At Debate-Watching Party in Suburban Ohio, Voters Are Less Than Thrilled ~ NYT

[mzmolly]

By SUSAN SAULNY

WORTHINGTON, Ohio — Theater seats? Check. Shrimp cocktails and crudités? Check. Flat-screen television with the volume low just waiting for the big show to start? Check.

People who have been un-friended on Facebook by relatives because of their political views? Oh, yes.

The first night of truly must-see TV this fall season for the Gardner and Jernigan families in this suburb of Columbus was the first presidential debate Wednesday evening between President Obama and Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger.

...

“I want to see an actual plan from Romney,” Mr. Jernigan said. “I’d like to see Obama be very forceful in defending his own actions as president. And I wouldn’t be opposed to a highly entertaining moment from Romney, something like, ‘I can see Russia from my house!’ ”

After the debate, the group did not shift their views. “I don’t know the specifics of these things, so some of it didn’t mean a lot to me,” said Mr. Gardner, the host. “Like I said before we started, I hate the ‘I’m going to repeal what you did and do something that’s better!’ Who doesn’t want to hear that? Basically nothing changed for me.”

This, I expect is the real story behind the debates. Mitt Romney may have "won" according to pundits and various political enthusiasts who like red meat, but did he move undecided voters into the R column? I doubt it.

More at link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/us/politics/at-debate-watching-party-in-suburban-ohio-voters-are-less-than-thrilled.html?_r=0

[renate]

1. thank you!

I've run through my monthly allotment of NYT articles so I can't read the whole thing, but I sure appreciate this excerpt.

[mzmolly]

3. You're most welcome. The commentary is very interesting. Seems Romney didn't impress

the audience at this party, much at all. They didn't like his manner, and felt he was not moving in terms of connections with voters or specifics. They also seem a bit concerned about his position on Medicare. I tend to agree with their analysis.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

5. I get around that (with the LATimes) with private browsing...

[renate]

10. hello? I am intrigued

I guess I'm old enough to not know what that is or how to do it...

[woolldog]

17. You can get around it by

Deleting text in the link in the location bar. Just delete the stuff that isn't part of the real link (usually thattext starts with a question mark) and hit enter

Or if you have firefox browser you can go to private browsing mode....never tried that.

[Bigredhunk]

19. It Also Works To Delete Your Cookies

& browse with your cleared-out computer.

If you want to be able to leave comments or vote on others' comments, you can sign in under a different user name. It takes 2 seconds to create an account on NYT.com. All you need is an e-mail addy (I have a ton of throwaway ones) and a password. If you don't have extra e-mail addy's, just create some on hotmail. Create one like "iowaliberal" @ hotmail.com. Then create another by adding a "2" to the end, and so on. I have multiple accounts on NYT this way.

I was a subscriber, but $20 a month is too much just for the e-book version (which is very good). I think you can get Sunday Times only and still get full access to the site, but delivery isn't an option where I live.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

20. In Firefox, it's Tools > Start Private Browsing

That allows you to surf without your cookies telling the site
who you are & how many articles you've clicked on this month.
I'm sure other browsers have Private Browsing or its equivalent.
So for me it's Tools > Start Private Browsing
Then a window pops up telling you youre private browsing...
Then I go to my desktop & click on my LATimes shortcut icon,
then I'm at LA Times & can look at however many articles
I want to look at... I assume it's the same for the NYTimes...

[dixiegrrrrl]

22. So THAT's what that option is....

I have FF, but never used that feature.

I would assume that deleting storage cookies would also work?
The Better Privacy app kills storage ( hidden) cookies.

[skeewee08]

2. Thanks for posting mzmolly hopefully this reassures DUers in Ohio

[mzmolly]

4. My pleasure.

[tblue]

6. Would that performance increase his 'likability'?

I doubt it. He was a jerk.

[Indpndnt]

7. Of course they're not impressed. Willard wanted to let the auto industry go bankrupt.

He's a tool and they know it. No one will forget what he's done or what he's said about the 47%.

As for Mr. Jernigan, Willard did have a highly entertaining moment tonight when he threatened to kill Big Bird. Twitter is blowing up over it. Young voters today grew up on Big Bird. Older voters had kids who grew up with him. Big Bird touches the hearts of a lot of people in this country. Willard made a HUGE mistake tonight by threatening Sesame Street.

Hooray!

[mzmolly]

11. I agree with Sharpton's analysis

of the evening. He said that in the age of our fast, internet driven media, Romney can't get away with the blatant falsehoods he told tonight. He compared Rmoney to a lying juror who was momentarily convincing, but would ultimately be found guilty of perjury.

[Indpndnt]

12. I heard his analysis and I agree with him.

The commercials from this will be spectacular! Plus, Big Bird! The freak wants to kill the bird.

[tblue37]

15. Jurors don't give testimony--perjured orotherwise. Witnesses do. nt

[Cha]

8. So mitt romney's impression of a Red Bull lying his ass off and

vowing to kill Big Bird was not all that impressive?

Thanks mzmolly!

[mzmolly]

9. LOL.

Apparently, killing Big Bird is a big no no.

[Cha]

13. Nice Avatar!

Free Big Bird!

[mzmolly]

14. He he.

Thanks.

[sabrina 1]

16. I haven't seen the debate yet, but if Romney threatened to kill Big Bird, he's in big

trouble.

I can imagine a few ads with Big Bird as the star. Lol, make him the symbol of the Working Class and keep using him in different ads. Eg, Big Bird running away from a hatchet-wielding Romney, into Obama's arms for protection. Maybe we should have a contest. There are so many creative people here.

[juajen]

23. Wait until our toddlers start hearing this from adults and other children.

My grandson would be in tears. Perhaps we should start having Save Big Bird parties. It's never too early to teach them the importance of voting. We should have Big Bird Ballot Buckets all over the country for the little ones to puts their votes in. Please, somebody get this started. I am too old and ill right now to be much help.

[Raine]

18. THANKS for posting this. nt

[StarryNite]

21. I love your Big Bird!

[barbtries]

24. i have a confession to make.

i didn't watch it. for one thing i know how i'm voting and nothing is changing that. for another thing it drives me apeshit listening to the lies that flow out of romney. and from what i'm reading this morning there may have been some added frustration because the president did not call him out on his lies?
hopefully more people see the craven liar for what he is and the president as a fallible human who at the end of the day actually does have their best interests at heart unlike his opponent.

[wildeyed]

25. That final line kinda crystalized how I am feeling.

“I was really kind of hoping Romney would say some stuff that I’d understand, as far as what his plans are,” Ms. Jernigan said. “And I don’t feel that this has clarified anything for me.”

Ms. Gardner, a homemaker and dog breeder, said, “I felt that Obama lost some of his passion. This time, when he was speaking, he just didn’t have that.”

Romney didn't clarify anything, just doubled down on things we already know are either not true or impossible, although he did seem less robotic than usual. And Obama seemed more stutter-y than usual and rather tired. And OMG, the moderator.... It was a frustrating debate, and it seemed like it would be more likely to make voters tune out than vote for a particular candidate.

[mzmolly]

26. That is exactly what I felt. I think the punditry

Last edited Thu Oct 4, 2012, 09:16 PM - Edit history (1)

is far too interested in style and appearance - rather than substance. I think voters who were engaged in the debates, wanted substance. Some may say Romney won the debate, but what does that mean in practical terms? ... Not much, IMHO.