Presidential Debates:For better or for worse?
Tonight was the second of three very controversial debates between President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. Everyone handed debate #1 to Mitt Romney due to president Obama seeming really timid and uncertain of how he wanted to play the debates. Many convinced themselves that Obama did it out of respect for his wife and their 20th anniversary and he was simply too tired from dealing with his personal life and then having to end his day arguing with a man he disagrees with on many points when it comes to the future of this country. No matter what had caused Obamas quote on quote shyness and/or timidness in the first debate, it didn't matter anymore. Everyone could see from the get go that Obama was more assertive and aggressive in his answers and how he was going to play his part for the second debate. Why was that? Many said that he stepped up to the plate because vice president Joe Biden showed him how its done, leaving many to question what that says about Obama. Obama dealt with facts and was clear and concise with his answers he summed up his answer and then went on to elaborate. On the other hand, many can say that Mitt Romney dropped the ball on his performance tonight, all of his answers were on the topic but never really had anything specific to do with the question at hand. Overall, Romney seemed surprised and unprepared for Obama to be so assertive tonight. Due to the combination of Obama being so aggressive and forthcoming and Governor Mitt Romney seeming so unprepared, there was a definite tension in the room that you could feel even through your television screens, there was even one point where there was so much tension i had a flash of a fist fight flash in my mind. Maybe that's all me and where i come from, where thats how things were settled, but who knows.
posted by Anonymous @ 11:09 PM
9 Comments:
I was trying to be completely non-partisan in my viewing of the debate last night because I wanted to really judge who did better and not just who's opinions I agree with more.
I definitely agree with what you said that Romney never quite got to the actual answers of any of the questions. Obama also tended to stray a bit, but I felt that he more fully answered what the undecided voter asking the questions wanted to know.
It is interesting, however, that I felt like Romney will still appeal to many people because all though he never really answered most of the questions, he spoke without pause and this seemed well-prepared to someone who may not actually be listening completely. I'll admit that I almost fell trap to this, as I was doing homework while watching. Obama, on the other hand, paused a lot in his answers, and some viewers may think that this was because of unpreparedness, when in my opinion, he was just thinking more about his answers during the pauses, while Romney just spouted off the first thing that came to his mind. I do admire Romney's ability to sound really good though!
On a side note, how much do you all think that Romney's "Binders full of women" comment will affect him and his image? There is already a Facebook page with over 100,000 likes with that name!
Did anyone else find it interesting that Obama had nearly 3 extra minutes than Romney? Do you think that made the debate unfair?
3 minutes in a hour and a half debate is hardly unfair. Obama clear won the debate but not because of his answers. He won because he was the forceful defender everyone wanted to see.
But think about it this way, Obama loses those 3.5 minutes and Romney gains them. Obama then can't make multiple points that he did in those minutes and Romney gains time to persuade the voters. I think it makes a big difference!
Does anyone know how many undecided voters are still out there, or an estimate of them? Because I feel like these debates are only useful to grabbing those voters, as it seems most people seem to have known who they will vote for for a while. I think an interesting question comes up as well, and I think we've discussed this in class before, is how the media tend to find some sort of dramatic framework when it comes to reporting political debates, I can't help but wonder how this effect s undecided voters and how they perceive politics, it seems kind of discouraging, as in I could understand why someone wouldn't want to vote, and yet I do believe that it is a right everyone should be practicing.
This debate was almost all for the base. They were in each others face the whole time, exactly what the base wants them to do. This late in the game, those undecideds have had months to hear both sides and make up their mind. That 4 percent(give or take a percent of two) are just low information voters that are not going to watch this debate. They would much rather kill their brain cells by watching Honey bo bo. That's why those 3 minutes didn't matter. The narrative coming out of this debate was going to be Obama comes back regardless of the points made. I completely agree with what prof. Hudson said about the media. They are bias towards a story, anything that can get them views. This is so wrong its not even funny, how can we possible have a democracy when the media wants everything to be a fistfight. Disgusting.
I agree! Don't you think our democracy would work so much better if the media wouldn't overdramatize things and not be partisan? For me, if the media would be neutral on many issues and not wanting to attack each other, I would have a much better understanding of what is actually going on in our government.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yeah it's kinda messed up, as much as i love MSNBC they do add to my distrust of most republicans. Probably not something the media should promote.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home