Study: Obama wins title of debate Interrupter-in-Chief

[bemildred]

DON'T YELL AT ME, I'M NOT A TROLL!
This is an important subject.

I watched the 2nd Pres. Debate closely, and I was very impressed with how Obama disrupted Rmoney's bullying tactics, he did it exactly right. What you do is - without out-shouting them - make sure that they do not get the floor and they cannot be heard either, until they give up. How do you do that? You keep talking, but not as loud as the other guy, until he stops. The usual impulse of the bully at that point is to resort to force, but that will lose the debate. Meanwhile, you maintain the impression that he is talking over you, that he is the bully.

I want you to notice how few extra impolitenesses are actually necessary, even with a habitual bully like Mitt..

A review of by a non-partisan media monitor found that Republican Mitt Romney endured more interruptions than President Obama did during Tuesday’s second presidential debate.

Obama cut off Romney in mid-sentence 36 times, while Romney cut off Obama 28 times, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University in Virginia. Moderator Candy Crowley cut off Romney 23 times, compared with the 15 times she cut off Obama.

The organization combined all forms of interruption and found that Romney was interrupted 59 times, compared with 43 times for Obama.

The figures are more reliable than others compiled by partisan outfits that style themselves as media watchdogs.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-most-debate-interruptions-20121019,0,3571204.story

[kimbutgar]

1. What about the first debate rmoney definitely interrupted the president more than 36x

Where is that story?

[ProSense]

3. That story isn't important. What's

important is that Romney won on "style."

[Raster]

6. Thank you!

[NYC_SKP]

2. What this data suggests is that Romney NEEDED TO BE INTERRUPTED more than Obama...

not that Obama was a more interruptive or rude person.

K/R

[bemildred]

7. Yes, and that done properly, it works.

O "won" the second debate, and he got to talk, and he got listened to. Part of the key to that was that Ms Crowley was trying to do her job, so that when O stepped into help, the two of them could make Rmoney back off.

[Raster]

4. So that's just for the second debate? I wonder what those stats look like for the first debate?

I think President Obama realized he need to be firm in the second debate to get his points across.

[bemildred]

12. Yah. nt

[jenmito]

5. How about the number of times Romney interrupted the moderator? n/t

[bemildred]

11. See post #7.

What's the question?

I infer you mean why didn't that work, and the answer to that: it did work, when O did not add his weight to the protest. Ms Crowley, as with Mr Lehrer, is not really in a position to challenge the bully without support, that just makes her look bad. But if she objects and then O steps in too when Rmoney keeps babbling, the tables turn.

[jenmito]

17. I meant to ask if there was a tally of the number of times Romney interrupted Crowley

compared to how many times Obama interrupted her.

[bemildred]

19. I believe that was at the bottom, the other numbers. nt

[jenmito]

24. OK, thanks. Romney interrupted her 11 times, Obama interrupted her 9 times. n/t

[Cosmocat]

8. i do think

that moderators have been deferential the president in regard to cutting him off/holding his time at the limit.

What WE see is that Romney/Ryan lie their ever loving arses off, and we see justification in cutting them off 10 times more so than our guys.

Romney also is a lot more coarse about it, Biden more coarse than Ryan.

The bigger issue is not the cutting off, that is a symptom, not the issue.

The issue is the Rovian mindset of using the rule of fair play against itself - flat lying when the decorum of the event requires an honest discourse. They don't wire the candidates up with shock collars that bolt them when the lie, it is ASSUMED that there is going to be an honest debate. THAT is what Romney has taken advantage of.

With the post debate 'analysis" focused on CNN-like tit for tat fact checking where they pick two things that romney lied about and feel compelled to find two things they can say the President lied about.

[longship]

9. Rubbish! What about the first debate?

Did anybody keep score then?

Not criticizing OPer. Criticizing posted article.

No rec for this thread.

[progressivebydesign]

10. Bullshit. The president HAD to interrupt Romney because Romney talked over HIS time!! nt

[Frank Cannon]

20. It's also the only way to counter the "Gish Gallop"

The tactic of telling so many lies so fast that the other debater is only able to rebut a few of them, if any, within the time he has.

[Stargleamer]

23. +1

[mzmolly]

13. Obama had to address the BS this time, vs worry about being polite.

"That's not true" is highly appropriate, time and time again, when debating Willard.

[bemildred]

14. Quite. nt

[ejbr]

18. +1 n/t

[Sunlei]

15. The President did great and the words, "that's not true" was a good bully-blocker

Would like President Obama to bring out some foreign investment surprises this next debate.

Romney has invested in Iran and China for decades. He has never worked a day in his life FOR Americans.

[bemildred]

16. It was perfect. All you need. nt

[NYC_SKP]

21. Love this picture...

[bemildred]

22. "How would she know?"