar, and Obama not denying it effectively or countering.
posted by jaduncan at 7:40 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Mitt Romney keeps saying "I have a Plan!"
But then again so did the Cylons

NO THEY DIDN'T THAT WAS THE WHOLE PROBLEM WITH THAT SHOW'S LAST SEASON OMG

(there should have been a plan, they promised one in every commercial!)
posted by heatherann at 7:40 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

"A week ago we were saying this was over. Now we have a horse race."

Classic. Just fucking classic. The meaningless national polls tightening will be all over the news next. Just keep an eye on the electoral blowout instead. See if *that* changes.
posted by mediareport at 7:40 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Am I the only one who thinks Obama just threw his re-election away? Like, with both hands?
posted by tzikeh at 7:40 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

james carvell is an actual scary monster from an actual child's closet.
posted by qnarf at 7:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

"Now we have a horse race."
Unfortunately, Mitt knows nothing about said race, and won't be attending. That's Ann's deal...
posted by obscurator at 7:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I thought horses were for dancing about to win medals
posted by ninjew at 7:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Mitt Romney keeps saying "I have a Plan!"
But then again so did the Cylons

I'm sure the latter's plan is just as coherent as the former's.
posted by Panjandrum at 7:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

HOLY GOOD GOD. Chris Matthews is FUMING.
posted by murfed13 at 7:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

I would guess the news media stands to profit a bit more with calling this a Romney win. It keeps up the energy. Beyond that, though, I'm fine if people who support Obama get a little freaked out (even though I don't personally get that) if it makes them more likely to go vote.
posted by bizzyb at 7:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Furthermore, there's almost zero chance the narrative would've been anything else.

Because otherwise, the talking heads would have had nothing to talk about for the next month. Also, political ad sales.
posted by Slothrup at 7:41 PM on October 3, 2012

The president had better be treating this like the first period of a sporting event where you know the opponent is down and is going to throw everything at you. Your job is just to withstand the run, and stay consistent, and when they tire out, beat them.

Romney definitely went on a run tonight. Mitt will gain (as predicted) in the polls, and we'll see what happens in debate number two, and debate number three. Obama isn't the president for nothing. Now Romney looks like a great debater, and the president looks more like an Underdog.

I think the town hall format will suit the president more. I think this will be good for lackadaisical democrats though - you'd better get out there and canvas and do all you can - it's not going to be easy.
posted by cashman at 7:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

I'm going to wait a day or two for all of the new campaign ads to come out from the Obama camp, quoting Mitt Romney at the debate contradicting himself talking to his base. Because we know that's what's going to happen.
posted by Lemurrhea at 7:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

AfroblancoRomney : I'll give you a pony! Obama : Where are you going to get all these ponies?

No fair playing favorites here... More like:
"I'll give you a pony!"
"where are you going to get five trillion ponies without taking them from the middle class?"
"I'll give you a pony AND you won't have to pay for it!"
"And another two trillion ponies from the military?"
"Witwaitwait... Pony!"
"Middle class!"
"Excuse me, we need to..."
[both]: "Shut up, Jim!"
posted by pla at 7:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney could have stood up there with underpants on his head reciting The Hunting of the Snark and the media would've said he won. They need to drive a narrative to keep people tuning in.
posted by winna at 7:42 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Romney won this one.
He was full of shit, but with no one calling him on it he gets away with it.
posted by charred husk at 7:42 PM on October 3, 2012 [11 favorites]

I was surprised how uncertain Obama was in his closing statement. Sentences that include the phrase "If you'll elect me, I will" should not have awkward pauses in the middle. He also reacted really visibly to a lot of Romney's points, sometimes disagreeing and sometimes conceding. Romney didn't visibly react to much, what with the perma-grin they've obviously coached him on. His face must be aching.
posted by heatherann at 7:42 PM on October 3, 2012

PBS mentioned it, but it really does ring true that no mention of the 47% was the most interesting strategy from the Obama camp. If there was any 12-dimensional chess going on, this was a VERY obvious strategic decision.

The Obama camp obviously thinks that avoiding an opportunity for Romney to address the 47% issue was an explicit strategy, which Romney did not catch. Obama thinks it is to Romney's advantage to directly address the 47% issue and Romney's failure to do so is Romney's loss.
posted by amuseDetachment at 7:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

I love me some James Carvelle. "I tried not to come to this conclusion, but it looked like Romney was happy to be there and Obama just didn't want to be there." (I can't argue with that, sadly.)
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 7:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

The Obama campaign might be willing to take a couple of dents in their lead rather than risk a self-inflicted Dukakis-style blow.
posted by smithsmith at 7:44 PM on October 3, 2012

What specifically is Chris Matthews fuming about?

I mean, yeah, I know, "the debate", but more specific than that, please. Given Chris Matthews' inherent Chris Matthewsness, I have an equally easy time imagining that he's in an uproar about something that's stupid to be in an uproar about, or that he's in an uproar about something deserving of an uproar.
posted by Flunkie at 7:44 PM on October 3, 2012

There wasn't really anything in that debate that will get Romney 79 electoral votes.
posted by graymouser at 7:44 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Am I the only one who thinks Obama just threw his re-election away? Like, with both hands?

No, but you and them are wrong. Debates don't matter much, this is only the first and Obama will still be in the lead a week from now.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:45 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

On the 47%, it's gotten lots of free play in the news and lots of paid play on the attack ads. If Obama doesn't bring it up, it doesn't allow Romney to refute or explain it, so it maintains it's strength.
posted by gofargogo at 7:45 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

We'll see. Obama lost the debates with McCain according to the media as well.
posted by edgeways at 7:45 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Chris Matthews is pissed at Obama for a poor performance, specifically, not calling Romney on his BS about social security, $716 billion, the Ryan plan... so on and so forth.
posted by murfed13 at 7:46 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney could have stood up there with underpants on his head reciting The Hunting of the Snark and the media would've said he won. They need to drive a narrative to keep people tuning in.

I'm a liberal and and ardent Obama supporter, and Romney definitely won this. His rhetoric was great, Obama utterly failed to call him on all of the bullshit, and Obama didn't defend his own achievements or agenda particularly well.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 7:46 PM on October 3, 2012 [13 favorites]

Man, Mathews is on fire!

I love the narrative is Romney just lies with impunity and Obama doesn't call him on it. I mean, Romeny was certainly talking a lot, and was fired up. But everyone is pretty much saying Romney won by lying more. That is a phyric victory in my eyes.
posted by Ad hominem at 7:46 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Romney : I'll give you a pony!

He's stealing Vermin Supreme's platform!
posted by homunculus at 7:46 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

jaduncan: "This made the bottom drop out of my stomach. If Romney lies, Obama needs to say so. Right now there's Romney repeatedly calling Obama a liar, and Obama not denying it effectively or countering."

Exactly. I was just shaking my head in ... I dunno...it's not disgust...it's not exasperation...but if there was a word that meant both of those things...that's how I feel. I expected Obama to really come out like a real candidate...ala 2008. I wanted rhetoric, I wanted majesty, I wanted him calling them liars and obstructionists from the mountain top.

Because goddamn it, if he doesn't, if he lets the lies stand as truth, if he bows his head and nods when another false talking point spews from the other podium, if he tries to be agreeable with Mitt like he's been agreeable with the Republican Congress, then he and Michelle might as well start packing; because, to quote Bertrand Russell "A lie can be half way around the world before the truth can get its boots on".
posted by dejah420 at 7:47 PM on October 3, 2012 [11 favorites]

tzikeh: “Am I the only one who thinks Obama just threw his re-election away? Like, with both hands?”

Think for a little while about how George W Bush behaved in debates. Then maybe reconsider how much debates effect the election itself. (Hint: not very much.)
posted by koeselitz at 7:47 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

well chris that's y'all's fucking job. get to it
posted by twist my arm at 7:47 PM on October 3, 2012

They were both mostly lackluster. Most importantly, neither of them killed it or crashed-and-burned. The ripples of this are going to be too weak to make a difference.

But Obamacare under an ax and that PBS shit is definitely going to be two dealbreakers for a lot of people.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 7:47 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Wow.

That basically could not have gone any worse.
posted by Fists O'Fury at 7:47 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Wow. Kitchen Aid Tweets Joke About Obama’s Dead Grandma.
posted by inigo2 at 7:48 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

disgustperation
posted by twist my arm at 7:48 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

obama felt like he had more important things to do than be there talking to that dude

I'm not sure implying to the American electorate that they're not the most important thing is a winning strategy
posted by fullerine at 7:48 PM on October 3, 2012

If there was ever an opportunity to call out lies, that was the time and it's over now.

Well maybe not, we'll see what happens tomorrow.
posted by snsranch at 7:49 PM on October 3, 2012

I'm trying to understand what world the people who thought Romney performed well are living in. Adequately? Sure, I can see that. Well? He kept repeating easily debunked lies that feed further into the Romney as liar meme. I didn't particularly like Obama's performance, but he made no real missteps, either. He responded to Romney's lies without being terribly aggressive and without getting bogged down in them. One hopes the recently fact checky media won't suddenly go on vacation again.
posted by wierdo at 7:49 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I actually think Romney shot himself in the foot by using his one bit of humor on Big Bird. Axing PBS is a trifle in budget terms, and while it may be red meat to the Republican base, I can't imagine it going well with the independents.
posted by graymouser at 7:49 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Children of the same God!

Mormons like Romney who want to shove their religion into my private life remind me why I am proud to be an atheist American.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:49 PM on October 3, 2012 [12 favorites]

HOLY GOOD GOD. Chris Matthews is FUMING.

I know he's not very popular, but back when I had cable he was the only talking head I saw really confronting people like Michelle Bachman on a regular basis, and he would never let them avoid answering his questions. (They might not answer, but he'd keep asking the question over and over again.) I'd actually like to see him host a VP debate. He also does incredulous very well, which is kind of refreshing.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:50 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

That basically could not have gone any worse.

Indeed, I can't believe Romney openly and repeatedly championed killing Big Bird, healthcare reform and not raising taxes on the wealthy. That was pretty dumb.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:50 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

I used to get annoyed when Obama would fill his speeches and debate answers with the names of regular Americans with whom he spoke while stumping around the country, but you know, when Romney says "I was talking with a man who..." and "Ann met a woman with a child who said..." I think, bullshit, Mitt, who are these people?

At best, it sounded like he didn't care to know their names.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 7:50 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I don't think it was good enough on Romney's behalf or bad enough on Obama's behalf to have much of an effect. But I wouldn't want to be Romney when they meet again because I don't think Obama takes well to being shown up. I think he'll be more than ready next time they meet. And hopefully Romney will have a false sense of security from tonight's win.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 7:50 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Quite a few times Obama would point out contradictions in Romney's positions, and then say, basically, "Do you, the voter, want to go with that?", leaving it up to the view to draw their own conclusion.

Barrack. the average American is not one of those super-sharp people you've been surrounding yourself with for the last four years. You need to make the contradiction explicit, find a clever and not overly offensive way of saying "that's bullshit", and then give the view a positive statement they can agree with and repeat, something like "Americans are too smart — they can see that what you're saying simply will not work, and they will be stuck with the bill. Again."
posted by benito.strauss at 7:50 PM on October 3, 2012 [32 favorites]

I'm just hoping this is like a Rocky movie, and Romney was Clubber Lang or something, but Obama's going to come back with the eye of the tiger (because he sure as hell didn't have it in this fight).
posted by Red Loop at 7:50 PM on October 3, 2012

you will never convince me that an adult who talked honestly about firing big bird won.
posted by qnarf at 7:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [26 favorites]

Presidential Debate Transcript
posted by homunculus at 7:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

The pundits on MSNBC are trying to see who has the highest blood pressure. Somebody give Chris Matthews a valium.
posted by ambrosia at 7:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure implying to the American electorate that they're not the most important thing is a winning strategy

I thought he did pretty poorly, but, seriously, I'm okay with him being concerned about Turkey's attack on Syria, the continuing deterioration of life for Syrian citizens, nuclear developments, and so on and so forth-- and being more concerned about that than slapping down Romney's smug lies. I just wish he had, you know, pointed out some of what he does. With passion. Preferably fewer ums. (And maybe a pony.)
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:51 PM on October 3, 2012

Wow. Kitchen Aid Tweets Joke About Obama’s Dead Grandma.

Assuming that was a mixup with some social media person who handles their Twitter account, which begs the question- how does someone with such bad spelling become a social media professional???
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Replays of soundbites from the debate on CBC show Romney as being a little crazy and smarmy and Obama comes across as more balanced and Presidential.
Admittedly, this is biased liberal Canada but tomorrow should have the fact checkers out in force and I hope to see Romney called out on his lies.
posted by arcticseal at 7:51 PM on October 3, 2012

MSNBC commenter panel is about a step and a half away from ripping off all their clothes and going after each other with long knives.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 7:51 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Can we just cancel the next two and instead have three vice presidential debates?
posted by gatorae at 7:52 PM on October 3, 2012

I don't think it was as bad as many are describing. Actually, I don't think it was bad period. I don't think the "REFUTE IT GO FOR THE JUGULAR" stuff that people are saying Obama should've done would've been particularly appealing to the typical voter who is still undecided by this point. I think that the typical undecided voter just saw a tweaked out meth head with verbal diarrhea stomp all over the moderator while the other candidate was calm and pleasant.
posted by Flunkie at 7:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [10 favorites]

Ad hominem: "But everyone is pretty much saying Romney won by lying more. That is a phyric victory in my eyes."

I think we need to introduce you to the low-information undecided voters Romney was appealing to. They're not going to check whether he lied or not. Obama had a chance to call Romney on the lies and mostly let him slide.

I don't think it's going to matter enough to move the needle as much as Romney needs to, but he's going to pick up a percent or so in the polls. I expect the President to hit harder in their next debate in a couple weeks.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Romney's self-professed dedication to religious tolerance wouldn't ring so hollow if he'd acknowledge that, far from being "children of the same God," many of his potential constituents see themselves as fellow human beings evolved in an entirely godless cosmos. (Though the DNC with its caving on "God" in their platform didn't exactly show Democratic dedication to authentic religious pluralism either.)
posted by audi alteram partem at 7:52 PM on October 3, 2012

MSNBC commenter panel is about a step and a half away from ripping off all their clothes and going after each other with long knives.

I must admit, I've never heard that euphemism before.
posted by Lemurrhea at 7:53 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

He kept repeating easily debunked lies that feed further into the Romney as liar meme.

The Romney-as-liar meme isn't a thing for anyone except liberals. If you don't know they're lies (as is going to be the case with many undecided voters), Romney won. He won by lying and nobody called him on it.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 7:53 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Assuming that was a mixup with some social media person who handles their Twitter account, which begs the question- how does someone with such bad spelling become a social media professional???

At my old job those roles were all filled by entry level customer service people or interns.
posted by winna at 7:54 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think this looks outsized right now as a Romney "win," but this is definitely not a game-changer because Obama played defense and gave Romney zero openings for any sort of a pre-planned, pre-written zinger/comeback against anything that was expected, like specifically, the 47% remark.

At the end of the day, that remark might as well be branded on Romney's forehead and he's not going to be able to undo that and it's going to keep bleeding undecided voters from Romney/Ryan, because that's all anyone is saying on TV now...

So, no great drama here, because no-drama Obama knows what he's doing. He gave Romney NO BIG BREAKS.

David Gergen on CNN "A week ago we were saying this was over. Now we have a horse race."

Right on schedule with that crapola, but Gergen phoning it in with that cliched kack? Beneath him I think...I would expect better from Gergen.

I've never seen Jim Lehrer so out and out treated with such little regard or basic decency as he was tonight, by anyone, in ANY situation.

That was really uncouth and harsh on the part of Romney. I think that's going to be remembered as well, and be seen for desperation and arrogance, by anyone not part of the epistemic closure complex that is the Right-wing media.
posted by Skygazer at 7:54 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Time to get a new mixer.
posted by drezdn at 7:54 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

It all comes down to who wins the gif war.
posted by drezdn at 7:55 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

It all comes down to who wins the gif war.
Big Bird won.
posted by arcticseal at 7:56 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

I'm trying to understand what world the people who thought Romney performed well are living in. Adequately? Sure, I can see that. Well? He kept repeating easily debunked lies that feed further into the Romney as liar meme.

But the average voter may not know (or care) that it's all lies. This was Obama's chance to spell it out.
posted by murfed13 at 7:56 PM on October 3, 2012

IMO Obama's biggest rhetorical failure wasn't going on the offensive. The goal isn't to win the debates, the goal is to get undecided voters.

Obama's biggest rhetorical failure is he used the word "They" when talking about the American people. He talks about how "they" have been helped, etc.

Obama didn't want to call Romney out on being a liar. Romney's EXPLICIT STRATEGY was to devolve into a disgusting shitfest where each call the other a liar. Romney was conducting a troll strategy the entire debate, Obama was smart to see it for what it is and not bite. Falling for the troll and going on attack with Romney countering that "hurp durp both sides lie" as the conclusion would be a FAR FAR FAR greater loss.
posted by amuseDetachment at 7:56 PM on October 3, 2012 [11 favorites]

The Romney-as-liar meme isn't a thing for anyone except liberals.

I don't think that's actually true. I'm pretty sure I recently saw a poll of undecided voters which showed that a large portion of them tended to think that Romney is pretty much lying nonstop. I'll try to find it.
posted by Flunkie at 7:56 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

the ABC guy just said that the democrat's only hope for winning is to "kill or destroy" romney... is that true you guys?
posted by rebent at 7:56 PM on October 3, 2012

As for Lehrer, his performance was consistent with his style on PBS Newshour, all passive and retiring and so on. He said on the Daily Show or Colbert, once, that his job was to make the news boring. There's something of that here, too: he let the candidates talk and lie in their own words and so on, and it was all kind of dull. They were too busy interrupting him to drop any of those rehearsed "zingers." Now (the theory goes), instead of clever lines, or whatever, the press will have nothing to talk about but the lies. Genius!
posted by flechsig at 7:57 PM on October 3, 2012

Definitely Romney's best debate performance. Possibly Obama's worst. Hope he gets a good night's sleep before the next one -- he seemed unfocused, lots of stumbling and rambling.
posted by BurntHombre at 7:57 PM on October 3, 2012

CBS poll: 56% now think better of Romney (independents)
Who won: 46% Romney, 22% Obama

Romney didn't win fair but that's not the point, as any debater knows.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:57 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I have a long standing gripe with Obama. If you're the POTUS and actually have a plan, follow the lead of FDR and PROMOTE THE FUCK OUT OF IT. It is the only way to actuate real and measurable change.

Obama has missed thousands of opportunities to PROMOTE change and tonight has been no different than any other opportunity. Taking the high road doesn't always pay off.

Fucking bummed. I'm just a jerkoff armchair quarter_back and can see this from miles away.
posted by snsranch at 7:57 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

qxntpqbbbqxl: " He won by lying and nobody called him on it."

No, he was called on it. Repeatedly at the beginning. It looked to me like Obama realized he wasn't going to get anything but another repetition of the lies out there, so he toned down on the back and forth as it went on.
posted by wierdo at 7:58 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney knows that people think he's a liar; that's why he has to keep attacking Obama's integrity. It's why I'm so astonished Obama isn't calling Romney on his own lies.
posted by jaduncan at 7:58 PM on October 3, 2012

I think we need to introduce you to the low-information undecided voters Romney was appealing to. They're not going to check whether he lied or not. Obama had a chance to call Romney on the lies and mostly let him slide.

Yeah exactly. And in fact going just by the debate, a low-information voter might come away with the impression that Obama is the one who is loose with the truth (or at least that both of them are)--Romney was pretty aggressive about repeatedly calling him a liar.
posted by torticat at 7:59 PM on October 3, 2012

There were moments when Obama flat-out called Romney on lies, we should remember. The "unelected committee that will tell you what procedures you can have" – Obama actually came out and said "that committee has no power to change the law." And Romney just sat there. It was a nice moment, even if it wasn't noticed.
posted by koeselitz at 8:00 PM on October 3, 2012

MSNBC commenter panel is about a step and a half away from ripping off all their clothes and going after each other with long knives.

Ooh, I hope it's the long-awaited Chris Matthews/Zell Miller duel!
posted by Room 641-A at 8:00 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm not sure implying to the American electorate that they're not the most important thing is a winning strategy

Yet Mitt's candidacy somehow gets a pass on his explicitly saying he thinks 47% of the electorate doesn't count and in fact should be left to die?

These things are like Rorschach tests. And yet, we're supposed to now ignore everything else that's happened up until now and let our opinions be shaped more by this one event than every previous independent fact that demonstrates Romney to be a lying weasel who misrepresented everything he's been saying at fundraisers for months tonight just to avoid being criticized for his actual positions? And this, according to David Brooks, is the "most authentic" Mitt we've seen? Really? Well, I guess managing to tell what we all know from previous statements are blatant lies about his positions convincingly enough to confuse pundits probably is as authentic a Mitt as we'll ever see. Congratulations on that, I guess.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:00 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

jaduncan, please have my $100 ready. Mittens will be your next president.
posted by RedShrek at 8:00 PM on October 3, 2012

I think Obama is letting his surrogates call out Romney's lies. It keeps his hands clean of the blood.
posted by drezdn at 8:01 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Heh. It is ready, but I'm still feeling confident.
posted by jaduncan at 8:01 PM on October 3, 2012

The authentic Mitt is a rabid lying idiot then?
posted by arcticseal at 8:02 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Can't believe I wasted a night of writing for this though, honestly.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:02 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm seeing this as more of a size of the coattails issue than an issue of the candidate likely to win. I don't want Obama to miss that shot at retention of control of the Senate.
posted by jaduncan at 8:03 PM on October 3, 2012

tonally, you could say Obama lost, but i don't know - the way Romney just keeps tripping over himself trying to get all his word out didn't sit well with me. I agree with whoever who made the point that Obama's conduct left Romney with no real big openings for zinger; otoh, without even being given the extra rope, Romney kept making one unbelievable off-the-cuff remark after another (Big Bird, regulations, Bowles-Simpson).
posted by cendawanita at 8:03 PM on October 3, 2012

I got the impression that the President was paying out all the rope Romney needed to hang himself. To my eye, that plan succeeded.

One hopes that the Obama campaign are as we speak feverishly at work on the advertisement that will be released in the morning that absolutely demolishes the notion that Romney is at all serious about policy. Romney picked Ryan to provide cover for his complete lack of coherent policy positions, but I don't believe it will work.

I yield the remainder of my time to Killer Mike.

Killer Mike - "Reagan" (Official Music Video)
posted by ob1quixote at 8:03 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Taxes + anecdotes + jobs + magical thinking + healthcare + shut it, Jim + Big Bird

BIG BIRD 2016
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 8:03 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

RedShrek:if you really believed in Romney you'd make it 10 grand.
posted by hal9k at 8:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Obama tried to fight the FUD at the beginning, with the $5 trillion number, but he ceded the point when he didn't explain it further and let Romney have the last word.

Obama needed to say: "Your proposed tax cut is five trillion dollars, benefitting primarily the rich. You claim this will be balanced out by cutting loopholes for rich, but you refuse to disclose which loopholes you have in mind. It is a mathematical fact that there are not enough loopholes for the rich to make this work, and any way you can possibly balance those five trillion dollars must hurt the middle class."

He got to some of that later, but didn't connect it back to the tax cut.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 8:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Metafilter: Taxes + anecdotes + jobs + magical thinking + healthcare + shut it, Jim + Big Bird
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 8:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

And I thought Obama called out Romney plenty. I think people just forgot Obama-at-the-debates isn't the bread-and-circus sort of speaker.
posted by cendawanita at 8:04 PM on October 3, 2012

I have to say, I love the euphemistic "low-information voter" and plan on using similar terms copiously.

"Hey, you just stuck your dick in a lightsocket!"
"I'm a low-information electrician, okay? Quit being so goddamn condescending!"
posted by Afroblanco at 8:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [26 favorites]

Obama didn't come out of the debate with any good sound bytes. But I don't think he said anything so disastrous that Romney/RNC can use it in attack ads.
posted by murfed13 at 8:05 PM on October 3, 2012

Possibly Obama's worst. Hope he gets a good night's sleep before the next one -- he seemed unfocused, lots of stumbling and rambling.

There's a word for that.

On another note, I feel genuinely bad for the Obamas tonight. How do you get in the mood to celebrate an anniversary after something like that? I just hope Michelle waits until the morning before she tells her husband how she really thinks he did.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:05 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

RedShreck you got another Benjamin? That action is too good!
posted by HyperBlue at 8:05 PM on October 3, 2012

I think Obama is letting his surrogates call out Romney's lies. It keeps his hands clean of the blood.

I think so too. I think the media shitstorm right now over why Obama didn't call Mitt a liar does a better job than he could. Obama calmly laid out the facts, stuff he can stick by. Now Mitt is going to get asked over and over and over about this shit till election day.

Americans may be ignorant of facts, but they are not ignorant of mass media or memes. Big Bird and Romney won by making stuff up are going to be mass media memes.
posted by Ad hominem at 8:06 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

I just donated another hundred bucks to the Obama campaign. Maybe Obama won the debate, after all.

I can tell you, however, that the CNN post-debate coverage is practically killing me. I'm so friggin' glad I don't live in the US any more, and am therefore not subjected daily to US media. I feel sorry for the rest of you who are.
posted by syzygy at 8:07 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

I think Obama is letting his surrogates call out Romney's lies. It keeps his hands clean of the blood.

Maybe so, but even if they read in the paper tomorrow (fat chance) that Romney lied, it's not going to change their minds about who won the debate. That impression once made will not go away.

Team Obama can make all the Big Bird gifts they want, but that's just preaching to the choir. They have to admit they lost and make sure they win the next ones. One thing they should do is stop giving Romney credit for what happened in Massachusetts. Several time the Democratic legislature overrode Romney to get things done, and Obama needs to point stuff like that out.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:07 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama didn't come out of the debate with any good sound bytes. But I don't think he said anything so disastrous that Romney/RNC can use it in attack ads.

This is true. Maybe they just figure that they have killer attack ads and Romney still doesn't.
posted by jaduncan at 8:07 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

It was a wash, which means Romney will come out ahead. That's the good news for Rmoney/AynR.

The bad news is that there are two more of these, and Obama now has the calibration set. Romney was unable to deliver a killing blow, unable to surprise and unnerve the President, and his smirking is just murdering him.

That said, the President played this one too timidly, and it will bite him in the ass in the polls tomorrow.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:07 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Well, that debate sure made it abundantly clear that it's possible to run a presidential campaign that polls as high as 45% with no platform whatsoever.

Also, whatever audience Obama was playing to, it sure as fuck wasn't his base or the goldfish with nice hair on the teevee. What would be really nice is to see how the speech played to the true undecideds, which I can only assume would be people who've just awakened out of a 12 year coma. How is this debate polling with them?

Also, this format is actively hostile to reasoned argument.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:07 PM on October 3, 2012

Oh, Fuck You, Rudy Giuliani. Seriously. "Obama was looking for his teleprompter" my ass.
posted by ambrosia at 8:07 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

I have to say, I love the euphemistic "low-information voter" and plan on using similar terms copiously.

Your comment made me lol. I hit the favorite cap though. :C
posted by drezdn at 8:08 PM on October 3, 2012

The third party candidates want to repeal the NDAA and the Patriot Act. Damn Communists.
posted by homunculus at 8:08 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney may have won ny high school forensics rules, but 50 million Americans didn't watch this and next week the polls will be no different...or at least not in a pro-Romney way.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:08 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Aurora Victims Push for Questions on Gun Control During Presidential Debate

Oh well, so much for that idea.
posted by homunculus at 8:09 PM on October 3, 2012

I don't think the "REFUTE IT GO FOR THE JUGULAR" stuff that people are saying Obama should've done would've been particularly appealing to the typical voter who is still undecided by this point.

Ta-Nehisi Coates was exactly right about that. Obama can't go on the attack, because he's black. It's that simple. It'd please the base but it'd scare the hell out of a lot of undecideds. His attitude is very calculated in that respect. If he tried to get angry and passionate about things, undecided seniors would shoot their television in self-defense.

If you expected Obama to savage Romney at this debate, you haven't been paying attention. And you're lucky, because that would have been a disaster for his campaign. They're too smart to fall for that.
posted by mek at 8:10 PM on October 3, 2012 [23 favorites]

Oh, Fuck You, Rudy Giuliani. Seriously. "Obama was looking for his teleprompter" my ass.

I bet you will hear this on Fox for the rest of the week. It's pretty good.
posted by murfed13 at 8:10 PM on October 3, 2012

What would be really nice is to see how the speech played to the true undecideds

That's who CBS polled, and they gave it to Romney 2:1.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:10 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I disagree; I think Romney will get a very real and sustained bounce from this debate. Is it enough to win? Ones hopes not. But I don't think it is realistic to expect there to be no movement at all from a debate where the narrative, with some justification, is that Obama got his ass kicked six ways from Sunday.
posted by Justinian at 8:10 PM on October 3, 2012

I just got an email from Obama..."I hope I made you proud out there."
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 8:10 PM on October 3, 2012

So I missed the debate due to band rehearsal... just caught a few seconds of it on CNN -- Obama looked exhausted and I couldn't understand the point he was making... was it all like that? Dear God.
posted by unSane at 8:11 PM on October 3, 2012

I disagree

Uh, I was responding to MCMike. I need to quote in a fast thread.
posted by Justinian at 8:11 PM on October 3, 2012

dejah420: "to quote Bertrand Russell "A lie can be half way around the world before the truth can get its boots on"."

C. H. Spurgeon, Gems from Spurgeon (1859). An earlier version appears in the Portland (Me.) Gazette, Sept. 5, 1820: “Falsehood will fly from Maine to Georgia, while truth is pulling her boots on.” Still earlier, Jonathan Swift wrote in The Examiner, Nov. 9, 1710: “Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it.” via (Also, Terry Pratchett in The Truth)
posted by misha at 8:11 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

Obama didn't come out of the debate with any good sound bytes. But I don't think he said anything so disastrous that Romney/RNC can use it in attack ads.

Yes, I can't wait to see what the late-night guys and Obama's Truth Team are going to do with all that fodder from Mitt. Not to mention any videos that go viral. I bet there isn't an empty edit bay from here to New York.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:11 PM on October 3, 2012

was it all like that?

Pretty much, yes.
posted by jaduncan at 8:12 PM on October 3, 2012

@billmaher: i can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter
posted by BobbyVan at 8:13 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Man, they're just fucking Guiliani over on MSNBC.
posted by nushustu at 8:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

That's who CBS polled, and they gave it to Romney 2:1.

No real scientific or representative surveying is done immediately after a debate. Meaningless.
posted by raysmj at 8:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

sorry, dejah420, if that was brusque. I am just in my fact-checking mode. ;)

posted by misha at 8:14 PM on October 3, 2012

I think Romney will get a very real and sustained bounce from this debate.

And I think nothing in the debate will change the existing dynamic of the race: i.e., Obama favored to win the electoral college by a large margin.
posted by mediareport at 8:14 PM on October 3, 2012

Oh right. This is 21st century America, where we think it's perfectly reasonable that Howard Dean's candidacy completely evaporated over an awkward noise he once made at a rally. The pessimists are probably right.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [12 favorites]

I'm pretty sure I recently saw a poll of undecided voters which showed that a large portion of them tended to think that Romney is pretty much lying nonstop. I'll try to find it.

I haven't been able to find it. It's entirely possible that I'm imagining it, based on similar things that I did find, that are essentially "voters in general think that Romney lies more than Obama".

I do still have a feeling that I saw the more specific thing I'm describing, but I'm no longer so sure.
posted by Flunkie at 8:15 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney came off like a hyper, sugar-cereal filled grinder with his mouth filled with pink saliva and Obama came off like the poor soul called in at the last second to babysit while someone goes off to a nice dinner....
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 8:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Suppose Obama did call Romney on the lies:

Romney: [lies]
Obama: That's a lie.
R: Haha, there you go again! You're lying!
O: No, uh... I believe, if you look carefully at the data, it is you... who's lying.
R: I keep saying! STOP LYING!
O: Listen: I didn't lie. You did.
R: No, no, no! You did!
Jim: Uh..
R: JUST LET ME TALK, BECAUSE HE LIED AND THEN HE CALLED ME A LIAR, WHICH WAS ALSO A LIE.

When you have an opponent who blatantly lies, you can't win the "you're lying" competition. It's like wrestling with a pig.
posted by meese at 8:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [19 favorites]

People like Obama and are willing to give him a break. All Romney did is appeal to the his base and the talking heads. That's not going to get him to 270.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:18 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

It looks like dems are going with the word "testy" to describe Romney tonight. Heard it from David Plouffe and Governor Hickenlooper.
posted by murfed13 at 8:19 PM on October 3, 2012

Flunkie, I think you're looking for this.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:19 PM on October 3, 2012

The RomneyBot's Alpha Male program did exactly what it was designed to do. I think he won the coveted Lizard Brain vote tonight.
posted by homunculus at 8:20 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

"...the place you put your money just makes a pretty clear indication of where your heart is." - Mitt Romney
posted by markkraft at 8:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Kerry wiped the floor with Bush in all three debates in 2004.
posted by edgeways at 8:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

Obama needs to nail the next debate, or Romney needs to fuck up between then and now.

The latter is a distinct possibility, as Romney ran to the center so fast, it made Mitch McConnell retreat into his shell. He has told his Tea Party base, "No, fuck YOU!" If he tries to woo them back, he'll undermine any gains he made tonight.

On the other hand, if Obama doesn't clue in and paint Romney as "Dubya II", he's sunk.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:21 PM on October 3, 2012

Who's More Full of Shit - Ranking Politicians by Their Politifact Score

As of 1 Oct, 2012

Barack Obama (D)
45% based on 418 rulings

Mitt Romney (R)
65% based on 174 rulings

I await a post-debate update with glee.
posted by ob1quixote at 8:22 PM on October 3, 2012

If you expected Obama to savage Romney at this debate, you haven't been paying attention. And you're lucky, because that would have been a disaster for his campaign. They're too smart to fall for that.

Obama didn't have to savage Romney, just reply. Like he did against McCain.
posted by cashman at 8:22 PM on October 3, 2012

Obama might have gotten an empathy bounce
posted by edgeways at 8:22 PM on October 3, 2012

Shares of Obama winning re-election have plummeted to a staggering 70%.

Yeah, 70% is a nice number but if it drops 10% after every debate that's not a good trend.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:22 PM on October 3, 2012

People are being way too hard on Obama. Romney did dominate the debate and was obviously very, very well-prepared. But about a half hour into it, I was thinking, fuck, is this guy on speed? He's fucking out of control. He was the like the kid in class who really, really can't wait to answer the teacher's question. Maybe Obama could have a pressed a bit harder on Romney's lack of specifics/outright deception. He didn't do as well there as he could have, but this is far from a a disaster.

Sure, Romney had some decent answers, lies though they may have been, but I thought whatever good he was doing with the answers were nullified by the hopped up manner in which he was delivering them. The President, on the other hand, was calm as he has always been. No way was he "flustered". He had some very good moments on Medicare and even in retrospect, the tax debate. Romney does in fact plan to have a $5 billion tax cut.

I'll agree that Obama seemed a bit nervous at the beginning and then seemed to tire out towards the end. He actually looked like his mind was on something else at the end the debate. I might add that the Obama team should not have agreed to have the debate on Michelle and Barack Obama's 20th wedding anniversary. Not because they should have been celebrating or anything superficial like that, but because one can imagine that this impressive milestone caused Obama to reflect on his and Michelle's lives together and all that they've been through. Given the high stakes of the event, no distraction is too small to remove.

I would give the debate barely to Romney, but thought Obama had some good moments. Overall, it's not clear cut that Romney's performance will make a big difference in the swing states.

By the way, Lehrer was pathetic. And yet, it is this very patheticness that will get him more gigs in future elections. Campaigns love Lehrer like we used to love substitute teachers.
posted by Bokmakierie at 8:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

CNN registered voters who watched the debate poll: 67% Romney win, 25% Obama
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 8:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Or this version of the drinking game: Get really drunk before the debate begins. At some point during the debate, vomit.

Oh, you mean the Sir John A Macdonald drinking game?
posted by mazola at 8:25 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Meanwhile, Key and Peele finished their show at about 9:55 with another Obama Anger Translator sketch, which was strangely prescient.
posted by gimonca at 8:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama plummets to 67.5!

Now's as good as time as any to cash in some chips.
posted by Theta States at 8:26 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

By the way, Lehrer was pathetic.

That also led to one of Obama's most cringe-worthy moments. "You did great Jim" sounded to smarmy-politiciany I wanted to scream.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

He has told his Tea Party base, "No, fuck YOU!" If he tries to woo them back, he'll undermine any gains he made tonight.

Romney doesn't need to woo them back - he knows they will vote for him because they hate Obama. He knows that the base knows that the run towards the middle is just a temporary show for moderates and undecideds. The base will bitch, but the chances that they won't vote for Romney because he was too moderate in this debate are zero.
posted by longdaysjourney at 8:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

This was Silver's analysis before the debate. He said that Romney, statistically and based on history, will get a bounce but it may not matter in the end.
posted by girlmightlive at 8:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oddly enough, the Big Bird thing seems to be taking off online. I just don't get why Mitt went there. Completely unforced error on his part. There are lots of big bird (anti-romney) photos and images appearing, on different sites.
posted by cashman at 8:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Shares of Obama winning re-election have plummeted to a staggering 70%.

An emotional response. Period.

It will ameliorate in a day or two and I would bet 10K on that,
posted by Skygazer at 8:30 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Losing Sesame Street is something I think speaks to pretty much everyone...
posted by Theta States at 8:30 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Look, is there really anyone in Obama's base who's not going to vote for him after tonight's performance? Very unlikely.

Did he win over many undecideds? Probably not. But a frothing, attacking Obama - especially as the incumbent - would have been viewed as overly sensitive and defensive. Which is not to even mention the worry about "Angry Black Man Syndrome."

What he did do was get Mittens to say to ~50 Million TV viewers how much he likes Regulation, and how many of the provisions of Obamacare he's gonna' keep in his secret health care plan. These kind of things may do wonders for the undecideds, but not so much for the kind of people financing his campaign. Now I don't think this will move the line in the President's favor in the short term, I do have to wonder: Between the President's whole "Aw shucks, we ain't so different" attitude, and Romney abruptly running to center so fast he blue-shifted trying to shake off that bad 47% mojo, how many checks that were going to be written to Romney For President are going to be staying in the wallet in the next week or so?
posted by Freon at 8:30 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

It will ameliorate in a day or two and I would bet 10K on that,

Luckily, thanks to intrade, you can. :)
posted by Theta States at 8:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

In the quick perusal of online stuff, it looks like Big Bird and running roughshod over Jim are the things that are getting the mentions.
posted by gofargogo at 8:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh, jeez. According to David Usborne, US editor for the Independent, journalists at the debate were required to pay "$85 for a chair and $175 for wifi. Lots of angry journos"

Unbelievable. A privately sponsored presidential debate, funded in part by Anheuser-Busch, that makes journalists *pay* to be present in the room.
posted by mediareport at 8:31 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

So it turned out that I missed the whole debate because I was too caught up watching the video to "Gangam Style" for the first time finally.

I'm wondering whether I really missed out.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

"You did great Jim"

Obama actually did the same thing to Tom Brokaw at the town hall debate in 2008:

At 0:47

It's a thing he does, I guess.
posted by Bokmakierie at 8:33 PM on October 3, 2012

Another point that may play out in Obama's favor is that he now has a lot more information on the record that he can call Romney on. I predict a whole new round of TV commercials and campaign speeches on all the BS Romney put out tonight.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 8:33 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I gotta stop paying attention to politics for a few weeks or I'm going to start drinking heavily.
posted by Justinian at 8:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Well, on the upside the Dems have two solid attack lines out of this. Killing Big Bird and voucherizing Medicare. Vouchers attacks should play well in IA and FL, Big Bird nationally.

Gotta roll my eyes at the OMG Romney is going to WIN! pants wetting
posted by edgeways at 8:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

When the goddamn League of Women Voters is your go-to bulldog, you know you're in trouble.

I wouldn't underestimate them - from the "Democracy Now" interview linked to above:

GEORGE FARAH: . . . fast forward four more years later and you have the Michael Dukakis and the George Bush campaign’s drafting the first ever 12-page secret debate contract. They gave it to The League of Women Voters and said please implement this. The League said, are you kidding me? We are not going to implement a secret contract that dictates the terms of the format. Instead, they release the contract to the public and they held a press conference accusing the candidates of "perpetrating a fraud on the American people" and refusing to be "an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American people."
posted by ryanshepard at 8:36 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

Theta States: Obama plummets to 67.5!" Now's as good as time as any to cash in some chips."

God damn, if I had a legal way to bet Intrade, I'd buy that 75 or 80. At 67 I might take out a loan on my house...
posted by tonycpsu at 8:37 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama actually did the same thing to Tom Brokaw at the town hall debate in 2008:

That one felt different, Brokaw saying he wasn't sure what was fair, and Obama saying don't worry.

In Lehrers case, he seemed to realize he'd let things spin out of control and Obama tried at make it all better with a too pat statement
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:41 PM on October 3, 2012

I was just coming here to say "Big Bird." I bet that will have a resonance that continues on long after this debate is forgotten. Talk about killing PBS and people just think...oh well." Talk about killing Big Bird and now you are murdering childhood and the alphabet and counting and pre-school. It was a stupid thing to say. But Mitt would not know that because undoubtedly Big Bird never played an important role in his life.

Look, most of the undecideds probably didn't bother to watch the debates-- after all they are so uninterested they still don't know who to vote for. So the media will tell them: Romney won the debate. But so what? Debates do not make or break elections. You know what changes elections? Soundbites. Soundbites of someone saying they don't care about 47% of the population and if given a chance would kill-off Big Bird.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

Kinda think the whole internet needs bipolar medication.
posted by edgeways at 8:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

Obama plummets to 67.5!" Now's as good as time as any to cash in some chips."

Man, there are some major ding dong idiots with money to bet out there. THAT right there is easy money...

Dang this is just the wrong time for me. Arghh...
posted by Skygazer at 8:45 PM on October 3, 2012

Well, on the upside the Dems have two solid attack lines out of this. Killing Big Bird and voucherizing Medicare. Vouchers attacks should play well in IA and FL, Big Bird nationally.

Agreed. Dem's need to kick out some effective ads on vouchercare and Big Bird.

Romney did well in the debate. Obama did okay overall, but not so great at the end, IMO. He didn't have to go on the offensive, but he could have thrown a few more jabs -- quote Romney's 47% remarks, comment on how Romney has held so many sides on any position that it is impossible to know what his plan really is and it could change entirely at any second, comment on how Romney hasn't paid his fair share in taxes and is hiding who knows what in his unreleased returns. The "nevermind" was good. The "he's hiding his plans because they're bad for the middle class" was good.

The twitter debate page seemed to be dominated by Karl Rove, Anne Coulter, and other GOP shills. Whats up with that!?
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:45 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Nope - Candy Crowley, and the other one is Bob Scheiffer.

THANK FUCKING GOD!

Don't worry, Jim Lehrer, it gets better. #stopbullying

Yea, about that...
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:46 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

EmpressCallipygos: I'm wondering whether I really missed out.

Jim was a sight, that's for sure. The rest, not so much...
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:48 PM on October 3, 2012

How much do you guys think the stuff today about the secret video of Obama talking black and being "Malcolm X", According to Coulter, caused his ummm laid back performance?

Fox and drudge were all over this "startling new video" today.
posted by Ad hominem at 8:48 PM on October 3, 2012

Intrade is still dropping, too. It'll probably keep dropping through tomorrow, thanks to the press beatdown, and not bounce back until new polls come out.
posted by mek at 8:49 PM on October 3, 2012

http://t.co/dhDFNLvV
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:49 PM on October 3, 2012

Candy Crowley's job is just a preambling mic stand for the audience. They wouldn't give a woman a real moderators slot dontcherknow?
posted by edgeways at 8:49 PM on October 3, 2012

I've not waded deep enough into the quagmire to know whether that's the case or not, but lord-a-mercy, good-gracious-alive she can't be any worse than Jim was.
posted by RolandOfEld at 8:51 PM on October 3, 2012

How much do you guys think the stuff today about the secret video of Obama talking black and being "Malcolm X", According to Coulter, caused his ummm laid back performance?

I think it might have more to do with a NATO Country being close to invoking the mutual protection clause (*)
posted by edgeways at 8:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

OK. Feeling somewhat better after putting on the coldly cynical wonk-hat. This was Rope-a-Dope, get Romney to lay down specific policy points. Now, for the first time, the Obama campaign has something to campaign against, and a direction to campaign towards.

Declaring he wants to kill Big Bird will wind up being a talking point Romney won't be able to shake. Declaring he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank, likewise.

Still. If Obama doesn't rock the block next debate, he's in a tough spot. The time for "Nice, presidential Obama" is done.

He has proven he's the nice guy. He doesn't want to kill Big Bird. Now is the time to tape up the knuckles and go at it heavy and hard.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm amazed that commentators et al. are being so negative about Obama's performance... if Obama had responded differently and been all fighty or something Romney would have just made up something different. Hanging back and making sure that Romney clearly and repeatedly committed to the policies and positions that he made up off the cuff seems to me like it was the best strategy.
posted by XMLicious at 8:52 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

President Obama just brought a Nerf bat to a knife fight.
posted by Optamystic at 8:53 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I didnt watch a second of the debate and feel like a more balanced person for it. All I gathered from the reaction coverage is that Mitt Romney wants to kill Big Bird? Like one of those private "safari" trips where they release the sad old circus elephant so a rich white guy can feel like Teddy Roosevelt gunning it down? Yep, that sounds like Romney to me.

Sad way to go, Big Bird. But that's what you get for being a socialist.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:53 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I was really disappointed with Obama's performance. Early on, I kept wondering why he wasn't just crushing Romney. If not crushing, at least putting up some sort of defense. He just seemed off his game the whole time. What happened to the guy that so easily handed McCain his ass? Where was the guy who just a couple years ago, took on a room full of republicans and wiped the floor with them? Where is that guy?

Reading comments here, on social media, and hearing the talking heads, now think he threw the fight on purpose. Not so bad that he could be called incompetent, but just enough to get Mitt a pass. Perhaps I just want to believe that, but I think this might be one of those cases where he is actually playing 12 dimensional chess. As pointed out, he's got an empathy bump. He's got people going online and on the air, wondering why he didn't go after the lies Mitt Romney was spewing. As pointed out here, they now have tons of Romney soundbits to work with. They know where Mitt will attack. And he didn't show his hand to Mitt as far as the way he can deftly disarm an opponent.

Or maybe not, it's very possible I just want that to be true. I guess time will tell.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 8:53 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

The internet is in full-on crazy mode because Romney did better than expected. What a weird debate. Romney seemed to completely make up new policy positions on the spot. And 'trickle down government'? Geeze. He did well, but none of his sound bite attempts really payed off (YOU GET AN AIRPLANE AND A HOUSE! BUT NOT... FACTS) and the joking was awkward.

I think Obama played this one safe-- he didn't even bring up the 47% video when there were a dozen openings for it. But he couldn't really 'win' an economy debate with things as they are now, so I guess we'll have to settle with him doing just okay.
posted by sonmi at 8:54 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm amazed that commentators et al. are being so negative about Obama's performance...

They got your attention, though. It's the same thing the blogosphere does with certain topics to drive clickthroughs.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:55 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

There's winning the battle, and winning the war. Obama didn't need to do better than 'okay', because debates don't win elections. They can *lose* elections, though. Romney didn't do poorly enough to lose it completely, which obviously Obama would have loved, but I don't think anybody really expected. He did lay a lot of inconsistent stuff out there that's going to be all over television soon. Essentially, he scored a narrow victory by putting himself in a position that it will be even harder for him to defend for the next month.

If Romney had a consistent platform, he might be able to pull a boost from that and really manage to keep it alive. But a lot of this was all over the place. "Look at how great I did with a bunch of Democrats in Massachusetts" doesn't scream conservative, but "Big Bird is in league with CHINA" is completely whacko. He had great (if aggressive, which the media loves) presentation, but the substance is missing. There are a dozen new places to poke holes, and he'll spend all his time trying to fill those holes... and exposing new ones. If he can only perform well in debates by opening up huge gaping weak points, he's not going to get enough of a bounce to take back places like Ohio.

I would have liked Obama to call out the lies more, but I agree: The only possible response to "you're lying" in this context is "no I'm not". The best place to call out lies is in the media, afterwards. With video.
posted by gracedissolved at 8:56 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Obama and Romney with their hair-switched around.

....

Holy crap!
posted by Skygazer at 8:56 PM on October 3, 2012 [27 favorites]

It's interesting to me that according to CNN's undecided voter focus group who were doing the positive/negative dial thingy during the debate, the point where I thought Obama finally brought it to Romney when he said "His big bold idea is nevermind," they actually graded that as Obama's WORST moment. So I think maybe there's some truth to the fact that had Obama been all fighty, he would have polled even worse.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 8:57 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

silver lining for Obama in post-debate poll: fave/unfave numbers for both candidates mostly unchanged.
posted by edgeways at 8:57 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think Candy Crowley is a fine reporter and she should consider being the town hall moderator a compliment. On the other hand, being asked to moderate the kind of debate that we saw tonight means that the campaigns don't think you have backbone and generally have no respect for your skills as a journalist.
posted by Bokmakierie at 8:59 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think it might have more to do with a NATO Country being close to invoking the mutual protection clause (*)

Oh man. fucking Romney, Obama doesn't need any more shit right now. The guy certainly gets my sympathy he is up arguing with a moron who can just make up anything he wants and he is worried about another war.
posted by Ad hominem at 9:00 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

> So it turned out that I missed the whole debate because I was too caught up watching the video to "Gangam Style" for the first time finally

How many times did you watch it?
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:00 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

We should also keep in mind that, as much as Romney lied, Barack Obama told a pretty huge lie, too. And I think it'll haunt him. I think come election day, voters will still be thinking about the moment when the President of the United States turned to Jim Lehrer and said: "You're doing a great job."

I mean, some lies can be shrugged off, but...
posted by koeselitz at 9:01 PM on October 3, 2012 [12 favorites]

I don't know Ms. Crowley at all as I don't have cable, but something I've kind of been sniping at over the last few days is the glaring lack of questioning regarding issues such as contraception availability, Right to Choice, Planned Parenthood funding etc. Jimmy there was not going to touch those issues IN THE DOMESTIC POLICY debate, it's not gong to come up the the Foreign Policy debate and the one moderator they have that may well have brought the issue to the forefront is essentially a walking piece of furniture and time keeper.

I think having Ms. Crowley there in that position smacks of tokenism at the worst.

But, that is just my thoughts.
posted by edgeways at 9:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

OK. So, I steeled up the nerve to head over to FARK, a bunch of ruthlessly cynical right-leaning centrists, so...
...why are there so many .jpgs of Elmo with a knife? Oh, dear. Big Bird's got a posse.

What's worse, they're calling it a draw otherwise.

This will be pretty much the only talking point for the next week or so: The Big Bird Death Watch.

There are already cartoons of Big Bird, with his head on the chopping block, with Romney holding the axe. Wow.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

The main problem I think this gives the Obama campaign is that it's clearly going to fire up the Romney base. He was doing so poorly before, that a good number of them might have just stayed home on Election Day. This has given them reason to hope, and they're more likely to get involved again.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:04 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'd laugh my ass off if Big Bird internet fire completely distracts from the debate "win"... that would be so... so... Romneyesq.
posted by edgeways at 9:07 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

How many times did you watch it?

......About ten times, I think.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:12 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

The Guardian live-blog is definitely worth reading. Measured and thoughtful. I agree with this from the blog:

But while Obama's performance may have been subdued, there's nothing he said tonight that resembles a hostage to fortune, no slips or gaffes, nothing for attack ad fodder. So that suggests the damage won't be lasting.

and

But with no quotable quotes – and even Republicans don't seem to be shouting any great lines of Romney's – I wonder what the half-life of this debate will be? Romney's performance will have given his campaign a fillup and confirm his recent improvement in the polls of the last couple of days. But what's left in a week or so?

Indeed, the only thing I really remember about Romney in the debates is that he seemed like he was over-caffeinated.
posted by Bokmakierie at 9:14 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Apropos of nothing Santorum is on Letterman...

Comedy gold?
posted by Skygazer at 9:14 PM on October 3, 2012

Wow, even @AlRoker is piling on Lehrer:

‏@alroker I hope Jim Lehrer gets the license plate of the truck that drove over him in this debate
posted by Room 641-A at 9:16 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Hey Jim, what was that about not being the safe choice?
posted by edgeways at 9:18 PM on October 3, 2012

The main problem I think this gives the Obama campaign is that it's clearly going to fire up the Romney base.

True and this also probably means that he gets a bump in fundraising. But thinking Obama would kill off Romney in this debate was probably unrealistic. Even Palin held her own in her debate against Biden.

One narrative that I wonder if it will take hold is that Romney did so well because he was so well-prepared and because he had 20 primary debates. Not because of any inherent ability to make reasoned arguments. Remember when he killed in the Florida (?) debate and his debate coach got so much credit that the Romney campaign had to can him?
posted by Bokmakierie at 9:21 PM on October 3, 2012

I've spent the past half hour trying to craft the perfect Jim Lehrer zinger. It has to do with the empty chair. Like say, "Oh, so the empty chair's back -- AS MODERATOR! ZING!" Or maybe, "I'm glad Lehrer took advice from Eastwood's chair. ZING!" Or something like that.
posted by meese at 9:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

After the first presidential debate on Wednesday night, one of Mitt Romney’s top advisers acknowledged, contrary to Romney’s claims, that Romney’s plan would not cover pre-existing conditions. Instead, he suggested states should fill the gap by passing their own versions of RomneyCare.

That just about sums up the entire debate, right there.
posted by edgeways at 9:21 PM on October 3, 2012 [20 favorites]

Life is pretty bad when Al Roker is bringing the tears and pain via burnage.
posted by winna at 9:23 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

re: PBS, real life came uncomfortably close to The Onion today...
posted by vorfeed at 9:24 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

Of *course* Obama threw the fight. He needs Romney to continue to look competitive (and not just to the media who need the horserace narrative to keep the bucks flowing) for one big reason - to keep Republican donors focused on Romney, not on downticket races. If the big money thinks Romney's toast, they'll go buy some congressmen or Senators; as long as Romney's viable he's the funding locus. Basically, he's ensuring that the Romney campaign is a honeypot for conservative contributions.

As for Obama's funding, he can play it off as "You're right, I wasn't on my "A" game in that debate. THere were some national security issues that were pressing, and it was my 20th anniversary." Those two reasons will keep his Presidentialness and the empathy factor high. That'll be good enough for his base to keep the taps open. But
posted by notsnot at 9:27 PM on October 3, 2012 [19 favorites]

The Guardian live-blog is definitely worth reading. Measured and thoughtful. I agree with this from the blog:
But while Obama's performance may have been subdued, there's nothing he said tonight that resembles a hostage to fortune, no slips or gaffes, nothing for attack ad fodder. So that suggests the damage won't be lasting.
and
But with no quotable quotes – and even Republicans don't seem to be shouting any great lines of Romney's – I wonder what the half-life of this debate will be? Romney's performance will have given his campaign a fillup and confirm his recent improvement in the polls of the last couple of days. But what's left in a week or so?
Indeed, the only thing I really remember about Romney in the debates is that he seemed like he was over-caffeinated.
posted by Bokmakierie

This is exactly what I'm saying. This is a Pyrrhic victory, and honestly the Dems shouldn't get too comfortable, but this is going to be meaningless, and it's not by accident.

Obama gave Romney zero big hits and NOTHING resembling a big game changer. He's running out the clock.

But that being said he needs to get some Goddamn sleep and rest and come into the next one with good energy. He really did seem tired.
posted by Skygazer at 9:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [9 favorites]

Man, I bet you're glad for that edit window. Also, calling someone 'an illegal' is a smidge different than calling them 'an illegal immigrant'.

Didn't have WiFi during the debate, but in any case: no edit window used, but liza clearly implied that "illegal" is a slur even when used as an adjective.

So you're wrong on both counts. Thanks for playing, though.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:29 PM on October 3, 2012

Skygazer: "Obama and Romney with their hair-switched around."

Obama looks like Ricardo Montalban's brother, the Elvis impersonator.
posted by notsnot at 9:29 PM on October 3, 2012

Fired Big Bird meme
posted by edgeways at 9:32 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

liza clearly implied that "illegal" is a slur even when used as an adjective.

Newsflash: many people consider it to be a slur, even when used as an adjective.
posted by ambrosia at 9:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [5 favorites]

I id not watch the debates, that kind of political over-rehearsed stuff drives me up the wall.

I would like to remind everyone who is feeling uneasy or panicking that Obama has an ace team. I have been really impressed how on top of things they have been. I would be surprised if this wasn't planned or planned for. Take a deep breath, it will be OK.
posted by annsunny at 9:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Man, I bet you're glad for that edit window.

Do. Not. Play. This. Game. Here.

If you think someone is fucking with the edit window, flag it or email us and we'll deal with it pretty severely. Otherwise don't start these sorts of conversations here, please. And end this one.
posted by jessamyn at 9:35 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

Newsflash: many people consider it to be a slur, even when used as an adjective.

News flash: it is not a slur in typical English usage. I get bent out of shape when people say "enamored with" but that doesn't mean it's not typical English usage.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:35 PM on October 3, 2012

chill folks
posted by edgeways at 9:37 PM on October 3, 2012

On the one hand, I was disappointed and thought Romney won, but on the other hand, I'm not so worried. Just because someone might think Romney won a debate doesn't mean they're going to vote for the guy.
posted by MegoSteve at 9:37 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I feel so bad for Jim Lehrer. I've never ever seen him lose control like that ever.

But I think he was rusty as hell himself. He's not on the Newhour anymore but in the background and it shows he just was not up to knowing how to get a grip on Romney's steamroller bore thing without seeming nonobjective.

But that's Romney all over. An unseemly bore who'll steamroll over anyone or anything for power.
posted by Skygazer at 9:38 PM on October 3, 2012

RolandOfEld: "
Man, that would be 12th dimensional chess worthy...."

I'm not even that smart (and L'esprit de l'escalier should be my nickname) but that seemed obvious to me. He's pulling punches, and getting Romney to put a lot of useful nonsense to video.
posted by notsnot at 9:42 PM on October 3, 2012

Romney's 'Big Bird' debate comment stirs social media [USA Today]

This fool is about to lose a debate he did okay in because he made one of the dumbest comments of all time, just out of the blue. Mittens...oh you!
posted by cashman at 9:43 PM on October 3, 2012 [7 favorites]

ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease
posted by edgeways at 9:46 PM on October 3, 2012

notsnot: Oh, I don't doubt it, it's just completely foreign to my non-political mindset. I can think several moves ahead in chess but these guys and gals... I guess I just never got around to taking Electioneering 101. Kudos.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:47 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

You think the Big Bird thing was "out of the blue"? Maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if it (or something very like it) were planned. It's not like he didn't know he was going to be on PBS, or didn't know that he'd be asked about what he was going to cut.
posted by Flunkie at 9:47 PM on October 3, 2012

I've only watched the first half of the debate, but I have this to say: *of course* Obama speaks slower -- he has to think before he speaks. He thinks, then speaks; about 75% of what Romney says is pre-regurgitated. I think Obama had easily won the first 45 minutes based on thoughtfullness and giving the back-story, like when he talked about Romney's voucher system resulting in eventual collapse of Medicare, which is something Romney did not even try to rebut.

Further, I think Obama was 100% on the same level as he was in McCain debates. Romney was stronger than McCain, though.

The bottom line is: either you believe Obama stabilized things in 2008-09 and then slowly and gradually improved the economy, OR that he prevented the economy from bouncing back up at a faster rate. If you believed one or the other, nothing in the debate will change your mind in the slightest, because it's a matter of guiding philosophy.
posted by rainy at 9:47 PM on October 3, 2012 [4 favorites]

> Obama and Romney with their hair-switched around.

If Romney were to have a buzz-cut, appear less of a bigwig, he could improve his chances. Why aren't his advisors telling him this stuff?
posted by de at 9:49 PM on October 3, 2012

Now that the immediate "oh fuck we're fucked" has worn off, I'm beginning to see Obama's performance tonight as less of a disaster and more of a letdown. Goddamnit Obama, you are the first black president, goddamnit! Every moment of your life is historical! The man you're facing down wants to continue this country down the path of destruction GWB initiated and you spent four years trying to reverse! Don't let him do it! Fire up the crowd, bring down the house, do whatever it takes! Remember the Obama that gave the keynote at the Democratic convention all those years ago? Be that Obama! Make us proud!

WE NEED YOU GODDAMNIT!

(but seriously, I'm willing to let you off the hook just this once because they made you work on your anniversary. just don't do it again, okay?)
posted by Afroblanco at 9:50 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

I only caught the first half of the debate before our guests came over, but I thought the President looked absolutely exhausted. Ill even. Has he been sick recently?
posted by Kevtaro at 9:53 PM on October 3, 2012 [1 favorite]

Given the amount of people who don't vote if they think it won't make a difference, I think we have to see this as a serious boost for Romney, by winning the debate he has proven that the race is not over and there's still time to change people's minds.

That said, why do we have the debates so close when early voting has already started? Is there some secret agreement against having them earlier?
posted by corb at 10:05 PM on October 3, 2012

I was wondering about that earlier as well. Given how late the conventions have gotten, there really is only about 3 -4 weeks in which they could be earlier. I suspect right now it is "tradition" to have them all in such a short space, which is kind of silly considering just how Loooong the election cycle is.
posted by edgeways at 10:11 PM on October 3, 2012

Ohio is a coal state.

I'm way late on this, but just laughing my ass off over here. The interspersed Q and A in the thread is like Joe in Reservoir Dogs. Toby? Toby Wong? Toby Wong? Toby Wong.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:13 PM on October 3, 2012

Just coming back in at the end, scan the transcripts, and I see that as expected I missed nothing by skipping the debates. "Big Bird" being the big issue is... is... well, you just can't make this stuff up.

As to why they have the debates so close together - if you see this as a sports event then it all becomes clear... they have to have the playoffs right before the Vote Bowl so the excitement mounts!

Though actually I see this more like professional wrestling... this explains Mr. Obama's poor performance, because if there wasn't some question in people's minds as to who was going to win, then the whole thing would be dull for the audience - and who wants that? And if Romney hadn't done well in this election, most people would have written him off.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:29 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

Oh, and did I call it with my original posting or what?

"They aren't going to turn the Bill of Rights back on, they aren't going to stop assassinating people at will, they aren't going to stop spying on us, neither war criminals nor financial criminals will see the inside of a court room let alone a jail cell, they aren't going to legalize pot nor dial back the war on drugs, and they aren't going to do anything significant about climate change "because jobs"."

As far as I can see, none of these issues were even mentioned - but these are going to be what historians will remember about this time.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:34 PM on October 3, 2012 [6 favorites]

@SilentJimLehrer
posted by Skygazer at 10:41 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Charles Pierce over at Esquire actually had to resort to writing the following convoluted, if brilliant, paragraph to make sense of the absurdity of what happened tonight:

The fact is that the president is a cool and rational man and he is facing someone who is running as a caricature not only of himself, but of the several other selves he's found it convenient to construct for himself along the way. It is possible that a cool and rational man is incapable of confronting someone this ridiculous on the simple grounds of how ridiculous that someone actually has become.

posted by Skygazer at 10:57 PM on October 3, 2012 [14 favorites]

I think this might be one of those cases where he is actually playing 12 dimensional chess.

Just regular kind. I think Romney approached this like a best 2 out of 3 match. In his mind he came out of game 1 as a winner.

If Obama is playing this smart, he's going to be approaching the last month of this election as a single game with an opening, a mid-game and an end-game. If that's correct, Romney actually committed himself tonight more than he has in the past eighteen months. Obama actually had to be President and couldn't just say he'd make everything all better through some heretofore unknown science that borders on mysticism. So Obama just made some pretty patterns with his pawns while Romney got his his big pieces out in front.

Right now Romney is projecting all kinds of power but, carrying the chess analogy, is highly vulnerable to forks and moves he didn't see.

Welcome to the mid-game.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 11:18 PM on October 3, 2012 [13 favorites]

A new Obama ad should be themed "he won't tell us."
posted by JKevinKing at 11:28 PM on October 3, 2012 [3 favorites]

I hope that's exactly what they were planning, because that would be clever.

There were a few times during all that I thought Obama had kind of an "Indiana Jones patiently lets his attacker wave his sword around before he shoots him" look.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:55 PM on October 3, 2012 [2 favorites]

Maybe I'm just biased, but from my perspective, Obama clearly won the debate. Hands down. Either Romney is stupid or thinks I am.

Obama came across to me as serious. Romney won because he was aggressive and Obama didn't deliver the "zingers?" Because Obama wasn't comfortable? Obama was substantive and the media is complaining that Obama didn't use cheap attacks over 47%, tax returns, etc.

Too bad most of the political world disagrees with me.
posted by JKevinKing at 11:58 PM on October 3, 2012 [8 favorites]

Obama doesn't have to talk about the horse race bs, the media is.
posted by JKevinKing at 11:59 PM on October 3, 2012

I've realized all the commentary I've been reading, both from left-leaning and right-leaning, sources, has been what Romney needs to do to win the game or whatever. No pundit has told me what Obama should have done to win the game. As such, I have no idea how I should be feeling about all this, and am left befuddled.

Oh well, I think I like chocolate waffles better than KFC Zinger burgers overall, so it's a win for the Belgians?
posted by the cydonian at 12:04 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

And these debates will be old news within 1-2 weeks. It won't affect anything.
posted by JKevinKing at 12:06 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

It would have been satisfying to see Obama call Romney out on his lies, but if the big media story is "Why didn't Obama call out Romney on all of his lies? There were so many of them, he had like a million chances!" then you've got a media who can't criticize Obama about it without also saying "MITT ROMNEY IS A LYING LIAR WHO LIES." every time, which is kind of a neat trick.

Except the narrative won't be about that. The narrative will be about how Romney looked commanding and presidential, and Obama stammered and conceded ground. Romney did a very good job of filling a lot of airtime with with lots of words and saying nothing of substance. Romney managing to position himself as the populist on the issue of Wall St. regulation with his talk of too-big-to-fail was just an outstanding piece of gold-spun bullshit, and Obama just let it go unchallenged.

Obama was at his worst when trying to look bipartisan, and his trumpeting of his record was downright embarrassing. He should go back to calling himself Barry because that debate felt like Goldwater sparring with a Bircher playing populist devil's advocate.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:09 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney's appeal in the debate will be limited to the Republican base
posted by JKevinKing at 12:09 AM on October 4, 2012

I am starting to think that the way Romney moved back to the center on several core right ideas may have won him the battle of the debate but might also cost him the war of the election. Not only does it reinforce the message about him changing his positions for political convenience, but a lot of these issues are mine fields, any of which could individually dominate the news cycle and erase the gains from the debate itself. I'm also curious to see if GOP party discipline can be maintained or if people are going to hit him on these issues from the right.
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:14 AM on October 4, 2012

As such, I have no idea how I should be feeling about all this, and am left befuddled.

Hungry, irritable, and covetous of consumer electronics.
posted by pompomtom at 12:18 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Jim Leher responding forcefully to Mitt Romney's interruptions.
posted by zardoz at 12:19 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Also, ironically, it seems like Obama came out of the debate with the only real "zinger."
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:19 AM on October 4, 2012

Am I the only one who thinks Obama just threw his re-election away? Like, with both hands?

No. But I'm not the only one who would need to put my life-savings forward in order to be able to afford all the beta-blockers you need to get through this election without a breakdown. Deep breaths tzikeh, Republicans are not magicians, and US voters aren't a sea of undecided buffoons ready to jump into Romney's arms in an instant. Not every piece of news that isn't Mitt Romney actually having sex with a dog is confirmation of your fear that you're going to wake up with him as president.
posted by howfar at 12:23 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

Jim Lehrer moderating / Oooops-double
posted by growabrain at 12:28 AM on October 4, 2012

Love the chess metaphor.

What I would love to see is for President Obama to have the last word at the last debate, and have part of the closing statement as follows:

"Mitt Romney is a fine man and a great salesman. The problem is he selling a defective product."
posted by JKevinKing at 12:33 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

He's selling
posted by JKevinKing at 12:35 AM on October 4, 2012

No, he's pitching to buy with a view to harvesting in 4 years time.
posted by de at 12:49 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks

Early score:
- Obama's right on the $5T tax cuts
- Obama's charge that Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year" is 'mostly true'
- On Medicare savings: Obama "did not cut benefits by $716 billion over 10 years as part of his 2010 health care law; rather, he reduced Medicare reimbursements to health care providers, chiefly insurance companies and drug manufacturers. And the law gave Medicare recipients more generous benefits for prescription drugs and free preventive care like mammograms."
- Romney's claim that the Affordable Care act "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people, ultimately, what kind of treatments they can have." is "one of the biggest whoppers of the night."
- Romney claimed that Obama had said he would 'cut the deficit in half.' Half true
- Obama's claim on adding 5 million jobs in the last 30 months: True

Obama's only real misstep, so far:
- "20 years ago I became the luckiest man on earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me." 20 years ago, at the time the comment was made, Michelle's last name was still Robinson.
posted by syzygy at 2:04 AM on October 4, 2012 [21 favorites]

Salon's Debate Fact Check

— Big Bird is tiny: Mitt Romney says he’d help bring down the deficit by cutting PBS and “Big Bird.” PBS receives about $445 million from the federal government, which represents about .01 percent of the federal budget.
— “The same fucking bill”: Romney says his healthcare plan in Massachusetts is very different from Obamacare. The guy who designed both the plans calls them “the same fucking bill.”
posted by syzygy at 3:12 AM on October 4, 2012 [6 favorites]

At 8:55 pm I said to my wife, "I'm going to bed, I'll leave watching the debate up to TiVo and Metafilter, they'll take care of it." Thanks folks, looks like I can delete that TiVo recording.
posted by HuronBob at 3:13 AM on October 4, 2012

My (admittedly very biased) two cents after sleeping on it:

Neither candidate scored huge, substantive points in the debate. Romney was commanding, but came off looking like a complete weirdo, in my book, with the blinking, pained grimace, interrupting the moderator, and looking smug and smarmy.

Obama played it safe. I think and hope this is a case of losing or throwing the battle with an eye toward winning the war.

Romney made a number of factually incorrect statements, and backtracked on positions he espoused as little as a few days ago.

I think the Obama team came away with a goldmine of Romney statements to work with, going forward.

I also think it's likely that Obama took the non aggressive approach simply out respect for the gravity of the current economic situation. Mitt, on the other hand, was aggressive and made a bunch of policy points, many inaccurate, without ever really explaining the specifics of his policies.

To me, it looks like Mitt 'won' this battle on style points, barely, but I think the longer term outcome will be that he gave the Obama campaign more ammunition to attack him with, something I think they'll do a very good job of.
posted by syzygy at 3:18 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

In short I think Obama has the brains and rhetorical prowess to beat Mitt Romney into a pulp in a debate. The fact that he did not do that last night leads me to think the outcome was probably planned by the Obama team, with a view toward the long game.

I can only hope I'm right - hope Obama pulls it out and brings a lot of dems into office on his coattails.
posted by syzygy at 3:33 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think Candy Crowley is a fine reporter

She is one of the very worst right wing corporate shills on air. Name one major scoop she's ever had, or one interview where she broke through a bad mans facade. None. She's not a journalist. She's like Blitzer, a PR hack.

I can't believe Jim Lehrer did not defend PBS. He needs to retire now. weak, weak, weak moderation.
posted by spitbull at 3:37 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

The fact is that the president is a cool and rational man and he is facing someone who is running as a caricature not only of himself, but of the several other selves he's found it convenient to construct for himself along the way. It is possible that a cool and rational man is incapable of confronting someone this ridiculous on the simple grounds of how ridiculous that someone actually has become.

Also known as avoiding a Mugatu moment.
posted by fullerine at 3:38 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Oh, and did anyone else notice that Romney said you put your money where your heart is? The 3rd party attack ad writes itself.
posted by JKevinKing at 3:49 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Angry Republicans loved the debate because Romney was rude, arrogant & angry and would say anything just to get the white house "back".

They don't care about facts or figures or truth or specifics, and would prefer not to hear them as that might force them to think.

And the fury of an angry republican is nothing next to the self-loathing rage they would feel if they had to admit they were wrong about Obama.

Never underestimate how much effort a human being will put into justifying him or herself, even with lies, even with violence, simply to be accepted by his or her social group.
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:23 AM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

I like how this NYT fact check is put together - it's side by side with a transcript of the debate, so you can see what they said in context and then and explanation.
posted by insectosaurus at 4:42 AM on October 4, 2012 [6 favorites]

I'm disappointed, but not terribly so. After all, Kerry "decisively" won the first debate in 2004 to much rending of the garments on the right and jubilation on the left, and last time I checked the two guys on stage last night weren't running to succeed him as he left office after two terms.

As others have mentioned, there's nothing "scary" to voters that Obama said, while Romney admitted to planning on implementing the wildly unpopular VoucherCare, which I can see in an ad or three. And let's not forget that we have three more debates to go, including one Presidential one in the town-hall format, which definitely favored Obama last time. And while the people who say Romney shook the Etch-a-Sketch again and did a decent job presenting himself as a centrist are right, the time he really needed to do that successfully was during the summer after the primaries, before Bain and the 47% video, not a month before the election. Sure, this may have stopped the bleeding, but that's not a winning strategy with 30-odd days left. Just look at Ford or Mondale or Kerry to see how well stopping the bleeding went for them.

If the polls are correct, the percentage of undecided voters is usually less than the margin between the two, which means Obama's already got a "baked-in" lead of sorts. In other words, Romney's job in the debates is to convince almost all the voters who are undecided and from the other side to vote for him, which I'm not sure happened. That's what happened to Reagan and almost happened with Kerry, and although it's too early to tell I would very surprised to see 90%+ of undecideds say the debate made them want to vote for Romney and a notable percentage of Obama voters saying they'll switch.

Another important perspective: As mentioned above, there's this snap poll from Peter Hamby at CNN:

silver lining for Obama in post-debate poll: fave/unfave numbers for both candidates mostly unchanged.

That could be a big deal, because it means that people think he did a good job debating, but it didn't really make him look like a better potential President. Remember, Romney's had an advantage or tie when it comes to the economy for most of the polls of last month, yet he's been behind in almost every single one of those polls. Conversely, on the favorables, Obama's been ahead in most, maybe even all of those polls. If that holds true, then Romney's numbers should improve, but not enough move him ahead. And another advantage that Obama has is that his aggregate leads in the battlegrounds are roughly the same or higher than his national average, so even if the national polls tighten up, he's still got a significant lead in states that give him the electoral vote advantage, whereas Romney has to run the table in states that he's mostly well behind in.

Anyway, I could be wrong on all of this, but my guess is that this will become a closer race for a couple of days--partially or mostly because that's what the media wants--but not enough to flip it or even tie it. In other words, the "2004 with flipped parties" race that it's been for the better part of 9 months. It's likely that the media will find another shiny object to chase (ie. Paul Ryan's mini-47% video, another Biden "gaffe," Turkey and Syria) by Monday, and then it's time to hype the VP debate, which is almost certain to be watched by few and be important to less. In the meantime, Obama gets two weeks to prepare for a debate that's in a format he's much better suited to and his opponent is very much not. And we get to argue over everything all over again!
posted by zombieflanders at 4:49 AM on October 4, 2012 [6 favorites]

Interesting that the reaction here to the debate is quite a bit different than the internet at large.

(I didn't watch it, preferring to read about it later. )
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:04 AM on October 4, 2012

Oh, and another statistic from the CNN snap poll was that roughly half of the undecideds they interviewed said the debate didn't make them more likely to vote for either candidate, compared to a third that were more likely to vote for Romney and about a fifth that were more likely to re-elect Obama. Even if we assumed 10% undecideds (which seems to be well above the actual numbers in polls), that's a 1-point gain, which is not a very friendly statistic for a challenger
posted by zombieflanders at 5:06 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm hearing lots of repeats of Romney's "Look I have five boys..." remark. The GOP will kiss him for that one. Everyone else, not so much. \

Had Obama brought up the 47% remark, Romney would have zinged back with something and the news cycle would be about that reply. Instead it never came up and all people remember is what Romney said, not what he replied to. Smart move.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more it seems Obama was intentionally low key in this debate. No, that doesn't completely explain his sub-par performance, but I suspect that in the long run this debate will be seen as Romney's brief high point.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:07 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney appeared in command because Romney was riding roughshod over Lehrer, a churlish argumentative technique he probably picked up from having 5 sons. Oldest trick in the book. That may have been his October surprise.

Will Obama's people be talking with Lehrer's people before the next debate? Does Lehrer even have people, or is he it?
posted by de at 5:22 AM on October 4, 2012

Lehrer has a production company that runs the PBS Newshour. I don't know what good it would do to talk to Lehrer at this point. It's Bob Schrieffer and Candy Crowley that have to try and contain the RomneyBot in ASSMODE in the next two debates.
posted by Skygazer at 5:28 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Good. I assumed Lehrer was it.
posted by de at 5:30 AM on October 4, 2012

Video from the Obama Campaign:
Mitt Romney's debate performance: Mostly Fiction
posted by syzygy at 5:34 AM on October 4, 2012

That was bizarre. Romney suddenly defended his record as a governor including his healthcare plan (!) and tried to appear pro-education. An attack over the $90Bn in green jobs while insisting twice on not cutting the defense budget. Making a big deal out of the security of Americans when Obama's record is very strong there. "(M)aking sure that those people who are less fortunate and can't care for themselves are cared by — by one another" sounded like Romney can't even pay lip service to people in hardship.

Obama seemed slightly rusty and Romney surprised people pleasantly because the expectations about him were terribly low. When he wasn't flip-flopping, his speech was vacuous even though it was the first time I've seen Romney driven. Maybe he aims for the literary vote too, as it was a tale, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
posted by ersatz at 5:49 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

The Silver Lining for Obama

Before the debate began, Obama was doing well among voters who had supported him in 2008, as well as some former McCain voters (30 percent of the group said if they had to choose, they would vote for Obama). At the same time, Romney lagged badly among Republican-leaning participants. Only 27 percent of the group said they would vote for Romney, which meant that a sizable portion of those who backed McCain in 2008 were not impressed enough with Romney to cast a hypothetical if-you-made-me-choose vote for him.

Over the course of the debate, Romney won those voters to his side. When it was all over, 42 percent of the group declared Romney the winner, compared to 20 percent who thought Obama won, and 38 percent who said neither candidate won the debate. And Romney’s share of the hypothetical vote had increased from 27 percent to 44 percent. The Republican-leaners had come home.

On each of the more specific questions, participants also sorted out according to their 2008 vote and other party leaning. Republicans who had not rated Romney highly before the debate began now saw him as best able to handle the economy and as a strong leader.

The one area in which Romney made no headway with voters was on his ability to understand the concerns of the middle-class. Voters preferred Obama going in on the question of “who is better for the middle-class” and their views did not change following the debate.

Nearly all of the movement on Wednesday night came from undecided—but Republican-leaning—voters deciding to back Romney. Whether that was because after listening to the two men for 90 minutes these voters decided that they really were more ideologically in tune with the GOP or because they didn’t like the way Obama called his wife “sweetie” or because they just thought the president looked like he desperately needed a long vacation, they aligned themselves with Romney.

“What Romney accomplished,” said one of Greenberg’s colleagues in Denver, “was consolidating those Republican leaners who were undecided going into this.” As for Obama, Greenberg concluded, “there was no erosion.”

“No erosion” is hardly a rallying cry. But while Obama didn’t pick up much support in this focus group (33 percent said they would vote for him afterward, compared to 31 percent at the beginning of the evening), he ended up right at his 2008 vote levels. And at the end of the day, if Obama gets the same amount of support as in 2008, distributed the same way across key states like Colorado, he wins. That may be the official spin, but it’s also simple arithmetic.

posted by zombieflanders at 5:50 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama's team is playing it smart this morning, setting out the many aspects of Romney's shady representation. Don't despair, folks.
posted by angrycat at 5:50 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Something that hasn't been mentioned:

This first debate, IIRC, is the only one that was specifically supposed to be about the economy - arguably Obama's weakest area. So, rope-a-dope was probably not a bad idea.

He will be on much stronger ground as the next two debates move toward foreign policy.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:52 AM on October 4, 2012

Never underestimate the ability and willingness of the media to create a story out of thin air, in this case that Romney "won the debate" (it's been shown that debates do nothing to influence Presidential elections anyway, and Obama still leads the electoral vote by at least 50 votes).

Nobody pays attention to words. People pay attention to body language. So therefore Obama won the debate.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:55 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

If you think about Romney's performance (and that's obviously what 'won' him the debate, rather than policy) as akin to an America's Got Talent act it's no wonder he came off better.

He went through all the earlier rounds during the Republican primaries and had the most popular act.

Now he's in the finals, and needs a new next-level act to win (another complete turnaround on policy, but a sparkly fresh act).

He was performing against an act that won last years America's Got Talent who hasn't performed in the current season *at all*, and who has been a bit busy performing brain surgery since he won the show last season.
posted by panaceanot at 5:56 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I just want to wish you all good luck. We're all counting on you.
posted by AugieAugustus at 5:59 AM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

Regarding body language KokuRyu, Obama got out of the gate with stronger body language as he sauntered on stage and because of the sides they entered from was able to put the dominant 'arm around and tap the other person's forearm' for the camera. Went a bit off the rails after that though.
posted by panaceanot at 6:03 AM on October 4, 2012

Of *course* Obama threw the fight. He needs Romney to continue to look competitive (and not just to the media who need the horserace narrative to keep the bucks flowing) for one big reason - to keep Republican donors focused on Romney, not on downticket races. If the big money thinks Romney's toast, they'll go buy some congressmen or Senators; as long as Romney's viable he's the funding locus. Basically, he's ensuring that the Romney campaign is a honeypot for conservative contributions.

If this is the ol' rope-a-dope, and Obama pummels Romney in the next debate (after forcing Romney to commit to policy lies this time,) I will be ecstatic.
But I'm just a bit too nervous that this is the case.
posted by Theta States at 6:07 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

@ForecasterEnten: A note there is actually a neg correlation between doing well in instapolls and gaining after the debate in past yrs. pic.twitter.com/o4blDAWb
posted by zombieflanders at 6:07 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Obama lost the first debate, but he will still win the election

Incumbent presidents almost always have a poor first debate: George W. Bush lost to John Kerry in 2004, for example, and Walter Mondale beat Ronald Reagan so badly in 1984 that there was a spate of articles asking if the incumbent was too old for the presidency. Yet never has a challenger’s strong first debate performance closed as large a national polling gap as Romney faced going into last night’s debate. Furthermore, most post-debate polling bumps come from previously undecided voters, of which there is a historically small amount in this campaign, thus making it even less likely that Romney could exceed past norms. And Romney would need to outdo history by quite a distance — only Harry Truman has come back from a national deficit as large or larger than Romney’s at this point in the campaign.

If Romney would have to pull off a miracle to close the gap in national polling, he has no shot at matching the president in the electoral college. As mentioned above, forecasters commonly predict that Obama already has a big lead of safe and leaning states. If we assume Romney will improve in the polls, there would be around nine “swing states”: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. There’s one problem here for Romney: He is trailing, and has been consistently trailing, in all but two — North Carolina, where he’s held a small lead, and Florida, this election’s closest thing to a 50-50 state. Romney doesn’t need to win two out of those nine; in almost every scenario, he will need six or seven out of those nine to win, including at least two or three states where he is behind by several points more than he is nationally.

All of which brings me to the final point: Given the state of the race before last night’s debate, even most Romney backers would agree that a Romney victory would require a flawless campaign the rest of the way from Romney and a blunder or two from Obama. After six years of both these men running for and/or being president of the United States, is there really anyone out there who thinks Mitt Romney can go a month without making a single mistake? Who thinks Barack Obama, who has been playing it safe for at least several months now, will suddenly make a reckless error, as opposed to a merely lackluster performance?

posted by zombieflanders at 6:12 AM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

I thought I'd buy some intrade shares to buy an early Christmas present with the money of Mitt's backers*, but apparently intrade requires documentation for your place of residence and I'm not that interested in handing that to random companies when I use my bank to verify that I'm me and the money I'm using is my money.

*Because a) I still think Romney can't win and b) if Romney wins, compared to the economic meltdown that will follow, $100 won't amount for much.
posted by ersatz at 6:19 AM on October 4, 2012

BBC in South Carolina: Reporter to some guy -- it seemed that Romney was staring at Obama with this far-off gaze, almost appeared as if he was going to cry. Guy: OH YEAH ROMNEY WAS GREAT
posted by angrycat at 6:19 AM on October 4, 2012

Romney is too good of a debater and is Mr Teflon when it comes to attacks so the risks for Obama going on offense were too much with too little possible upside. The format of the debate also really wasn't to Obama's strengths and having an incredibly weak moderator that let Romney walk all over him didn't help at all.

Romney will probably narrow the gap some in the national polling and maybe even battleground polling especially in Florida, Virginia and North Carolina but I don't think Obama provided any soundbites for attack ads and even gave up some material for Obama attack ads.

Yeah Obama should've been more prepared to refute the medicare cut lies but I guess he must of been leery about providing more ammo. He can use proxies to refute the lies and let's be honest almost all of the post debate coverage seemed to remark on how Romney was lying and Obama wasn't refuting those lies. What viewers will still hear (and it will be coming from neutral third party commentators) is that Romney is a liar.

Romney comes off as a slick, smooth salesman that would probably sell you his grandma, Obama comes off as earnest if a bit too boring and laidback. Basically anything that avoids the possibility of depicting Obama as an angry black man is a win for team Obama.

So Team Romney probably gained some but it will probably only last into the weekend (maybe less if the job numbers are good for Obama) simply because debates aren't gamechangers.
posted by vuron at 6:22 AM on October 4, 2012

This is kind of interesting, from over at TPM:

Getting a massive amount of coverage this morning is the CNN snap poll of the debate, which showed Romney winning the exchanged overwhelmingly.

But the internals of the poll look really strange. If you look at the breakdown of the sample, it doesn’t appear to contain anyone (or doesn’t appear to contain any representative sample) under 50, anyone outside of the South or anyone who’s not white. (See page 8 of this pdf.)

I doesn’t make sense to me that they’d do or release a poll like that. So really curious if anyone has an explanation.

posted by edgeways at 6:25 AM on October 4, 2012 [8 favorites]

"All the polls are wrong! They're fixed somehow!" I wouldn't go there. I would leave that to delusional republicans. We all watched the thing last night. Mitt Romney was on his game and Barack was rusty.
posted by cashman at 6:31 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

The teleprompter thing is a meme on the right. It's an incredibly stupid comment put forth by incredibly stupid (or incredibly gullible) people.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:43 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

sio42: what is the this thing about a teleprompter that people get on obama for?

Send your mom this link - it shows Obama taking questions from Republican lawmakers and responding to them, off the cuff, with no teleprompter required:
Obama At House Republican Retreat In Baltimore

Having brought up that particular video, I'd like to point out that Obama seems to be perfectly capable of manhandling his opponents, even in a hostile setting such as this one (at a 'retreat' for Republican lawmakers). This performance shows, I think, his debating capabilities, and it makes me think that last night's performance was carefully planned and scripted by the Obama team.
posted by syzygy at 6:44 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

do people think that the teleprompter is different than having notes in your hand? i'm confused.

It's that fancy schmancy educated technology! Basically it started because Obama is great at what he does, and in the end when what Obama said was solid, when what Obama said continues to make sense, when what Obama says talks about people you wish you didn't have to think about because you view them differently than you - when all that happens, you're left with saying "Yeah, but....uhm....you read the words you wrote! nyah!"
posted by cashman at 6:45 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

The race got a bit real, sure, but what I can do with, is all the sudden liberal despair; Krugman was right off the bat calling Obama a capillary man, for instance. It's quite something, this change of gears; everyone's a friend when the going is good, and everyone has advice to fill when you have roadblocks.
posted by the cydonian at 6:45 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Equally, Romney was intentionally disruptive, (but in that the man did protest too much):

ROMNEY
(interrupts out of turn ... just has to correct the record)

LEHRER
Excuse me. Just so everybody understands --

ROMNEY
Yeah.

LEHRER
-- we're way over our first 15 minutes.

ROMNEY
It's fun, isn't it?
posted by de at 6:46 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

People get the kind of debates they deserve.
It seems that the majority here and elsewhere are looking for a "winner" and a "loser" as if this is some kind of sporting event and we have nothing better to do than look for injuries. What the hell? In fact the debate was boring from both sides and none of the real issues that are currently tearing America apart were actually discussed. No one really "won" the debate and everyone in America lost.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 6:48 AM on October 4, 2012 [9 favorites]

If you look at the breakdown of the sample, it doesn’t appear to contain anyone (or doesn’t appear to contain any representative sample) under 50, anyone outside of the South or anyone who’s not white. (See page 8 of this pdf.)

That's not true -- you can see it in the difference between the overall percentages who said each candidate won (67-25 Romney) versus the white percentage (71-20 Romney). They probably just have few enough nonwhites (and under 50's) that they're choosing not to report results for those subgroups instead of something like "30% Obama +/- 20%."

I wouldn't necessarily be sure that the topline results are just a reflection of a bad sample draw, either -- they may well be reweighted results that magnify the opinions of unlikely respondents and reduce the opinions of the most likely respondents.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:48 AM on October 4, 2012

Oh, I concur cashman that questioning the polls can certainly be the salve of sore losers. And it is obvious that Romney did stylastically much better. But particularly bad polls deserve at least a mention, Rassmusen get kicked in the fork all the time (deservedly) ... and that cnn poll deserves at least a look see.
posted by edgeways at 6:48 AM on October 4, 2012

Obama is clearly comfortable with a teleprompter but he also seems to do well in a town hall style format which is a little less stiff and is more off the cuff.

I thought it was interesting seeing the body language at the end of the debate last night. Romney clearly felt confident in his performance but Obama didn't seem particularly uncomfortable when the families showed up on stage. Obama isn't ever going to be the warmest guy in the room but he can definitely look a bit too professorial in some situations like these more formal debates.

Honestly though this was the debate that Romney had to do the best on. The economy is still the Achilles heel for Obama and this was the time to pound Obama on that. A townhall style debate is going to be harder for Romney to score points on and a foreign policy debate is going to strongly advantage Obama simply because Romney almost always comes off as clueless on foreign policy and you know Osama.

If the jobs numbers are mediocre or even bad on Friday then I think Mitt can really gain some momentum for an extended news cycle but right now Obama seems content to play protect the football and run out the clock rather than risk fumbling the ball or throwing an interception. Whew there was the requisite football metaphor.
posted by vuron at 6:48 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

what is the this thing about a teleprompter that people get on obama for?

It's a meme promulgated to the masses that are uncomfortable with a person of Color in the White House. It's code for "Obama" isn't really that smart and he can't be, because you know, not White.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 6:51 AM on October 4, 2012 [10 favorites]

Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner
posted by Anything at 7:00 AM on October 4, 2012

At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes

The mendacity is astounding.
posted by syzygy at 7:06 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

The Onion: Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner
posted by BurntHombre at 7:13 AM on October 4, 2012

Oops.
posted by BurntHombre at 7:13 AM on October 4, 2012

Four years isn’t enough… [via reddit]
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 7:17 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

That's some photograph. Bet Obama doesn't need a teleprompter to talk through his teeth.
posted by de at 7:17 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

This talk of throwing the debate is batty. Obama was rusty, possibly distracted by his job and seemed to want to just play defense. Overall, he didn't do great, but he didn't take any hits. Romney got higher highs out of the debate (and media analysis) but said some things that are going to end up in ads. Big Bird and vouchers are going to be what people remember out of this.

FWIW, my moderate (Alabamian no less) Republican friends on facebook didn't like Romney talking to them like they were 5 year olds and that he was rolling Lehrer. My Dad, who as far as I know has voted Republican his entire life, said he thought Obama did fine, didn't understand why everyone said Romney won and still doesn't know who he is going to vote for. My sample sizes are ridiculous and the samples anecdotal, but if he didn't win over these people, very similar to the ones he needs in the swing states, I think everyone is going overboard with this Romney is back/gonna win narrative. The people he needs to win over still don't trust him, don't see a plan and basically don't want to vote for anyone.
posted by dig_duggler at 7:19 AM on October 4, 2012 [14 favorites]

The race got a bit real, sure, but what I can do with, is all the sudden liberal despair

Me, too. Andrew Sullivan (who isn't a liberal, but is the man who just called Obama "the Democratic Reagan") practically threw in the towel last night, writing that the debate "may have cost Obama the election."

I mean, Jesus, Andrew, get a sense of proportion. (Actually, Sullivan's congenital lack of any sense of proportion is exactly what makes him so fascinating and so frustrating to read. A "sense of proportion" may, in fact, be a liability for a career blogger.)

Last night I was most entertained by my twitterati's relentless micro-debating/play-micro-managing of Obama's every single move. A one point, one tweep wrote "NO OBAMA LOOK AT THE CAMERA!!"
posted by octobersurprise at 7:19 AM on October 4, 2012 [6 favorites]

Let's hope for good job numbers on Friday. This looks promising:
U.S. economy buoyed by modest growth figures
The ADP National Employment Report showed private employers added 162,000 jobs in September. While the gain topped economists’ expectations, it was still fewer than the 189,000 new hires seen in August.

Separate data showed the Institute for Supply Management’s purchasing managers index for the service sector rose to its highest level since March at 55.1 from 53.7 as new orders accelerated,
posted by syzygy at 7:27 AM on October 4, 2012

Obama's been leading for months. Not only is the race not going to magically turn around from a debate performance that's less than him screaming LIAR at Romney over and over, but Obama doesn't get to win without the occasional downturn in his fortunes. It's a marathon, not a horse race.
If the polls move on this - and they probably will, slightly - it won't be permanent. Obama will still win this, barring something truly unforseen, because he's still Obama, and Romney is still Romney. Nothing we saw last night changed any of that particularly. Romney happened to do marginally better in the debate whose focus was the thing Obama is weakest on: the economy. Up until last night Romney had been getting so demolished that anything short of literally pooping his pants was going to be seen as a victory for him.
So he got his victory, and Obama let him have it, knowing it'd be a mistake to try and wrestle him when the outcome is already written.
posted by qnarf at 7:28 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Interesting that the reaction here to the debate is quite a bit different than the internet at large.

Where is this "internet at large"? Could someone post a url? I wasn't aware that MetaFilter existed on some private internet side street or cul-de-sac.

The fact is that the president is a cool and rational man and he is facing someone who is running as a caricature not only of himself, but of the several other selves he's found it convenient to construct for himself along the way. It is possible that a cool and rational man is incapable of confronting someone this ridiculous on the simple grounds of how ridiculous that someone actually has become.

It is such situations that the withering "chile please" look is made for. (Or "bitch please" or "nigga please" as the etiquette or a particular occasion may allow.)

That's some photograph. Bet Obama doesn't need a teleprompter to talk through his teeth.

"Yeah, I gave you this one. Next time you best bring kryptonite."
posted by fuse theorem at 7:46 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney talking to them like they were 5 year olds

That was my biggest takeaway: I found the way Romney kept "explaining" the economy to the fucking President of the country super condescending.

(That and the Big Bird thing, which was bizarre.)

We watched the debate on C-Span and shut it off before hearing any color commentary; I was shocked this morning to wake up to "Romney wins the debate" headlines. I thought Obama seemed tired but measured, while Romney was obviously lying through his big teeth.
posted by sallybrown at 7:59 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Look, the PBS comment was simply a bone thrown to the hard right wing of the Republican party, who HATE PBS with a passion. Mitt knows that PBS subsidies (which account for 0.01% of the federal budget) are an absolutely ridiculous thing to bring up when discussing plans for cutting the deficit.

My read is that this was a bone he threw to the hard right supporters, in hopes of keeping their support while moving to the center. Make sense? Move to the center to get undecided votes, throw a few bones (that look bizarre to outsiders) to your radical constituents to give them something to be happy about.

I would say, however, that it was a completely boneheaded move on Romney's part to bring Big Bird into the discussion.
posted by syzygy at 8:02 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Bird Bird is the true third rail of US politics.
posted by Panjandrum at 8:04 AM on October 4, 2012 [13 favorites]

PBS subsidies (which account for 0.01% of the federal budget)

You're missing a couple more zeros there.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:04 AM on October 4, 2012

That's some photograph. Bet Obama doesn't need a teleprompter to talk through his teeth.

Heh, I read it as.

"Fuck you"
"No, fuck YOU"
posted by unSane at 8:05 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

zombieflandersYou're missing a couple more zeros there.

I wouldn't doubt it. I'm just quoting this Debate Fact Check article from Salon. It'd be nice to see actual figures, if you have them.
posted by syzygy at 8:07 AM on October 4, 2012

During the republican debates those guys were tossing out entire departments they wanted to do away with, PBS just aint going to cut it Mitt. Next time toss out you want to cut the Department of Housing and Urban development and the Department of the Interior, who knows what the fuck those departments do. Also say you want to privatize Amtrak and the USPS.

Romey has pretty much abandoned his base. Maybe he can convince his base he is a sleeper conservative who will give the USPS the axe on day 1, but I kind of doubt it.
posted by Ad hominem at 8:15 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Haven't seen anyone who shared my take in this thread, yet...

That was an awesome debate!

Previous presential debates in my memory consisted of the candidates reciting their campaign commercials and basically ignoring the questions and each other's answers. This was substantive, filled with discussions of specific policies, bills, and laws, and each guy actually listened to the other and addressed the points the other made. Mitt got big "at least he's not an idiot" points with this Democrat for that -- such a relief after Bush II and the other Republicans in the primary. Not only that, but he came across so much more moderate than the other leading lights of his party, I mentally declared him the Last Sane Republican. Unlike McCain, he didn't try to pretend to be crazier than he really is, either. I agree with one earlier comment that said they both came across like technocrats and policy wonks, and I loved it.

I thought Obama put forward a clear message of "This guy doesn't really have a plan at all. He's just making this up as he goes along, and it makes no sense," and made it stick. My less partisan husband certainly came away with that conclusion.

I felt sorry for poor Jim Lehrer, but I loved that they ignored the time limits and actually got into the details, rather than reciting pre-rehearsed speeches timed to fit exactly in their windows. The more free form style allowed for a lot more substance than you typically see, IMO.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:15 AM on October 4, 2012 [8 favorites]

I would say, however, that it was a completely boneheaded move on Romney's part to bring Big Bird into the discussion.

Not just boneheaded, but a serious dick move to use cutting PBS as an example at all, considering Lehrer was moderating. Considering how he walked all over Lehrer during the interview, I can only assume that it was on purpose.
posted by billyfleetwood at 8:19 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mitt got big "at least he's not an idiot" points with this Democrat for that

I don't know, mostly I was just impressed with his LPM, or lies per minute.

You can be eloquent and still have failed to say anything intellectually honest.
posted by sourbrew at 8:20 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

I kind of wish they would have a debate moderated by a Federal Judge in their courtroom or something. Someone who doesn't care that you're the President of the United States, "I said your fucking time is up!" Then turned off their microphone or something.

I like that they used the time to get into more details but the moderator kind of lost control of the whole thing.
posted by VTX at 8:24 AM on October 4, 2012 [9 favorites]

Romney's increase to defense spending (that we clearly don't need and the Pentagon isn't even asking for) is projected to cost $2.1 trillion.

PBS's federal funding is going to be around $440 million in 2015.

$440,000,000 / $2,100,000,000,000 = 0.02%

Calling that a rounding error seems too generous. The Pentagon bean counters wouldn't pick up $440 million if it was lying on the ground when they could get a few hundred billion in funding from President Romney for a machine to pick it up for them.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:28 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama speaking live from Denver in a minute. Presumably he'll start off like "My bad, y'all".
posted by cashman at 8:29 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

billyfleetwood: Not just boneheaded, but a serious dick move to use cutting PBS as an example at all

Agreed, and the more I think about it, the more I feel that this idiotic stance may have been a real mistake on Mitt's part. AFAIK, the vast majority of Americans are not anti-PBS, and I guess there's only a tiny sliver who are anti-Big Bird.

The fact that PBS subsidies were one of the two main areas Mitt mentioned cutting when asked for details on how he'd lower the deficit is telling. I don't think this will go down well with most people, and especially not with most women voters, where Mitt's already running a deficit.

I think it plays well to the 'out of touch' angle, and I think threatening Big Bird, as silly as it sounds, is something that the vast majority of adults 60 and under are not going to support.
posted by syzygy at 8:33 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Big Bird is still trending on Twitter.
posted by girlmightlive at 8:35 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Round here the new nickname is Chameleon Romney--he'll change his coloring in a heartbeat to suit his surroundings.

Oh wait. My husband just declared that "chameleon" is too good a name for him.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:37 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

The truth is that in order to balance the proposed tax cuts in order to be revenue neutral it would be equivalent to cutting the discretional non-defense budget deeply into the bone. Most federal departments already run pretty lean after decades of budget cuts and frozen budgets so in order to do this Ryan and Romney would have to kill incredibly popular programs or tax deductions.

Welfare assistance is always a popular target but cutting TANF and food stamps out completely would result in incredible hardship. Charity organizations simply wouldn't be able to cover the difference. Talk about driving people into the arms of Democrats.

Stuff like PBS or the NEA are miniscule in terms of resource expenditure and while reducing subsidies might sound good in theory when push comes to shove a large percentage of Americans depend on stuff like Sesame Street to provide low cost educational entertainment for their children. Killing Sesame Street is election year suicide.

There are actually good arguments for nuking the mortgage interest deduction from orbit but the consequential tax increase for mid-income americans not to mention the lobbying efforts of construction, real estate and finance organizations make this a non-starter.

So basically the only way Mitt's fantasyland approach works is by cutting entitlements or saying fuck it and borrow to pay for it aka the same song and dance that Republicans have been doing since the 80s at least.

Romney can't run on his fiscal plan because it's not viable and people are unwilling to trust that this time it's actually going to lead to peace and prosperity when ample evidence shows that nope it just seems to be speeding up massive wealth redistribution to the top of the income brackets.
posted by vuron at 8:40 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

PBS subsidies (which account for 0.01% of the federal budget)

You're missing a couple more zeros there.

...

I wouldn't doubt it. I'm just quoting this Debate Fact Check article from Salon. It'd be nice to see actual figures, if you have them.

From the National Priorities Project analysis of the 2011 budget

Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is cut $80 million (16%) from FY2010 levels.

If $80 million is 16%, then funding in 2010 must have been $500,000,000. And then $420,000,000 (heh) in 2011.

The analysis also reports:

The package includes $1.049 trillion in funding, a nearly $40 billion reduction from Fiscal Year 2010 levels.

Which says to me that total federal funding in 2010 was (about) $1,089,000,000,000 and that total federal funding in 2011 was $1,049,000,000,000.

Doing the math, that would mean that (as defined as a percentage of "federal funding") PBS received .046% of the money in 2010 and .04% of the money in 2011. (Again, I don't know if "federal funding" = "budget")

So, actually the .01% estimate is low by 4x, by my admittedly limited math.

Has anyone claimed bigbirddogwhistle.com yet?
posted by mrgrimm at 8:40 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I kind of wish they would have a debate moderated by a Federal Judge in their courtroom or something. Someone who doesn't care that you're the President of the United States, "I said your fucking time is up!" Then turned off their microphone or something.

Honestly, if I were President or a big shot CEO, I wouldn't care too much about what a moderator said either. The President is supposed to go toe to toe with leaders from around the world, do you really expect him to quietly listen to a moderator that can't punish him at all?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:40 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I had the feeling last night and am still wondering today if BigBirdGate is another example of Mitt's "humor" gone awry. I remember there being some discussion previously in one of these election threads about Mitt's "teasing" and "joking" that really wasn't (the subject at the time was Cookie Gate). I think Mitt thought saying he was going to ax Big Bird was quite witty and I'm wondering if he's surprised this morning by all the people that thought it wasn't at all.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 8:41 AM on October 4, 2012

It's not a new thing.

“We’re not going to kill Big Bird,” he said at the time, “but Big Bird’s going to have advertisements.”
posted by mrgrimm at 8:42 AM on October 4, 2012

It was a neat strategy by Romney to tack to the center while at the same time being overly aggressive and pushy; his base is loving him for "winning the debate" and they will ignore all the moderate rhetoric while some undecideds will find the moderate-ness appealing.
posted by rainy at 8:45 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

Also, .04% of your budget on public broadcasting is an utter embarrassment. The BBC gets the equivalent about about $6 billion from the TV licence, and another $450 million in government funding.

PBS could actually be a valuable tool to inform and educate the American populace.

...

Stop laughing.
posted by mrgrimm at 8:48 AM on October 4, 2012 [21 favorites]

The problem with running advertisements on something like Sesame Street is that young children often have difficulty differentiating actual program content from the commercial content plus they have difficult understanding the breaks in narrative. There does seem to be some indication this can lead to cognitive difficulties. Not to mention the crassness of marketing to young children.

Higher income parents who let their children watch TV would probably just use DVRs and/or netflix to present a commercial free experience but for many children public TV is one of the primary sources of early exposure to educational concepts.

Maybe Mitt should go ahead and kill programs like Head Start as well so that we can have even more differentiation in educational outcomes between low income and high income families.
posted by vuron at 8:52 AM on October 4, 2012 [6 favorites]

Honestly, if I were President or a big shot CEO, I wouldn't care too much about what a moderator said either. The President is supposed to go toe to toe with leaders from around the world, do you really expect him to quietly listen to a moderator that can't punish him at all?

Not really but I would like the moderator not to back down so quickly. Judges, especially in their own courtroom, aren't in the habit of letting anyone else take control.
posted by VTX at 8:53 AM on October 4, 2012

It's not a new thing.

Yeah I read that Mitt had used the Big Bird thing on speeches in recent months. But those are to supporters I'm guessing. I think he didn't realize how that would play with the whole of America (sense a theme?).

People love PBS and Big Bird. I mean what could be more loving, harmless and educational on television than Sesame Street, the Muppets and the like? And you want to have a discussion about taking funds from that or cutting it? That's just stupid. For many Americans, at least I think the ones in my generation, PBS is the source of a lot of fond memories. And it was just a jerk move to say it to Lehrer, and then to again pinpoint something tangible - Big Bird. I mean at least target snuffalufagus - he is a little creepy. But Big Bird is just a kid's dream, a gigantic fluffly yellow bird that can talk, give you piggy back rides, and be a smart and educated friend. I just don't get why Mitt or his advisors let him anywhere near saying bad things related to Big Bird.
posted by cashman at 8:55 AM on October 4, 2012

The Ultimate Mitt Romney Flip-Flop Video

Twenty minutes of nicely edited and, in my opinion, damning video footage of Mitt's flip-flopping. Hadn't seen this yet, so apologies if it's already made the rounds. Very informative.
posted by syzygy at 8:56 AM on October 4, 2012 [10 favorites]

I just don't get why Mitt or his advisors let him anywhere near saying bad things related to Big Bird.

Again, I only caught snippets live, but I don't think he did that. He said something like (various outlets have variations)

"I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually I like you, too. But I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for."

posted by mrgrimm at 9:00 AM on October 4, 2012

@FiredBigBird account now live.

Twitter suspended it, KNM rejected it. Poor unemployed bird.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:03 AM on October 4, 2012

I mean what could be more loving, harmless and educational on television than Sesame Street, the Muppets and the like?

I don't know, man. Oscar the Grouch is kind of a dick. Not to mention unhygienic.
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 9:03 AM on October 4, 2012

Death by Muppet - the photoshopped Big Bird pics are flying fast and furious, especially the one with Big Bird looking sad captioned, "If Romney wins... I die!" Ouch.

The only talking point coming out of the debate is the "Killing Big Bird" thing... Mitt won the debate by filibustering, but the only thing he said that anyone can remember with any clarity or certainty is that he wants to get rid of Sesame Street and PBS - which everyone associates with educational TV. It's one of the government programs pretty much no-one outside the Ultra-Right has any problem funding with their taxes. He's going after something moderates and undecideds actually like, in a personal and understandable way: He wants Big Bird gone.

That's going to murder him in the long run, especially if his second and third debate performance isn't as strong. People are going to remember this as the Big Bird debate, and it won't help his campaign.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:04 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE CALL HIM SNUFFLE"UF"AGUS.
posted by AugieAugustus at 9:06 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Anyone else notice the dogwhistle when Mitt mentioned "New York banks"?
posted by grubi at 9:07 AM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

PBS could actually be a valuable tool to inform and educate the American populace....Stop laughing.

Oh, I don't think anyone's laughing here.

I knew how to read when I was 3, and my parents attribute that entirely to my watching Sesame Street at age two and a half. I suspect I am far from the only person on the blue who can make that claim. And that's just one show - I bet there are a lot of other people on here who would be able to recite the preamble to the Constitution or tell you how a bill becomes law or diagram a sentence (as long as we can sing it).

But I think the conflict between Television-as-communicator and television-as-entertainment has been a conflict that's existed since the dawn of TV. Edward R. Murrow warned the industry about this back in 1958, in a speech to the radio and television news directors association -

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and even it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it's nothing but wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

And ever since, people have been going back and forth on how much they heed Murrow's warning. The late 60's was a swing forward, and people like me, who were children in the late 60's and early 70's, benefitted. And now, it seems we're swinging back.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:07 AM on October 4, 2012

grubi: "Anyone else notice the dogwhistle when Mitt mentioned "New York banks"?"

Yeah, Mittens prefers him some Swiss or Cayman banks.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:07 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

I always think that Obama is holding himself back in situations like this because if he shows the slightest bit of ire he'll be the Angry Black Man and we'll all be scared. Does he ever lose his temper, even in the obviously planned way politicians do, in public? Or is he really is just this low-key and slightly dorky?
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:08 AM on October 4, 2012

tonycpsu, that's not quite what I meant.
posted by grubi at 9:08 AM on October 4, 2012

Again, I only caught snippets live, but I don't think he did that. He said something like (various outlets have variations)
"I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually I like you, too. But I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for."

Considering Mitt's background in management consulting and private equity, that's pretty plainly translated as "You've been a valuable asset and we value your service to this company, but we need you meet us in the Conference room while those large men in the burgundy blazers clean out your desk."

How can someone be so caught up in their ideological world view that the very thought of acknowledging a public good no matter how small is simply unacceptable. Strategically speaking, it makes no sense.

People love Sesame Street, and relatively speaking it costs nothing. If Mitt Romney ran on the platform of "We need to cut government, but Sesame Street is awesome, and I'll never touch it" He could sell USPS on eBay and still be the guy who saved Elmo.
posted by billyfleetwood at 9:09 AM on October 4, 2012 [9 favorites]

Romney's job in the debates is to convince almost all the voters who are undecided and from the other side to vote for him, which I'm not sure happened.

Is this really true? I thought base turnout was supposed to be the deciding factor.
posted by straight at 9:09 AM on October 4, 2012

rude pundit's take on it.

Heh:

5a. According to Mitt Romney, his children are lying sons of a bitch.

5b. Mitt Romney likes coal. Mitt Romney likes Big Bird. He will give money to help coal. He will take money away from Big Bird. Mitt Romney's affection is meaningless.

5c. Which is probably why his terrible sons are such liars.

posted by gaspode at 9:13 AM on October 4, 2012 [21 favorites]

If the debates were structured like boxing matches, with breaks between rounds, and if I were Obama's cornerman, I would have been all in his face while the cut man worked on him screaming, "He ain't landing nothing on ya, champ, but for God's sake, stop dancing with this man and knock him the f*ck out!"

Or, as Dana White in the UFC tells fighters he likes, "Never let it go to the judges."

I don't think this was a disaster, but I definitely want to see my man come harder next time.
posted by lord_wolf at 9:14 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

If the debates were structured like boxing matches, with breaks between rounds, and if I were Obama's cornerman, I would have been all in his face while the cut man worked on him screaming, "He ain't landing nothing on ya, champ, but for God's sake, stop dancing with this man and knock him the f*ck out!"

Ooooh, please let Obama be using a rope a dope approach....
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:15 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Anyone else notice the dogwhistle when Mitt mentioned "New York banks"?

Yep, he had to get in a bit of old school anti-semitism in there.
posted by Ad hominem at 9:18 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Does he ever lose his temper, even in the obviously planned way politicians do, in public? Or is he really is just this low-key and slightly dorky?

I think he really is just low key. The "he can't be seen as an angry Black Man" concern actually bugs the hell out of me, because you don't get to be the first Black President of the United States by letting racists dictate your behavior. They portray him as that and worse all the time. If he wanted to call a press conference and call everyone a bunch of low down motherfuckers, it's not like they're gonna put a BIGGER bone in his nose on the signs at the next Tea Party rally.
posted by billyfleetwood at 9:19 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

lord_wolf: "I don't think this was a disaster, but I definitely want to see my man come harder next time."

There's a joke just waiting to be made here, I know it!
posted by Deathalicious at 9:19 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Ad hominem: Exactly.
posted by grubi at 9:19 AM on October 4, 2012

grubi, I take it you meant that he was sending a coded message to the TEA party types who were actually upset about the bailouts, as opposed to the establishment Republican types like himself who would gladly send a printing press and a few truckloads of currency stock to the big five "too big to fail" banks? If so, I picked up on that as well.

I don't really see the point in it, though. The Trucknutz and Gadsden flag crew are already voting against Obummer, er, for Romney. I know it can't hurt him much to rail against the big banks, but I don't see it moving the needle in any significant way, either. TEA partiers hate Obama because of what he is, not because of the bank bailouts.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:21 AM on October 4, 2012

Ad hominem: " Yep, he had to get in a bit of old school anti-semitism in there."

Okay, if that's what you guys think he was saying, I totally disagree. I mean, he's basically said that "Bibi gets what Bibi wants" vis a vis Israel policy. Why would he take a cheap shot at Jews in a nationally-televised debate?
posted by tonycpsu at 9:22 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

"I like PBS, I love Big Bird ... But I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for."

Putting aside the unintelligibility of this passage, I take the meaning to be that it isn't worth borrowing Chinese money to pay for PBS, but it is worth borrowing Chinese money to spend on unnecessary weapons and tax cuts for the super-wealthy.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:22 AM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

A Base election strategy only works in non-presidential election years or if Romney can really depress the number of Obama voters through dissatisfaction or shenanigans (like Voter ID).

The simple fact of the matter is that base only elections used to work for the Republicans pretty regularly but the demographics are changing dramatically and that is providing Democrats are very solid base in the electoral college and several systemic advantages in most of the battleground states.

Angry, Old, White Men are still a vital percentage of the electorate for Republicans especially in local and state elections but they aren't enough to win national elections and Republicans have been really bad about expanding the coverage of their tent.

African-Americans are overwhelming Democrats, Hispanics are becoming reliable (other than Cuban-Americans) and are actually voting in bigger numbers, Women are more reliable Democratic consitituents (especially college-educated single women). About the only area that Romney can really hope to peel off is blue-color workers but Romney's background as as vulture capitalist leaves many blue-color workers suspicious even if they often dislike Obama as an "effete, educated liberal".

Romney for reasons that elude me is thinking that base election strategies would actually work this year when I think that strategy needs to be abandoned in favor of a more centrist message. The challenge was that the nomination process force Romney to tack to the right and he's been forced to stay there in order to quell discontent in the base and frankly it's too late to try to shift back to the center. Obama has already been successful in defining Romney as a right wing tool.

Time is rapidly running out and Obama isn't going to risk a major turnover or two when the electoral math is so favorable for him. Romney needs to swing for the fences every opportunity and while he outscored Obama by a decent margin last night it's simply too little too late to make a major difference.
posted by vuron at 9:23 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

No, tonycpsu, it stank of anti-semitism. The entire sentence was explicitly about the bailouts. The dogwhistle was "JEWS". Why the fuck else mention "New York banks"? If he was hectoring the president about a bailout, the normal approach would be to simply refer to the "banks", and not specify new York.

Unless you wanted to say something else.
posted by grubi at 9:23 AM on October 4, 2012 [6 favorites]

They also hate New York, and "international bankers" and "upper west side liberals" because Jews. Whenever a conservative make a point to say New York X, he means those dirty jews.
posted by Ad hominem at 9:24 AM on October 4, 2012 [9 favorites]

Before he said "I like PBS" he said something like "I'm going to cut subsidies for PBS" as if it were his first, and therefore most important, idea to trim government spending, if I recall correctly. It was jarring.
posted by girlmightlive at 9:24 AM on October 4, 2012

hey also hate New York, and "international bankers" and "upper west side liberals" because Jews. Whenever a conservative make a point to say New York X, he means those dirty jews.

Yes. This. As soon as he said it, I had to pause the DVR and turn to my wife and ask "Did he just say what I think he said?"
posted by grubi at 9:25 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Thanks for sharing that. I didn't know about that dogwhistle.
posted by cashman at 9:26 AM on October 4, 2012

Before he said "I like PBS" he said something like "I'm going to cut subsidies for PBS" as if it were his first, and therefore most important, idea to trim government spending, if I recall correctly. It was jarring

"I like Big Bird, so when I fuck him, I'll use lube."
posted by grubi at 9:27 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

vuron: "blue-color"

Yeah, I always had Tobias Fünke pegged as a Romney guy.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:27 AM on October 4, 2012

Wait, do "real" people hate city people because they hate Jews, or do they hate Jews because they hate city people?
posted by leopard at 9:28 AM on October 4, 2012

Attacking NYC Banks is populism.

He's playing on the idea that NYC is a bastion of East Coast liberalism where they think minorities and gays actually deserve civil rights and they won't even let you buy a big soda. Obama is one of those guys.

He's also saying that Obama is protecting the interests of NYC banks, you know those ones that keep sending people late notices on mortgage payments and credit card payments etc.

It's saying that Obama is in league with the people who are trying to take you home from you. That's a popular message, hell it might even be true to a degree.

Of course the truth is that he's even more beholden to those same masters than Obama is. He's not going to admit that.
posted by vuron at 9:29 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Someone with a lot of time and noting better to do should sync the MeFi comments here as subtitles to the debate. I'm just now watching the debate on YouTube, so I have no idea how most of these comments match into the debate. I'll re-read the thread after listening/watching the debate, but subtitles, yeah. That would rock.

Also, what the heck did Mitt and Barack say to each other when they shook hands at first?
posted by filthy light thief at 9:29 AM on October 4, 2012

He said New York banks and not Charlotte banks because New York isn't a swing state and North Carolina is. I don't think the case that he's trying to motivate voters with anti-Semitism is very strong.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:30 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I love the narrative is Romney just lies with impunity and Obama doesn't call him on it. I mean, Romeny was certainly talking a lot, and was fired up. But everyone is pretty much saying Romney won by lying more. That is a phyric victory in my eyes.

Yes, this. And now the media narrative is that Obama didn't call Romney out on his lies, rather than that he sighed or rolled his eyes or whatever the Republicans whined about Gore doing when George W. Bush turned in a similar -- if not identical -- phony performance.

NPR did a fact check this morning that pointed out that yes, Romney's tax rate cut for the rich does amount to (almost) 5 trillion (yay edit function!) over ten years and that no, you can't pay for it by eliminating deductions (or PBS, I might add).

By not calling attention to Romney's lies, Obama lets the lies be the story, rather than his reaction to it. The 27%-crazification-factor wingnut base will complain about the so-called "liberal media" ... but then, they always do.
posted by Gelatin at 9:31 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

You guys who think Romney's going to get called on his lies need to explain how that's going to happen when this is how Romney's claims are being "fact-checked".
posted by tonycpsu at 9:33 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

The debate will probably move it up to a tie for a few days, but that's it. Obama has this on the fundamentals. It'll be interesting to see the narrative take shape over the next few days, though.
posted by empath at 9:33 AM on October 4, 2012

I've been pondering it this morning and the more I ponder, the more I have to believe that Obama's laidback-ness last night had to be part of some grand plan. We know Obama is smart and knows his stuff, we know he's competitive as hell. Even if Mitt's animated and engaged performance last night was unexpected, even allowing for the fact that Obama is rusty at debating, I can't believe he couldn't have gotten heated and passionate if he wanted to. It just seems for some reason Obama's team decided it was best for him be cool and lay back. If that's not the case, then how I've perceived Obama for the last 6 years or so is totally wrong.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 9:35 AM on October 4, 2012

He said New York banks and not Charlotte banks because New York isn't a swing state and North Carolina is. I don't think the case that he's trying to motivate voters with anti-Semitism is very strong.

Why mention a location at all? This explanation doesn't stand up.
posted by grubi at 9:36 AM on October 4, 2012

Obama's contrasting what Mitt has been saying for the last year, against the things that "The spirited fellow on stage" said last night. I expect ads will follow using Mitt against himself.
posted by cashman at 9:36 AM on October 4, 2012

Obama just opened in Denver claiming that "Whoever that guy I debated last night wasn't Mitt Romney, cause Mitt Romney doesn't believe the things that guy was talking about"
posted by billyfleetwood at 9:36 AM on October 4, 2012 [10 favorites]

Wait, do "real" people hate city people because they hate Jews, or do they hate Jews because they hate city people?

leopard, my friend, I think the two hates are unrelated, but for those with those feelings, it can be conveniently be thrown into the same anger.
posted by grubi at 9:37 AM on October 4, 2012

grubi: " Why mention a location at all? This explanation doesn't stand up."

Because they always need a bogeyman, and they pick ones in states where they can't win elections. Hollywood elites. East coast liberals. New York banks. etc. It's to say to the swing state voters "hey, I love your local community bank, but those jackasses on Wall Street are ruining this country!" The GOP always needs an "other" and I think the "other" in this case is "liberals" and not necessarily "Jews."
posted by tonycpsu at 9:39 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

mrgrimm: Again, I only caught snippets live, but I don't think he did that. He said something like (various outlets have variations)
"I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually I like you, too. But I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for."

DIRECTLY before those two sentences, Romney said, and I quote, "I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things."
posted by syzygy at 9:40 AM on October 4, 2012

Thanks for the link and quote billyfleetwood, watching now.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:41 AM on October 4, 2012

You may be right that he was just singling out New York because people don't like New York Elitists.

I tend to think people don't like New York because of blacks and jews.

Singling out New York banks as being codified as "too big to fail" sounds like some sort of theory out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that some sort of secret cabal of international banker jews controls the secret world gonvernment.

Maybe conservatives have moved on, but I always wonder why O'Reilly is always singling out "upper west side liberals", like they are the worst kind, and conservatives still harp on Barbra Streisand as a "limousine liberal". Why pick her?
posted by Ad hominem at 9:41 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

East coast liberals.

I know "east coast liberals" means one thing to you, but it means something else to the right-wingers (and their Tea party friends). it sort of fits the dogwhistle.
posted by grubi at 9:41 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Wait, do "real" people hate city people because they hate Jews, or do they hate Jews because they hate city people?

In much the same way that the word "urban" can conveniently stand in for "black people" but with plausible denial built into it, so can "New York bankers" or "California media types" stand in for Jews or liberals, with plausible denial (and yeah the Jewish banking conspiracy is A Thing as much as I wish it wasn't). I'm pretty touchy about those things and I didn't see it as a flat-out antisemitic thing to say but I also could see it as a dogwhistle to people who are really primed to that sort of perspective.
posted by jessamyn at 9:42 AM on October 4, 2012 [12 favorites]

Obama is hitting the Big Bird stuff live now. "Who knew Big Bird was driving the federal deficit?" (watch here)
posted by knapah at 9:42 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama: "Last night Gov. Romney ruled out raising taxes on anybody ... no matter how much he makes... and when he was asked what he would do to reduce the deficit ... he said he'd eliminate the funding for public television... that was his answer. I mean thank goodness someone is finally getting tough on bigbird, we didn't know that bigbird was driving the deficit."

Crowd: "and elmo!!!"

Obama: "Elmo too???"

He is skewering him....
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:43 AM on October 4, 2012 [15 favorites]

Obama just talked about how Romney wouldn't agree to raise taxes on the wealthy, or commit to closing certain loopholes, but was adamant about cutting funding for PBS: "Thank goodness somebody is finally getting tough on Big Bird. We didn't know that Big Bird was driving the federal deficit. How about that.

Elmo too?"
posted by cashman at 9:44 AM on October 4, 2012

I'm pretty touchy about those things and I didn't see it as a flat-out antisemitic thing to say but I also could see it as a dogwhistle to people who are really primed to that sort of perspective.

I don't know why, but I saw it immediately as such.
posted by grubi at 9:44 AM on October 4, 2012

"I'll be interesting to see what the guy who was playing Mitt Romney will say on foreign policy the next time we meet..."
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:46 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

http://wonkette.com/485901/oh-no-democrats-it-is-time-to-for-your-mass-suicide

Wonkette defuses hysteria.
posted by angrycat at 9:46 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

I mean thank goodness someone is finally getting tough on bigbird, we didn't know that bigbird was driving the deficit."

You know that was one of those things that was bugging him on the entire ride home...."Dammit! what I should have said was..."

If he made the points last night that he's making now, He would have destroyed Romney.
posted by billyfleetwood at 9:46 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

"It'll be interesting to see what the guy who's playing Mitt Romney says next." Genius.
posted by vverse23 at 9:46 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

... the outcome was probably planned by the Obama team, with a view toward the long game.

My thoughts, too.
posted by ericb at 9:48 AM on October 4, 2012

You may be right that he was just singling out New York because people don't like New York Elitists.

"She meant Jewish. When she said 'New York sense of humor,' she was talking about you and me."
posted by The Bellman at 9:48 AM on October 4, 2012 [21 favorites]

Can SNL create a skit parodying Hitchcock’s “The Birds” with all muppet birds & Romney as Mitch Brenner by Saturday night?
posted by mikepop at 9:51 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

It's silly to think of "New York banks" as some sort of super-subtle dogwhistle designed to energize anti-Semitic voters. People don't like Wall Street. Conservatives tend to not like cities in general and New York in particular, for a wide variety of well-known reasons, ranging from cultural differences to racism to envy. A phrase like "New York banks" just ties this all together.
posted by leopard at 9:52 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Video compilation of Romney's steamrolling and dissing Lehrer during the debate.
posted by ericb at 9:52 AM on October 4, 2012

I've been pondering it this morning and the more I ponder, the more I have to believe that Obama's laidback-ness last night had to be part of some grand plan.

I think that as long as the polling shows that he'll win re-election without breaking a sweat, we'll keep seeing him be laid-back like this. It's like he's doing the rope-a-dope but he's already seen film of the 7th round where he knock Romney out. Election night is where he throws the know-out punch, he knows it will be a knock-out so he just needs to bide his time until then.

In the debates, he doesn't need to win, he just needs to not fuck up.
posted by VTX at 9:52 AM on October 4, 2012

Not only that, but he came across so much more moderate than the other leading lights of his party, I mentally declared him the Last Sane Republican.

RIP Jon Hunstman's presidential ambitions.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:54 AM on October 4, 2012

Rachel Maddow: " ... Romney thrived in large part because he abandoned the pretense of honesty. And as it turns out, winning a debate is surprisingly easy when a candidate decides he can say anything and expect to get away with it."
posted by ericb at 9:55 AM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

The First Debate: Mitt Romney's Five Biggest Lies.
posted by ericb at 9:58 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

New York Bankers in a political context always means jewish financier conspiracy theory bullshit, and has for more than a century. "Wall Street" or "big banks" are the neutral term.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:59 AM on October 4, 2012 [6 favorites]

Obama Debate Strategy Will Be Adjusted, Top Adviser Says.
posted by ericb at 10:00 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama couldn't say it to Mitt, but LL can: "You even lied about the lies that you lied about.
posted by klangklangston at 10:00 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

ericb:
"Obama Debate Strategy Will Be Adjusted, Top Adviser Says."

Next time Romney will come out with very specific policy proposals for each question that no one has ever heard of, and every time Obama tries to point out that no one has even heard of these policies before Romney will say, "Stop the straw man attacks, Mr.President, and debate the issues for once. That's what the American people want."

Then Obama's head will explode and Biden will take over for the third debate as the new president. Romney will be too stunned by his shirtless magnificence to try any BS.
posted by charred husk at 10:05 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I love Axelrod.

But I know he is very, very eager for the next debate on the 16th ... I think that, again, this was the first chance for the president to see how Governor Romney operates in these debates firsthand, and you have to make some adjustments for the fact that he is a ... very artful dodger."

I think "very artful dodger" is a dog whistle.
posted by Ad hominem at 10:06 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama just opened in Denver claiming that "Whoever that guy I debated last night wasn't Mitt Romney, cause Mitt Romney doesn't believe the things that guy was talking about"

Once this speech is online, someone mind sharing?
posted by inigo2 at 10:07 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think "very artful dodger" is a dog whistle.

Everyone knows Romney is the guy who told Oliver he couldn't have more.
posted by sallybrown at 10:09 AM on October 4, 2012

From a different source...Obama Debate Strategy Will Be Adjusted, Top Adviser Says.
posted by billyfleetwood at 10:11 AM on October 4, 2012

He *is* Dickensian.
posted by grubi at 10:11 AM on October 4, 2012

Once this speech is online, someone mind sharing?

The links are above - they typically turn into the recorded video. But if you mean let you know when it turns, sure, ok.
posted by cashman at 10:12 AM on October 4, 2012

As I mentioned while we were all watching the debate, Romney was prolific in his blinking ... At times 2 or so a second. Go back and watch. It's amazing. Also, his eyes started to reddened as the debate progressed. At times I (and some pundits) thought it looked like he was on the verge of tears. Go back and watch ... especially the last 20 minutes, or so.

Liars are exposed by blinking --"The best way to spot a liar is to look them in the eyes, according to scientists who say the number of times a person blinks will show if they are speaking the truth."

posted by ericb at 10:12 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

the great thing about dogwhistling is you don't have to pick any one thing, you don't even have to make sense. you just have to remind people of who they already hate and they'll do the rest. your hands stay clean as long as you wave in the general direction of the big melting pot of bigotry that's always bubbling away in the background.

if new york bankers means jews to you, you probably won't stop at just jews, you'll follow that thought to blacks and gays and coastal educated elites in the half second it takes your pupils to dilate.
posted by twist my arm at 10:13 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

ericb - I think that tell has been debunked.
posted by grubi at 10:14 AM on October 4, 2012

The links are above - they typically turn into the recorded video. But if you mean let you know when it turns, sure, ok.

Ah, didn't realize that, thanks. Just shows as private right now, I got confused.
posted by inigo2 at 10:19 AM on October 4, 2012

I think when assessing whether something is a dog whistle, you need to look at the speaker's intent, and I just don't see how Romney would have intended it that way.

Newt Gingrich's interview the other night where he talked about Obama's "rhythm", how he plays basketball, and about how he supposedly sleeps a lot was obviously aiming for the lizard brain of racists, but I think Romney talking about New York banks is probably just populism as others have said. Newt Gingrich obviously gains much from racist attacks at Obama, but what does Romney gain by sending out an anti-Semitic message? The Christian right has had an alliance with Jewish military hawks over the Israel/Palestine situation for a while now. The cost/benefit analysis of this kind of a dog whistle on such a large stage just doesn't add up, and Romney's not a shoot-from-the-hip kind of guy who would just throw it out there to whip up anti-Semite votes.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:19 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama, Romney eye blinks could decide election

As far as one researcher is concerned, the fate of presidential candidates is in the eyes -- namely, how many times they blink during debates.

Joseph Tecce, a Boston College psychophysiologist who studies political body language, reports that the candidate who blinks the most during debates has lost every election but one since 1980 -- and the exception is George W. Bush, the year he lost the popular vote.

Four years ago, Tecce reported, Barack Obama blinked 62 times per minute during debates -- John McCain blinked 104 times per minute.

Obama won the election.

... Scientists have long associated eye movements with one's emotional state. People blink more often when they are under stress, and some observers believe it can have a subliminal effect on voters.

... "Explaining the apparent link with election results is a bit trickier though. Does the audience find the faster-blinking candidate unnerving and form a negative impression? Or does the candidate who is trailing in the polls tend to be under greater stress — and therefore likely to blink more often? Tecce says that both factors likely come into play.

This year, Romney seems to be an early favorite to blink less, based on Tecce's analysis of the candidates' most-recent convention speeches. Romney blinked 33 times a minute during his acceptance address, while Obama did 41 times a minute.

posted by ericb at 10:21 AM on October 4, 2012

Romney's not a shoot-from-the-hip kind of guy who would just throw it out there to whip up anti-Semite votes

I see what you're saying, but why not throw a dogwhistle when you're losing in the polls and you recently mucked things up with a hateful elitist remark? Most people will hear it and think "Wall Street" but the ones it was aimed at will hear "Jews". That's how dogwhistles work. They're not for everyone.
posted by grubi at 10:22 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Hollywood elites. East coast liberals. New York banks. etc.

Yeah, all of these things are time-honored antisemitic dogwhistles.
posted by elizardbits at 10:22 AM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

Ah, didn't realize that, thanks. Just shows as private right now, I got confused.

Yeah - hmm. Maybe I'm the one that is confused. I swore it happened before with remarks he made a few weeks ago.
posted by cashman at 10:23 AM on October 4, 2012

ericb, correlation doesn't imply causation. Some people have eye issues, so they blink more. They're not liars.
posted by grubi at 10:23 AM on October 4, 2012

New York Times: An Unhelpful Debate.
posted by ericb at 10:24 AM on October 4, 2012

Electioneering 314 : Blink Management with a Focus on Facial Posture in General.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:24 AM on October 4, 2012

> [...] Romney was prolific in his blinking [...] his eyes started to reddened as the debate progressed.
Contact lenses. The man's 65.
posted by de at 10:24 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I mean, sure, he was lying his ass off, and there may even be some tells. But I don't blinking is a good one.
posted by grubi at 10:26 AM on October 4, 2012

ericb, correlation doesn't imply causation. Some people have eye issues, so they blink more. They're not liars.

I know. It just was striking to see last night. It really caught my attention. I was surprised by how much and fast he was blinking and for how long. It came to reinforce my obviously biased opinion of the man as a shifty, slimy, reptilian robot.
posted by ericb at 10:26 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

SRSLY U GUYS there is nothing wrong with reptiles okay? You humans are always so negative.
posted by elizardbits at 10:28 AM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

WE HUMANS HAHA OF COURSE I MEANT WE HUMANS
posted by elizardbits at 10:28 AM on October 4, 2012 [16 favorites]

SRSLY U GUYS there is nothing wrong with reptiles okay?

Well nothing that a bit of salt and pepper can't fix, sure.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:30 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

C-Span video of Pres. Obama Campaign Rally in Denver.
posted by ob1quixote at 10:35 AM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

That YouTube link of Obama's speech this morning shows as private, as inigo2 mentioned. Anyone have an alternate link?
posted by jiawen at 10:38 AM on October 4, 2012

The Big Bird bit of Obama's speech at the C-Span link starts at around 11:20.
posted by knapah at 10:42 AM on October 4, 2012

WE HUMANS HAHA OF COURSE I MEANT WE HUMANS

Hey, wait...
posted by grubi at 10:42 AM on October 4, 2012

Right above ya.
posted by lazaruslong at 10:43 AM on October 4, 2012

I'm hoping that Big Bird, blink rates, and an 2007 campaign accent aren't used for voting decisions.
posted by buzzman at 10:47 AM on October 4, 2012

Big Bird / Those Yep Yep Aliens 2012!
posted by dirigibleman at 10:49 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Wow, Obama's really sticking it to Romney in that Denver rally.
posted by peacheater at 10:50 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

correlation doesn't imply causation.

It doesn't have to.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:50 AM on October 4, 2012

Cool. Thanks, ob1quixote.
posted by jiawen at 10:50 AM on October 4, 2012

I think the Big Bird thing sounds funny but is actually an issue because Mitt is making it plainly clear that he is going after the 47%, taking away things they love or need, and focusing on giving more money to the wealthy.

He said it on the stump, he said it in his 60 minutes interview (that it's fair for the wealthy people have lower tax rates than those with a middle class income), and he has brought that same mentality to the debate stage.

Mitt Romney does not care about poor people and public television. He wants to give a ton more money to the wealthy, under the auspices that this will mean more jobs.

Why he would even be thinking about freaking Big Bird when there are so many real economic issues to worry about in terms of trimming programs, is beyond me. It's like walking into the barber shop badly needing a haircut with a full head of hair and a beard and the barber picks up the clippers and shaves off 3 hairs on your thigh.
posted by cashman at 10:54 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'd like to see the dems put together an ad of the cuts of Romney talking over & past Lehrer:

JIM LEHRER All right. What is the difference?

JIM LEHRER
Let's just stay on taxes for --

MITT ROMNEY
Well --

MITT ROMNEY
But I -- but I -- right, right.

JIM LEHRER
OK. Yeah, just -- let's just stay on taxes for a moment.

MITT ROMNEY
Yeah. Well, but -- but --

JIM LEHRER
What is the difference?

MITT ROMNEY
-- virtually every -- virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate.

JIM LEHRER
All right, go --

JIM LEHRER
All right.

MITT ROMNEY
Jim, let me just come back on that -- on that point.

JIM LEHRER
Just for the -- just for the record --

MITT ROMNEY
These small businesses we're talking about --

JIM LEHRER
Excuse me. Just so everybody understands --

MITT ROMNEY
Yeah.

JIM LEHRER
-- we're way over our first 15 minutes.

MITT ROMNEY
It's fun, isn't it?

JIM LEHRER
It's OK. It's great.

PRESIDENT OBAMA
That's OK.

JIM LEHRER
No problem. No, you don't have -- you don't have a problem, I don't have a problem, because we're still on the economy, but we're going to come back to taxes and we're going to move on to the deficit and a lot of other things, too.

OK, but go ahead, sir.

MITT ROMNEY
You bet.

JIM LEHRER
OK. (Inaudible) --

MITT ROMNEY
Jim, the president began this segment, so I think I get the last word, so I'm going to take it. All right? (Chuckles.)

JIM LEHRER
Well, you're going to get the first word in the next segment.

MITT ROMNEY
Well, but -- but he gets the first word of that segment. I get the last word of that segment, I hope. Let me just make this comment.

PRESIDENT OBAMA
(Chuckles.) He can -- you can have it. He can --

MITT ROMNEY
First of all --

JIM LEHRER
That's not how it works.

IM LEHRER
Let's --

MITT ROMNEY
But the -- the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case.

JIM LEHRER
Let's have --

MITT ROMNEY
What we do have right now is a setting --

JIM LEHRER
Excuse me.
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:55 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

That YouTube link of Obama's speech this morning shows as private, as inigo2 mentioned. Anyone have an alternate link?

Link works now. Here's a copy skipping to the actual speech (intro at 50 minutes in): Denver rally
posted by inigo2 at 10:57 AM on October 4, 2012

Obama seems to be the usual, on-the-ball, Obama in Denver. The difference is palpable.
posted by ersatz at 11:04 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Okay, if that's what you guys think he was saying, I totally disagree. I mean, he's basically said that "Bibi gets what Bibi wants" vis a vis Israel policy. Why would he take a cheap shot at Jews in a nationally-televised debate?

I think conservative Americans make a strong distinction between Israelis and American Jews. For the people Romney was dog-whistling, the Israelis stand up to the horrible evil Muslim horde and will be parties in the Armageddon that raptures Fundies home to be with the Lord. East Coast Jews are "rich elitist liberals" whom they hate blindly.
posted by aught at 11:07 AM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

OK so either Obama is a nervous debater, or he really did just try the rope-a-dope to get Romney to spit policy.
posted by Theta States at 11:09 AM on October 4, 2012

The biggest thing to really come out of this debate seems to be the PBS attack.
posted by drezdn at 11:16 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I just can't wait to hear about the backstory on this debate. Is Obama's achilles heel his inability to deal with lies spit in his face?
posted by angrycat at 11:17 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Did Obama purposefully downplay last night, intending to use his campaign pulpit (i.e.today's Denver rally) to take apart Romney's arguments, gear up more critical TV ads ... and then come out stronger in the next two debates? "Look, he's got his mojo back!" I also think he purposefully stayed away from the 47%, etc. Let the surrogates and TV ads do that. He doesn't want to wear it out in the early debates. Prevent Romney from being able to pull a Reaganesque quip ("Oh, there you go again."). Hold onto it for the closing statement of the last debate.
posted by ericb at 11:23 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Is Obama's achilles heel his inability to deal with lies spit in his face?

I think once Mitt started talking over everyone, Obama just decided to let him be rude. It may have come out of that and a healthy dose of "Just don't fuck up."
posted by grubi at 11:23 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Is anybody else bummed today? I have this pit in my stomach like it's 2004.
posted by angrycat at 11:25 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I also think he purposefully stayed away from the 47%

I thought so too, but evidently not:

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina last night in Denver on why Obama never mentioned the 47 percent: “It just didn’t come up in the debate. It wasn’t a deliberate decision.”

posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:26 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sometimes I have to stop second-guessing Obama on this sort of thing. He's better at it than I am. This is like listening to sports fan dissect a game when they know so much less about it than the coaches. "He shoulda passed!" Shoulda he? On what basis do you make such a judgment? "He shoulda attacked Romney!" Maybe. but I think it's presumptive of me to assume that.

Oh, I'll still keep doing it, but I'm being reflective right now. :-)
posted by grubi at 11:28 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

The biggest thing to really come out of this debate seems to be the PBS attack.

Everyone loves PBS. You've got the foodies (Jacques Pepin, Julia Child), the home fixer-uppers (Bob Vila), science geeks (Bill Nye), history buffs (Ken Burns), hipsters (Bob Ross), people with fancy stuff and people who haunt garage sales (Antiques Roadshow), people who follow what's hip on TV (Downton Abbey), people who love Brits and Colin Firth in a wet t-shirt (Masterpiece Theater), and pretty much everyone who's been a child, had a child, or known a child in the United States (Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street).
posted by sallybrown at 11:30 AM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

Big Bird / Those Yep Yep Aliens 2012!

I'm sorry, but I'm voting M'nah M'nah / P'teeee P'teepee.
posted by The Bellman at 11:30 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Is anybody else bummed today? I have this pit in my stomach like it's 2004.

Just remember how 2004 turned out for the incumbent.
posted by drezdn at 11:30 AM on October 4, 2012

Is anybody else bummed today? I have this pit in my stomach like it's 2004.

Was that when challenger John Kerry won the election on the strength of his dominant debate performances?

I think Obama's performance was partly due to a deliberate decision to not end up squabbling with Romney (or say anything that could be construed as a gaffe), and partly due to tiredness/distractedness. I can see the logic of not trying to nail Romney, but all the stammering and long-winded sentences couldn't have been by design.
posted by leopard at 11:31 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Is anybody else bummed today? I have this pit in my stomach like it's 2004.

Not really, since the positions are reversed. In 2004 everybody thought the challenger from Massachusetts who was "known" as a flip-flopper absolutely destroyed the likable incumbent in their first debate, and the press spent an entire week chattering about it. We all remember how that turned out for the challenger, and there were twice as many undecideds in that race, and the challenger's narrative hadn't already started unraveling by the next morning, either.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:33 AM on October 4, 2012

I also think he purposefully stayed away from the 47%

I thought so too, but evidently not:

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina last night in Denver on why Obama never mentioned the 47 percent: “It just didn’t come up in the debate. It wasn’t a deliberate decision.”

He can't very well say, "Yeah, we did that so you and hundreds of other reporters will ask that question this morning and remind everyone what a douche Romney is without getting our hands dirty," now can he?
posted by Freon at 11:33 AM on October 4, 2012 [12 favorites]

I'm not bummed today. I was last night. All of this will wear off by Monday. And, I think drezdn is unfortunately right. The major takeaway will be about Big Bird and PBS. I'm sure Lettermen, Leno, Colbert, Stewart, SNL and others are going to have bits about it tonight, tomorrow and on Saturday. It's swiftly become a meme.* Popular culture and the hoi polloi have ever increasing influence on minds these days.

* -- I find it amazing now that we are all "connected' that any citizen has the ability to express their thoughts/opinions to a wider audience than just their family, classmate, co-workers, etc. Many voices speaking up, trends emerge. I bet modern day politicians are frustrated about this development. In the past how were anyone of us able "to be heard?" Letters to the Editor, being lucky to be selected to make a statement on Talk Radio and other avenues -- all very limited.
posted by ericb at 11:34 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

The first ad from Obama attacking Mitt for lying in the debate is up. It's apparently airing in seven swing states.

I guess it's decent enough, but it's puzzling that they went with that one instead of Romney admitting to VoucherCare. Then again, it's only been 18 hours, so we'll see what else happens.

Also, FWIW the Gallup poll showed a steady horserace at 49-44, and Obama's job approval had a huge jump from 50-44 to 54-42. Obviously it doesn't reflect last night, but it's certainly a nice cushion to have.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:38 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

That was a tight 30-second ad. Regarding other topics, I suspect the campaign and PACs will have other ads coming out -- each focused on 'one message' at a time.
posted by ericb at 11:40 AM on October 4, 2012

Democracy Now's transcript includes the third party candidates' responses.
posted by homunculus at 11:42 AM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney to spit policy

can someone pleeeease do a few bars of mc romney spittin' policy?
posted by twist my arm at 11:44 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

I didn't realize it until just now, but last night's debate reminded me of this.
posted by Tevin at 11:45 AM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

That Obama ad contains a pretty giant lie of its own in the first few seconds. It cites an old Tax Policy Center analysis about the cost of Romney's tax plan that doesn't take into account Romney's recent announcement that he would limit deductions on high earners to help pay for the cut in marginal rates. By only citing the cost of the marginal cuts, but not citing the revenue gains from limiting deductions, the ad focuses on only one side of the equation.

Pants on fire!
posted by BobbyVan at 11:45 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama did not deliberately throw the debate. Not as a secret plan to keep the money away from downticket races, not for any reason.

Why? Because "A tightenening race at the top of the ticket rather than a Democratic wave year would be just super for my chances!" thought no Democratic congressional or senatorial candidate ever.

The thing that you saw happen? It happened. That's all. Conspiracy theories are not necessary.
posted by kyrademon at 11:45 AM on October 4, 2012 [8 favorites]

I wish the Obama at the Denver rally today was the one that showed up for the debate last night. I can just see him taking on some of Romney's assertions with that sly kind of humor he does. You have to believe though there's a master plan that we can't see (please oh please oh please).
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 11:46 AM on October 4, 2012

"In 1984, as the incumbent, Reagan seemed dazed and confused through much of his first debate with Walter Mondale, and an otherwise ho-hum contest briefly got hot." Hmm...
posted by saulgoodman at 11:47 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

But no, I don't think this was deliberate 3-dimensional chess, but then I'm part of that obstinate minority who still doesn't consider this a "win" for Romney in any meaningful sense, since as far as I can tell, the real Romney never even bothered to show.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:48 AM on October 4, 2012

This is the first thing that really enraged me related to the debate. If Romney is really a Friday Night Lights fan you'd think he'd better understand classism, racism, endemic poverty, the consequences of school underfunding, and what it means to work as a team instead of individuals. Like hell Mrs. Coach would ever vote for Mitt.
posted by sallybrown at 11:49 AM on October 4, 2012 [8 favorites]

It cites an old Tax Policy Center analysis about the cost of Romney's tax plan that doesn't take into account Romney's recent announcement that he would limit deductions on high earners to help pay for the cut in marginal rates. By only citing the cost of the marginal cuts, but not citing the revenue gains from limiting deductions, the ad focuses on only one side of the equation.

Regardless of what Romney may announce, there's simply no way he can cut the top tax rate, limit deductions that only affect the upper class and not explode the deficit. It's mathematically impossible. Romney's numbers don't add up, regardless of what he claims he wants to do.

And no one who experienced the Bush years buys the "pay for tax cuts with economic growth" tripe any more.

Pants on fire, indeed.
posted by Gelatin at 11:51 AM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Bobby, Romney has steadfastly refused to actually articulate what deductions he'd cut and for whom.

He says he'd cut deductions for wealthy Americans but he's never really articulated how his plan would be revenue neutral.

The truth is you really can't find that sort of money in the current tax code without hitting some really popular deductions and exemptions.

I mean what the hell is he actually going to get rid off? Mortgage Interest Deduction? Hahahahaha
posted by vuron at 11:51 AM on October 4, 2012 [10 favorites]

"Actress Olivia Wilde tweeted that she found Romney to be 'smirky, sweaty, indignant and smug with an unsettling hint of hysteria' during the debate. And worst of all? '…he wants to kill BIG BIRD,' she wrote."*
posted by ericb at 11:52 AM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

That Obama ad contains a pretty giant lie of its own in the first few seconds. It cites an old Tax Policy Center analysis about the cost of Romney's tax plan that doesn't take into account Romney's recent announcement that he would limit deductions on high earners to help pay for the cut in marginal rates. By only citing the cost of the marginal cuts, but not citing the revenue gains from limiting deductions, the ad focuses on only one side of the equation.

Nice try, but this reads as if you didn't even bother reading the article. At no point did Romney ever say that it was part of his formally submitted tax plan--or more accurately, outline thereof--he said that it was one of several options (emphasis mine):

Romney floated the idea for a $17,000 cap in an interview this week with Denver TV station KDVR, responding to criticism that he has not been specific enough about his plans. President Barack Obama has repeatedly denounced Romney’s plan as a hidden tax increase on the middle class.

“As an option you could say everybody’s going to get up to a $17,000 deduction,” Romney said, adding that home mortgage, health care and charitable deductions could all count toward the limit. “You can fill that bucket, if you will, that $17,000 bucket that way. And higher income people might have a lower number.”

Not to mention, it's not Mitt's idea, and it's still not enough to pay for his tax cuts.

Pants on fire!

Pot, kettle, etc.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:53 AM on October 4, 2012 [12 favorites]

Obama in Denver today (responding to crowd's vocal reaction to Romney position on education):

"Don't boo -- vote."
posted by aught at 11:54 AM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

BobbyVan: Limiting deductions to $17,000 would kill the housing market and the economy. That's a non-starter. Mortgage interest and healthcare deductions alone would fill up $17,000 for the top quarter of Americans, who are responsible for a huge share of disposable income (that actually get SPENT unlike the income of top 1% of Americans). It's functionally capping the mortgage interest deduction at a time when the housing market is just getting a foothold. The economic impact would be far more severe than a several percentage income tax on people who probably won't spend the money anyway. This is functionally a housing tax on the middle class to upper-middle class and won't be enough to cover his tax cuts anyway. It would've been a great idea in the 1990s, but to do this today with the housing crisis would be economic suicide.

The maximum tax-deductible contribution to an IRA is $17,000 per year, which is suspiciously the exact same number. This is a functional massive tax increase on the middle class.
posted by amuseDetachment at 11:56 AM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

Regardless of what Romney may announce, there's simply no way he can cut the top tax rate, limit deductions that only affect the upper class and not explode the deficit. It's mathematically impossible. Romney's numbers don't add up, regardless of what he claims he wants to do.

That's different from saying that Romney's tax plan would cost $5 trillion, which is a lie. Today, Obama doubled down on his lie that it would cost $5 trillion. It's true that Romney hasn't specified every deduction he'd limit or loophole he'd close to help pay for it -- if he did, his plan would die a death of a thousand cuts from special interests before he ever got the chance to do anything.
posted by BobbyVan at 11:57 AM on October 4, 2012

So you acknowledge that Romney's numbers don't add up and the plan you're defending is mathematically impossible? Cool.
posted by howfar at 11:58 AM on October 4, 2012 [9 favorites]

if he did, his plan would die a death of a thousand cuts from special interests before he ever got the chance to do anything.

Special interests like old people, female people, brown people, sick people, poor people and unemployed people ?
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 12:00 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

That's different from saying that Romney's tax plan would cost $5 trillion, which is a lie. Today, Obama doubled down on his lie that it would cost $5 trillion.

You're going to have to come up with actual proof that this is a lie, specifically the actual tax plan rather than Romney throwing out something that makes gullible folks spout talking points.

It's true that Romney hasn't specified every deduction he'd limit or loophole he'd close to help pay for it -- if he did, his plan would die a death of a thousand cuts from special interests before he ever got the chance to do anything.

He has specified several in his tax plan, and it's never come up as anything but ginormous deficits and/or massive tax hikes on anybody who's not rich and tax cuts for those who are.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:00 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

BobbyVan: "It's true that Romney hasn't specified every deduction he'd limit or loophole he'd close to help pay for it"

Actually, he hasn't specified any deduction he'd limit or loophole he'd close.
posted by mkultra at 12:01 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

It's true that Romney hasn't specified every deduction he'd limit or loophole he'd close to help pay for it

Or *any* deduction.

if he did, his plan would die a death of a thousand cuts from special interests before he ever got the chance to do anything.

So his plan is doomed to die once it's made public? Sounds like an amazing plan with a really great chance of success!
posted by leopard at 12:01 PM on October 4, 2012 [13 favorites]

By only citing the cost of the marginal cuts, but not citing the revenue gains from limiting deductions, the ad focuses on only one side of the equation.

As zombieflanders points out, even your link there just says that Romney "floated the idea" of limiting deductions. If you watched the debate you would have noted that he again referred to it as an "idea" among many possible ways that he claims his targets could be reached and he just can't give any specific details.

That's different from saying that Romney's tax plan would cost $5 trillion, which is a lie.

That's what it says in the Tax Policy Center study you yourself just mentioned. You sound like Giuliani last night, trying to claim that even continuing the Bush tax cuts would not cost anything, as though all of the future budget calculations don't already figure in them expiring.
posted by XMLicious at 12:02 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

So you acknowledge that Romney's numbers don't add up and the plan you're defending is mathematically impossible? Cool.

The $17,000 deduction limit is only one of three buckets of deductions that Romney's campaign is talking about limiting. Even Ezra Klein admits that the first bucket (the $17k deduction limit) would raise $1-$2 trillion in revenue. That destroys Obama's claim that Romney's tax plan costs $5 trillion. Obama lied last night, and today he lied again.
posted by BobbyVan at 12:03 PM on October 4, 2012

I think in the media Romney's TKO on sheer fire last night is looking more and more like it is going to have an asterisk placed next to it. He might have won, but he was totally doping.
posted by Ad hominem at 12:04 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

PBS: 'Romney does not understand'.

PBS: Pleaseohpleaseohplease allow the real Big Bird to appear on late night television talk shows and SNL. Pleaseohpleaseohplease. Not just for comic purposes. Have Letterman interview Big Bird who can then provide serious responses on the importance of public television, etc.

And, Letterman can tell Big Bird how much his son, Harry, has always loved Sesame Street.

There can be even a moment when Letterman pulls out an Elmo doll and say:s "Harry wanted to wish me luck with my interview with you" -- along the lines of him pulling out Harry's stuffed animal at the beginning of his most recent interview with President Obama.

It's not always easy being a dad. Dave was faced with a dilemma this morning. When his boy Harry heard the President was going to be on the show, he had a request for daddy. Dave says the last time Barack Obama was here, Harry wanted his stuffed animal to meet the President. (ed.note - the last time Barack Obama was on the show was September 21, 2009. It was candidate Barack Obama on September 10, 2008 who met Harry's stuffed animal.) Harry again wanted his stuffed kitty to meet the President. Dave was surprised since Harry no longer relies on stuffed Kitty for comfort. But Harry wanted his kitty to meet the President again, probably thinking the President wanted to meet Stuffed Kitty, too. Dave had a decision to make . . . disappoint his son, or upset the President. Dave did the right thing and brought in the kitty.

... The President got serious for a moment and said, "Let me see Kitty." Dave happily hands off Kitty to the President. Somewhere, a boy at home is hopping happy on the couch. The President puts Kitty in the guest chair beside him. Dave quickly puts a stop to that and asks for Kitty back. Dave wants to keep the vacant chair vacant . . . . just in case the President wants to speak to it. With the important stuff out of the way, Dave and the President talked about the Conventions, the deficit, jobs, the divisiveness in politics, beer in the White House, the Romney tape, and the troubles in Libya, Egypt, and the Middle East.

posted by ericb at 12:04 PM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

Romney hasn't put any actual policy forward. He has FLIRTED with some casually, that's it. So Obama's comments are not lies, they are based on the actual best information available.
posted by Theta States at 12:05 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

If Obama criticizes a Romney position, then Romney contradicts that position, that makes Obama a liar... how, exactly?
posted by grubi at 12:08 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

"Read my lips : no new taxes"
(remember that ? I do)
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 12:09 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

It's true that Romney hasn't specified every deduction he'd limit or loophole he'd close to help pay for it -- if he did, his plan would die a death of a thousand cuts from special interests before he ever got the chance to do anything.

In other words, he has no plan. Cunning.
posted by goethean at 12:09 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

That's different from saying that Romney's tax plan would cost $5 trillion, which is a lie.

On the contrary, it isn't a lie at all to say Romney's tax cut for the wealthy would amount to $5 trillion over ten years. And given that Romney has no credible plan for paying for it -- as several people pointed out already -- it also isn't a lie to postulate that Romney's preference to cut taxes for the wealthy would wind up costing the rest of the nation, just like they did under Bush and Reagan.

George W. Bush tried to pull the same baloney, and to the shame of the so-called "liberal media", he more or less got away with it. The problem for Republicans this time around is, our collective memory actually goes back to the year 2000.

Edited to add:

It's true that Romney hasn't specified every deduction he'd limit or loophole he'd close to help pay for it -- if he did, his plan would die a death of a thousand cuts from special interests before he ever got the chance to do anything.

It's true that Romney hasn't specified any deductions or limitations, but the fact that people would notice that he'd wind up cutting popular deductions that benefit the middle class hardly helps your case.
posted by Gelatin at 12:10 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

Obama Blasts Mitt Romney's Debate Candor: 'You Owe The American People The Truth'.
posted by ericb at 12:10 PM on October 4, 2012

BobbyVan: The $17,000 proposal won't net raise any money after it tanks the housing market because people with large loans can't make their payments, because they relied on mortgage interest deductions. Middle-age Americans want to contribute to their IRA for their retirement, and if they had to choose between putting tax-deductible money into their IRA or making their mortgage payments, I'd suspect many would seriously consider walking out on their underwater homes. Just because it's (partially) covered by a 20% tax cut, you have to look it as a sunk cost, there is NO ECONOMIC INCENTIVE TO AVOID WALKING OUT ON YOUR HOME. The 20% tax cut is already baked in, it's economically advantageous to allocate the $17,000 in deductions towards your IRA over making underwater taxed mortgage interest payments.

The $17,000 cap is an insane brazen tax increase on the middle class to favor the wealthy when they aren't spending their money on consumption or investment, choosing to sock it away in short-dated treasuries. As social policy, the $17,000 deduction limit + 20% tax cut for the wealthy would be tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot.
posted by amuseDetachment at 12:10 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

PBS: Pleaseohpleaseohplease allow the real Big Bird to appear on late night television talk shows and SNL. Pleaseohpleaseohplease. Not just for comic purposes. Have Letterman interview Big Bird who can then provide serious responses on the importance of public television, etc.

And, Letterman can tell Big Bird how much his son, Harry, has always loved Sesame Street.

If 2012 is the year the universe just finally turned into an awesome cross-over comic book event then yes I want in-character Big Bird giving cogent points about the funding of PBS and the role of social programs such as Public Television.
posted by The Whelk at 12:11 PM on October 4, 2012 [6 favorites]

The $17,000 deduction limit is only one of three buckets of deductions that Romney's campaign is talking about limiting. Even Ezra Klein admits that the first bucket (the $17k deduction limit) would raise $1-$2 trillion in revenue. That destroys Obama's claim that Romney's tax plan costs $5 trillion. Obama lied last night, and today he lied again.

That's odd, I don't see a new tax plan from Romney, just him saying something in an interview that you keep on portraying as a tax plan. And nice dodge with the "even Ezra Klein admits" bit, where you leave out this part (again, emphasis mine):

Even if you assume the plan will be maximally stringent, it doesn’t look like this would raise enough money to pay for Romney’s tax cuts. Remember that to make the numbers work, Romney would have to fully eliminate all itemized deductions — and a few deductions beyond that — for wealthy taxpayers. This doesn’t go anywhere near that far. William Gale, of the Tax Policy Center, says the net revenue would likely be in the $1-$2 trillion range, while Romney’s rate cuts are in the $5 trillion range, though he cautions that that’s just a guess based on Romney’s description of the idea.

It’s also very difficult to see how Romney achieves his goal to keep the plan distributionally neutral using this policy. Remember that when the Tax Policy Center looked at Romney’s rate cuts, they went “top-down,” meaning they eliminated every dollar of deductions for people making more than $200,000 before eliminating any dollar of deductions for people making less than $200,000 — and they still couldn’t make the policy as progressive as the current system. This idea, while it hits the rich harder than it hits the poor, is not nearly so progressive, which means it does imply a net tax increase on those making less than $200,000 and a net tax cut on those making more than $200,000.

So, the score still reads: no new tax plan, still options, still not enough to close the gap, still shittier for the middle and lower class than the upper class. Ergo, still not a lie.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:12 PM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

Bobby, several people in this thread have already indicated that a maximum limit of $17,000 would be less than what their Mortgage Interest and Healthcare Deductions already are. While some of these people might be high income individuals it's not ridiculous to assume that home owners in a large percentage of the US might actually see their tax bill increase under this scenario.

The truth of the matter is that a 20% deduction in marginal tax rates, an elimination of the estate tax and the elimination of the AMT (which everyone basically agrees needs to go or be revised) is going to cost a ton of money and while there is some debate on how much those cuts are you cannot assume growth to cancel them out.

Romney refuses to present a revenue neutral tax plan which in my mind is basically another case of Trickle Down bullshit that the right has been peddling since the fucking 80s.

He refuses to articulate what he would cut because he knows those cuts would be incredibly unpopular and would never pass congress anyway. Basically he's promising a tax cut and an increase in defense spending that at best would be paid for with borrowed money.
posted by vuron at 12:12 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

The $17,000 proposal won't net raise any money after it tanks the housing market because people with large loans can't make their payments, because they relied on mortgage interest deductions.

If you're going to employ dynamic scoring here, why not also score the corporate marginal tax cuts as revenue generators, given the economic growth that will be created when companies reinvest that extra money in their infrastructure and hiring of workers?
posted by BobbyVan at 12:14 PM on October 4, 2012

Washington Post: All You Need To Know About The Romney Tax Plan.

The argument that Mitt Romney’s numbers don’t add up can be extremely detailed — or it can be as simple as just listening to Romney talk:
I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. So there's no economist can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.

Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it's a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it's just not the case. . . . I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.

And number three, I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families.
That’s really all there is to it. Romney claims that he’ll keep taxes the same for the rich; cut taxes for everyone else; and not add to the deficit. If you believe that, well, you’ll also believe that Ronald Reagan didn’t increase the deficit with his 1981 tax cut and George W. Bush didn’t increase the deficit with his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. In other words, Romney might as well just say that his tax plan is pixie dust, the Elder Wand and Samantha twitching her nose.

(He doesn't explicitly say that he won't raise taxes on the rich in the above quote, but he argued that point strongly elsewhere in the debate).

Now, there’s plenty more ...

posted by ericb at 12:15 PM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

So, the score still reads: no new tax plan, still options, still not enough to close the gap, still shittier for the middle and lower class than the upper class. Ergo, still not a lie.

Obama didn't say "Romney's proposal doesn't close the gap." He said that his plan will cost $5 trillion and based it on an old, speculative study that did not account for the revenues generated by limiting deductions. Claiming it will cost $5 trillion is a lie, especially when Romney himself said "I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit."
posted by BobbyVan at 12:16 PM on October 4, 2012

Seriously BobbyVan... trickle down theory again ?
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 12:17 PM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

why not also score the corporate marginal tax cuts as revenue generators, given the economic growth that will be created when companies reinvest that extra money in their infrastructure and hiring of workers?

Companies do not create economic growth. They are not job-creators. Corporate profits are at record highs and those companies are sitting on piles of cash. Economic growth is created by middle-class spending.
posted by ambrosia at 12:17 PM on October 4, 2012 [15 favorites]

Auditing Romney's Tax Plan (video)

[MSNBC's] NOW panel gets into the wonk behind Mitt Romney's tax plan as outlined in Wednesday night's debate. But even if the math doesn't add up, does it matter to voters? Alex Wagner discusses.

posted by ericb at 12:17 PM on October 4, 2012

the revenues generated by limiting deductions.

You can't make up that 5 trillion doing this.
posted by grubi at 12:17 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

You cannot assume economic growth as result of tax cuts in CBO projections Bobby. For the plan to be revenue neutral there has to be an equal increase in tax revenues to offset any tax cuts. Romney won't commit to detailing that because it's impossible to do without hitting tax deductions that the middle class loves and relies on.

Now I know it's an article of faith among Republicans that tax cuts lead to higher growth but you cannot assume that when making tax policy.
posted by vuron at 12:18 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

BobbyVan: Because the marginal benefit from tax cuts don't get spent. Corporate cash (and near-cash) is at RECORD HIGHS. Why aren't they spending that? Largely, because of the overhang in the housing market is depressing consumption. Canada recently tried a massive corporate tax cut across the board, it hasn't done anything w.r.t. middle class wealth or jobs.

The facts are very clear, if you have a mortgage, contribute to your IRA/401k, and have a healthcare plan, you will likely be paying more under Romney's plan. Further, it would be in your personal economic interests to sell your house, in order to continue making your IRA/401k contributions. The housing market would get absolutely decimated as a result.
posted by amuseDetachment at 12:18 PM on October 4, 2012 [6 favorites]

Fact Check: Romney's Tax Claims Challenged By Nonpartisan Report.
posted by ericb at 12:19 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

Even Ezra Klein admits that the first bucket (the $17k deduction limit) would raise $1-$2 trillion in revenue.

No, Klein admists no such thing -- imagine my surprise. He points out that Romney's speculation "leaves a lot of unanswered questions" and that "Even if you assume the plan will be maximally stringent, it doesn’t look like this would raise enough money to pay for Romney’s tax cuts"; he then quotes an estimation by the Tax Policy Center on the 1-2 trillion figure. So what?

That destroys Obama's claim that Romney's tax plan costs $5 trillion.

Far from it. Obama claimed that Romney's rate cut would benefit the upper classes to the tune of $5 trillion over 10 years, which is true. We know it's true because we can add. If -- and it's a big if -- Romney finds ways to offset that windfall, it might not literally cost 5 trillion, but the possibility that some of the money is made up elsewhere -- and let's not forget that during the primary season, Romney refused to countenance $1 of tax increases for $10 of spending cuts -- doesn't change the fact that Romney's giving the rich a $5 trillion tax break. On top of making the Bush tax cuts permanent, by the way.
posted by Gelatin at 12:19 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Look , anyone who is truly serious about fixing the deficit only has to look at this chart taken directly from Congressional Budget Office figures. The big brown area that takes up most of the height are the what would happen if we extended the Bush tax cuts (due to expire again) .

So anyone who is serious either wants to remove that burden to the budget or else they are just talking out of their behinds.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 12:20 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

If you're going to employ dynamic scoring here, why not also score the corporate marginal tax cuts as revenue generators, given the economic growth that will be created when companies reinvest that extra money in their infrastructure and hiring of workers?

Because that's never happened, ever, and I don't expect it to start now. You might as well build a plan around all the economic growth that will be created when pigs grow wings.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:20 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

it might not literally cost 5 trillion

Thank you.
posted by BobbyVan at 12:20 PM on October 4, 2012

Claiming it will cost $5 trillion is a lie, especially when Romney himself said "I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit."

Hahahaha.
(a) Romney has proposed a policy that will cut $5 trillion in taxes.
(b) He claims that he has a secret plan to magically make up this $5 trillion somewhere else so that revenue will stay neutral.
(c) This secret magic pony plan makes *Obama* a liar, and not Romney??

That's gold.
posted by leopard at 12:20 PM on October 4, 2012 [16 favorites]

Reid: Romney's Tax Plan As Dishonest As Own Returns.

You go, Harry!
posted by ericb at 12:21 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

If you're going to employ dynamic scoring here, why not also score the corporate marginal tax cuts as revenue generators, given the economic growth that will be created when companies reinvest that extra money in their infrastructure and hiring of workers?

Because we remember that such magical growth was in no way a "given" when George W. Bush tried the same trickle-down codswallop ten years ago, that's why.

(And some of us remember it didn't work under Reagan, either.)
posted by Gelatin at 12:23 PM on October 4, 2012

Obama didn't say "Romney's proposal doesn't close the gap." He said that his plan will cost $5 trillion and based it on an old, speculative study that did not account for the revenues generated by limiting deductions.

Because those revenues are not included as part of any plan. What part of that is the hardest for you to understand?

Claiming it will cost $5 trillion is a lie, especially when Romney himself said "I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit."

You just admitted that the math doesn't make sense, and in any event, the reason that it wouldn't add to the deficit is because it royally fucks over anyone making less than $200,000/year.

it might not literally cost 5 trillion

Thank you.

You're thankful for someone pointing out that your argument is based on an unlikely hypothetical situation? Okay.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:23 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Bobby, several people in this thread have already indicated that a maximum limit of $17,000 would be less than what their Mortgage Interest and Healthcare Deductions already are.

And you know what else goes in that bucket? City, state and local taxes. Yeah. So fuck you very much, New York and California.
posted by The Bellman at 12:24 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

The Economist: The Presidential Debate: What Happened? 'Mitt Romney ran hard to the center, and the President wasn't ready for it.'
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:25 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

BobbyVan: Obama didn't say "Romney's proposal doesn't close the gap." He said that his plan will cost $5 trillion and based it on an old, speculative study

Yes he did. Look at the transcript:

PRESIDENT OBAMA
When you add up all the loopholes and deductions that upper income individuals can -- are currently taking advantage of -- if you take those all away -- you don't come close to paying for $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in additional military spending.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 12:25 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm pretty neutral when it comes to budgetary stuff but when some people come up to me and try to piss in my ear and tell me it's raining I can either go to bat and try to reason with them or, when it's necessary, just look them up and down, take measure of their character, and say "Nevermind..." and walk away.
posted by RolandOfEld at 12:25 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Edited to add:

Hey folks I know you mean well but please don't so this, especially in a fast moving thread. Thanks.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:26 PM on October 4, 2012

Fair point, ultraviolet. His ad today makes no such distinction, which is worse, because it proves that Obama is knowingly obfuscating the truth to make us believe that Romney is calling for $5 trillion in tax cuts full stop.
posted by BobbyVan at 12:27 PM on October 4, 2012

Claiming it will cost $5 trillion is a lie, especially when Romney himself said "I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit."

Romney can promise ponies and sunshine all he wants, but he hasn't offered any numbers that add up. It's mathematically impossible to cut taxes on the rich, not raise taxes on the middle class and not increase the deficit.

Romney is welcome to offer solid numbers, of course, in which case -- and only then -- one might have grounds for calling Obama's claim a lie. But the hard, cold fact is that Romney denyng Obama's statement doesn't automatically make it a lie, period.
posted by Gelatin at 12:27 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

BobbyVan, it's really simple. Romney can't say he's going to cut marginal rates by 20 percent across the board and say he's going to pay for it by closing deductions and loopholes and say he's going to keep the proportion of taxes that upper income earners are paying the same and say that he won't raise taxes on the middle class. Doing all those things at the same time is impossible, so one of them must not be true.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 12:28 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's arithmetic.
posted by grubi at 12:29 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Bobby, the deduction in tax revenues inherent with a 20% decrease in marginal tax rates is pretty easy to determine. So we have a high end number which needs to be offset with either higher revenues in other areas or borrowing.

He refuses to articulate where those additional revenues will come from. At best he only makes up about 1-2 trillion with his max $17,000 deduction which will incidentally increase tax burden on many middle-class Americans (not me thank god because I don't live in a ridiculous cost of living housing market).

So seriously where in hell is he going to get the rest of the money from? And assuming increased revenues as "Job Creators" grow the economy is bullshit. There is a fuckton of capital sitting on the sidelines right now that could be growing the economy but it isn't. What is the guarantee that these tax cuts won't go into Cayman Island bank accounts?

No you are going to have to actually indicate where the fuck Romney is going to pay for the gifts to friends and family. Because it really can't be done by cutting PBS funding or the NEA or closing deductions that don't hit the middle class hard. We are talking very significant cuts to programs or a big shift in tax burden to the middle class.
posted by vuron at 12:29 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Yes, but Romney also said "my number one principle is there’ll be no tax cut that adds to the deficit." That makes everything else negotiable/subordinate to that overarching principle. It's fair to ask that he offer more specifics on how he pays for $5 trillion in marginal rate cuts. It's unfair and untrue to say that his plan will cost $5 trillion when Romney said he'd only support a plan that is fully paid for.
posted by BobbyVan at 12:32 PM on October 4, 2012

Romney has proposed to cut marginal rates by 20% across the board and to pay for those cuts by limiting deductions and closing loopholes.

No, he hasn't. He's mentioned it, there is no proposal or plan. Big difference.

He's also said that he won't support any plan that adds to the deficit. Obama is asking us to believe that Romney is telling the truth about the first part of his plan, but is lying to us about the second part.

Well, for all intents and purposes, Romney isn't telling the whole truth about either one. He has no plan for the first part, and there is no math that makes the second one possible without screwing people who aren't rich over. The fact that you refuse to address the latter is pretty telling.

Obama has no basis for that supposition, but makes it anyway because it makes for a good number ($5 trillion) and television ad.

No, Obama's basis is sound because, at this point, it's factually true. Romney has no proposed plan that does either in a way that jibes with his argument that he won't tax the middle class.

His ad today makes no such distinction, which is worse, because it proves that Obama is knowingly obfuscating the truth to make us believe that Romney is calling for $5 trillion in tax cuts full stop.

Except that he, y'know, is calling for $5 trillion in tax cuts right now.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:32 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama is asking us to believe that Romney is telling the truth about the first part of his plan, but is lying to us about the second part.

I remember George W. Bush promising his tax cuts wouldn't add to the deficit either.

Given that Romney is proposing a mathematical impossibility and offering no specifics, one would be well within one's rights to speculate that he isn't arguing in good faith.
posted by Gelatin at 12:33 PM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

Glenn Greenwald has just come out with his usual high-quality discussion of the debate that makes many of the points I tried to make above - but better.

I can't believe I didn't mention the "prison industrial complex" - not Glenn's words but mine - in my list of things above that can't even be mentioned. If one thing's clear to me, it's that if the United States ever gets a just society back again, people will remember the fact that there were over two million Americans incarcerated, most for victimless crimes, while war- and financial criminals committed their huge, society-wrecking felonies in perfect impunity, and they'll remember it in the same way we remember slavery in 2012.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:36 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

It's really simple, leopard. Romney has proposed to cut marginal rates by 20% across the board and to pay for those cuts by limiting deductions and closing loopholes. He's also said that he won't support any plan that adds to the deficit. Obama is asking us to believe that Romney is telling the truth about the first part of his plan, but is lying to us about the second part. Obama has no basis for that supposition, but makes it anyway because it makes for a good number ($5 trillion) and television ad.

Of course Romney is lying about the second part of his plan. That's the part where he raises taxes. You yourself said that this part of the plan is politically impossible.

If you really believe that Romney will not issue a tax cut that increases the deficit, it then follows that Romney is lying about the first part of his plan as well, because he will not be able to cut marginal rates by 20% across the board.

In other words, if you truly believe that Romney has an "overarching principle," then it follows that Romney's entire plan is a lie, he will basically do nothing on taxes. And somehow you conclude that Obama is dishonest.

Fascinating.
posted by leopard at 12:37 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

So are you willing to say that if he can only find $1 trillion in tax deductions that he can cut that he'd only cut the marginal tax rate to a rate equal to that number? Because that's a completely different supposition.

But if the reduction in revenues is $5 trillion then he has to make up $5 in new revenues or it increases the deficit.

What we are saying is that there is absolute no way that you can cut revenues and pay for those cuts with new revenues without shifting the tax burden down the income ladder or cutting a ridiculous amount of discretional spending. Keep in mind that he also wants to increase pentagon funding by some ridiculous value.

Given all the self-imposed restrictions on his plan it just doesn't make sense mathematically.
posted by vuron at 12:38 PM on October 4, 2012

Yes, but Romney also said "my number one principle is there’ll be no tax cut that adds to the deficit.

What people are unsuccessfully trying to tell you is that the statement above is magical thinking unless you cut heavily into things like medicare, and a great many social welfare programs. Of course you could take away things like oil and corn subsidies , or the war effort, but given Romney's and the Republican's known track record .....

So , here we stand. You believe something that has been told to you that many others believe to be mathematically impossible without cutting into middle class protections. You don't want to believe that and I don't suppose you ever will.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 12:38 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Romney has proposed to cut marginal rates by 20% across the board and to pay for those cuts by limiting deductions and closing loopholes. He's also said that he won't support any plan that adds to the deficit. Obama is asking us to believe that Romney is telling the truth about the first part of his plan, but is lying to us about the second part. Obama has no basis for that supposition, but makes it anyway because it makes for a good number ($5 trillion) and television ad.

Really. There's no basis for saying that Romney or Republicans might say one thing to make it sound like they'll take actions to cut the deficit, then not actually cut the deficit. You can't possibly expect anyone to believe that.

If Romney is going to give $5 trillion in tax cuts then they're going to cost $5 trillion dollars, whether or not he then takes some other action that is supposedly going to generate $5 trillion dollars in revenue at the same time (which even he admitted, right there on stage, is based on assuming that the economy will suddenly surge from his magical handwavey measures despite previous assertions that the government can't create jobs.)

It's just as valid to say this as it is for Republicans to claim that Obamacare raises taxes by ignoring the tax cuts in the bill or to talk about the stimulus without mentioning that it involved an enormous tax cut. If it's unfair then so is just about everything that Republicans ever say about Obama's record on taxation.
posted by XMLicious at 12:38 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

> I didn't see it as a flat-out antisemitic thing to say but I also could see it as a
> dogwhistle to people who are really primed to that sort of perspective.

all of whom are right here in this thread.
posted by jfuller at 12:38 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yes, but Romney also said "my number one principle is there’ll be no tax cut that adds to the deficit." That makes everything else negotiable/subordinate to that overarching principle.

And once again, what you deliberately leave unsaid is the new tax burden on people who aren't high earners. And why should we believe in those principles? As mentioned several times, Bush II did the same thing and broke that promise toot sweet. Even you've admitted several times that the math probably doesn't add up.

It's unfair and untrue to say that his plan will cost $5 trillion when Romney said he'd only support a plan that is fully paid for.

It's neither, until Romney actually produces a plan that is fully paid for and that also meets his other promises re: the middle class. Of course, if we play by your new fairness doctrine, then Obama can just as easily release an ad that says the rich get huge tax cuts while the rest of us get to pay thousands more.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:39 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's unfair and untrue to say that his plan will cost $5 trillion when Romney said he'd only support a plan that is fully paid for.

It isn't unfair or untrue at all when Romney refuses to specify how he'd do it. And that'd be so even if a candidate had a sterling record of honesty on the campagin trail. Romeny, not so much.

Your complaint seems to be that Obama -- who at least has solid, nonpartisan numbers to cite -- says that Romney is lying, and your defense is that Romney claims, with no proof whatsoever, that he isn't. No sale.

Romney and Ryan have had every opportunity to present real numbers to the American people, and they refuse to do so. It's not only permissible but essential to consider that refusal to be based on something being fishy. You yourself admitted that if Romney offered specifics, they'd likely prove unpopular. Sorry, but, proposing to pay for a tax cut by offsets that are dead on arrival isn't proposing to pay for it at all.
posted by Gelatin at 12:40 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

> It's unfair and untrue to say that his plan will cost $5 trillion when Romney said he'd only support a plan that is fully paid for.

Sorry, this is perfectly reasonable. Romney has proposed a plan that, if taken at value, will cost the Treasury $5 trillion over ten years. And he hasn't proposed how he's going to do it.

This is exactly like saying, "I only did half my homework, so you can't judge it at all."

Suppose I said, "I'm taking everyone on Metafilter to Disneyland! And I'm doing it out of my salary. But I'll only do it if it is fully paid for. And I have a plan to do it, but I won't tell you what it is, except we're going to switch to generic products in the kitchen."

This would be bullshit. You'd be perfectly right to say, "Lupus, that'd cost you millions of dollars, and your whole grocery bill is in the thousands."
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:42 PM on October 4, 2012 [10 favorites]

And let's not forget that Romney isn't exactly a blank slate here. Given that one of the few times in this entire campaign that he's seemed genuine was when he went on a John Galt-style rant about freeloaders to a bunch of wealthy donors, one would be a fool to take his professions of good faith about either the middle class or the sanctity of a blanaced budget at face value.
posted by Gelatin at 12:43 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Anyone see Reid's tax returns?
posted by brent at 12:43 PM on October 4, 2012

Bobby Van: Romney said he won't cut taxes on the wealthy. At the same time he is calling for eliminating the estate tax. Will you at least concede that this is a tax cut on the wealthy?

Because to my eye, that proves that he is lying right there, indisputably.
posted by msalt at 12:44 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

> all of whom are right here in this thread.

Never met any US right-wingers, have you? Many's the time I've had to listen to crap about Jewish bankers on Wall Street.

If they make a joke about it on 30 Rock, it's not an obscure thing...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:44 PM on October 4, 2012

I'm expecting that ticket to Disneyland if I vote for you Lupus.

Hell I might even purchase a couple of extra metafilter accounts to get tickets for other family members.
posted by vuron at 12:44 PM on October 4, 2012

MotherJones: Rating Wednesday Night's Debate Whoppers

Pundits largely took two things away from the debate last night: President Obama turned in a lackluster performance, and moderator Jim Lehrer let Mitt Romney walk all over him. A presidential debate moderator's job is not unlike a parent with two squabbling 6-year-olds: While it's important to maintain neutrality, it's also necessary to find out which kid is lying about cutting the legs off all the Barbie dolls. Because Lehrer could hardly get a word in last night, let alone call out any questionable truths, we've done it for him: by comparing the statements made by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on "The Whopper Scale."

posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:46 PM on October 4, 2012

BobbyVan: Obama is making those particular claims because sourcing from non-partisan research into what is the most plausible and likely because Romney refuses to detail what he's going to do. He only trotted out this $17,000 crap recently, and when looked at closely is going to turn out to be a massive clusterfuck of a tax increase on the middle class while killing the economy.

I've been debating a friend who does investments in houses, his theory is the $17,000 deduction limit won't pass because of influence from the banks who (rightfully) know that this will absolutely kill the economy. My argument is that congress is crazy enough to do it and a 20% tax cut across the board is a nice way to "give it a try for a year" lets corporations/banks repatriate foreign cash (from prior transfer-pricing tax games) and the gain may be more than the fallout from screwing the middle class.

HOWEVER, we both agree from a purely investment perspective, if Romney and the Republican congress is serious about the $17,000 deduction limit all houses MUST be sold as it will create a double-dip housing decline within months, as millions of Americans will not be able to pay for their mortgage payments because they rely on the mortgage interest deduction to keep them afloat. More expensive houses will crash and the lower prices will cascade down across to low-end houses. Also, without that deduction, buying a house shifts from a smart personal economic decision to being merely a leveraged pro-cyclical bet on the economy.

This would create a larger cultural shift away from owning to renting, which has dramatic impact on housing prices, which would affect property taxes, which are the primary funder of local revenue (for things like schools), shifting economic incentives away from property ownership has serious implications and would create massive market dislocations for local municipal revenue generation.
posted by amuseDetachment at 12:46 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

For those who are interested in such things, the Xbox Live polling this morning post-debate is running 49 for Romney, 41 for Obama. (Or at least it was when I completed it.) I think last night it was in the sixties for Obama and the twenties for Romney. Seems clear this is just a debate shift, as the only people being polled are those who have watched the debate.
posted by corb at 12:47 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Those of us who are old enough to have voted in 1980 have seen the bait-and-switch way too many fucking times not to know it's a sham.

"we'll find cuts to pay for this..."

"the resulting growth will pay for this..."

"cut the rich this slack and they will, literally, shit jobs ..."

It's all horseshit. And it's not even new horseshit. The tax-cutting ALWAYS happens, but the paying-for-it NEVER does. How many times does it have to happen before you don't fall for it again? I mean, really.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 12:47 PM on October 4, 2012 [27 favorites]

This claim that we have to accept that whatever Romney says as true is like suggesting that because George W. Bush said "I am not a nation-builder" during his campaign we have to ignore that he actually invaded and tried to rebuild two countries in his image of democracy.

I find it quite ironic that while everyone complains that Romney's tax plan isn't really a plan and contains no specifics, President Obama seems to know exactly how much it will cost, and just put out an ad telling us how much it costs.

He's not telling anyone how much Romney's "plan" cost, he's telling how much the Tax Policy Center has said that the tax cuts announced so far cost.
posted by XMLicious at 12:47 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

It's fair to ask that he offer more specifics on how he pays for $5 trillion in marginal rate cuts.

... and if he doesn't answer? 'Cuz people have been curious for a long time. And he's not allowed to crash us with the question unanswered!

===================================

"The voice which came from the speakers was now that of a panicky child: 'I KNOW IT, JUST A MOMENT, I KNOW IT, RETRIEVAL IN PROGRESS, ALL LOGIC CIRCUITS IN USE___'
'Answer," Roland said.
"I NEED MORE TIME! YOU MUST GIVE IT TO ME!" Now there was a kind of cracked triump in that splintered voice. "NO TEMPORAL LIMITS FOR ANSWERING WERE SET, ROLAND OF GILEAD, HATEFUL GUNSLINGER OUT OF A PAST THAT SHOULD HAVE STAYED DEAD!"
"No," Roland agreed, 'no time limits were set, you are quite right. But you may not kill us with a riddle still unanswered, Blaine, and Topeka draws nigh. Answer!"

...

"It's not dying that bothers you, is it?" Eddie asked. The lights in the hole where the route-map had been fading. More blue fire flashed. ... "It's losing that bothers you."

-- Wizard and Glass, Stephen King
posted by RolandOfEld at 12:48 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

President Obama seems to know exactly how much it will cost, and just put out an ad telling us how much it costs.

(sigh) .... It's called math....
The $5 trillion figure comes from the fact that Romney has proposed to cut tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the estate tax and alternative minimum tax. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that would reduce tax revenue by nearly $500 billion in 2015, or about $5 trillion over 10 years
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 12:48 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I find it quite ironic that while everyone complains that Romney's tax plan isn't really a plan and contains no specifics, President Obama seems to know exactly how much it will cost, and just put out an ad telling us how much it costs.

No, Bobby, don't address the fact that you've been successfully called out. Shift the attention to the commercial itself.
posted by grubi at 12:49 PM on October 4, 2012 [8 favorites]

amuse:
1) Obama is citing old "non-partisan research" that was conducted before Romney suggested he would help pay for the marginal cuts by limiting particular deductions. Can't you at least admit that that study is outdated, and citing it as evidence today is highly misleading?

2) I'm not sure you want to open the "dynamic scoring" can of worms here. It cuts both ways.

odinsdream: he made a simple statement regarding the percentage decrease in one particular tax. he made another simple statement re: the overall level of taxation (saying that overall revenue would be kept neutral). finally, he said that he would adhere to the latter statement as his main, guiding principle.
posted by BobbyVan at 12:50 PM on October 4, 2012

A 20% reduction in marginal rates is $5 trillion in lost revenues. That is an absolute value.

What is in question is how to offset that lost revenues because you admit that he says that any plan would not increase the deficit. No borrowing money to pay for this nonsense.

So how do you raise $5 in new revenues to offset the lost revenues? Especially given the stipulation that there is no transferal of tax burden to the middle class?

Nuke the Mortgage Interest Deduction? Welcome to housing market armageddon

Nuke or reduce the EITC? Hahahahahaha eat the poor indeed.

What people are saying is that it's mathematically impossible to solve this equation without harming middle class or poor Americans.

Romney is engaging in intellectually dishonest class warfare and Obama has the temerity to call the Republicans on the bullshit.
posted by vuron at 12:52 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

I find it quite ironic that while everyone complains that Romney's tax plan isn't really a plan and contains no specifics, President Obama seems to know exactly how much it will cost, and just put out an ad telling us how much it costs.

By my count the numbers behind that claim -- based on, of course, Romney's specific mention of a reduction in rate, prorated over ten years -- have been linked several times in this thread, including by me.

And by you.
posted by Gelatin at 12:53 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

all of whom are right here in this thread.

Now there are the zingers I was hoping for!
posted by Ad hominem at 12:53 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

What is in question is how to offset that lost revenues because you admit that he says that any plan would not increase the deficit. No borrowing money to pay for this nonsense.

So how do you raise $5 in new revenues to offset the lost revenues? Especially given the stipulation that there is no transferal of tax burden to the middle class?

You don't always have to offset revenues in order to decrease the deficit - you can also radically cut spending, too. The idea that any lost revenues automatically increases the deficit is a false one.
posted by corb at 12:54 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's functionally capping the mortgage interest deduction at a time when the housing market is just getting a foothold.

Which would normally be a good thing, because the mortgage interest deduction reduces labor mobility, tends to transfer wealth upward, and probably made the housing bubble slightly worse than it otherwise would have been. But getting rid of it all at once is probably a bad idea.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 12:55 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama is citing old "non-partisan research" that was conducted before Romney suggested ....

So your argument is that Romney said something different (and mysteriously unsupportable) last night then he has been saying this entire year so you're comfortable with that? I'm thinking that if he couldn't get it right the past 11 months then why should I believe he got it right this month?
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 12:55 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

you can also radically cut spending, too

Romney's promised to increase military spending, which, tends to balloon faster than any other kind of spending.
posted by grubi at 12:56 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

What people are saying is that it's mathematically impossible to solve this equation without harming middle class or poor Americans.

No, what Obama has said is that it will cost $5 trillion. That is a lie, for any number of reasons I've outlined above (Romney will close loopholes to help pay for it; and at the end of the day he said won't support a plan that cuts govt revenues because we have a massive debt crisis that needs to be solved, and if Romney pushed through a plan that cut revenues, the US would have its debt downgraded pretty quickly).
posted by BobbyVan at 12:56 PM on October 4, 2012

BobbyVan, do you not understand that he can't make up for the difference by limiting deductions?

Talking about Romney's 'tax plan' as if it were a serious possibility of ever passing is kind of absurd, because it's just some ridiculous bullshit he slapped together so republicans would think he was going to cut taxes during the primary, he never intended to pass anything of the kind, and still doesn't. Any tax plan Romney comes up with is going to die as soon as it hits the Senate. It's kind of a non-issue.

What is an issue is that Romney is willing to transparently lie about what his intentions are at a debate.

We literally have no idea what the man would do as president. Nothing he says can be believed, conservative or liberal. You can't even assume he would implement a policy he has endorsed or even personally implemented previously.
posted by empath at 12:56 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

BobbyVan: To handwave it away as "dynamic scoring" doesn't eliminate clear results of changing tax codes. I'm talking about economic realities due to clear market incentives.

The math is simple, middle class and upper-middle class would be impacted and it is in their personal economic interests to get rid of their underwater house. We can debate about the size of the impact of that incentive, but it's very clear.

It won't be offset by a 20% tax cut to corporations and wealthy because historically they have always socked away the money, and Canada has given a clear recent example of why that is the case. Corporations don't spend money just for fun -- if you have extra income you keep it, instead of reducing your ROE. If corporations need cash to expand, they can get the money for pretty much free today. A 20% decrease in tax rates have little-to-no effect on the economy, as Canada has shown (and a multitude of other cases here and across the world).

You can't handwave away a massive tax increase on the middle class (and the impact of that very tax being related to the 2008 economic crisis) as some kind of "dynamic scoring".
posted by amuseDetachment at 12:57 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

You don't always have to offset revenues in order to decrease the deficit - you can also radically cut spending, too. The idea that any lost revenues automatically increases the deficit is a false one.

Saying "I'm going to save money" doesn't mean you didn't get a pay cut. The argument is about how much Romney's tax plan costs, and thus spending cuts are not relevant.
posted by howfar at 12:57 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

No, what Obama has said is that it will cost $5 trillion.

So... you want an apology and a correction to the nearest $100 million figure?
posted by Theta States at 12:58 PM on October 4, 2012

> So seriously where in hell is he going to get the rest of the money from? [...] We are talking very significant cuts to programs

> ... you can also radically cut spending ...

un huh

Enter Ryan ... </dogwhistle>
posted by de at 12:58 PM on October 4, 2012

2) I'm not sure you want to open the "dynamic scoring" can of worms here. It cuts both ways.

No, it doesn't. As has been pointed out several times, the American people have fallen for Republican hucksterism about magical economic growth ponies resulting from tax cuts for the rich -- and seen the result -- too many times to believe in trickle down economics any more.
posted by Gelatin at 12:58 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

You don't always have to offset revenues in order to decrease the deficit - you can also radically cut spending, too. The idea that any lost revenues automatically increases the deficit is a false one.

If Romney is proposing 5 trillion in spending cuts, that would be news.
posted by empath at 12:58 PM on October 4, 2012 [8 favorites]

constitute a plan. There's the real irony.

Obama is citing old "non-partisan research" that was conducted before Romney suggested he would help pay for the marginal cuts by limiting particular deductions.

Wait, so now it's not a plan, but merely suggestions? Huh.

Can't you at least admit that that study is outdated, and citing it as evidence today is highly misleading?

Well, no, because they're suggestions, not a plan.

I find it quite ironic that while everyone complains that Romney's tax plan isn't really a plan and contains no specifics, President Obama seems to know exactly how much it will cost, and just put out an ad telling us how much it costs.

For someone who's complaining an awful lot about lying, it's fairly mendacious on your part to go this route. The ad refers to the tax plan formally proposed, which a study graded based on what was available. The ad explicitly references that study several times. The plan that "isn't really a plan" is merely your personal interpretation of (as you call them) suggestions of something.

he made a simple statement regarding the percentage decrease in one particular tax. he made another simple statement re: the overall level of taxation (saying that overall revenue would be kept neutral). finally, he said that he would adhere to the latter statement as his main, guiding principle.

And produced no evidence on how to do that while keeping other promises.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:58 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Let's do this by the sort of condescending household analogy that rich, white right-wingers seem to love:

Romney has stated that he wants to buy a new car; he'd like a Mercedes. He also swears he'll cut stuff from the monthly budget equal to the car payments. Which, on the face of it, seems like a reasonable enough statement. Provided you agree we need a new car.

Unfortunately, Mitt hasn't stated precisely which model he wants to buy, and so for starters we're left to guess how much the car costs. An AMG model can cost over $150k. With a lack of information, we conservatively start assuming a worst possible case scenario and point out we can't swing that car payment and still pay for the mortgage and groceries. How are we going to pay for this?

Mitt's reply so far has been, "Oh, no, it won't cost that much! And hey, I'm gonna cancel ~~PBS~~Netflix. That's $8 a month right there! So can I have the checkbook now?"

Also, even if it turns out the car costs $75k, and there IS a way to cut the budget to make it fit that doesn't change the fact that the car ACTUALLY COST $75k. That money could (and was) be used for other, better things.
posted by Freon at 12:59 PM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

BobbyVan: Obama's statement is not a lie. The $5 trillion cut is the ONLY fact we have -- it's the only provision Romney has actually defined. Now, you and Romney are arguing the cut will be offset by other savings which may or may not be true. But that doesn't make the fact of the cut false.
posted by msalt at 12:59 PM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

And where are those reductions in spending coming from corb?

Cut TANF by 25% or so?

Eliminate Food stamps?

Eliminate highway funding?

Eliminate student loan programs?

Basically unless you are willing to look at discretionary defense spending there simply isn't that much fat to cut on the discretionary budget.

And frankly I'm sick of the eat the poor bullshit the Republicans keep trying to shovel in our faces.
posted by vuron at 1:00 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

No, what Obama has said is that it will cost $5 trillion. That is a lie, for any number of reasons I've outlined above

Each and every one of which has been refuted, repeatedly. Repeating the claim that 5 trillion dollars of revenue vanishing is a lie has no more credibility than Romney's promises of fealty to the deficit. Why should anyone believe the Romney camp on this score?
posted by Gelatin at 1:01 PM on October 4, 2012

Had Obama brought up the 47% remark, Romney would have zinged back with something and the news cycle would be about that reply. Instead it never came up and all people remember is what Romney said, not what he replied to. Smart move.

He can't very well say, "Yeah, we did that so you and hundreds of other reporters will ask that question this morning and remind everyone what a douche Romney is without getting our hands dirty," now can he?

I think this is indeed the Obama strategy. Not only are reporters asking the question ("Why didn't he bring up the 47%), but I just saw on CNN a Conservative political pundit say that it was a mistake that Obama didn't maximize his performance by bringing it up. What? Great for Obama. If Obama had brought it up, Romney could have had a chance to put a spin on it ("That's not what I really meant. What I was saying ..."). Then the Romney response would be re-spun in the debate room's 'spin room' last night and all over the media today in the hope of neutralizing its lingering sting. I'm beginning to think that the Republicans wanted Obama to bring it up. Their #1 post-debate talking point was likely regarding the 47%. The Republicans are probably so frustrated by Obama not bringing it up. Brilliant strategy.

Moving forward DO NOT permit Romney to have the ability/opportunity have a response to a large national audience on the topic. If Romney wants to address it, let him bring it up. If/when he would bring it up, he'd be doing so from a position of weakness. It's like having to explain the joke you just told.

Obama's campaign and PACs have defined what Romney means: "He doesn't care about half of the country. He dismisses the middle class. He said it himself!" Keep the 47% for Obama surrogates and TV ads.

As I said before, Obama could/should bring it up in his closing statement of the final debate.

The Obama campaign is very, very sharp ... as is our President of the United States of America!
posted by ericb at 1:02 PM on October 4, 2012 [6 favorites]

Obama is citing old "non-partisan research" that was conducted before Romney suggested he would help pay for the marginal cuts by limiting particular deductions. Can't you at least admit that that study is outdated, and citing it as evidence today is highly misleading?

Not misleading, not a lie by any means. The tax cuts will cost five trillion dollars, period.

If Romney has some separate measures that would generate five trillion dollars of revenue at the same time in a fashion that similar third-party evaluation can corroborate, he should release that—but even doing so will not change the fact that five trillion dollars is the number he has to make up for in his revenue-increasing efforts.
posted by XMLicious at 1:02 PM on October 4, 2012

BobbyVan, do you not understand that he can't make up for the difference by limiting deductions?

I agree that the 20% marginal tax cut may need to be scaled back. Romney indicated as much in the debate last night, when he outlined his overall principle as revenue neutrality and keeping the current share of the tax burden on the wealthy viz the middle class. Romney will have to work the plan through the Congress, but what he's doing is outlining a vision. Obama is selectively interpreting the vision using a speculative study based on incomplete and outdated information, and suggesting to the public that Romney would cut government revenues by $5 billion by passing a tax cut benefiting the wealthy with no offsets. That is a lie.
posted by BobbyVan at 1:02 PM on October 4, 2012

BobbyVan: Pants on fire!

This is some of the weakest weak sauce I have ever seen.

The ad is CLEARLY talking about how much the only part of Romney's tax plan that we have details on, the 20% cuts, will pull out of revenue (and $5 trillion over 10 years is correct, or close to it). It then goes on to ask the question about how Romney plans to pay for that lost revenue.

So the ad is 100% truthful - it mentions how much the 20% cuts will costs and asks how they'll be paid for. The fact the the ad asks how the cuts will be paid for is an admission that the final cost of the cuts will probably not be $5 trillion over 10 years.

You need to find a new line of attack, Bobby, this one's worthless.
posted by syzygy at 1:03 PM on October 4, 2012 [6 favorites]

We don't call people trolls, knock it off. Also please stop with the repeated "I'm just going to say this again and again" thing. Be part of the conversation, be decent to each other, move on if you seem to be having trouble communicating.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:04 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

a tax cut benefiting the wealthy with no offsets.

No offsets that he can/will name.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 1:05 PM on October 4, 2012

I agree that the 20% marginal tax cut may need to be scaled back. Romney indicated as much in the debate last night, when he outlined his overall principle as revenue neutrality

Well, I mean, the guy has been running on that tax cut for months, and as soon as he's challenged on it, he throws it under the bus. Why should we believe he'll hold the line on revenue neutrality, or anything at all for that matter? Has the man ever stood on principle in his life?
posted by empath at 1:06 PM on October 4, 2012

Romney will have to work the plan through the Congress, but what he's doing is outlining a vision.

So basically instead of standing on an actual plan, you want to sum him up as...
"I'm running on good intentions and platitudes! Vote for me! I'm positive I can solve this all once I'm prez..."

Until he gives us a plan, we'll work with what he's given us so far.
posted by Theta States at 1:06 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney indicated as much in the debate last night, when he outlined his overall principle as revenue neutrality and keeping the current share of the tax burden on the wealthy viz the middle class.

Calling Romney's protestations a statement of "principle" is kind of a stretch -- why should we believe we'd get any different a result than we did under George W. Bush, who performed this act 12 years ago? Be sure to take Romney's Galtian 47% rant into consideration in your reply.

And speaking of "overall principles," Romney's running mate seems to have different ones:

RYAN: Keeping tax rates down. By lowering tax rates, people keep more of the next dollar that they earn. That matters. That is incentives. That's pro-growth policy. That creates 7 million jobs. And what should go first...

WALLACE: So that's more important than...

RYAN: That's more important than anything.

posted by Gelatin at 1:08 PM on October 4, 2012

Stop repeating the talking points. You're wasting ours' and the mods' time until you come up with an argument that isn't saying that we're required to trust Romney and therefore must be the final world. Provide actual evidence.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:10 PM on October 4, 2012

corb: You don't always have to offset revenues in order to decrease the deficit - you can also radically cut spending, too. The idea that any lost revenues automatically increases the deficit is a false one.

While this statement is certainly true, Romney has claimed, specifically, that his TAX plan is deficit neutral, which removes the question of offsetting lower revenue by cutting spending.

If the TAX plan is deficit neutral, spending doesn't come into the equation.
posted by syzygy at 1:11 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

The idea that any lost revenues automatically increases the deficit is a false one.

Which would be really relevant if anyone was suggesting that, but what's being said is that a five trillion dollar tax cut will decrease that half of the accounting ledger in the budget by five trillion dollars. What's false is the idea that doing so affects nothing else and requires no planning or explanation of how the columns are going to be balanced.
posted by XMLicious at 1:12 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

No, what Obama has said is that it will cost $5 trillion. That is a lie, for any number of reasons I've outlined above (Romney will close loopholes to help pay for it; and at the end of the day he said won't support a plan that cuts govt revenues because we have a massive debt crisis that needs to be solved, and if Romney pushed through a plan that cut revenues, the US would have its debt downgraded pretty quickly).

It's not a lie at all, although Obama should have qualified that it's $5 trillion over ten years. The well-defined part of Romney's plan (20% marginal rate cut across the board, eliminate estate tax) undeniably reduces revenue by $5 trillion into the red over 10 years.

Romney claims this will be offset by loophole closures and spending cuts, but the specifics he's given come nowhere near enough to balance it out. It doesn't add up. Until Romney presents a detailed, verifiable plan for getting out of the hole he wants to dig by decreasing revenue, his budget should not be considered credible.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 1:12 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Provide actual evidence.

My favourite part of the debate was when Obama told people to go check out the numbers and policy online.

Every debate needs a pop-up-video styled annotation with links to the numbers.
posted by Theta States at 1:12 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Personally, I don't see why the Obama campaign doesn't have a live factcheck website for the debates. It's fairly obvious and easy to do.
posted by amuseDetachment at 1:14 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

By the next election, it's pretty likely that there will be a readily available IBM Watson-like system capable of doing real-time lookups for facts and figures. If CNN is still around they'll use it.
posted by feloniousmonk at 1:14 PM on October 4, 2012

Ezra Klein et al (especially Suzy Khimm) were doing a factcheck liveblog last night.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:15 PM on October 4, 2012

"Siri.... how much of this is a load of crap?"
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 1:16 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Let's talk about fact-checking. Please! This quibble is getting ridiculous. And dull.
posted by howfar at 1:16 PM on October 4, 2012

Thinking further about Romney's performance, I'm struck by how nice it is that someone is finally fighting for the innumerate. Not in a way I'd like, but hey, it's something!
posted by wierdo at 1:16 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Dogs That Didn't Bark In Tonights's Presidential Debate:

First, even though the debate was supposed to focus on domestic policy, neither the moderator nor the candidates ever focused on some of the most important domestic issues on which the president can have a big impact: issues such as judicial nominations (not discussed at all) and regulatory agencies (only mentioned in passing). Instead, they spent a lot more time talking about short term economic performance, which presidents have only very limited leverage over. That is likely because voters who know little about politics and policy tend to focus on the wrong issues because they often don’t understand what a president can actually control and what he (mostly) can’t.

posted by corb at 1:18 PM on October 4, 2012

Yes, but it'd be a lot easier if Obama said "My team has prepared for this spurious claim and you can go to barackobama dot com right now and see the numbers for yourself". If they did enough preparation, with Obama knowing what they had prepped/ready without any time needed for research, Obama can make that claim and it would be on their website before the 5-second TV tape delay for the home viewer.
posted by amuseDetachment at 1:19 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

PBS Statement Regarding October 3 Presidential Debate
posted by homunculus at 1:19 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Will Mitt's Mendacity undermine his big win?
posted by zombieflanders at 1:21 PM on October 4, 2012

Wow, Romney has gotten to them already.
posted by RolandOfEld at 1:21 PM on October 4, 2012

...because the website is down.
posted by RolandOfEld at 1:22 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

For those that can't get to the PBS website:

ARLINGTON, VA – October 4, 2012 – We are very disappointed that PBS became a political target in the Presidential debate last night. Governor Romney does not understand the value the American people place on public broadcasting and the outstanding return on investment the system delivers to our nation. We think it is important to set the record straight and let the facts speak for themselves.

The federal investment in public broadcasting equals about one one-hundredth of one percent of the federal budget. Elimination of funding would have virtually no impact on the nation’s debt. Yet the loss to the American public would be devastating.

A national survey by the bipartisan research firms of Hart Research and American Viewpoint in 2011 found that over two-thirds of American voters (69%) oppose proposals to eliminate government funding of public broadcasting, with Americans across the political spectrum against such a cut.

As a stated supporter of education, Governor Romney should be a champion of public broadcasting, yet he is willing to wipe out services that reach the vast majority of Americans, including underserved audiences, such as children who cannot attend preschool and citizens living in rural areas.

For more than 40 years, Big Bird has embodied the public broadcasting mission – harnessing the power of media for the good of every citizen, regardless of where they live or their ability to pay. Our system serves as a universally accessible resource for education, history, science, arts and civil discourse.

Over the course of a year, 91% of all U.S. television households tune in to their local PBS station. In fact, our service is watched by 81% of all children between the ages of 2-8.

Each day, the American public receives an enduring and daily return on investment that is heard, seen, read and experienced in public media broadcasts, apps, podcasts and online – all for the cost of about $1.35 per person per year.

Earlier in 2012, a Harris Interactive poll confirmed that Americans consider PBS the most trusted public institution and the second most valuable use of public funds, behind only national defense, for the 9th consecutive year.

A key thing to remember is that public television and radio stations are locally owned and community focused and they are experts in working efficiently to make limited resources produce results. In fact, for every $1.00 of federal funding invested, they raise an additional $6.00 on their own – a highly effective public-private partnership.

Numerous studies -- including one requested by Congress earlier this year -- have stated categorically that while the federal investment in public broadcasting is relatively modest, the absence of this critical seed money would cripple the system and bring its services to an end.

posted by zombieflanders at 1:23 PM on October 4, 2012 [25 favorites]

PBS Statement Regarding October 3 Presidential Debate

I hope this is a ytmnd-style gifset of Big Bird flipping off the camera with both wings.
posted by elizardbits at 1:24 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

The federal investment in public broadcasting equals about one one-hundredth of one percent of the federal budget.

And I, for one, would rather have PBS funded by the federal government than by Archer Daniels Midland.
posted by Gelatin at 1:25 PM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

Let the memes begin !
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 1:25 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Companies do not create economic growth. They are not job-creators. Corporate profits are at record highs and those companies are sitting on piles of cash. Economic growth is created by middle-class spending.

Exactly. What we need is demand-side economics to drive our policy, not more discredited supply-side economics. We've got excess supply already, and producers are sitting on huge cash reserves; it's the demand side of the equation that's dragging the economy down.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:27 PM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

I just want to interject a Boston Globe article from September:

As Governor, Romney Faced Similar Economic Situation As Obama -- With Similar Results.

So, Governor Romney, what would you have done differently from what President Obama has done, if you had been President for the past 4 years?
posted by ericb at 1:28 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

ZING
posted by dobi at 1:29 PM on October 4, 2012

The core problem is that the Republicans are more than happy to just make shit up, which requires almost no effort, but the Democrats have to expend enormous energy doing fact checking and refutations in order to get back to ground state. Meanwhile, the Republicans are making up another half dozen plausible sounding sound bites.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:31 PM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

“We’re not going to kill Big Bird,” he said at the time, “but Big Bird’s going to have advertisements.”

That really is such a shining example of the Republican "business uber alles" mentality. Rather than invest government dollars into programming that is required to benefit and educate children, let's turn the whole thing over to free enterprise so that the best minds of Madison Avenue can exercise decades worth of research in psychology to manipulate the most defenseless, impressionable minds in our society into becoming reflexive consumers before they're old enough to string a goddamn sentence together. Don't like it, Mom? "Let them eat Veggie Tales DVDs".
posted by chaff at 1:35 PM on October 4, 2012 [13 favorites]

Yeah, I admit it is pretty disappointing to me that thus far no Dem politician has just turned to a lying Repub and said OH MY GOD WOULD YOU JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH THIS BULLSHIT ALREADY. I have thus far contented myself with shrieking impotently at the teevee.
posted by elizardbits at 1:35 PM on October 4, 2012 [8 favorites]

The core problem is that the Republicans are more than happy to just make shit up

I disagree. The core problem is that Republicans have to. Bush wanted a war with Iraq, but the facts didn't support it. Supply side economics don't benefit the middle class. You can't fix the deficit with a tax cut. Obama's health care plan -- modeled on Mitt Romney's own, which in turn came from the American Enterprise Institute -- is a "government takeover" full of "death panels." "Legitimate rape." Obama himself, an Eisenhower Republican by any sane measure, is a Kenyan muslim marxist. All of these crazy straw men seem to be a frank admission that Republicans aren't able or willing to argue the merits of national policy in good faith.

The media may present "fact checkers," but no one -- not even Democrats -- seems willing to discuss the fanatasies that underpin modern movement conservatism. As we've just seen, though, one simply can't seem to defend claptrap like Romney's tax scheme in good faith.

Where I'd like to see the national conversation as to why modern movement conservatism, like Communism, is a proven failure on the national stage, and what's the matter with those who cling to its rejected fantasies.
posted by Gelatin at 1:39 PM on October 4, 2012 [21 favorites]

Big Bird is pretty down today.
posted by Ad hominem at 1:40 PM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

lupus_yonderboy: "I'm taking everyone on Metafilter to Disneyland!

Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease. Thank you in advance!
posted by ericb at 1:41 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

> “but Big Bird’s going to have advertisements.”

It'll be subliminal. The children won't notice a thing moving forward.
posted by de at 1:41 PM on October 4, 2012

The core problem is that Republicans have to [make shit up].

I get what you're saying, but I think they're not obliged to be deliberately dishonest; they're just discovered that what matters is the tone and the narrative of the fable - not how it compares to reality. Mitt can make that "aw shucks" schoolboy look at the camera and mew "I don't wanna kill jobs", and the fact that his ideas on how to create jobs - when not vague platitudes - are based on flat-out lies, that "wins". Obama can cite actual facts to back up what he's saying, reality is on his side, but if he sounds like a substitute high school math teacher, he "loses". The GOP doesn't need things like facts on its side; they just keep pushing the narrative, no matter how insane and detached from reality it may be. Liberals have reality on their side, and are operating under the mistaken belief that this is all you need to convince voters to take your side. I'd love to believe that's the case, but it isn't - you need to control the narrative, too. And that means calling out weasels like Romney on their bullshit, directly and without reservation, rather than nodding your head as you look at your notes and mumble "OK" when your opponent tells you what you are not allowed to bring up in a debate.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:48 PM on October 4, 2012 [6 favorites]

"Today the letter M is brought to you by the Exxon-Mobil corporation, remember kids that Internal Combustion Engines are the key to American prosperity, good thing we are constantly investigating new sources of fossil fuels. Oh and by the way Climate Change is bad science."
posted by vuron at 1:49 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

if Romney pushed through a plan that cut revenues, the US would have its debt downgraded pretty quickly

Since when have debt-downgrades bothered the GOP? Their Vice Presidential candidate abetted the country's last downgrade.

The idea that any lost revenues automatically increases the deficit is a false one.

It's funny and a little sad that I can remember when voices very similar to the ones here now asking us to believe in Mitt's Magic Fairy Tales were adamant that we'd be out of Iraq in a year or two and that the weapons of mass destruction would certainly be discovered any day now. If there were any justice in the world, the GOP would suffer for a generation just for those lies alone. As the man said, fool me once, shame on you; fool me ... you can't get fooled again.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:53 PM on October 4, 2012 [6 favorites]

rolling out a classic inre: Republicans and facts:

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

nothing's changed.
posted by liza at 1:57 PM on October 4, 2012 [9 favorites]

Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org: Dubious Denver Debate Declarations.
posted by ericb at 1:58 PM on October 4, 2012

Bloomberg: Romney Tax Plan Needs Growth to Add Up: Reality Check.
posted by ericb at 1:59 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

NPR: Here's Where To Get Your 'Fact Checks' During And After Tonight's Debate.

A great list of resources.
posted by ericb at 2:01 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

I expected the fact checkers to do a better job, but instead they "offset" Romney's lies with things that aren't lies that Obama said, presumably to keep the appearance of being nonpartisan. For example, the fine folks at factcheck.org said Obama was not being truthful when he said that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion over ten years. Unfortunately for them, that is in fact true. That Romney also wants to raise revenue by eliminating deductions is irrelevant to that claim. Romney does in fact want to cut taxes by $5 trillion, offsetting it partially with loophole closing and partially by hoping that economic growth takes off.

You may cancel my earlier optimism. They are indeed calling Romney on his lies, but they're also making shit up to call Obama on.
posted by wierdo at 2:08 PM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

Even facts have moved to the right these past 40 years. :-(
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:13 PM on October 4, 2012

Welp, and this is not really taking last night into account, but today Gallup has Obama at a 3 year high approval rating (54%).
posted by edgeways at 2:18 PM on October 4, 2012

Rather than invest government dollars into programming that is required to benefit and educate children, let's turn the whole thing over to free enterprise so that the best minds of Madison Avenue can exercise decades worth of research in psychology to manipulate the most defenseless, impressionable minds in our society into becoming reflexive consumers before they're old enough to string a goddamn sentence together.

I think the counter to this is that some of us believe that public broadcasting and education are already manipulating the most defenseless, impressionable minds in our society into political positions that are equally if not more bad than being a reflexive consumer.
posted by corb at 2:20 PM on October 4, 2012

corb: "I think the counter to this is that some of us believe that public broadcasting and education are already manipulating the most defenseless, impressionable minds in our society into political positions that are equally if not more bad than being a reflexive consumer."

Yes, learning numbers and letters and how to play well with others is indeed political indoctrination. Wait, what?
posted by wierdo at 2:23 PM on October 4, 2012 [39 favorites]

And what political positions are those, exactly?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:23 PM on October 4, 2012

Obama's contrasting what Mitt has been saying for the last year, against the things that "The spirited fellow on stage" said last night.

Here's the video: 'When I got on the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney'
posted by homunculus at 2:24 PM on October 4, 2012

If that's the "counter" to that idea, I weep for our country.
posted by lord_wolf at 2:25 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

^ OK liza, that was scarier than Ryan and Palin job sharing. Stop it!

On review ... carry on.
posted by de at 2:25 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Really appreciate your mentioning the factcheck.org posting, weirdo. I hadn't seen it. Here's their first item:

Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.

posted by BobbyVan at 2:26 PM on October 4, 2012

I think the counter to this is that some of us believe that public broadcasting and education are already manipulating the most defenseless, impressionable minds in our society into political positions that are equally if not more bad than being a reflexive consumer.

dog love ya corb, but that sounds like some pretty stiff paranoia right there.
posted by edgeways at 2:27 PM on October 4, 2012 [9 favorites]

Yes, learning numbers and letters and how to play well with others is indeed political indoctrination. Wait, what?

Learning letters and numbers is fine, but how people teach children to play with others has deep-reaching effects. Currently, there's a push for cooperative rather than competitive play - which does in fact have political correlations and potential political impact. The idea that you're not a good person if you don't share your things is also a political position. Because they're very simple doesn't mean they don't have an impact.

And that's nothing compared to the overtly political discussion that goes on in public school. My daughter came home yesterday talking about how the teacher taught her the Democratic and Republican positions - except that when she started talking about them, they bore no real relation to actual positions, and it was clear they'd been taught on a bias. That kind of stuff isn't cool, and it's even more frustrating that I have to pay for people to teach my kid incorrect and biased information.
posted by corb at 2:30 PM on October 4, 2012

Kaiser Health News is offering a BINGO game ("DEBATE-O") for the segment on health policy.

Rachel Maddow had a game like this, for an appearance of New Gingrich, for which she provided a Racial Reference Bingo Card. The terms to listen for were "basketball," "performer," the word "rhythm," and special boxes for references to the president as "sleepy" or "lazy"
posted by filthy light thief at 2:30 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

promises he won’t add to the deficit.

Entirely through voodoo economics. Look, Mitt, I was around the first time you guys tried this. There's a little saying one of your party members was fond of: Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Foo... foo.. fool me... you can't git fooled again.

I ain't buying that pig in a poke.
posted by Devils Rancher at 2:33 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

BobbyVan: Really appreciate your mentioning the factcheck.org posting

Sorry, Bobby, you're wrong, and so are they, on this point. Or, to put it in another way, it's a matter of interpretation. Obama has never acted as if Romney's entire tax plan will cost $5 trillion over a decade. He's simply never said that.

He's said, rightfully, that the 20% across the board cuts will cost $5 trillion over a decade, and has asked how Romney plans to pay for that $5 trillion, since Romney claims his tax plan will be deficit-neutral.

Obama goes on to say that the only way to make the plan deficit-neutral will be to cut important deductions that middle class people use. This very line of reasoning is PROOF that the Obama campaign doesn't expect the end-costs of Romney's tax plan to be $5 trillion over a decade.

They're talking specifically about the $5 trillion cost of the 20% cuts, and saying they want to know how Romney's plan will be deficit-neutral in light of those cuts.

So you're wrong, and factcheck.org is wrong on this specific point.
posted by syzygy at 2:33 PM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

Is there an alternative to Sesame Street that teaches kids not to share? Other than CNBC?
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:34 PM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

The idea that you're not a good person if you don't share your things is also a political position.

It's a moral position. One shared by the vast majority of people and religions in the world. Which may or may not have political implications.
posted by empath at 2:34 PM on October 4, 2012 [18 favorites]

Really appreciate your mentioning the factcheck.org posting, weirdo. I hadn't seen it. Here's their first item

And the next item:

Romney again promised to “not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans” and also to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.

It looks almost like it was written by committee and posted without editorial review.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:34 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

> ... and it's even more frustrating that I have to pay for people to teach my kid incorrect and biased information.

There's something to be said for free education for all.
posted by de at 2:34 PM on October 4, 2012

Everyone, if you haven't seen it already (or even if you have) please watch this video of Fred Rogers defending public broadcasting to a Senate subcommittee in 1969. Mister Rogers is gone now, but every word he spoke then remains true today. Public television gives us so much, and costs so very little.
posted by Faint of Butt at 2:34 PM on October 4, 2012 [11 favorites]

It would be very nice if this thread wasn't derailed into a debate about public tv/schooling. You know how this goes. You can MeMail corb if you want to know what she thinks about specific things. Thanks.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:34 PM on October 4, 2012

That's fair, zombie. I'll accept point 2 (which charges Romney with giving an incomplete answer) if you'll accept point 1 (which accuses Obama of being untruthful).
posted by BobbyVan at 2:36 PM on October 4, 2012

factcheck.org is pulling a fast one there. Saying—as they themselves did further down—that Romney's plan will "lower federal tax liability" by $5 trillion but that it's "not true" that Romney is proposing a $5 trillion tax cut is ridiculous. They're being pretty deceptive themselves to say one thing in the summary and something else in the detail.
posted by XMLicious at 2:39 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

"a new economic patriotism" vs "deficits are immoral" - both make the finances more than cold laws, but rather a personal issue.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:40 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

That's fair, zombie. I'll accept point 2 (which charges Romney with giving an incomplete answer) if you'll accept point 1 (which accuses Obama of being untruthful).

Nope. Romney can't have it both ways, as they point out later in the article:

Romney continued to struggle to explain how he could possibly offset such a large loss of revenue without shifting the burden away from upper-income taxpayers, who benefit disproportionately from across-the-board rate cuts and especially from elimination of the estate tax (which falls only on estates exceeding $5.1 million left by any who die this year). The Tax Policy Center concluded earlier this year that it wasn’t mathematically possible for a plan such as Romney’s to cut rates as he promised without either favoring the wealthy or increasing the federal deficit.

Except for saying that his plan would bring in the same amount of money “when you account for growth,” Romney offered no new explanation for how he might accomplish all he’s promised. He just repeated those promises in some of the strongest terms yet[...]But he didn’t say how he’d pull off all those things at once.

There's a logical disconnect that they just leave hanging there for some reason. It's kind of a "who factchecks the factcheckers" thing.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:42 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

no public TV derail, srs bzns folks.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:45 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

BobbyVan: "Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit."

Apparently you also missed my explanation as to why that statement is a bunch of bunkum, which was in the very comment you reference. I'd explain it again, but other people seem to be handling that quite well, so no need to pile on further.
posted by wierdo at 2:48 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

And here's the reason that Romney's promises are worthless:

During the 2000 election, the growth of a budget surplus offered the country a major choice. Al Gore proposed to use most of the surplus to retire the national debt and the balance for public investment. George W. Bush proposed a large, regressive income tax that Gore warned would exacerbate inequality and jeopardize the soundness of the budget.

Then, as now, the Republican simply denied over and over that his plan would do what the Democrats said it would. Bush portrayed his plan as devoting just a small fraction of the surplus to tax cuts and described his tax cut itself as benefitting the poor far more than the rich.
[...]
But Bush in fact followed through on what his plan actually did, which happened to be what Gore described it as, and not what Bush described it as. His promises to maintain the budget surplus and direct most of the tax cuts to lower-earners fell by the wayside. What mattered was the party, and the Republican Party was committed to a policy of regressive tax cuts.

posted by zombieflanders at 2:49 PM on October 4, 2012 [14 favorites]

I think you are on seriously shaky ground as a fact checker when your first fact check hinges on someone's promises.

That said, those first 2 points in that factcheck.org link seem contradictory to me. Sure, Romney made the promise, but what's a promise worth if we immediately thereafter discover that there's no substance to it?

I seriously don't understand what they are hoping to accomplish with fact checking like that. How do you write "Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit" and then follow it up by saying, in the next bullet, that Romney "didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit?" What good does this do anyone?
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:50 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Review from CNBC: Romney did well, Obama not so much. Proof? Obama is "in front of TVs today" while Romney is not. You know, they foresaw how they'd do (probably part of their secret deal, come to think of it), and Obama planned a public appearance, and told the media and whatnot.

Sure, he could hop on Airforce 1 and go to whatever town he wants, but would he really get a crowd? Maybe.

And they also scoffed at the $250,000 demarkation of "rich" vs middle income.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:53 PM on October 4, 2012

This is not an answer

What .. do .. you mean by that? That is not an awwwnser! (Jesus Christ Superstar clip, not a religious comment, but this is the phrasing that always comes to mind when someone says "that is not an answer")
posted by filthy light thief at 2:56 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

manipulating the most defenseless, impressionable minds in our society

Oh my GOD they might learn how to respect people from other cultures and races! They might learn how to SHARE and be decent human beings! THE HORROR THE HORROR. Yeah, I can see how that would be really super seriously dangerous to the conservative agenda. Can't be having kids learning how to be good people.
posted by elizardbits at 3:02 PM on October 4, 2012 [13 favorites]

The idea that you're not a good person if you don't share your things is also a political position.

This kind of makes me wish that Mr. Galt's Neighborhood were a thing, just for corb.

"One! One dollar sign! Two! Two moochers!"
posted by octobersurprise at 3:03 PM on October 4, 2012 [19 favorites]

Thus, when Romney says that one place he might cut funding is PBS, it's not necessarily just some weird desire to kill Big Bird, or a hatred of children's programming, but a desire for such children's programming to compete in a fair marketplace.

Eliminating funding for PBS has nothing to do with fair marketplaces or balancing the budget.

The CPB ("PBS") gets roughly $440 million per year from the federal government (cite).

Oil companies get roughly $4 billion per year in government subsidies (cite).

Romney wants to remove CPB funding to satisfy right-wing extremists who want to see PBS eliminated for political reasons. This is just about fulfilling a long-term vendetta against the CPB, which has nothing to do with economics. The Republicans tried this before, when they installed Kenneth Tomlinson to try to dismantle the CPB back in the mid-00s.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:04 PM on October 4, 2012 [20 favorites]

I think the counter to this is that some of us believe that public broadcasting and education are already manipulating the most defenseless, impressionable minds in our society into political positions that are equally if not more bad than being a reflexive consumer...The idea that you're not a good person if you don't share your things is...a political position.

Fuck you, kid, tell your lazy parents to get jobs so they can buy you your own toys!
posted by adamdschneider at 3:07 PM on October 4, 2012

I'd love for the real Obama to have an anger translator like Luther so that he could continue to be his calm self and liberals like myself could see him actually get angry at all the bullshit lies conservative throw at him.

Maybe Key and Peele should do a special debate version of their show with a guest comedian playing Romney, maybe Romney could have a honesty translator.
posted by vuron at 3:13 PM on October 4, 2012 [8 favorites]

Currently, there's a push for cooperative rather than competitive play - which does in fact have political correlations and potential political impact. The idea that you're not a good person if you don't share your things is also a political position. Because they're very simple doesn't mean they don't have an impact.

But we DO all have to share things - water, air, the oil and coal and natural gas and other minerals that exist under the ground on public land, the roads when we're driving, the rail system and other transportation networks, the court system, the fire department, the police department, et cetera ad infinitum. If you try to monopolize those things or arrange for them to exclusively benefit you, you are a bad person and even conservatives act like this.

If someone has convinced you that only Democrats have to share things or behave cooperatively you have been sold some sort of libertarian fantasy, like that Romney supporter who appeared in ads being all "I did build that" and it turned out that he'd applied for and received millions of dollars worth of loans from the government for his business. 315 million people can't live in one country together and just be MINE! MINE! MINE! all the time.
posted by XMLicious at 3:17 PM on October 4, 2012 [19 favorites]

Now I'm cracking up imaging a parent yelling at their kid for sharing their toys. Maybe they can follow it up by insisting the kid eats five cookies before dinner.
posted by aspo at 3:18 PM on October 4, 2012

AND STOP TURNING OFF THE LIGHTS WHEN THERE'S NOONE IN THE ROOM!
posted by aspo at 3:19 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Kid: "Mom, can you help me tie my shoes?"
Mom: "Screw you, there is no helping in my house!"
posted by sallybrown at 3:20 PM on October 4, 2012 [9 favorites]

Our Daughter Isn’t a Selfish Brat; Your Son Just Hasn’t Read Atlas Shrugged, Eric Hague, McSweeney's Internet Tendency, 12 August, 2010

When little Aiden toddled up our daughter Johanna and asked to play with her Elmo ball, he was, admittedly, very sweet and polite. I think his exact words were, “Have a ball, peas [sic]?” And I’m sure you were very proud of him for using his manners.

To be sure, I was equally proud when Johanna yelled, “No! Looter!” right in his looter face, and then only marginally less proud when she sort of shoved him.

posted by ob1quixote at 3:21 PM on October 4, 2012 [17 favorites]

libertarian fantasy

The latter word is not necessary.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 3:22 PM on October 4, 2012 [13 favorites]

I guess after admitting he liked firing people Romney wants to expand the things he likes to fire to big avian creatures. Perhaps outsourceing Big Bird's job to China
posted by edgeways at 3:24 PM on October 4, 2012

The really sad part is kids aren't being taught how to monetize their value. Instead of sharing toys, they should be renting toys. Hi Tom, you want to play with my ball? That will be two packs of gum. You want to go play after school. That will be $5 for 2 hours. If you want Joey to come along, that's $10. I'm having a special tomorrow, though.

Mom, you want me to tell you "I love you?" Then let me have desert before dinner, and I'm not eating my Broccoli.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:25 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Fuck the Obama team for not ensuring that a) He wasn't well-rested and b) He wasn't prepared for the steaming sack of lies that got thrown in his face.
posted by angrycat at 3:25 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Currently, there's a push for cooperative rather than competitive play - which does in fact have political correlations and potential political impact. The idea that you're not a good person if you don't share your things is also a political position

So if I understand you correctly you are claiming that Jesus was a Democrat?
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 3:27 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

The Romney campaign described the Tax Policy Center the as "objective, third-party analysis" when they used their study as a reference to attack Rick Perry's tax plan during the primaries.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:28 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Honest to God I have never heard that it is bad to teach children to share-- I'm stunned. Every mother I've ever known takes that as a given-- you start when they are little and encourage them to share their toys. It's like I was suddenly told that moms should not teach their children to wipe their bottoms or chew with their mouths closed.

I'm thinking about all that work I put into teaching my daughter to be empathetic and to be kind and to share and she turned out to be such a lovely person. But shit. I've ruined her because she will never make a billion dollars.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:30 PM on October 4, 2012 [19 favorites]

Fuck the Obama team for not ensuring that a) He wasn't well-rested

Yeah it sucks that he has to actually do his job while Romney can just practice all day long.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:33 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Don't be fooled. There's a whole heap of cooperation goes into getting playing fields on steep inclines.
posted by de at 3:35 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Yeah it sucks that he has to actually do his job while Romney can just practice all day long.

I can't imagine what would cause him to lose sleep.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:39 PM on October 4, 2012

Yeah, I thought about Syria/Turkey this morning and wondered. Welp, I'm just looking for somebody to be angry at, I guess. Ayn Rand is dead, so she won't mind. Rand, I hate you so much aaaaaaargggggggghhhh okay better.
posted by angrycat at 3:43 PM on October 4, 2012

If I buy a car that costs $20,000, it costs $20,000. If I pay for part of that car with a $4,000 trade-in, it's still a $20,000 car. That's how much the car costs. You've had to give up something else to cover that cost, and that something else is something of value. A $5 trillion tax cut that's paid for entirely with deficit spending is a $5 trillion tax cut. A $5 trillion tax cut that's paid for in part by giving up government programs that are of real benefit to somebody somewhere and in part by giving up tax deductions that are of real benefit to somebody somewhere--it's still a $5 trillion tax cut. It doesn't matter how you pay for it, it still costs money.
posted by gracedissolved at 3:45 PM on October 4, 2012 [10 favorites]

Washington Post: Big Bird Will Haunt Mitt Romney

A survey in 2008 noted that 77 million Americans had watched “Sesame Street” as children. That’s a lot of potential voters to woo. Nostalgia runs deep, trust me.

Big Bird, an iconic image, could serve as a bright yellow reminder that the Romney administration is keen on deep cuts to beloved institutions.

In August, Romney said he would eliminate funding for PBS, Amtrak, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

I predicted last night this was going to resonate with the voters. Romney was frantically spewing all new policy last night in order to repositioning himself as a moderate. But he just had to get his little bit of humor in to prove that he is not a robot. Years from now this will be remembered as the "Killing Big Bird" debate.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:47 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

Except for saying that his plan would bring in the same amount of money “when you account for growth,” Romney offered no new explanation for how he might accomplish all he’s promised. He just repeated those promises in some of the strongest terms yet[...]But he didn’t say how he’d pull off all those things at once.

You know, in the business world about which we've heard so much... when you're proposing a business deal, the prospective partner will want to see how the numbers work together. When you're planning together for the enterprise's future, you don't just assume revenues will catch up, saying "we're accounting for growth." You suss out various scenarios, one of which must be "what if there is no growth?" Also: "What if the growth isn't enough?" "Who are we doing business with, and how is that customer important to us?" You show your prospective partner the economic and financial assumptions you are making, including interest rates, supply chain expansion or diminution, number of product units you intend to move (and why you believe you can do that) and the like.

As an American voter, I would like Romney to show me his damn spreadsheet before I decide whether I'm going to sign on the dotted line. I wouldn't accept less in business; why should I for something that's vastly more important? Sheesh.
posted by GrammarMoses at 3:58 PM on October 4, 2012 [10 favorites]

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive

Top 4 Google Searches during the debate:
1) Simpson Bowles
2) Dodd Frank
3) Who is winning the debate
4) Big Bird
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:02 PM on October 4, 2012 [5 favorites]

I don't know, from a strictly business perspective, handwaving on revenue fits right into the hockey-stick-growth-curve universe we act like we inhabit.
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:02 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'm thinking about all that work I put into teaching my daughter to be empathetic and to be kind and to share and she turned out to be such a lovely person. But shit. I've ruined her because she will never make a billion dollars.

It's people like you that are ruining this fine nation! Just think, your poor child will probably grow up to raise her own kids to be filthy sharing thoughtful people! And then where will we be? Stuck in a country full of decent human beings, that's where. How revolting.
posted by elizardbits at 4:03 PM on October 4, 2012 [9 favorites]

I'll accept point 2 (which charges Romney with giving an incomplete answer) if you'll accept point 1 (which accuses Obama of being untruthful).

No sale. The accusation that Obama is being untruthful is simply, blatantly false, as has been pointed out over and over and over in this thread.

The fact is, Romney does propose tax cuts on the rich that will cost 5 trillion over 10 years. He said so, himself, last night. The math is irrefutable.

That that he promises to offset those cuts, even if you accept the premise that the promise is sincere, does not reduce the cost of the tax cuts. It just means that he's suggested a way to pay those costs -- or more accurately, part of them.

Of course, as has also been pointed out repeatedly, there's ample reason -- like, say, the entire George W. Bush administration -- to assume that Romney is just lying, as Republicans must do in order to sell their unpopular policies. There has been no evidence offered so far -- least of all by Romney himself -- that his half-assed "promises" are to be taken seriously.
posted by Gelatin at 4:05 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

After debate, 'Bird' is the word on the trail (video).
posted by ericb at 4:08 PM on October 4, 2012

Romney's Own Website Refutes His Claim About Tax Cuts For the Rich

“I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans,” Romney said. [...] but his actual tax proposals tell a very different story. Below is a screenshot from Romney’s own website, taken this morning: [snip]

Tax proposals that would disproportionately benefit rich households are underlined. As you can see, that’s almost all of them. And what would all these tax changes mean for the bottom line at America’s ritziest kitchen tables? The Tax Policy Center estimates that the richest 0.1 percent of Americans would reap a $725,000 tax cut from these proposals.

Take a look at the chart over at Think Progress-- out of the 10 specific tax policies proposed 9 of them are aimed at the wealthiest and at corporations.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:11 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

angrycat: "Welp, I'm just looking for somebody to be angry at"
I think you missed a letter there.

BobbyVan: "Obama is citing old "non-partisan research" that was conducted before Romney suggested he would help pay for the marginal cuts by limiting particular deductions."

You do understand that "limiting deductions" is effectively a tax increase? You can make good arguments for limiting all the ridiculous deductions and loopholes in the currently over-complicated tax code; however, that's really a different subject. His "broadening" of the tax base and "cuts in spending" would effectively increase the burden on the middle and lower class, if he does what he said he would do. But who knows, maybe congress wouldn't let him. It could be the era of stonewalling democrats this time! I think their approval rating is within the margin of error of Satan's at this point; it couldn't be much worse.
posted by Red Loop at 4:15 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney : LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA PONY PONY PONY PONY PONY!

Have you ever experienced trickle down ponies?

Prepare for the very worst.
posted by jeanmari at 4:17 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

For example, earlier this week, Romney floated the idea of capping tax deductions at $17,000 as a way to help pay for his promised 20 percent across-the-board rate cut and his proposed repeal of the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax.

That was interesting, and more specific than he has been. But no sooner had the Tax Policy Center and others tried to figure out what it might mean, Romney changed up. In the debate, he mused about capping deductions, not at $17,000, but at $25,000 or $50,000. This is no trivial difference.

A moment later he said he might not do this at all but, rather, target specific deductions. So what is Romney’s tax plan? We still have no idea.
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:19 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

“instead of being honest with Americans about taxes and the deficit, Mitt Romney is peddling snake oil. He seems to think he is entitled to hide the details of his tax plan from the American people, just like he continues to hide his tax returns. But the truth is that Mitt Romney’s math just doesn’t add up without raising taxes on the middle class.” -Harry Reid
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:24 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

I for one am shocked that we bother educating about kindness and empathy and simple human decency. The poors should educate themselves, just like they should fund their own college educations and keep each other from starving.

It's disgusting that people are not completely self-sufficient. Being a very little person is no excuse: A is always A.
posted by winna at 4:30 PM on October 4, 2012 [6 favorites]

No Letterman or Leno appearances.

Big Bird declining all media appearances after debate thrusts him into presidential campaign

Sesame Workshop says the giant yellow Muppet is declining all appearances, but there was this tweet from Big Bird on the Sesame Street account: “My bed time is usually 7:45, but I was really tired yesterday and fell asleep at 7! Did I miss anything last night?”

posted by ericb at 4:46 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

Mitt Romney's Big Bird Attack Threatens Thousands Of U.S. Jobs.
posted by ericb at 4:50 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

The more time that passes the better this debate looks for Obama. Obama gained in favorability with independents, even those that thought Romney did a better job in the debate. 24 hours after Romney's big win we go into the weekend with the Big Bird backlash.
posted by humanfont at 4:59 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

This Nick Anderson cartoon from the Houston Chronicle is absolute genius. I hope this spreads like wildfire, because the attack on Big Bird says everything you need to know about the ridiculousness of the Romney campaign.
posted by Dr. Zira at 5:07 PM on October 4, 2012 [9 favorites]

Doing a Google image search on "Romney kills big bird" is becoming increasingly hilarious
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 5:08 PM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

I expect Biden to tear Ryan a new asshole. Verbally, of course. It's going to be sweet.
posted by Justinian at 5:11 PM on October 4, 2012

Biden does have a debate-prep trick up his sleeve.
posted by Bookhouse at 5:14 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I expect Biden to tear Ryan a new asshole.

I do hope so. Ryan, like Palin, is nuts, and Biden will likely do well against him, too. Especially if Ryan continues his trend of saying whatever the hell he wants.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 5:15 PM on October 4, 2012

Mitt Said Turn Off PBS?

Shit just got real.

(Hilarious. SFW.)
posted by spitbull at 5:20 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

For some reason I can totally hear Big Bird's panicked voice saying this.
posted by The Whelk at 5:32 PM on October 4, 2012

So it turned out that I missed the whole debate because I was too caught up watching the video to "Gangam Style" for the first time finally.

Mitt Romney Style
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 5:34 PM on October 4, 2012 [7 favorites]

Meanwhile, sources at Murray Mining in Ohio say that not only were miners docked a day's pay and forced to stand behind Romney at a fundraiser, but office workers and execs were expected to donate to Romney's campaign and pressured very explicitly to do so.

The crowd was not there of its own accord. Murray had suspended Century’s operations and made clear to workers that they were expected to attend, without pay. “I tell ya, you’ve got a great boss,” Romney said in acknowledging Robert Murray from the stage. “He runs a great operation here.”

The accounts of two sources who have worked in managerial positions at the firm, and a review of letters and memos to Murray employees, suggest that coercion may also explain Murray staffers’ financial support for Romney. Murray, it turns out, has for years pressured salaried employees to give to the Murray Energy political action committee (PAC) and to Republican candidates chosen by the company. Internal documents show that company officials track who is and is not giving. The sources say that those who do not give are at risk of being demoted or missing out on bonuses, claims Murray denies.
posted by emjaybee at 5:41 PM on October 4, 2012 [8 favorites]

Maybe corb was reading Nicholas Kristof's column, entitled Why Let the Rich Hoard All the Toys? in the NYTimes today?
posted by peacheater at 5:43 PM on October 4, 2012

but office workers and execs were expected to donate to Romney's campaign and pressured very explicitly to do so.

Something very similar happened in Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's campaign and it was very much illegal.
posted by drezdn at 5:45 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Rachel Maddow had a game like this, for an appearance of New Gingrich, for which she provided a Racial Reference Bingo Card. The terms to listen for were "basketball," "performer," the word "rhythm," and special boxes for references to the president as "sleepy" or "lazy"

Sununu: Obama did poorly in the debate because he’s ‘lazy’
posted by homunculus at 5:49 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I wasn't able to watch the debate live, which is probably for the best, since it was my birthday and in matters political I can be prone to extreme emotional distress. Why ruin the day with unnecessary anxiety? Best to learn about what went on through a bit of emotional (and temporal) distance. Also, birthday cocktails. (Consumed purely for medicinal, emotional buffer-creating purposes, of course.)

In my completely anecdotal, nonscientific sampling of post-debate discussion, impressions seem to vary widely not just along partisan lines, but those of information and involvement. High-information voters of my acquaintance (or of my Internet exploration) have largely focused on the falseness of so many of Romney's statements, or on combating accusations of falseness for those more sympathetic to the Republican POV. The less informed or involved the person has been in campaign discussion and news up to this point, the less concerned they appear to be with the relative factuality of the debate points.

Those with strong partisan leanings in either direction appear to be focusing mostly on perceived performance, with most agreeing that Obama was not on his game and Romney held his own. (See also: pre-debate expectation management.)

Kind of a "duh" distinction, I suppose, that those who are interested in the campaign and election enough to have followed the news so far are heavily focused on facts while the others focus on elements of the single performance. While it's true that debates haven't historically changed the course of election outcomes, at least in recent-ish years, I think they do play a role in shaping public views of the candidates and influencing discourse. If we assume a bell curve of voter information and involvement leading up to this point, it makes sense to suggest that the appearance of a strong performance coupled with a few key, memorable points would be the sweet spot for a candidate seeking to make a successful debate showing.

What's really interesting, in this case, is that while Romney seems to be scoring high on both counts, his most memorable talking point (Big Bird) is likely to be seen as either negative or mockable. Or both. I'm very curious to see how the polls react to this combination of factors, if there's really any way to tell.

(Note to self: schedule cocktail dates to coincide with all remaining debates.)
posted by Superplin at 5:50 PM on October 4, 2012

Picture this scenario:

Obama gets up on stage last night, and for his opening statement, announces a bold new stimulus program of $500 billion per year for the next ten years. Jim Lehrer asks Obama how he'll pay for it, and Obama responds by saying he'll close some unspecified tax loopholes and limit deductions to make it deficit neutral. Romney ridicules Obama's plan as "$5 trillion in wasteful spending", but Obama responds that it's not actually $5 trillion in spending, and how could he say that it's $5 trillion, because he plans on getting the money to pay for it by closing loopholes and limiting deductions.

Something tells me the Republicans wouldn't be so credulous about Obama's defense as they are of Romney's. Dare I say this might be based in ideology and not mathematics?
posted by tonycpsu at 5:57 PM on October 4, 2012 [21 favorites]

And what political positions are those, exactly?

I have a cousin who for a while wouldn't let his daughter watch Dora the Explorer because she teaches Spanish. I think he finally relented because he was being mocked even by my otherwise overtly racist relatives.

(So apparently, sharing, cooperation, and the value of learning a second language are controversial now)
posted by dirigibleman at 6:39 PM on October 4, 2012

Dora's like Sofia Vergara -- her hotness trumps even racism. (for different age cohorts, I grant you)
posted by msalt at 6:40 PM on October 4, 2012

Yeah, I want to know what Obama was thinking about for that moment when he seemed distracted. He looked like he realized something about a situation far more serious than that 'debate.'
posted by zangpo at 6:43 PM on October 4, 2012

Lalo Alcaraz' take on BigBirdGate
posted by liza at 6:50 PM on October 4, 2012

homunculus: "Sununu: Obama did poorly in the debate because he’s ‘lazy’"

I'm not sure why I'm surprised that was the best he could come up with.
posted by wierdo at 7:26 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I thought maybe mitt was doing a lot of online advertising, but it may just have been me visiting a lot of political sites.
posted by cashman at 7:29 PM on October 4, 2012

It's not very well targeted though... What Wonkette reader will vote Romney (maybe the old Downfister?), and it seems like a waste of money to advertise Romney on Daily Show clips on Hulu.
posted by drezdn at 7:35 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I've been noticing that all of the facebook posts in my feed have been rolled up under this format:

Jane Q. Public and X other friends posted about Mitt Romney.

This is even the case when the content of the post is about the debate but doesn't contain Romney's name. Is anyone else seeing this? It's never "..about Barack Obama" or "..about the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election" etc. Is this some kind of promoted campaign? Also.. chemtrails.
posted by goHermGO at 7:47 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Jane Q. Public and X other friends posted about Mitt Romney.

You can flag this and tell facebook that it is an improper grouping. That's what I did. I agree, it's a little...whiffy.
posted by ambrosia at 8:02 PM on October 4, 2012

I keep getting reminded that the loud right-wingiest of my "friends" LIKE Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, but depite posting a bunch of political stuff, all my left wing friends, according to Facebook, are playing Bubble Safari or some such. So it's not just you.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 8:03 PM on October 4, 2012

Romney On 47 Percent: ‘I Said Something That’s Just Completely Wrong’

First, he released his tax returns (or summary or whatever) months after Harry Reid and Obama clobbered him over it. Now, weeks after taking relentless heat over his 47% comments, he decides to take it back. "Never mind", as Obama says.

At this rate, Romney's going to release a detailed list of tax deductions he plans to eliminate sometime in December after he's lost the election.
posted by Bokmakierie at 8:23 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

No, 2 weeks from now: "I was 100% wrong about the Big Bird!". Mark my words. I mean, read my lips: wrong about Big Bird, 2 weeks.
posted by rainy at 8:29 PM on October 4, 2012 [2 favorites]

Jon Stewart opens with .... Hold on ... Yes, Big Bird getting fired by Mitt Romney!
posted by ericb at 8:37 PM on October 4, 2012

Sununu: Obama did poorly in the debate because he’s ‘lazy’.

Sununu has been calling Obama lazy, detached, disengaged and incompetent many times before. It's a Republican talking point.

Romney campaign co-chair Sununu repeats 'lazy' charge against President Obama.

Sununu Has A Habit Of Calling Obama 'Lazy': VIDEOS.

posted by ericb at 8:49 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Furthermore, in 10 years from now: "I was wrong about those cookies.. the cookies were just great, I can taste them now in my memory!"
posted by rainy at 8:50 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

"I was completely wrong about the London Olympics. The blokes pulled off a masterful job."
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:57 PM on October 4, 2012

Imagine what Sununu and these guys would be saying about Ronald Reagan if he were a Democratic President today.
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:57 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney On 47 Percent: ‘I Said Something That’s Just Completely Wrong’

No way buddy. You said it and elaborated on it in detail, and clearly meant it. Then you held a press conference to defend it. Then you were asked about it in interviews and defended it. Then your vp pick Paul Ryan defended it.

And now you're trying to make it seem like oops, well I don't really think that way? Yes you do. You can't take that all that detail back with a tiny statement, I'm sorry. It's clear you really do think that. I really hope the Obama team goes after him. Yeah you were wrong. Wrong on doubting half of America, wrong with a tax plan that no economist can say works with any certainty because the details are magical, wrong for wanting to overturn Roe vs Wade and take away healthcare, wrong on Medicare, wrong for saying you wouldn't support the Lily Ledbetter act, wrong for lowering the tax rate on the wealthy, wrong for thinking it's fair that you pay a lower tax rate than middle class families, wrong for wanting to cut big bird, wrong for trying to capitalize on the death of our ambassador. I would craft a speech where I just went through a litany of these items.
posted by cashman at 9:01 PM on October 4, 2012 [14 favorites]

Sununu: Obama did poorly in the debate because he’s ‘lazy’.

A lazy, black President, huh? That's real subtle.

I was just reading Sununu's wikipedia page. What a clown.
posted by Bokmakierie at 9:15 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

So yesterday I made an observation about what might be Obam's debate strategy in terms of a regular chess (not the 12 dimensional kind he is often alleged to play). Today, I'm almost certain that I'm right about how Obama is playing it and I think it's pretty obvious that he managed to win more objectives than Romney did no matter how it was called last night.

Romney was all over controlling the center of the board, but he sacrificed just about everything else do do so. Today the search Romney "Big Bird" get's 39,900,000 hits on Google. The Romney tax plan is still as nebulous as ever with almost everyone saying that everything that has been revealed is not going to be deficit neutral, if not actively screw the middle class or the poor. That's not keeping your kings safe or having a good pawn structure or, well, anything.

To be honest, I think Obama could just cede all of his time to the gentleman from Ciudad Juárez and leave Romney hung from the rafters in a splendid macrame tote come the end of the evening.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:17 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

His supporters keep wanting Obama to be who he was in 2008. But that's not who he is anymore. - GaranceE Franke-Ruta / The Atlantic
posted by Skygazer at 9:18 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Classic palindrome:
"Wonder if Sununu's fired now?"
by David Ray. Herb Caen ran it in his newspaper column about a day before Sununu was fired.
posted by msalt at 9:22 PM on October 4, 2012 [18 favorites]

A day after the debate and I'm more confident about the result. The media may be talking about Romney winning on style, but he left a lot of ammunition to be used against him. Obama came out today firing on all cylinders and I think an earlier comment was correct in saying that the debate will be remembered as the Big Bird debate.
posted by arcticseal at 10:23 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm not happy Obama did not properly engage last night and I'm going to have to say it was a combination of fatigue and knowing he was going to let Romney take all the rope he needed, without giving him any big zing moments (I knew there was a reason he didn't bring up what just seem like such obvious points about Romney's disastrous shortcomings as a potential president btw, especially the 47% stuff. Romney's gone ahead and touched on that today, God knows what despicable trap lay in store for Obama last night...) or sound bites or video.

He basically made himself as small a target as possible and took the blows. BUT ROMNAY lied so much last night, and I hope that rope is pulled taut in the next few days and weeks leading up to the next debate. And I hope to God, Obama rests up eats right, gets sleep, works out... and practices with someone more quick-witted and less laid back than John Kerry.
posted by Skygazer at 10:37 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

The fact that Romney even gave an interview to Fox News tonight saying he was wrong about the 47% shows that he and the Republicans were waiting for Obama to bring the topic up last night in the debate. They had hoped that they could make a reply and spin, spin, spin in front of a huge viewing public and then later have Republican spinmeisters reinforce Romney's supposed mistake/misstatement. Didn't get the chance!

Obama and his campaign have drawn them out on it. Romney's defense and attempt to recast his statements and true sentiments were broadcast to a much smaller audience -- mainly Fox News viewers. Jujitsu of the Obama campaign once again.

What most will remember about Romney last night is his attack on Big Bird!
posted by ericb at 10:38 PM on October 4, 2012 [8 favorites]

Romney won... and he gave Obama a metric ton of ad material in the process. One ad is already cut. My wife is not too interested in politics and tends to give people the benefit of the doubt. But when I told her why there was so much Big Bird buzz online, that it was because he came right out and said he'd cut PBS funding off, her first words were, "What a dick."

I'm really not thinking he won now.
posted by azpenguin at 10:41 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

The Obama campaign is so many more chess moves ahead in their strategy than the already apparent incompetent Romney campaign!
posted by ericb at 10:44 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

PBS CEO Paula Kerger: Mitt Romney's Debate Attack Was 'Stunning' (VIDEO).
posted by ericb at 10:57 PM on October 4, 2012

he and the Republicans were waiting for Obama to bring the topic up last night in the debate.

Don't meet the enemy on ground he has prepared.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:57 PM on October 4, 2012 [13 favorites]

This is a pretty interesting bit of polling data from Reuters (via HuffPo): Obama's favorability ratings remained unchanged, as 56 percent said they viewed him favorably and 44 percent said they viewed him unfavorably. His standing improved among independents by 8 percentage points.

To summarize Romney shored up support on the Right, got his favorable rating above 50% for the first, but Obama's went up among independents as read in the snippet above.

Fascinating stuff...
posted by Skygazer at 10:58 PM on October 4, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mitt Romney Pre-Existing Conditions Health Care Plan Doesn't Match 'Obamacare' Or 'Romneycare'.
posted by ericb at 10:59 PM on October 4, 2012

Big Bird-Loving Child To Romney: 'You Find Something Else To Cut Off'.
posted by ericb at 11:02 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

Don't meet the enemy on ground he has prepared.

Indeed. I was wondering what sort of comeback Mitt and Co. have in waiting to the "47%" as the elephant in the room, and the lesson there is as you say The Man of Twists and Turns: Just do not go there, because who knows what lies in wait, but more importantly you allow a re-evaluation and a chance to re-frame and disarm a HUGE negative.

As it was, it WAS the elephant in the room, nothing was disarmed or reframed, and the news pundits brought it up even more forcefully wondering why Obama didn't mention it.

One final thing is Romney tried to provoke the president into bring it up or hitting back with it with the remark about "you're entitled to your own plane and your own house but not you're own facts" I think.

That's my analysis and I'm sticking to it.
posted by Skygazer at 11:06 PM on October 4, 2012

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall in Romney HQ when the snap poll numbers came in and they barely moved. Especially since, one presumes, they spent the morning high-fiving each other.
posted by ob1quixote at 11:09 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

I predict this will be an emotional rollercoaster for the republicans.. "o no we are losing--no, polls are lying, need to be unskewed--no we're winning now polls ok--wait losing again. polls... must... unskew again... arghhh!"
posted by rainy at 11:13 PM on October 4, 2012

Obama's gallup approval rating highest in 3 years.

Romney's win seems to have helped Obama.
posted by Ad hominem at 11:26 PM on October 4, 2012 [3 favorites]

National Review

The Mitt We've Been Waiting For

During the first debate, though, Romney had his best moment of the campaign when it all depended on him.
He stood on the stage with the president of the United States and not only won on substance, but won on optics, demeanor, and emotion. He flat-out won.
Romney showed a few key things in an unfiltered format much more persuasive than any 30-second ad: He’s up to the job, he’s not a monster, and his program makes a lot of sense. In media fact-check terms, his performance represented a “mostly false” rating on the case against him.

Hope Is The Thing With Feathers

Indignant PBS, which employs not-so-neutral debate moderator Jim Lehrer, issued a statement decrying Romney’s failure to “understand the value the American people place on public broadcasting and the outstanding return on investment the system delivers to our nation.” And President Obama, awakened from his beatdown-induced stupor, scurried the next morning to the safe confines of a campaign rally to mock Romney for “getting tough on Big Bird.”

The kiddie-character kerfuffle is a manufactured flap that may play well to liberals in Hollywood and Washington. But beyond the borders of La-La Land, desperate Democrats who cling childishly to archaic federal subsidies look like cartoonish buffoons. Let’s face it: The Save Big Bird brigade is comically out of touch with 21st-century realities.

Romney's Debate Victory

So it was more than partisan glee that lifted our spirits when a supremely skilled, razor-sharp Romney sailed to victory over Obama in Denver. It was the release of years’ worth of pent-up frustration at the fact that Mr. Obama has skated by with platitudes, lies, misrepresentations, and “cool” — while the nation we love, still “the last best hope of earth,” seemed to be sliding toward the drain.

Verdict blog : The First 2012 Presidential Debate: How the Incumbent Got Trapped

By a wide consensus of both political pundits’ views and public opinion, President Obama lost this October 3rd debate in Denver. I think that is a good thing for Obama. In fact, it may be a silver lining for the Democrats. In addition, I believe that Romney’s win was, in fact, a Pyrrhic victory, which also will help the Democrats. Allow me to explain.

The Weekly Standard: Jim Lehrer, Model Debate Moderator

Rather than criticized, Lehrer should be credited with moderating one of the most interesting, fast-paced, and substantive presidential debates of all time. He managed this by interrupting the candidates as little as possible. He ignored the time clock and the planned segments and permitted the candidates to carry the debate, which they did. Obama may not have meant it when he called the debate “terrific,” but it was.

Contrary Brin (David Brin's blog): Romney's Etch-A-Sketch Moment

I had been wondering when -- after securing the Republican Party's nomination, Governor Romney would take one of his patented veers, suddenly charging hard for the political center. (Or "shaking the etch-a-sketch") to re-configure himself for centrists or undecided voters. Why did he delay till now?

posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:39 PM on October 4, 2012 [4 favorites]

"What most will remember about Romney last night is his attack on Big Bird"

Today it occurred to me that this is not the first time a politician has wanted to cut off any or all of PBS's funding but it is the first time that call has been met with MUPPET KILLER!

I haven't seen anyone else mention this, but at the time it looked to me that he made the comment about cutting PBS and immediately realized how...awkward it was and that's why he started blathering about loving Jim Lehrer and Big Bird.

ericb: The fact that Romney even gave an interview to Fox News tonight saying he was wrong about the 47% shows that he and the Republicans were waiting for Obama to bring the topic up last night in the debate.

the man of twists and turns: Don't meet the enemy on ground he has prepared.

Skygazer: Just do not go there, because who knows what lies in wait

Me: Never ask a question for which you do not know the answer.

Yeah, it does seem like a pretty dumb way to trap a lawyer.

Skygazer: One final thing is Romney tried to provoke the president into bring it up or hitting back with it with the remark about "you're entitled to your own plane and your own house but not you're own facts" I think.

Yes, I addressed this in the other thread:

Fuck you Romney, it's not Obama's house and plane, they belongs to THE PEOPLE. All 100% of them. That's right. Did you think you'd get to keep them if you won?

posted by Room 641-A at 12:32 AM on October 5, 2012

It's a hugely loaded remark able to fire off in any number of bad ways if Obama had taken the bait.

Of course it's "the people's plane" and "the people's house." That remark is just such a shitty fucking thing to say to try and dress Obama down, and strip him of his authority and stature. The subtext there is despicable.

More and more I see a parallel between Barack Obama and another truly great individual Jackie Robinson. He's a transcendent historical figure. He's got to be whether he likes it or not. There's so much riding on his shoulders in ways that I think would crush a lesser despicable little man like Romney who's always been on the inside of everything with the whole world laid at his feet from day one.

Obama can't really afford to ever be small and give in to his primal feelings the way Romney can and has and will...

But in the history of this country Obama is going to go down as a giant, while Romney will be a trivial pursuit question in a decade or two.
posted by Skygazer at 1:01 AM on October 5, 2012 [13 favorites]

That Malkin column… Can they really not imagine that the only sane part of a kid's day might be Sesame Street tuned in over-the-air on an old 27" TV a parent or relative picked up for $5 when the hotel their cousin works in switched to flat screens?

Poor people aren't parasites. By and large they're people who work way too hard for far too little, but never seem to get ahead. I just can't understand the right wing tautology of poverty: If people are poor it's all their own fault. If they would just work harder they wouldn't be poor. Since they're poor, they must not work hard. All "good" people are hard working. Therefore anyone who is poor is a bad person and doesn't deserve any assistance. Q.E.D. It really makes me quite angry.

I'm reminded of this classic Sorkin exchange from Studio 60 on the Sunset Stript, "Nevada Day: Part 1", 2006:

                                HARRIET HAYES
            I don't even know what the sides are in the culture wars. 

                                 MATT ALBIE
            Well, your side hates my side because you think we think 
            you're stupid and my side hates your side because we think 
            you're stupid.

posted by ob1quixote at 1:03 AM on October 5, 2012 [6 favorites]

The man of twists and turns, thanks for those excerpts. That's some major spin going on there. Caring about PBS is out of touch with the 21st century? You have a candidate who thinks that 250K in annual income is middle class running with a libertarian idiot who wants to deregulate everything but the uterus. Please.
posted by Phire at 1:05 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

TiVo, which tracks the rewinding behavior of digital video recorder owners, found that the most-rewound moment of the debate came at 9:27, when Mr. Romney mentioned his plan to cut funding from PBS (and gave Big Bird a shout-out). About 250,000 viewers watched the debate on PBS.

posted by howfar at 1:08 AM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]

Michelle Malkin in the National Review:

The kiddie-character kerfuffle is a manufactured flap that may play well to liberals in Hollywood and Washington. But beyond the borders of La-La Land, desperate Democrats who cling childishly to archaic federal subsidies look like cartoonish buffoons. Let’s face it: The Save Big Bird brigade is comically out of touch with 21st-century realities.

21st-century realities??

I often wonder what it is about Malkin that makes her such an enraged and damaged individual who seems to embody all of the pathological characteristics of Stockholm Syndrome or some almost desperate inverse need to so feel a part of something that she turn her back on her gender, her race and stand by a party that's not only egregiously and dangerously obsolescent, but is on the verge of flying apart like the pile of dung flying out of a lawnmower. How does she read such paternalistic and plutocratic policies from the 19th century as those of the 21st??

Well, she's a full and active element in tthe "epistemic closure" and echo chamber that is the Right-wing media circus that makes it's own reality and it's own story and narrative and places it out there for the weak-minded to make it their own for one thing so she is part of the power structure for certain, but still there's an insanity in the woman that's deeply unsettling. I know she lives on the west coast and is surrounded by a certain form of liberalism that can be as codified and closed in as any other bit of mindless dogma, but still she's just missing the boat on so much and I can only attribute it to deep deep ignorance, combined with an all encompassing self-hatred and almost bottomless well of anger sprouting from arrested emotional development...

How and why did she ever come to think the Left has no compassion, no morals, no ethics, no love of country, no respect for love of work and success.

Perhaps she too far in to re-evaluate?

/Malkin-filter
posted by Skygazer at 1:16 AM on October 5, 2012 [8 favorites]

National Review

Charles Krauthammer Romney by Two Touchdowns

Romney didn’t just demonstrate authoritative command of a myriad of domestic issues. He was nervy about it, taking the president on frontally, not just relentlessly attacking, but answering every charge leveled against him — with a three-point rebuttal.

And he pulled off a tactical coup by coming right out of the box to undo millions of dollars’ worth of negative ads that painted him, personally, as Gordon Gekko — a rapacious vulture capitalist who doesn’t just lay off steelworkers but kills their wives — and, politically, as intent on raising taxes on the middle class while lowering them for the rich.

The Romney campaign had let these ads go largely unanswered. But a “kill Romney” strategy can work only until people get to see Romney themselves. On Wednesday night, they did. Regarding the character assassination, all Romney really had to do was walk out with no horns on his head. Confident, smiling, and nonthreatening, he didn’t look like a man who enjoys killing the wives of laid-off steelworkers.

I can't read his name in anything other than a Wrestlemania annoucer's voice: Charles 'THE HAMMER' Kraut-hammaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Wired Internet Gets Big Bird's Back

Bloomberg Gaffe-checking the Debates

CSMonitor Is Romney Right About $716 billion in Medicare cuts? 'In the end, Obama really is cutting $716 billion from Medicare, that's true. While the long-term effects of the cuts will benefit seniors by extending the life of Medicare, the effects on a doctor-by-doctor, hospital-by-hospital level are unpredictable.'

MotherJones Should We Break the Two-Party Debate Monopoly?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:22 AM on October 5, 2012

Romney Won the Debate but it Was No Game Changer

I think this article lays out an excellent case for why the loser in this particular battle may have gained more points toward winning the war.

It looks to me like Obama was willing to look tired or weak, knowing Mitt's penchant for gaffes. Put in a few quiet but salient points, extract a few concessions, but let the other motormouth spew his verbal diarrhea and see what you have to work with tomorrow. Early results seem to suggest the plan worked well - let's see how it goes over the next days and weeks.

Also, I think if the President comes out aggressively here, he's going to lose some points with people who think he should be at least a little conciliatory, due to the fact that he's been president for 4 years, and the economy isn't roaring. I think he's being very careful not to fall into the trap of repeating what some on the right call 'the hype' of the 2008 election. He comes across to me as a man admits that things aren't perfect, takes some share of the responsibility, but who promises to continue to work his hardest to make things better.

Seems like a smart move on a national platform like debate #1, but it's all just conjecture on my part.
posted by syzygy at 1:32 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

elizardbits: "Yeah, all of these things are time-honored antisemitic dogwhistles"

previously

> New York : Jew :: San Francisco : Gay

all of whom are right here in this thread.

Wait, did you just call me a MeFite?
posted by Room 641-A at 1:36 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Wow, those Onion guys don't pull any punches.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:45 AM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

syzygy: Also, I think if the President comes out aggressively here, he's going to lose some points with people who think he should be at least a little conciliatory, due to the fact that he's been president for 4 years, and the economy isn't roaring.

Conciliatory.

That's the word that unlocks his performance foe me. It is the perfect approach to convey that he fully understands the shortcomings in the economic recovery and that he shares in the pain that people are feeling and that he gets it...

And he's willing to let Romney (or whoever had been the GOtP nominee) beat him up a little, which is what the Right has wanted all along from their nominee.

And it's no wonder he looked like he didn't want to be there, who wants to get some utter cheesehead dick for brains shitbag BOSSMAN like Romney to dress him down. Romney represents every ugly thing in this country. Every ugly, smug, greedy, unenlightened, privileged piece of shit neanderthal who makes a 100 million and thinks he's on the cusp of human evolution for being so ruthless and ambitious.

It's a rough road to go. Really rough, but ultimately brilliant.

Obama heard, he felt, he got yelled at a bit and was humble and human and showed humiliation and grace, and Romney and CO. have there little moment and the RIght can spin away happily (Krauthammer, Lowry, Malkin, Kristol, Rush, etc..etc...etc...), they can feel e a little dignity in their delusional epistemic closure of an echo chamber, and think they have a shot here and that they're playing for real.

Like I said last night. Romney won this battle, but is going to lose the war. The whole of the GOP is in for an historical drubbing.
posted by Skygazer at 1:48 AM on October 5, 2012 [8 favorites]

Historical drubbing? Reagan won by like 20% barely 25 years ago. Nixon won by 23%. Hell, Clinton won by almost 9% and that was four elections ago. How is Obama possibly winning by a couple points going to be a historical drubbing?
posted by Justinian at 2:04 AM on October 5, 2012

The suspended @FiredBigBird Twitter account: A 21st-century mystery.
posted by humph at 2:12 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

You have to give credit where it's due to the WaPo editor who carefully chose just the right pensive Big Bird photo for that one.
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:15 AM on October 5, 2012

Historical drubbing? Reagan won by like 20% barely 25 years ago. Nixon won by 23%. Hell, Clinton won by almost 9% and that was four elections ago. How is Obama possibly winning by a couple points going to be a historical drubbing?
posted by Justinian at 5:04 AM

Because I think this present GOP is hanging on as a viable cohesive national party by the most fragile of filaments, which seems to be primarily it's loathing for Obama, and if Romney loses the repercussions stemming from that are going to illuminate in a very intense way the stark uneasy differences between the fiscal conservatives/Libertarian/Ron Paul contingent and the social issues/religious contingent who've been straining against their chains for a while now. And that's without even factoring in the ridiculous Tea Party dimwits.

Add to that the demographic shifts taking place in this country and what I see is only one viable and true national party, and say what you will about the Democratic party, but it is absolutely brimming with health and diversity and a united purpose compared to the GOP.

It will be the best and most profound thing that's happened in this country in half a century. Easy.

Therefore an election that leads to a bifurcated GOP = An historical drubbing in my book.
posted by Skygazer at 2:22 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Video of Mitt Romney bringing notes to the debate

Apparently, the debate rules state: "No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by any candidate."

This slow-motion video clearly shows Romney 'sneakily' pulling a piece of paper out of his pocket and putting it on his podium as he walks in to take his place on the stage. I can only guess at what might be written on that piece of paper, but it is most certainly a "tangible thing," which means it wasn't allowed on stage. Romney's sly way of pulling it out of his pocket and throwing it on the podium is telling, as well.

What was all that noise about a Teleprompter again? :D

This just keeps getting better.
posted by syzygy at 3:00 AM on October 5, 2012 [12 favorites]

It could be a handkerchief.
posted by taz at 3:35 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Follow-up on the notes: The rules I quoted seem to be from the 2004 debates. It's not clear what the 2012 debate rules are yet.

Additionally, I should point out that it's not certain these were notes for Mitt to use. It could have been a tissue or a handkerchief.

However, if the debate rules still state that no "tangible thing may be brought to the debate by any candidate," whatever Romney threw on his podium was most certainly a tangible thing.
posted by syzygy at 3:38 AM on October 5, 2012

Obama was openly holding a pen.
posted by de at 3:46 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

de: I've heard conjecture that the candidates were provided with pens and paper by the CPB and that these items were placed on the podiums by the CPB before the debates began. This would make sense, if the rules state that the candidates can't bring any tangible things to the debate.

I won't belabor this point, but I think it's an interesting one that could prove to be damaging if more evidence comes out. I imagine a number of photographers and videographers who covered the event are going through their pictures and videos to see whether they can turn anything more convincing up.
posted by syzygy at 3:55 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

NYTimes, Paul Krugman : A Test of the System

At this point two things are clear about the debate: 1. Romney won the night by being confident and aggressive while Obama was hesitant and passive 2. Romney said many things that simply weren’t true — and not just about budget math, which he might be able to obfuscate (although he shouldn’t get away with it).

Big Think: If Romney is Thurston Howell III, then Obama is The Professor

Did I really see that last night? The debate was a bad horror movie for liberals and progressives such as myself, who support Obama. It was Attack of the 50-Foot Etch-a-Sketch, Deluxe Edition vs. “Night of the Living Dead.”

In a strange personality transplant, Obama came across visually and emotionally as the irritated, removed, imperious Chief who did not want to be interrupted, thank you very much, challenged, questioned, or, in this case, noticed, while Romney cut against the grain of his own policies, personal history, and character to seem earnest, passionate and even occasionally wry.

Esquire, Tom Junod: Obama, Endurance Artist: What Comes After the Magic?

That President Obama exists as a convenient fantasy figure for Republicans is a given. God knows, the man is open to criticism, but his critics aren't content to criticize him for what he's done — they feel compelled to criticize him for why they think he's done it, and so turn him into a prop for their own paranoia. He's a black man, and so the Tucker Carlsons and Rush Limbaughs of the world won't rest until they can pinpoint what kind of black man they believe he is. For them, no black man can be just a black man or just a man — he has to be an angry black man, or even a black man from another country — and so he remains a category forever in search of a modifier.

That he also exists as a fantasy figure for Democrats is less well-understood, but the discrepancy between what he symbolizes and who he actually manages to be was nowhere more in evidence than in the reaction to Wednesday night's debate.

Reason:The Big Debate Loser - Fiscal Reality

neither major-party candidate seriously addressed the big issue of the moment: a federal government that's spending money it doesn't have on big-ticket projects it can't afford. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Military spending were all mentioned by the candidates in Denver, but not in the context of any serious plans to rein in the costs to a level the federal government might pay for on an ongoing basis.

National Review, Robert Costa: Romney's Playbook

During the opening prep sessions, the group quickly came to a consensus: At the podium, Romney would be forceful, nearly as assertive as he was in Healey’s living room. His advisers have always admired Romney’s ability to peel apart arguments in private, and they encouraged him to do the same at the debate, with a little polish. The goal was to overwhelm the president with liveliness and information, to force him to confront the messy details of his economic and fiscal record. The strategy, sources say, clicked with Romney for two reasons: He did not want to spend hours tinkering with his mannerisms, and he wanted to focus on internalizing data. He’d take advice on his voice, his posture, and the rest, but he wanted his prep time to be a policy workshop.

Mother Jones

Quote of the Day: Mitt Romney on Preexisting Conditions

Translation: Romney's healthcare plan doesn't cover people with preexisting conditions. He thinks the states should do that.

Numbers, Schmumbers

By dollar volume, these loans will cost a maximum of about $600 million if the government ends up on the hook for the entire loan amount. That comes to maybe 4 percent of the total. By other measures, the failure rate is less than 1%

CSMonitor

Swing voters the presidential debate forgot: veterans - 'Wednesday's presidential debate included some love for Big Bird, but none for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, whose plight was ignored. But vets could prove an important voting bloc.'

Obama campaign adjusts strategy

A feisty Obama told a rally of some 12,000 people that the former Massachusetts governor was untruthful during Wednesday's 90-minute debate in Denver, which most observers reckoned the Republican won.

"When I got onto the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney," Obama said.

"But it couldn't have been Mitt Romney, because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night said he didn't know anything about that."

Al Jazeera: Obama fires back at Romney after debate loss - 'Rally used to show the "real Mitt Romney" after televised debate widely seen to have been won by the Republican.'
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:08 AM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

So the initial polling has started to come in, and it's not showing much. The Reuters/Ipsos poll that Skygazer mentioned above initially showed a 4-point gain for Romney (9 point deficit to 5 points), but they later told Greg Sargent at the Washington Post that the pre-debate numbers were taken over a couple of days as opposed to only one day for the debate, and that when they adjusted accordingly it was only a 1-point gain.

Meanwhile, there's the RAND tracking poll, which is interesting in that they've been interviewing the same large (3500 likely voters) sample, which helps because...well, I'll let them explain it:

First, it allows us to ask the same people for their opinion repeatedly over time. In comparison to most polls, this leads to much more stable outcomes; changes that we see are true changes in people's opinions and not the result of random fluctuations in who gets asked the questions.

Second, we may be more accurately capturing the likely votes of a greater number of voters in the crucial “middle” (i.e., not closely aligned with either candidate) by allowing respondents to more precisely assign their own numerical probability (or percent chance) to both the likelihood that they will vote and the likelihood that they will vote for a particular candidate. By comparison, traditional polls may not be fully capturing the intentions of these voters because they rely on less precise qualitative metrics (such as somewhat likely and somewhat unlikely) when asking respondents to indicate for whom they may vote and the likelihood that they will vote.

Their results show an essentially unchanged race, with maybe a half a percent dip from the debate that bounced right back.

And there's also some state-level data from PPP, who are polling in Virginia and Wisconsin until Saturday. According to their Twitter feed, as of last night their initial polling showed that likely voters in both states agreed that Romney won the debate, by 3:1 in VA and 2:1 in WI, but the needle had so far only moved by 1 and 2 points respectively, which keeps Romney behind by 5 in both.

So, at the moment, not much going for Romney, and as an added bonus, he seems to have walked right into the new Obama campaign's strategy to paint him as a flip-flopper. I guess we'll see if it starts to work.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:54 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

Oh, and an unintended consequence of his attempts to pivot on the tax plan could make for some nasty headlines like this:

New Romney Tax Idea Could Crush Charitable Giving
posted by zombieflanders at 4:57 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

“but Big Bird’s going to have advertisements.”

The irony is that Sesame St in a way already has sponsors. Sure they're letters of the alphabet and numbers, but that is already establishing in the minds of children that television programs are sponsored by certain entities, that good educating television exists only because some commercial body is on board to sponsor it.

Therefore: By cutting PBS, Big Bird and Sesame St, Romney is actually cutting the free speech rights of American Business. QED.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 5:18 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Continuing with the links already posted, the fact-checking pushback seems to be underway. We can only hope that it continues:

NYT: Romney Takes Liberties With Claims About a Bipartisan Past

TNR: Romney's Performance Is a Test for the Media

As well, some good news heading into the weekend:

NYT: September Is the Best Fund-Raising Month for Obama in 2012

No word on the Romney haul, though they claim it is "impressive".
posted by Bokmakierie at 5:25 AM on October 5, 2012

I think it's an interesting one that could prove to be damaging if more evidence comes out.

The only way this would become a big story is if the lazy, stupid Obama did it. Hurf durf teleprompter.
posted by inigo2 at 5:31 AM on October 5, 2012

The September jobs numbers are up: 114k added, almost exactly the 115k predicted. Unemployment fell to 7.8%, which is a relatively big drop IMO.

Now, as Greg Sargent said, "despite widespread predictions to the contrary, last month's jobs report had zero impact on prez race." But it gives the press something to go on about today, and that drop in unemployment is a boost for Obama.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:32 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Thank God, good job numbers.
posted by angrycat at 5:36 AM on October 5, 2012

zombieflanders:

Are the jobs numbers posted anywhere? My google-fu is failing.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:37 AM on October 5, 2012

Interesting that the early word was that the unemployment rate was going to go up. It's still only just come out, but the current unemployment headline on my google news feed is

"US unemployment rate likely rose last month as employers post ..."
Washington Post-5 hours ago

However, the revised article has the headline "US unemployment rate falls to 7.8 pct. in September, lowest since Jan. 2009; hiring increases". (If you click through, check the URL)

For whatever reason it seem that the 8.0% barrier is really important. Maybe like Dow 10000 or whatever it is now.
posted by goHermGO at 5:38 AM on October 5, 2012

The job numbers (jobs added and unemployment rates) are listed as breaking news at msnbc.com - see the top banner.

BREAKING NEWS: US jobless rate dips to 7.8% as economy adds 114,000 jobs, at expectations
posted by syzygy at 5:39 AM on October 5, 2012

BLS numbers here
posted by zombieflanders at 5:49 AM on October 5, 2012

thx.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:51 AM on October 5, 2012

Wow, some more really good numbers for Obama in the report, at least according to the economics pundits:

July jobs revised up from 141k to 181k
August revised up from 96k to 142k
Not in labor force fell 211k
Weakly earnings up "significantly"
Labor force participation rate is up 0.1%
Employment-population ratio up 0.4%

So, a good portion of the unemployment numbers dropping was actually people getting new jobs instead of giving up, there's revisions upwards of ~80k for previous months, and the GOP talking point/psychological barrier about "X numbers of months above 8% unemployment" is no longer valid. Plus, now unemployment is where it was in Jan 2009, when Obama took office. Combine that with last week's news that Obama now has net job creation even counting the financial crisis, and there's definitely a recovery trend that the average American can understand.

Cue wingnut conspiracy freakout about Obama personally writing the BLS reports and a new website, unskewedjobnumbers.com.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:52 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

The job numbers look pretty good... it says something about me that I'm not sure I like in that my first reaction was "whew, that is good political news", when my real reaction should have been, "whew that is good news for the country"
posted by edgeways at 5:57 AM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

Is this the last jobs report before the election?
posted by drezdn at 5:57 AM on October 5, 2012

Breathing a real sigh of relief here - these numbers, plus having the numbers from July and August revised upwards, significantly, look very positive. 7.8% looks good, as well.

Btw, when did Jack Welch go off the deep end? He used to be a pretty well-respected guy.
posted by syzygy at 5:58 AM on October 5, 2012

I believe (don't quote me) that there's one a day before the election.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:59 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure I like in that my first reaction was "whew, that is good political news", when my real reaction should have been, "whew that is good news for the country"

Surely, for anyone who believes in the practicality and justness of their favoured politics, these are the same thing?
posted by howfar at 6:00 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

Predictably, some conservatives and Republicans are now insinuating that the numbers are either fake or have been altered to help the President. As much as I am not a fan of Obama, I want to see him win just to piss off these conservative/Republican blowhards.
posted by RedShrek at 6:00 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Drudge is already preparing the siren, he's posted Welch's claim on the front page.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:04 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure I like in that my first reaction was "whew, that is good political news", when my real reaction should have been, "whew that is good news for the country"

The funny thing is, the GOP crazies are reinforcing the Obama campaign's talk about "economic patriotism" as both a sentiment and a reason to vote. Let's see if Romney and Boehner/Cantor/McConnell et al do the same.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:08 AM on October 5, 2012

Aaaaand now the Fox News morning team is pushing the conspiracy theory as well.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:09 AM on October 5, 2012

On the plus side, no one is talking about that damn silly "other race speech" tape.
posted by edgeways at 6:11 AM on October 5, 2012

Those job numbers are really going to help Obama alot. While the actual numbers of new employees is nothing to write home about the decrease of .3 in the Unemployment rate will be significant.
posted by vuron at 6:13 AM on October 5, 2012

Aaaaand now the Fox News morning team is pushing the conspiracy theory as well.

You don't say.

Seriously, at this point is anyone surprised? Per howfar's comment, it's been astonishing to me as a political observer how blatantly Republicans have been rooting for a bad economy to propel them back into power. (And yes, it's ironic given that Republicans used to call pointing out the obvious failures in Iraq "rooting for failure" by the Democrats.)

When the Federal Reserve recently took (halting) steps toward boosting the economy -- per its official mandate -- Republicans howled that they were in the tank for Obama -- thus admitting that they sought to actively hinder the recovery from the economic mess they caused in hopes of repeating the 1980 election.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, but fortunately for the rest of the country, reality continues not to follow their fantasy script.
posted by Gelatin at 6:15 AM on October 5, 2012

While the actual numbers of new employees is nothing to write home about the decrease of .3 in the Unemployment rate will be significant.

Even better, there's been at least a 0.5% drop in unemployment over the last quarter. That's a sign the "recovery summer" never actually went away.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:16 AM on October 5, 2012

Think Progress The Biggest And Least-Discussed Lie Of The Debate - Romney's False Claim About Clean Energy Bankruptcies

Politico, Ilya Somin - No mention of judicial nominations

After The Debate Cartoon Slideshow

Harper's The Man Who Would Be Ex-President

Maybe he really is a secret Muslim terrorist from Kenya.

I mean, think about it. He runs for president as a populist, soaking up all the liberal energy for change in the country. Once in power, he surrounds himself with failed conservative advisers, and squanders most of his mandate. Then, just as it looks as if he will still be able to defeat his clueless Republican opponent, he turns in the worst performance any presidential candidate has ever given in a general-election debate, tanking the race and turning the country over to a party of fanatical Ayn Rand acolytes and warmongers.

GQ Presidential Debates - They Retort, You Decide

Hundreds of millions of dollars, countless hours on the trail—it all comes down to this. For three debates, 270 combined minutes, the candidates will actually talk to each other. One botched response, a roll of the eyes, or—heaven forbid—a truly revealing moment will mean the difference between winning and, well, being John McCain. Robert Draper goes behind the scenes, talks to an army of strategists, and reveals the dark-arts trickery and clever gamesmanship that could ultimately determine the next leader of the free world

The Weekly Standard The Absent-Minded Senior Lecturer

The president’s sycophants have seized on an excuse for why their candidate was stammering and incoherent last night: Barack Obama is just too darn “professorial.” The Huffington Post lamented Obama’s “professorial demeanor.” A New York Times editorial bemoaned the fact that the president chose to be “polite and professorial.” Reuters, in an ostensibly objective write-up of the debate, said that Obama sounded "professorial."

Wired Presidential Debates, Sketched
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:17 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Well, this is gonna end well. My more conservative friends are already losing their collective shit over these numbers, and the lies, fraud, and deception involved.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:22 AM on October 5, 2012

And now the editor of the Breitbart-esque Washington Free Beacon: ‏

@SonnyBunch: THEORY: George Soros hired 500k part-time hole-diggers/hole-filler-inners to artificially depress unemployment rate.

Not sure if serious.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:24 AM on October 5, 2012

hole-filler-inner? Is that an actual job?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:26 AM on October 5, 2012

More good news, according to Ezra Klein:

Public employment stopped falling for the first time since February. Whereas previous July and August numbers saw it falling, revised numbers suggest that 73,000 public jobs were added in the past three months

Among other things, this might mean that more teachers and police/firefighters are being hired. And since public sector employment has been absolutely gutted the last 4 years, and in many reports dragged down otherwise decent numbers from private sector employment, we could be seeing a return of government workers.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:29 AM on October 5, 2012

hole-filler-inner? Is that an actual job?

Must...resist...obvious...THATSWHATSHESAID!

Damn.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:32 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Michelle Malkin in the National Review

So Malkin's writing for NR now? Gee. You think they would have learned something from Coulter and Derbyshire.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:32 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

The Big Bird joke is really really going to haunt the Romney campaign. Even when he does really well at an event it's like he can't keep from performing some sort of gaffe that undermines his overall success.

Attacking CPB and PBS might work well with the base but it's like election year plutonium when you want to get inroads into your gap with women particular younger college educated women, many of which don't wind the idea of their children learning to share...
posted by vuron at 6:34 AM on October 5, 2012

So Malkin's writing for NR now? Gee. You think they would have learned something from Coulter and Derbyshire.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:32 AM on October 5

Dude, you totally missed an opportunity for your first post this morning to be "I just flew in from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and boy are my arms tired!"
posted by zombieflanders at 6:37 AM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]

About 250,000 viewers watched the debate on PBS.

I was at a debate party so didn't choose the channel we watched it on. But now that I know that they're showing them, I'll be sure to watch the future debates on PBS.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:38 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Insanely Low New Unemployment Numbers Mean Barack Obama Did 9/11
posted by zombieflanders at 6:40 AM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]

obama-chillthefuckoutigotthis.gif
posted by Elementary Penguin at 6:44 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Republicans firmly believe that perception trumps reality. It doesn't matter if the jobs numbers are generally accepted by economists as being accurate if you can convince people of the perception that they are being influenced by politics. So you can spout nonsense that is completely devoid of any touchstone to reality and hope that it gets amplified by social media because most people don't fact-check.

The narrative favorable to Obama? Gotta produce a counternarrative even if it's complete hogwash.
posted by vuron at 6:46 AM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

New demand for hole diggers and fillers is credible.
posted by de at 6:47 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

From Wonketteer MancuCandidate: "It's not like Jack Welch "cooked" the books at GE to improve a quarter or anything."
posted by drezdn at 6:47 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Republicans firmly believe that perception trumps reality

They are correct about this. More often than not, a person's internal beliefs determine their perception of reality and it's a lesson the Democrats really need to learn.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:48 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

‏@daveweigel: Democratic panic level lowered from "running down street on fire" to "Jack Lemmon in Glenngarry Glen Ross"
posted by zombieflanders at 6:51 AM on October 5, 2012 [8 favorites]

Ann Romney to Co-Host 'Good Morning America'
posted by sallybrown at 6:56 AM on October 5, 2012

James Pethokoukis of AEI: "If the labor force participation rate was the same as when President Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.7%."
posted by BobbyVan at 6:57 AM on October 5, 2012

Ann Romney to Co-Host 'Good Morning America'

Are we really going to let her manipulate the most defenseless, impressionable minds in our society?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:59 AM on October 5, 2012 [13 favorites]

Insanely Low New Unemployment Numbers Mean Barack Obama Did 9/11

I know people on the right who seem otherwise intelligent but who still believe that Saddam Hussein quietly moved all 97 bajillion tons of alleged Iraqi chemical weapons into Syria in the days before the US invasion. Compared to that, believing in a covert 0.3% shift in the unemployment level is like me remembering to put my socks on before my shoes.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:59 AM on October 5, 2012

Sasha Obama Asks Father Why He Was Acting Like Such A Pussy During Debate
posted by growabrain at 7:00 AM on October 5, 2012

From the Daily Caller (aka Tucker Carlson's HuffPo copycat):

Obama labor agency nominee sent her kids to Communist-rooted summer camp

A forthcoming report from the conservative organization Americans for Limited Government (ALG) details how President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sent her children to a politically left-wing Jewish summer camp with Communist roots.

Obama nominated Erica Groshen to be the BLS commissioner in February, but this new report — obtained by The Daily Caller and set to be released on Thursday — reveals for the first time publicly that she sent her children to Camp Kinderland. The ALG report reveals how “Groshen and her husband are listed in the Kinderland Directory 2011-2012, which indicates that they sent children to the camp during the 1990s and 2000s.”

“Camp Kinderland was founded in the 1923 as a place for the children of radical Jewish activists,” the report continues.

posted by zombieflanders at 7:02 AM on October 5, 2012

U6 is 14.7 Bobby, but unless we agree to start using U6 or some alternative measurement all the time I don't think it's fair to suddenly hold Obama to a new more stringent standard simply because it's convenient for Republican political aspirations.

Listen, everyone know the economy is still relatively weak with a lot of people out of work and still hurting but I think it's pretty clear that Obama's policies have resulted in employment and economic growth even at a time when most of the rest of the world is mired in recession.

This is despite clear Republican obstructionism for the last 2 years that has been intentionally preventing any further substantive government intervention in the economy. You can't tie Obama's hands fiscally and then continue to blame him for employers refusing to hire workers.
posted by vuron at 7:03 AM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]

Listen, everyone know the economy is still relatively weak with a lot of people out of work and still hurting but I think it's pretty clear that Obama's policies have resulted in employment and economic growth even at a time when most of the rest of the world is mired in recession.

Related: Most say Bush to blame for weak U.S. economy, poll finds

That includes half of all Republicans, BTW.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:05 AM on October 5, 2012

Oh shit Zombieflanders, Kinderland must be where young children are indoctrinated with crypto-communist zionist conspiracies! Why hide the anti-semitism and just say that the Elders of Protocols of Zion are conspiring with a crypto-islamist to advance Zionist control of the US.
posted by vuron at 7:08 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

I love coal. I love Big Bird.
posted by gauche at 7:08 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

The American Enterprise Insitute criticizes a Democratic president's economic performance? You don't say!

I'm sure James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute was totally using the same standard to judge George W. Bush's eight years of lackadasical job growth, especially given he didn't inherit an economy crippled by Republican incompetence (he just achieved one).

Thanks for proving vuron right.
posted by Gelatin at 7:09 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

“Camp Kinderland was founded in the 1923 as a place for the children of radical Jewish activists,” the report continues.

What an asshole. Am I the only one that gets a really creepy vibe from this after what happened to the kids at the Norwegian summer camp not long ago?
posted by madamjujujive at 7:10 AM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

Vuron, I wasn't talking about U6, but nice diversion. The fact is that the headline 7.8% unemployment number says more about the shrunken labor market than it does about job creation, which isn't even keeping up with population growth.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:12 AM on October 5, 2012

@AllenWest: In regards to today's Jobs report---I agree with former GE CEO Jack Welch, Chicago style politics is at work here...
posted by zombieflanders at 7:13 AM on October 5, 2012

Related: Most say Bush to blame for weak U.S. economy, poll finds

Which reminds me -- one of the points Obama successfuly made -- though I'd have liked to see more emphasis -- is noting that Romney's policies are carbon copies of George W. Bush's.

Many of which, of course, the American Enterprise Institute supported. How did that work out, and why should we afford them any credibility as a result?
posted by Gelatin at 7:14 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Dude, you totally missed an opportunity for your first post this morning to be "I just flew in from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and boy are my arms tired!

Sigh. It's the ones that get away from you that you always regret.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:16 AM on October 5, 2012

The fact is that the headline 7.8% unemployment number says more about the shrinking labor market than it does about job creation, which isn't even keeping up with population growth.

Actually labor participation is up this month.

How hard is it to be right about something?
posted by leopard at 7:16 AM on October 5, 2012 [7 favorites]

I fixed my comment immediately (before you posted your comment, leopard) to say "shrunken" instead of "shrinking". You're correct that the labor participation rate was up this month.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:18 AM on October 5, 2012

The fact is that the headline 7.8% unemployment number says more about the shrinking labor market than it does about job creation, which isn't even keeping up with population growth.

That isn't a "fact," that's the opinion of someone at the partisan American Enterprise Institute. And as leopard just pointed out,. that opinion is -- big surprise! -- incorrect.
posted by Gelatin at 7:18 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

From the BLS Commissioner's Statement:

The employment-population ratio rose 0.4 percentage point in September to 58.7 percent, following 2 months in which the ratio had edged down. The overall trend in the employment-population ratio for this year has been flat. The labor force participation rate was little changed in September. Like the employment-population ratio, the labor force participation rate has been essentially flat in 2012.

(Emphasis added.)
posted by GrammarMoses at 7:19 AM on October 5, 2012

I see that the "which isn't even keeping up with population growth" clause is still there.
posted by leopard at 7:20 AM on October 5, 2012

I fixed my comment immediately (before you posted your comment, leopard) to say "shrunken" instead of "shrinking".

So we agree that Bush's exonomic incompetence did lasting economic damage. The question remains, why should we return to those policies with Romney?
posted by Gelatin at 7:20 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

Actually, it should be pretty easy to establish whether this statement -- "If the labor force participation rate was the same as when President Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.7%." -- is factual or not. These are numbers, not opinions, and they're either right or wrong.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:20 AM on October 5, 2012

I fixed my comment immediately (before you posted your comment, leopard) to say "shrunken" instead of "shrinking".

I'm not trying to be a dick here (for a change some might say), but I think we need to be very careful about these edge-case edits if we don't want to be weeping for our lost edit button.
posted by howfar at 7:21 AM on October 5, 2012 [7 favorites]

sent her children to a politically left-wing Jewish summer camp with Communist roots.

Racism, anti-Semitism, and red-baiting, all in the last week. I've nearly filled my Daily Caller scumbag-bingo card.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:21 AM on October 5, 2012 [8 favorites]

Don't get me wrong, this is a good report. It's a small move in the right direction. Yay.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:22 AM on October 5, 2012

If we can say things like "if people hadn't exited the labour market the unemployment rate would be worse", let's also look at things like "if the Republicans hadn't spent 4 years slashing public sector jobs because teachers ruin the economy, labour market participation and unemployment would both look a hell of a lot better".

Paul Krugman has pointed out repeatedly that private sector employment has been growing steadily; employment numbers are being dragged down by cuts to public sector workers. In other words, by Republican austerity policies.

It'd be extremely difficult to make an honest case that ongoing lackluster employment is Obama's fault, but I'd welcome the attempt if someone tried.
posted by Gelatin at 7:23 AM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]

To go along with Gelatin's post and my link to Ezra Klein above:

One Key Reason Employment Is Rising—State and Local Austerity Is Ending

It's not a great idea to get too obsessed with the industry sub-sector breakdowns, but today's jobs report did have some striking news about public sector employment—after a long decline induced by state and local budget cuts it's rising again. On a seasonally adjusted basis, there were more government workers in August 2012 than in July, and even more in September.

And who's leading the charge? As you can see above, it's teachers.

All told, state and local education makes up about half of the public sector workforce in the United States so when we shift from firing teachers to hiring them it makes a big difference. Some other key categories, including the Postal Service (which is clearly in structural decline) and the non-education local government grab bag (cops, fire fighters) are still declining. But one important issue as we move toward recovery is how these trends in public sector employment will hold up. In principle, one of the accelerator channels driving recovery is that when the private economy grows, state and local government revenue rises without needing to hike taxes. That creates the budget headroom for your teachers and your public safety workers who, in addition to providing public services, bolster demand at local retailers and personal service providers.

posted by zombieflanders at 7:25 AM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]

It's interesting how Romney's success in the debate is now a moot talking point by both parties. Weeks of preparation and all he got was a day of joy.

The jobless rate dropping below 8% is a huge mental factor in making the country feel better about things. It's effect can't be overstated.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:26 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

And devoid of any context. There's a reason the labor participation rate is low. Hint: it's related to the 500k/month-plus drops before Obama took office.

Labor participation rate, per BLS:

January 2009: 65.7
November 2009: 65.0
May 2010: 64.9
July 2011: 64.0
August 2012: 63.5
September 2012: 63.6

Let's all blame Bush for dropping from 65.7% to 63.5% from Jan 09 to Aug 12, but yay for Obama for a .1% uptick last month.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:28 AM on October 5, 2012

Actually, it should be pretty easy to establish whether this statement -- "If the labor force participation rate was the same as when President Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.7%." -- is factual or not.

It should also be pretty easy to establish the fact that when Obama took office, the economy was in a tailspin created by his Republican predecesor, so the context of those facts might not support the narrative folks like the American Enterprise Institute might prefer.
posted by Gelatin at 7:29 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

My point, BobbyVan, is that that fact are based on an irrelevant premise of "what if people hadn't made the choices they did". We can play what-ifs all day long--including my favourite game, what if Republicans hadn't gone after public sector jobs like a cheetah after an antelope--but that's all they are, what-ifs. People did decide to give up on finding a job, and the Republicans did decide to slash public sector spending.

It sucks that the labour participation rate isn't as high as it was in 2009, and I am 100% with you about needing to give people a reason to keep looking and to stay in the market, but I don't think it's realistic to hold Obama to a metric of what-ifs.
posted by Phire at 7:31 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

And here's a chart from BLS showing the steady decline in the labor participation rate under Obama.
posted by BobbyVan at 7:33 AM on October 5, 2012

Let's all blame Bush for dropping from 65.7% to 63.5% from Jan 09 to Aug 12, but yay for Obama for a .1% uptick last month.

So now you're claiming that the economy handed to Obama had nothing to do with Bush? Okay...
posted by zombieflanders at 7:34 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Let's all blame Bush for dropping from 65.7% to 63.5% from Jan 09 to Aug 12, but yay for Obama for a .1% uptick last month.

Well, I'd blame Republicans in general, not just Bush; as noted, much of the poor employment numbers is due to misguided austerity in the public sector. Remind me, which party opposes additional spending for local public sector workers? I can't recall right now, but I think it's the one whose Senate leader said their main goal was to make Obama a one-term president.
posted by Gelatin at 7:34 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama is at 70.4% on intrade. Only $3 gets you a nice share of Romentum.
posted by drezdn at 7:35 AM on October 5, 2012

Noonan's Advice to the Romney campaign: Watch out for Big Bird
posted by growabrain at 7:37 AM on October 5, 2012

Why Today’s Jobs Numbers Are Truly Good News
posted by zombieflanders at 7:46 AM on October 5, 2012

Snoop ~~Dogg~~Lion's take on who he's voting for and why.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:48 AM on October 5, 2012 [15 favorites]

much of the poor employment numbers is due to misguided austerity in the public sector.

Here's a CBO .xls file showing historical data on all government revenues and outlays. Where is this austerity of which you speak?
posted by BobbyVan at 7:51 AM on October 5, 2012

I'm not sure what the direct correlation between topline federal revenues and outlays and state and local employment is.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:58 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

BobbyVan: That's federal public outlays, yes?
posted by tonycpsu at 7:59 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

BobbyVan: Where is this austerity of which you speak?

Here it is:
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, government employment has decreased by 608,000 from February 2009 through April 2012.

(source)
posted by syzygy at 8:03 AM on October 5, 2012 [6 favorites]

Gah! Just to clarify my comment above, I was not calling Skygazer, Man of twists and turns, and ericb dumb, I was saying I could see the Romney team doing something that dumb.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:08 AM on October 5, 2012

omg ZombiwFlanders, that SnoopDogg list about Romney had me in tears XD
posted by liza at 8:11 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

FRED: State and Local Government Spending since 2001 has steadily increased. Doesn't look like austerity to me.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:11 AM on October 5, 2012

Out of curiosity, BobbyVan, where do you live?
Because in Philly, the city is implementing plans to jail folks who haven't paid criminal court fees in order to collect municipal revenues. That's right -- you serve your time, then go to jail again if you owe fines. This is a brand new thing. Under a Democratic mayor.

Also, this is a tough crowd if you are a standard-bearer for the GOP. You will be losing all credibility right quick if you engage in post-edits to make them more compelling and the mischaracterization of data. I mean, you want to be mocked from here to eternity, that's your call, I guess.
posted by angrycat at 8:12 AM on October 5, 2012

I still remember how Obama was inaugurated in 2000... so many memories.
posted by rainy at 8:13 AM on October 5, 2012 [6 favorites]

And let's not forget that regardless of top-line spending, Republicans have blocked aid to states that could stem the bleeding of public sector jobs.

It's predictable to point to individual numbers in hopes of creating a narrative -- as predicted -- that Obama is to blame for the struggling economy. The problem is, there's a competing narrative: That Republicans, after their policies created the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, are deliberately hampering economic recovery in order to regain political power.
posted by Gelatin at 8:13 AM on October 5, 2012

The problem for the republicans is they were mostly hammering 8% number for being too high, not for being wrong. Why even quote 8% number if it's arbitrary?
posted by rainy at 8:15 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Spending increases/decreases are not a direct correlation with austerity, especially as it relates to employment.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:15 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

BobbyVan: "James Pethokoukis of AEI: "If the labor force participation rate was the same as when President Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.7%.""

And if pigs could fly their pens would need roofs. WHat's your point?
posted by notsnot at 8:18 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

BobbyVan: Where is this austerity of which you speak?

Furthermore, if you look at the graph, it shows government employment statistics during Bush's two terms. During his two terms, government employment grew by around 1.9 million jobs. So, had that trend continued during Obama's first term, you'd have had 995,000 new jobs plus the 608,000 jobs that were lost, for a grand total of 1,603,000 additional jobs in the government sector.

THAT's your austerity - a net deficit of 1,603,000 jobs.

By my back-of-the-napkin calculation, that would mean almost a 0.8 percent positive difference in the labor force participation rate.
posted by syzygy at 8:18 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

Folks, in a fast moving thread we really need you to be using the edit window for TYPOS ONLY. If you can not do that, use the preview feature. Editing for content, even if you're trying to be more accurate, is a huge problem and needs to not happen.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:19 AM on October 5, 2012 [9 favorites]

I was struck by the cognitive dissonance a few months back, when after years of crying "Cut government spending to the bone!" the Republicans all freaked out when the newly unemployed numbers were 80,000 people higher than predicted, and that was almost the exact same number of state & local workers that had been laid off during the same reporting period. Do they think that government workers will just vanish along with their jobs?
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:19 AM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

BobbyVan, spending != employment. It would be predictable that state and local governments would need to spend more on public aid during a recession, espeically one of the magnitude that Bush's fecklessness created.

It would also be predictable that state and local governments would need to lay off public sector employees like teachers, firefighters, police officers, sanitation workers when facing strained budgets, since tax revenue also tends to drop in a recession.

If you don't see austerity, then maybe you aren't looking hard enough.
posted by Gelatin at 8:19 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Snoop DoggLion's take on who he's voting for and why.

Snoop's got decent penmanship.
posted by grubi at 8:20 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama using new employment numbers in speech at GMU.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:22 AM on October 5, 2012

Heh, he just said Romney got an Extreme Makeover.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:25 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

angrycat - I'm in NYC. No surprise that a weak private sector sends less money to the government in tax revenues, forcing the government to look elsewhere to make up the difference.

On your other point, I made a quick post-edit literally within seconds to make my comment accurate. I'll take Jessamyn's comment to heart. Things are moving quickly so if I need to refine a comment, will just make a new one.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:27 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

The American Conservative: Another Reason Not to Trust Romney

Of course, Romney is trying to make up for lost time and to repair damage that his 47% comments caused. The real question is: why did he wait until now? It would have been much easier to repudiate his comments from the video weeks ago and minimize the damage they have caused. Doing so now makes Romney seem as opportunistic as ever. It is only after the damage has been done and he realizes that the comments are dragging him down that he casts them aside. On almost every issue, Romney gives the impression that everything is negotiable, and his commitment at any given moment doesn’t mean much of anything. One week, he’s supposedly the scourge of government dependency, and the next he abandons that line of attack entirely. Romney demonstrates on an almost daily basis that he can’t be trusted. Even when he is correcting obvious mistakes, he gives people reason to doubt him.

posted by zombieflanders at 8:27 AM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

God, what a beautiful slap in the lying face of the lying Right-wing, supply side, voodoo economic, Ayn Randian cultists and vulture capitalists it will be when a nice big chuffed economic recovery happens, amazingly under the leadership of a "socialist" president.

I know it's bit mean, but I want to see those people wail and shred their hair shirts in deepest ideological agony, I want to hear the lamentations of their Ann Romney's, I want to salt the earth of the American Enterprise Institute and ALEC and witness the Koch brothers begging the country's middle class for forgiveness. I want to see Romney grow old and senile and doddering and get his own reality show, I want Sean Hannity to get eaten by a dinosaur.

Yeah, man. It's gonna be beautiful. It's gonna be wild.

Man, when I don't get any sleep, I just want blood and guts. Whew.
posted by Skygazer at 8:38 AM on October 5, 2012 [9 favorites]

The Strange Case of the Trap that was Never Sprung

This is puzzling. The obvious gimmick here is to repeatedly refer to Romney's plan as a $5 trillion tax cut, which is sort of brazenly incorrect, as a way of baiting Romney into repeatedly claiming that he's going to close loopholes and deductions that will make his plan revenue neutral. And it worked! That's exactly what Romney did.

Princeton Economist: Math Behind Romney's Tax Plan Adds Up

with the right assumptions about growth.

Why Obama Didn't Mention 47%

It's clear, one Democratic strategist said, that Obama's inner circle concluded it was best not to turn the debate into a slugfest and hit Romney personally. That might come across as not presidential. It could distract from his aim of persuading those few remaining undecideds that they should see this election as a choice between two starkly different visions for the future and select his. Besides, there are weeks of ads to come, and if the 47 percent theme continues to resonate, the campaign certainly can keep producing ads that use the video as ammo.

posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:46 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'd bet it would be possible to arrange for a komodo dragon or two to eat Hannity.

Do a Kickstarter. Various levels will get various body parts. Don't forget to include option for grilled instead fried.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:47 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

I just want them to give America back.

Yes.

America of the 50s and 60s. Mom, apple pie, waving flags. The one they claim to like. That's the America we all want.

It's the one with a social net. With lots of infrastructure spending. With some of the world's best education. With high taxes for the rich. With regulation for banks. With a patent system that made a modest amount of sense. And with science and technology at the apex of cultural regard.

For the past 30 years the right wing has tried to tear that America down in the name of trying to build it back up. They sing mom and apple pie when they actually mean "make abortion illegal again" and "keep the brown people under control" and "put God back in our courthouses".

It's a religious war cast in terms of political struggle.

I just wish the media would run that story: how the great America of the latter 20th century was created by left-wing agendas of safety nets, education, research and infrastructure.

It took 30 years to burn it down. I hope it doesn't take 30 years to build it up again.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:48 AM on October 5, 2012 [27 favorites]

They don't want the America of the 1950s, they want the one from the 1870s.
posted by absalom at 8:53 AM on October 5, 2012 [6 favorites]

Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.
posted by edgeways at 8:53 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

Social Media Debate Sentiment Less Critical of Obama than Polls and Press Are
posted by zombieflanders at 8:55 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

ob1quixote: "Poor people aren't parasites. By and large they're people who work way too hard for far too little, but never seem to get ahead."

This reminded me of Ted Kennedy's passionate and gut-retching speech on the Senate floor when the Republicans employed a "filibuster by delay" to stall a minimum wage increase bill.

"'What is the price?', we ask the other side, 'what is the price you want from these men and women? What cost? How much more do we have to give to the private sector and businesses? How many billions of dollars more are you asking -- are you requiring? 'When does the greed stop?' we ask the other side. [...] What is it about working men and women that you find so offensive that you won't even commit a vote?"

I urge everyone to find a minute or two to hear this in Kennedy's own voice.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:03 AM on October 5, 2012 [13 favorites]

The 'spirited fellow' remarks reminded me of Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up.
posted by ersatz at 9:04 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

That video is awesome. That is all.
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:05 AM on October 5, 2012

If Mitt wants to win the next debate, he should attack Obama with a critique from the left of his foreign policy (drone war is wrong, assassinations, etc). Obama would never expect and it would completely throw him off.
posted by drezdn at 9:13 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Why Obama Didn't Mention 47%

I imagine it was because if there was one thing you could be sure Romney was ready for, it was this line of attack. With weeks of preparation, I would be quite concerned that Romney had a "zinger" lined up for this.

If effective, a counter straight to the President's face would could have made that line of attack inert. They you'd lose a month of being able to repeat that line in ads.

Obama wasn't so hot Wednesday night, but I don't think "why didn't you throw the punch everyone, including your opponent expected you to throw?" is that strong of a criticism.
posted by spaltavian at 9:17 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Someone in the AC mentioned that Romney's apology was meant to come during the debate. That sounds likely.
posted by JKevinKing at 9:22 AM on October 5, 2012

Watching the Daily Show coverage, it's so obvious that Stewart, like all the media, is blowing Romney's "victory" and the president's "defeat" way out of proportion because, hey, he's gotta make jokes about something.
posted by straight at 9:34 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Someone in the AC mentioned that Romney's apology was meant to come during the debate. That sounds likely.

Yes, as stated above, many of us surmised as such. It's obvious, too, in watching Romney's interview with Hannity, since Hannitty asks Romney what would he have said during the debate if the topic of 47% had been brought up. Clearly, the right was waiting for it and had spin ready to try and neutralize the harm it has done so far. This feeble tactic of a mea culpa 17 days AFTER the video surfaced shows that they 'took the bait' and Obama's team and surrogates can still use the video and 47% all the way to the end.
posted by ericb at 9:40 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney’s ‘takeback’ of ‘47 percent’ diatribe unconvincing.
posted by ericb at 9:43 AM on October 5, 2012

Obama is now down to 68.4% on intrade.
posted by drezdn at 9:46 AM on October 5, 2012

From eric's link above:

Believe him at your peril.

Word.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 9:47 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

^
To
posted by RedShrek at 9:52 AM on October 5, 2012

straight: "Watching the Daily Show coverage, it's so obvious that Stewart, like all the media, is blowing Romney's "victory" and the president's "defeat" way out of proportion because, hey, he's gotta make jokes about something."

To be fair, this election season has been pretty damn boring. If anything interesting happens, they desperately grab onto it in the hopes of generating any excitement.
posted by octothorpe at 9:53 AM on October 5, 2012

Now up to 69% (titter).
posted by drezdn at 9:59 AM on October 5, 2012

I'm a little disappointed. I expected to see the positive unemployment numbers being attributed to "business owners being delighted by Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as running mate, and getting a head start on building up staffing in anticipation of the upcoming economic boom, which will happen just from Romney's election, even before he does anything."
posted by benito.strauss at 9:59 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

I dunno. If I was offered a ten-to-one payout on 69%, I'd still put in my dollar and take my chances.
posted by grubi at 10:00 AM on October 5, 2012

Romney lost momentum in his intrade price has peaked and his chances are falling again:

Today's Change: -$0.28 (-8.2%)
posted by Skygazer at 10:00 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Now up to 69% (titter).

Unfortunately, London bookies still have Obama at 80% (and I agree with them).
posted by ersatz at 10:04 AM on October 5, 2012

Rick Santorum, everybody:

“I’ve voted to kill Big Bird in the past,” Romney’s ex-primary rival said. “I have a record there that I have to disclose. That doesn’t mean I don’t like Big Bird. You can kill things and still like them, maybe to eat them, I don’t know. That’s probably that. Can we — can we go back on that one?”

posted by zombieflanders at 10:06 AM on October 5, 2012 [7 favorites]

The important thing is that Obama took a big hit and he plunged down to Still Being Re-Elected.
posted by Bookhouse at 10:07 AM on October 5, 2012 [9 favorites]

Yeah, I'd go with the London bookies also. They probably have a better more even tempered view. There's just way too much wayward emotional wind over here, and that intrade price for Romney isn't level-headed, to say the least.
posted by Skygazer at 10:09 AM on October 5, 2012

"My opponent has been trying to do a two-step, reposition and got an extreme makeover," Obama said in the rally before heading to another campaign event in swing-state Ohio.

Really nice to see the unemployment numbers, but here's a long way to go yet.

Jack Welch Doesn't Know What He's Tweeting About
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:10 AM on October 5, 2012

Now up to 69% (titter).

Unfortunately, London bookies still have Obama at 80% (and I agree with them).

Interesting. Is there not an arbitrage opportunity here?
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:11 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

The most surprising thing is that Santorum realized that it was a "bad YouTube moment" seconds later. I guess the new medication is working.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:13 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

I’ve voted to kill Big Bird in the past,” Romney’s ex-primary rival said. “I have a record there that I have to disclose. That doesn’t mean I don’t like Big Bird. You can kill things and still like them, maybe to eat them, I don’t know. That’s probably that. Can we — can we go back on that one?”

I was SURE that was from the onion until I clicked on the link.

I should have had more faith in Rick's idiocy.
posted by winna at 10:27 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

Paul Ryan: 'We Should Not Shy Away From Class Warfare'.
posted by ericb at 10:28 AM on October 5, 2012

Furthermore, if you look at the graph, it shows government employment statistics during Bush's two terms. During his two terms, government employment grew by around 1.9 million jobs. So, had that trend continued during Obama's first term, you'd have had 995,000 new jobs plus the 608,000 jobs that were lost, for a grand total of 1,603,000 additional jobs in the government sector.

THAT's your austerity - a net deficit of 1,603,000 jobs.

That's peanuts compared to the net deficit of private sector jobs (which is estimated to be 12.6 million using the same pre-crisis trends).
posted by BobbyVan at 10:30 AM on October 5, 2012

Paul Ryan In 2011: 'Let's Make This Country A Tax Shelter' (VIDEO).
posted by ericb at 10:30 AM on October 5, 2012

Man, considering how unhinged Jack Welch sounds, I hope he doesn't have a full on senior moment and begin tweeting penis photos...
posted by Skygazer at 10:30 AM on October 5, 2012

The federal budget allocates $445 million to the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which is 12% of PBS' funding.

Meanwhile, Congress keeps increasing the defense budget to buy things the military doesn't want, including $2 billion more for shipbuilding than the administration asked for.

Here's Wikipedia's list of countries by military expenditures. The US spends more on defense than the next 13 countries combined, and all of the top 15 counties except China and Russia are US allies. The US spends over 3 times as much as China and Russia combined.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:31 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney Vow to Lower Middle-Class Taxes at Odds With Cap.
posted by ericb at 10:31 AM on October 5, 2012

It could be a handkerchief.

With something WRITTEN on it.
posted by ericb at 10:34 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

That's peanuts compared to the net deficit of private sector jobs (which is estimated to be 12.6 million using the same pre-crisis trends).

This time the source for your "estimate" is not the BLS but the American Enterprise Institute. Of what value is that?
posted by Gelatin at 10:34 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Heck, even some politicians write cheat sheet notes on the palms of their hands. ; )
posted by ericb at 10:35 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

including $2 billion more for shipbuilding than the administration asked for.

The Curiosity rover needs a buddy, hint hint. We could call it Nosey.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:36 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yeah, I'd go with the London bookies also. They probably have a better more even tempered view.

Bookmakers are calculating the odds by making sure they make a profit no matter who wins, not by trying to predict the result. It's the betting public you are trusting, the bookies have nothing to do with it.
posted by Dr Dracator at 10:37 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

BobbyVan: "That's peanuts compared to the net deficit of private sector jobs "

It's just adorable of the AEI (nice neutral cite there, by the way!) to start the clock before the Clinton years, so that it includes the massive job growth under his administration in calculating the linear trend to make Obama's numbers look worse. What's that chart look like if you start it at 2000?

Also, saying that the number of public jobs that disappeared is less than the number of private jobs that disappeared is not an argument against the presence or absence of austerity.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:38 AM on October 5, 2012 [7 favorites]

That's peanuts compared to the net deficit of private sector jobs (which is estimated to be 12.6 million using the same pre-crisis trends).

You mean the one showing a fall in 2007 and a return to the pre-crisis trend that just happens to start in early 2009? Purely a coincidence.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:39 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Hey, did you guys know that the President's Simpson-Bowles debt commission also proposed eliminating federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? They did it in "draft" form, but hey, isn't a presidential campaign also a series of "draft" agenda items?

See this and this [.pdf].
posted by BobbyVan at 10:40 AM on October 5, 2012

But do they like Big Bird?
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:41 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Christ on a crutch, BobbyVan, the President didn't sign on to the Simpson-Bowles commission, and your guy Paul Ryan rallied opposition to it and voted against it as a member of said commission. The idea that its draft recommendations somehow represents a window into Obama's policy preferences is asinine, and makes you look foolish for even suggesting it.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:41 AM on October 5, 2012 [10 favorites]

Cue wingnut conspiracy freakout about Obama personally writing the BLS reports and a new website, unskewedjobnumbers.com.

Ah, the stench of desperation.
posted by ericb at 10:42 AM on October 5, 2012

Hey, did you guys know that the President's Simpson-Bowles debt commission also proposed eliminating federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Winner of the most pathetic "comeback"/attempt to put words in Obama's mouth so far in this thread.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:43 AM on October 5, 2012 [10 favorites]

Not suggesting that Obama approves of Simpson-Bowles - far from it! Just making the point that Romney didn't just make this up at the debate, and that the debt commission actually agrees (provisionally) with cutting funds for CPB.
posted by BobbyVan at 10:43 AM on October 5, 2012

BobbyVan: "That's peanuts compared to the net deficit of private sector jobs (which is estimated to be 12.6 million using the same pre-crisis trends)."

See that giant drop off, then swing back up at the same angle? Got any idears about that?
posted by notsnot at 10:43 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Hey, did you guys know that the President's Simpson-Bowles debt commission also proposed eliminating federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Ah, the stench of desperation.
posted by ericb at 10:43 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Paul Ryan In 2011: 'Let's Make This Country A Tax Shelter' (VIDEO).

The lying these guys are willing to participate in is incredible. "We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world: 35%". Yes, fucker, but the EFFECTIVE tax rate after you take all the dodges and loopholes and sweetheart deals is closer to 11%. One of the lowest EFFECTIVE corporate tax rates in the world. You are a flat-out liar; there is no way you don't know this.

"Let's make this country a tax-shelter." We are against redistribution, unless we're for it. FYIGM.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:44 AM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]

did you guys know that the President's Simpson-Bowles debt commission also proposed eliminating federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

So what? That hardly implies that Obama endorsed the idea. And a number of prominent Democrats have commented that Simpson-Bowles' proposals are rotten, with far too much emphasis on entitlement cuts and not enough tax increases.

They did it in "draft" form

...which the entire commission, including Paul Ryan, refused to endorse, in part because of the mere presence of the aforementioned tax increases...

hey, isn't a presidential campaign also a series of "draft" agenda items?

No. No, it isn't. For one thing, Romney's vague suggestions -- such as how he'd pay for his $5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy -- aren't even concrete enough to be called "draft." (After all, you yourself conceded that if Romney made his proposals concrete -- a "draft", if you please -- they'd be torn to shreds.)
posted by Gelatin at 10:44 AM on October 5, 2012

See that giant drop off, then swing back up at the same angle? Got any idears about that?

Dude. Do you have amnesia, or did you miss the part where the whole economy fucking blew up?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:46 AM on October 5, 2012

Not suggesting that Obama approves of Simpson-Bowles - far from it! Just making the point that Romney didn't just make this up at the debate

That wasn't an argument anyone was making. Romney's been talking about this ever since 2011, back when it became popular in Wingnutistan.

and that the debt commission actually agrees (provisionally) with cutting funds for CPB.

Or that the half of the commission that are Republicans added it because of the aforementioned popularity amongst their supporters.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:47 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think that was a rhetorical question, Benny.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:48 AM on October 5, 2012

Benny Andajetz: "Dude. Do you have amnesia, or did you miss the part where the whole economy fucking blew up?"

Tune your sarcasm meter, dude. Your point is my point exactly.

It's hard for the campfire of the economy to restart itself, when someone dropped an air tanker of piss on it.
posted by notsnot at 10:49 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Not suggesting that Obama approves of Simpson-Bowles - far from it!

Oh, far indeed! Then why the reference to "Obama's" Simpson-Bowles commission?

Just making the point that Romney didn't just make this up at the debate

Who said he made it up? Eliminating public funds from public broadcasting has been a shibboleth on the fringe right for a long time now.

More importantly, who cares if he made it up or not? The point is that Romney made that proposal on live TV and is now taking more political heat for it than any amount of handwaving can obscure.

and that the debt commission actually agrees (provisionally) with cutting funds for CPB.

Who cares? As I said, the debt commission's ideas are far too heavy on cuts to social programs. On top of that, the commission was formed at a time when Republican ideas enjoyed a dispropotionate, if thoroughly misguided, volume in the public discourse. After Romeny's defeat marks a public repudiation of movement conservative nonsense, that commission will rightly be relegated to the dustbin of history.
posted by Gelatin at 10:50 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think that was a rhetorical question, Benny.

If so, sorry. My reality-discerning meter is a bit outta whack these days. Running full-tilt for the last 40 years is probably out of spec.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:51 AM on October 5, 2012

And now John McCain is flirting with jobberism (scroll to #11).
posted by zombieflanders at 10:52 AM on October 5, 2012

McCain switches lanes so often between wingnuttery and decent guy who actually makes sense sometimes it's hard to keep track.
posted by TwoWordReview at 10:55 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

My reality-discerning meter is a bit outta whack these days.

I pretty much stopped watching the news and only read/listen to newsy things with care, because everything was starting to sound like an Onion headline. That wasn't all bad, but it was too disorienting to be sustainable.
posted by rtha at 10:56 AM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

He certainly is a box of chocolates, anymore.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:56 AM on October 5, 2012

The unemployment truthers are not helping Romney

Enjoy the delicious schadenfreude of watching a Romney spokesperson having to deal with the WHARRGARBL from a Fox News interviewer.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:59 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Unfortunately, Romney has seemingly broken free of the "closed conservative information feedback loop." Will he get sucked back in? The idea that he should double-down on his "47%" remarks was an incredible gift. God, I hope he starts listening to these people again.
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:06 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

From zombieflanders' link:

Ezra Klein debunks the whole thing, as if it needs debunking. But it’s also worth noting that it’s hard to see how the unemployment truthers are helping Mitt Romney here. By launching into a full blown angry panic about improving jobs numbers, they only draw attention to, and reinforce, the idea that the economy is, in fact, improving — and, worse, that the prospect of economic improvement is terrible news for Romney’s presidential prospects.

I'd like to see this issue get more scrutiny than the recent Republican ranting about the latest round of quantitiative easing from the Fed. By claiming that the Fed acting to aid the economy, which is its goddam raison d'etre, they complained, the Fed was helping Obama win re-election. Which is as clear a statement as one could want that the Republicans are banking on economic obstructionism to win them political power.
posted by Gelatin at 11:09 AM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]

Which is as clear a statement as one could want that the Republicans are banking on economic obstructionism to win them political power.

Well, that and voter obstruction. And just straight up lying about issues. They seem flustered.
posted by inigo2 at 11:25 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

The thing with jobberism is... YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID "IT'S GREAT THAT UNEMPLOYMENT IS DOWN, BUT IT SHOULD BE DOWN MORE, VOTE ROMNEY."
posted by drezdn at 11:26 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

Conservatives are definitely at risk of appearing to be actively rooting against economic recovery in order to elect their guy. I mean they've been basically pursuing that strategy for two years but they aren't even doing a good job concealing their displeasure in the economy doing better.
posted by vuron at 11:32 AM on October 5, 2012

The crazies at the Free Beacon try to tie report to BLS employees who are Obama donors, with just a hint of pedophilia.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:37 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yes, fucker, but...

Old Year Resolution: I'm going to use this argument phrasing for the rest of the year when someone* says something stupid to me.

*MsEld exempted of course.
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:39 AM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

RolandOfEld, me too. It's awesome.
posted by grubi at 11:41 AM on October 5, 2012

*pleaseletobamauseitpleaseletobamauseitohpleaseohpleaseohplease*
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:45 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Now up to 69% (titter).

Unfortunately, London bookies still have Obama at 80% (and I agree with them).

Interesting. Is there not an arbitrage opportunity here?

Buy Obama on Intrade for 69 cents. Buy Romney in London for 20 cents. You spend 89 cents and are guaranteed to win a dollar. Such a situation can't last for long or else there must be some other restriction preventing the arbitrage.
posted by JackFlash at 11:46 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Has anyone seen a gender breakdown of reactions to the first debate? I was consistently feeling throughout that Romney's alpha-male cockiness and downright rudeness -- e.g. "This is fun, isn't it?" to Lehrer after Lehrer noted his rule breaking -- would get the bro's hollering in bars but turn off a lot of women. Curious what individuals here thought, too.
posted by msalt at 11:48 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

I know nothing about betting or gambling. Can someone give me a simplified version of how the Intrade thing works? Is a higher number better?
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 11:50 AM on October 5, 2012

Curious what individuals here thought, too.

It came off as flippant, like this whole thing was a game, not high-stakes contest about implementing a vision of America. But then again, a lot of right-wingers come off to me as viewing every discussion the same way.
posted by grubi at 11:51 AM on October 5, 2012

Curious what individuals here thought, too.

The word "mansplaining" ran through my head more than once, I'll admit, even though he was doing it to another man (Obama). He often had a look on his face like "No, you idiot, I'm going to tell you how it works."

There hasn't been much mention either of how Obama looked directly into the camera quite often and Mitt didn't seem to until the very end.
posted by sallybrown at 11:51 AM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

Obama should be able to put together a killer, succinct argument (or TV ad) tying conservative denial of reality (anti-science, birtherism, unemployment trutherism) to disastrous economic and war policies. And tie in Romney's changing positions to boot. Something about, facing facts honestly and making the hard decisions. Dealing with realities we don't like, rolling up your sleeves and making the best of it, vs. happy talk and phony promises.

I thought he was going there for a second in the debate when he started talking about the importance of a leader saying no, but the moment passed.
posted by msalt at 11:53 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Thank God, good job numbers.

Keep in mind that the last several job number increases (unemployment decreases) were due to people dropping out of the workforce and not being reported in the numbers. Look at the U6 numbers, not the reported U3 numbers, to get an idea of the true unemployment rate. The U6 numbers have decreased from 15.1 to 14.7 this year.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 11:57 AM on October 5, 2012

I know nothing about betting or gambling. Can someone give me a simplified version of how the Intrade thing works? Is a higher number better?

Here is their explanation. In a nutshell, on a scale of $0.00 to $10.00, from isn't gonna happen to is gonna happen respectively, you buy shares for events you think will happen, hoping that when they do happen you make the profit of $10.00-(whatever you paid for your share).

It can be quickly equated to a percentage. Obama's "shares" are at $6.92, so he has a 69.2% chance of being reelected according to the people who participate in intrade.
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:59 AM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

On Diane Rehm today they were going on about how Obama is thin-skinned and very competitive. That, plus his no drama ever stance, maybe is sort of the story of why he seemed out of it (and kept looking down during the attacks). Plus, there was this interesting anecdote of Carter prepping for his debates with Reagan; in one session Carter told his mock-opponent "shut up" and stormed out of the room. And how an incumbent goes from everybody around him saying "whoah you are just God incarnate, dude" to, well, Romney in meth-fueled insane pit bull mode.

Also, a few women called in to complain about Mitt's demeanor. I do think, that in terms of 'who would you like to hang with' analysis, it could very well be that Mitt's particular brand of machismo scans as get-the-fuck-away with, well, a lot of humans, but more women than men.
posted by angrycat at 12:00 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

The crazies at the Free Beacon try to tie report to BLS employees who are Obama donors, with just a hint of pedophilia.

Wow, Zombieflanders, you ain't kidding.

Stephen Phillips of Washington, D.C., has contributed at least $270 to Obama during the 2012 cycle. According to his LinkedIn profile, Phillips has been an economist at BLS since June 2009. Phillips was responsible for examining the impact of Obamacare on Healthcare North American Industry Classification System indices. Phillips was also assistant coach for a girls’ high school tennis team in 2010.

Why the hell was that last line necessary? And, please! $270? Wooo.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:01 PM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

I don't generally agree with her, but Peggy Noonan is an honest and shrewd analyst of presidential politics. If you're open to contrasting but perceptive information -- or if you're Bobby Van -- I strongly recommend (growabrain's link to) her column.
posted by msalt at 12:05 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Guys, guys, Obama is our first gay president!

Never thought that would come up.
posted by angrycat at 12:06 PM on October 5, 2012

angrycat: it's interesting that no one has brought up that "who would you rather have a beer with" analysis. My theory is that a lot of low-information voters don't listen that closely to debates, kind of have it on in the background, and decide in large part on "who would I rather see on my TV every night for the next 4 years?" And my strong take was that independents would look at Romney's manic plastic cockiness and think "Not this guy, please no."
posted by msalt at 12:08 PM on October 5, 2012

Keep in mind that the last several job number increases (unemployment decreases) were due to people dropping out of the workforce and not being reported in the numbers.

A better explanation for Sept. '12 might be the seasonal rise in part-time employment, which isn't accounted for in U6. via: Ezra Klein.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:10 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Oh, angrycat, that's old news. Not only is Obama gay, he uses cocaine and he is a murderer. Yeah that's right. He killed 3 gay men at Jeremiah Wright's church because they were in on the secret. There's even a book.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:12 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Phillips was also assistant coach for a girls’ high school tennis team in 2010.

Why the hell was that last line necessary?

It's mentioned to make him seem effeminate. Perhaps even gay.
posted by grubi at 12:13 PM on October 5, 2012

And my strong take was that independents would look at Romney's manic plastic cockiness and think "Not this guy, please no."

Me too, but then I thought people would feel the same way about George W's smug, pampered-rich-kid demeanor.
posted by straight at 12:15 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's mentioned to make him seem effeminate. Perhaps even gay.

Or that he has a lech for underage girls.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:17 PM on October 5, 2012

George always came across as a lout.
posted by de at 12:18 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Guys, guys, Obama is our first gay president!

Interesting YouTube analysis from user LaSalette53:

President Obama might not be re-elected in November, but this does not mean that the "leopard" may not lose WW3 during the 60 days period between Election Day, and Inauguration Day. There are many "one-hours" in which Babylon may be defeated in two months. A Mitt Romney President-elect might never take the oath of office, because by January 2013, the "king of the South" might have already lost to "the king of the North".

angrycat: it's interesting that no one has brought up that "who would you rather have a beer with" analysis.

Well, that's because Romney doesn't drink beer. I have to imagine that hurts his chances in that contest.

My theory is that a lot of low-information voters don't listen that closely to debates

My theory is that low-information voters don't even watch the debates. The only people watching are those voters who've already decided.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:19 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

There's even a book.

Hehe, which the author had to form his own publishing company to publish because no one else would.
posted by adamdschneider at 12:19 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

A Mitt Romney President-elect might never take the oath of office, because by January 2013, the "king of the South" might have already lost to "the king of the North".

Wow, a Youtube trifecta. Right-wing ass-hattery, religious nuttery and Game of Thrones spoilers.
posted by Freon at 12:27 PM on October 5, 2012 [9 favorites]

More on the cheat sheet (with video from a different angle)

Video of the first eleven seconds of the debate available on YouTube shows Mitt Romney reaching into his pocket at the moment he is out of view of those in front of him, he used the lectern as a shield, and removing what appears to be folded papers from his pocket.

We see this because the camera that was broadcasting was behind Romney. Those in the audience and the moderator may have been shielded from his sleight of hand, but not the viewers.

Romney then proceeds to unfold the item in front of him.

After the debate he returns the papers to his pocket while Obama leaves his paper to his assistant to pick up. I don't really care that much and I doubt most people are going to care but IF the President saw him and had to swallow the cheating on top of the lying, then I give him extra credit for being so controlled.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:30 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Like a lot of moments in the '08 election, I'm thinking that this is going to be one of those which shows that Obama is operating on a different time scale from the manic boom/bust news cycle. I keep going back to this nonsense from then, when McCain's campaign was desperately reaching for positives and people started talking about this thing called the "OODA loop" which is roughly the fighter pilot version of the "orderly visual search pattern" idea you might recall from driver's ed. At any rate, I think Obama's inside Romney's loop and has been for most of the year.

Maybe this is all wishful thinking, we'll see.
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:32 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

According to the HuffPo (grrar) the item is a handkerchief and they link to a video where he wipes his head with it.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 12:34 PM on October 5, 2012

I don't generally agree with her, but Peggy Noonan is an honest and shrewd analyst of presidential politics. If you're open to contrasting but perceptive information...

Contrasting with what? Give me two minutes, and I could find 50 articles with the same tone and the same conclusions.
posted by diogenes at 12:36 PM on October 5, 2012

Did you watch the video? Unless his handkerchief is quadruple starched to the point of being stiff as paper, what he took out of his pocket is a cheat sheet.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:38 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Video of the first eleven seconds of the debate available on YouTube shows Mitt Romney reaching into his pocket at the moment he is out of view of those in front of him, he used the lectern as a shield, and removing what appears to be folded papers from his pocket.

We see this because the camera that was broadcasting was behind Romney. Those in the audience and the moderator may have been shielded from his sleight of hand, but not the viewers.

Romney then proceeds to unfold the item in front of him.

I honestly think it was a handkerchief. He used one towards the end of the debate to wipe his upper lip. And the video shows something that could very well be a handkerchief.

This isn't where we need to plant our flag.
posted by grubi at 12:38 PM on October 5, 2012 [7 favorites]

Shoulda preview'd.

Did you watch the video? Unless his handkerchief is quadruple starched to the point of being stiff as paper,

I use handkerchiefs. Fold 'em twice, and if they're cotton, they look stiffer than they are. Ease up.
posted by grubi at 12:40 PM on October 5, 2012

Did you watch the video? Unless his handkerchief is quadruple starched to the point of being stiff as paper, what he took out of his pocket is a cheat sheet.

That video needs some sound effects. And some title cards with things like "Did you see that? Let's watch it one more time in super slow motion." And lizards.
posted by BobbyVan at 12:40 PM on October 5, 2012 [6 favorites]

I would love to have something to ding Romney with, but I believe it was a handkerchief too. The one he wiped his lip was sharply folded as if it had been starched and ironed, so it could easily look like folded papers.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 12:40 PM on October 5, 2012

This isn't where we need to plant our flag.

I agree. I think the only reason people find it so easy to believe is that Romney and Ryan have lied a whole freaking lot over the last several weeks.

Out of curiosity, if it had been a cheat sheet, there wouldn't really be any consequences (other than political), right? I mean he's not going to be fined or arrested or anything. People already think he's dishonest, so then what?
posted by zerbinetta at 12:42 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

No notes is a ridiculous rule anyway. Why not let them bring facts and figures? If someone wants to read off of a script, it'll be obvious, and otherwise, it allows us to apply a higher standard to the numbers they do give. There's no excuse for them to be "misremembered" etc.
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:44 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

By the way .... to put a lid on this "Romney brought notes" thing. This is 2012 where anyone can go on ebay and buy, for about $300, a bluetooth transceiver which fits entirely inside your ear canal and is invisible without an otoscope inspection. Considering that the campaign is well aware of the camera situation I do not think it reasonable that they would give him notes to use rather than going the teeny tiny transceiver route. I class the "Romney brought notes" meme along with the "Obama tweeked the Unemployment figures" sort of thinking which is to say ... not much thinking.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 12:44 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

That video needs some sound effects. And some title cards with things like "Did you see that? Let's watch it one more time in super slow motion." And lizards.

This may be the first and only time that I favorite you BobbyVan (lol)
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 12:45 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

By the way .... to put a lid on this "Romney brought notes" thing.

Nobody tells me how to cook conspiracy.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:46 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

The handkerchief thing is ridiculous, folks. Don't give in the the dark side of the Freep.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:47 PM on October 5, 2012

Huh, I use handkerchiefs too! I've never seen a handkerchief that looked like that. I swear this is my last word on the topic but honestly, the way he tosses it on the podium looks like papers.

But this is going to go the way of Bush's Mystery Bulge.

So on to a more promising arena of outrage. A round up of the Jobs Report Truthers. My favorite:

— Conn Carroll (@conncarroll) October 5, 2012

This just proves what a criminal Obama is. He has lied & forced his labor dept to report 7.8% Unemployment with only 114,000 jobs created.

"Forced them" ha ha. I just picture Obama holding a gun to the head of the Dept. of Labor.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:48 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

I knew Romney reciting the first thousand digits of pi was suspicious.

I knew it.
posted by leopard at 12:49 PM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

That video needs some sound effects.

I think it needs "O Fortuna" from Carmina Burana.
posted by zerbinetta at 12:50 PM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

Breaking: Appeals Court Rules Ohio Must Make Early Voting Available To All Voters

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that Ohio must make early voting during the three days before the election available to all voters if it's available to military members and voters who live overseas. The ruling upheld a lower court's decision.

posted by cashman at 12:51 PM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

Secret Life of Gravy: " But this is going to go the way of Bush's Mystery Bulge. "

Except the Mystery Bulge Truthers were vindicated when it was revealed that it was a backpack full of Doritos.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:51 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Unless his handkerchief is quadruple starched to the point of being stiff as paper, what he took out of his pocket is a cheat sheet.

OTOH, I think this is very very unlikely; on the other, it's much more likely than a conspiracy among every national pollster and the BLS to re-elect Obama which is a proposition the right has had no trouble at all believing to be true.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:52 PM on October 5, 2012

Sung by the Mormon Tabernacle choir, natch.
posted by BobbyVan at 12:52 PM on October 5, 2012

Huh, I use handkerchiefs too! I've never seen a handkerchief that looked like that.

I've had several that stayed crisply folded if I fold them, then stack them in the top drawer. And if one starches them (and Mitt seems like the kind to prefer everything starched), I imagine it's crisper.
posted by grubi at 12:53 PM on October 5, 2012

There hasn't been much mention either of how Obama looked directly into the camera quite often and Mitt didn't seem to until the very end.

Actually we were anxious about how Obama seemed to only be looking at Lehrer or at the notes he was writing down on Romney's idiocies, and almost never into the camera. I thought that was a serious mistake, not to connect to the home viewers.

On the other hand, when Romney was looking at the camera, sometimes his rapid blinking was almost enough to bring on a fit.
posted by aught at 12:54 PM on October 5, 2012

He has lied & forced his labor dept to report 7.8% Unemployment with only 114,000 jobs created.

You'd have to ask, if that were even possible, why they think he didn't do it earlier, like, say, two or three years ago, and then "force" the department to keep the figures low this whole time.
posted by zerbinetta at 12:56 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

You'd have to ask, if that were even possible, why ...

There is a lot of magical thinking on both sides (although imho tho conservative side has a huge edge there) and I don't understand why people just don't think ? Is is just too hard? Do people just want to believe what they want to believe? How is it even possible that so many people appear to lack the capacity or willingness to engage in critical thinking? I don't understand any of it but the older that I get the less happy it makes me.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 1:03 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh, angrycat, that's old news. Not only is Obama gay, he uses cocaine and he is a murderer. Yeah that's right. He killed 3 gay men at Jeremiah Wright's church because they were in on the secret.

Once again, Obama is not Bill Clinton's equal. Our FIRST black president killed 80 or 90 people during his first term.
posted by msalt at 1:09 PM on October 5, 2012

And I think the no notes rule is silly also. It is (or it's supposed to be) a debate about important matters of state, not a friggin' mid-term exam. If the Presidential debates focused more on substantive issues and less on the theater, we would expect candidates to have notes with them

Ever seen a college debate? They roll out dollys with boxes of 3 by 5 cards. Thousands of them. They practice so that they can find and pull up the citation or figure in seconds.

I agree totally that the "no notes" rule is nuts. I see nothing wrong with a few notes on the points you want to make, the latest statistics, and some zingers (just kidding about the last one.) I wonder why both sides went with this rule-- after all, I don't think the ability to lead a country means the ability to memorize hundreds of numbers.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:09 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Pocketing the wrong cheat sheet on leaving home would explain Romney changing his policies on the fly. He did seem overly thrilled things went so well ... high as a kite.
posted by de at 1:11 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

>>angrycat: it's interesting that no one has brought up that "who would you rather have a beer with" analysis.
>Well, that's because Romney doesn't drink beer. I have to imagine that hurts his chances in that contest.

You'd think, but George W. Bush (a teetotaler) won that competition against two drinkers (Gore and Kerry). In this regard though, my point is that Romney is no George Bush. Maybe because Bush is a recovering alcoholic and cocaine user who can channel that attitude as necessary.
posted by msalt at 1:12 PM on October 5, 2012

As much of a disaster as it would be, I'd love to see a full on competitive-style policy debate complete with tubs of evidence and most importantly, the ability to press on topicality and inherency.
posted by feloniousmonk at 1:14 PM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

I think it needs "O Fortuna" from Carmina Burana.

Sadly, the dice fell differently, but still dramatic and tense.
posted by frimble at 1:16 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

I agree totally that the "no notes" rule is nuts.

Speaking as a comedian and former high school debater, I disagree. These debates are not about scoring factual points (and frankly, I would have won more HS debates if I didn't focus on my evidence cards too - I always lost on persuasion, which seemed like BS at the time.)

You see this at open mics all the time and sometimes even at paid shows. Comedians rely on their notes because they are under-prepared and can't let go of the need to control -- they're afraid they're going to forget some hilarious joke or tag. But the notes make you hesitant and tentative. You need to relax and give it your best shot, which works better 100% of the time.

If you want to do notes, make it a written debate, with a day for each response. In fact, I think the web should be doing this in general, not just among candidates.
posted by msalt at 1:17 PM on October 5, 2012

I'm not sure it's such a concern that people would get up there and read notes like it's from a script. Pretty much all you have to do to win a debate where your opponent does this is to not do it.

I also did policy in HS. At state/national level, a lot of the teams fell into the speedreader category, which is sort of a weird local optima abberation and probably what makes it sound like a terrible idea, but there were also teams who approached it from a more classical rhetorical perspective where the citations didn't dominate the presentation.
posted by feloniousmonk at 1:21 PM on October 5, 2012

diogenes: Contrasting [Peggy Noonan] with what? Give me two minutes, and I could find 50 articles with the same tone and the same conclusions.

I'd like to see pointers. I regularly scan the National Review, Drudge, Fox and some other conservative sites looking for intelligent perspective and find very little. 90% are drinking the koolaid and racing to outdo themselves in enthusiastic embrace of the party talking points. Just for example, Noonan is the only conservative I've seen who has said "Look out for Big Bird" as opposed t, say, Malkin (only a few liberals care about Sesame Street).
posted by msalt at 1:24 PM on October 5, 2012

feloniousmonk: Yeah, I was a hardcore "spread" debater. It was amazing how many times my partner and I got screwed over in the decision. :)
posted by msalt at 1:25 PM on October 5, 2012

I think the candidates should go full on cosplay and face belligerent domestic and international scenarios. Of course the current officeholder has to do that for real AND campaign. Want to know why Obama seemed tired? It's because he is anything but lazy and was trying to actually do his job and have to debate someone who's ONLY task is to run for president. I know there is a lot of inherent benefit of being an incumbent, but it also seems like a giant liability if you are trying to do a good job in the first place. Be president, run for office, have a family.
posted by edgeways at 1:27 PM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

Honestly, I quit policy because I couldn't handle that stuff. I found myself nursing an aching wrist one bleary Sunday morning and decided I'd have enough of policy. You didn't have to flow in model congress!
posted by feloniousmonk at 1:30 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think the candidates should go full on cosplay and face belligerent domestic and international scenarios.

But it's hard getting in and out of those tights.
posted by The Whelk at 1:30 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

So Jack Welch is going to be on Hardball today. Tune in to find out what happens when two angry, politically opposed Irishmen stop being polite, and start getting real.
posted by BobbyVan at 1:34 PM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]

Tune in to find out what happens when two angry, politically opposed Irishmen stop being polite, and start getting real.

We've seen that: Phil Donohue on Bill O'Reilly.
posted by ambrosia at 1:37 PM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

I think the candidates should go full on cosplay and face belligerent domestic and international scenarios.

I think the candidates should dress up as monks, get on Segways, light their hats on fire, and play Philip Glass on brass and banjos, because surely that has never been done be -- oh. Never mind. (Previously)
posted by maudlin at 1:38 PM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

I and my teammate spread in constructives then slowed way down and got theatrical in rebuttals. A few simple "carried these points without contest from our august opponents" followed by character assassination of the authorities behind the cites.

Oh, and *always* topicality on neg. Always. Framers' revolt to nuclear war in one simple cite: In a mood of rage and hate...
posted by Fezboy! at 1:39 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Jack Welch deserves to be beaten for popularizing forced employee ranking performance reviews system like 20-70-10. Being a jobs report denialist just adds more reason to loathe the guy.
posted by vuron at 1:43 PM on October 5, 2012 [7 favorites]

NBC News: Romney plays down positive jobs data, discusses 'real reality'.
posted by ericb at 1:45 PM on October 5, 2012

Has anyone else read Welch's book Control Your Own Destiny? It's kind of like Confessions of an Economic Hitman but told from the perspective of a sympathetic narrator. I find him really impressive and terrifying and I am glad that he never got involved in politics.
posted by feloniousmonk at 1:47 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney was fact-checked by his own campaign. "That's rough....that's rough".
posted by cashman at 1:47 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney was fact-checked by his own campaign.

So was Obama.
posted by BobbyVan at 1:50 PM on October 5, 2012

Obama: 'Elmo, You Better Make A Run For It!' (VIDEO)

Obama issued a big warning to Sesame Street's Elmo during an outdoor rally at Cleveland State University on Friday.

"Elmo, you better make a run for it," Obama said.

posted by ericb at 1:51 PM on October 5, 2012

Bobby Van - the very last sentence in the article that you linked to indicates that the Obama spokesperson is indeed confirming that there is a 5 trillion dollar tax cut. It says it right there in that last sentence. Why are you claiming she said otherwise?
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 1:56 PM on October 5, 2012 [8 favorites]

Has anyone else read Welch's book Control Your Own Destiny?

Wait. According to Amazon, Control Your Own Destiny was written by Noel M. Tichy and Stratford Sherman. Did you mean Winning?
posted by adamdschneider at 1:56 PM on October 5, 2012

So was Obama.

Nah. And we're not going to go back into that loop where you ignore everybody telling you you're wrong, yet again. Mitt hasn't even committed to that, it was an idea he floated - he's flailing all over the place, and him and republicans have been doing this for the bulk of this year - trying so hard to avoid taking any positions on anything, to the point where they are literally in some cases just unable to speak. Ya man already said something earlier this year, then defended it less than a month ago, then again, then his vp defended it, now he's like "Oh I was wrong". Forget it man. You're following a fraud.
posted by cashman at 1:56 PM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]

Man, I wish I'd debated with you guys in college instead.

Sorry, CUSID.
posted by Phire at 1:58 PM on October 5, 2012

Cashman's video is what I'm talking about. I've now heard the line "don't boo, vote" enuf times that it rings a little hollow, but what it does is set up this super super positive older uncle type vibe after which Obama novelisticly, exhaustively, details the many holes in Romney's campaign. Both entertaining and you don't feel like a douche for enjoying it, because it's so positive.
posted by angrycat at 2:00 PM on October 5, 2012

Of course BobbyVan is following a fraud. Look at what he wrote:

It's true that Romney hasn't specified every deduction he'd limit or loophole he'd close to help pay for it -- if he did, his plan would die a death of a thousand cuts from special interests before he ever got the chance to do anything.

He's already flat-out admitted that there is no way on earth that Romney will raise $5 trillion in revenues from closing deductions. And yet he seems to think that this glaring weakness in Romney's "plan" is some sort of crippling liability for the Obama campaign.

Why doesn't the dishonesty create a sense of shame? Who cares?
posted by leopard at 2:01 PM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

Yes, sorry about that, I did mean Winning. Control Your Own Destiny is the one that's like 1100 pages long and even I, someone who can/will finish anything, didn't finish it.
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:01 PM on October 5, 2012

“Okay, stipulated, it won’t be near $5 trillion,” Cutter conceded.

We beat this to death earlier, so I'm dropping this subject...
posted by BobbyVan at 2:02 PM on October 5, 2012

Going right along with the post title.
posted by cashman at 2:07 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Moderate Mitt Returns!
By DAVID BROOKS

Yes, it’s true. Romney’s tax numbers don’t add up. Yes, there’s a lot of budgetary flimflam.
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:07 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

As much of a disaster as it would be, I'd love to see a full on competitive-style policy debate complete with tubs of evidence and most importantly, the ability to press on topicality and inherency.

That's not the "debate" the American people want, and we should stop pretending and just give it to them already. Present the two candidates with a Jeopardy style board of questions arranged into political categories, such as Economy, Healthcare, Immigration, Same-Sex Marriage, Global Warming, and Terrorism. Then they can select whether the question comes from a state with 1-2, 3-9, 10-14, 16-27, or 36+ house seats. The moderator -- let's say...Regis Philbin -- reads the question and the first candidate that buzzes in gets to answer. The audience can then use their controllers to "like" the answer or "thumbs down" to give the other candidate a chance to answer. (Viewers at home can also vote by calling the toll free number or texting DB8 maximum 10 votes per household, additional votes $0.10 cents per vote). If the other candidate's answer gets a majority of likes then he takes over the board and gets to select the next question!

At the end of the evening we can decide a clear winner by comparing the score on the front of each candidate podium.

Depending on the ratings, we can increase voter turnout by adding lifelines: Ask-The-Audience, Phone-A-Friend, Double-dip (give two contradictory answers), and Switch-The-Question.
posted by ceribus peribus at 2:07 PM on October 5, 2012 [10 favorites]

Hmm, NPR did a good-sized bit on the crazies who claim the BLS numbers are skewed.
posted by angrycat at 2:11 PM on October 5, 2012

I'm honestly surprised Gameshow Network or whatever doesn't do the audience side of it already.

Also, this is clearly how Idiocracy's legal system is born. How has no one written a novelization of that yet? Think of the prequels.
posted by feloniousmonk at 2:13 PM on October 5, 2012

BobbyVan .... whay are you doing this? You are taking a single sentence form the middle of a conversation outside of context (in what you quoted they were actually talking about the net effect of reducing deductions and closing loopholes rather than just simply reducing taxes which is what the 5 trillion refers to ).

Now in the very last thing that Cutter says she states specifically that : "“Last night [during the debate], he walked away from it, said he didn’t have a $5 trillion tax cut,” Cutter said. “He does. That’s what lowering the rates amounts to.”" which is confirming the effects of the tax cuts and does not contradict what Obama and the many non-partisan agencies are saying.

So I am personally curious - are you doing this because you simply did not understand what is those two are saying in the article or is there some other reason that I don;t understand?
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 2:13 PM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

As much of a disaster as it would be, I'd love to see a full on competitive-style policy debate complete with tubs of evidence and most importantly, the ability to press on topicality and inherency.

I'd like to see the policy analysts from Brookings and AEI or wherever have long in-depth policy round-table debates as well.
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:13 PM on October 5, 2012

Let it go, dude.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:14 PM on October 5, 2012

BobbyVan, if it was worth coming here to post the Burnett/Cutter video, then you're signaling you want to continue to have the $5 trillion discussion, which you were on the losing side of unless you switch Romney's promises of unspecified deductions and loopholes from the "article of faith" column to the "fact" column, which, as I said up-thread, you would be unwilling to do if the roles were reversed, and Obama was promising to raise money later to pay for $5T in additional spending.

It's pretty mendacious to ignore half a dozen or so posts refuting your $5 trillion arguments, toss out a so-called "fact check" of the $5 trillion number, and then run away with the "we beat this to death" defense when people try to fact-check the fact-check.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:15 PM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]

I can't say I disagree with Dave Weigel here:

The way things are going, if the GOP doesn't win this election, I'd say there's a 20% chance of a congressional investigation into vote fraud and a 5% chance of an Avignon Presidency set up by those who refuse to believe the election was lost.

posted by zombieflanders at 2:17 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

I'd never seen this before - apparently at the 2008 debates Romney had a prompter.
posted by winna at 2:18 PM on October 5, 2012

*Wishes "fixing a horrible run-on sentence" was on the list of approved reasons to use the edit window*
posted by tonycpsu at 2:18 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

New Mexico Congressman Agrees With Voter Suppression Tactics.

More and more it looks like it's a valuable thing to learn the rules for your state, and when you go to vote, have your phone ready to take video of things that happen. Share information, help voters, and maybe even have printouts handy. Hopefully everything goes smoothly, but I think it's clear it will be useful to be prepared when going to the polls.
posted by cashman at 2:21 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

The fact is that both CNN and factcheck.org rated Obama's $5 trillion claim during the debate as untrue.

My last point on this will go to tonycpsu: You can't say that Romney's pledge to cut marginal rates across the board is a "fact" but his pledge to make his tax plan revenue neutral is an "article of faith."

Oh, and next week's New Yorker looks interesting.
posted by BobbyVan at 2:25 PM on October 5, 2012

tonyscpu: Even stranger is that although Romney claims that his overall tax cut is $0, and although BobbyVan himself has said that this is impossible, BobbyVan doesn't seem to think that Romney is a liar. He seems to think that this makes Obama a liar. It's almost as if he's not arguing in good faith.
posted by leopard at 2:27 PM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]

More and more it looks like it's a valuable thing to learn the rules for your state
On that note let me tell you about what happened what I tried to change my registration address this week in my home state of Nevada. The official website would not let me do that. Said it was an invalid attempt. Do I had to make the time to go downtown and do it in person. I did that and while I was there I heard at least three other people report the same or similar things . The person behind the counter said "Well we've been getting that a lot this week. Let me do that manually for you .... "

Today the website still reflects me as an invalid voter. I need to vote early so I was told that I could bring my voter ballot which will be (presumably) mailed to me to do that or they will look up my information on the electronic site when I go to vote early. Presumably this is the same system that indicates that I am an invalid voter. I wonder how many registered voters will forget to bring their mailed in ballots and when looked up .... and get denied the chance to vote?

I also wonder if the online system was made and designed perhaps by a republican biased company like Dibold? I might just look that up ....
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 2:29 PM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

Oh, and next week's New Yorker looks interesting.

Heh. Colbert made a similar observation last night.
posted by homunculus at 2:30 PM on October 5, 2012

The pledge to cut marginal tax rates by 20% is a 'fact' because that's the part of the plan that's written down and on his website under 'Mitt's Plan'.

The loopholes and deductions is what he's said in interviews is stuff that you'd have to 'sit down and work out with congress'.

That's the difference.
posted by TwoWordReview at 2:32 PM on October 5, 2012 [6 favorites]

BobbyVan : There you go again :(

What Faccheck org says is that : Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.

Which does not deny that there is a 5 trillion dollar cut to tax revenue but instead conflates the promise of balancing those cuts with promises as opposed to the actual hit that the cuts alone would take on the tax budget.

Seriously why do you keep doing this?
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 2:33 PM on October 5, 2012 [6 favorites]

Mitt Romney Agrees With You, Cory Doctorow, Boing Boing, 5 October, 2012

Use the RoboRomney service to fill in your positions on issues from abortion to the economy to gun-control, and the system will mine a database of real Romney quotes to produce a position paper in which the candidate agrees with everything you say.

posted by ob1quixote at 2:39 PM on October 5, 2012 [13 favorites]

You can't say that Romney's pledge to cut marginal rates across the board is a "fact" but his pledge to make his tax plan revenue neutral is an "article of faith."

You can when he is pledging to make the plan tax neutral by (to use a technical fiscal term) pulling the money out of his arsehole.
posted by howfar at 2:40 PM on October 5, 2012

You can't say that Romney's pledge to cut marginal rates across the board is a "fact" but his pledge to make his tax plan revenue neutral is an "article of faith."

I think you can. How can a tax cut be revenue neutral? By definition isn't a tax cut a revenue cut? If there is anything that could be referred to at all as Romney's tax plan it is that he will cut rates across the board by 20%. Anything else about it is completely hidden or changes everyday depending on who he's talking to. He has never given a consistent answer on how he would make it revenue neutral. And any analysis of how this could happen seems to depend on a tax cut growing the economy-- even though there is no evidence that this would work. This is the "article of faith." Infact, if deductions were capped at $17k couldn't this tank the housing market, kill the economy, and bring down revenues considerably?

Maybe it isn't completely fair for Obama to simply refer to Romney's plan as a $5T tax deduction, but it's much less fair for Romney to claim he is both cutting taxes and keeping revenue neutral. What is Obama supposed to do when Romney fails to define in any meaningful way what his plan is? I think it is fair for Obama to make his best guesses at what it would be. Romney can always clarify this, which he has completely failed to do. He could also clarify why he is hiding his tax returns.
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:41 PM on October 5, 2012

I've seen this argument here and other places, and I'm kinda astounded by it: Romney can't get into the details, because the opposition will pick it apart.

Well, fuck! We can't have that, can we? That's just unfair and mean.

It's a campaign for the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD, it's not some fucking patent application. If you have a better idea, then spell it out. Otherwise, shut up.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:42 PM on October 5, 2012 [17 favorites]

I think this explains why Romney was so comfortable lying repeatedly to the entire country:

"You can say anything you want during a debate and 80 million people hear it," observed Peter Teeley, press secretary to Vice President Bush. If reporters then document that a candidate spoke untruthfully, "so what? Maybe 200 people read it or 2,000 or 20,000."

– New York Times, November 1, 1984 (via Digby)
posted by tonycpsu at 2:43 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

To be fair, that's pre-Web. Things are changing.
posted by grubi at 2:45 PM on October 5, 2012

Benny Andajetz: "If you have a better idea, then spell it out. Otherwise, shut up."

I actually don't expect Presidents to spell out every detail, because it's really hard to keep campaign promises when you can't control what bills Congress sends you. However, in the case of this $5T argument, Romney wants to eat cake and lose weight by getting the political benefit of proposing a 20% tax cut without the political liability of discussing where the lost revenue gets made up. It's in keeping with his general style of being all things to all people, and Obama haters are so desperate that they'll swallow it whole, even when it comes from a former Massachusetts RINO.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:47 PM on October 5, 2012

grubi: "To be fair, that's pre-Web. Things are changing."

Are they, though? The best arguments aren't always the ones that fit well into 140 characters for a tweet. Any collection of yo-yos can start up their own "fact check" outfit and pronounce things "true" and "false." And, perhaps worst of all, social networks and alternative news sources let people live in a cocoon where they only get information spoon-fed to them from people they already agree with. I'm no Luddite, but I think world wide web / social network triumphalism needs to be balanced against the very real new problems these technologies create. My feeling is it's still a net positive in the quest for truth, but not a very significant one.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:53 PM on October 5, 2012

tonycpsu:

I totally agree. I just feel that the bigger the claim, the bigger the explanation we're entitled to. Romney's hemming and hawing and dissembling is obvious, and an affront to thinking citizens.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:54 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

BobbyVan, as (I guess) a Romney supporter, what tax deductions do you favor getting rid of that will add up to 5 million dollars? I mean, that's what it boils down to, right? Pardons if I'm missing some nuances; I love politics but my brain goes numb at talk of taxes and deficits.

So do I have this right: Obama sez Romney will add 5 trillion to the budget. Romney sez no, he will cut 5 trillion in revenues by closing tax loopholes. He's your guy, right? So here's your chance to convince a bunch of liberals that Romney is worth serious consideration. Which tax loopholes, and what are they worth?
posted by angrycat at 2:55 PM on October 5, 2012

whoops, that first number is trillion, brain dumb and all
posted by angrycat at 2:57 PM on October 5, 2012

The fact is that both CNN and factcheck.org rated Obama's $5 trillion claim during the debate as untrue.

The people who are making these claims are idiots or something. I watched that Erin Burnett clip when it aired and it's ridiculous how uninquisitive she was being - definitely more in the "anchor" category than "journalist".

All the people who are saying this are also conceding that he is cutting some taxes - Erin Burnett continued on and actually referred to Romney's "tax cut" - and seem to be cognizant that this is the entire reason he would have to come up with more revenue through "getting rid of loopholes" and the magical sudden surge of the economy that's going to occur.

The question is how much does he need to come up with? What is the number that his unspecified revenue creation needs to add up to? What is the hurdle that is set by the actually-specified tax cuts part of the plan?

Yes, in theoretical Romney-world the tax cut number and the revenue-increase number will be the same because for whatever reason we supposedly have to believe him when he says it's going to be revenue-neutral and ignore the fact that he'll probably say "Whoops! We got the tax cuts part done but shucks the other stuff didn't quite fit in this time - give us another try!" just like the Republicans have every other time since Reagan ran for office.

But what is that number? It's $5 trillion over ten years. All of these people and "journalists" who keep saying "$5 trillion is wrong" for some reason seem to be unable or unwilling to continue on and say "If it's not $5 trillion then what is the number we're talking about? How much do his compensatory revenue increases have to add up to?"
posted by XMLicious at 2:58 PM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

as (I guess) a Romney supporter, what tax deductions do you favor getting rid of that will add up to 5 million dollars?

Just the ones personally applied to Romney oughta cover it.
posted by howfar at 3:01 PM on October 5, 2012

just like the Republicans have every other time since Reagan ran for office.

This x 5 trillion.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 3:01 PM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

It was a misstep of the Obama camp to use the $5 trillion as a frame for the tax debate. It seems like a big scary number, but he got himself in a trap by repeating the figure and did not spend enough time explaining the problem (not the number) during the debate. By repeating the number, that allowed Romney to keep denying it and come out looking better, without having to really explain his tax plan details (the math part).
posted by perhapses at 3:14 PM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

For a snapshot of news impact, I'd like to point out that the BBC currently has the new unemployment figures as their lead item. Mitt's retraction of his 47% remarks is nested underneath; 6 whole new items lower.
posted by arcticseal at 3:14 PM on October 5, 2012

By repeating the number, that allowed Romney to keep denying it and come out looking better, without having to really explain his tax plan details (the math part).

Yeah, if he hadn't repeated the number then Romney would have had no choice but to explain all the nuances of his tax policy. Stupid Obama.
posted by leopard at 3:16 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mitt's definitely going to lose the British vote.
posted by perhapses at 3:17 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Regarding jobberists or whatever they're being called now..do they really have that short of a memory? Do they not remember the overly optimistic jobs reports at the end of the Bush Administration? I guess I should start claiming that Bush's BLS was fudging the numbers for McCain. Or not, because it's stupid and I don't like to say really stupid things.

What low level functionary is going to risk getting their ass fired for something like that?
posted by wierdo at 3:17 PM on October 5, 2012

BobbyVan : I am going to break this down for you by using simple math, OK ? Here goes:

Looking at the governments own figures for yearly personal tax revenue we see the following:

YEAR REVENUE (billions)
2011 1.09
2012 1.16
2013 1.39
2014 1.47
2015 1.61
2016 1.76
2017 1.91
2018 2.10
2019 2.30
2020 2.50

For the years 2018 - 2020 I added a very conservative +0.2 increase each year based upon the increases for each of the previous years.

The total of the above is : 17.29 billion for 10 years.

A 20% tax revenue decrease of 17.29 billion is 3.5 billion.

Then you add in another $900 billion increase which would stem from keeping the Alternative Minimum Tax from socking more taxpayers. and you get 4.5 which is pretty close to 5 (a billion here and a billion there .... )

So can you and I at least agree on the above cited figures BobbyVan ?
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 3:19 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Didn't Romney say he wanted to repeal the AMT entirely?
posted by wierdo at 3:21 PM on October 5, 2012

Ahhhh ... all the "billions" in my remarks above should be "trillions" sorry :( But the math still holds
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 3:25 PM on October 5, 2012

Romney’s Threat to Big Bird Sows Confusion Abroad, and Feeds It at Home

I wonder if Mitt anticipated the reaction in France, considering his harrowing experiences over there back in the day.
posted by homunculus at 4:10 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Translated for non-francophiles
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 4:20 PM on October 5, 2012

I feel bad that the photos of Big Bird looking devastated are cracking me up.

Where'd Bobby Van go?
posted by angrycat at 4:37 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

possibly to drink heavily
posted by elizardbits at 4:45 PM on October 5, 2012

You forgot eliminating the Estate tax in your number Podkayne. You have to include the lost revenues from that.

Plus you know keeping all the Bush tax cuts.
posted by vuron at 4:46 PM on October 5, 2012

Vuron . It's not clear whether when Romney talks about a 20% tax cut he is talking about maintaining the Bush tax cuts or whether he is talking about another 20% on top of that. It's not clear because he won't say. But just talking his word for a 20% cut alone results in about a 5 trillion loss (I got 4.5 trillion ) from personal tax revenues.

And yes , just where is Bobby Van now that he has simple easy to understand numbers to look at?
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 4:54 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

I disagree with BobbyVan on ideological grounds, but I think it's really unfair to accuse him of bad faith motives for not immediately responding to all comments that address him directly in a time frame that satisfies us. I can think of any number of reasons why he might not be around right now: he's enjoying his own life, he took a nap, he decided to stop following the thread and doesn't even know he's being challenged further, he got kidnapped by aliens, etc.

I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that we are somehow obligated to respond to everyone who addresses us simply because they chose to address us. I think we can do better.
posted by Phire at 5:13 PM on October 5, 2012 [20 favorites]

To the extent that BobbyVan needs to work on not digging in so much when he is digging in on thread, we really need people on the flip side to not do this "Hrm, where's BobbyVan now?" stuff either. Please do not help to perpetuate these weird taking-on-all-comers dynamics.
posted by cortex at 5:13 PM on October 5, 2012 [10 favorites]

BobbyVan has never contested the 5 trillion number. He just says that Romney promised to make it up somewhere else. He admitted that this is impossible in practice but a promise is a promise so you guys are poopyhead liars.
posted by leopard at 5:13 PM on October 5, 2012

OK I get the idea and my apologies if I stepped over the line. Leopard : Bobbyvan constantly stated many times in this thread that Obama is lying regarding the 5 trillion revenue loss so he indeed is contesting those numbers.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 5:24 PM on October 5, 2012

Rick Santorum on Big Bird: “I’ve voted to kill Big Bird in the past. So, I have a record there that I have to disclose. That doesn’t mean I don’t like Big Bird. I mean, you can kill things and still like them, maybe to eat them, I don’t know.”
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:26 PM on October 5, 2012

*slap clap*
posted by The Whelk at 5:31 PM on October 5, 2012

I think there is a frustration with Bobby continual doing drive-by shootings on the thread along the lines of Obama is lying about the cost of the Romney plan when people have repeatedly and relatively nicely indicated that the lost revenues from decreasing marginal tax rates by 20% is the equivalent of roughly $5 trillion in lost tax revenue over 10 years.

He's repeatedly asked us to take it on faith that whatever the final plan is that it would be revenue neutral when experience has taught us over and over that there is never an intent to balance tax cuts with equivalent new revenues. It's always spending cuts or shifting the tax burden or more likely increased borrowing used to pay for these initiatives.

People have grown tired after 30+ years of the same and song and dance and I think get justfiably irritated when we get subjected to talking point after talking point when Bobby refuses to actually get into a substantive discussion about how the Romney proposal might actually function.
posted by vuron at 5:33 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Maybe this should go in MeTa, but irritation doesn't have to manifest itself in the form of a comment. Especially if it would be the eighth comment in a row making essentially the same point.
posted by Bookhouse at 5:42 PM on October 5, 2012 [6 favorites]

I've been a political junkie for decades, and I've never seen a politician do quite what Romney did in that debate -- turn a promise into his proposal ("What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That’s part one. So there’s no economist that can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.")

Even Forbes Magazine is mocking him for that.

Though, if you had an economic model set up, it seems like it would be pretty straightforward to figure out what he's going to do in broad terms. The parameters are:
1) 20% across the board tax cuts
2) extend Bush tax cuts
3) eliminate estate tax
4) eliminate the AMT
5) eliminate taxes on investment income for low- and middle- income taxpayers
6) not reduce the overall effective taxes on the wealthy
7) not add to the deficit
8) not raise any taxes on the middle class
9) no new taxes at all. (He rejected the $10 cut/$1 revenue offer.)
10) $2 trillion military increase
11) reduce corporate income tax
12) repeal Obamacare (which will increase the deficit)

There just aren't that many variables left to adjust. It should be pretty easy to see what's left.

Give him the benefit of the doubt by defining wealthy at a high level ($1 million/year in income). How much would revenue be reduced? How much would eliminating ALL personal tax deductions bring in? Run the deduction limit at 17K, 25K and 50K -- how much does that save? How much would be necessary in cuts for each of those caps?
posted by msalt at 5:53 PM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]

RoboRomney.com.
posted by ericb at 6:00 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama comes out with a really good 47% flip-flop ad. FINALLY.

I wonder if it's airing on the networks and if so, which markets. I live in a tight battleground state, so I expect to see it up before the next debate if it's airtime-ready.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:06 PM on October 5, 2012 [16 favorites]

Great new ad. Wow. Pow. Zing!
posted by ericb at 6:13 PM on October 5, 2012

Mitt Romney's opinions are like the weather: If you don't like his current one, just wait 10 minutes and it'll change.
posted by dirigibleman at 6:17 PM on October 5, 2012

Good ad. but it's 90 seconds long. Is there such a thing as a 90 second ad? News to me.
posted by msalt at 6:18 PM on October 5, 2012

I saw that Santorm quote come across my Twitter feed today and had no way to check it; figured it was parody. Should I be shocked that it's not?
posted by anastasiav at 6:22 PM on October 5, 2012

1) 20% across the board tax cuts
2) extend Bush tax cuts
3) eliminate estate tax
4) eliminate the AMT
5) eliminate taxes on investment income for low- and middle- income taxpayers
6) not reduce the overall effective taxes on the wealthy
7) not add to the deficit
8) not raise any taxes on the middle class
9) no new taxes at all. (He rejected the $10 cut/$1 revenue offer.)
10) $2 trillion military increase
11) reduce corporate income tax
12) repeal Obamacare (which will increase the deficit)

All of those are possible except #7 ...because the deficit would explode like nothing ever seen in history if the others were enacted.

PONIESPONIESPONIESPONIES.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:25 PM on October 5, 2012

His plan is actually to cut spending from previous budgets, too. If you're going to go, go big!
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:02 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Remember, military spending isn't actually spending. Blowing people up is free, just like putting them in prison.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:08 PM on October 5, 2012

Someone do this meme: Romney's secret tax plan => Romney as a secret agent => the new James Bond movie. His drink is a virgin martini. Something something cayman islands.
posted by msalt at 7:49 PM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

My read is that this was a bone he threw to the hard right supporters, in hopes of keeping their support while moving to the center. Make sense? Move to the center to get undecided votes, throw a few bones (that look bizarre to outsiders) to your radical constituents to give them something to be happy about

Daily Caller (aka the source of the "breaking" 2007 Obama "leak") Big Bird can make it rain on his own.

“Sesame Street” is a multimillion dollar industry, even without any taxpayer funding. Every year around Christmastime we hear about Wal-Mart shoppers literally fighting to the death for the last “Tickle Me Elmo” — or whatever bug-eyed, furry red successor it is — on the shelf. The marketing rights for “Sesame Street” and “Barney” total $1.3 billion, according to a 2005 report by former Florida Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, and “Sesame Street” merchandise is in every toy store, Wal-Mart and Target across the country.

And as heard on CNBC: "Why should Sesame Street get a subsidy? Elmo sells millions" (or something like that).

In other words, Sesame Street was the perfect red herring. Sure, it's a well-loved program, but it's one of the PBS program that makes money. Look at the list of PBS programs. If you don't click the link, just know that the list includes more than Sesame Street. A LOT more. There are over 60 current programs, and many (but not all) are PBS originals.

But unless you watch a significant amount of PBS, you'll probably remember a few of them. And if you don't, you'll remember Sesame Street and their fundraisers. "They do fundraising, too, remember? Why does the government (aka MY TAX DOLLARS) need to get involved?"

This was a scripted bit of phrasing. PBS, EVEN SESAME STREET is seen as a left-leaning government-funded program. Wait, that's not right! Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin: "Sesame Street has also become increasingly politicized. Under the Obama administration, Elmo has lobbied for the FCC's national broadband plan and the first lady's Big Nanny nutrition bill." Oh noes! National broadband! Healthy living! NANNY STATE!

Moderately Conservative version of Romney (version 7 or 12 or something, I lost track of all the reboots) still swung a solid hit for the fiscal conservatives and righties who think PBS shills for the liberals on the government dime.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:18 PM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

filthy light thief: "Moderately Conservative version of Romney (version 7 or 12 or something, I lost track of all the reboots) still swung a solid hit for the fiscal conservatives and righties who think PBS shills for the liberals on the government dime."

But PBS must be a shill for liberals! After all, Sesame Street teaches children to share. What could be more socialist than that? Clearly Sesame Street is an indoctrination tool of the left to turn our children into little Lenins and Marxs!
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 8:40 PM on October 5, 2012

I hear you, but I think that analysis misses how fun-driven the undecided voter is. It's all about that 7% at this point and I don't think axing PBS works for them; for the non-political it's crazy, how could you?; for those who watch it, it's a deal killer; and for anyone who does math it's an obvious non-solution that makes him look petty and ideological. Which independent undecided voters does the PBS cut help Romney win? None. None at all. Meanwhile the fun angle means this sucks all the oxygen out of the room. And because he had no substantive proposals, there's nothing else for people to hang on to.
posted by msalt at 8:45 PM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

So Jack Welch is going to be on Hardball today. Tune in to find out what happens when two angry, politically opposed Irishmen stop being polite, and start getting real.

It got off to a roaring start:
(MSNBC transcript is all lower case; I added the names.)

Matthews: well, let me get back to your tweet this morning. it must be embarrassing for to you do a tweet now after the power you used to have. i mean, tweeting, doesn't seem like something i'd hear from jack welch and i mean it. here you put out the word, unbelievable jobs number, fair enough. these chicago guys will do anything so they changed the numbers. what evidence do you have that they got to the bls?

Welch: i have no --

Matthews: that the chicago guys got to the bureau of labor statistics and jimmied these numbers by 0.3%.

Welch: i have no evidence to prove that. i just raise the question.

Matthews: you didn't raise the question. you said these chicago guys will do anything so they changed the number. you were asserting here in your tweet that you put out at 8:35 this morning, five minutes after the report came out,. did you talk to any economists or anybody in the accounting world that understood how the numbers were put together before you accused the chicago guys of changing the numbers.

So he doesn't end up getting Jack Welch to retract his tweet, but he really diluted Welch's message.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:07 PM on October 5, 2012 [6 favorites]

InsertNiftyNameHere: "After all, Sesame Street teaches children to share. What could be more socialist than that? Clearly Sesame Street is an indoctrination tool of the left to turn our children into little Lenins and Marxs!"

In case you missed it up-thread just a bit, said without any hint of sarcasm:

Learning letters and numbers is fine, but how people teach children to play with others has deep-reaching effects. Currently, there's a push for cooperative rather than competitive play - which does in fact have political correlations and potential political impact. The idea that you're not a good person if you don't share your things is also a political position. Because they're very simple doesn't mean they don't have an impact.

These people really believe this shit.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:14 PM on October 5, 2012 [12 favorites]

I watch the outrage in response to willful obtuseness in this thread, and I think to myself, man, I am old. I remember ParisParamus.

And that was a waste of time too.
posted by dglynn at 9:15 PM on October 5, 2012 [15 favorites]

Ryan/Romney: A Bank in Every Garage, and a Chicken in Pots for Those Who Earn One (or Five, if you're Really Good at Optimizing Your Workers).
posted by filthy light thief at 9:17 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

This new and improved explanation of Romney's proposed tax cut should really clear things up.

"Taxes. That's where I'm a Viking!"
posted by billyfleetwood at 9:23 PM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]

But PBS must be a shill for liberals! After all, Sesame Street teaches children to share. What could be more socialist than that? Clearly Sesame Street is an indoctrination tool of the left to turn our children into little Lenins and Marxs!

You know, you say that facetiously on the internet, but the sad fucking truth is they actually believe it in real life.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:24 PM on October 5, 2012 [9 favorites]

Jack Welch: we had 873,000 jobs by a household survey, which is a total estimate from 50,000 phone calls

The BLS is so busted.
posted by Bokmakierie at 9:33 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney/Ryan: The trains will run on time, but all tickets are one-way, and the only destination is Galt's Gulch.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:34 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Matthews: And what did they do here?

Welch: They've been calling Mitt Romney a liar, a falsehood for the last 48 hours after the debate.

Happy to know that he noticed and that it seems to have gotten under his skin.
posted by Bokmakierie at 9:38 PM on October 5, 2012

tonycpsu: "Romney/Ryan: The trains will run on time, but, if you currently are or should become unemployed, all tickets are one-way, and the only destination is ~~Galt's Gulch~~ a camp in Poland."

Looks more accurate now, I think.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 9:50 PM on October 5, 2012

Romney/Ryan: If you don't own your own train then you can fracking walk.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 10:00 PM on October 5, 2012

And here someone already has an event planned to support public television. Million Muppet March, November 3. It's on facebook, of course.

Hilarious, I hope it takes off, just because it would be really entertaining!
posted by annsunny at 10:10 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney/Ryan: The trains will run on time, but, if you currently are or should become unemployed, all tickets are one-way, and the only destination is a camp in Poland.

Wow. 'Cause Romney's like a Nazi? I'd really rather not have to read such over-dramatic name calling here.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:20 PM on October 5, 2012

benito.strauss: "Wow. 'Cause Romney's like a Nazi? I'd really rather not have to read such over-dramatic name calling here."

I never said anything like that, but, if you have a problem, FIAMO, like the rest of us do. No need to derail.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 10:25 PM on October 5, 2012

Yes, they are probably just being off-shored to make kielbasa.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:30 PM on October 5, 2012

FWIW -- the Sesame Street characters are owned by the Sesame Street Workshop, an entirely separate entity from PBS.

Sesame Workshop produces an incredible array of television shows and films -- not just the Sesame Street television shows here and internationally. Sesame Workshop has a deal with PBS to broadcast the original U.S. version here in the States.

Sesame Workshop retains all rights to the Sesame Street characters (separate from The Muppets which are now owned by the Walt Disney Company) and licenses their likenesses, etc. for merchandising, etc. PBS is not a party to nor a beneficiary of any such revenue. Folks who try and claim that Sesame Street, the PBS program, are behind the merchandising are flat out wrong.

Sesame Workshop does use money from their coffers to contribute to the various non-profit entities which broadcast their programs around the globe. It's not a requirement, but a part of their mission to do so.

The U.S. government's financial contributions to Sesame Street (just one of the many programs PBS airs) is a tiny minority contribution.

Overall, PBS receives the bulk of its financing from foundations, corporations and private individuals (" ... People like you."). U.S. government support is about $445 million ("... a mere .00012% of the federal budget in 2011.") And that federal contribution includes both PBS and NPR.
posted by ericb at 10:55 PM on October 5, 2012 [6 favorites]

Sure, it's a well-loved program, but it's one of the PBS program that makes money.

Bzzzzt. Wrong. See above.
posted by ericb at 10:59 PM on October 5, 2012

There are over 60 current programs, and many (but not all) are PBS originals.

The production of television programs, films, etc. is separate from the entities that broadcast them. For example, WGBH here in Boston has two entities -- its production company and its broadcast station. The production company undertakes the task and costs of creating, filming and then distributing the shows to other stations and markets. As a non-profit, it seeks to recoup the expenses it has incurred for every episode of NOVA, American Experience, etc. Any 'profit' it might receive is accounted for and helps the production company create more programming.

The broadcast entities seek financing separately -- and get those funds from foundations, corporations, individual and government donations. In the for-profit world broadcast companies get their funding from advertisers, licensing and syndication rights among other revenue streams. Cable channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.) gets the bulk of their revenue from subscription fees.
posted by ericb at 11:11 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

not just the Sesame Street television shows here and internationally.

I forgot about all the Sesame Street's in the world! It would be cool if the million bird march got international support.

Meanwhile...

NYT: Romney’s Threat to Big Bird Sows Confusion Abroad, and Feeds It at Home

Mr. Romney’s decision to run against Big Bird gladdened American conservatives, who have long complained of a liberal bias on public television and radio channels, but puzzled many viewers abroad, where local versions of the educational program are popular and well respected.

[...]

In France, Le Monde reported that the slight against le Gros Oiseau threatened to spiral into “l’affaire Big Bird,” after President Obama — experiencing a certain esprit d’escalier — came up, a day late, with the retort: “Thank goodness somebody is finally getting tough on Big Bird. It’s about time. We didn’t know that Big Bird was driving the federal deficit.”

[...]

The German magazine Der Spiegel explained to readers that Mr. Romney’s threat to the character that viewers of “Sesamstrasse” know as Bibo generated a Twitter-Sturm during the debate that reached maximum intensity in just 20 minutes.

[...]

In a useful roundup of the comic images of an unemployed Big Bird circulating on social networks, the Brazilian newspaper O Globo reported, somewhat inaccurately, that Mr. Romney had tried to soften the blow by first telling viewers, “I love Garibaldo,” which is the name the character goes by in “Vila Sésamo.”

Mitt Romney: Bringing new meaning to the phrase "International Incident" since July 2012
posted by Room 641-A at 11:31 PM on October 5, 2012 [7 favorites]

More Taibbi: Mitt Romney Wins All-Important BS Contest
posted by homunculus at 11:33 PM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]

Wait till social conservatives find out Romney loves some guy called Garibaldo.
posted by rainy at 11:44 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]

Benito.Strauss: Trains running on time was not the Nazis, but a different fascist, Benito Mussolini in Italy. I kinda thought you would know that.
posted by msalt at 12:05 AM on October 6, 2012 [2 favorites]

Please stop the trains/Nazis/Fascists stuff. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:32 AM on October 6, 2012

Someone, somewhere has to try to heckle a Romney speaking dressed up in a Big Bird costume. Of course he wouldn't make it into the event but the photos of Big Bird being dragged away in handcuffs would be priceless on the morning news.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 12:36 AM on October 6, 2012 [5 favorites]

Someone should do that at every single Romney rally between now and November 6th. Are you kidding me? Dick Tuck is spinning in his retirement home.
posted by msalt at 12:47 AM on October 6, 2012 [2 favorites]

Here's one of the directors of the Tax Policy Center reiterating the $5 trillion number yesterday on CNN's web site.
posted by XMLicious at 3:39 AM on October 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

DEBATE VICTORY VALIDATES ROMNEY STRATEGY OF NONSTOP LYING
(satire)
posted by syzygy at 3:54 AM on October 6, 2012

Washington Post - President Obama Doesn't Meet The Press

In the hours after the Republican challenger Mitt Romney embarrassed the incumbent in their first meeting, Obama loyalists expressed puzzlement that the incumbent had done badly. But Obama has only himself to blame, because he set himself up for Wednesday’s emperor-has-no-clothes moment. For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.

CSMonitor Did Obama Really Double The Deficit?

During the arithmetical dodge ball that constituted much of the first debate, Mitt Romney said the US deficit 'doubled' under Obama. In fact, it has declined, though it is still more than $1 trillion.

Unemployment Rate Tampering ? Why Conspiracy Theorists Went Wild

City Journal A Fantasy Election, an Imaginary Man

The mystery Obama—the hollow receptacle of out-sized fantasies left and right—is not a creation of his own making, political chameleon though he may well be. It emanates instead from a journalistic community that no longer in any way fulfills its designated function, that no longer even attempts the fair presentation of facts and current events aimed at helping the American electorate make up its mind according to its own lights. Rather, left-wing outlets like the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, and the like have now devoted themselves to fashioning an image of the world they think their audiences ought to believe in—that they may guide us toward voting as they think we should. They have fallen prey to that ideological corruption that sees lies as a kind of virtue, as a noble deception in service to a greater good.

posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:08 AM on October 6, 2012

Not entirely sure if the fact that the City Journal, a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, disapproves of the "left-wing" media is particularly notable as commentary on the campaign, but it's good to see they're still a bunch of delusional pricks.
posted by howfar at 4:31 AM on October 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

Rather, left-wing outlets like the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News

I think they misspelled "fact-based outlets".
posted by inigo2 at 5:09 AM on October 6, 2012 [4 favorites]

Unemployment Rate Tampering ? Why Conspiracy Theorists Went Wild

I do so enjoy the irony of conservatives scoffing at Romney's possible use of a cheat sheet during the debate, while jumping up and down with much larger and crazier conspiracy theories of their own.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:32 AM on October 6, 2012 [2 favorites]

left-wing outlets like the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News

this is why bloggers in 2004 went wild putting banners that screamed "member of the reality-based community". these people do think they have some imperial pixie-dust that allows them to create their own facts and shove them down the rest of the world's throats.
posted by liza at 5:55 AM on October 6, 2012

The U.S. government's financial contributions to Sesame Street (just one of the many programs PBS airs) is a tiny minority contribution.

Clarification: The U.S. government's financial contributions to the broadcasting of Sesame Street (just one of the many programs PBS airs) is a tiny minority contribution to PBS.

The production of the program by Sesame Workshop (formerly Children's Television Workshop) receives no government funding.
posted by ericb at 5:57 AM on October 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

Room 641-A: "
I forgot about all the Sesame Street's in the world! It would be cool if the million bird march got international support.
"

Well, for a certain part of the US population, something having any "international" support or flavor is OMG IMPENDING COMMUNISM.
posted by notsnot at 7:08 AM on October 6, 2012

So that's the problem, impending communism.

Romney doesn't want to borrow from China to finance Big Bird when Big Bird can attract commercial sponsors at home (and buyers abroad). That's ok.

But Romney won't want to offend China too much. China may foreclose.
posted by de at 7:58 AM on October 6, 2012

Maybe he thinks that if he borrows from China he'll just need to borrow again a half hour later.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:10 AM on October 6, 2012

Romney has experienced a dead cat bounce. Walter Mondale was feeling preetty good at this point in 84.
posted by humanfont at 8:15 AM on October 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

I think the Big Bird comment has legs and will continue to dominate for the rest of the election period. It's gotten a lot more coverage than Romney's retraction of the 47% statement. I hope Big Bird continues to crap on him from a great height.
posted by arcticseal at 8:21 AM on October 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

Yeah, Romney's debate win needs a reality check.

Obama still has the money:

Obama and Democrats Raise $181 Million in September

and the ground game:

Thousands of volunteers are presidential campaigns' secret weapon

Obama Supporters in Overdrive to Get Early Voters
posted by Bokmakierie at 8:24 AM on October 6, 2012

I really expected that PBS & SS would take the "we dont get involved in politics" position but I', thrilled that they are really getting behind it.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:26 AM on October 6, 2012

Next is VP, right? Hopefully Biden will own that kid. If not, well, given Obama's oft-mentioned competitive streak, added to the fact that it will be a town hall and how the respective candidates interact with real live people, there is that.
posted by angrycat at 8:53 AM on October 6, 2012

Next is VP, right? Hopefully Biden will own that kid.

Although I thought Palin was able to hold her own against Biden given her low expectations, I think there are a few advantages that Biden has this time that he didn't have in 2008.

The first one is that he doesn't need to hold back against Ryan. Against Palin, I recall there was some worry that he might come off as unlikeable with women if he tried too hard to crush her. But against Mr. P90X, Biden will be free to go whole hog.

The second factor is that Ryan has a brand to protect and that might affect his performance, notwithstanding any strategy that the Romney camp might have. We've seen it with Joe Lieberman and John Edwards and to a lesser extent, Lloyd Bentsen. Those guys tried to have a clean "debate" with the other VP nominee when the real goal is to do a 45 minute attack ad and destroy the other presidential nominee. I thought Biden did that really well in 2008.

The third thing that Biden's reputation for being gaffe-prone has incredibly gotten bigger since 2008. This should lower expectations. Meanwhile, people may have forgotten how knowledgeable and smart he is behind his regular Joe persona.

The dynamics of the VP debate are in some ways reversed compared to the Presidential debate. We know that Ryan will come off as smart and reasonable, that's his style, and he won't get flustered. But that's secondary. Will he be able to damage Obama more than Biden will damage Romney?
posted by Bokmakierie at 9:55 AM on October 6, 2012 [7 favorites]

Many Romney supporters question numbers favoring Obama -- "As election intensity reaches apex, so do suspicions from the right about polls, jobs data."
posted by ericb at 11:11 AM on October 6, 2012

Congressman Paul Broun, M.D.: Evolution and the Big Bang theory are lies straight from the pit of hell. Congressman Broun serves on the House Science committee with Todd Akin.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:12 AM on October 6, 2012 [2 favorites]

Me: How long has Joe Biden been in the senate?
Google: 36 years

Me: How old is Paul Ryan?
Google: 42 years
posted by Room 641-A at 11:15 AM on October 6, 2012 [11 favorites]

funny to see Romneybots go through the same gnashing of teeth and rending of shirts Kerrybots went through back in 2004. of course, Kerry supporters werent as batshit crazy as some of these Romneybots, but still...
posted by liza at 11:42 AM on October 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

Room 641-A: NYT: Romney’s Threat to Big Bird Sows Confusion Abroad, and Feeds It at Home

To me, the most astounding thing in that article is the fact that apparently 1 in 14 Americans estimate that the federal government spends more than half the budget on public television and radio!

As Politico reported, “Most Americans think public broadcasting receives a much larger share of the federal budget than it actually does,” according to a poll conducted for CNN last year [PDF]. The results of that survey, which asked respondents to estimate what share of the federal budget was spent on certain programs, found that just 27 percent of Americans knew that the money for PBS and NPR was less than 1 percent of government spending. Remarkably, 40 percent guessed that the share was between 1 and 5 percent and 30 percent said it was in excess of 5 percent — including 7 percent who said that more than half of the federal budget was spent on television and radio broadcasts.

posted by ob1quixote at 12:49 PM on October 6, 2012 [2 favorites]

That Paul Broun thing is just appalling. Disgusting. Outrageous. Egregious. Fucked the fuckity fuck up. How can someone trained as an MD and elected to congress be so delusional? And why in the name of all that is sacred, in any faith tradition, is he on the house science committee?

The earth is 9000 years old. We are being lied to. For real.

Medical schools should be able to rescind degrees in cases like this.
posted by spitbull at 12:52 PM on October 6, 2012 [6 favorites]

My roomate/hetero-life-mate hails from Paul Broun's district. I take delight in forwarding him all the stupid things Broun says and does. There have been a lot of them.
posted by ob1quixote at 1:01 PM on October 6, 2012

I read up on Broun and Akin after I saw their names and terror set in. That those two men are elected by any community is plain straight out worrying; and that the US can position and topple elected representatives from all around the world, yet leave those two men in office, defies all fathoming.

Do you know how held up stem-cell research is?
Unbelievable.

> How can someone trained as an MD and elected to congress be so delusional?

Broun appears to have ascites which would suggest to me alcohol abuse. He's probably wiped out a few brain cells.
posted by de at 1:16 PM on October 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney Won Using a Debate Technique Called the Gish Gallop
posted by homunculus at 1:18 PM on October 6, 2012 [2 favorites]

So I've been following what I'm calling the Big Bird index - the number of hits Romney + "Big Bird" gets on Google. In 2008 there were 132,653,958 total voters. Right now the search string Romney + "Big Bird" get's 242,000,000 hits on Google. Assuming the same turnout (which is probably unlikely) that's over 1.8 hits per voter.

Here's a Google trends chart showing the trending of Romney plus Big Bird vs. other terms which an undecided voter might consider after the debate. Here's a trends chart for things a hostile voter might look for.

He could have been as nebulous about his cuts as he has been about everything else this election cycle but he chose to single out PBS and name Big Bird in particular. What the hell was he thinking?!?!?!
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 1:22 PM on October 6, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'm depressed now. I hope there are some good polls out of Ohio and Florida next week.
posted by Justinian at 1:38 PM on October 6, 2012

Justinian, me too.
posted by angrycat at 1:49 PM on October 6, 2012

Why Obama Now

"An animated short about the big choice in 2012's presidential election - by Simpsons / Family Guy animator Lucas Gray."
posted by homunculus at 1:51 PM on October 6, 2012 [17 favorites]

Oh man, the Broun video is amazing. There's what he said, and where he is standing. That is a wall of buck heads at the 2012 Sportsman's Banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Georgia.

NBC has a bit more info, including a link to the full 47 minute video from Broun. Unlike Akin, Broun was unchallenged in his district, so he was able to release his statement upon "winning" the district at the end of July, 2012.

You can read more of Broun's thoughts in the letters sent by Chairman Broun as Chairman on the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:54 PM on October 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'm not all that upset by the debate result. I think the Obama team only anticipated the "lie your ass off" strategy as a remote possibility, and Obama's reaction to it was a sensible one, if not the best; simply hammering back on the lies would have been reactive and amplified Romney's platform for the lies while not leaving time for Obama's own message. I think they simply didn't think the Romney team would be stupid enough to go there, because it has so many down sides -- which the Obama camp is already exploiting.

It was, in fact, one of the bold moves available to Romney, and it had the desired short-term effect. But we haven't seen the blowback trickle in, and there's another debate -- and this time Obama won't be taken by surprise.
posted by localroger at 1:55 PM on October 6, 2012 [3 favorites]

And the theme of one of the next debates is going to be foreign policy where Romney doesn't exactly have much of a record apart from dissing the English and promising he'd never apologize for America no matter how badly we might fuck things up. He's not exactly left a huge range of options open on the issue without having another etch-a-sketch moment.

His proposed 2% increase on military spending suggested in the domestic debate (despite what his people are saying is an existentially threatening deficit) makes me think he might be all "Military! Military! GRAR!" in the foreign policy debate. It was generally considered wise to be completely silent on things military during the GOP convention so going that route at the 11th hour seems like a bad idea to me.

If Obama wants to counter that, all he has to say is that everyone wrote off the idea of bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice but "I let the military and intelligence community do the jobs they were trained to do without using them to make political hay." This harkens back to the classic arguments about what went wrong in Viet Nam, ties it to Iraq, credits the military and gives points to Obama for listening to his expert advisers rather than having the army run around in the desert getting shot at for no objective in particular. In Obama's dream world the far right would announce that Bin Laden isn't really dead and that's a hoax too.

There's almost two weeks between the final debate and the election. I think once we have to polls from the 10th (the day of the VP debate) we'll have a pretty good idea of how things will play during the last three debates. If Romney and Ryan can maintain the post debate bounce, more of the same. If the discrepancy between what was said and the facts chip away at any gains he's gotten, expect (another) new strategy.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 3:51 PM on October 6, 2012

homunculus: "Why Obama Now

"An animated short about the big choice in 2012's presidential election - by Simpsons / Family Guy animator Lucas Gray.""

I would really highly recommend that everyone watch this, if you haven't already. It's really beyond fantastic.
posted by Phire at 4:25 PM on October 6, 2012 [11 favorites]

I have great hopes that this debate went exactly as the Obama team wanted, which was to have the president avoid the "angry negro" or "uppity" or whatever racist right wing dogwhistles they throw out these day. Only to have Joe Biden come in on the veep debate and play the pissed, dangerously smart, loose-tongued, possibly slightly inebriated brawler uncle and wipe the floor with Ryan. Especially in regards to Ryan having to defend Mitten's claims from the first debate. Biden will be able to drop many charges of "liar" without facing the repercussions Obama would have. I think Team Biden would be smart to go after Ryan and his lack of foreign policy chops as well as his sheer youth should he find himself thrust into the driver's seat. Make me proud, Pissed Uncle Joe!
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 4:33 PM on October 6, 2012 [7 favorites]

Echoing Phire, the video that homunculus posted really is great. Except for that misspelling on the top of the chart at 1:38. That's kinda driving me bonkers. Anybody know these folks well enough to get them to do a little editing?
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 4:40 PM on October 6, 2012

So a republican was trying to get a citizenship question put on the ballot in Michigan, but it has been ordered off the ballot.

A federal judge late Friday ordered Secretary of State Ruth Johnson to remove a U.S. citizenship question from ballot applications for the Nov. 6 election, citing inconsistent enforcement and potential "confusion" at the polls.

"It really is a burden on the right to vote in terms of slowing things down, in terms of confusion," U.S. District Court Paul Borman said in ruling from the bench after a six-hour hearing.

It was right in line with the voter suppression efforts in other states. It's good to see a lot of these initiatives thrown out by the courts.

On this same point, The Daily Show and others have publicized how republican Mike Turzai procalimed that Voter ID in Pennsylvania would allow Mitt Romney to win the state. It has since been overturned, but there is sure to be confusion, as the Daily Show also pointed out, since voters can still be asked for ID.

But not only did the Voter ID issue threaten to disenfranchise folks - it also stopped two programs that were going to make voting easier - Applying online for an absentee ballot, and importantly - being able to register online:

August 16, 2012

HARRISBURG - On the same day a judge cleared the way for the state's new voter identification law to take effect, the Corbett administration abandoned plans to allow voters to apply online for absentee ballots for the November election and to register online to vote.

A spokesman for the Department of State said county elections officials told the agency that implementing the new online initiatives as well as voter ID requirements was too much to handle less than three months before the election.

posted by cashman at 4:41 PM on October 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

Biden seems to be really well situated to pull no punches in his debate, so it will be really interesting to see what he does. He has the ability and will almost certainly have the opportunity to make some seriously big points with emphasis Obama can't. Since Ryan appears to be the primary architect of their economic plan, it could turn out to be one of Biden's most important political moments.
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:44 PM on October 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

This is completely inappropriate, but I can't help imagining Obama and Biden as Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci in this scene from Casino.
posted by Bokmakierie at 4:48 PM on October 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

Thinking back to Mittens talking before the debate, I facepalmed. It should have been obvious what Mitt was about to do, because it is well documented how republicans love to project. To run over a curb with a car and then talk about how democrats need driving lessons. Take what is your problem and come out and accuse the democrats of that.

So what did Mitt do days before the debate - he started accusing Barack of telling lies.

So it'll be interesting to see what Paul Ryan is saying of Biden and the debate, leading up to Thursday.
posted by cashman at 4:50 PM on October 6, 2012 [4 favorites]

I have great hopes that this debate went exactly as the Obama team wanted

There is no way that the Obama team was hoping the debate went in such a way that Obama's commanding lead was entirely erased. Yes, the state polls were partisan outfits, but the national polls are not and they portray an essentially tied race post debate.

The Obama team is likely praying the jobs report taking over the news cycle was enough to halt or reverse their slide.
posted by Justinian at 4:53 PM on October 6, 2012 [1 favorite]

Another vote for homunculus' video It's not even laser focused on the President, it also functions as a video about social stratification and income inequality. Great find.

Along those same lines - Nicholas Kristof from October 3rd:

A study published last year by scholars from Harvard Business School and Duke University asked Americans which country they would rather live in — one with America’s wealth distribution or one with Sweden’s. But they weren’t labeled Sweden and America. It turned out that more than 90 percent of Americans preferred to live in a country with the Swedish distribution. Perhaps nothing gets done because, in polls, Americans hugely underestimate the level of inequality here. Not only do we aspire to live in Sweden, but we think we already do.

Previously, previously, previously.
posted by cashman at 5:10 PM on October 6, 2012 [12 favorites]

the national polls....portray an essentially tied race post debate.

Ignoring Rasmussen, since we're not including partisan outfits, what've we actually got? Two national polls that vaguely reflect the effect of the debate, plus one very small one taken the day after? I don't think the debate went well, but I don't think polling data is telling us anything very reliable about its effect on the race just yet.
posted by howfar at 6:48 PM on October 6, 2012

Obama debate notes found (comedy)
posted by LanTao at 6:50 PM on October 6, 2012 [2 favorites]

howfar: I don't think polling data is telling us anything very reliable about its effect on the race just yet.

Five Thirty Eight's round-up of polls: Romney Maintains Poll Momentum (Oct 6 post).

Mitt Romney continues to show improved numbers in polls published since the presidential debate in Denver on Wednesday and has now made clear gains in the FiveThirtyEight forecast. The forecast gives him roughly a 20 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, up from about 15 percent before the debate.
...
Four of the five national polls published on Saturday showed improvement for Mr. Romney.
...
All of these national surveys except for the Clarus Research Group poll still contain some predebate interviews, meaning that they may underestimate the gains that Mr. Romney may eventually realize.
...
If there is any silver lining for Mr. Obama in these data, it may be that polls of registered voters show a weaker trend toward Mr. Romney than polls of likely voters.
...
Why is this factor favorable for Mr. Obama? Because likely voter polls can be more sensitive than registered voter polls to temporary swings in voter enthusiasm, which sometimes reverse themselves as there are new developments in the news cycle.

The full article goes into more details, but I was cherry-picking the highlights. Nate Silver's forecast currently reads 80.2% chance for Obama to win vs 19.8% for Romney. Florida, Colorado, Virginia, and Iowa are listed as weakest probable wins for Obama, North Carolina the only weak likely win for Romney.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:06 PM on October 6, 2012

Yeah, those are exactly the data I was referring to, filthy light thief. We were talking about the effect of the debate on the polls (unclear), not the trend in the polls (clear movement toward Romney). Without a breakdown of the data the inclusion of pre-debate interviews might underestimate the effect of the debate, but alternately it may underestimate the effect of other factors in causing the race to tighten. The Nate Silver piece seems to speculate beyond the data in respect of the impact of the debate, for the sake of having a story to hang the data on.
posted by howfar at 7:23 PM on October 6, 2012

I like the sound of this, from a WP article previewing the Biden-Ryan debate:

“I just want to make sure that when I say these things, I don’t have the congressman — ‘No no no, I don’t have that position,’ or, ‘That’s not the governor’s position,’ ” Biden said.

Another dynamic that is potentially in Biden's favor is that he has a chance to save the day.
posted by Bokmakierie at 7:25 PM on October 6, 2012

Two national polls that vaguely reflect the effect of the debate, plus one very small one taken the day after?

PPP just came out with some pretty bad polls for Obama as well. It looks like he had a bad day of polling on Thursday and a really bad day of polling on Friday... but according to TPM the numbers rebound on Saturday. So we'll see.

This is why I said I had to stop looking at polls for a week. But I couldn't. GOD HELP ME I COULDN'T.
posted by Justinian at 7:43 PM on October 6, 2012 [2 favorites]

It would actually be quite interesting to see the effect on polls for a week if nothing else had happened / will happen (like job report, romney's "I was wrong", and whatever comes up next). It's certain that there was a pretty significant initial bump. That's the only thing we can be sure about.
posted by rainy at 7:54 PM on October 6, 2012

The hope has to be for a debate bounce, which is likely to fade and can be undone, rather than for an underlying erosion of the factors that were giving Obama his lead. There's a good chance that the data will bear out the former, but I'm not convinced we can be sure of it yet. We need before and after snapshots that are still emerging, rather than a simple observation of the trend.
posted by howfar at 8:13 PM on October 6, 2012

homunculus: "Romney Won Using a Debate Technique Called the Gish Gallop"

Very interesting to learn that not only is this an this is an actual debate technique, but it's well-known enough to be included in the Urban Dictionary.

Now can someone please tell me why, the morning after the debate, the news media was screaming "Romney Won!" and not "Desperate Romeny Gish Gallops"?

Fuckers.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:21 PM on October 6, 2012 [2 favorites]

well-known enough to be included in the Urban Dictionary.

The Urban Dictionary makes Wikipedia look like a peer reviewed journal when it comes to reliability. There are a great many words and phrases in there and an inclusion in there means nothing at all.

Now can someone please tell me why, the morning after the debate, the news media was screaming "Romney Won!" and not "Desperate Romeny Gish Gallops"?

Because it sells newspapers, neilson ratings or page views. It's called yellow journalism.

Unless Obama takes out his heavily crypted iPhone and starts taking penis pics during the next few debates - this election is all but over and Obama has already won.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 9:58 PM on October 6, 2012

One of us needs to check our sarcasm meter and I genuinely don't know if it's you or me.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:50 PM on October 6, 2012

The eXile Ames Was Right Againt: Obama Was A Boring Technocrat in 2008 But You Were Too Stupid To Notice

You poor Obamabots only just discovered a few nights ago what a crushingly dull technocrat Barack Obama is—but you’re still making the mistake of assuming that his snoozer performance against Mitt Romney during Wednesday’s debate was some sort of aberration. As Mark Ames argued way way back in this February 1, 2008 write-up for Alternet, Obama always was a neoliberal dullard— you people were just too starry-eyed and desperate-to-believe to see Obama for what he really was, and is. So blame yourselves for being 4-1/2 years too late to reality—and blame yourselves for not listening to Mr. Ames when you had the chance to save yourself some embarrassment.

Reason (repoting on Politico, and the ourobouros continues) Politico: Obama Is Risen

Even with the more modest title "How Obama reset his campaign," the piece is one of the greatest works of unintentional (and uncomfortable) comedy since David Brooks got hot and bothered over the crease in the future president's pants, Chris Matthews objectively felt a thrill up his leg at the 2008 Democratic candidate's silky tones, or The New York Times tried to give an inspirational glow to President Obama's tardy and clumsy sellout of longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak.

Mother Jones

Barack Obama, the $1 Billion Candidate

Obama's September total beat his August haul by $67 million, and it easily outpaces any of the monthly fundraising totals recorded by Mitt Romney's campaign and the affilated GOP groups backing him. The Obama campaign tweeted on Saturday that 1,825,813 donors gave money to reelect Obama last month; 567,044 of those were first-time donors. The average donation in September, Messina said, was $53. "The people and the stories behind these numbers are what make this grass-roots organization so powerful," Messina wrote in an e-mail to supporters. Overall, the Obama campaign said more than 10 million people have donated to reelect the president.

BLS Employment Figures May Have Been Unfairly Hurting Obama, Not Helping Him

Or there might be a third option: In a little-noticed part of yesterday's report, BLS announced that it had systematically undercounted jobs by 386,000 from April 2011 through March 2012. So maybe it's continued to undercount jobs since then, as Karl Smith suggests here. If so, then not only is the September number accurate, it's making up for an undercount over the past six months.

posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:27 AM on October 7, 2012

PPP just came out with some pretty bad polls for Obama as well. It looks like he had a bad day of polling on Thursday and a really bad day of polling on Friday... but according to TPM the numbers rebound on Saturday. So we'll see.

FWIW, it seems as if Rasmussen is kind of backing this story up. Today's tracking poll numbers are 100% after the debate, and they're exactly where they were yesterday (i.e. a 2-point lead for Romney). People with access to Ras' non-topline data say that it shows Romney had weaker numbers yesterday, indicating a good possibility that the BLS news may have halted any bounce. Plus, there's a Selzer poll of Colorado that was also conducted 100% after the debates that shows Obama ahead by 4 there.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:58 AM on October 7, 2012

He could have been as nebulous about his cuts as he has been about everything else this election cycle but he chose to single out PBS and name Big Bird in particular. What the hell was he thinking?!?!?!

Word on the street I've heard is that threatening to cut PBS and singling out Sesame Street characters in particular for the ax is really popular among the right-wing, southern evangelical base. Even among non-southern-evangelicals who are Republicans, there's an underlying seething anger against Sesame Street because it is designed specifically to portray and appeal not to suburban white children (though they are a large part of the audience), but lower-middle class children in cities, particularly non-whites. Romney thought he was being clever, and this was one of his many habits of misreading his audience or forgetting which audience he's speaking to.

Honestly, 2 weeks from now, all anyone will remember about this debate was that "it was the one where Romney threatened Big Bird." Kind of reminds me of the last Bush/Kerry debate in 2004 where Bush got caught claiming that he never said he wasn't that concerned about bin Laden, but a week later,all anyone could talk about was that Kerry mentioned that Cheney's (publicly out) daughter was gay in a question about gay marriage.
posted by deanc at 7:05 AM on October 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

Or there might be a third option: In a little-noticed part of yesterday's report, BLS announced that it had systematically undercounted jobs by 386,000 from April 2011 through March 2012.

Obama's polls have been unaccountably high over the past few months given the unemployment rate, so the theory is that economically things are better "on the ground" than the statistics are showing, explaining why Romney just isn't getting much traction. The upwards revision of employment data for July and August seems to bear out this theory.
posted by deanc at 7:10 AM on October 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

You poor Obamabots only just discovered a few nights ago what a crushingly dull technocrat Barack Obama is

I don't know about you, but I liked him because he's a boring technocrat. Exciting politicians do shit like invade Iraq.
posted by empath at 7:55 AM on October 7, 2012 [27 favorites]

I voted for Obama in '08 precisely because I thought that he was a boring technocrat.
posted by octothorpe at 8:04 AM on October 7, 2012 [10 favorites]

I've never believed Obama to be a particularly good debater. He's a masterful speech maker, but not great in debates.
This is fine by me. I don't think debating is a particularly important tool for a president to possess. He's particularly out of practice at it for a reason: The president doesn't debate a lot of people.
posted by qnarf at 8:18 AM on October 7, 2012

Well okay then, if we're going to be that vapid and snarky about things then, heck yeah, a "boring technocrat" who could speak in full grammatically correct sentences was fuckin' HAWT in my book, I was like shiiiiittttt...pass that Kool-aid over here, I'll take a swig of that action..
posted by Skygazer at 8:20 AM on October 7, 2012

but not great in debates. This is fine by me.

But IMHO I think he's a very very good debater, but there's number of elements going on here, one is I think it was a conscious decision by him and his team that he take some shots and they let Romney have all the rope he wanted. The thing is it really became advantageous for Romney because he was just really sharp that night and it seemed like almost every single time, he got the last word, and just as Obama was getting ready to retort Lehrer would cut Obama off to keep things moving and I think Lehrer did a disservice there, because he wanted to stay out of the way, but because Romney was steamrolling over him every time he had to try and grasp control while Obama was speaking.

But one thing thats' troubling me is that Romney does get under Obama's skin. I don't think I've ever seen O. show dislike towards anyone, but it's pretty palpable that Romney is repellent to him, and how can you blame him, Romney is a revolting person to anyone who values thoughtful and methodical logic and clarity. Romney's like a windbag of alpha-male chaos and horseshit. I really didn't think he was going to be able to sustain his intense crap-show for 90 minutes, but he did somehow...perhaps all that pent up energy. It seemed to me that he'd run out of energy towards the end of the primary debates.

Anyhow, I hope they're working out how O.'s going to respond effectively to Romney's Gish Gallop strategy, and he does not let Romney get to him again.

I think, it looked to me, it's probably as simple as making sure he gets good sleep and they clear his schedule for some effective downtime before the next two debates.

All these pundits on the Sunday political shows needing to talk about "a real horse race again" is beginning to worry me...

I mean what if Obama's heart's not into this anymore??
posted by Skygazer at 8:34 AM on October 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

Big Bird Visits SNL's Weekend Update With Seth Meyers (VIDEO) -- "While word on the street was that Big Bird would NOT be doing any television appearances following his unexpected mention during Wednesday's presidential debate, 'SNL' apparently made him an offer he couldn't refuse."
posted by ericb at 9:03 AM on October 7, 2012 [3 favorites]

I mean what if Obama's heart's not into this anymore??

This is a question I've been pondering myself. I've been missing that Obama from the last election who seemed to be on fire with purpose and conviction. Then, the other day I read this, which just made me kind of sad.

Barack Obama will never be that man again. Whoever he was in 2008, and 2004, Barack Obama will never have his easy swagger and rambunctiously playful enthusiasm ....
That is the truth at the core of his oddly flat convention speech, and at the center of his technically skilled but strangely bloodless reelection campaign. Whoever Obama was when he was elected president has been seared away by two active wars, the more free-ranging fight against al-Qaeda, the worst economic crash since the Great Depression, and the endless grinding fights with Washington Republicans -- and even, I am sure, activists in his own party.

Snippy Obama Whose Heart's Not In It from The Atlantic
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 9:05 AM on October 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

deanc: ven among non-southern-evangelicals who are Republicans, there's an underlying seething anger against Sesame Street because it is designed specifically to portray and appeal not to suburban white children (though they are a large part of the audience)

I knew a guy who said his parents didn't let him watch Sesame Street, because it was "set in a ghetto" or something of the sort. He was in his late teens to early 20s when he was talking about it, and we all laughed at that idea. Only now do I realize how unsettling it is to some people that the urban environment can be a normal, even positive, setting for a TV show.

Skygazer: All these pundits on the Sunday political shows needing to talk about "a real horse race again" is beginning to worry me...

News people generally have a very short memory. I was honestly surprised to see NBC playing months-old clips of Romney against clips from the first debate, showing how he flipped on statements he has campaigned on for the last year. Seriously, The Daily Show is amazing for keeping track of past comments and playing them against current statements, and I've always thought that the failure of other news programs to do so to was because of the 24 hour news cycles pushing the New News to the top, even when it DIRECTLY RELATES to old news.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:08 AM on October 7, 2012

This first debate has now officially been crowned the BIG BIRD debate.

Years from now, when asked what they remember most about Romney's performance in his initial debate with President Obama Americans will say 'the attack on Big Bird and PBS!'
posted by ericb at 9:09 AM on October 7, 2012

But IMHO I think he's a very very good debater

I have the recall of a field mouse, so it's possible it's me, but aside from the "You're likable enough, Hillary" moment (which did him no favors) I'm sorta struggling to think of any moment that he really nailed in any debate in 08.
I entirely agree that a lot of his performance was based on strategic decision making. Letting Romney win this one is a good idea. A) Romney was already being set up to win by narrative peddlers, who need this race to appear competitive until election day (Obama's own campaign benefits, to a certain degree, from this appearance). B) Obama was in the lead, he's still in the lead (to a lesser degree), and he really benefits very little from attacking. C) By not attacking, he keeps the attack-able elements about Romney in the dialogue, without offering Romney a chance to counter. And I think it's a strategic decision to show that Romney kinda disgusts Obama. As you say, how could anyone blame him?
Obama's older, he's tired-er, but I think his heart is in this, and I think he'll win. Romney is the same man who has been running all along, a Republican who had difficulty beating Herman Cain and Rick Santorum. Romney had a good night, but he rarely has good nights, and he overplayed his hand. Obama let him taste blood, and Romney went in full force, and now he's pretty well screwed.
Because what's he going to do now? What's Romney's next move? Obama's path is clear. Obama will be seen as Roaring Back in the next debate, simply by showing up with a little bt more than he did last time (David Gergen: A re-energized Obama showed why he was so inspiring to so many in 2008. We've got a real horse race again!) and putting on a reasonable face and not getting pushed around as much (the whole reason everyone is flipped about all of this is that it's known he can do as much pretty easily). What's Romney's counter to that? You can make up a bunch of stuff about economics; it's hard to understand, and countering it in a debate setting amounts getting into a pissing match that risks looking petulant. Romney is running on the economy. The next debate is on foreign policy. Obama killed Bin Laden and was central to the overthrow of the Libyan government. Romney pissed off our closest ally when visiting the Olympics.
posted by qnarf at 9:12 AM on October 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

This morning, Ben Stein praised Obama's performance in the debates. Granted, he praised Romney's as well, but -- read that carefully: Ben Stein praised Obama's performance in the debate.

I'm not sure how to take that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:50 AM on October 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

So, any of yous hear this week's TAL? The 'quote from Cory' was quite a cathartic moment. This week's TAL is really hard to listen to; it's all these stories of people who have close encounters with death. One woman, who almost dies of a horrific shark bite, describes the process of hastening towards death via blood poisoning as feeling as if every molecule in her is on fire. Then the Cory quote has that bit as Cory's response to O's debate performance.

It sort of funnily captured my emotional response this week in a hyperbolic way.
posted by angrycat at 9:52 AM on October 7, 2012

"I mean what if their heart's not into this anymore??" "The people who worked to elect Barack Obama and keep McCain-Palin from ruining the country will never be those people again. Whoever they were in 2008, those people will never have their easy swagger and rambunctiously playful enthusiasm in making signs, memes, youtube videos, and going door to door.... That is the truth at the core of their oddly flat motionless response to Obama's convention speech that pinpointed them as the engine of change, and at the center of their technically skilled comments but strangely actionless reelection campaign efforts. Whoever they were when they elected Obama president, making phone calls, talking to friends and neighbors, has been seared away by two active wars, the more free-ranging fight against al-Qaeda, the worst economic crash since the Great Depression, and the endless grinding fights with obstructionist Washington Republicans -- and even, I am sure, doubters, perfectionists and concern trolls in their own party."
posted by cashman at 10:01 AM on October 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

I mean what if Obama's heart's not into this anymore??

My take on Obama from observing him through the 2008 campaign and his presidency is that his heart has never been in it when it comes to the rough and tumble of campaigning against the other guy and jockeying for power and winning news cycles and schmoozing with donors. Ultimately, I think he is an introvert who enjoys forming good working relationships with fellow legislators and hammering out good ideas and convincing people to listen to reason in the cause of comity and good policy. And the other stuff isn't his "thing" in the same way that Bill Clinton loooved campaigning and meeting with voters.

There's a lot of memories of those "Chill the Fuck Out/I Got This!" jpegs back in '08, but what we forget is that in late August/early September, it really did look like the Obama campaign was going to get steamrolled by McCain and outside money, and there was a bit of an intervention where the campaign was convinced to allow donors to support independent expenditures and to up its game against McCain before everything went down the tubes.

What we see of Obama not having much fight in him was part of his appeal-- he was the guy who would reason with the American people and win by organizing grassroots action, not by giving in to the temptations of negative ads, "war rooms", rapid-response teams, etc. He is smart enough to realize when he needs to adjust tactics before he loses, but these things don't come naturally to him.
posted by deanc at 10:04 AM on October 7, 2012

A Post-PBS Educational Television Landscape
posted by homunculus at 10:42 AM on October 7, 2012

Obama and Romney Should Talk about Climate Change at Next Debate
posted by homunculus at 10:43 AM on October 7, 2012 [3 favorites]

Yes they damn well should. All of this sturm und drang is deck chairs on the Titanic territory if you are paying any attention to the dramatic and terrifying numbers coming from the arctic over the last few weeks.

People really do not understand the tipping point logic here. Melt enough sea ice and the remaining ice melts faster. We're there.
posted by spitbull at 10:54 AM on October 7, 2012 [3 favorites]

Tipping point? Ryan knows about tipping points.

But, yes, there shouldn't be a politician not declaring his or her hand on climate change. It's pertinent to any position of power this century.
posted by de at 11:18 AM on October 7, 2012

Jesus Christ, yes, talk about climate change.
I am one of those people who was really obnoxious to Nader voters post-2000 (sorry about that, Nader voters), but, perhaps ironically, beginning this year I am going to look at races where the Democrat has it sewn up and vote Green party where I can.
posted by angrycat at 11:38 AM on October 7, 2012

"I mean what if their heart's not into this anymore??"

I mean what if the American electorate was so fickle that a single 90 minute performance could change their whole view of a President they've known for four years?
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 1:27 PM on October 7, 2012 [7 favorites]

Romney was such a failure as a governor. He's running away from his signature achievement: Universal Health Care for residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It's called 'Commonwealth' for a reason!

Many were/are upset that Romney went around the country dissing Massachusetts during his last year as Governor. He only ran for 1 term, so as to put it on his résumé and then could say that he successfully ran for public office. Transparent opportunism.

His performance was lackluster. In his previous run for President, Flip Romney tried to downplay his poor performance as governor ... and made many disparaging comments about Massachusetts in the process.

As well, "[i]n 2006, his last year as governor, Romney spent all or part of 212 days [58%] out of state, laying the foundation for his anticipated presidential campaign."* "[He] [v]isited 35 states; built a national network [for his run for President].*

HE HAD NO INTEREST in running the State. He was using his governorship as a springboard for his Presidential ambitions. The guy has no 'core.' No 'center.' "

posted by ericb at 1:30 PM on October 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

Robert Gibbs: Mitt Romney's Budget Math Is 'Absolutely Crazy' (VIDEO).
posted by ericb at 1:33 PM on October 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

Paul Krugman Blasts Media Over Presidential Debate: Press Can't 'Handle Flat-Out Untruths' (VIDEO).
posted by ericb at 1:34 PM on October 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

Axelrod: Obama 'Taken Aback By The Brazenness' Of Romney's Debate Performance.
posted by ericb at 1:38 PM on October 7, 2012

could people please post video links directly to them? thanks!
posted by liza at 1:44 PM on October 7, 2012

Did people catch the SNL send-up of the debates? It was pretty great.

JIM: Mr. President, Governor Romney just claimed he killed Osama Bin Laden. Would you like to respond to that?
OBAMA: ....no, you two go ahead.

posted by Phire at 1:48 PM on October 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

What Didn't Get Debated
posted by homunculus at 1:53 PM on October 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

ericb: "Paul Krugman Blasts Media Over Presidential Debate: Press Can't 'Handle Flat-Out Untruths' (VIDEO)."

It annoys me to no end that they're all pretty much talking like Obama didn't even bother to show up. As I stated a few days ago in this thread, that's simply not true. He made plenty of points against Romney, but didn't continue to rebut Romney's lies. Whether or not that's a great choice strategically, I can't say. On the one hand, it makes him look weak. On the other hand, it prevented the lies from being repeated even more than they already were.

Sadly, the media's truth deficit is not much smaller than Romney's.
posted by wierdo at 2:46 PM on October 7, 2012

Wierdo beat me to most of it. I do agree that Obama showed up, but I think Krugman was right in that he really wants to be the peacemaker and he has to have his back to the wall before he pulls out the handguns. As I posted upthread I think he was just taken aback by the brazenness of Romney's lies, and he's already spinning it well ("I found myself facing this very energetic fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney").

It was a bold but very dangerous move on Romney's part and so far we've only seen the battle that was won. But Romney left a Big Bird gaffe on the floor and a lot of easily exposed lies on video and Obama won't be surprised next time.

Also, Biden will wipe the floor with Ryan, and the expectations are reversed.
posted by localroger at 2:56 PM on October 7, 2012

It annoys me to no end that they're all pretty much talking like Obama didn't even bother to show up.

No doubt. In fact, it not only annoys me, it frightens me that our species responds so positively to aggressive liars. Basically, after the debate, the media and "undecideds" said, "Yeah, Romney lied a lot, but he was still totally awesome, you guys, and he totally won my heart!" like all the worst stereotypes of someone throwing himself or herself at the feet of a bad boy/girl while ignoring someone more genuine.

I hope to dog Obama has a "There you go again" moment during the next debate.
posted by lord_wolf at 3:14 PM on October 7, 2012 [5 favorites]

I've never believed Obama to be a particularly good debater. He's a masterful speech maker, but not great in debates.

Masterful speechmaker? I don't get why I keep seeing people say this. Is George W. Bush your only basis for comparison? I find his delivery flat and uninteresting. Even at the DNC last month, I found John Lewis' brief speech denouncing the vote suppression efforts far more impassioned and effective than Obama's headlining speech.

Also, Biden will wipe the floor with Ryan, and the expectations are reversed.

No way that'll happen, because Paul Ryan is a "numbers guy" and a "policy wonk" and really just a total genius who can't explain the arithmetic behind his tax cut proposal.
posted by indubitable at 4:00 PM on October 7, 2012

Long time Republicans torn between party loyalty and Obamacare

Campbell may become one of the Republican "defectors" Traugott says could make a difference in battleground states.

Campbell, 49, has voted Republican in nearly every presidential election since he cast his vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980, but this year might be different. For two years his 22-year-old stepdaughter, a self-employed dog trainer, didn't have health insurance. Then Obamacare kicked in and she was allowed onto her father's insurance.
[snip]
The Olathe, Kansas, resident is leaning toward Obama, but not just because of his stepdaughter. Campbell's wife, Barbara, has diabetes and is in the final stages of breast cancer treatment. She's now on his insurance, but if he ever lost his job, his wife would be faced with trying to buy insurance on her own and would surely be rejected.

"I'm really torn," he said. "Because of Obama, I now have a wife who can get covered. But really, at heart, I'm a limited-government kind of guy."

Bottom line: Obamacare is working. Some Republicans are waking up to the fact that voting Republican is actually hurting them and their families.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:12 PM on October 7, 2012 [10 favorites]

Terrific (but long) piece in the New York Times: How the GOP became the anti-urban party. 4/5ths of Americans live in the city now, yet

the national Republican Party still can’t get seem to get past its animus toward the very idea of urban life. The only place that Amtrak turns a profit is the Northeast corridor — yet all Republicans can think to do is privatize it, along with the local rail lines on which millions of Americans have been commuting into cities to work for as long as a century and a half. Republicans promise to ban same-sex marriage, make it easier for anyone to get a gun, delegitimize and destroy what they mockingly call “public employees’ unions,” and deport the immigrant workers performing so many thankless but vital tasks.

In short, they promise to rip and tear at the immensely complex fabric of city life while sneering at the entire “urban vision of dense housing and government transit.” There is a terrible arrogance here that has ramifications well beyond the Republicans’ electoral prospects.

So along with everything else, Republicans are going against the grain when it comes to urban life and needs. They are truly shooting themselves in the foot here when they concentrate so hard on the rural vote because that is evaporating.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:20 PM on October 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

Apologies. Forgot the link.

Long time Republicans torn between party loyalty and Obamacare.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:25 PM on October 7, 2012

Paul Krugman Blasts Media Over Presidential Debate: Press Can't 'Handle Flat-Out Untruths'

Mary Matalin Calls Paul Krugman A ‘Liar’ For Telling The Truth
posted by homunculus at 4:37 PM on October 7, 2012

Jon Stewart is a balm unto my soul. That debate is really worth watching; thanks for posting it.
posted by angrycat at 4:51 PM on October 7, 2012

Also, Biden will wipe the floor with Ryan, and the expectations are reversed.

What a terrible way to treat a floor.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:58 PM on October 7, 2012 [4 favorites]

"Yeah, Romney lied a lot, but he was still totally awesome, you guys, and he totally won my heart!"

Seriously, I can't even. Calling the debates outmoded political theater is one thing, sure, people (the media) latch onto silly soundbytes, like nice hair, whatever, the Kennedy-Nixon debates are in every grammar school social studies textbook. But actually seeing people act like complete fucking idiots, while they're admitting they're being idiots, and being validated by the idiot media for being idiots, is another. A post-debate post-ironic celebration of idiots.

"We know the debates are just a silly dog-and-pony show and the people are swayed by who has the nicest tan and whitest eyes and least productive sweat glands, so let's predict what the people will think, and instead of ignoring or critiquing it, enjoy it in nostalgic bemusement, and/or (as serious Democrats) run around screaming like Chicken Little with his head cut off." Seriously, quit acting like fucking idiots? Like it's so urbane to both laugh at and participate in this obvious chauvinism, better than to try to elevate the discourse one notch. Like the dawn of television debates created a worthy tradition of superficiality instead of illuminating it for our collective improvement. I don't have the feeling this debate will be decisive, but I cannot believe that the narrative is literally Romney was a morally bankrupt shill who constantly lied but he seemed so sexy and confident while doing it!!! Are people this turned on by their own ignorant vapidity? I mean, I guess Americans were actually always this way, just look at political writing to a general audience in the early to mid-20th century for more examples of a morally lazy electorate encouraged by lazy, impotent journalism.
posted by stoneandstar at 5:00 PM on October 7, 2012 [3 favorites]

I've always kind of liked Mary Matalin, although I didn't agree with her. But, is it just me, or has she been kind of kooky this election cycle? I can't even imagine how she and James Carvelle live in the same house.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 5:08 PM on October 7, 2012 [3 favorites]

Meanwhile, Key and Peele finished their show at about 9:55 with another Obama Anger Translator sketch, which was strangely prescient.

Key & Peele: “That’s what Obama should say”
posted by homunculus at 5:33 PM on October 7, 2012

Basically, after the debate, the media and "undecideds" said, "Yeah, Romney lied a lot, but he was still totally awesome, you guys, and he totally won my heart!" like all the worst stereotypes of someone throwing himself or herself at the feet of a bad boy/girl while ignoring someone more genuine.

You go into an election with the electorate you have, not the electorate you wish you had. Bill Clinton knew well and said as much that voters will choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right." Obama has a problem grappling with this-- I think ultimately he doesn't want to believe it's true. But the presidency is too big to contain a single person. Obama doesn't have that domineering/dominant instinct. Clinton lacked self control. George W. Bush was incompetent and uninformed.
posted by deanc at 5:34 PM on October 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney and Obama debate how to bring more Classical Indian music to America
posted by homunculus at 6:06 PM on October 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

What happens when education television is for profit only [Honey Boo Boo]
vs
What happens with Public broadcasting [Sesame Street]
posted by filthy light thief at 7:57 PM on October 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

This morning, Ben Stein praised Obama's performance in the debates. Granted, he praised Romney's as well, but -- read that carefully: Ben Stein praised Obama's performance in the debate.

I saw that segment.

He said that Obama and Romney agree policy-wise on everything but minor details, and that the debate was more civil and more educational for the audience than any in recent memory, because it featured two intelligent men who obviously like each other, respectfully debating minor differences in their policies. Which makes anyone who actually watched the debate wonder what the fuck Stein's been using to spike his own KoolAid.

The praise of President Obama was Ben Stein trying desperately to spin the debate so it seemed to anyone who wanted to believe, that Romney hadn't lied his ass off about his political positions and proposed / promised policies. And Stein did it in such a way that people who hadn't watched the debate would be likely to come away believing Romney acted pleasantly and reasonably and not at all like any of the batshit insane Tea Party members that have become the face of the GOP over the last few years.
posted by zarq at 8:03 PM on October 7, 2012 [2 favorites]

Romney and Obama debate how to bring more Classical Indian music to America.

You know, I was already pretty done with the republicans, but the news that they don't have a firm understanding of raga is just the final straw. However important rhythms may be in Indian music, the color and tonal patterns are the foundation of that musical tradition.

╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
posted by winna at 8:44 PM on October 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

Looks like Romney is going to use his big speech tomorrow to try and hang Benghazi around Obama's neck.
posted by edgeways at 8:48 PM on October 7, 2012

Fun fact: TLC, aka The Learning Channel, is one of the oldest networks on cable (Google books).

Founded in 1972 by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and NASA as an informative/instructional network focused on providing real education through the medium of TV; it was distributed at no cost by NASA satellite. It was privatized in 1980 and was then named the Appalachian Community Service Network. In November 1980 this name was changed to "The Learning Channel". In 1991, the Discovery Channel purchased the channel, and over time, began to downplay the old name, shortening it to TLC.

The list of programs currently and previously broadcast by TLC is sad. 'Big Hair Alaska': Can Sarah Palin's Beauty Parlor Make For Good TV? Don't worry, only two episodes were filmed.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:03 PM on October 7, 2012 [4 favorites]

10/7 Mike Luckovich cartoon: Big Bird
posted by cashman at 9:05 PM on October 7, 2012 [1 favorite]

Looks like Romney is going to use his big speech tomorrow to try and hang Benghazi around Obama's neck.

I've seen mention of how the foreign policy debate will be tricky for Romney, but taking cues from the first debate, I can imagine him just blasting away at Obama using right-wing complaints regarding Libya, Egypt, maybe even the Bin Laden op. (It was the troops who really deserve credit and not Obama, etc.)
posted by shortfuse at 9:15 PM on October 7, 2012

Looks like Romney is going to use his big speech tomorrow to try and hang Benghazi around Obama's neck.

Moreso than that, it looks like this idiot is trying to start another war. I figured from his "47%" leak that he would echo that same "Strength" thing that is basically him wanting to wave a dick around and start fights with other nations. But damn if this guy isn't openly seeking to start war. Excerpts of tomorrow's speech:

I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity. …

… It is time to change course in the Middle East. …

I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf the region—and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions—not just words—that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated. …

It looks like most of his speech is available at the link. Maybe it's all just bluster and he wouldn't do that much. But it doesn't seem that way. His comments at that fundraiser and this speech make it seem pretty much like he is anxious to bully somebody.

He has no personal sense of compromise, not a soothing bone in his body, and he just seems like he wants to go to war like those guys who buy some shiny car to elevate themselves in society. So he can get together with wealthy friends and be able to show off the conflict he started because some country wouldn't say 'uncle'.

Things are already unpalatable for so many people who have problems with the president - the current wars, drones, and violence overseas. And Mitt just seems like he wants to jump into the middle of it and escalate everything.

Here is what Mitt said at the fundraiser back in May:

My own view is that that the centerpiece of American foreign policy has to be strength. Everything I do will be calculated to increasing America's strength. When you stand by your allies, you increase your strength. When you attack your allies, you become weaker. When you stand by your principles, you get stronger. When you have a big military—that's bigger than anyone else's—you're stronger. [Unintelligible.] When you have a strong economy, you build America's strength. For me, everything is about strength and communicating to people what is and is not acceptable. It's speaking softly but carrying a very, very, very big stick. And this president instead speaks loudly and carries a tiny stick. And that is, you know, that's not the right course for a foreign policy.

It is fitting that Mitt's speech tomorrow has 'mantle' in the title, because to me it seems like he wants to start wars so he can have a trophy to put on a mantlepiece.
posted by cashman at 9:32 PM on October 7, 2012 [4 favorites]

"This morning, Ben Stein praised Obama's performance in the debates. Granted, he praised Romney's as well, but -- read that carefully: Ben Stein praised Obama's performance in the debate.

I'm not sure how to take that."

Game recognize disaffected, flat game.
posted by klangklangston at 9:36 PM on October 7, 2012

Re: Romney's speech, I have this (possibly irrational) fear that he's giving Obama something to use when preparing for the third debate, just so Romney can deny it all and pretend his plan is completely different when confronted. Just like last week.
posted by zerbinetta at 9:43 PM on October 7, 2012

Masterful speechmaker? I don't get why I keep seeing people say this. Is George W. Bush your only basis for comparison? I find his delivery flat and uninteresting.

Because in his time on the national political stage, he's made at least 4 speeches that are among the best we've seen in the modern era. He catapulted himself from an unheard of senate hopeful to presidential contender with his 2004 DNC keynote. His "Yes We Can" speech after the 2008 Iowa caucus was a major factor in him going from interesting longshot to "this guy might win this thing". It completely reframed the entire campaign from that moment forward. The "More Perfect Union" speech in response to the Jeremiah Wright dustup goes on that list, and in my opinion his address to the nation after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting was among one of the best presidential addresses of my lifetime.

He has proven that he has the ability to completely reframe an issue in the eyes of the general populace with a single speech, but I agree 100% that he hasn't brought it like that in this campaign cycle. I also think there have been at least two occasions in the past four years where he needed to step up to that level and missed the opportunity. One was Healthcare, and the other was the Debt Ceiling fiasco.
posted by billyfleetwood at 9:46 PM on October 7, 2012 [6 favorites]

Just to correct myself, the "Yes We Can" Speech was after losing New Hampshire. But the Iowa speech was also amazing.
posted by billyfleetwood at 9:58 PM on October 7, 2012

shortfuse: "I've seen mention of how the foreign policy debate will be tricky for Romney, but taking cues from the first debate, I can imagine him just blasting away at Obama using right-wing complaints regarding Libya, Egypt, maybe even the Bin Laden op. (It was the troops who really deserve credit and not Obama, etc.)"

Sadly, debunking the complete fabrications on which his thinking on foreign policy is built upon will be a much harder task than the first debate. Not that the media did much in the way of outing Romney's lies in the first one. You actually have to know something about what's actually happening there, which unfortunately isn't possible to ascertain by reading the New York Times and Washington Post, who are too busy repeating the lies of Israel's warmongering faction to bother to actually inform.

On the bright side, bin Laden.
posted by wierdo at 10:32 PM on October 7, 2012

In volatile Gulf, US emphasizes diplomacy as capabilities grow, Cristina Silva, Stars and Stripes, 23 September, 2012
posted by ob1quixote at 10:51 PM on October 7, 2012

Point being, it's almost as if Romney doesn't know what's actually going on in the Gulf. It's not like America doesn't have three carrier battle groups, a couple of assault carrier groups, half the minesweepers in the fleet, the MEU on Diego Garcia, and six divisions on Iran's eastern border. It's sure as shit the Iranian generals know. I mean, it's not news to me that Romney is completely full of shit, but to claim he's going to do what the President is actually doing...
posted by ob1quixote at 11:07 PM on October 7, 2012 [3 favorites]

Hitchens on Obama's Israel Policy: 'Not Impressive'. Hitchens makes a good point that Obama pissed off Israel and Jewish Democratic support gained by Clinton and got nothing out of it.

I think Obama can frame his foreign policy as a success: the Arab Spring, bringing the fight against the Taliban to Pakistan, winning the fight and getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, applying economic pressure to Iran (their currency is collapsing for example) but being ready and willing to take any necessary measures to stop Iran from attaining nuclear weapons, and eventually putting pressure on Israel to negotiate a fair two state solution.

If public perception of Obama's foreign policy gets framed by Romney (a reincarnation of the Carter administration or something) that would be a disaster.
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:34 PM on October 7, 2012

Golden Eternity: "applying economic pressure to Iran (their currency is collapsing for example)"

Which would be fantastic if it actually weakened the state, rather than only weakening its people. The state, unfortunately, has a whole lot of oil money still rolling in.
posted by wierdo at 12:12 AM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

If Romney goes hawkish on war, he's a fool. No one wants more war. A majority of Republicans want us out of Afghanistan. I think Obama's got a strong record of careful application of force, too, but for the low information voters, all he has to say is
"This guy's reckless and doesn't know what he's talking about. The last Republican was like that and started two disastrous wars that haven't helped us one bit. Let's not do that again."
posted by msalt at 12:40 AM on October 8, 2012

The American Interest, Water Russel Mead: Romney and Obama, Dueling Bostonians

Wilsonianism abroad is Bostonianism at home. In both cases, the heirs of the Puritans believe that a strong executive must act to enforce the moral law and that a strong and effective state is the moral agent of the community. They only worry about a strong state in ungodly hands: their idea of politics is to build a powerful government and make sure that only the righteous stand at the helm. The foreign and domestic sides of this school merged most fully in Reconstruction, America’s first great failure in the art of nation building, The goals they sought were mostly noble, but their own flaws, rigidity and impracticality combined with the huge practical difficulties inherent in the nature of the problem to frustrate their intentions and force them to abandon their most vital goals.

...

Romney and Obama share a propensity to meddle in the lives of the poor in the effort to uplift them. President Obama would take away their bologna, their Twinkies and their gas guzzlers—not to mention their guns and their right to whop their kids as they see fit; Romney would force them to jump through hoops for their welfare checks and their food stamps. Neither man would have left Huck Finn’s father alone; both would try to figure out how the government could improve him. One might want to put him in the hoosegow for public drunkenness and the other for child neglect, but both would think that Mr. Finn needed his conduct more thoroughly supervised by the powers that be. Neither man would want him to have access to cheap tobacco in any form, and both would tax his alcohol in the hope of persuading him to take less of it. The state, led by the wise, must push the unworthy masses up the mountain toward higher ground.

via Big Think: Is Obama More Puritanical Than Romney?

Commentators are so psyched up by Romney's prowess as a debater and his alleged lying about taxes and whatever that nobody much is noticing the words he spoke that got the highest rating on the approval-meter lurking beneath the candidates on the CNN screen were all about the Declaration, the Constitution, rights, and all that. Romney's constitutionalism impressed Americans most of all.

...

But Romney altered the emphases of the rather libertarian Mr. Jefferson in at least a couple of ways. He highlighted that the right of liberty was mainly for religious liberty, by which he meant the liberty of churches to function as institutions. He didn't say anything Jefferson would have necessarily disagreed with, but he was surely more insistent that freedom of religion is freedom for religion as an organized body of thought and action.

posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:57 AM on October 8, 2012

If Romney goes hawkish on war, he's a fool. No one wants more war.

I hope you're right. Howevs, after watching O'Reilly talk about how getting tough on the Muslim Brotherhood would have prevented the killing of Ambassador Stevens in the Rumble 2012 thing (confusing Egypt and Libya), I wonder. Nobody wants war, but the GOP somehow convinced themselves that we'd be welcomed into Iraq with flowers and shit. People are stupid.
posted by angrycat at 3:12 AM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

For me, everything is about strength and communicating to people what is and is not acceptable. It's speaking softly but carrying a very, very, very big stick. And this president instead speaks loudly and carries a tiny stick.

But threatening people is not speaking softly, and of course wandering around threatening people with your military power is not conducive to building friendships. There are ample examples from history. From the buildup to WWI:

"For a number of years, the Kaiser and his ministers, certain that the most effective way of turning a neighbor into a friend was to frighten him, cherished the belief that they could both build a powerful fleet and draw Great Britain into an alliance. The Kaiser believed -- and Tirpitz said he believed -- that once Britain saw and accepted the formidable nature of the German Fleet, Britain would respect Germany and offer friendship -- a friendship in which Germany would become a dominant partner. This proved a catastrophic misunderstanding of the psychology of Britons, to whom command of the sea remained a greater necessity than any Continental alliance."

-- Robert K Massie, Dreadnought
posted by Comrade_robot at 5:19 AM on October 8, 2012 [2 favorites]

If Romney's handlers are smart, they'll have him repeat that "Hope is not a strategy" line until he's hoarse
posted by zarq at 5:43 AM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

War. CEO Romney will wield his stick day one: China, Iran. The rest of the Globe will drop to its knees and bow to the mighty American Century. The American Century is dead, long live the American Century. Hardly.

It won't work. The Globe knows what CEO Romney wants, and it won't work. If it's going to take another 4 years to convince the mighty USA that the gig is up, then best we get it over with.

Vote 1 Romney.
posted by de at 5:45 AM on October 8, 2012

Obama gets in front of the foreign policy speech and the debate with a new ad about Mitt's Magical Mystery Tour in the summer and the embassy attacks
posted by zombieflanders at 6:12 AM on October 8, 2012

Big Surprise! (hamburger) Romney's Stance on Israel/Palestine solution is contradictory.

Old Romney: “pathway to peace is almost unthinkable” and it will “remain an unsolved problem.”

New Romney: And in a released transcript of today’s speech he will say that he would pursue the goal of a democratic Palestinian state “side by side with peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel.”
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:26 AM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

I just came to post that. Opposite positions, 5 months apart for Romney. I hadn't remembered what he said at that fundraiser regarding Palestine & Israel.
posted by cashman at 6:29 AM on October 8, 2012

Oh, and lets not forget Mitt Romney's superior culture remarks from July 30, 2012,

"Romney attributed the gap in success in part to Israel’s “culture.”

“Culture makes all the difference,” Romney said. “And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things.” Among them, he cited “the hand of providence.”
...

Romney at no point mentioned that the Palestinian territories have for decades been occupied without sovereign control, where residents face significant restrictions on movement and employment."

posted by cashman at 6:37 AM on October 8, 2012

This is Romney's greatest trick. He appears to be "flip-flopping" or contradicting himself, but he is evolving. He's like a Pokemon. Romney becomes Romneybot becomes NeoReagan!
posted by filthy light thief at 6:38 AM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

He is evolving too fast for his own advisers to keep up. New York Magazine:

Obama advisers issued a prebuttal several hours earlier, but it might not have been necessary, as Romney's own advisers are undermining his foreign policy expertise. The New York Times reports that in interviews several Romney advisers say "they have engaged with him so little on issues of national security that they are uncertain what camp he would fall into, and are uncertain themselves about how he would govern."

posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:46 AM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Romney is "Bush on Steroids":

To hide his intentions, Mitt makes the same basic promise George W. Bush did: He won’t cut the share of taxes the richest pay.

But he’s certainly planning on doing exactly what Bush did: giving huge tax breaks to people who need them least.[snip]

Mitt Romney has not actually moved to the center.

His ideas are not any more rational or moderate than they were in the primary. And he’s clearly said he would sign the Ryan budget the GOP passed in the House, which cuts taxes for the rich by trillions to pay for huge cuts to Medicaid and Medicare.

Romney’s rhetorical move to the center is an attempt to hide that what he’s proposing is still “Bush on steroids.” Tax breaks that he doesn’t pay for, deregulation he won’t describe and a belligerent foreign policy that could easily lead to new wars that cost America untold lives and treasure. Plus he’s promising to take health care away from 30 million Americans on his first day in office by repealing a nationalized version of his own health care plan.

posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:04 AM on October 8, 2012 [3 favorites]

filthy light thief: "This is Romney's greatest trick. He appears to be "flip-flopping" or contradicting himself, but he is evolving. He's like a Pokemon. Romney becomes Romneybot becomes NeoReagan!"

Yeah, but what else do we expect him to do? Double down on positions that obviously piss off the moderate voters he needs?

All politicians tell their donors / supporters one thing in private (i.e, what they want to hear) and then give a more acceptable message to national audiences. The problem for Romney is his private comments became public. So now he's got to reconcile privately-stated positions to become a more appealing candidate.
posted by zarq at 7:14 AM on October 8, 2012

^ Romney is "Bush on Steroids"

Yeah, it's not going to happen. I don't know why I'm so on edge.
posted by de at 7:32 AM on October 8, 2012

Based on the numbers that the tracking polls published on Sunday, however, Mr. Obama’s lead was down to just 1.7 percentage points on average — a net shift of 2 points toward Mr. Romney since the debate.

Fucked himself, and us. I said it upthread in a nicer way, but there's no point in saying it nicely now.
posted by tzikeh at 7:51 AM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

That's a national poll, tzikeh. We don't elect presidents based on popular vote. We use the Electoral College. Calm down.
posted by grubi at 7:59 AM on October 8, 2012 [4 favorites]

If you read your own link tzikeh, you'll see that Obama is still ahead and Silver gives him a 78.4% chance of winning (88% if you look at the "Now Cast").
posted by octothorpe at 8:02 AM on October 8, 2012

According to 538, Obama's chances have declined from 86% to 78%, which is about what I would have expected - a very large swing (after all, that means Romney's chances have gone from 14% to 22%), but Obama's still well in the lead. The debate certainly went poorly for him, but I wouldn't overreact.
posted by dfan at 8:04 AM on October 8, 2012

And Silver and others said before the debate that 2 percentage points was the standard post-debate bump for a challenger.
posted by cashman at 8:14 AM on October 8, 2012 [4 favorites]

Yeah. There's a media narrative about an unforeseen Romney comeback that doesn't really match the data in historical context. Yes, the race is tighter than it was, but it was predictable that it would tighten. Doesn't mean it's a forgone conclusion, does mean that everyone needs to calm. the fuck. down.
posted by howfar at 8:16 AM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

So I can hold off on the nightmares and fetal position?
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 8:23 AM on October 8, 2012 [4 favorites]

First understand the mechanism. Next, learn why the horse race is nonsense. Finally, learn to look for the subtleties that actually dictate the result. It's kind of like going from being a casual fan of football to a football guy/girl, and then someone who knows the ins-and-outs of football, including how to read a defense. It ain't easy, but it's worth it and can save a lot of heartache.
posted by grubi at 8:29 AM on October 8, 2012

Mitt is breathless and again, he's stating things with zero humility. He doesn't seem to be able to convey any sense of the gravity of the situation. He's not doing too bad so far, he just needs to control his breathing. That and make it seem like he actually cares. His tone is just all wrong, and it's like a bunch of little bites rather than a continuous expression that holds interest.
posted by cashman at 8:39 AM on October 8, 2012

Watching Romney's speech at VMI and he just dropped the "hope is not a strategy" line again. I sense a new theme.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 8:48 AM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's too much to hope for in actual politics, but the grammarian in me longs to see that descend into a chain of increasingly deep post-fixed no-you embeddings, like [" [" [" [" [" ["Hope is not a strategy"] is not a plan"] is not a platform"] is not a rebuttal"] is not a panacea"] is not a ..."]
posted by cortex at 8:54 AM on October 8, 2012 [7 favorites]

SweetTeaAndABiscuit: "Watching Romney's speech at VMI and he just dropped the "hope is not a strategy" line again. I sense a new theme."

He also mentioned 9/11, marking a return to fearmongering.

The "hope is not a strategy" line will work as long as he's using it in speeches. But it would be a bad idea for him to use it in the town hall debate. Someone's liable to ask him for specifics on his strategies.
posted by zarq at 9:05 AM on October 8, 2012 [2 favorites]

Speaking about hope, I hope no-one believed that bit about the Asia Pacific wanting a change in American leadership because China has us quivering in our shoes. It's simply not true.

And Putin's a lot of fun. He does a sub-3 marathon each morning before a stint of bear back archery, all before breakfast. We don't know his resting pulse, but we love him.
posted by de at 9:15 AM on October 8, 2012

Love .....fear ....honestly expect him to have to fight the X-Men at some point, whatever.
posted by The Whelk at 9:19 AM on October 8, 2012 [3 favorites]

a stint of bear back archery

And it's not a little bear either.
posted by howfar at 9:41 AM on October 8, 2012

:) No, it was huge. What a man. *swoon*
posted by de at 9:50 AM on October 8, 2012

"Romney's right. Hope is not a strategy. Romney hopes to cut taxes $5 trillion, and make up for it with some vague future tax changes. Romney hopes he doesn't have to raise taxes on the middle class, even though nonpartisan economists say he will. Republicans hoped to get Osama bin Laden, for 10 years. But they didn't pull that off, either. The Obama administration had a strategy, and we killed him." -- Joe Biden, in my dream debate
posted by msalt at 9:53 AM on October 8, 2012 [18 favorites]

Romney's foreign policy is a money spinner and a job creator.

Lots of military and construction jobs, and friends will be able rent-a-submarine, whatever, for a nominal percentage of GDP for whatever reason, check on the neighbours, perhaps.

Neighbours getting you down?
Dial a drone! 1800-ROM-NEY
posted by de at 10:03 AM on October 8, 2012

And Putin's a lot of fun. He does a sub-3 marathon each morning before a stint of bear back archery, all before breakfast.

Maybe he and Ryan can go for runs together.
posted by inigo2 at 10:21 AM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

belated debate observation - remember when Romney kept talking about the - what was it - $90 m/billion spent on green energy? I know that he intended that as a criticism, but did anyone else hear that as something that BHO should have been trumpeting? "You're god-damn right I spent that much on green energy, your Mitt-ness, because that is the only way we will be able to end our dependency on foreign oil, reverse the damage we are doing to the planet, and stimulate the economy in a meaningful, long-lasting way."

/i wish
posted by fingers_of_fire at 10:27 AM on October 8, 2012 [4 favorites]

I dunno, should we calm the fuck down? I mean, yes, in a mental health way, sure. But the fact is that half the population supports Mitt Romney. And, depending on who Mitt really is, he could do a lot of damage to the world.

I was in delicious schaudenfreude land prior to the debate; now I am back to my feelings during the Bush regime: How is it that half the population voted for this man? How can people support values that are so antithetical to my own?

Too bad it's not easy arguing with irrational actors. Maybe after some cataclysm we will all be Spock-like, but right now it is Bullshit Mountain, and it's pretty formidable.
posted by angrycat at 10:41 AM on October 8, 2012 [3 favorites]

> because that is the only way we will be able to end our dependency on foreign oil, reverse the damage we are doing to the planet, and stimulate the economy in a meaningful, long-lasting way.

Obama's not green (enough) and probably never will be. Obama's opposition needs to be The Greens. The GOP needs to die out completely. It's difficult to know how long it will take for right-wingers to die.
posted by de at 10:48 AM on October 8, 2012

How is it that half the population voted for this man? How can people support values that are so antithetical to my own?

This is the uneasy truth none of us want to hear. The problem is not Barack. The problem is your neighbor, your family, your friend, your coworker, your congressman - all these people out there with old ass, backward ideas who need to be educated so that we can progress with society and civilization, and not go backward.

Obama won because a bunch of people, likely a lot in this thread, talked to friends and neighbors and coworkers and relatives about ideas that are progressive and forward thinking. The same task remains today.

How can half the population support those things? Because many are uninformed. Misled by Fox News and disinformation, and just trying to do the best they can with the info they have.

It's so easy to sit in the mouth of the information firehose and imagine that everyone else feels what you feel and knows what you know. That leads people to proclaim that there can't possibly be any undecided voters. Yes, there are lots. Because they are living their lives and often don't have time to keep up with all this. Some reporter on TV says Mitt is not lying, they believe it. Some reporter says Obama is a Kenyan America killing socialist, they believe it, or don't have information to counter it.

There are 4 weeks left. We'll encounter a lot of misinformation online and in person, with strangers, family and friends. What we need to do is share the most effective ways of countering bad information in such a way that the person understands the actual truth of the situation, or is made curious enough to want to research it themselves, and has the tools to do so.
posted by cashman at 10:55 AM on October 8, 2012 [15 favorites]

Mary Matalin Calls Paul Krugman A ‘Liar’ For Telling The Truth

What Are the Gobshites Saying These Days?
posted by homunculus at 10:58 AM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

It's difficult to know how long it will take for right-wingers to die.

After they lose this election the GOP coalition near-majority will be burnt crispy toast; the social issues people already are done with the business plutocrats, and the business plutocrats won't keep funding whacko candidates when they can't get elected.

I think in the aftermath of that the plutocrats will come to the Democratic party, which is already much more friendly to them than anyone likes to admit, and the Democrats will become the new rightist party. On the left, you might see a coalition between the ex-Republicans who care enough about actual born children and adults in need to make compromise on embryos and sex, and the Democratic base which is already feeling a bit sold out by the increasingly corporate Dems to form a new party oriented around real social safety net issues instead of red-meat dog whistles.

In that scenario the Greens could become a swing constituency...

Anyway something like this has happened every 3 or 4 generations since the country was founded, so it won't be unprecedented.
posted by localroger at 10:59 AM on October 8, 2012 [2 favorites]

fingers_of_fire: remember when Romney kept talking about the - what was it - $90 m/billion spent on green energy?

Surprising I know, but the $90 billion dollar figure isn't entirely accurate. Chris Hayes ran the numbers during Sunday morning's "You Should Know" segment (between 2:03 and 2:56).

When you watch [the upcoming debates], you should know what the meaning of half is. On Wednesday Mitt Romney said the Obama administration put $90 billion into green jobs and that about half those businesses they supported have gone out of business. Never mind that $90 billion hasn't even been spent yet. Never mind that only about $34 billion of it was allocated for that kind of clean energy business loans. And never mind the energy department has only approved $16 billion worth of those loans. Never mind that the Romney campaign said later he was only talking about those businesses that got those loans in the first year. And never mind that only three businesses actually went under. Forget all that and you're still left with the fact that the most government will on the hook for those businesses that went under is an estimated $600 million. Or roughly equal to one half of $90 billion. Roughly.

posted by ob1quixote at 11:06 AM on October 8, 2012 [9 favorites]

fingers_of_fire: "belated debate observation - remember when Romney kept talking about the - what was it - $90 m/billion spent on green energy? I know that he intended that as a criticism, but did anyone else hear that as something that BHO should have been trumpeting? "You're god-damn right I spent that much on green energy, your Mitt-ness, because that is the only way we will be able to end our dependency on foreign oil, reverse the damage we are doing to the planet, and stimulate the economy in a meaningful, long-lasting way.""

He mentioned it because it's a dig on Obama on the economy, and specifically on unemployment.

During the '08 campaign, Obama promised money would be set aside for "green" initiatives and jobs. $90 billion in potential financing was included in the stimulus package for a wide range of clean energy programs. The breakdown is something like (this is all from memory, so my figures may be a little off): $30b for improved energy efficiency, $20b for incentives, $20b for a high speed rail, $10b to fix the nation's electric grid, etc. BUT, the logistics / applications determining which companies actually get the loans aren't complete yet. And some of those programs aren't expected to produce dividends for years.

But since the monies were set aside and a number of clean energy initiatives were funded, the GOP line is they didn't result in the huge jobs boom that was hoped for. Which no one actually promised or realistically expected.

ob1quixote: "And never mind that only three businesses actually went under."

Would be nice if he had mentioned that the 1705 loan program was created by Congress with a built-in expectation that some companies they were loaning monies to would fail, and that the buffer zone is $2.47 billion -- the losses generated by those three companies don't max out the buffer in any way. That's right, not only did Congress acknowledge that there is risk in trying out new investments, but they set money aside to cover potential losses.
posted by zarq at 11:14 AM on October 8, 2012 [3 favorites]

<small derail> More and more you'll see politically driven market warfare with China.
posted by de at 11:35 AM on October 8, 2012

Where does this come from, this idea that if the U.S. starts yelling and pointing countries will meekly do whatever we want. It's like the thinking of a small child.
posted by angrycat at 12:03 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Spain is also unhappy with Mitt Romney After his debate quip about the Spanish economy

Ten Things Mitt Romney’s Insults to Spain tell us About Him
posted by homunculus at 12:15 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Well, we are only 236 years old.
posted by gofargogo at 12:15 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Experts pan Romney foreign policy speech

“There’s absolutely nothing in this speech. This is a repackaging of language that has been a staple of Romney’s campaign since he threw his hat in the ring,” said James Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations. “If Romney has a foreign policy strategy, he still has not told us what it is. The governor is very fond of saying hope is not a strategy, but that cuts both ways. He didn’t answer two key questions: what he would do differently and why we should expect what he would to work.”

msalt: People are already starting to use the 'hope/strategy' line against Romney, and the Biden/Ryan debate hasn't even taken place.

Also, Obama is up to 66.4 at intrade at the moment (up 2.4% on the day). There's discussion on the (dismal) intrade forum about the last number on the Gallup poll, here, suggesting that yesterday's numbers must have really bounced back for Obama. Not sure whether that's noise or not. Also mentioned in the megathread on the 47% remarks, here.
posted by syzygy at 12:20 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

You underestimate the reach of your government, angrycat.
posted by de at 12:21 PM on October 8, 2012

Well, we are only 236 years old.

But that's like 1652 dog years.
posted by localroger at 12:22 PM on October 8, 2012

Also, Obama is up to 66.4 at intrade at the moment...

Does Intrade have a good record of predicting US Presidential or electoral races? I don't know, but keep hearing what its predictions are, so wondering if it's something to pay attention to.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:28 PM on October 8, 2012

Obama makes fun of his debate
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 12:31 PM on October 8, 2012

Does Intrade have a good record of predicting US Presidential or electoral races? I don't know, but keep hearing what its predictions are, so wondering if it's something to pay attention to.

In keeping with similar research by Berg et al and others, this dissertation found that market prices tend to be better predictors of political event outcomes than corresponding polls. This superiority was observed over all time periods studied, with Intrade market prices correctly predicting the winner 36% of the time in the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination contest (compared to 13% for polls) and 54% of the time in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination contest (compared to 45% for polls).

posted by Golden Eternity at 12:52 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

From Talking Points Memo:

In the first national poll to be conducted entirely after the opening presidential debate, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney now leads President Barack Obama by 4 points.
posted by diogenes at 1:13 PM on October 8, 2012

Romney claimed in his 'foreign policy' speech today that "the President has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years."

The Truth: Obama Signs 3 Trade Deals, Biggest Since NAFTA

Gallup Poll: Obama leads Romney

"Romney definitely improved in Friday and Saturday polling among registered voters, but Obama did better Saturday and Sunday nights," says Jeffrey Jones of Gallup.

The president now leads, 50% to 45%, among registered voters in the seven-day rolling average for Oct. 1-7, according to Gallup.

Notta lotta meat in that USA Today article, but if the seven day rolling average is up to 50% v 45%, Obama must have had an outstanding day on Sunday, to rebound that far after being tied at an average of 47% v 47% for the three days directly following the debate.
posted by syzygy at 1:13 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Obama was up 8 in the pre-debate version of the poll I mentioned above.
posted by diogenes at 1:19 PM on October 8, 2012

Yeah... that's the Pew poll. It's odd... I don't want to fall back on the "but, but, outlier!!!!". However a 12 point national swing? When other tracking polls are not reflecting it? errrr.

I would hold it in abeyance until it is confirmed. 12 point swing makes it pretty strange.
posted by edgeways at 1:22 PM on October 8, 2012

The Pew poll also has Obama and Romney even with women voters. I'm sorry? How credible is this poll right now?
posted by edgeways at 1:29 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Pretty strange or pretty terrifying. We'll know which in a few more days.
posted by diogenes at 1:29 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

NYTimes: In Obama’s Speech, Their Voices
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
When President Obama made a landmark speech against modern slavery on Tuesday, many of us in the news media shrugged. It didn’t fit into the political narrative. It wasn’t controversial, so — yawn — it wasn’t really news.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:30 PM on October 8, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think it's high time for Bill Clinton to start talking some serious smack. Come on Bill! Display our collective anger eloquently!
posted by angrycat at 1:36 PM on October 8, 2012

Does Intrade have a good record of predicting US Presidential or electoral races? I don't know, but keep hearing what its predictions are, so wondering if it's something to pay attention to.

In keeping with similar research by Berg et al and others, this dissertation found that market prices tend to be better predictors of political event outcomes than corresponding polls. This superiority was observed over all time periods studied, with Intrade market prices correctly predicting the winner 36% of the time in the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination contest (compared to 13% for polls) and 54% of the time in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination contest (compared to 45% for polls).

So, "better record than polls in a very limited sample size," yes. Good record? No.
posted by adamdschneider at 1:37 PM on October 8, 2012

The Pew poll also has Obama and Romney even with women voters. I'm sorry? How credible is this poll right now?

Y'all are going to drive yourselves nuts paying attention to every poll. Pace yourself, another month to go.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:39 PM on October 8, 2012 [4 favorites]

I'm glad Obama's holding okay, but I don't think there's going to be any real clarity on the post debate and Unemployment numbers and how they effected the numbers until late Tuesday or early Wednesday from what I'm reading...

Ras has got Obama under by 2 points again, the only poll to have Obama behind (they have a serious effin' "house effect/special sauce" over there it would seem), one thing I'm noticing is how much the debate put Obama's favorables up higher and how that might be sticking, and my theory is that his performance, if not blowing Romster out of the water, very effectively and quietly made him someone who really understands the hurt the economic downturn has had on people, and in turn I think they're ready to see he really did all he could with a crap situation and understands the extent of the damage there.

My 2 cents plus tax. Let's see what happens in the next 2 or 3 days, really it's too early, but keep an eye on those favorables it's inneresting stuff to say the least.

Of course Biden going into his debate with a coupla thermonuclear MEGATONNAGEs of JOE is going to be something to see, I hope...

I'm going to wear a helmet when I watch that debate.
posted by Skygazer at 1:41 PM on October 8, 2012

Pretty strange or pretty terrifying.

Yup. If the US electorate is really capable of a 12 point swing on the basis of being lied to for a bit, you don't need to campaign any more, you just need to leave the country.
posted by howfar at 1:41 PM on October 8, 2012 [13 favorites]

zarg and ob1quixote, thanks for providing the details of
romney's lie. my point was more that obama can take the very substance of the criticism and use it as a positive. works with aca too - "ok, mitt, you go ahead and repeal obamacare on day 1 - great way to start your presidency, by revoking health insurance for all the people newly covered by aca - 21-26 year olds, pre-existing conditions, etc. ladies and gentleman, mitt just promised that he will deny health insurance for x million of you, your sons & daughters, neighbors, etc." doesn't even need to be spun.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 1:46 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

TomDispatch: What The Presidential Debates Won't Tell You

What you won’t get from either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama is a little genuine tough talk about the actual state of reality in these United States of ours. And yet, on those five subjects, a little reality would go a long way, while too little reality (as in the debates to come) is a surefire recipe for American decline.

So here’s a brief guide to what you won’t hear this Wednesday or in the other presidential and vice-presidential debates later in the month. Think of these as five hard truths that will determine the future of this country.

1. Immediate deficit reduction will wipe out any hope of economic recovery
2. Taxes are at their lowest point in more than half a century, preventing investment in and the maintenance of America’s most basic resources
3. Neither the status quo nor a voucher system will protect Medicare (or any other kind of health care) in the long run
4. The U.S. military is outrageously expensive and yet poorly tailored to the actual threats to U.S. national security
5. The U.S. education system is what made this country prosperous in the twentieth century -- but no longer

posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:51 PM on October 8, 2012 [12 favorites]

Y'all are going to drive yourselves nuts paying attention to every poll. Pace yourself, another month to go.

A couple times a day I like to check poll tracker sites while standing on the bathroom scale and giving the ol' keychain breathalyzer a good exhale. YOLO!
posted by cortex at 1:59 PM on October 8, 2012 [3 favorites]

Heroic Truth-Teller Mark Steyn: Big Bird Killed Our Ambassador In Libya
posted by homunculus at 2:04 PM on October 8, 2012

Y'all are going to drive yourselves nuts paying attention to every poll.

That's very true. It's also true that Obama trailing Romney by 4 points in the Pew Poll is not a good sign. What we need are to see a few polls which don't include polling the Friday after the debate, which was apparently the worst day of polling Obama experienced in the entire race.

Help us Obi-den, you're our only hope.
posted by Justinian at 2:18 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mitt Romney Action Figure Bends to Whatever Political Position is Required.
posted by ericb at 2:35 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Tax returns not included.
posted by Skygazer at 2:44 PM on October 8, 2012 [4 favorites]

Reuters is O+2, Gallup is O+5, RAND is O+3, and Ras is tied, all of which were done in the same timeframe as Pew. And Pew is saying that party ID swung 15 points(!) in 3 weeks. There's always an outlier, usually its Ras, but its looking like this time it might be Pew.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:47 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

From @fivethirtyeight According to Twitter, Barack Obama went from a huge favorite at 1 PM to a huge underdog at 4 PM. Get a grip, people.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 3:11 PM on October 8, 2012 [6 favorites]

Stop trying to make me see how ridiculous my pit of existential despair appears.
posted by Justinian at 3:16 PM on October 8, 2012 [4 favorites]

Ha! Nate Silver will be on the Piers Morgan show tonight on CNN at 9 pm, if anyone is interested.
posted by SweetTeaAndABiscuit at 3:20 PM on October 8, 2012

Looking even further at the Pew internals, there's either some scary post-debate shit going down or they just had a weird sample. Apart from the 15-point swing in party ID, women went from O+18 to an exact tie (and white women went from O+3 to R+21!), and the Midwest is voting nearly the same as the South, which isn't really supported by the state-by-state polling (which shows a smaller Obama lead, but a lead nonetheless). Also, FWIW, there's another national-level poll coming out tomorrow from PPP that is also supposed to show a Romney lead, but their director has already said that was because it was taken mostly on Thursday and Friday, and their state polls taken entirely post-debate in VA and WI both still show leads for Obama.

I'm going to go with weird sample for now, but we'll see what the next 2-3 days say in the other polls. State-level still looks good, Electoral College-wise, so it might be a good idea to hold off staring into any pits of existential despair.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:36 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Every time I think I have seen the worst craziness the GOP can throw at the voters I get smacked down with a new entry. Meet Charlie Fuqua, the Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives. Old Charles thinks that parents should be able to execute their own children for rebelliousness. Yeah, that's right. Execute their own children. Of course he is opposed to abortion, but you give birth to a child and it goes bad on you...well you should be able to take them out.

In "God's Law," Fuqua's 2012 book, the candidate wrote that while parents love their children, a process could be set up to allow for the institution of the death penalty for "rebellious children," according to the Arkansas Times. Fuqua, who is anti-abortion, points out that the course of action involved in sentencing a child to death is described in the Bible and would involve judicial approval. While it is unlikely that many parents would seek to have their children killed by the government, Fuqua wrote, such power would serve as a way to stop rebellious children.[snip]

Fuqua highlights his service on the Children and Families Committee while a member of the Arkansas Legislature in 1997.

And don't even get him started on the topic of Muslims. Hoo-Boy!

GOP. Bat-shit insane? Or crazier-than-a-shit-house-rat insane? You decide.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:44 PM on October 8, 2012 [4 favorites]

Holy crap, this Fuqua guy. I just have no words that are balanced or restrained enough, to express the feelings he inspires.
posted by Skygazer at 3:51 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Heh, I just learned about the death penalty for rebellious children from a completely independent source. In the latest episode of The Human Bible, the fact that the Bible says that you can kill smart-mouthed kids was used as evidence against biblical inerrancy... no biblical inerrantist would want to say it's OK to kill lippy kids. But there's no position that isn't maintained by someone, somewhere, as Fuqua shows.
posted by painquale at 4:10 PM on October 8, 2012

Y'all are going to drive yourselves nuts paying attention to every poll.

I'm not an obsessive poll watcher, but a 12 point swing in well-respected poll that has tended to lean towards Obama warrants a bit of worry. Especially coming after a debate performance that would be a plausible cause for a shift. Hopefully we'll be talking about what a wacky outlier this poll was next week. I agree that some of the internals seem improbable.
posted by diogenes at 4:25 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

From his web page:
♦Reduce the size of government

♦Limit government power

♦Reduce taxes

♦Local control of schools

♦Traditional conservative values

♦Drug test welfare beneficiaries

♦Enforce drug laws

♦Preserve the right to bear arms

♦Protect the sanctity of life

♦Protect individual property rights

His idea of "Traditional conservative values" is Stone Age traditional values if he wants to adopt Old Testament rules. Strange that "sanctity of life" does not apply to kids, though; I guess they are not fully human beings yet? Unlike embryos which ARE full human beings.

I would love to sit down and ask him some questions. How young can the candidates for execution be? Toddlers? Infants? Because some of those crying babies can be damned willful!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:28 PM on October 8, 2012

Looking even further at the Pew internals, there's either some scary post-debate shit going down or they just had a weird sample. Apart from the 15-point swing in party ID, women went from O+18 to an exact tie (and white women went from O+3 to R+21!)

The traditional explanation (apart from randomness can be random) for weird results such as these after events like debates is that the partisans of the "winning" side are fired up a little and the other side's are a little dispirited, which makes the winning side partisans more likely to actually respond to the polltakers. So swings like this are seen as a measure of enthusiasm in the wake of a win and not necessarily a lasting shift.

So the optimistic view from the Obama side would be that women didn't shift from O+18 to tied but that Romney women actually answered their phones and responded to the polls because they were fired up. If the race does indeed revert to something close to the pre-debate numbers (or at least reverts part of the way) that would be the likely result.

It'll be interesting hearing Nate's thoughts tonight on Piers Morgan.
posted by Justinian at 4:31 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

They showed Reince Priebus and I hissed at the screen.

Then you'll be pleased by this news: Reince Priebus Forced Back Into Ancient Puzzle Box After Being Tricked Into Saying Name Backwards
posted by homunculus at 4:31 PM on October 8, 2012 [8 favorites]

Here's a Daily Kos Diary that ties Fuqua to the Christian Reconstructionist movement.

On Fuqua's website for his book, he explains,

"Everything that is wrong with the United States will be corrected only when we turn back to the Biblical principles followed by our founding fathers. The prophets of the Bible told Israel that the nation would suffer as a result of disobedience to God’s law. It is no different today. God made the universe and the laws that govern it. Disobedience of those laws always produces bad consequences."

I particularly love this part:

Reconstructionism teaches that all institutions of society and government must be reclaimed from "humanists" and reconstructed on the basis of biblical law. Reconstructionists claim that the unfettered free markets are biblically mandated. In other words, God is the invisible hand behind laissez-faire capitalism and government intervention is putting faith in man instead of God. Reconstructionist leaders have overlapped significantly with two other organizations that have sacralized radical free markets - Lew Rockwell's Ludwig von Mises Institute, which promotes Austrian School economics, and the John Birch Society."

Stoning your own children and laissez-faire capitalism. Strange bedfellows indeed.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:37 PM on October 8, 2012

I don't know if this is reflective of anything, but sometimes people say to me, "You are in a wheelchair! You teach! You don't just sit home and receive disability!" Most recently, this was said to me by a student of mine, claiming that I was a great contrast to "all the people in the neighborhood who sit around and smoke all day." I was speaking to like ten people at a time, so I didn't have a chance to tell this student a) I receive SSD, which allows me to work at these adjunct penniless gigs b) I receive Medicare, which allows me to be alive so that I can teach and c) I am a total pothead.
posted by angrycat at 5:02 PM on October 8, 2012 [19 favorites]

There's a reason some people refer to a subset of the far right as "American Taliban".
posted by wierdo at 5:02 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Did Obama Just Throw The Entire Election Away?, Andrew Sullivan, The Dish, 8 October, 2012
posted by ob1quixote at 5:03 PM on October 8, 2012

Ta-Nehisi Coates: A Limited and Self-Serving Defense of Political Punditry
posted by homunculus at 5:07 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sullivan is insane to put that much stock in a single poll that is a significant outlier from the rest. The numbers I'm looking at aren't nearly that bad. Bad, but not over the top ridiculous.
posted by wierdo at 5:09 PM on October 8, 2012

Larry Presseler, Republican Senator, endorses Barrack Obama.
posted by Comrade_robot at 5:20 PM on October 8, 2012 [2 favorites]

ob1quixote: "Did Obama Just Throw The Entire Election Away?, Andrew Sullivan, The Dish, 8 October, 2012"

Oh good god, Sullivan needs to breath into a paper bag for a while.
posted by octothorpe at 5:30 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Sully is a little excitable, even on a good day. And this isn't a good day for him: He's looking at these numbers with zero incredulity* and seems to have lost historical perspective. He says "Gore was better in his first debate - and he threw a solid lead into the trash that night," which as far as I can tell wasn't remotely true. Gallup had Bush up by 5-10 points in the 2000 race. He completely ignores Bush's disastrous 2004 debate performance that tied the race or even gave Kerry a slight lead for a week or two. I fear for his health when Gallup moves from registered to likely, which will probably show a very tight race.

He (and people here) should read folks like the two Nates (Silver at 538 and Cohn at the New Republic) for a measured take on the race. Nate Silver's already got his take on the Pew and other polls up, and he basically says most of the race was already baked in before the debates, and that single events make polls go haywire but don't usually have nearly the same effect on the general momentum in the election as a whole, and as always to be patient a month out.

* That doesn't mean they're wrong, just that it's showing something not something that usually doesn't happen, or at least not in a way that predicts what happens on Election Day.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:34 PM on October 8, 2012

Larry Presseler, Republican Senator, endorses Barrack Obama.

I guess the missing keyword in the headline is 'former' Senator. Well stated all the same.
posted by TwoWordReview at 5:40 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Mitt Romney explained in his big foreign policy speech that if we elected him America would be stronger and thus we would be less likely to be in another war in the Middle East. Then he proposed attacking Syria.
posted by humanfont at 5:42 PM on October 8, 2012 [9 favorites]

I have trouble believing that Obama could build a steady lead over 2 straight months of Romney pissing on his own shoes every chance he got, only to have it completely evaporate after one mediocre debate performance where his opponent stretched the truth wildly and threatened to kill Big Bird. Either the polls are bull-puckey, or the American public really is just an idiocracy in waiting.

Or possibly both.
posted by billyfleetwood at 5:46 PM on October 8, 2012

octothorpe: Oh good god, Sullivan needs to breath into a paper bag for a while.

I almost said as much, but at the last minute decided to not editorialize and let Sully's nervous breakdown speak for itself.
posted by ob1quixote at 5:49 PM on October 8, 2012

I want to thank Andrew Sullivan for putting my own implosion in perspective. At least my freakouts are limited to being witnessed by a few folks on Metafilter. I mean, sure, I covered myself in gasoline just like Sully, but at least I stopped before actually lighting the match.
posted by Justinian at 5:57 PM on October 8, 2012 [1 favorite]

Thrilla or Vanilla? October 3, 2012 9:23 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

Thrilla or Vanilla?
October 3, 2012 9:23 AM Subscribe