OK, this is it. The last one.
It is widely believed that Romney won the first debate handily. Also, that Obama won the second debate modestly. How will this last one go?
Also, this one is focused on foreign policy, how will that affect the content and outcome?
As has already been said -
I’m also hoping for a “please proceed” screw with Romney’s mind
In reality though, this one will probably be a fizzer. There’s not much to attack Obama on, the biggest worry would be Mitt embarrassing the US to those watching around the world with overly hawkish statements - to which Obama will have to ignore, you don’t discuss serious foreign policy when one side is just trying to score points.
Is that possible though, if it’s not in the same “town hall” format as the 2nd debate?
Seems to me that Obama can be attack om most everything. The problem is which to choose.
That could be a problem . . . Romney doesn’t have a foreign policy. So far as we know.
Surprised there isn’t a thread yet.
Romney needs to tread lightly on the whole Benghazi situation. More downside than upside there, especially based on past performances.
Of course, I’ll be watching the SF Giants, so they can both pound sand for all I care. It’s do or die time for the Giants, man! Besides, I voted yesterday.
Merge two threads about the debate.
He can be attacked, but not by Romney. Obama has actively persecuted John Kirakou for coming forwards about the Bush administration’s use of torture while simultaneously refusing to prosecute the torturers, but Romney can’t use this because he supports torture himself.
If Obama was smart, he’d point out that Romney’s foreign policy advisors are all Bush retreads and that a Romney administration would be the third term of George W. Bush.
If I was Obama I’d say something like “America can’t be strong abroad unless its economy is strong at home, where everybody has a chance to succeed. My opponent has been running for president for over six years and still can’t tell us if he’d support the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, the first bill I signed as president.”
I’d also play some offensive defense: “My opponent often whines about my so-called apology tour. I challenge him to right here and now cite an instance where I apologized inappropriately for America. Keep in mind that the fact checkers will be critiquing your answer and those of you at home, I urge you to pay attention when they do.”
Oh God yes, please let him set the record straight about the so-called “apology tour.” Anytime some refers to that I want to punch them.
It seems to me a tie here goes to Romney. Obama needs to actually win this one to see any polling discernibly swing his way.
Obama already has the gravitas of being C-in-C, and he already has a foreign policy. If Romney can go toe-to-toe with him (where the viewers can actually envision Romney as a C-in-C, for instance), that removes one advantage from Obama’s quiver.
There’s no chance at all Obama is going to call Romney a whiner, and I am not sure this line of argument is a good idea because it’s an invitation for Romney to call something an apology. Then Obama has to argue it wasn’t an apology. That doesn’t work well for Obama. His best points are that he’s withdrawing the military from Afghanistan and Iraq, the drone strikes have been effective at disrupting Al Qaeda, and the sanctions against Iran are working very well - while Romney’s policy is just loose talk: labeling Russia an enemy, vague threats to Iran, his stupidity regarding Libya.
The moderator and the questions will really swing the debate. Basically, because foreign policy means who we do/don’t go to war with and who we do/don’t deal with economically.
We’ll see them debate China again for a freaking hour and they’ll morph into a way to talk about their domestic jobs policy, then we’ll finally get to Middle East issues.
Before the second debate, I suggested that Obama should take a hawkish approach to the tragedy in Benghazi and make Romney look like a vulture for trying to exploit it for political purposes. He did exactly that, and among independent voters, Romney came off poorly. There aren’t many ways for Romney to attack Obama directly on the consulate issue without exposing himself to this kind of criticism. If his handlers are smart (and I think they are, for the most part), they’ll direct Romney to attack Obama’s foreign policies in a general way and avoid all instances where it could be perceived that he’s making political hay of American deaths.
Obama, on the other hands, should seize on the consulate issue to reiterate exactly what he said in the first debate: he’s the commander-in-chief, and while he’ll hunt those responsible to the ends of the earth, these kinds of things are ultimately his responsibility and he accepts that, fully. He should be sober. He should speak with conviction. If there’s a time for sanctimony, it’s now. The American people are prepared to stand behind Obama on this issue. All they need is a good reason.
The most important thing for Obama will be to imply that it’s not a good idea to change horses midstream with stuff like this. That will be harder to do without coming off as, “Hey, don’t kick me out of office or bad things will happen!” but if he can pull it off, it’ll be a major coup. I suspect that I won’t be able to do it effectively, and he won’t make any gains there.
Predictions: the debate is effectively a draw, unless Obama is able to come off like the World’s Greatest Fucking Statesman. There’s no movement in the polls, outside of statistical noise. Romney has all the support he’s going to get. All he can do now is chip away at Obama supporter’s enthusiasm and hope they don’t show up to the voting booth.
But suppose Romney says something like “unlike my opponent, I make no apologies for America”? Would you have Obama wait for that point to be made and have him say “show me where I apologized?”.
I think Obama needs to be the preacher and pronounce Romney’s and Bush’s foreign policies to be husband and wife and not to be put asunder.
Obama really should have waited to kill bin Laden until this past weekend.
Orange alert would be pretty good about now.
Foreign policy is the one issue I think most Americans kind of either stay away from, or feel the status quo is good enough.
Oh sure, they have read about something going on in Syria, and troubles with Iran and Israel, and are getting tired of hearing about Afghanistan - but few really know the leaders and fractions and parties and who’s who.
I think tonight’s debate will be less about substance and more about style. Obama can work off years of experience - name dropping, insight into negotiations, standard foreign policy, and point to getting out of Iraq, soon getting out of Afghanistan and of course, Bin Laden. If anything, Obama has pretty much done a lot of what he promised he would do, is by far the most popular US President amongst our allies in ages, and should be on solid footing.
Romney will try to show Obama is no fan of Israel (get out the Jewish vote) and has not been vigilant enough in Libya and Egypt and maybe try to fit in some references to China and the economy. However, considering Romney’s less than stellar attempt to show his mastery of foreign policy on his trip to England, Poland and Israel, I don’t think he is going to come across as a world leader.
The other problem is that much of what Romney and Obama might want to say is still kind of being negotiated in secret and spilling any beans would be a huge blunder - so hopefully for Romney’s sake, he will not take any of his briefings and blab something stupid. Obama will be at a slight disadvantage as he too cannot really go into great depth about what exactly is being done (rumors of a new deal with Iran, for instance). However, Hilary Clinton is still very popular and I think giving her credit for keeping the ship on course will be another ace in the hole for Obama tonight.
So, barring any major misstep, I think Obama will come across as very Presidential tonight, and Romney will struggle to come up with anything new and dynamic.
I think you guys are understating just how poor of a record Obama has on foreign policy issues and just how much the public has soured on Obama’s ability to handle foreign policy issues compared to Romney.