USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

[collinsmark]

'Guess I'll start the thread for this one. (I didn't notice an existing thread for this yet.)

(Using Greg Bernhardt's 1st debate post as a template):

Use this thread for commentary on the 2nd Presidential Debate (United States). It starts at 9PM EDT Oct 16th. Please keep debate of issues to a minimum and focus on observations relevant to the debate.

Have a nice day :)​

I'll be watching it streaming. I'm guessing that it will be from here http://abcnews.go.com/live or can at least be found from there when the time comes.

 

[russ_watters]

There has been some interesting discussion of the moderator's [intended] conduct:

All is fair in a presidential debate, especially for the moderator.
Candy Crowley, CNN’s chief political correspondent and tonight’s town hall debate moderator, has made it known that she will dispense with the rules about asking her own questions and interject whenever she sees fit.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/candy-crowley-to-bend-rules-at-presidential-debate/

Must say I agree with her. If the moderator can't challenge the debaters to stay on point, you may as well just hire a trained monkey with a stopwatch to do the job.

 

[rootX]

Outsider comments:
Romney is working hard to politicize the Libya issue. And, Hilary's statement today added a new twist to the whole issue. It will be interesting if Romney or audiences brings this up during the debate.

Romney doesn't have any strong and clear foreign policies so only place where he hopes to beat Obama in foreign issues is Libya. As for Iran, both Romney and Ryan just don't have enough facts.

 

[Evo]

There has been some interesting discussion of the moderator's [intended] conduct: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/candy-crowley-to-bend-rules-at-presidential-debate/

Must say I agree with her. If the moderator can't challenge the debaters to stay on point, you may as well just hire a trained monkey with a stopwatch to do the job.

I thought the problem both Romney and Obama campaigns have is that this is a "town meeting" where the questions come from the "undecided" voters in the audience and not from the moderator. So it really depends on what she does, asking for clarification is fine, it actually should be done, asking a different question is not.

 

[russ_watters]

I thought the problem both Romney and Obama campaigns have is that this is a "town meeting" where the questions come from the "undecided" voters in the audience and not from the moderator. So it really depends on what she does, asking for clarification is fine, it actually should be done, asking a different question is not.

The way she describes it, it is about asking for clarification, ie if they don't answer the question. Certainly bias can always come into play, which is probably the reason for the rule.

 

[collinsmark]

I can hardly wait.

I'm going to watch the debate tonight in my office, streaming online. These are the snacks I'm preparing (I have access to a microwave):

• 1 tuna salad on wheat sandwich.
• 1 ramen noodle soup serving.
• 1 small, unopened bag of barbecue potato chips (optional).
• 1 additional ramen noodle soup serving, "just 'cause it's come to that."
• 1 microwavable, presidential burrito.

And, in the spirit of tradition, I have managed to scrounge up the following soft, non-destructive projectiles. They are sitting at arm's reach, ready to hurl at the screen whenever necessary:

• Balled up socks
• Miniature, foam football* (American football style--similar in shape to a rugby football if you're not familiar)
• Beer cozy*
• Whiteboard eraser
• Two sets of ramen noodle soup packaging
• Fluffy, cat toy*
• Baseball cap
• Small, unopened bag of barbecue potato chips (optional)

*(? What in the world are these objects doing in my office?)

 

[Evo]

I have a spicy chimichanga and potato chips.

Beverage: Fresca and vodka

Oh, things to throw, good idea! I have socks.

 

[turbo]

I need bricks!

 

[renz]

I wish I am at home right now watching the debate, but I'm still working.
Guess I have to watch it later. Hopefully there will be a video of the whole debate later tonight so I can watch it when I get home.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I think the Libya issue was tough for Obama. Romney capitalized.

 

[turbo]

Still in progress, Greg.

 

[Evo]

I missed the Libya question, so far Romney's been on the defensive, Obama owns this debate. Romney didn't even answer the first few questions. On the second question, Romney's voice was actually cracking from nerves, although he did later regain his composure, he continues to talk over the moderator and disregard new questions to harp on the previous ones. He comes across as flustered.

Ack, now Obama tried Romney's tactic. I don't like it.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Still in progress, Greg.

That was fun. Lots of drama there. Obama called it offensive that Romney accused him of playing politics, but he accused Romney first.

 

[rootX]

They both seem to be stumbling over guns topic

 

[Jack21222]

This was more entertaining to watch than the first. Good to see Obama was awake for this one.

 

[Evo]

Amazing that this close to the election Romney didn't have an answer for the first question. Obama clearly laid out a 5 step plan.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Amazing that this close to the election Romney didn't have an answer for the first question. Obama clearly laid out a 5 step plan.

What was the first question?

 

[Mentalist]

Wow. That Libya question was tense, the way Obama stared down Romney like he was staring at a child doing something horribly wrong.

I dunno, I don't like Romney's policies but I do like his strength and composure. Although he did deflect his tax stance which was an issue with me. Did anyone else catch that?

 

[russ_watters]

What was the first question?

Blog here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2012/10/16/obama-romney-debate-town-hall-hofstra/1637443/

 

[WannabeNewton]

Moderator: "So what do you have to say about this issue Gov. Romney"?
Romney: "I will ignore your question and talking about something completely irrelevant!"

 

[Evo]

What was the first question?

The first question was from the college student asking about job prospects.

Transcript here

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82484.html?hp=t1_b1

QUESTION: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?

ROMNEY: 2014. When you come out in 2014, I presume I'm going to be president. I'm going to make sure you get a job. Thanks Jeremy. Yeah, you bet.

 

[Mentalist]

I sort of felt Romney had to knock back the president's comment and he obviously destroyed Obama on the 4 year's point, although I don't agree with him. That was one point I immediately gave to Romney.

I did not like how either candidate answered the gun question. "Gang bangers", "we need two parents in the home," and, "education"? Are you serious?

Me: Assault weapons, shotguns, non-hunting rifles, all banned, banned, banned.

Clean cole? What is this? These two candidates obviously vying for that energy company money, "oh no, no, trust me, I am good for the energy companies".

The pipeline? What is this nonsense?!

Obama in my opinion won this debate, but these two candidates did some *** kissing to the NRA (Obama, who cares? The NRA has not donated one cent to your campaign, and those who have guns more than likely aren't voting for you. So, why do you keep kissing their ***?). Romney keeping to that moderate look with just a month away, lol.

Like I can be convinced he cares for the 100%. "I care for the 100% because I believe in God"?

 

[Evo]

Wow, local news poll here, 99% said Obama won and we're a red state!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Wow, local news poll here, 99% said Obama won and we're a red state!

How many people have voted?

 

[Vorde]

I did not like how either candidate answered the gun question. "Gang bangers", "we need two parents in the home," and, "education"? Are you serious?

It's a tough question to answer, my family is a family where hunting is a really important thing and so I sympathize with gun-lovers.

I think Obama got it spot on when he said that the more important issue is to nail down the causes of the horrible gang violence and gun-related murders. Obama could have won that question had he pushed through (or tried to push through) legislation explicitly in support of that point. Because he didn't, and Romney pointed that out, I'd say that question was a tie.

Edit: Just to clarify, I do support restrictions on all serious guns other than hunting in controlled arenas, but I didn't have a serious expectation that Obama would lean too far to that side.

 

[Mentalist]

I would wait until tomorrow to get a much better estimation of which candidate won. It also depends on who they are speaking with, for instance, they may be polling democrats more than republicans, etc...

 

[rootX]

I only watched half or less of the debate but I think I see Romney views on economy more clearly now. He want to turn the US into a restriction free country like HK or Singapore to attract investment into the US. This puts the US economy in positive trend and helps lower the deficit, unemployment rate and other things. What's interesting that I never heard Romney presenting the connection between making the US economy more free and reducing deficits.

 

[Mentalist]

It's a tough question to answer, my family is a family where hunting is a really important thing and so I sympathize with gun-lovers.

I think Obama got it spot on when he said that the more important issue is to nail down the causes of the horrible gang violence and gun-related murders. Obama could have won that question had he pushed through (or tried to push through) legislation explicitly in support of that point. Because he didn't, and Romney pointed that out, I'd say that question was a tie.

Hunting rifles are not similar to AK-47 or AR15's. Hunting rifles aren't sniper rifles either and one can set plans to put those weapons on a banned list.

Dealing with gangs starts with dealing with their weapons, i.e. their assault rifles and shotguns. But what is more is that dealing with the gangs by locking them up, one by one, won't solve the problem. I think they expect to go to prison/jail for a selected amount of time and return to their usual hooliganism.

Hitting them where it hurts, i.e. what generates money, i.e. drugs is what would really do damage.

They both failed that question because education won't help with anything if there is an obvious drug market controlled by gang-members that causes such violence to take place.

 

[russ_watters]

What's interesting that I never heard Romney presenting the connection between making the US economy more free and reducing deficits.

That's the basic conservative economic position: more economic freedom -> higher growth -> more tax revenue -> lower deficits.

 

[Vorde]

Hunting rifles are not similar to AK-47 or AR15's. Hunting rifles aren't sniper rifles either and one can set plans to put those weapons on a banned list.

Dealing with gangs starts with dealing with their weapons, i.e. their assault rifles and shotguns. But what is more is that dealing with the gangs by locking them up, one by one, won't solve the problem. I think they expect to go to prison/jail for a selected amount of time and return to their usual hooliganism.

Hitting them where it hurts, i.e. what generates money, i.e. drugs is what would really do damage.

They both failed that question because education won't help with anything if there is an obvious drug market controlled by gang-members that causes such violence to take place.

I don't think that's true, and I don't have the statistics to back this up, but I strongly believe the people who are already in gangs and are already in the drug business won't ever leave it.

The point is to dissuade the teens my age and younger from ever entering that business. And that means having better schools and more opportunities for them as they grow up. I think this method vs the anti-drugs anti-weapons method (as the primary point, that is) is a comparison between attacking the problem as it occurs and trying to get rid of the origin of the problem.

I see Romney stressing very hard to make it seem like he's going to fix the problem for tomorrow, and Obama stressing that he wants to fix the problems for the next generation (highlighted in Obama implicitly saying that lowering gas prices is less important than building our energy future and Romney saying that one of his biggest concerns is lowering gas prices today)

I'm 5 months too young to vote in this election, but Obama would have my vote because it seems to me he's planning for the future.

 

[Evo]

How many people have voted?

I don't know the number, but it was a live poll of people watching the debate that were provided clickers.

 

[rootX]

That's the basic conservative economic position: more economic freedom -> higher growth -> more tax revenue -> lower deficits.

Yes something I also support to some extent but I haven't heard that argument from Romney yet. He talked about bringing more economic freedom but completely ignored the question how he will lower deficits. He has been challenged on this for so many times during last and this debate but I don't recall he explained his conservative economic position. I believe he never brought the connection between "more economic freedom" and "lower deficits".

 

[Mentalist]

We all should know how this plan of Romney's is going to work. The middle class will have to pay for it, but that statement is obviously unsupported so I am just using my intuition here.
Romney is not going to answer that question because he will look incompetent if he changes it with 4/3 weeks away from the election, and if he did tell us, he will put himself in the picture of the business man screwing the little guy once again, and in this climate that would mean utter disaster for him to win the presidency. So, just deflect the question and start talking about the other guy. (Of course, that is my intuition speaking here).

 

[Evo]

Greg split off the debate discussion here https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4118671#post4118671

 

[CAC1001]

I agree that Romney completely flubbed the first question. You'd think he'd have had an intelligent way to answer it. He seemed weak at first, but then seemed to grow stronger as the debate went on. Obama was much stronger this time then last time.

I did not like how either candidate answered the gun question. "Gang bangers", "we need two parents in the home," and, "education"? Are you serious?

Gangs are a serious cause of violence.

Me: Assault weapons, shotguns, non-hunting rifles, all banned, banned, banned.

There is no such thing as an assault weapon (there are assault rifles), shotguns are used for hunting, and pretty much any rifle can be used for hunting (rifles that can't be used for hunting are fine for home defense/protection purposes as not everyone hunts).

Hunting rifles are not similar to AK-47 or AR15's. Hunting rifles aren't sniper rifles either and one can set plans to put those weapons on a banned list.

AR-15s make excellent hunting rifles and there are numerous hunting-specific AR-15 models available that have a longer barrel, green camouflage, and fire a 7.62 mm round.

And two of the military's sniper rifles, the U.S. Army's M24 sniper rifle and the U.S. Marine Corps M40 sniper rifle are both militarized versions of what is a very popular hunting rifle, the Remington 700.

Dealing with gangs starts with dealing with their weapons, i.e. their assault rifles and shotguns.

Most gangs kill with handguns, not assault rifles and shotguns. And assault rifles are already illegal unless registered pre-1986.