General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

[Tom B.]

Elsewhere, the phrase "binders full of women" is apparently trending like hotcakes now.

[OldPhiKap]

No offense, but that's kind of silly. You think the President of the United States was there giving a speech in the Rose Garden about terror in general? Really??? Read the whole transcript--it wasn't a general update on the progress of the war on terror...it was about the attacks that had just happened. I don't think there's much room to argue on this, which is why I'm so puzzled why Romney decided to make this the place to push for specificity.

Just a bizarre moment for Romney, and one that I don't think will play out in the media as a tie. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I just don't see that point as a wash.

This is a FoxNews meme that probably does not resonate beyond the base. Bad plan of attack.

Getting lots of tweets and Facebook comments on Romney's "binderfull of women" comment. It totally bypassed me but obviously hit a few folks as odd.


Edit to add: Tom and I must have the same twitterverse if that is a word.

[YmoBeThere]

Why does it matter when it is declared terrorism? Would it have changed what we did? Does it really matter what he said in the speech? Personally, I like the fact Obama waited a bit because I think he has been too quick to judge such as the Henry Gates Louis case when he spoke without knowing all the facts.

I think that the issue raised is more one of trying to push a "perceived" cause to the event. And one that had nothing to do with. Like many issues, they(those in DC) are dancing around the heart of the matter, IMHO. From the State Department transcript, the understanding that the event was reasonably well planned and thus suggesting a it was a terrorist attack seems fairly obvious.

As usual, it isn't the lie that becomes the issue, but the cover up.

[Dukeface88]

Libya, immigration, whatever, this year and right now, we have to get America working again and this is Issue #1. And forget any moderator's influence! We all tend to focus on the ump or the referee waaay too much in competitive contests in general: the bottom-line always goes back to the points up on the scoreboard. I really did appreciate this debate tonight because both were really competitive.

Dth

Virtually the entire last debate was about jobs, and both candidates brought up jobs in this one whenever it was even slightly on topic. The economy may be the most important to issue to undecideds, but that doesn't make it the only important issue.

[dukestheheat]

Virtually the entire last debate was about jobs, and both candidates brought up jobs in this one whenever it was even slightly on topic. The economy may be the most important to issue to undecideds, but that doesn't make it the only important issue.

...but right now, among other important issues, it's clearly Issue #1. Again I do agree with you that it isn't the only important issue!

Dth

[El_Diablo]

CNN poll of viewers: Who won?

Obama - 46%
Romney - 39%

Note: this was with a pro-Republican viewership on average (about 8% more Republicans than previous CNN polls have averaged).

[El_Diablo]

CBS poll: Who won?

Obama - 37%
Romney - 30%

Note: this one was a poll of "uncommitted voters."

[sporthenry]

Again, I thought the debate was fairly good and touched on a lot of issues. I know the economy is the biggest issue but I don't think Americans have that much faith in either guy to jump start the economy so the other issues become bigger.

I also think it is amazing that out of 3 debates, the biggest things will be Big Bird, Mularkey, and Binders of Women. I didn't even pick up on Romney saying it and now, it will be Facebook fodder and become the talking point for most people who want to simplify the debate and complain about their self-efficacy.

It just seems hypocritical to me that so many Americans hate getting into political discourse and make light of the debates, yet complain about what happens in Washington.

[rthomas]

over 135K 'like' the Binders Full of Women facebook page. That was quick.

[Mal]

Agreed that the moderator is going to be attacked, with some justification, for being pro-dem.

When Candy Crowley, Candy Crowley!, is being criticized for being favoritist toward the Democrat, you can be quite sure the Democrat did better. She's the epitome of inside the Beltway corporatist horserace Villager conventional wisdom. She works for the same network on which Wolf Blitzer just described said network's snap poll, which had a R+8 sampling and showed the President "winning" the debate by 7 points, as indicating the debate was a toss-up.

Since our politics are all obsessed with optics, I think it's worth noting that, as far as I could tell, all the big "moments" of the debate tonight were owned by the President. Romney was shut down by the moderator for trying to talking over her and bully his way into extra talking time, he was live fact-checked, and he spawned a billion twitter entries with the "binders of women" thing. Obama had his strongest moment in months with his restrained indignation over the Libya issue (which I think Republicans thought was going to be a nice bludgeon for Romney but he stumbled over it), and the President snuck in a 47% comment at the last minute when Romney couldn't refute it.

The CW here will be a xwin for the President. Whether it's seen (or portrayed) as either (a) as big of a win as Romney had two weeks ago, or (b) as important as Romney's win two weeks ago, I guess we'll have to wait and see. Mu guess, for what it's worth, is that tonight stopped the bleeding for the President, will reverse the polls by the end of the week by a point or so, and we'll be somewhere between where we were two days ago and where we were two and a half weeks ago; solid lead, not huge or insurmountable, but not razor thin or edge to Romney, either.

[tommy]

My guess, for what it's worth, is that tonight stopped the bleeding for the President, will reverse the polls by the end of the week by a point or so, and we'll be somewhere between where we were two days ago and where we were two and a half weeks ago; solid lead, not huge or insurmountable, but not razor thin or edge to Romney, either.

I agree with this. I thought coming in that all Obama needed to do was be assertive and aggressive and battle Romney to a draw, and a fair amount of folks would move back into his column. I think he accomplished that, and who knows, maybe a little more. But Romney did have another strong performance as well, and I think there are many, many fewer people than there were two weeks ago who view a President Romney as implausible or unthinkable.

One thing that really struck me, and I perceived it negatively for the President, was that Romney still seemed to dominate the stage. When Romney interrupted Obama, the President often let him do it. When Obama tried to interrupt Romney, Romney continued to talk right over him, and the President gave up. Early on in the debate, it seemed that there was even a physicality to Romney's control of things, where he was walking where he wanted and the President was almost shooed back to his stool, to retreat, and to not speak until spoken to. I didn't see the physicality of Romney later on, but I did notice it early, and my perception was that the President shrunk a bit from it. While some may have either not perceived that at all, or if they did, thought it was overaggressiveness or even bullying from Romney, I'm sure there are at least some in the Obama camp who would've liked the President to point his finger at Romney and say something like, "Stop interrupting. You've had your turn. Not only didn't you answer the question, but you weren't straight with the American people. It's my turn now. It'll be your turn to respond when I'm done." And make Romney slink back to his stool with his tail between his legs. Obama never did that. I just don't think he has it in him to do that kind of thing.

I do think Obama missed a great opportunity, too, on the question about how Romney is going to pay for the 20% tax cut and what loopholes and deductions he's going to remove. The question was pretty specific -- what will be the fate of the mortgage interest deduction and a few others. Romney gave no specific answers as to either the three deductions which the questioner asked about, or any others. It was a great chance, in rebuttal when Romney wouldn't get a chance to speak again on the question, for Obama to say something like, "Your question, sir, was about those specific deductions. Or about any specific deductions he's going to remove in order to pay for his 20% tax cut. Did you hear any? I didn't. Gov. Romney refuses to provide any specifics on this critical point, because he knows he can't really remove the mortgage interest deduction or the others you mentioned, and without removing them, he can't pay for his tax cut. The deficit will balloon. He's never been specific, and he never will be, because the numbers don't add up and he doesn't want to admit it."

[bluebutton]

No offense, but that's kind of silly. You think the President of the United States was there giving a speech in the Rose Garden about terror in general? Really??? Read the whole transcript--it wasn't a general update on the progress of the war on terror...it was about the attacks that had just happened. I don't think there's much room to argue on this, which is why I'm so puzzled why Romney decided to make this the place to push for specificity.

Just a bizarre moment for Romney, and one that I don't think will play out in the media as a tie. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I just don't see that point as a wash.

If I were to guess why the push for specificity, it's because the media narrative for several weeks after 9/11/12 was that there was a mob outside the Bengazi (sp?) consulate over the American movie trailer and it got out of hand. An American involved with the film was taken in by American authorities in the dark of night with his face obscured by scarves.

Then, recently, ABC reports that there were no riots outside the Libyan consulate (although there were in other countries): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1953057.html And a State department transcript was released saying the state department never thought the movie trailer had anything to do with it: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/201...QQjpX0.twitter

I think the Romney campaign probably wants to highlight the distinction between the first 2 weeks after 9/11/12 and the recent 2 weeks.

[El_Diablo]

If I were to guess why the push for specificity, it's because the media narrative for several weeks after 9/11/12 was that there was a mob outside the Bengazi (sp?) consulate over the American movie trailer and it got out of hand. An American involved with the film was taken in by American authorities in the dark of night with his face obscured by scarves.

Then, recently, ABC reports that there were no riots outside the Libyan consulate (although there were in other countries): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1953057.html And a State department transcript was released saying the state department never thought the movie trailer had anything to do with it: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/201...QQjpX0.twitter

I think the Romney campaign probably wants to highlight the distinction between the first 2 weeks after 9/11/12 and the recent 2 weeks.

Legitimate points, perhaps. But my point is...he didn't push for specificity as to what was going on throughout the administration for two weeks; he latched onto whether Obama actually said "terror" in his Rose Garden speech on 9/12/12. And he kept pushing it and pushing it until the moderator fact-checked him on the spot, and it blew up in his face in front of 50 million Americans. For someone who is being criticized for avoiding specificity on his own major policy proposals, it was just a weird time to focus on something so specific as that and try to hammer it home. Sticking to a larger narrative may have actually scored him some points, but he tried to obtain a hyper-technical "gotcha!" moment instead.

While "binders full of women" is getting the laugh treatment, I feel that the Benghazi exchange is what will endure from this debate more than anything else. And it's not one that is particularly flattering for Romney. IMO.

[AtlBluRew]

I do think Obama missed a great opportunity, too, on the question about how Romney is going to pay for the 20% tax cut and what loopholes and deductions he's going to remove. The question was pretty specific -- what will be the fate of the mortgage interest deduction and a few others. Romney gave no specific answers as to either the three deductions which the questioner asked about, or any others. It was a great chance, in rebuttal when Romney wouldn't get a chance to speak again on the question, for Obama to say something like, "Your question, sir, was about those specific deductions. Or about any specific deductions he's going to remove in order to pay for his 20% tax cut. Did you hear any? I didn't. Gov. Romney refuses to provide any specifics on this critical point, because he knows he can't really remove the mortgage interest deduction or the others you mentioned, and without removing them, he can't pay for his tax cut. The deficit will balloon. He's never been specific, and he never will be, because the numbers don't add up and he doesn't want to admit it."

I thought that Obama missed a huge opportunity in this response too. In his own response, Romney spoke of eliminating the capital gains tax, presumably so middle class folks won't have to pay tax on their savings accounts and investments. In these economic times, I suggest to you that the middle class has little in the way of savings and investments. If the Obama campaign doesn't latch onto this boon to the rich, they are fools. Heck, ALL of Romney's income from recent years is capital gains from savings and investments!

[rthomas]

While "binders full of women" is getting the laugh treatment, I feel that the Benghazi exchange is what will endure from this debate more than anything else. And it's not one that is particularly flattering for Romney. IMO.

The binders thing may be getting laughs but it may resonate more than you think with women. I thought it was funny; my wife however immediately said Romney's answer was condescending and not close to an answer on the issue of equal pay.

The Binders Full of Women Facebook page is up to ~240K this morning.

[Mike Corey]

tumblr_mc0mk3zEOO1rj8amio1_400.jpg

This is funny.

[OldPhiKap]

interesting binder.jpg



clinton binder.jpg

[Lid]

The binders thing may be getting laughs but it may resonate more than you think with women. I thought it was funny; my wife however immediately said Romney's answer was condescending and not close to an answer on the issue of equal pay.

Agreed. The binders comment came across as tone-deaf to working women (many of my Facebook friends are joking about how they have to worry now that they're in the right binders for their careers). It also didn't help his image with women that he answered an equal pay question with a response about how women (not men!) need flexible schedules so they can get home. I'd guess that women were less impressed with his demeanor towards the female moderator, also -- telling her what his interpretation of the rules were, instead of respecting her and allowing her to do her job. It's interesting, because his answers about contraception (that all women should have access) make it clear he had a goal of appealing more to middle-of-the-road women, but his spontaneous answers (and tone) probably didn't accomplish that.

[Tom B.]

tumblr_mc0mk3zEOO1rj8amio1_400.jpg

This is funny.

Yeah, things are getting quite meme-y out there.


tumblr_mc0m38XPkY1rj8amio1_500.jpg

[sporthenry]

I thought that Obama missed a huge opportunity in this response too. In his own response, Romney spoke of eliminating the capital gains tax, presumably so middle class folks won't have to pay tax on their savings accounts and investments. In these economic times, I suggest to you that the middle class has little in the way of savings and investments. If the Obama campaign doesn't latch onto this boon to the rich, they are fools. Heck, ALL of Romney's income from recent years is capital gains from savings and investments!

Yes, Obama probably could have used some numbers on capital gains like half of capital gains realizations are done by .1% of the population, etc. But it is tough when Obama has to run on his own record and Mitt can exactly be pinned down to one idea and this probably caught him off guard. Mitt said the capital gains break would only affect individuals making under $200,000.

If you're getting interest from a bank, if you're getting a statement from a mutual fund or any other kind of investment you have, you don't have to worry about filing taxes on that, because there'll be no taxes for anybody making $200,000.00 per year and less, on your interest, dividends and capital gains. Why am I lowering taxes on the middle-class? Because under the last four years, they've been buried. And I want to help people in the middle-class.

So perhaps this is his way of getting middle class support on the capital gains tax but it is tough being the incumbent in a bad economy because the challenger appears to be moving the goal posts at times.