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

[uptheos]

I suppose a more interesting query would be: who do you feel would be a better leader in the event the commander in chief dies, Ryan or Biden. That is a more prescient issue.

Can we vote for the empty chair?

The laughing was a debate strategy.

Biden is heavily experienced and very ready to be president, especially in foreign policy.

Ryan is really what he seems: a WONK.

My missus doesn't like Ryan's voice, she thinks he looks quite devious. She likes Biden 'because he's happy and laughs a lot'.

[chiangmaikelly]

Again, the reason Biden won and won BIG is that he helped his president massively more than Ryan helped his wanna be president. That is always the job of VP's in these VP debates.

What would the numbers be for that massive win from a reputable poll?

[keemapoot]

I suppose a more interesting query would be: who do you feel would be a better leader in the event the commander in chief dies, Ryan or Biden. That is a more prescient issue.

Can we vote for the empty chair?

The laughing was a debate strategy.

Biden is heavily experienced and very ready to be president, especially in foreign policy.

Ryan is really what he seems: a WONK.

My missus doesn't like Ryan's voice, she thinks he looks quite devious. She likes Biden 'because he's happy and laughs a lot'.

There is a lot to be said for charisma in memorable leadership and politics: Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Churchill.

[chiangmaikelly]

Can we vote for the empty chair?

The laughing was a debate strategy.

Biden is heavily experienced and very ready to be president, especially in foreign policy.

Ryan is really what he seems: a WONK.

My missus doesn't like Ryan's voice, she thinks he looks quite devious. She likes Biden 'because he's happy and laughs a lot'.

There is a lot to be said for charisma in memorable leadership and politics: Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Churchill.

Do we get a prize if we pick the name that does not belong?

[keemapoot]

You don't like cigars? haha

[uptheos]

There is a lot to be said for charisma in memorable leadership and politics: Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Churchill.

Yup and I don't think Ryan has it........but Romney's OK.

[keemapoot]

There is a lot to be said for charisma in memorable leadership and politics: Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Churchill.

Yup and I don't think Ryan has it........but Romney's OK.

I agree he has enough to do the job in spite of all the robot jokes, but he'll never be a Reagan or Clinton.

[maidu]

Glass half full, glass half empty. I only watched the last half of the debate. Perhaps I missed some smiles from the VP. What I saw was a handsome elder man making good points, and listening without grinning while the younger spoke (or mispoke, as the case may be). I don't think objective Americans have a problem with a man smiling kindly. If some want to see that as vindictive or ridiculing, that's their choice. I also saw the younger man being a bit impertinent by repeatedly calling the other 'Joe' (as if they were buddies), and ending the debate with a waxed and burnished sales pitch.

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!

Starting four years ago, remember who the darling of the Republican Party was? ....who was going to the top like a silver bullet? (and the delirium kept a head of steam for years after) Yup, it was Palin. Where is she now? We don't hear a peep from her. The great white hope to recharge the Republican Party - is she in a white parka hunting polar bears on some lonely slope near Prudhoe?

Lucky for the Republicans, they did not pick another empty-headed country bumpkin to be VP. I think they learned from last election cycle on that one. Ryan is certainly someone to be proud of as VP candidate.

Palin looked better for the Republican party, 4 years ago, than Ryan does now. If Romney gets the nod, Ryan's ideas and opinions are going to be better known. The real Ryan will be revealed, not the candy coated one tailored for sound bites.

Interesting to note Dick Cheney's rise and fall. When W was elected, few outside the Beltway or Halliburton knew or cared much about him. That changed, when it became evident that W's dad's buddy was actually the one calling the shots. Two or three wars later, untold waterboardings, Halliburton's winning several lucrative contracts for the troops, and a financial meltdown later, we get a better picture of the most powerful man in the US during those 8 years.

If you follow the transcripts and/or videos, you'll notice that the things Romney or Ryan say when speaking with the Republican faithful are quite removed from the things they let on when speaking to a mixed audience, as the debate venue could be described.

Edited October 13, 2012 by maidu

[chuckd]

I suppose a more interesting query would be: who do you feel would be a better leader in the event the commander in chief dies, Ryan or Biden. That is a more prescient issue.

Can we vote for the empty chair?

The laughing was a debate strategy.

Biden is heavily experienced and very ready to be president, especially in foreign policy.

Ryan is really what he seems: a WONK.

Do you think Biden would interrupt, grimace, smile, laugh out loud and snicker when Putin is speaking?

Sadly the debate is what Biden will be remembered for. He would be as ineffectual as President as he has been as number 2.

[keemapoot]

@Maidu - I suspect you are right especially on social issues. Repealing Roe v. Wade and abortion, out of touch thinking on gay marriage, etc.. Stone age thinking the Republicans cannot get around...

[uptheos]

Do you think Biden would interrupt, grimace, smile, laugh out loud and snicker when Putin is speaking?

Maybe he would keep whispering 'pussy'.

[Ulysses G.]

There is a lot to be said for charisma in memorable leadership and politics: Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Churchill.

Yup and I don't think Ryan has it........but Romney's OK.

I agree he has enough to do the job in spite of all the robot jokes, but he'll never be a Reagan or Clinton.

If the economy picks up under his watch, he will be as well regarded as Reagan or Clinton. Results are what counts in the end.

[Credo]

The current president did not get the economy in the mess that it is in. The economy will improve, whether under this president or a different one. Economies tend to be like that, they are cyclical.

[Ulysses G.]

I hope that you are right, but there are a lot of economists that think that Obama's poliicies have slowed economic growth. CNN Money recently reported that nine out of 17 respected economists picked the Republican presidential nominee when asked whose election would help the economy grow more. Only three picked Obama and 5 picked neither one. CNN is not a conservative organization, so less likely to spin in Romney's favor.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

@Maidu - I suspect you are right especially on social issues. Repealing Roe v. Wade and abortion, out of touch thinking on gay marriage, etc.. Stone age thinking the Republicans cannot get around...

I do not think that Republicans really want to repeal Roe vs Wade. They have been pro life for many decades, but have made no real attempt to repeal it and probably never will. The legislation that Paul Ryan has voted for is only against taxpayer funded abortions, not privately funded ones.

I do think that they most Republicans are against gay marriage, but so are most American people. Every time they have been allowed to vote one way or another, they have voted against it. They would support domestic partnerships with the same legal rights as marriage, but gay marriage would open the door to legalizing Polygamy and polyamorous marriages and other alternate marriages that most Americans object to.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

@Maidu - I suspect you are right especially on social issues. Repealing Roe v. Wade and abortion, out of touch thinking on gay marriage, etc.. Stone age thinking the Republicans cannot get around...

I do not think that Republicans really want to repeal Roe vs Wade. They have been pro life for many decades, but have made no real attempt to repeal it and probably never will. The legislation that Paul Ryan has voted for is only against taxpayer funded abortions, not privately funded ones.

I do think that they most Republicans are against gay marriage, but so are most American people. Every time they have been allowed to vote one way or another, they have voted against it. They would support domestic partnerships with the same legal rights as marriage, but gay marriage would open the door to legalizing Polygamy and polyamorous marriages and other alternate marriages that most Americans object to.

Of course the republicans want to repeal Roe vs. Wade. That's why republican presidents pick supreme court judges likely to vote that way in future.

As far as same sex marriage equality, actually recent polls have shown that a slim majority of Americans favor that, with a much larger percentage of younger people feeling that way. Among REPUBLICANS, yes the vast majority of republicans are against same sex marriage equality. The republicans over the years have politically exploited their anti-gay civil rights stance (not ONLY about marriage!) as a wedge issue to fire up their base, especially the radical right wing Christian evangelicals.

The graph in this link explains what I am talking about, national support now for same sex marriage civil rights, but MASSIVE republican opposition sadly remains.

http://www.washingto...sLSNX_blog.html

As far as republicans being OK with federal civil unions with EXACTLY the same rights as marriage, I honestly don't believe that for a second. In my opinion, most would not want gay spouses collecting social security survivor benefits and having immigration rights either.

Yes it is true IN THE PAST, no STATE marriage approval has won a state popular vote. Most notoriously, in North Carolina, a bible belt state of course, they recently voted to not only reject same sex marriage but recognition of ANY kind of same sex civil unions as well. Despicably discriminatory.

As far as the present and future, very soon it is HIGHLY LIKELY that popular votes in the states of Maine and Maryland will indeed be the first in U.S. history to approve of STATE same sex marriage by popular vote.

State same sex marriage is a stepping stone as it does not include FEDERAL recognition which would impact taxation, social security, and immigration.

As far as people being against same sex marriage because they don't want to open up other kinds of marriages, that's a really cheap argument. IF there are other groups that want to seek marriage rights, let them come forward and work for many DECADES now as the gay civil rights movement has, and make THEIR cases to the American people and legal system. It is horribly unfair to dump on gay Americans based on this imaginary and largely NONEXISTENT red herring fear.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

If Romney wins, I can see Ryan as a shoo in for the next president. He is very impressive. The only thing I didn't like about him is that he's another man that wants to send women to back street abortionists, which is what would happen if his anti abortion stance became reality. I really wish male politicians would stop opening their mouths on that subject.

[thaibeachlovers]

@Maidu - I suspect you are right especially on social issues. Repealing Roe v. Wade and abortion, out of touch thinking on gay marriage, etc.. Stone age thinking the Republicans cannot get around...

I do not think that Republicans really want to repeal Roe vs Wade. They have been pro life for many decades, but have made no real attempt to repeal it and probably never will. The legislation that Paul Ryan has voted for is only against taxpayer funded abortions, not privately funded ones.

I do think that they most Republicans are against gay marriage, but so are most American people. Every time they have been allowed to vote one way or another, they have voted against it. They would support domestic partnerships with the same legal rights as marriage, but gay marriage would open the door to legalizing Polygamy and polyamorous marriages and other alternate marriages that most Americans object to.

Of course the republicans want to repeal Roe vs. Wade. That's why republican presidents pick supreme court judges likely to vote that way in future.

As far as same sex marriage equality, actually recent polls have shown that a slim majority of Americans favor that, with a much larger percentage of younger people feeling that way. Among REPUBLICANS, yes the vast majority of republicans are against same sex marriage equality. The republicans over the years have politically exploited their anti-gay civil rights stance (not ONLY about marriage!) as a wedge issue to fire up their base, especially the radical right wing Christian evangelicals.

As far as republicans being OK with federal civil unions with EXACTLY the same rights as marriage, I honestly don't believe that for a second. In my opinion, most would not want gay spouses collecting social security survivor benefits and having immigration rights either.

Yes it is true IN THE PAST, no STATE marriage approval has won a state popular vote. Most notoriously, in North Carolina, a bible belt state of course, they recently voted to not only reject same sex marriage but recognition of ANY kind of same sex civil unions as well. Despicably discriminatory.

As far as the present and future, very soon it is HIGHLY LIKELY that popular votes in the states of Maine and Maryland will indeed be the first in U.S. history to approve of STATE same sex marriage by popular vote.

State same sex marriage is a stepping stone as it does not include FEDERAL recognition which would impact taxation, social security, and immigration.

As far as people being against same sex marriage because they don't want to open up other kinds of marriages, that's a really cheap argument. IF there are other groups that want to seek marriage rights, let them come forward and work for many DECADES now as the gay civil rights movement has, and make THEIR cases to the American people and legal system. It is horribly unfair to dump on gay Americans based on this imaginary and largely NONEXISTENT red herring fear.

I don't get why homosexual people want to get married. Non homosexuals are trying to get out of marriages in their millions, so what's the big deal anyway?

[keemapoot]

@JT, I agree most arguments against gay unions and even marriage are specious. There does remain one big problem area legally, and that is in family inheritance and intestate succession law. The great body of state and federal codified law, together with this massive common law body of superior, appellate, and Supreme Court decisions we have in the US (and UK for that matter), really does get thrown into fits trying to deal with this new "category" of marriage. That will be a huge challenge.

However, the real issue with Republicans, is that they morally condemn gay behavior and therefore any discussion of equality falls on deaf ears...

[Jingthing]

@JT, I agree most arguments against gay unions and even marriage are specious. There does remain one big problem area legally, and that is in family inheritance and intestate succession law. The great body of state and federal codified law, together with this massive common law body of superior, appellate, and Supreme Court decisions we have in the US (and UK for that matter), really does get thrown into fits trying to deal with this new "category" of marriage. That will be a huge challenge.

However, the real issue with Republicans, is that they morally condemn gay behavior and therefore any discussion of equality falls on deaf ears...

I am not aware of any problem at all if discrimination against same sex marriage is deemed unconstitutional at the supreme court, then ALL states will be compelled to offer MARRIAGE period with no restriction based on same sex, the SAME law for hetero and homo couples. Not two classes of marriage. The problems you speak of come into play with a second category of marriage. The American gay civil rights movement is largely against any so called separate but equal solutions, they indeed open up a huge can of legal complexity nightmares (especially in a country with 50 unique state marriage codes), and many consider them actually against core cultural American values of EQUAL civil rights. The historical model for the gay civil rights movement is the African American civil rights movement. Separate but equal was not acceptable for African Americans and most gay Americans feel it is not acceptable for gay Americans. That said, it is not as if anyone has actually offered gay Americans a national separate but equal option. Edited October 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I don't get why homosexual people want to get married. Non homosexuals are trying to get out of marriages in their millions, so what's the big deal anyway?

Choice and equality. Very important in such matters of social security and immigration. Marriage isn't REQUIRED for anyone.

[thaibeachlovers]

Again, the reason Biden won and won BIG is that he helped his president massively more than Ryan helped his wanna be president. That is always the job of VP's in these VP debates.

Again, the reason Biden won and won BIG is that he helped his president massively more than Ryan helped his wanna be president. That is always the job of VP's in these VP debates.

What debate were you watching? In the one I saw, it was at most a draw.

Given Biden's years in office he SHOULD have beaten Ryan well and truly.

I wish Ryan had taken him up on his statement that they didn't know the ambassador had asked for military assistance, given that the hearing in Congress had heard just the day before that the ambassador had asked for more security and been refused. Hopefully Romney will use Benghazigate to destroy Obama in the foreign policy debate.

Up to me, I'd have sent Biden to the naughty step for being irritating at best and rude at worst.

[Jingthing]

Benghazigate is hardly worthy of a gate.

Truly a case of gate inflation.

What's next?

Bidensmilegate?

or how about

Romneydoubleespressogate?

Because inquiring minds want to know how Romney could have been so seemingly unnaturally STIMULATED during debate 1.

What Biden did, honestly, was COVER for the failures of Obama in debate one to call out the blatant lies of the republican side. He succeeded indeed and now the stage is excellently set for presidential debate 2.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

I don't get why homosexual people want to get married. Non homosexuals are trying to get out of marriages in their millions, so what's the big deal anyway?

Choice and equality. Very important in such matters of social security and immigration. Marriage isn't REQUIRED for anyone.

If homosexuals think it's so important to get what non homosexuals are rejecting in their millions ( most people I know back home are divorced ) , they should work to elect politicians that support their cause. If they can't do that, it's because most people have more important things to worry about, like how to pay the mortgage, buy food etc.

While homosexuals may think it's important, to the vast majority, it's a non issue.

[Jingthing]

I don't get why homosexual people want to get married. Non homosexuals are trying to get out of marriages in their millions, so what's the big deal anyway?

Choice and equality. Very important in such matters of social security and immigration. Marriage isn't REQUIRED for anyone.

If homosexuals think it's so important to get what non homosexuals are rejecting in their millions ( most people I know back home are divorced ) , they should work to elect politicians that support their cause. If they can't do that, it's because most people have more important things to worry about, like how to pay the mortgage, buy food etc.

While homosexuals may think it's important, to the vast majority, it's a non issue.

We're doing that. It takes time. Did you notice President Obama? The hope is he can get some key supreme court picks for his second term as it is generally understood this issue is eventually going to settled at the supreme court level, just as previous bans on INTERRACIAL marriages were settled there. Do you think discrimination against an entire class of fellow citizens makes it easier for people to pay the mortgage? Governments can do MULTIPLE (and unrelated) things quite easily. Edited October 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

Benghazigate is hardly worthy of a gate.

Truly a case of gate inflation.

What's next?

Bidensmilegate?

or how about

Romneycoffeegate?

Because inquiring minds want to know how Romney could have been so seemingly unnaturally STIMULATED during debate 1?

What Biden did, honestly, was COVER for the failures of Obama in debate one to call out the blatant lies of the republican side. He succeeded indeed and now the stage is excellently set for presidential debate 2.

Again, you must have been watching a different debate from the one I saw.

<blatant lies of the republican side> Do tell.

What is telling the world that Benghazi was caused by a VDO when you know it was a preplanned terrorist attack if it's not a lie?

I notice that Hillary has run for cover, as she doesn't want to get tainted by it, when she runs for pres next time.

[Jingthing]

I'm sure people who watch Fox News are very fired up about this Libyan thing. However, like most, I think this election is going to be decided on economic matters.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[chiangmaikelly]

Benghazigate is hardly worthy of a gate.

Truly a case of gate inflation.

What's next?

Bidensmilegate?

or how about

Romneycoffeegate?

Because inquiring minds want to know how Romney could have been so seemingly unnaturally STIMULATED during debate 1?

What Biden did, honestly, was COVER for the failures of Obama in debate one to call out the blatant lies of the republican side. He succeeded indeed and now the stage is excellently set for presidential debate 2.

Again, you must have been watching a different debate from the one I saw.

<blatant lies of the republican side> Do tell.

What is telling the world that Benghazi was caused by a VDO when you know it was a preplanned terrorist attack if it's not a lie?

I notice that Hillary has run for cover, as she doesn't want to get tainted by it, when she runs for pres next time.

[thaibeachlovers]

I don't get why homosexual people want to get married. Non homosexuals are trying to get out of marriages in their millions, so what's the big deal anyway?

Choice and equality. Very important in such matters of social security and immigration. Marriage isn't REQUIRED for anyone.

If homosexuals think it's so important to get what non homosexuals are rejecting in their millions ( most people I know back home are divorced ) , they should work to elect politicians that support their cause. If they can't do that, it's because most people have more important things to worry about, like how to pay the mortgage, buy food etc.

While homosexuals may think it's important, to the vast majority, it's a non issue.

We're doing that. It takes time. Did you notice President Obama? The hope is he can get some key supreme court picks for his second term. Do you think discrimination against an entire class of fellow citizens makes it easier for people to pay the mortgage? Governments can do MULTIPLE (and unrelated) things quite easily.

Sorry, but most people in the US don't want homosexual marriage- Christians, Muslims and persons of every faith reject it for a start. The majority of black people don't want it. I don't know about Hispanics, but as they are mainly Christian, I doubt it.

That's why it can't get passed.

Personally I couldn't care less, as I think marriage is unnecessary, but I wish the chattering class would stop bleating on about it.

[Scott]

Any attempt to turn this thread into a gay marriage thread will result in a ban. There are other forums more appropriate to such a discussion.