I just heard President Obama advise that Social Security is structurally sound. I disagree with him, as it's not the case.

America! I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

I think Obama just paid the price for the last 4 years of dealing with a media that genuflects before him.  He's obviously much more comfortable dealing with the pimp with a limp.   He seemed to be channeling '08 MCCain for the first hour with his rambling answers.  He improved in the last 30 minutes and made a fight of it, but I imainge the Romney camp has to be absolutely estatic about this debate.  Other than Obama thanking the Reverand Wright and Tony Rezko for being such great influences on him, its hard to imagine that this debate could have gone better for Romney.

Ultimately, it won't really matter as their are three debates and a political eternity until the election but Romney has to feel the momentum is back in his corner at this point.

There was a debate, but no debate about who won.

Romney - 1
Obama - 0

Pundits wondered why Obama didn't use the 47% thing.  I think it's smart that he's holding onto it until it's really needed - ideally the last debate.

Great news, Republicans!  Romney won the debate!  I'm sure this will be great news for you, since:

In 2008, McCain won 2/3 debates, and Palin "tied" (and therefore won) hers.

In 2004, Kerry won all the debates vs. Bush, and Edwards hung in vs. Cheney.

In 2000, Gore won all the debates vs. Bush, and Lieberman did quite well against Cheney.

Dole performed well in his 1996 debates, GHW Bush (aside from that awesome watch photo) did OK against Clinton and Perot,  Dukakis made some salient points against GHW, and hell, even Mondale had the decency to smile when Reagan made a joke about being mentally incompetent.  

So, yeah. GREAT JOB MITT!   You totally proved you were worthy of winning a primary against Rick Perry and Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann! You also convinced North Carolina to maybe go back in the GOP column.  

Question:  how many months will the impeachment trial take in Obama's second term, and after the Senate rejects impeachment 71-29, how many states do you think the Kristen Gillibrand/Sherrod Brown ticket will win in 2016?  I'm guessing 38, including Texas.  

Through a combination of deft manipulation of facts, outright lies and an overtly obnoxious tone towards that untermensch Jim Lehrer, yours truly managed to emerge the outright smackdown victor in this match of wits (me being fully armed and the Kenyan half armed).  

It must have been the charbroiled manatee steaks I downed with the tankard of caviar drenched in high fructose corn syrup that accounted for my performance.  Anne is going to pay heavily for my elevated spirits.

Sic Usquequaque Pro Spurcus Uber

Obama thought Right-wing Republican Romney would show up to debate, when who actually showed up was Massachusetts Moderate Mitt.

Mitt's problem, coming out of this debate: what does he actually stand for? He was going to cut taxes -- but now he says he won't cut taxes in any meaningful way. If he doesn't cut taxes, how does he plan to stimulate "small business"? He was going to decrease regulation -- but now he approves of regulation, thinks it good and necessary, and only wants to tweak existing regulations. He was totally against Obamacare -- but now he just opposes FEDERAL health care reform, and wants to keep everything good about Obamacare, just without paying for any of it. He was going to cut spending dramatically -- but now he lists everything that he definitely won't touch, including education.

To me, he appeared as flip-flopper (on speed) par excellence, and you couldn't possibly tell which Romney you'd get if you elected him. And even if you think you'd get Massachusetts Moderate Mitt, he has his increasingly ultra-right party as his baggage. He might want to compromise with Democrats, but if he does he will hear about it from his own supporters.

Also, we heard nothing whatsoever about social issues yet, nothing at all about immigration, nothing at all about the $2 trillion he wants to spend beefing up America's military (for what, precisely?), and no real plan for anything he has proposed. He might get one week's traction out of his debate performance, but I wouldn't count on him holding onto any lead.

So I didn't watch the debate.  Based on everything I heard on the radio and my Facebook feed-- barring one friend who essentially kept screaming "PBS!  Big Bird!"-- it sounds like Romney "won".  But, as Acefantastik implies above, does "winning" the debate(s) really mean anything?  Barring a display of absolute incompetence from one candidate, does it affect anybody's vote?

I voted for Obama last time around. And even though his performance has been lackluster, I figured he'd get my vote this election too. But his performance last night was about as mediocre as his presidency. Meanwhile Mitt wasn't all that much better, but he was better.

The thing that scared me the most, though, was when they were talking about healthcare. Nevermind that Obamacare is, essentially, Romneycare. What really bugged me was when Obama was trashing Ryan's proposal to allow seniors to use a Medicare voucher to buy private insurance. Obama made the point that a private company could never provide care at as low a cost as the government because it needed to make a profit. Wha-what? It's almost like he never heard of 'efficiency'.

Then, two minutes later, he praises a private healthcare provider for lowering costs by... improving efficiency. Seriously, I'm really not sure Obama gets it. Maybe it's just politics. But does he really not understand how efficiencies and markets work? He sounds like a pot smoking college hippie with some of this stuff.

And if all that wasn't bad enough: Obamacare is buying insurance from private providers. So all the things he said about Ryan's plan apply to his plan. Did they not prepare this guy for his debate at all?

I'm honestly starting to waver a bit. Romney is not a good candidate. But at least he understands how businesses work. Obama has a very bad track record on that front and our economy is in the shitter.

-milo-

Hi there,

as an outsider from Old Europe, I really have a problem wrapping my head around US politics. Maybe you guys can help me out.

I've read the numbers that more than 50% of white people and more of 50% of male people will probably vote for Romney, as opposed to e.g. Latinos of any gender, black people, women etc.

What I do not understand is why would anyone vote for Romney, if he doesn't have very much money?
This may sound condescending, it's not. I am simply an European, so the Democrats looks like right-wingers to me and the Republicans like fanatics. I've followed the election campaign closely, and not only do I not know a single person here who supports the GOP policys, I honestly have trouble understanding how anyone would.

But maybe my perspective is scewed from distance and media distortion, so let me sum up how my impression of American politics is.

The GOP seems to more or less been bought by millionairs, who poured over a billion dollars into electing them to make sure the tax cuts will be extended, which save them even more billions of dollars. Those guys I understand. Better spend 100 million on a politician than 250 millions on taxes, that's egoistical but understandable.
But why does anyone who does not have that many taxes to pay want to elect them?

They say they want to keep the taxes for the rich people low and increase military spending and decrease the dept, but have offered no explanation how, aside from generalities like "fight waste" and such, which are obviously empty. Does anyone really believe they will not increase the dept further?

Plus, Europeans as a whole tend to not agree that poor people should hunger to motivate them to work more, so that whole side of American political thought abhorrs us over here. Destitution is not a great motivator, and studies show that the dream of the poor person rising due to hard work is more and more just a dream. Chances to rise through the classes have evaporated more and more of the the last decades, the famous American Dream is becoming a fairy tale. Letting people hunger or die of sickness because of a fairy tale is inhuman to me. Since the GOP seems to represent exactly those thoughts, and at the same time claim to follow Christ, how do people not see that as illogical?

The GOP firmly opposes universal healthcare. The rest of the developed world has been looking down on the US for not having universal healthcare for decades (no exaggeration, when Germans talk about Americans, that usually comes up), so while Obamacare may not be the best possible solution, it is at least a step in the direction the rest of the developed world has done ages ago. Same goes with gay rights: Noone here gets the fierce opposition to it anymore, at least domestic partnerships almost on par with marriage are the norm in other developed countries. When it comes to taxes, no other developed country has such a small tax rate as the US has, so it is hard for someone from here to understand how people over there can follow the idea that even lower taxes for the rich will help the poor and middle class. That sound like a fairy tale to me.

Now, when it comes to Obama, I read a lot of disgust and hatred even on this site, which to me seems to be pretty democratic.  I do not understand where that comes from. Sure, Obama may not have been the saviour some wished for, but seeing that he was faced with fierce opposition by the GOP (who openly declared crashing his presidency as their primary goal just afer he was elected), he has done a lot. He has not closed Guantanamo as he had promised, from what I can tell due to lack of support, but at least the US doesn't torture anymore, something that has horrified everyone outside of the US unspeakably. He has practically ended the involvement in the war in Iraq and works toward leaving Afghanistan, which could not have been done much quicker from what I can tell.
He has accomplished much on behalf of the gays, which I fully support, and his administration has done a good job of recreating the good name of the US internationally, from what my impression is, although that may be as much Hillary's accomplishment as his. If you haven't been abroad, you cannot comprehend how low the opinion of the US had sunken during the Bush reign.
Obama has spent even more money than Bush, which many hold against him, but I admit that I understand too little of economics to say if that was good or bad. The US seems to be recovering economically, which was the aim. Whether that could have been accomplished otherwise cheaper or whether these depts will have horrible consequences in the future I have to leave to peole how know more than me on such matters.

So please, can someone explain to me why half of the male population of the US would rather vote for Romney? Those cannot all be gun-toting rednecks who do not follow politics. Why would an educated man vote for Romney? What was so bad about Obamas last four years? Please tell me your views.
It is puzzling to me.

As an aside, I understand that many would rather have a third better alternative. I understand that, but as the US is one of the few developed countries without at least a third serious party, please focus on the two choices practically available to you. It's either Obama or Romney who gets elected.

Assuming you are being sincere in your question, calm down, take a breath and I'll try.

First, say what you want about right wing and left wing in this country. In the primaries, the candidates move to each side. In reality, they really aren't very different. That's why last night's debate was so mind-numbing. See my comment above about healthcare, but the two were essentially criticizing each other for doing the sames things they themselves have done. Romney introduce socialized medicine long before Obama -- and Obama patterned his plan on Romney's. The two candidates are hardly black and white.

Second, it is true that Americans see the world different than Europeans. Maybe you guys are right, maybe we are. But the people that tend to be on the (fiscal) Right here tend to worry about our economy and the size of our debt and where that will lead us in the future. Some European countries are doing fine. But Greece and Spain are on the brink. And the Euro could get destroyed. That would be a fiasco. Nobody knows what the future holds, but I don't think Europeans should be too self-confident about their economic policies.

Arguably, Obama's economic policies are reminiscent of Japan -- the country that had a "lost decade". His "stimulus" plan was not nearly as effective as it could have been. That's no secret. Would Romney have done better? Maybe. At least he seems to understand business a bit.

Social issues are another story. Yes, Americans tend to be more socially conservative than Europeans. Though, you know, it's not like Gay Marriage is completely accepted in Europe either. A lot of people here take their religion seriously and have felt it being encroached upon. That's probably not going to change any time soon. I'm personally pro-choice. But those who are pro-life have a good reason -- they don't believe in killing innocents. They see themselves as enlightened about it as Europeans do about their disdain for the death penalty. So I don't think we are all that different.

I'm not sure this helps, but...

-milo-

One interesting sideline to last night's debate is the bloodthirsty rage against semi-retired moderator Jim Lehrer, whose placid performance is being widely blamed for Obama's failure. Apparently anything short of Jim's pulling out a flame-thrower and frying Romny is a betrayal of the cause. You know Lehrer is lost when even Breitbart.com praises him. Of course, the claim by some conservatives that last night was the night liberalism died overstates the case considerably.

A number of theories for Obama's flaccid performance in the debate have arisen, such as he was distracted by worries over affairs of state, to suffering anoxia from Denver's high altitude. The latest twist is a claim that Romny cheated by bringing some sort of crib sheet to the lectern, in violation of the debate protocols. The usual suspects like DKos and Democratic Underground are in high anxiety over it. However, New York Magazine is debunking the whole thing.

This is a bit reminiscent of the claim during the 2004 debates that George W. Bush
  was wearing a wire and was being coached by Karl Rove over Bluetooth.