Romney vs Obama debate #2

His exact quote on 9/12/12, the day after Libya, was "no acts of terror". What does that mean to you then?

I see Crowley as trying to keep things moving as the other mods have done. They both said their piece up to that.

I think after the first debate when the mod was walked all over she was making sure that didn't happen to her. I thought she did good actually at trying to be fair and keep it moving.

 

I think Crowley did okay. You can be a moderator that challenges the candidates or you can let them battle it out themselves and basically play timekeeper. She seemed content to play timekeeper last time. But if that's the role you choose, then you need to enforce it. Candidates cannot cut into the other person's time and you need to be forceful in that.

 

You could take the President's words "no act of terror" to mean in general or regarding that incident. If he was referring to that incident, he wasn't explicit in saying: this act of terror. He made a vague general statement that can be taken two ways.

Then two weeks later (according to CNN Fact Check) Obama was a bit wishy-washy about it.

The conclusion: Romney's precise comment was false. Obama did describe the killings in Benghazi as an act of terror twice in the two days after the attack. In an interview two weeks after the incident, though, he appeared to reserve judgment, and some Obama administration officials, including Carney and Rice, suggested in the days after the attack that the United States had no indication that it was a planned assault.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/fact-check-terror/index.html

This is a lot of two-stepping.

 

Well.....the proof is in the pudding......The daily polling of likely voters is really the only true compass at this point 24 days out......What should concern you zealous democrats is the closed gap in that polling.......God-forbid any reports of mass suicide, it might sensible for you to prepare your selves emotionally.....a change could be in order.........

 

Since it was the day after the attack one would come to the conclusion that was what he was speaking on.

This country with as much intelligence as it has, cannot prevent all attacks. Can you say 9/11?? To imply we could have prevented it and didn't otherwise I don't get this sematics over words. I think if you check after past terrorist attacks the prez, whoever it be at the time, doesn't go half cocked and make threats. They keep the calm and don't lay out how we will get back at the attackers. I think in light of political elections so close to this event a lot is being blown out of proportion. Obama has the burden of running the country and running for re-election. Ease up.

There are a whole lot of other issues than he said he said when. We obviously were caught off guard in Libya. Obama admitted as much. I guess we were caught off guard on Bush' watch too. This happens sadly.

 

Last night's second presidential town hall debate in Hempstead, NY sure was a memorable one -- if only because the fact-checking we were all so eager to hear on the sidelines actually ended up taking center stage! In a "whoa" moment that will undoubtedly go down in TV history, Mitt Romney challenged President Obama on his exact wording when he spoke to the press about the attack in Libya from the Rose Garden. When Gov. Romney repeatedly attempted to call the president's bluff on having referred to the attack as "acts of terror," the president responded, "Check the transcript." And moderator Candy Crowley fact-checked the discrepancy right then and there! As it turns out, yes, President Obama used the phrase "acts of terror."

But that sure as heck wasn't the only point that needed to be fact-checked -- by either side. Here, a roundup of the biggest lies, fairytales, and just plain falsehoods from both candidates ...

Mitt Romney:

Raising taxes: Romney says he saw a recent study showing that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class by up to $4,000. FactCheck.org called his bluff and asserts that's “nonsense."
Obama on jobs: Romney said there are are fewer jobs today than when Obama took office. Fact-check: Completely FALSE. The economy has created net new jobs under Obama (about 122,000), as of last month. The unemployment rate in February 2009, Obama’s first full month in office (he was sworn in Jan. 20), was 8.3 percent. The unemployment rate last month was 7.8 percent.
Romney on jobs: Romney said, "That’s why I put out a five-point plan that gets America 12 million new jobs in four years." Fact-check: This isn't exactly false, but it needs to be put in better context. The Gov.'s pledge amounts to an average of 250,000 jobs a month; in recent months, the economy has averaged about 150,000 jobs a month. And Moody’s Analytics, in an August forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president.
Deficit: Romney claims Obama vowed to cut the deficit in half, but instead he doubled it. Fact-check: The federal budget deficit in 2009 -- which started four months before Obama became president -- was $1.4 trillion, when it was about 10 percent of the gross domestic product. For the fiscal year just ended, the deficit was $1.1 trillion, or about seven percent of GDP.
Business regulation: Romney said Obama "quadrupled regulations" on businesses. Fact-check: Bloomberg reported least year that Obama had put 5 percent fewer regulations on businesses than George W. Bush.
Manufacturing jobs lost: Romney claimed 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost under Obama. Fact-check: Not entirely true. Manufacturing jobs had been falling for over a decade before Obama took office, as this graph shows. However, beginning in 2010, over 500,000 new manufacturing jobs have been created. In other words, the Obama presidency has been a win for manufacturing.
Apology tour: Romney perpetuated the myth that Obama underwent an international "apology tour."
"Binders full of women": Inspiring the trending topic of the night, Romney claimed that when he was Massachusetts governor, he asked women's groups to help him hire some "qualified" ladies for his cabinet, and they brought him "binders full of women." Fact-check: Although Romney did truthfully appoint a commendable number of women to senior-level positions in his cabinet (42 percent overall), "those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn't care about -- and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything," writes David Bernstein of the Phoenix. Worse yet, isn't it troubling to think that despite having "led and consulted for businesses for 25 years [he] didn't know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women"? Or that when he was head of Bain Capital for two decades, there wasn't a single female partner?
Contraception: Romney claimed he doesn't want to "let Washington bureaucrats tell women if they can have access to birth control." Fact-check: He’s expressed support for the Blunt Amendment to allow employers to choose to not provide coverage for birth control. And his VP Paul Ryan is also one of Congress’ most conservative members on reproductive rights.
President Obama:

Immigration: Obama said Romney said that Arizona's SB-1070 immigration law should be a "model for the nation." Not exactly. Fact-check: Romney said in a GOP primary debate that Arizona’s e-verify law should be a model for the nation, not SB-1070. BUT -- Obama did point out correctly that Romney’s immigration adviser is the guy who wrote Arizona’s immigration law and that of several other states.
Tax cuts for small businesses: The president said that he’s created 18 tax cuts for small businesses. Fact-check: Many of these 18 “cuts” were truly incentives, requiring businesses to purchase health insurance, new equipment or workers to receive savings. Additionally, many of the provisions were temporary.
Jobs: Obama exaggerated a little bit, claiming he created 5 million private sector jobs -- but it was really 4.4 million.
But hey, those are just the facts! Judging from this, looks to me like the president was much more truthful in his claims overall than Gov. Romney. Not to mention that he made his case for a second term with more passion and clarity.

 

National polls are fun to look at, especially if you're a political junkie like myself. The most recent Gallup poll of likely voters gives one candidate a margin that is significantly larger than the average for the polling period. Does that make it inaccurate? Of course not, the Gallup organization is highly reputable and it is certainly possible that Romney has a lead among likely voters that falls outside the margin of error.



Polling likely voters for Romney in non-battleground states could explain the six-point disparity. If, for example, more Massachusetts voters are leaning towards Romney it would give him a boost in a poll even if he cannot win there.

Daily Kos, a liberal leaning news organization, also showed Romney with a four point lead in a recent national poll of likely voters.



If our system were based on the popular vote, then the Obama camp might have reason to worry. Looking at these two polls and measuring them against what electoral college vote in battleground states reveals still shows Obama in a relatively comfortable position three weeks shy of November 6. OH, NV, and IA are his firewall for now with NH, CO being possible additions to it.

What's even more telling than the polls are the prediction markets, which all currently give the incumbent at least a 65% chance of keeping his job.

 

Addendum:

A useful article on the value of prediction markets vis-a-vis polls.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765601505/Trying-to-use-prediction-markets-to-forecast-the-presidential-election.html?pg=all

A PBS report that analyzes the relative value of polls and prediction markets.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/makingsense_10-12.html

 

Thanks for the links and compilation of information, Satyr.

Do you think we'll have to worry about voter fraud/manipulation on the day after the election day?

 

I'll go ahead and just put on a gamble. I'll cast my vote next week, but if my prediction doesn't come to light, I'll forever leave the forums.

 

Nooo!! We need your humor around here! D:

Besides....if you leave, a chain will start and more good people will leave!

 

Nope. It won't start a chain.

Besides, I won't be missed at all. It'll be good for me anyway.

 

You did something similar to this back at New Year's Eve last year...some people missed you! C'mon, are you REEEALLLLYYY gonna do a silly thing and leave the forums because your vote didn't win?? :smt108

 

Yup.

 

Romney comes off like a rich jerk to me. The type of guy who thinks he's in control of every situation just because he's there. Always telling store managers how to do their job, or requesting to speak to the pilot during a flight because a flight attendant tells him to turn off his cell.

You know, one of those cats who ALWAYS expects special treatment because he has money or status.

Say what you want about Biden, but Romney telling the POTUS when and when not to speak and instructing Candy Crowley that he would stop speaking when HE decided, or his decision to answer previous questions with newly allocated time because he felt like it, just made him seem like a billion dollar asshole.

 

I think Romney's been portrayed that way for so long that people believe that's his true character. In a debate you must be aggressive and he was fighting for his time because of Barack's interruptions. I think he's business like, stiff, and maybe not as personable like Obama. But make no mistake, Obama comes off like a jerk. Anytime someone says anything to him he has this smug look like "how dare you question me". The media kisses his ass so much I have no clue where they end and he begins. He's the President...not God!

 

I've been watching Presidential debates since Gore/W. Bush and Romney's debating style is unlike any I've ever witnessed. Obama's perceived edginess is in reaction to Romney's arrogance IMO.

By nature Obama is non confrontational. Romney is just the opposite.
Romney was a jerk in the Republican primaries too although I didn't like any of the other candidates as the potential GOP nominee.
Debates aren't about who's the most aggressive or who can step on the other guy's time more. Debates are about making more cogent points than your opponent.

Compare Romney's debating style to Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush or Dubya.

Your gut reaction even if you don't agree with their political ideology isn't those guys are assholes.

Obama IMO looks disgusted at several moments in the debate when listening to Romney because the Governor doesn't let FACTS get in the way when he's making a point.:smt014

 

another thing about the voter fraud laws are why are they trying to reduce early voting times and remove sunday voting before tuesday? those changes has nothing to do with fraud

 

This is true. They are against the American people.

 

....Even though we come from two different schools of politics,.... I would be remiss if I didn't mention the cordial, diplomatic and scholarly nature of your responses as opposed to those of your democratic brethren.....That said, ..these statistical charts you present make for a convincing argument........