Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

What a Nightmare for Obama

Recs

7

October 22, 2012 – Comments (19) | RELATED TICKERS: UG , H

This should have been his advantage.  Instead of talking foreign affairs he repeats his campaign speeches regarding domestic policy.  I wonder what the time count was between these two because it seemed to me Romney kept getting "doubles" and Obama just sitting there.  His team blew it big time. This round Romney because Obama just let him talk.

19 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 22, 2012 at 10:48 PM, awallejr (78.92) wrote:

Wow listening to CNBC and they kind of trashing Romney when I thought he actually did pretty good.  He basically wouldn't let Obama talk, and Obama kept trying to go to domestic issues where he should have stayed away.  Obama was doing a great job early but then Romney pretty much dominated the time.  Obama is asked about our greatest threat and he talks education.

Well if I am Obama I would throw everything I have into Ohio and Florida.

Report this comment
#2) On October 22, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Mega (99.96) wrote:

According to the CBS instant poll Obama won 53-23.

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/260574120717217792 

It did seem Romney had the upper hand in time and setting the narrative, but Obama landed some big punches (some of which Romney didn't even respond to).

I think describing Romney's plan as throwing money at military spending without any clear strategy must have struck a chord with some undecideds. Likewise repeatedly claiming that Romney had "me-too" policies on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan - this was the first time many voters heard or thought about that.

Report this comment
#3) On October 23, 2012 at 12:19 AM, L0RDZ (78.47) wrote:

DID Wall E  suddenly turn into  Karl  Rove ?? 

His team blew it big time. This round Romney because Obama just let him talk.

Again personally  I  didn't get the chance to see the third debate, because I was  busy,  but  I did  see  the end of the debate as well as I  changed  the channels to see  how  msnbc  responded as well as  how  cnbc  covered  the  debate.

Interestingly  cnbc  had  fair  coverage  with plenty of  democrats and  Obama  supporters  getting air time  IE  Biden's  prodigy  who is  the attorney general of  guess where ???  DELAWARE  LOL... wow   who'd  guess...  anyways  they allowed them their  view points  as well as talking points and  allowed them to criticize Romney's  performance.

Meanwhile  when I changed over to msnbc  wow,  just one point of view...  demonizing  Romney  with  only  Democrats commentators like Obama's  caimpaign  person  attacking  Romney  saying   he was all over the place...  go figure... 

So  just  so  I have it straight ???  Obama  simply  let  Romney talk and  Romney talked  more often  than Obama ???  is that what you are saying  ?

awallejr (86.60) wrote:

Wow listening to CNBC and they kind of trashing Romney when I thought he actually did pretty good.  He basically wouldn't let Obama talk, and Obama kept trying to go to domestic issues where he should have stayed away.  Obama was doing a great job early but then Romney pretty much dominated the time.  Obama is asked about our greatest threat and he talks education.

Well if I am Obama I would throw everything I have into Ohio and Florida.

 

Report this comment
#4) On October 23, 2012 at 12:23 AM, awallejr (78.92) wrote:

That's the point.  The average viewer I suspect wasn't doing any deep analysis that the pundits have been doing.  They were basically listening to him doing the most talking and saying reasonable things.  Obama I thought was controling the first 30 minutes but then he was more a bystander where Romney was getting all these "doubles" with Obama just watching.

It really surprised me how disappointed the CNBC crowd was. No one expected him to do a knock-out punch but neither did Obama.  And Obama answering foreign policy questions with repetition of his domestic speeches, which we heard already, just made little sense.

Oh and while I am at it what bozo at Aflac approved a commercial where a smiling talking worm is eaten alive?  (aside rant there).

Report this comment
#5) On October 23, 2012 at 12:25 AM, awallejr (78.92) wrote:

Again personally  I  didn't get the chance to see the third debate, because I was  busy,

Then why are you wasting my time Bizarro Alstry?

Report this comment
#6) On October 23, 2012 at 10:58 AM, JaysRage (89.07) wrote:

Unfortunately, I had to be in and out and got to sit through only about half of it, but I thought Obama was very good.    Romney was about what I expected, due to his inexperience in this space.    

Obama could have been fantastic, because he was spot on when the topics were kept to foreign policy and when he was talking policy and relations and not attempting to be a "tough guy" for no reason.   It doesn't suit him, and I thought it backfired.   I thought Romney had a couple of good points, including retooling ships and planes (even though one of them resulted in a funny Obama zinger), but overall, it was clear that this was not Romney's strength.   He didn't differentiate enough from Obama on possible points of advantage, and Obama made some very strong counter-points around Iran sanctions, for instance.....and the importance and difficulty of getting all of the key players to cooperate to give it the most effectiveness. 

I saw more of the beginning than the end, which is probably why I thought Obama did as well as he did.  

I thought far too much of the discussion overall was dedicated to the economy.   I wanted to hear even more details about foreign policy.   That's mostly on the moderator, though. 

Report this comment
#7) On October 23, 2012 at 12:13 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

On my to-do list, watching the pre-negotiated and scripted fake reality TV show known as American Presidential Debates was close to the bottom.

Let me guess how it went though.

Obama stressed infrastructure and education. Said "middle class" three times.

Romney stressed freeing up business and being "tough" on some brown people I've never met.

Both pledged allegiance to Israel.

How close did I come?

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#8) On October 23, 2012 at 1:11 PM, JaysRage (89.07) wrote:

From what I understand, this was actually the first debate where equal time was afforded to both candidates.  

Perhaps that's why it seemed lopsided.    Obama got four extra minutes in the first debate and an extra minute in the second debate.   From what I've read, this one was even.   

Report this comment
#9) On October 23, 2012 at 1:28 PM, JaysRage (89.07) wrote:

Fact checking myself....Obama got 3 extra minutes in the second debate.   So there was a 3-4 minute swing from what was afforded in the previous debates toward equal time.   

Report this comment
#10) On October 23, 2012 at 1:49 PM, L0RDZ (78.47) wrote:

Interesting  how sometimes  perception makes our reality and  our reality  is  based upon our perceptions.

When I watched  the end  of  the third presidential debate, near  the end  they  put  up a  timer  of  both candidates and  when  the talking  was over,   the  Potus  has  like a little  over an  extra minute longer than what was given to Romney.

Yet  most Obama supporters  are upset that the Potus somehow allowed  Romney to speak,  to  control  the debate, that  like A wall  Jr  contends  he  was getting  doubles ??? yet  this  final  debate  was  one in which  equal  time  was  the closest although according to  the counters,  Obama  was granted still a little more than a minute  in more time to speak.

How did Obama use most of that time ?  to  speak of  how great his  first term was ?  umm no not really...  

Did Obama  talk about how great his foreign policy was ? 

My perception may be different  than others,  but  it seemed like  Obama  looked  more so to attack and paint Romney as someone  to avoid  and  make silly zingers  ~   something more fitting  someone first running  for office  not  suitable  for someone who should instead be running upon his record during  his first term in office.

Meanwhile  Romney although given less time according to the counters,  came across  as more presidential,  questioning  Obama's  policies,  succinctly  stating that  attacking  him  is not  a credible  foreign policy  and that  he cannot  kill  his way  into a  credible  policy.

Based upon the crazed stare  Obama gave Romney,  I wonder if  that thought  had crossed  his mind if only  he  could just eliminate  his  debate foe by asking his secret service to serve and protect the Potus.

 

Report this comment
#11) On October 23, 2012 at 3:41 PM, motleyanimal (53.46) wrote:

Between Monday Night Football and the Giants/Cardinals game, there was no consideration of watching this useless debate.

These guys are just two turds in the litter box and you are expected to choose the one that smells least.

Report this comment
#12) On October 23, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

DavidinCali-  Ditto on both excellent points!

 How 'bout those boys from the Bay.  Let the show begin.

Report this comment
#13) On October 23, 2012 at 6:38 PM, awallejr (78.92) wrote:

JaysRage

I didn't know they carried over minutes from prior debates.  For the first 30 minutes I thought Obama was owning it, but it just seemed that Romney was starting to do a lot of the talking afterwards (was asked a question, Obama replied, he then replied and then was asked another question so it did seem over that stretch he had more time).  But as Bizarro Alstry said that could just be a matter of perception.  

Romney pretty much actually agreed with Obama saying the same things at times. But Obama going domestic I thought was a mistake.  He let his opponent off the ropes. Instead of a KO he apparently got a TKO.

Well now it is all about speeches and chest thumping for 2 weeks.  Then all eyes on Ohio and Florida.

And too many lefties on SF for Detroit righties to handle.  Cardinals had their shot 5th game but lack of a lefty starter hurt them.

Report this comment
#14) On October 23, 2012 at 6:39 PM, awallejr (78.92) wrote:

Nm I misread what you said about the minutes.

Report this comment
#15) On October 23, 2012 at 9:30 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Boy I really want to throw up another political post, but I how can I compete with the brillant analysis of LordZ?

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#16) On October 23, 2012 at 9:43 PM, NickD (73.81) wrote:

Elections are rigged. 

Report this comment
#17) On October 24, 2012 at 1:05 AM, awallejr (78.92) wrote:

Dave throw up another political post because "brilliance" and Bizarro Alstry should never be used in the same sentence.

Report this comment
#18) On October 24, 2012 at 11:55 AM, JaysRage (89.07) wrote:

It is a matter of perception.   First, because Obama was given more time in the previous debates, setting the baseline unfairly in his direction.  

The second reason is that I think that Obama speaks more slowly (not necessarily a bad thing) than Romney, so there is a perception that he gets less time because he gets through less talking points in the same amount of time.    In a speach setting, where Obama really shines, this allows people to absorb his words more easily, so it is a benefit.   In a debate forum, it gives him less time to get his arguments across, so it is a detriment. 

Report this comment
#19) On October 24, 2012 at 4:12 PM, awallejr (78.92) wrote:

Obama speaks more slowly (not necessarily a bad thing) than Romney, so there is a perception that he gets less time

That's an excellent point.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement