General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

[Udaman]

And just as an aside...I'm really stunned (though I guess I shouldn't be) that Fox and others from the right are attacking the moderator last night for pointing out that Romney was wrong about the Sept 12th comments. I mean isn't that the moderators job? Shouldn't they push back if they hear someone saying something they know is not factual? I don't get this at all. Fox is literally saying that she should have remained silent and let Romney say what he wanted to say, which would then have been proven wrong later.

I just don't get it.

[Mike Corey]

I tend to agree with the point, generally: moderators are there to moderate; the fact-checking mid-debate is to be done by the participants in the debate.

That Fox News has made that the top story on the site (at least it was) is red meat for the base, since the debate was not.

"When you don't want to have a conversation, change the conversation." - Campaign staffs everywhere.

[davekay1971]

Interesting debate last night, clearly a better performance for Obama and still a good performance for Romney. IMHO, Romney had two wide open opportunities to absolutely kill the POTUS, and missed on both.

1) In discussing gas/oil/coal/clean energy, Obama said, to paraphrase, that gas prices were so low when he took office BECAUSE the economy was on the brink of collapse. To which the econ major in me said "Wha-ha-ha-haaaaay?!" He followed up with the even more eyebrow raising statement that we can get back to those prices again with Romney because Romney's pushing policies that could get us back to the brink of economic collapse. As a partisan watcher, I was praying for Romney to pin the POTUS down on those statements and force him to explain exactly either one of those statements. Romney could have, and should have, jumped all over those statements to make the point that either (1) the POTUS was making a wildly inaccurate connection or (2) the POTUS doesn't understand economy. He did neither. I think Obama was a little bit reeling when he said that and he tried to reach back to a comfort zone of pointing out what a bad state the economy was in in 2008...but saying low gas prices were due to the poor economy was a statement that had no merit and he could have been killed on it if Romney had been quicker.

2) On the Libya question, Romney seriously misstepped in trying to pin Obama down on whether he called it an "act of terror" on September 12. Obama absolutely referred to, at least in general terms, "acts of terror" in that speech. Romney let himself get caught on that and get smacked by the moderator, when the central point he should have made was: "OK, Mr. President, you did say act of terror on September 12, but you also spent the next 2 weeks saying time and time again that there was a spontaneous protest due to the idiotic Youtube video that led to this attack, when intelligence available as early as September 12 clearly indicated there was NO riot or demonstration at the embassy in Benghazi before the attack. So why did you, Secretary Clinton, and Ambassador Rice appear repeatedly on TV for days after the attack asserting the attack was some spurious spontaneous event resulting from this video?" Because the whole problem with the Libya attack really isn't whether or not Obama used the words "acts of terror" on September 12 (he did), but whether the overall message from his administration was to definitively tie the attack to a "spontaneous demonstration" (which never happened) and the Youtube video, when the White House at least SHOULD HAVE had clear information as of September 12 that this was absolutely untrue. The opportunity was there, but the tack Romney took not only missed it, but it ended up backfiring when the moderator intervened.

The 3rd debate should be great. Obama has some chops on foreign policy at this point, but Romney has some places he can and should attack. Romney needs to prove that he will have a strong foreign policy, and Obama needs to convince Americans that he's got a handle on brewing problems in Syria, Iran, and Israel.

[sporthenry]

I tend to agree with the point, generally: moderators are there to moderate; the fact-checking mid-debate is to be done by the participants in the debate.

That Fox News has made that the top story on the site (at least it was) is red meat for the base, since the debate was not.

"When you don't want to have a conversation, change the conversation." - Campaign staffs everywhere.

Call me crazy, but I think we need more fact checking. Candidates can't fact check with the same value b/c then it just gets into a shouting contest and you just take each candidate for what they said. So Romney can say, that his math adds up because hes run businesses and that will somehow make his tax cuts revenue neutral just screamed for fact check. But Obama bringing up $5 trillion did nothing b/c he can just dismiss Obama as rhetoric.

I'd like to see something like Politifact, I guess you'd need a fact checker from both sides, but I think we'd be better served with Power Point presentations with facts/figures, citations, and bi-partisan fact checkers. Perhaps not for all the debates, but it would be nice to see both candidates called out for their lies as Politifact tries to do on twitter.

[davekay1971]

The issue with Crowley's interjection (POV from the right, so I'm trying to explain, not make a partisan argument, I promise):

Obama said that on September 12, he called the attack in Libya an act of terror.
Romney said no you didn't, Obama said yes I did, back and forth, Crowley intervenes with "yes he did"

This is where we get to context and meaning debates. Obama was talking about attacks on America in more general terms and said that America will not back down to acts of terror. He then went on to talk specifically about Benghazi.

So...did he say, "The attack on our embassy last night was an act of terror"? No, he clearly did not. He and other members of the administration then went on for several days afterwards stating the attack occurred as part of a "spontaneous demonstration", or riot in simpler terms, resulting from the Youtube video. Did he say "act of terror" in a speech addressing the attack in Libya? Yes, he absolutely did.

So Crowley wasn't totally accurate in what she said. Obama's speech can be parsed either way - he did refer to acts of terror in a speech addressing the attack, but he did not actually call THAT attack, itself, an act of terror, and later talks from him, from Secretary Clinton, and from Ambassador Rice all explicitly tied the attack to a riot that never occurred. So both Romney and Obama were right...and both were misleading...in that exchange. The POV of those on the right is that Crowley, if she was going to intervene to cut off the "yes I did no you didn't" nonsense, should have either said "OK, move on gentlemen" or "he did say acts of terror in his Rose Garden speech on September 12, Governor, but, Mr. President, you did not specifically call the Benghazi attack an act of terror in that speech."

As in my earlier post, Romney's mistake was putting so much emphasis on what the POTUS said in that speech, when he should have been hitting the POTUS on what he said at the UN days later, what Rice said on the Sunday morning shows days later, etc...

[tommy]

So, not to toot my own horn here...but the same electoral-vote.com site now shows Obama up 277 to 239, with Virginia and Colorado as ties, and Obama barely winning in Wisconsin, Iowa and Nevada. Of course this doesn't reflect anything that happened last night, and I think that will give Obama a slight shift back up in pretty much all of those states. But the first debate absolutely hammered Obama.

In the end, this all likely comes down to Ohio. I still think Obama will win Iowa, Wisconsin and Nevada. If he does that, and wins Ohio, he can't lose. If he loses Ohio, then he must also win Virginia and Colorado. It's going to be tight.

I don't think that's quite right. If he wins Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nevada, that'll put him at 259. I'm not counting NH, which would be another 4. So say that's 259. Even if he loses Ohio, Virginia's 13 EV's would get him to 272 and re-election, even without Colorado. If he wins Colorado (9 EV) but not Virginia, that would get him to 268; then New Hampshire's 4 would re-elect him.

[Mike Corey]

Absolutely agreed that we need more fact-checking, but I do not agree that it should come mid-debate from the moderator.

The "spin zone" does not achieve the goal, of course; that's the media's job after the fact.

The problem, as you surely know, is that facts can always be interpreted more than one way. Hence the spin zone. Hence the need for the moderator to lob the questions and maintain order rather than interjecting everytime the moderator perceives an error that requires remedying.

But I'm with you in spirit.

[Duvall]

Interesting debate last night, clearly a better performance for Obama and still a good performance for Romney. IMHO, Romney had two wide open opportunities to absolutely kill the POTUS, and missed on both.

1) In discussing gas/oil/coal/clean energy, Obama said, to paraphrase, that gas prices were so low when he took office BECAUSE the economy was on the brink of collapse. To which the econ major in me said "Wha-ha-ha-haaaaay?!" He followed up with the even more eyebrow raising statement that we can get back to those prices again with Romney because Romney's pushing policies that could get us back to the brink of economic collapse. As a partisan watcher, I was praying for Romney to pin the POTUS down on those statements and force him to explain exactly either one of those statements. Romney could have, and should have, jumped all over those statements to make the point that either (1) the POTUS was making a wildly inaccurate connection or (2) the POTUS doesn't understand economy. He did neither. I think Obama was a little bit reeling when he said that and he tried to reach back to a comfort zone of pointing out what a bad state the economy was in in 2008...but saying low gas prices were due to the poor economy was a statement that had no merit and he could have been killed on it if Romney had been quicker.

Wait, what? What do you think caused gas prices to collapse in the last six months of 2008 if not the global recession, and the resulting drop in demand for fuel?

[davekay1971]

Wait, what? What do you think caused gas prices to collapse in the last six months of 2008 if not the global recession, and the resulting drop in demand for fuel?

So, was the global demand for fuel at that point in 2008 less than half of what it is now, to explain the fact that gas prices, in the US, are on average slightly over double what they were back then? Because that's what it would take for the economy being "on the verge of collapse" to explain the difference in gas prices in late 2008 versus late 2012, assuming (here's the Prez's problem) that demand is the only significant factor in those price changes.

FWIW: Worldwide oil demand peaked at 86 million barrels per day in 2007 then feel to 85 million barrels per day in 2008 due to the economic slowdown. Along with oil demand, oil supply concerns are identified as a significant player in oil prices. So, getting back to the point, the POTUS's statement, and his follow up that Romney's proposed policies could get us low oil prices by bringing about economic collapse, don't hold water.

http://gaspricesexplained.org/

[Duvall]

So, was the global demand for fuel at that point in 2008 less than half of what it is now, to explain the fact that gas prices, in the US, are on average slightly over double what they were back then? Because that's what it would take for the economy being "on the verge of collapse" to explain the difference in gas prices in late 2008 versus late 2012, assuming (here's the Prez's problem) that demand is the only significant factor in those price changes.

I don't think the correlation between demand and prices is that simple, but do you have another explanation for why the price of gas would drop from $3.62/gallon in late August 2008 to $1.61/gallon in early December 2008? Because that's what the data shows, and there wasn't a whole lot else going on.

I mean, what's *your* argument? What is your alternate explanation?

[sporthenry]

So Crowley wasn't totally accurate in what she said. Obama's speech can be parsed either way - he did refer to acts of terror in a speech addressing the attack, but he did not actually call THAT attack, itself, an act of terror, and later talks from him, from Secretary Clinton, and from Ambassador Rice all explicitly tied the attack to a riot that never occurred. So both Romney and Obama were right...and both were misleading...in that exchange. The POV of those on the right is that Crowley, if she was going to intervene to cut off the "yes I did no you didn't" nonsense, should have either said "OK, move on gentlemen" or "he did say acts of terror in his Rose Garden speech on September 12, Governor, but, Mr. President, you did not specifically call the Benghazi attack an act of terror in that speech."

Lets go to the tape.

CROWLEY: He — he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

CROWLEY: It did.

I guess we can call it her interpreting error but as many have said on here, do you really think in a speech on Libya, when he mentions acts, he isn't at least in some part referring to what he was in the Rose Garden to talk about in the first place. She did side with Romney about the administration using the video for two weeks but by then, the audience had already cheered and many Americans seemed to have checked out but I think she was fair to both parties. Perhaps you can say she changed topics too quickly but nobody wants a debate in semantics so she moved the debate on.

But perhaps Obama's ambiguity helped him in this round just as it got him in trouble with his "you didn't build that" speech. Perhaps he needs an English lesson in clarifiers. I also can't remember a time when actual words were parsed so much.

[davekay1971]

Lets go to the tape.



I guess we can call it her interpreting error but as many have said on here, do you really think in a speech on Libya, when he mentions acts, he isn't at least in some part referring to what he was in the Rose Garden to talk about in the first place. She did side with Romney about the administration using the video for two weeks but by then, the audience had already cheered and many Americans seemed to have checked out but I think she was fair to both parties. Perhaps you can say she changed topics too quickly but nobody wants a debate in semantics so she moved the debate on.

But perhaps Obama's ambiguity helped him in this round just as it got him in trouble with his "you didn't build that" speech. Perhaps he needs an English lesson in clarifiers. I also can't remember a time when actual words were parsed so much.

Define "is"...Politics have ways of making word-parsing a national passtime.

[captmojo]

If $4 or $5 per gallon gasoline is the norm for recovery, what would it be during the time of 5+% econ growth?

[OldPhiKap]

Is this whole Libya/terror thing playing anywhere other than on Fox and Drudge?

I just don't see the politicizing of this tragedy as moving the middle. What's the narrative? That Obama/Biden purposefully or negligently failed to increase security due to known threats? That they purposefully lied about what happened for a period of time for some political gain, hoping that no one would discover "the truth" until after the election?

If it's the former, I think Hillary addressed that in a fairly convincing manner. If it's the latter, there may have been some legs if Romney had gotten off his punch cleanly but now it seems like a pretty muddled matter. I am sure he will sharpen it for next week but the impact may already have been blunted by the impression (right or wrong) that Romney is fighting over semantics. Obama said last night (IIRC) that he referred to the event as an act of terror; that they are investigating to get to the bottom of it; and that he is ultimately responsible (while also having Hillary blunt that). Whether Obama is right in that, or whether he "got away with it" as his opponents would assert, the issue may be played absent some bombshell evidence that the upper eschelon knew the attack was coming or that those same folks deliberately put out false narratives to hide "the truth."

[gus]

Obama's speech can be parsed either way - he did refer to acts of terror in a speech addressing the attack, but he did not actually call THAT attack, itself, an act of terror,

I've linked the transcript already. THe address is specifically about the attacks.

Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador...

He mentions 9/11, of course, followed by

And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

and then, the relevant paragraph:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

There is no reasonable way to parse this so "acts of terror" is not referring to the attacks in Libya. The topic was the attacks in Bhengazi. He discussed the people killed. He mentioned 9/11 because the context was of a terrorist attack on a US embassy, and then turned back specifically to the attacks in Libya. And then referred to the attacks as "acts of terror".

To try argue that "acts of terror" did not refer to the Bhengazi attacks is, as has already been said here, silly.

[sporthenry]

I don't think the correlation between demand and prices is that simple, but do you have another explanation for why the price of gas would drop from $3.62/gallon in late August 2008 to $1.61/gallon in early December 2008? Because that's what the data shows, and there wasn't a whole lot else going on.

I mean, what's *your* argument? What is your alternate explanation?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/bu...2oil.html?_r=0

That article seems to speculate that it was world wide decline in oil usage as well as a bleak look in the market. Perhaps that is the biggest problem with oil, is that it is sold in futures on Wall Street and thus very volatile and susceptible to speculators on Wall Street. Add in that OPEC cut supply because they couldn't have gas prices that low, and that is how you get low gas prices. Your point is well made and perhaps Obama should try to play it more as an aberration and bring up gas 6 months before he took office.

Perhaps this is why Romney wants to drill and become "energy independent" but OPEC will still be a cartel with huge influence on the market. Maybe we, gasp, regulate the oil market on Wall Street a bit, although the increased price will speed up the process of alternative fuels.

But Obama's claim that the dollar being weak makes gas cheap is actually completely wrong. The dollar being weak means it would cost more for oil. But a bad economic outlook for the whole world seems to lead to lower gas prices.

[Chicago 1995]

Is this whole Libya/terror thing playing anywhere other than on Fox and Drudge?

I don't think it is. The only people I know personally who seem to be making a big deal about this or who think that Romney can score major points on this in debate three next week are people who I know are on the far right end of the spectrum and had long ago decided who to vote for (or at least against). It doesn't seem to resonate with the average voter I know.

I'd argue that the chance to score points on Libya was last night. Obama's got another week to prep and be ready for the attack. Much like Obama holding back on 47%, this is a missed opportunity for Romney.

[captmojo]

A) Is this whole Libya/terror thing playing anywhere other than on Fox and Drudge?

B) I just don't see the politicizing of this tragedy as moving the middle. What's the narrative? That Obama/Biden purposefully or negligently failed to increase security due to known threats? That they purposefully lied about what happened for a period of time for some political gain, hoping that no one would discover "the truth" until after the election?

C) If it's the former, I think Hillary addressed that in a fairly convincing manner.

A) Not much.
B) Probably splits the middle electorate until answers are accepted later on, however, it plants the seed of doubt.
C) Is this where the 'Buck' stops? Secretary of State? Really?
I would be led to suppose that Sec Clinton has no further political ambitions.

[davekay1971]

I've linked the transcript already. THe address is specifically about the attacks.



He mentions 9/11, of course, followed by



and then, the relevant paragraph:



There is no reasonable way to parse this so "acts of terror" is not referring to the attacks in Libya. The topic was the attacks in Bhengazi. He discussed the people killed. He mentioned 9/11 because the context was of a terrorist attack on a US embassy, and then turned back specifically to the attacks in Libya. And then referred to the attacks as "acts of terror".

To try argue that "acts of terror" did not refer to the Bhengazi attacks is, as has already been said here, silly.

FWIW, I personally agree about the September 12 speech. By going after Obama on what he said or didn't say in the Rose Garden, Romney missed the point, and allowed the issue to become a semantics muddle rather than a clearer set of questions:

1) When did you guys in the WH know this was an organized attack and that there was no riot that night?
2) If you knew it early, why were people from your Administration saying what they said days, almost 2 weeks, later (ie: were you misleading us?)
3) If you didn't know it early, why not? Reports from security people on the ground available the next day clearly stated Benghazi was quiet on September 11, right until the guys with the automatic weapons, mortars, and rocket launchers assaulted the embassy.

Those are the questions Romney should have been asking, rather than "did you say it was an act of terror on September 12?" Romney took the wrong course, and missed his chance.

[captmojo]

FWIW, I personally agree about the September 12 speech. By going after Obama on what he said or didn't say in the Rose Garden, Romney missed the point, and allowed the issue to become a semantics muddle rather than a clearer set of questions:

1) When did you guys in the WH know this was an organized attack and that there was no riot that night?
2) If you knew it early, why were people from your Administration saying what they said days, almost 2 weeks, later (ie: were you misleading us?)
3) If you didn't know it early, why not? Reports from security people on the ground available the next day clearly stated Benghazi was quiet on September 11, right until the guys with the automatic weapons, mortars, and rocket launchers assaulted the embassy.

Those are the questions Romney should have been asking, rather than "did you say it was an act of terror on September 12?" Romney took the wrong course, and missed his chance.

Both contestants have left ammo on the table. There must be some alternate strateegury.