Presidential Debate - Oct 22, 2012
- This topic is empty.
October 23, 2012 4:42 pm at 4:42 pm #516976
Ships or no ships, Romney plans to add 2 trillion dollars to defense spending. I think its the fuzziest of all his math, and he hasn’t even suggested how he’d pay for it…let alone pay for it while also reducing the deficit.October 23, 2012 4:47 pm at 4:47 pm #516977
I actually agree, I don’t think the debate will move that many votes. What kills me, as an Obama supporter, is the “what if” had he actually shown up to the first debate and Romney not gotten that significant bump.
The challenger almost always wins the first debate.October 23, 2012 4:49 pm at 4:49 pm #516978
As you know, that’s not at all the argument that Romney was making. Romney’s argument is, “We have fewer ships, therefore we are weaker.”
It’s not a numbers game alone. That’s what Romney framed it as being. That’s elementary.
Considering how close the two candidates are on foreign policy ( which is essentially military policy; they’re both looking through the Bush lens ) then unless the goals are changed ( military presence / intervention globally ) the numbers game is a large part of the game.
If you’re in favor of a global military presence, and both candidates apparently are, then you need enough resources to support that. Keep the same goals but with less resources then yes, we are weaker.
What you’re talking about is a discussion of tactics that they didn’t have. I’d have liked to have seen a discussion of the merits of SSGN vs CVN, but that probably would be too wonkish for a debate. Seems those are more about style points than substance.October 23, 2012 4:50 pm at 4:50 pm #516979
The challenger almost always wins the first debate.
Romney didn’t just win the first debate though. Obama didn’t even attend.October 23, 2012 5:10 pm at 5:10 pm #516980
Romney didn’t just win the first debate though. Obama didn’t even attend.
What a dick!October 23, 2012 8:30 pm at 8:30 pm #516981
rus said: Seems those are more about style points than substance.
bingo. nobody watches to debates for substance. it’s all about who draws blood and then one party or the other inevitably whining about the moderator hating them.October 23, 2012 9:28 pm at 9:28 pm #516982
I actually agree, I don’t think the debate will move that many votes.
(Reuters) – Voters say U.S. President Barack Obama did a better job than Republican Mitt Romney in Monday’s debate but their opinions of each candidate did not shift significantly, according to Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday.October 24, 2012 2:37 am at 2:37 am #516983
Obama definitely won last night, but if Romney wins, it’s because Obama played like a goalie for the Columbus Blue Jackets at the first debate. That’s why. All roads will lead to the economy, and these illiterate country bumpkins will buy in to Mitt’s BS.
Plus, NO Presidential Candidate has EVER won without winning his home state. There is no way in hell that Romney will win Massachusetts. Even, the losing candidate gets to win their home state. Just ask Walter Mondale (whose home state of Minnesota was the one and ONLY state that he carried 28 years ago). A first is about to happen…October 25, 2012 2:40 am at 2:40 am #516984
NO Presidential Candidate has EVER won without winning his home state.
I agree that Romney will lose Massachusetts, but it’s not true that a candidate has never lost his home state and then won the presidency.
While many successful candidates have won the presidency without winning their birth state, only three (James K. Polk, Woodrow Wilson and Richard Nixon) have won election despite losing their state of residence. (Nixon, a lifelong Californian, had taken residence in New York after his failed run for the California governor’s office.) Polk is the only man to win the presidency but lose both states of birth and residence.
The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.