Abc News/washington Post Poll: Obama Leading Romney Ahead Of First Debate

[maidu]

Romney said, a day ago: "No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it's paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital."

Not true. Granted, the hospital is required to treat certain injuries, etc. But, if insurance of some sort doesn't cover it, the patient will get billed and, as we know, medical costs are sky-high in the US. If the patient can't afford to pay, later on, he/she can try getting on one of the hand-out programs. However, many people don't qualify for any of the hand-out programs, and are therefore obliged to pay. For that reason, many Americans don't get medical treatment when they should, and therefore get sicker or die.

I'm an American. Years ago, when I came in to AZ after a trip to Mexico: I had a v. bad staph infection on my hip. 2 hospitals didn't want to deal with me without insurance. I had to drive myself, often on the verge of fainting, hundreds of miles to my home in n. California, in order to get treatment. Doc said, if I had waited a day or two longer, I could have lost my leg. I'm sure there are many more dire stories than that which could fill a thick book, single spaced. The US is the only industrialized country in the world with such a decrepid and expensive health care system. It's ok for rich folks with car elevators, but the vast majority are in trouble. Obamacare is a step in the right direction. Romney wants to go backwards, though it's hard to gauge his plan, because he's hiding behind nice-sounding generalities and avoids details.

[Jingthing]

Credible scientific polls in the next days. Not snap polls.

[chiangmaikelly]

Credible scientific polls in the next days. Not snap polls.

You didn't say that before. Before you said, "EVERY credible poll."

[Jingthing]

Credible scientific polls in the next days. Not snap polls.

You didn't say that before. Before you said, "EVERY credible poll."

Have your lawyer contact my lawyer which I don't have about the house that I don't own.

[chiangmaikelly]

Credible scientific polls in the next days. Not snap polls.

You didn't say that before. Before you said, "EVERY credible poll."

Have your lawyer contact my lawyer which I don't have about the house that I don't own.

That's OK you being a liberal and all. Can't raise the bar to high now can we? http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/12/ryan-won-vice-presidential-debate-biden-succeeded-say-polls-and-pundits/

[chiangmaikelly]

How do you know who is telling the truth?

Biden contradicts State Department on Benghazi security

We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there," Biden said.

In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.

[Ulysses G.]

Biden is taking a lot of heat for being downright rude. He pleased the people who were going to vote for him anyway, but made no gains with undecided voters.

[Jingthing]

Not exactly. He fired up his base. His base now will stop being depressed about a short term setback, not only get out to vote, but be active to get out the vote of others, raise more money, etc. This is a base election and Obama still has an electoral lock. Just need to hold on for a few more weeks now. The next debate on Tuesday (domestic AND foreign policy) is important. If Obama wins, ties, or loses mildly, there is no damage. The table is set now for the second debate. The third debate not really that important as foreign policy isn't that important in this election.

The other cool thing about this is that Biden was rather extreme as an attack dog. Nobody expects any president to be like that. But Obama has been reticent to lose his cool nice guy persona. With Biden as a background and context, Obama is now free to be about 1/3 as aggressive as Biden and he DOES need to be more aggressive now, but not too much.

Obama is looking more brilliant than ever picking Biden in the first place.

No I am not saying this was a strategy, the low energy first debate where Obama didn't confront Romney's outrageous lies. Historians will be writing about that for a long time about what happened. My guess is that Obama was not prepared for the switcheroo extreme etch-a-sketch that Romney pulled. He should have been but that's over now. Like I said the table is set. Romney can't run away from Romney, version debate one. The target is locked in.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Not exactly. He fired up his base.

There was never any doubt who they were going to support or vote for. The voters who have not made up their mind were not swayed by Biden's smirks and snickers.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

I'm very confident of the November results. Unless you think you'll see the same Obama from the first debate in the next two debates. That doesn't seem possible. Something happened with that, but what are the odds of a repeat?

Biden HAD to be extreme. His job was a RESET/FIX IT after the first Obama debate. Definitely job done.

Americans get why Biden acted that way. If he had acted that way without the background of the first debate, it would have been very odd, but in the real world drama of this election and where we're at now, it made perfect sense, and really was incredibly brilliant. This debate for Biden was mostly about changing the momentum or at least stopping the shift towards Romney and he definitely did at least the latter which is all that is needed to assure an Obama win.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Maidu muses: Romney must hate 'fact-checkers' by now. I wouldn't blame him, because they often contradict what he declares from the podium.

This election year "fact checking" has become a joke. They also often fact check the wrong thing. For example, the CNN fact checkers showed on air this statement from Ryan:

"When Barack

Obama was elected, they had enough fissile material - nuclear

material to make one bomb. Now they have enough for five. They're

racing toward a nuclear weapon. They're four years closer toward a

nuclear weapons capability."

CNN fact checkers reworded this on-screen as "Ryan says Iran has 5 nuclear bombs" then showed his statement as misleading. Duh, you can see for yourself he never even said that in the first place.

[Ulysses G.]

Even a CNBC poll said that 56 percent thought Ryan was the winner, while 36 percent declared Biden to be the winner. Downright rudeness puts mosts voters off.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chiangmaikelly]

Biden is taking a lot of heat for being downright rude. He pleased the people who were going to vote for him anyway, but made no gains with undecided voters.

He wasn't that rude. He only interrupted him 82 times.

[koheesti]

Most comments are calling it a win for Biden, though not a big win. Ryan, though competent, appeared nervous drinking water constantly, and seemed a bit intimidated by Biden.

I watched it on CNN and I agree with what they thought - that it was a draw but Ryan won on style because Biden was constantly interrupting, smirking, rolling his eyes. Even the panel of undecided voters scored it 1/3 for Biden, 1/3 for Ryan and 1/3 undecided.

It was interesting what the live graph at the bottom of the debate showed which followed what the male and female undecided voters thought as each of them spoke. Biden was the only one to go noticeably negative, and he was there often with the exception of talking about abortion and helping the middle class. Ryan was never much negative, luke-warm approval on his abortion stance, and women scored him even higher than they scored Obama. It looks like women will vote based on who is cutest. How shallow of them. I know if the debate were between Halle Berry and Rosie O'donnell I would focus on what they were actually saying about policy and the direction they wanted to take the country and,...and...ah, who am I fooling...I'd give Halle higher marks no matter what she was saying. She's smokin' hot.

Edited October 12, 2012 by koheesti

[koheesti]

A couple of themes the post game analysts are focusing on: was Biden condescending and arrogant with his constant smiling at Ryan's comments and Ryan seemed ill prepared to be VP, too Gilligan-like. etc...

Where ever in the world did you see that? You must have watched on MSNBC? I watched the Clinton News Network (CNN) and they called it a draw and praised Ryan - even Obama's disgraced leftist advisor Van Jones complimented Ryan saying he looked presidential, before saying Biden won.

[koheesti]

Biden's fighting personality is something Romney's "47 percent" can relate to very well as opposed to the stiffness of Ryan.

I'm in the 48 or 49% and Biden was a real turn off with his poor behavior. He was comfortable for sure, probably from having one too many in the Green Room before the debate.

Ryan will charm not so many women. He came out clearly to make abortion illegal!

Here's a link to the transcript, please show where Ryan "came out clearly to make abortion illegal!".

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/12/transcript-vice-presidential-debate/

[koheesti]

Big time win.

However much you want this to be true, I just don't see it.

Almost all of the post-debate comments I've heard agree its more of a draw.

CBS News Snap Poll:

19 % draw

31 % Ryan

50 % Biden

I would bet the house that EVERY credible poll you will see in the coming days will CLEARLY show a MASSIVE debate win for Biden. He did his job. The momentum of Romney has now been blocked. Now we'll have to see the momentum changes from neutral to pro Obama.

All hyperbole aside, you just lost your house.

A snap CNN-ORC International poll showed voters who watched Thursday's debate narrowly favored Ryan over Biden by 48%-44%, a statistically even result after GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney scored a clear debate victory over Obama.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/11/politics/vp-debate/index.html?hpt=po_c1

[koheesti]

You didn't say that before. Before you said, "EVERY credible poll."

Have your lawyer contact my lawyer which I don't have about the house that I don't own.

So you were risking a house you don't even own? You must be a politician.

[keemapoot]

A couple of themes the post game analysts are focusing on: was Biden condescending and arrogant with his constant smiling at Ryan's comments and Ryan seemed ill prepared to be VP, too Gilligan-like. etc...

Where ever in the world did you see that? You must have watched on MSNBC? I watched the Clinton News Network (CNN) and they called it a draw and praised Ryan - even Obama's disgraced leftist advisor Van Jones complimented Ryan saying he looked presidential, before saying Biden won.

I misphrased the bit about Ryan being ill prepared. If you look over my comments following the debate, I think Ryan did an excellent job in the debate, and impressed me greatly, and if elected will likely do a fine job. What I meant to say was that cagey old Joe had command of the stage, both in body language, and in attitude. That attitude put him in control, and made Ryan appear young and inexperienced by comparison. Biden's performance was like a bit of theatrical acting, and having spent time as a public defender in front of juries, and then criminal defense lawyer, he might have had some acting classes as many trial lawyers do. It is fantastic training for anyone in high profile business and law practice BTW.

Many will criticize Biden’s antics on the debate stage: loud guffaws, grimaces, raising his arms and looking heavenward, interjecting with “Oh, God,” and “this is amazing.” But all of the scoffing and incredulity was to an end, and one that Obama would be wise to emulate: It indicated outrage. Biden’s incredulous grins and many putdowns (“bunch of malarkey,” “bunch of stuff,” “Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy,” “notice, he never answers the question”) rattled Ryan, as measured by his copious water consumption. At one point, Ryan flatly denied a $2 trillion increase in military spending that Romney has touted.

Biden’s theatrics, if overdone, were clearly deliberate, because he dropped them during the closing minutes of the debate and adopted a softer voice. “You probably detected my frustration with their attitude about the American people,” Biden said, reprising Romney’s “47 percent” remark.

http://www.washingto...80a9_story.html

[thaibeachlovers]

I thought that the VP debate was pretty much a draw and pretty much a waste of time as far as changing anyone's mind. All of their facts and most of their positions contradicted each other and IMO neither of them was more convincing than the other.

Ryan mostly maintained a neutral demeanor. Biden was condescending through the whole debate. I'm not sure if that helps him or hurts him with the voters.

It was important in that if Biden had lost decisively it would have had a cumulative effect on Obama, after his loss before.

As it was, I thought it was a draw, though Biden seemed to be "high" on something, which was very disconcerting, plus it was irritating, annoying and disrespectful. However, he failed to make any of his usual gaffes, so Obama must be grateful tonight.

[Ulysses G.]

Agreed.

[koheesti]

A friend at lunch today made a good point - for the 42-year old Ryan to more than hold his own against a guy who was first elected to the Senate when Ryan was still 2 years old, AND has served nearly 4 years as Vice President is pretty impressive.

[Jingthing]

Like it or not, it was a VERY strong performance by Biden, and assuming Obama can now follow through (give him lots of strong COFFEE to combat whatever allowed stimulant Romney will be on) he may well have pulled off a historic save:

http://www.washingto...6b2a7_blog.html

VP debate: Biden seemed real, Ryan plastic

As did Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention, Joe Biden in his debate with Paul Ryan did a better job of selling Barack Obama than did Barack Obama at almost any point in this campaign. Biden dominated, looking forceful and ultimately confident. He may be a hack, but he’s one with heart.

Ryan, in contrast, came across as steely cold, a concoction of talking points and a bit too actuarial.

...

IF debate 1 Obama shows up to debates 2 and 3, the voters will decide he doesn't want to win, in which case he won't. Otherwise, what will Michelle be wearing to the ball?

Edited October 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[keemapoot]

A friend at lunch today made a good point - for the 42-year old Ryan to more than hold his own against a guy who was first elected to the Senate when Ryan was still 2 years old, AND has served nearly 4 years as Vice President is pretty impressive.

I agree, and he will be the leading candidate in 2016 likely for the red team if his boss loses. I have to love JT's quote though about Ryan being too actuarial. He does come across a bit as your local tax preparer. He needs more juice, I'd suggest acting lessons for him too!

[Jingthing]

A friend at lunch today made a good point - for the 42-year old Ryan to more than hold his own against a guy who was first elected to the Senate when Ryan was still 2 years old, AND has served nearly 4 years as Vice President is pretty impressive.

I agree, and he will be the leading candidate in 2016 likely for the red team if his boss loses. I have to love JT's quote though about Ryan being too actuarial. He does come across a bit as your local tax preparer. He needs more juice, I'd suggest acting lessons for him too!

That was the real Ryan. He can't be anything else. I think Chris Christie has a better chance in 2016 but only if he loses a lot of weight, important both for aesthetics and for his health. I'm not a Christie fan as such but nobody will ever accuse him of being plastic! Yes Ryan would run. He didn't so much lose the debate badly as Biden won it big. Edited October 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[SteeleJoe]

A friend at lunch today made a good point - for the 42-year old Ryan to more than hold his own against a guy who was first elected to the Senate when Ryan was still 2 years old, AND has served nearly 4 years as Vice President is pretty impressive.

I agree, and he will be the leading candidate in 2016 likely for the red team if his boss loses. I have to love JT's quote though about Ryan being too actuarial. He does come across a bit as your local tax preparer. He needs more juice, I'd suggest acting lessons for him too!

No, you guys just don't know the real Paul Ryan:

And while I'm at it, this is the best coverage of the first Presidential debate:

[chuckd]

Romney said, a day ago: "No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it's paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital."

Not true. Granted, the hospital is required to treat certain injuries, etc. But, if insurance of some sort doesn't cover it, the patient will get billed and, as we know, medical costs are sky-high in the US. If the patient can't afford to pay, later on, he/she can try getting on one of the hand-out programs. However, many people don't qualify for any of the hand-out programs, and are therefore obliged to pay. For that reason, many Americans don't get medical treatment when they should, and therefore get sicker or die.

I'm an American. Years ago, when I came in to AZ after a trip to Mexico: I had a v. bad staph infection on my hip. 2 hospitals didn't want to deal with me without insurance. I had to drive myself, often on the verge of fainting, hundreds of miles to my home in n. California, in order to get treatment. Doc said, if I had waited a day or two longer, I could have lost my leg. I'm sure there are many more dire stories than that which could fill a thick book, single spaced. The US is the only industrialized country in the world with such a decrepid and expensive health care system. It's ok for rich folks with car elevators, but the vast majority are in trouble. Obamacare is a step in the right direction. Romney wants to go backwards, though it's hard to gauge his plan, because he's hiding behind nice-sounding generalities and avoids details.

Wrong again, Maidu.

Every citizen in the US is guaranteed medical care. All they have to do is show up at an emergency room and they are provided the care.

Look up The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986.

I'm very confident of the November results. Unless you think you'll see the same Obama from the first debate in the next two debates. That doesn't seem possible. Something happened with that, but what are the odds of a repeat?

Biden HAD to be extreme. His job was a RESET/FIX IT after the first Obama debate. Definitely job done.

Americans get why Biden acted that way. If he had acted that way without the background of the first debate, it would have been very odd, but in the real world drama of this election and where we're at now, it made perfect sense, and really was incredibly brilliant. This debate for Biden was mostly about changing the momentum or at least stopping the shift towards Romney and he definitely did at least the latter which is all that is needed to assure an Obama win.

This just has to be the best spin I have ever seen for excusing bad manners.

Edited October 12, 2012 by chuckd

[koheesti]

A friend at lunch today made a good point - for the 42-year old Ryan to more than hold his own against a guy who was first elected to the Senate when Ryan was still 2 years old, AND has served nearly 4 years as Vice President is pretty impressive.

I agree, and he will be the leading candidate in 2016 likely for the red team if his boss loses. I have to love JT's quote though about Ryan being too actuarial. He does come across a bit as your local tax preparer. He needs more juice, I'd suggest acting lessons for him too!

No, you guys just don't know the real Paul Ryan:

And while I'm at it, this is the best coverage of the first Presidential debate:

That's some great stuff!

[SteeleJoe]

Romney said, a day ago: "No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it's paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital."

Not true. Granted, the hospital is required to treat certain injuries, etc. But, if insurance of some sort doesn't cover it, the patient will get billed and, as we know, medical costs are sky-high in the US. If the patient can't afford to pay, later on, he/she can try getting on one of the hand-out programs. However, many people don't qualify for any of the hand-out programs, and are therefore obliged to pay. For that reason, many Americans don't get medical treatment when they should, and therefore get sicker or die.

I'm an American. Years ago, when I came in to AZ after a trip to Mexico: I had a v. bad staph infection on my hip. 2 hospitals didn't want to deal with me without insurance. I had to drive myself, often on the verge of fainting, hundreds of miles to my home in n. California, in order to get treatment. Doc said, if I had waited a day or two longer, I could have lost my leg. I'm sure there are many more dire stories than that which could fill a thick book, single spaced. The US is the only industrialized country in the world with such a decrepid and expensive health care system. It's ok for rich folks with car elevators, but the vast majority are in trouble. Obamacare is a step in the right direction. Romney wants to go backwards, though it's hard to gauge his plan, because he's hiding behind nice-sounding generalities and avoids details.

Wrong again, Maidu.

Every citizen in the US is guaranteed medical care. All they have to do is show up at an emergency room and they are provided the care.

Look up The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986.

I know very little about this subject but my general position is the the US health care system is woefully inadequate and not at the level that I would expect my country to live up to. However:

5 years ago I was in the U.S. for six months and for reasos I won't go into now, had virtually no money, no job and no health insurance. I was in a rather bad car accident (just for the record I was struck by another car and there was never any dispute that I was entirely without fault) that I somehow walked away from with what initially seemed little harm done. (The other driver fled the scene -- it doesn't happen only in Thailand! -- because, as was quickly determined, he had no license or insurance.) A day or so later, when the pain got worse, I went to the Emergency Room where I imagined I would be immediately hassled about insurance and deal with some grief even getting treatment let alone when it came time to pay.

The admitting nurse asked me if I had insurance and when I said I did not, didn't bat an eyelid at that or when I said I'd not be able to pay.

I received excellent care. I later got a bill and called the hospital and said I didn't have the means to pay. They essentially said "OK, have a nice day" and that's the last we heard from them.

Edited October 12, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[Jingthing]

Yes you can be treated for emergency situations like that in the U.S. However, that's not a health care system, that's a very inefficient crisis care system both in costs AND health outcomes. That's why so many uninsured people show up in ERs at later stages in their disease when it is too late. Yes, the U.S. health care lack of access system prematurely kills many thousands of people every year. Romney knows that and that's why he did Romneycare in Massachusetts. Good enough for Massachusetts, but not for all of America. I don't think so.