The 2012 US Election

Post by **River** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:14 pm

Even that depends on your normal day-to-day life...

Post by **Frelga** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:41 pm

River wrote:Even that depends on your normal day-to-day life...

A woman is allowed to appear more emotional than a man, at the price of appearing less rational. In some areas of life, that price is higher than in others.

Post by **River** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:19 pm

Frelga wrote:
River wrote:Even that depends on your normal day-to-day life...
A woman is allowed to appear more emotional than a man, at the price of appearing less rational. In some areas of life, that price is higher than in others.

Yeah, in science the price is high enough that it's just not worth it. One must also be careful about appearing too feminine...then again, the guys who make "too much" (however that's defined) of an effort to be stylish are also seen as less serious so really no matter what gender you are, jeans/cargo pants/something along those lines and a t-shirt and a ponytail are the safest bets (well, okay, not all the guys have ponytails but for some reason they crop up more among scientists and artists than the population as a whole).

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:25 pm

So Mr. Prim's ponytail that he's grown since being laid off by Corporate Science means he's reverting to type. Not to mention the way he dresses now. Jeans and a Hawaiian shirt would be typical. And Birkenstocks if he's got to leave the house.

I have to say I like this type quite a lot.

And Elsevier doesn't care what their freelancers look like.

Post by **River** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:09 pm

Yep. If it weren't in him to start with he wouldn't be doing it.

Post by **Túrin Turambar** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:29 pm

I honestly don’t think that being aggressive or obnoxious in the debates is either required or really that helpful. Obama’s performance was panned not because he was too polite, but because he came across (at least in the fifteen minutes or so that I watched) as tired and disengaged with what he was saying.

Successful debaters, like Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton, didn’t necessarily abuse or belittle their opponents. They appeared relaxed, confident and in control, which is what gives the impression of leadership ability to voters. And I don’t think that this is necessarily a case of voters putting style before substance, either. If you require someone to do something for you that you lack the knowledge to do yourself, be it a doctor, mechanic or politician, then you have to make some sort of judgement about how well they will serve you from their manner and ability to explain themselves. I’m unlikely to take my car to a shifty mechanic no matter how accurate the explanations he gives me are because as a laymen I couldn’t make those judgements.

Post by **Holbytla** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:08 am

Okay, so I forced myself to watch about 95% of the debate. I thought Biden won the debate, but he sure didn't make it easy on himself with the way he acted. (Incidentally, most of the news wonks called the debate a draw, although in a CNN poll Ryan was declared the winner. I didn't see it that way)

I don't buy this, "you have to be rude, interrupt your opponent, laugh at him, and talk over him" to be seen as "strong" or successful in a debate. That isn't what does it. Just as appearing listless, bored, lacking vibrant speech or as James Carville said after the first presidential debate in describing Obama; "it looked like he didn't want to be there", isn't what does it.

Biden could have beat this guy into next month, if he acted like he did towards the end of the debate, rather than the way he acted at the beginning.

It isn't one extreme or the other.

I thought Biden was better in many aspects of the debate, but I think his lowest point (aside from the interrupting, laughing and snide attitude) was the Libya debacle, which could haunt them.

I can't even discuss what both of them said about Afghanistan, because that was the point I wanted to throw things at the tv most. Biden was dead wrong in his assessment and Ryan was little better.

Most of the details they give out are, if they do at all, are things that America doesn't know off the top of their heads. It takes some later fact checking to see what was what. During their rhetoric, people have to focus on body language and listen to their sincerity or lack of. A couple of times during the debate, I was informed enough to know who was bs-ing and in some cases it was both of them.

In any case, I think that if Obama is himself (despite the warnings posted here) and displays some passion, is quick on his feet, doesn't devolve into too much attacking, focuses on imparting facts, and is honest, he should win next time around.

If he comes across as uninterested, attacking, rude, listless, uninspired, he won't.

edit:cross posted with LM, who has the right of it

Post by **anthriel** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:32 am

Voronwë the Faithful wrote:
anthriel wrote:Yeah, I think they all have that smirk thing available on demand.

This thread just reinforces, to me, again, how the same situation is intrepreted so differently based on... wait for it..... which side you are on. There is no *real* standard for decorum, which someone will hold a speaker to no matter which side they are on.

It's like... well, if my guy was rude, well it's just the goldarn honest truth, it needed to be said. If my guy smirks or laughs derisively and derails good discussions with theatrics, well, so what, really... they are tough "warriors" in "battle". Don't you want a leader who is tough in battle?

If the OTHER guy is rude, well, my guy "lost" the debate because *my guy*, and SOOO not *THEIR guy*, has class and is polite and kind and good to kittens. Don't you want a president who is good to kittens?

And the white hat/black hat can change heads relatively quickly. Along with the interpretations of what happened.
I don't know, Anthy, President Obama was pretty widely panned by members of both parties for essentially being too polite in the last debate. To the extent that he might now end up losing an election that he all but had sown up before then, unless he can come back in the next too debates and be sufficiently rude and obnoxious.

He was widely panned for being too passive in the debate by people who thought he "lost", on both sides. The reason given by people defending him is that he was too polite, too classy, to act the way Romney did.

He will certainly change his tactics, if he is to "win" the next one. It's all theatrics. (Edit: although, perhaps I am too cynical. I really like what Holby and LM said about this. Hopefully Pres. Obama is listening.

)

Then there is Biden, who comes across as an obnoxious third-grader in his debate, and Ryan, who didn't "stand up to him" the way he should have. Does anyone really think that all those derisive guffaws were anything but scripted? The plan was, hey, anything that comes out of Ryan's mouth, LAUGH about it. Make it seem like anything the guy says is so idiotic, it only rates laughter. Ryan could have said the sky was blue and Biden would have acted like that was the dumbest thing he ever heard.

It would be nice to see a bit more statesmanship on both sides, but I think that ship has sailed. Jerry Springer has replaced Daniel Webster. It's a shame, really.

.

.

.

I actually never think about Obama having to avoid the "angry black man" persona, mostly because I have never seen him act anything but classy. It is a good point, though, and I'm glad you've brought it up. Just because I don't worry about it (if he's angry, sometimes he should be, like when Romney was slamming him wholesale) doesn't mean he doesn't have to.

Post by **Holbytla** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:17 am

I think Obama wanted to be with Michele that night rather than Romney.
I can't blame him for that. He admitted to having an off night. Okay he is human and I understand that.

I just hope he realizes what is at stake, and that he really can't afford to have an off night. Like every president, he has baggage. He needs to be on top of his game at all times. He has issues that need to be dealt with (Libya, foreign policy, economy stupid) and his administration has vulnerabilities that need to be dealt with.

He can't afford an off night.

Post by **vison** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:25 am

No, he can't.

He's The Decider.

Post by **yovargas** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:38 am

The debates should be done in a private room with no cameras and no recordings and no audience except some people there just taking transcripts of what is said. Just release the text transcripts and that's all we see. Wouldn't that be nice.....

Post by **Holbytla** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:05 am

You have access to just transcripts or just audio or just video.
The really hardcore poly-sci people sample all of them and draw conclusions based on what they read, what they saw and what they heard.

Having said that, I do know what you mean. I doubt there would be more than chaff at the end of the day though.

I find it troubling that the debates are scripted and that the candidates rehearse pat answers.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:25 am

It's a sucky system, entirely.

OTOH, it really is a required skill of the U.S. president that he/she be able to speak forcefully and convincingly when required—to Congress, to the U.N., to the U.S. public. That is not a trivial skill, and it ought to be in the president's toolkit.

Though it doesn't affect electability. George W. Bush did not have this gift—epically, he didn't—but he was still elected to two terms.

Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:05 pm

This is the best campaign ad that I have seen this election (though I'm not sure that it will be as effective with others):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nUDg-O9 ... r_embedded

Post by **Holbytla** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:56 pm

Well using Morgan Freeman does have its advantages.

Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:58 pm

Well, all politicians claim to have God on their side, but ... .

Post by **Alatar** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:07 pm

Thought some of you might enjoy this:

Post by **Cenedril_Gildinaur** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:09 pm

The debates should be in classic format. One topic per debate, alternating turns. Team debate with both the Presidential Candidate and Vice Presidential Candidate constituting a team.

First Affirmative Constructive 8 minutes
Negative Cross Examination 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive 8 minutes
Affirmative Cross Examination 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive 8 minutes
Negative Cross Examination 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive 8 minutes
Affirmative Cross Examination 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal 5 minutes
Second Negative rebuttal 5 minutes
Second Affirmative rebuttal 5 minutes

Points are awarded on Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, and Significance.

Post by **Cenedril_Gildinaur** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:10 pm

Alatar wrote:Thought some of you might enjoy this:

The sad thing about American politics is that it all comes down to who likes Sesame Street. But since that is the biggest difference, why not?

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:44 pm

The sad thing about American politics is that it all comes down to who likes Sesame Street. But since that is the biggest difference, why not?

You're joking, right?

As a woman, a liberal, the mother of an unemployed son, and a person with a pre-existing condition, I would find it more than a bit condescending and dismissive to be told that Sesame Street is the largest difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

So, I'm assuming you're joking.