Post-Debate Presidential Poll

The first Presidential debate was last night, so it’s time for another poll of our readers. The Curmudgeon’s First Presidential Poll was in late July. We didn’t get very many votes (only 226) and the results were somewhat lopsided. It should be interesting to see if the debate has changed things.

We have a lot of non-US readers, and we want to hear from you too. This poll isn’t going to predict anything, but it’ll tell us how you think. You already know your Curmudgeon’s political views (and they’re not going to change) so we won’t upset you by stating them. We want to know your thoughts.

You can only choose one answer, and you can only vote once. We’ll leave the poll open for one week. Feel free to elaborate in the comments if you like. As before, we’re ignoring third-party candidates because — even if they thrill you — they’re irrelevant. Okay, here’s the poll:

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “Post-Debate Presidential Poll

  1. It was painful to watch. How they got a Muppet to look just like Jim Lehrer was the best part of the show!

    Romney stood up there and lied his ass off. Or, he has spent the past two years lying his ass off. Take your pick.

    Just the other day after Romney came out in support of Obama’s position of not prosecuting non-resident students who were brought into the country as children, there was no hew and cry from The Base (that is, the Republican base of Cowards and Bullies.) What’s up with that? I bet more than a few of Teh Base are still choking down the bile.

    After Romney’s debate performance what’s Teh Base to think? Well, they’ll think that Romney simply lied his head off in the debate but after he’s elected President he’ll snap back to old, pliable, Puppet Boy.

    As for Obama what you saw was an exercise in self-control. Every time Romney walked back a position or out-and-out lied Obama just grimaced. He could have shouted, “You lie!” a dozen times but pulled back. Possibly Obama was stunned by the audacity of Romney’s lying.

    Although, to be fair and give Romney a huge benefit of doubt, perhaps “lie” is too strong a word. That would imply, according to Harry Frankfurt, that Romney is intentionally trying to deceive. It could be that he believes all these conflicting positions simultaneously. That’s a scary thought. A true puppet with no will of his own. Able to be anything at any time.

    Or could have Obama, crazy like a fox, played Aikido Debate and draw Romney out on record, don’t oppose him, use Romneys momentum to his own destruction. Like a reed in the wind, Grasshopper. Ahhhhhh….. that would be sweet.

  2. Bringing the economy back should be the main issue of this election, because if we have a weak economy, there will be no money for social issues. Obama’s strength with the electorate is in the social issues; however, I feel that Romney has a better shot at strengthening the economy.

    I feel that Romney did better in the debate, but for various reasons, I don’t think he will win the election — the biggest reason being that too many within the media mirror Docbill’s attitude.

    Much was made of the fact Obama didn’t mention “47%”. (Not even a “Cough! Cough! [47%] cough!”) He didn’t have to. He was confident that many in the media will keep bringing it up, as they did post-debate last night. Very similar to poor ol’ Dan Quayle and “potatoe”. Granted, the “47%” comment was more substantive, but again, the most important issue in this election is the economy.

    We would have never heard the end of it if it had been a Republican candidate who had made Biden’s gaffe in 2008 when he said that Roosevelt went on television right after the Crash of 1929 to tell the American people what had just happened. But except for Fox News (of course), not a peep. Nothing, even though it was direct evidence (proof?) that Biden makes things up out of thin air to boost his position.

    Same thing happened in 1992 when the media made a very mild recession seem like the coming of the next Depression, all to help Bill (“It’s the Economy, Stupid!) Clinton defeat George H. W. Bush.

    The media certainly drives the message.

  3. Charley Horse

    I really tuned out Romney. His rapid fire, wordy responses
    with numerous issues mentioned in seconds were the same
    tactics used by creationists when debating.

    Obama’s responses were cool and deliberate. But he did fail to
    point out the most obvious of Romney’s misleading comments.

    We still don’t know what Romney’s super duper changes in
    regulations and Obamacare will entail other than regulations will
    be reworked and he thinks he can completely get rid of
    Obamacare and just do nothing to reduce medical care costs. Trust
    the states to act.

    I think I did him say he supported school vouchers which we all know
    is nothing more than promoting madrassas and destruction of the public schools.

    If elected, Romney would be nothing more than puppet for the teabaggers that control the Retaliban Party. The most ignorant among us.

  4. docbill1351 says: “Romney stood up there and lied his ass off.”

    Still undecided, huh?

  5. Aw, come on! I’m not a h8r or Snow White! The Dwarves, that’s another matter!

    Romney is a brilliant creationist. Great use of the Gish Gallop, 27 lies in 38 minutes. It would take weeks to untangle all of them. And just like a creationist it doesn’t matter. Not one bit. “Why, Obama is going to reduce the debt by digging up your street and selling the asphalt to the Chinese!”

    Talk about oogity-boogity.

    The cool thing about running for President is that you can say any freaking thing you want because you know, and everybody else SHOULD know, that you have absolutely no power to do any of it. “Why, as President I will cut the price of gasoline in half on my first day in office!”

    You know what was missing in the debate? A laugh track and sound effects. I would have loved to be in charge of the “Womp womp wommmmp” button every time they panned to Jim Lehrer looking like a deer in the headlights. Probably would have worn the button out. Or do it Mystery Science Theater 3000 style with commentary from sarcastic robots. Oh, oh, Statler and Waldorf.

  6. Let’s be honest here, neither candidate is a patch on Jack Wu.

  7. Romney won in terms of energy, but Obama won in terms of substance. When you look at the way Romney spoke, and compare it to Obama, it can appear that Romney was more collected and prepared, but when you analyze what was actually being said, you realize that the main reason for this is that it’s very easy to seem prepared when you’re not bothering to try to tell the truth. Romney continually spouted “facts” that, quite simply, weren’t. I mean, when they got to healthcare, he started talking about Death Panels! He never gave any indication of what he would actually do if elected, while Obama said what he had already done, and what he intended to do. Unfortunately, he did seem tired and distracted, and that hurt him in this debate. In my opinion, I think that because of the way this debate turned out, very little has actually changed. Obama is still strong on substance, and has a past record of charisma, and Romney has yet to make clear the specifics of his plans, and is still viewed by many to be disconnected. It might be a bit closer of a race, but Obama is still in the lead (and I say that as a simple statement of the facts, not what I wish to be true).

  8. As a European I hope Obama wins as I think the convulsions of this would spell the end of the ReligiousRight(tm) in the Republican Party.
    Also, who wants someone as delusional as a Mormon in charge of the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world?

  9. Missed the debate, voted DNDC (but yeah, I’ll vote Obama).

    Given what I see on hard election numbers sites like FiveThirtyEight and ElectionAnalytics, I think the only way Romney could win is if Obama deliberately tried to lose. Maybe next election the Republicans will start putting hard numbers into their policies. And then I would very seriously consider voting for them again.

  10. @Adrian: Mormons don’t want to bring on the Apocalypse (AFAIK), they need to keep things in good working order for when the 13th tribe returns. In some ways I think a Mormon would make a good President; as a group they tend to be very serious about orderly administration, and that’s not a bad quality.

  11. Ceteris Paribus

    I gave Romney the debate “win”, only on the grounds that you count presidential politics as a sport along the lines of cricket, where the event seems to go on interminably, and the final scores of the winner v loser ends up something like 247 to 238.

    But I also picked Romney to lose the election mostly on the simple grounds that he is not from the stable of carefully bred and groomed C Street saviors, for example Brownback, or Jindal. The theocrats have been patiently working on getting a real theocrat into the White House, to make sure that when the time comes to nominate a replacement supreme court justice there will be no doubt about it being a theocrat. They are not going to settle for Romney in 2012 if they can get their theocrat in 2016

    In addition there is a mighty good chance that the economics of the next 4 years will be worse than the previous 4 years, regardless of which party holds the White House.

    And even if the next 4 years did somehow result in an economic version of the Rapture, Romney comes with the problem that he has a high enough opinion of his own intellect that he may be as big an embarrassment for the party as was President W, and lose re-election.

    So for those reasons, both strategic Republican planners and C Street theocrats should see little to gain and a lot to lose by taking over the White House in 2012 instead of waiting for the 2016 event.

    So even if the Romney campaign has ample cash flow, after the election smoke clears lets see how much on the ground support Romney got from the actual power brokers.

    Oh, by the way, as far as investment bankers and corporate lobbyists, there is very little difference between Obama and Romney.

  12. It dawned on me that there may be some history-challenged readers who wouldn’t at first grasp the significance of this statement in my earlier post:
    “…Biden’s gaffe in 2008 when he said that Roosevelt went on television right after the Crash of 1929 to tell the American people what had just happened”.

    First, there was no television in 1929. It wasn’t until the 1950s that a television was in a majority of America’s living rooms.

    Secondly, even if Biden meant “radio”, it still wouldn’t make any sense. Roosevelt wasn’t elected president until 1932, and he wasn’t inaugurated until 1933. If he had gone on the radio in 1929 to explain the market crash, very few Americans would have known who he was. In fact, it was the 1929 market crash and the ensuing Great Depression that propelled Roosevelt into office.

    It is very strange that Biden wouldn’t know this. After all, Roosevelt is the Great Hero of his Democratic Party, and Biden himself is old enough to remember his family getting their first television set. He’s three years older than I am, and I clearly remember getting our first TV. It was a 17″ Zenith table model, it was 1950, and we were “early adopters” — my dad was an engineer for Zenith. Hardly anyone had TVs in the late ’40s, there were very few stations broadcasting TV signals, and they were just in the major cities, with a receiving radius of about 30 miles — unless you erected a really tall antenna mast. However, most homes had TVs by the late ’50s.

    Biden’s gaffes are very concerning. It’s almost as though he has a mental disorder of some sort that causes him to make inexplicable statements. If Obama is re-elected, I sure hope he finishes out his term. The thought of Biden in the Oval Office is as scary as Ken Ham heading the National Science Foundation.

  13. @retiredsciguy: Honestly, I think that’s part of the reason Obama won in ’08. He had a much better chance of making it through his term than McCain, and even if he didn’t, at least we’d be left with Biden, and not Palin.

  14. @Caleb: Biden, Palin… of the 300 million people in the US, you’d think we could come up with better candidates for such a high office. McCain would most likely have lost anyway, but picking Palin made it a certainty.

    It’s interesting that at this time (Fri. midnight) 75% of the survey respondents feel that Romney “won” the debate. But what t.f. was he thinking when he said he would kill Big Bird by defunding PBS?? Did he really think that would gain any votes? That one stupid statement probably did the same thing to his chances that picking Palin did to McCain’s. Anyone interested in defunding PBS wouldn’t be voting for Obama anyway, so what was Romney’s point?