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

[koheesti]

The thing about Biden and his ocassional kind facial expression during the debate: Republicans are and will be scurrying after each debate to quickly find whatever issue they can attack. Then they will rail and rail on that one point, hoping it will define the entire debate in the public's view. With the 1st presidential debate, it was Obama's seemingly nonchalant non-intense demeanor (Republicans caricturized it more scathingly). With the VP debate, it was Biden's smile (again, R's characterized it scathingly).

...

Still, Republicans are quite smart in attacking facial expressions of their debate opponents, as that will be more effective (to remaining undecideds or waffling members of their own party) than attacking opponents for their ideas and policies.

I don't know why you are making this out to be a Republican obsession when EVERYBODY does it. I don't think you have forgotten that Nixon's close loss to Kennedy in 1960 was attributed to how he looked during the televised debate (nervous and sweating)

Obama was criticized by all parties and independents for his debate performance. It wasn't Republicans writing articles saying Obama looked like he didn't want to be there.

The reason you haven't seen the Republicans attacked for how they looked during the debates is because - and I'm not being partisan here - Romney and Ryan were just better. Romney looked confident to Obama's confused. Ryan looked serious and businesslike to Biden's tipsy and rude interrupting. On CNN after the VP debate, even a former far left adviser for Obama, Van Jones, said that Ryan looked presidential.

There are two more debates coming up. It is possible that Romney won't be on his game for both. If he isn't you can certainly expect the Dems to point out how he looked.

[Chicog]

Well I was watching CBS this morning and they were quick to point out that Romney would probably be quite at ease in the Town Hall setting, since he's used this throughout his campaign, more so than Obama.

[koheesti]

I would seriously consider voting for her in 2016 unless Romney wins and does really well in the next 4 years. I admit that things do not look good for Europe and the USA, but they do not look good for China either and sometimes miracles do happen.

As I've said many times, I was very anti-Hillary until Obama came along and made her look centrist. Now she is more palatable as a candidate to me. What I like about Hillary is that - unlike Obama - she has paid her dues. She was a First Lady, which means pretty much nothing not being an elected post. At least she was in the thick of things for 8 years, learning like an unpaid intern. OK, poor choice of words there. Anyway, she followed that by being a Senator for about a decade before being a Secretary of State, biting her tongue while having to follow the Obama agenda is to her credit. I could see her as President. Would I vote for her in 2016 if Romney has been president for 4 years and the economic recovery is strong? Probably not.

[Ulysses G.]

Well I was watching CBS this morning and they were quick to point out that Romney would probably be quite at ease in the Town Hall setting, since he's used this throughout his campaign, more so than Obama.

Both of them are quite comfortable in that type of debate and apparently it is quite difficult to attack each other effectively in that setting. Obama will be trying to look more aggressive and Romney will have his own strategy. If nothing else, it should be interesting.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Really, the bar is not that high for Obama in debate 2. What he DOES need to do, and I mean really needs, is to correct Romney when Romney tells blatant lies, such as when he said his "replace Obamacare" fantasy covers people with preexisting conditions when his campaign position, stated quite clearly, is that he does no such thing EXCEPT for people with EXISTING insurance. Also Romney's taxation lies. Obama needs to make it very clear that since Romney has not ruled out popular deductions like HOME MORTGAGE interest and refused to get specific about ANYTHING, that voters must consider the real possibility Romney may indeed go after them and other popular deductions as well. Nobody expects or wants him to be like Fighting Joe. They just expect him to be PRESENT! I do think he needs to copy a key thing Biden did. He should repeat the idea ... who do you trust to protect social security, medicare, health care access for the poor, etc. the DEMOCRATS who are all about that, or the republicans who are about trashing those programs and calling them socialism. Since there is no way Romney will get specific, this trust thing is going to be important.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

I wonder if Romney will point out the vice president's two biggest fibs. He claimed in the debate that the administration did not know that the Libya attack was a terrorist incident - even though intelligence officers had testified that it was before Congress and that they knew it the within 24 hours - and he also suggested that Ryan was a war monger for voting for two big wars when he voted for them too - which he denied on camera. The press is having a field day with both false statements.

[Jingthing]

No, neither candidate will refer directly to the vice presidential debate. That's a never do.

[Chicog]

I wonder if Romney will point out the vice president's two biggest fibs. He claimed in the debate that the administration did not know that the Libya attack was a terrorist incident - even though intelligence officers had testified that it was before Congress and that they knew it the within 24 hours - and he also suggested that Ryan was a war monger for voting for two big wars when he voted for them too - which he denied on camera. The press is having a field day with both false statements.

CBS and Sky (Fox UK!) aren't. That's old news. They did have a bit of a do (overdone in my opinion) about what "We" meant - extremely petty and rather pointless I thought. But they have appeared to realise that it sounds petty even bothering to discuss it.

[Jingthing]

This is interesting. Who do you reckon GLOBAL non-U.S. "voters" prefer in the U.S. presidential election? Well, no surprise, Obama by a 75 percent landslide according to an unscientific Economist magazine online vote.

Do you global people CARE about the U.S. election and should they care?

I do think so.

The Economist's "Global vote" allows everyone on the planet to cast a ballot for the next leader of the free world. After all, who becomes the American president has global implications: isn't letting only Americans vote a tad parochial? So far, three-fourths of Economist.com readers prefer Mr Obama.

http://www.economist...ing-us-election

The Economist also seems to be kind of/sort of predicting an Obama victory:

The overall trend lines looks closer to the performance of those who won re-election.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

What he DOES need to do, and I mean really needs, is to correct Romney when Romney tells blatant lies, such as when he said his "replace Obamacare" fantasy covers people with preexisting conditions when his campaign position, stated quite clearly, is that he does no such thing EXCEPT for people with EXISTING insurance.

That is not a "blatant lie". His plan covers preexisting conditions for people who keep continuous coverage, but have to drop out of the system for a few months or switch insurance companies for some reason. It does not cover preexisting conditions for people who wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance coverage. He feels that the Obamacare approach will unravel over time, as its web of mandates, regulations, and subsidies drives the cost of insurance skyward. He thinks that there are ways to make insurance much more affordable, but without destroying the system. As for the uninsured, Romney wrote: "We will provide support for low-income Americans and those uninsured persons whose preexisting conditions push the cost of coverage too high for them to pay themselves."

Personally, I am all for free healthcare if the country can afford it, but as we are well on our way to going broke, I am very skeptical about it.

[Ulysses G.]

I wonder if Romney will point out the vice president's two biggest fibs. He claimed in the debate that the administration did not know that the Libya attack was a terrorist incident - even though intelligence officers had testified that it was before Congress and that they knew it the within 24 hours - and he also suggested that Ryan was a war monger for voting for two big wars when he voted for them too - which he denied on camera. The press is having a field day with both false statements.

CBS and Sky (Fox UK!) aren't. That's old news.

How can it be "old news" when he just said it on Friday?

[GiHadOrange]

I wonder if Romney will point out the vice president's two biggest fibs. He claimed in the debate that the administration did not know that the Libya attack was a terrorist incident - even though intelligence officers had testified that it was before Congress and that they knew it the within 24 hours - and he also suggested that Ryan was a war monger for voting for two big wars when he voted for them too - which he denied on camera. The press is having a field day with both false statements.

I don't like war mongers, but if there is only a choice between a honest straightforward war monger and someone who lies about it and tries disguise it- i would prefer the former and totally despise the latter.

[maidu]

I wish one or both of the 3rd party candidates were invited to debate. Neither are beholden to the very rich (as Romny is) or the majority of Americans who are getting federal money, much of it in the form of handouts from dubious claims (as both candidates are). The 3rd party candidates aren't in the pockets of pacs and corporate sponsors and special interest groups.

Recently, the chemical industry (Dow and all the rest) found out there is a federal report coming out which informs the public that formaldehyde is toxic. Those of us who have been abreast of such things, have known that for decades. Yet, the majority of the US public probably doesn't know. So the chemi-heavies are doing all they can to block the report from being published. Guess which side Romney and Ryan would take? My guess is they would side with big chemical corporations.

Romney was recently asked if he knew what industrial hemp was.He repeated the question (so he understood the words) but he smiled and claimed he hadn't a clue what it was, then turned away. A man who doesn't know things that 95% of Americans know is doing one of two things. He's either being coy, and avoiding the issue, or he honestly doesn't know what hemp is, and that's scary. That's like saying you don't know what a windshield is, or parsley. Is he that out of touch?

[Ulysses G.]

A man who doesn't know things that 95% of Americans know is doing one of two things. He's either being coy, and avoiding the issue, or he honestly doesn't know what hemp is,

I doubt if most people know what "industrial hemp" is - although most of us former druggies could probably give a fairly close guess.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[GiHadOrange]

I wish one or both of the 3rd party candidates were invited to debate. Neither are beholden to the very rich (as Romny is) or the majority of Americans who are getting federal money, much of it in the form of handouts from dubious claims (as both candidates are). The 3rd party candidates aren't in the pockets of pacs and corporate sponsors and special interest groups.

Recently, the chemical industry (Dow and all the rest) found out there is a federal report coming out which informs the public that formaldehyde is toxic. Those of us who have been abreast of such things, have known that for decades. Yet, the majority of the US public probably doesn't know. So the chemi-heavies are doing all they can to block the report from being published. Guess which side Romney and Ryan would take? My guess is they would side with big chemical corporations.

Romney was recently asked if he knew what industrial hemp was.He repeated the question (so he understood the words) but he smiled and claimed he hadn't a clue what it was, then turned away. A man who doesn't know things that 95% of Americans know is doing one of two things. He's either being coy, and avoiding the issue, or he honestly doesn't know what hemp is, and that's scary. That's like saying you don't know what a windshield is, or parsley. Is he that out of touch?

Are you are telling us that people like Ryan and alikes are part of a conspiracy that don't let the Americans know that formaldehyde is toxic and probably carcinogen?

[koheesti]

This is interesting. Who do you reckon GLOBAL non-U.S. "voters" prefer in the U.S. presidential election? Well, no surprise, Obama by a 75 percent landslide according to an unscientific Economist magazine online vote.

Do you global people CARE about the U.S. election and should they care?

I do think so.

Globally people want a weaker America. Both economically and militarily so it makes perfect sense that they want Obama to continue on as President. Obama is getting large chunks of campaign contributions from foreigners too, which I believe is illegal. No matter, if caught Obama will just issue an executive order making them legal this year.

[koheesti]

Recently, the chemical industry (Dow and all the rest) found out there is a federal report coming out which informs the public that formaldehyde is toxic. Those of us who have been abreast of such things, have known that for decades. Yet, the majority of the US public probably doesn't know.

Anyone who has ever had an 8th grade science class in the USA knows what formaldehyde is...and it isn't a perfume.

Edited October 14, 2012 by koheesti

[uptheos]

Obama will be trying to look more aggressive

.............than Candy Crowley?

[chiangmaikelly]

Recently, the chemical industry (Dow and all the rest) found out there is a federal report coming out which informs the public that formaldehyde is toxic. Those of us who have been abreast of such things, have known that for decades. Yet, the majority of the US public probably doesn't know.

Anyone who has ever had an 8th grade science class in the USA knows what formaldehyde is...and it isn't a perfume.

I thought it was a Thai beer additive.

[Jingthing]

What he DOES need to do, and I mean really needs, is to correct Romney when Romney tells blatant lies, such as when he said his "replace Obamacare" fantasy covers people with preexisting conditions when his campaign position, stated quite clearly, is that he does no such thing EXCEPT for people with EXISTING insurance.

That is not a "blatant lie". His plan covers preexisting conditions for people who keep continuous coverage, but have to drop out of the system for a few months or switch insurance companies for some reason. It does not cover preexisting conditions for people who wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance coverage. He feels that the Obamacare approach will unravel over time, as its web of mandates, regulations, and subsidies drives the cost of insurance skyward. He thinks that there are ways to make insurance much more affordable, but without destroying the system. As for the uninsured, Romney wrote: "We will provide support for low-income Americans and those uninsured persons whose preexisting conditions push the cost of coverage too high for them to pay themselves."

Personally, I am all for free healthcare if the country can afford it, but as we are well on our way to going broke, I am very skeptical about it.

OK, this is a semantics game then.

Romney knows that the REAL access for preexisting conditions for ALL Americans is the most massively popular "chunk" of Obamacare. He wants to be appear more humane. Continuous coverage for such conditions for those ALREADY insured is ALREADY part of U.S. law before Obamacare under the COBRA system. He lied in the sense in that he was blatantly trying to fool low information voters that he was keeping this massively popular part of Obamacare (access for ALL not only continuous coverage) when he is clearly on the record as being for trashing that. Yes Obama did a bad job calling him on this important lie. I trust that won't happen again.

http://www.nytimes.c...-sick-joke.html

How many Americans would be left out in the cold under Mr. Romney’s plan? One answer is 89 million. According to the nonpartisan Commonwealth Foundation, that’s the number of Americans who lack the “continuous coverage” that would make them eligible for health insurance under Mr. Romney’s empty promises. By the way, that’s more than a third of the U.S. population under 65 years old.

BTW, Obamacare as all should already know quite well is not is not socialized medicine, is not single payer. It is based on MANDATES paid by all except the poor (and Medicare age etc.), so that all are in the system. A massive windfall for PRIVATE CAPITALIST for profit insurance companies inspired directly by ROMNEYCARE and his famous program in Massachusetts. It's not a bad conservative idea for what it is though single payer as in CANADA is much, much better as the COSTS can be controlled much better with single payer. Now the right wing party is so far right even the conservative idea of personal responsibility with mandates is demonized as a government takeover.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Recently, the chemical industry (Dow and all the rest) found out there is a federal report coming out which informs the public that formaldehyde is toxic. Those of us who have been abreast of such things, have known that for decades. Yet, the majority of the US public probably doesn't know.

Anyone who has ever had an 8th grade science class in the USA knows what formaldehyde is...and it isn't a perfume.

I thought it was a Thai beer additive.

I heard it is the reason Sang Som can't be exported?

[koheesti]

Obama crams for debate

AFP -

President Barack Obama headed to a Virginia hotel for debate camp Saturday on a mission to transform his re-election pitch after his tame first clash with Mitt Romney hammered his poll ratings.

Obama planned four days of cramming at the resort at the historic colonial city of Williamsburg, ahead of Tuesday's crucial second debate against his Republican opponent with the November 6 election on a knife edge.

http://www.france24.com/en/20121013-obama-crams-debate-romney-claims-momentum

Four days of intense studying? Sorry, but shouldn't the President of the United States already know this stuff and have no need of "cramming" for the debate?

[Jingthing]

His job is president, not debate team champion.

[koheesti]

His job is president, not debate team champion.

Right, and as President, he doesn't need to study up on what is going on. He has lived it day in and day for nearly four years. Sadly, he hasn't attended many security meetings and has set records for rounds of golf played. He needs to study not because he isn't "debate team champion" but because he doesn't know what's going on.

[Jingthing]

He's studying how to deal with slippery Romney, in regards to his extreme chameleon and deception characteristics. Obviously.

I get the meme you are selling, that Obama is incompetent. The voters will decide.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[TruthEyes]

I'm hoping that Obama has a good showing in this debate because I think having him in the Whitehouse is keeping the thai army at bay.

[Jingthing]

I'm hoping that Obama has a good showing in this debate because I think having him in the Whitehouse is keeping the thai army at bay.

How would the Thai army react to a Romney administration?

[TruthEyes]

I'm hoping that Obama has a good showing in this debate because I think having him in the Whitehouse is keeping the thai army at bay.

How would the Thai army react to a Romney administration?

Well, the thai generals have seen Yingluk have a few meets with Hilary Clinton, so have become wary of that relationship.

A new administration?, thats it, who knows, so for me better to keep the status quo.

[keemapoot]

I'm hoping that Obama has a good showing in this debate because I think having him in the Whitehouse is keeping the thai army at bay.

How would the Thai army react to a Romney administration?

Well, the thai generals have seen Yingluk have a few meets with Hilary Clinton, so have become wary of that relationship.

A new administration?, thats it, who knows, so for me better to keep the status quo.

It's an interesting local angle, but probably a largely irrelevant one. The Thai-US relationship endures and always has, (save a small thing called WWII) through every administration. A little known fact is the extremely deep relationship between George H. W. Bush and one of Thailand's richest industrialists, which had some more interesting elements that endure to this day. But, the Thai-US relationship will remain strong, especially as a counterbalance to China influence, and especially with regard to Burma.

Edited October 14, 2012 by keemapoot

[Ulysses G.]

What he DOES need to do, and I mean really needs, is to correct Romney when Romney tells blatant lies, such as when he said his "replace Obamacare" fantasy covers people with preexisting conditions when his campaign position, stated quite clearly, is that he does no such thing EXCEPT for people with EXISTING insurance.

That is not a "blatant lie". His plan covers preexisting conditions for people who keep continuous coverage, but have to drop out of the system for a few months or switch insurance companies for some reason. It does not cover preexisting conditions for people who wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance coverage. He feels that the Obamacare approach will unravel over time, as its web of mandates, regulations, and subsidies drives the cost of insurance skyward. He thinks that there are ways to make insurance much more affordable, but without destroying the system. As for the uninsured, Romney wrote: "We will provide support for low-income Americans and those uninsured persons whose preexisting conditions push the cost of coverage too high for them to pay themselves."

Personally, I am all for free healthcare if the country can afford it, but as we are well on our way to going broke, I am very skeptical about it.

OK, this is a semantics game then.

It is not semantics. It is a different plan that you do not agree with and is not the same as the very unpopular Obamacare. Therefore it is not a "blatant lie".

Edited October 14, 2012 by Ulysses G.