The Presidential Debate Season kicked off last night, as President Obama and Governor Romney debated issues spanning the entire spectrum from education to healthcare, medicare and taxation policies. General consensus in the past twenty-four hours or so is that Romney was the victor, able to articulate his points and defend his stance. Both candidates were well spoken, however, Romney was able to sway a portion of undecided voters to his side.
Interestingly enough, both candidates were able to answer the questions without actually answering the questions. As is typical for debates such as these, Obama and Romney spoke on the issues highlighted in the questions in ways that captured their own personal agendas. They were able to present their stances on each issue in a way that emphasized the parts that are most glorious and well-received. This is of great importance if one wants to debate successfully.
Additionally, each candidate debated while maintaining a degree of professionalism. Both candidates were able to speak well of their opponents and maintained an air of civility, while still bringing into question the efficacy of their opponents' stance. It helped each candidate appear respectable and worthy of the position on the basis of their humanity.
Finally, each candidate will undoubtedly work to improve for the next debate. Obama must become more articulate in the way that he presents his information. He had some unnecessary fluff in his arguments that took away some of the strength of what he was suggesting. Romney was able to refute many of Obama's points and point out some incongruencies in a way that Obama was not. Romney must find consistency within his platform. Obama was able to point out some inconsistencies from his beliefs in the primaries to what he is projecting now. There were some holes that need filling.
Regardless, the debate was an excellent portrayal of what is in store in the next four years for our country. Both candidates are well-spoken and it was fascinating to watch them. I look forward to the upcoming debates.
I thought the debate was uncivil. Both candidates made up their own rules and ignored the moderator. The first segment was completely useless; neither party engaged the discussion. Each simply restated his answer multiple times.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Greg "Muto" Halloran here. Most of the position re-stating and re-stating came from the fact that the information from each candidate directly conflicted with the information from the other. Would it not be so impossible for the mob of rigorous fact-checkers who come out with reports after the debate to streamline into an official team and send conclusive information to the moderator by the end of each 15-min segment? What better way to end the segment than with a little non-partisan "average tax increases" or "past deficit reduction" data from the moderator?
DeleteI love how you say that "each candidate was able to answer the questions, without actually answering the questions" and I couldn't agree more. Every time a candidate was asked a simple yes/no question and support your answer, they would tiptoe around the issue until they had swayed back to an issue they were more comfortable speaking about such as small, American businesses, and the increased amount of teachers in the United States. Overall I felt that the debate was redundant and as Muto and Zan have stated, the candidates were disrespectful to one another and to the moderator himself (especially by Romney threatening his job at PBS). As my economics professor stated in class today, "I was less frustrated than usual as there were more numbers incorporated [in the debate] than in years past. They still didn't answer the tough questions but then again they never do" which I feel sums up the debate pretty well.
ReplyDeleteHey Anna,
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the fact that both of them answered the question without really answering the question. I would say the debate was RELATIVELY civil, since Lehrer was such a push over they kept talking over him. This article actually compares Lehrer to a substitute teacher who lost control of the class lol
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/jim-lehrer-criticized-for-performance-during-obama-romney-presidential-debate-in-denver
Romney's aggression came off as rude as he continuously cut off the President and the moderator! He had no tact at all! Obama on the other hand, was definitely weaker and less assured than his usual self. But I guess that's what happens when you're put on the defense by the challenger