10/23/2012 3:25 PM
10/23/2012 3:26 PM
Posted by Fregoe on 10/23/2012 12:53:00 PM (view original):
if the debates were a hockey game it would look like this
1st  Romney 5 - Obama 1
2nd Romney 1 - Obama 3
3rd Romney 1 - Obama 2

Final Score Romney 7 - Obama 6

Looks like we will have a new  POTUS
I agree with your main point, but not your scores....

1st Romney 7 Obama 1
2nd Romney 2 Obama 4
3rd Romney 3 Obama 4 (OT)

Romney was never as bad as Obama was in the 1st debate. Romney was about the same, while Obama was very different.

And Obama started with a 2 goal lead, so that is why he is now down by 1.

And i heard that means it looks like we have a new PotUS
10/24/2012 8:12 PM
One headline said it all "A Debate On Foreign Policy In An Election Based On Economy?" in one newspaper I saw online. I thought the same thing - why are we focusing on an area which can be important but probably won't be what most voters decide on?

Personally I will not be voting based on anyone's foreign policy and so all of that discussion is wasted time as far as I'm concerned.

10/29/2012 9:53 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This guy has his supplies in his basement and does not expect the government to help him ever.

The left creates the myth in their minds that the government is all powerful and should take care of all our needs.

Dont remember seeing a lot of Conservatives complaining about the Katrina disaster.
10/29/2012 3:42 PM
And why was it last?

The Debates should have been...

1 and 2. Foreign and Domestic policy, start with either and make the second the other one.

3 A comprehensive look at the candidate and everything they believe in.

Third should be 2 hours.

And throw in the VP debate somewhere.
10/30/2012 7:28 PM
I have a couple of things to say about these debate scores:

First, everyone keeps stating how terrible Obama was in the first debate, but this is largely based upon the national media slamming him for the way he handled questions, his appearance, his tone, etc.

What has been completely overlooked in media coverage and by most people from what I have seen is this: Romney continue to flip-flop his position on many key issues. Any objective person watching the debate would realize Romney didn't dominate it the way the media made it seem. While he did appear better from some points of view, his actual answers to questions and statements he made left something to be desired. In other words, Romney was a lot of flash with little substance, but the flash convinced people he was better.

Second, swamphawk you've got to be kidding me. Having a debate centered around foreign policy was the worst decision they made. Some questions about foreign policy I could see, but an entire debate about it was a large waste of time. That and domestic policy issues can be covered in as a PART of one single debate and be done with it.

Third, the debates should have been like this: 1. The economy, while touching on foreign and domestic policy briefly 2. Key social and moral issues (abortion, women's rights, gun control, etc.) 3. A side by side comprehensive look at the candidate, what they believe, and a statement from each on why they should be elected

The VP debate is useless. No one votes based upon VP anyway.

10/31/2012 8:59 AM
Romney won the 1st debate because he was Romney. Not the picture that Obama and the media painted of him. The fact that Obama wanted Romney to just answer questions based on his myths about the Romney plan shows a man who is a little too arrogant. Romney stood up and said what he believes and Obama was lost.

The idea that Foreign policy doesnt matter is incorrect. It is the one area where the President has some real ability to leave his footprint without Congress stoping him. What a President feels about these issues could have a huge impact on America depending on what happens during his administration.

A full debate on social and moral issues wouldnt help. There is not any real issues of debate there.

A VP debate while not crucial can be helpful. And it isnt like it is stopping any other part of the debate. I would like to see the person the Candidate picked make his case.

10/31/2012 3:31 PM
Romney won the first debate because he threw away every shred of modern day conservativatism and went back to being a moderate. He etch-a-sketched his way back into the race, while it appeared the President was trying to solve the world's hardest crossword puzzle at his podium.
10/31/2012 3:56 PM
First, let me be clear and say I don't think Romney won the first debate. I think it was fairly even, with the media siding with Romney for having a lot of flash, but he still provided very little in the way of actual substance, meaning he didn't win anything. He still changes his opinions with the direction of the wind.

When I say foreign policy doesn't matter, I mean it doesn't matter for the purposes of this election. Most people do not vote based upon foreign policy. It's simply not one of the important issues of the election, and it felt like those in charge were trying to force it upon the public by making a debate about it when one wasn't needed.

However, many people DO cast their ballot based upon a candidate's stance on various social and moral issues. This is why a debate to clarify each candidates position on these issues and discuss why they feel the way they do is of some importance (unlike foreign policy which doesn't affect the way as many people will vote).

The VP debate was pointless. No one votes based upon the VP candidate unless they do something outrageous to cost their guy the election.

10/31/2012 3:57 PM
Romney won the 1st debate for 2 reasons.

1 He out debated Obama.

2 He destroyed the myth that he is a boring, cold-hearted buffoon.

The 1st is debatable, the second is not.

That is why Obama lost a huge lead. America didnt know Romney and the pop culture was destroying the man. This showed everyone that Romney was sane and competent.

So people now realize that they do not need to fear Romney and can toss a failure out.
10/31/2012 5:30 PM
Raise your hand if a Swamp post has EVER caused you to change your mind...(unless it was your opinion of him)
10/31/2012 5:58 PM
I dont expect to change the mind of die hard Ideologues like yourself.

I want to expand the minds of people who look at the questions of life as an open book and are willing to change their minds as new information becomes availaable.
10/31/2012 6:49 PM
swamp calling anyone an idealogue is hilarious.
10/31/2012 7:54 PM
◂ Prev 123 Next ▸

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.