Who Won the First Presidential Debate of the 2012 Election?

@Ares42 said:

@BoG said:

@DoctorWelch said:

@Nightriff said:

@DoctorWelch said:

Romney pretty much won. I think that's because Obama was expecting to adhere to some kind of structure, while Romney took advantage of this thing being basically lawless.

BOTH took advantage, to say Obama didn't is a joke, Jim just didn't try to interrupt him like he did Romney. And there was no structure within the first 5 minutes of it.

It's not a joke. Romney took advantage of the fact that the Moderator didn't do his job, and Obama didn't. That was the sole factor that decided who came out on top.

Yes, Romney took advantage of the moderator with two fewer minutes of total speaking time.

Romney won. I'm excited for round 2, as it should be different.

As I already said earlier in the thread, it's not about speaking time. Romney played the debate by dragging out the economy section and most of the time getting the last word (even though it was decided they were supposed to interchange between last and first word).

Exactly.

@EXTomar:

Is it a temporary thing, or is American politics always like this?

I love how we're judging them on their delivery and not the platform theyre espousing. I said it before, but there is NO real "winner" of a debate. You are going to agree or disagree with the platform either of them are presenting. I don't understand how people think its inconceivable that another person was swayed by the other guy,

It shouldnt matter how well you delivered your ideas if they are bankrupt.

@s10129107 said:

It shouldnt matter how well you delivered your ideas if they are bankrupt.

This here is 'merica, y'all, we don't care about things like facts

@SmilingPig said:

I know that the USA is the first super power (or possibly second to China now) but your electoral campaign last a really long time, and must cost an absurd amount of money, it feel like it’s been going on for over 1 years.

its completely broken. our votes dont matter. the electoral college doesnt have to go by the majority vote. thats how bush "won" over gore. its pointless.

@Animasta said:

@s10129107 said:

It shouldnt matter how well you delivered your ideas if they are bankrupt.

This here is 'merica, y'all, we don't care about things like facts

Yeah!

@SmilingPig said:

I know that the USA is the first super power (or possibly second to China now) but your electoral campaign last a really long time, and must cost an absurd amount of money, it feel like it’s been going on for over 1 years.

That's accurate. It costs an absurd amount of money, and the campaigns go on for-friggin-ever, since the presidential election itself is preceded by a crazy-long primary campaign within each party to choose the final candidates. It's basically, totally jacked.

@MarkWahlberg: Sure you'll get bad analysis shows that don't have people who know their arse from a place just south of the Rio Grande hence the caveat of "usually done by" sure you'll get bad pundits who are brought in, but the idea of analysis is sound and it's the show's issue for dragging what can be wrapped up in 20 mins out into a 3 hour filler-fest. All of your complaints stem from the way presenters and the channels themselves handle the surrounding material around an experts read on the situation, and yes it's bullshit, they shouldn't drag it out for so long but that's what tv does. It's the experts voices I and many other people like to listen to, people who can inform you of something you may never have thought of, it isn't telling you what to think which is what the original commenter thought.

By all means be cynical about the tv package surrounding it but the idea of people who have spent a long time analyzing a field and then giving viewers an inside into what may not be picked up on by the average joe public is a good and valid one.

I was totally swayed by Mitt Romney's foolproof plan to lower personal income taxes by 20% and not have a supplemental tax for the 3% largest of small business, increase the defense budget and somehow lower the national deficit (sarcasm). His explanation of how to generate money from nowhere was to cut loopholes and such lol. What he means by "loopholes" is to cut core government services and raise other taxes like property and sales. Also interesting that he mentioned that obamacare raises healthcare costs (as in presumably absolute cost) even though he oversaw budget reform in masschussets and so knows how rediculous that sounds. Then he fails to address specifically how his "plan" would protect people from being abused by private insurance companies. He then tried to make it sound like having a for profit health industry is somehow more efficient than one the government runs, while not explaining who pays for coverage when masses of unemployed people show up in the ER. It seemed like obama was more focused on outlining specific policies that he will continue to put forward while romney was more focused on demonizing obama's platform instead of addressing the specific policies which he has yet to put forward in any coherent capacity.

So as usual for the first debate every major news network declared the current non-favorite the winner. They pretty much have to do this to make it look like some close contest because they need people to keep watching these debates like they really matter. There is a lot of major advertising revenue during this time. So Romney wins this debate apparently because of some polling on twitter that happened about 15 seconds after the debate ended. Its hard to deny that if people will see who apparently won the debate than they will latch onto that idea and it will become truth.

In reality, there is no winner or loser in a debate of this nature because its meant for candidates to address specifically their approach to dealing with important issues. With Romney I'm not sure I learned really anything about his plans other than he likes big bird (even though he wants to cut PBS) and that if you make more than $250,000 he will probably lower your taxes. Obama was pretty consistant with what we have seen from him in the past. Will be looking forward to the next clown show (presidential debate).

Nobody wins, and neither of them are going to do what they say they are going to do. People really haven't caught on to that yet? It's like every four years everyone forgets everything that happened since the last election.

Ron Paul won and he wasn't even there.

@Video_Game_King said:

@EXTomar:

Is it a temporary thing, or is American politics always like this?

By happenstance, I live in Iowa which has an unusual position in the whole process. I've been seeing this crap since August 2011 and as far as I can tell this is the worst it has been ever.

What is ironic about Romney's "stop funding PBS" is that I am watching so much PBS due to the fact it has ZERO political ads. NPR and PBS are the last bastion of "Jesus Christ, I don't want to hear another ad about how the other guy is evil".

@JasonR86 said:

I didn't vote. But regardless of what actually happened or how many people actually watched Obama will win by default on this site. Guaranteed. QUOTE ME!!!

Romney clearly won, followed by a decent performance by Invisible Obama. Regular-ass Obama was off his game.

Obama lost the debate, but the stuff that Mitt Romney was spewing was not based in reality half the time, it kind of frustrated me. Especially the whole 5 trillion thing, based upon his 20% income tax cut (he wants, but won't get) that is how much it would cost over ten years. You can't say that your current plan on your website is not your plan.

The debates don't matter at all, ESPECIALLY this election cycle. The country is so divided that any undecided voters that actually exist probably won't be swayed by a debate with no substance. Its just a rehash of both candidates tired as hell talking points. The news media is so focused on the horse race and getting people to watch coverage that they've single handedly put Romney back into this race with their "expert analysis" based on absolutely noting. Historically, when you look at the trends, EVERY incumbent "loses" the first debate. G.W. Bush "lost" the first debate to Kerry according to polls, and even back in 1984 Walter Mondale supposedly "won" the first debate against Reagan, and Reagan won every state but Minnesota (Mondale's home state) and Washington, D.C. The debates mean nothing and change nothing.

@jakob187 said:

Ron Paul won and he wasn't even there.

ron paul isn't even in the election! (the libertarian elect is gary johnson, who is at least a better person than paul)

also jill stein won the election don't be crazy

lol

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

lol

Wow.

I voted for Obama because he's closer to being black than Romney is.

If anyone is interested, Canadian media in general proclaimed Mr. Romney the winner by a short margin.

I think it's high-time we get a real business man in the Presidency to run the "business" that is the United States. We tried the untested freshman Senator with the "Community Organizer" background who is "cool", "black" and "in touch" with mainstream Americans. At the very least Romney WAS also a governor, has a successful business record (at the very least you can't accuse the guy of not knowing how to make money) and worked in a state where he was outnumbered 10 to 1 by the opposing party. So we won't be just hiring a businessman, but someone who was also a Governor. Historically Governor's are always the one's who win elections, Senators NEVER win (exceptions being Obama and John F. Kennedy, but in Obama's case McCain was also a Senator and so was Clinton).

In this case Obama now has a record to run on, and it's not exactly sterling. For me Governor Romney was my LAST choice in the primary (well second-to-last, Paul was last) and my choices went: Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum (whom I ended up voting for in the primary over Gingrich), John Huntsman, Rick Perry, Bachman, then Romney and then Ron Paul.

Even so, I think he'll handily win the election, just like Carter vs Reagen. Every poll said Reagen would lose. They all turned out to be wrong, as polls often are. As people often don't LITERALLY make up their mind until they are sitting in the booth and decide to go with the other guy, no matter what they tell pollsters.

Also I can't believe Romney is still down in this site's poll. At least Romney is "within the margin of error" just like in the national polls. Which means that he is really way ahead. As Obama should be ahead by 30 points. :P

@SmilingPig: Interesting. Thanks for sharing!

Could you point me to a place online where I could see some of the Canadian media's analysis of the debate? I'd be interested in watching that.

@astrotriforce said:

Historically Governor's are always the one's who win elections, Senators NEVER win (exceptions being Obama and John F. Kennedy, but in Obama's case McCain was also a Senator and so was Clinton).

That's not entirely true. 16 former Senators have been President, and 18 former Governors (or equivalents thereof) have been President. If you cross check the two lists, 12 Senators became President and 14 Governors became President. I'd hardly say that Senators never win, seeing as how there are almost as many Senators as Governors.

@ShadowConqueror: I meant in modern history, post-Kennedy or post-WWII. Depending on where you would place the "modern" line. Probably more like "post-Carter".

@Video_Game_King said:

@EXTomar:

Is it a temporary thing, or is American politics always like this?

It's not just American politics.

@ImaTreee said:

@JasonR86 said:

I didn't vote. But regardless of what actually happened or how many people actually watched Obama will win by default on this site. Guaranteed. QUOTE ME!!!

I'm so happy I made that comment when I did. I went back and watched the debate and Romney was more prepared and presented himself better then Obama did. If we have to look at these debates with 'who won or lost' then it is clear that Romney won this one. So I voted for him. And, like I so perfectly predicted, this site's political lean is as predictable as the sun rising.

Here's an interesting article asking who won the debate based purely on SUBSTANCE, and who won the debate in general.

Romney won the debate in both style and substance in every category according to a CNN Poll cited in the article.

Here are the numbers:

The Economy in General

Romney: 55% Obama 43%

Healthcare

Romney: 52% Obama: 47%

Taxes

Romney: 53% Obama 44%

Budget & Deficit

Romney 57% Obama: 41% - Source: CNN

@astrotriforce said:

@ShadowConqueror: I meant in modern history, post-Kennedy or post-WWII. Depending on where you would place the "modern" line. Probably more like "post-Carter".

Post WWII, it's 4 Senators (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Obama) and 4 Governors (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, W. Bush). If you don't count Johnson, it's still only 3-4. Drawing the "modern" line as "post-Carter" seems arbitrary to me. If I were to choose a place between WWII and now to draw a line, it would probably be mid- to late-nineties (when the Internet becomes more prevalent in society) or post-9/11 (when our society undeniably changed). Then it's either 1-2 or 1-1, accordingly.

@astrotriforce said:

Here's an interesting article asking who won the debate based purely on SUBSTANCE, and who won the debate in general.

Did we watch the same debate? I saw NO "substance" whatsoever, just the same tired talking points and dodging specifics.

I think it's high-time we get a real business man in the Presidency to run the "business" that is the United States. We tried the untested freshman Senator with the "Community Organizer" background who is "cool", "black" and "in touch" with mainstream Americans. At the very least Romney WAS also a governor, has a successful business record (at the very least you can't accuse the guy of not knowing how to make money) and worked in a state where he was outnumbered 10 to 1 by the opposing party. So we won't be just hiring a businessman, but someone who was also a Governor. Historically Governor's are always the one's who win elections, Senators NEVER win (exceptions being Obama and John F. Kennedy, but in Obama's case McCain was also a Senator and so was Clinton).

In this case Obama now has a record to run on, and it's not exactly sterling. For me Governor Romney was my LAST choice in the primary (well second-to-last, Paul was last) and my choices went: Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum (whom I ended up voting for in the primary over Gingrich), John Huntsman, Rick Perry, Bachman, then Romney and then Ron Paul.

Even so, I think he'll handily win the election, just like Carter vs Reagen. Every poll said Reagen would lose. They all turned out to be wrong, as polls often are. As people often don't LITERALLY make up their mind until they are sitting in the booth and decide to go with the other guy, no matter what they tell pollsters.

Also I can't believe Romney is still down in this site's poll. At least Romney is "within the margin of error" just like in the national polls. Which means that he is really way ahead. As Obama should be ahead by 30 points. :P

@ShadowConqueror: Okay I've been corrected lol. I'll shift to the general "thought" is that Governors win more than Senators, because they are seeing as having better experience for actually presiding over the country as opposed to simply legislating and are more remembered (Reagen, Clinton, Bush). I still don't know my Presidential history as much as I wish I did. But I'm continuously learning everyday and really enjoy studying the subject.

I also forgot about Johnson. I never seem to remember him lol. I guess you could say Governors, in the modern era, are the ones who seem to get re-elected to second terms more often, and therefore that's one reason why they are seen as more capable of leading than Senators. Just a thought. Not gospel. lol.

@MariachiMacabre: Couldn't disagree more. We all have opinions. You probably didn't like George W. either, so it's useless to argue over it. And yes laws should be three pages. Or one. Cut out all the bullshit legalese. Not everyone, take Obama for example, is super educated about the Middle East. Obama was as light-weight as they come compared with McCain. Cain would've been good for the domestic side of things, they have advisers for foreign policy.

To be honest I never had even heard of Libya before all of this went down, and most people hadn't either I'd be willing to bet.

Everyone's too worked-up. I guess this happens every cycle, but everyone's just so damn sure that if their candidate isn't elected, the other guy's going to be free to cause some kind of irreversible apocalypse. The political tug-of-war isn't suddenly going to stop after the election, so no matter who you are, you shouldn't be afraid of the entire country suddenly transforming overnight.

Neither side has all the answers to anything. The right and the left both have their strengths and weaknesses, and ideally they'd be debating (I mean, like actually debating rather than campaigning) at each other to properly challenging each other's ideas, and prioritizing solutions to the common problems first -- of which there are many they could easily agree on -- but instead they're focused on whipping everyone into a frenzy and pushing the most extreme sides of their ideologies, just because they can't get enough of being contrary to one another.

Meh.

@astrotriforce: While you're right that Reagan, Clinton, and Bush are all "more remembered," as you put it, I'm not convinced that is directly a result of their roles as former Governors. I think they are "more remembered" because, A: they are recent Presidents, and B: they were all President for two terms. If Bush Sr, Carter, or Ford were two-term Presidents, it's likely that their names would be more recognizable than they are (and Carter being a former Governor). I would make the argument that Nixon is still well-know despite being President earlier and being a Senator, but it's hard to know if that's because he was a two-term President (and a nominee before that, garnering him more recognition) or because of the controversy in his second term and his ultimate resignation from office. I'd also like to make the claim that Kennedy is also a recognizable figure, but again it's difficult to determine if it is because of his Presidency or because he was assassinated.

The bottom line is that I'm not convinced that former Governors are better remembered because of the fact that they were Governors. However, I'm not willing to argue one way or another as to whether or not former Governors make better Presidents than for Senators. Both positions are given incredible power that could easily translate to the presidency, and we've certainly had plenty of good Presidents from both camps, but as to whether or not one is more beneficial than the other, I can't say for sure.

@Superkenon: That's true, but at least one libertarian leader (former Presidential Candidate) says that Republicans are about a million times better than Democrats, and that Democrats WILL lead the country to bankruptcy, while Republicans have a "sliver" of hope, especially with people like Ron Paul around.

Also we are closer to the precipice than ever before. And God knows Obama won't do a thing about it. But I hope I'm wrong. Our credit is almost certain to be downgraded AGAIN if Obama is re-elected. No one trusts that he will actually try to reign in spending.

@ShadowConqueror: Yeah I don't disagree at all. Good analysis.

@Superkenon: That's true, but at least one libertarian leader (former Presidential Candidate) says that Republicans are about a million times better than Democrats, and that Democrats WILL lead the country to bankruptcy, while Republicans have a "sliver" of hope, especially with people like Ron Paul around.

Also we are closer to the precipice than ever before. And God knows Obama won't do a thing about it. But I hope I'm wrong. Our credit is almost certain to be downgraded AGAIN if Obama is re-elected. No one trusts that he will actually try to reign in spending.

@MariachiMacabre: I highly doubt that. Israel for sure. Even my friend in The Netherlands says they now think Obama is a joke. Even the french President repreminded (s/p) him a while back as being completely unprepared and off his game. I'm sure they'll see Romney as, at the very least, a positive "reset". At the very least Romney has business experience and Obama doesn't. And we all know how that's going.

The reaction online doesn't seem to match the reaction of most swing voters I talked to. A majority of them just found the debate boring, and most claimed neither "won." (Though a few did say Romney seemed more aggressive.)

I suppose to still be a swing voter you have to be fairly apathetic to poloitics, so I'm sure that affects their view. My thought is that the "Romney won!" narrative is being pushed by people on extreme ends of both sides of the political spectrum, but for very different reasons.

@astrotriforce said:

@MariachiMacabre: I highly doubt that. Israel for sure. Even my friend in The Netherlands says they now think Obama is a joke. Even the french President repreminded (s/p) him a while back as being completely unprepared and off his game. I'm sure they'll see Romney as, at the very least, a positive "reset". At the very least Romney has business experience and Obama doesn't. And we all know how that's going.

Since when did business experience translate into political experience? I'll never understand what people mean when they say "Oh, Romney's a businessman, he obviously knows what he's doing!" Also, I remember reading an article recently that says a lot of European leaders are scared of Romney, specifically because in remarks he has been very unsupportive of the Eurozone bailouts. I'm not saying Romney is a terrible person, I just don't really know what he stands for other than wanting to make sure the rich keep as much money in their pockets as possible, and continuing to balloon our military budget at the expense of much needed social programs. I also don't know where you got the idea that Obama has no idea what he's doing. Obama is a smart guy and while he certainly isn't the greatest President ever, he's not some total clown like everyone from Fox News likes to make him out as. What makes you think Romney would have it together as President? You cant really know if someone's going to be any good until they get into the Oval Office. Just because Obama doesn't pursue the kind of legislation you want doesn't mean he's incompetent.

@astrotriforce@MariachiMacabre I was interested in this question of who countries outside the the US favor, so I did a google search. I tried to find a variety of sources in an attempt to disprove a bias.

What I found is that everysinglearticleI foundshowed that Obama is heavily favored around the world, specifically in Northern and Western Europe. Romney has some support in the Middle East (including Israel, strangely enough) and Eastern Europe, as well as in some Asian counties. Some of these polls seem contradictory so take them will a grain of salt, I suppose.

It would be nice if there was a site that kept track of all these types of polls and kept them updated and orderly, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Vote for me. I promise a 5 trillion dollar surplus, tax cuts to all classes and -20% unemployment rate by 2014. Don't ask me how, I just can, okay?

@President_Barackbar: That's coming from the French President. He was at his worst at the recent meeting of nations, I forget the particulars, might have been the G8 conference. Everyone saw him as weak, and several leaders spoke publicly about how horribly briefed he was. I never got around to watching the speech, but the newscasters at the time were saying it was the worst public speaking Obama had ever done. I was probably too busy playing Resident Evil to care. :P

Obama lost - in terms of style and rhetoric, which are what these things are all about. I think he got cocky, overconfident with what the polls were saying. He didn't realize how badly Romney needed to win this, how energetic Romney would be. He was lax in preparing for this debate.

Having said that, most people polled after the debate said that it wouldn't sway their vote. Obama will probably be much more aggressive in the second and third debates.

Romney won, and everybody knows it.

Romney won the debate, but Obama will win the election. Romney is too backwards to win, I think people still remember the last time they had a backwards President.

both of them won. and we all lose.

The dude who used facts and numbers instead of the dude who had a thousand anecdotes.

Considering that the facts the dude used can't be verified by anyone in the debate, they weren't particularly useful anyway. Debate on taxes or economy usually just devolve into a John Jackson/Jack Johnson, "your 3 cent titanium tax goes too far", situation