• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

*** Who Won the Final Debate? ***

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

*** Who Won the Final Debate? ***

  • Barack Obama

  • Mitt Romney

Results are only viewable after voting.
lotus503 said:
I'd say mitt needed a clear FP differentiator and he failed at that by agreeing with Obama most of the night.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Foreign policy is practically a non-issue in this election, and the WORST thing that Romney could have done for his campaign would have been to scare off independents by being too hawkish.
 
jackstar7 said:
Romney demonstrated what happens if you let him tell his story in the first debate. He runs roughshod over reality and Obama would just lose ground.
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying that. Obama was going out of his way to attack Romney instead of protecting a lead or being above the fray. Obama could have rebutted Romney without blasting him for stupid shit like investing in that chinese company or whatever weak stuff that was.

Romney is deeply inside the head of Obama and the last two debates showed this.
 
jagec said:
I disagree. Foreign policy is practically a non-issue in this election, and the WORST thing that Romney could have done for his campaign would have been to scare off independents by being too hawkish.
Click to expand...

I think this gets close to the truth. I think it's the strategy of the Romney campaign to make this entirely about the economy. Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. Imagine if someone watches the debate and says to themselves "well, it seems like they're pretty similar on foreign policy". That's exactly what you want. It will be interesting to see if he was a little bit too soft like the president was 3 weeks ago.
 
buckshot24 said:
Who gives a shit who "won"?
Click to expand...

Nobody should care in the sense of caring who wins American Idol. On the other hand, it IS a reasonably interesting look at the two people who have by far the greatest chance of actually running the country. And if we're talking about "winning" in terms of who can articulate the best argument for their ideas, that seems important too.

Obama sleeping through the first debate was a great Republican talking point, but it was also important because it showed a President who seemed unsure of his ideas and his dedication to those ideas. Similarly, this debate was important not because I think Obama "won" in some superficial way, but because Romney expects us to vote for him for President despite putting on a 90 minute display on foreign policy at the end of which I have no idea what his foreign policy ideas are. He didn't "lose" because he didn't have better sound bites or because his demeanor was poor, because neither of those things were true. He "lost", IMO, because he wants to be President but can't be at all convincing that he'd handle foreign policy. On those grounds, the debate was extremely important...as the previous two debates were.
 
all night long I heard Mitt say how Obama's foreign policy is working...

shrug.

And that Mitt won't be tough on China.
 
I was hoping one or the other of them would have had a good knock-out definitive win so I can make up my mind and not have to listen to any more partisan yammering. Guess it's going to be the coin toss this year.
 
buckshot24 said:
I wasn't saying that. Obama was going out of his way to attack Romney instead of protecting a lead or being above the fray. Obama could have rebutted Romney without blasting him for stupid shit like investing in that chinese company or whatever weak stuff that was.

Romney is deeply inside the head of Obama and the last two debates showed this.
Click to expand...

Obama did attack Romney a few times, but you can't possibly come away from the debate thinking that was the theme. On several occasions Obama talking about what he's done on foreign policy as President and why it was good and Romney's rebuttals consisted of him apparently disagreeing with Obama on grounds he never quite got around to articulating very well. The Iran exchanges in particular were awkward, with Obama talking about things he's done and Romney repeatedly saying Iran is closer to a nuke without in any way talking about WHY he thinks that's the case or how he would have made a difference had he been in charge (or how he'd fix things going forward). His "Obama+" sanctions policy sounded particular weak, I thought.
 
Rainsford said:
Obama did attack Romney a few times, but you can't possibly come away from the debate thinking that was the theme.
Click to expand...
I thought he was petty when he brought up that Romney was investing in a Chinese company or something. Totally out of the blue attacks made the president look small.
 
nanette1985 said:
I was hoping one or the other of them would have had a good knock-out definitive win so I can make up my mind and not have to listen to any more partisan yammering. Guess it's going to be the coin toss this year.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that's a good way to choose a candidate?
 
nanette1985 said:
I was hoping one or the other of them would have had a good knock-out definitive win so I can make up my mind and not have to listen to any more partisan yammering. Guess it's going to be the coin toss this year.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't see how this wasn't a definitive win for Obama. He's got four years of actual experience and Romney agreed with every one of his policies without stating a single thing he'd do differently. Lying about an "apology tour" isn't a policy. Romney has zero experience in foreign policy. And his advisors are largely from the administration that brought us Iraq and torture.

Not sure what more you could possibly be looking for here...
 
buckshot24 said:
I thought he was petty when he brought up that Romney was investing in a Chinese company or something. Totally out of the blue attacks made the president look small.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I thought the same when the moderator asked Romney about how he was going to pay for another $2 trillion in military spending and Romney launched into a attached on the economy and unemployment.
 
Blackjack200 said:
I agree, but I thought the same when the moderator asked Romney about how he was going to pay for another $2 trillion in military spending and Romney launched into a attached on the economy and unemployment.
Click to expand...
That isn't being petty in the same sense. I'd call it something else but it sort of related to the question. Having a good economy is national defense.
 
Rainsford said:
The Iran exchanges in particular were awkward, with Obama talking about things he's done and Romney repeatedly saying Iran is closer to a nuke without in any way talking about WHY he thinks that's the case or how he would have made a difference had he been in charge (or how he'd fix things going forward).
Click to expand...

His advisors should have put the kibosh on the "four years closer to a nuke" sound bite. His point was supposed to be that Obama hadn't slowed their progress, but my first thought was "uhh...it's been four years, so isn't that almost true by definition?"
 
Balt said:
I think President Obama won, but Mitt did well enough that it wasn't a KO. Mitt did agree an awful lot with Obama's foreign policy, and metooism isn't like to win him many points.
Click to expand...

Romney did not need to win points, he did that in the first debate. He had to hold his ground and not lose traction. While the President was quite vicious on the attacks, maybe he overplayed his hand on the aircraft carriers.

I won't call it, but I think the first debate continues to swing the campaign and Romney was not dragged down by the following two.
 
OrByte said:
And that Mitt won't be tough on China.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is one of the major differences between Romney and Obama. Romney said he would slap tariffs on all Chinese produced goods unless they stop their currency manipulation. Obama wants to just let them keep doing what they have been doing. That is a huge difference.

I am not sure Romney has the political capital needed to make such a change, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top