Talk:2012 United States presidential debates

I believe we need to make a change to the heading under first presidential debate where it says the result was a Romney win. You can't "win" in a debate. You can tell how it affected the polls, but you can't say he won. You can also say what the critics thought, but you still can't win. Nobody, no matter how bad the performance, can lose. Nobody, no matter how well the performance, can win. Therefore, we need to delete that result and all the references and sources that go with it.

Sheldonc1981 (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree. This has to be deleted. Nobody "wins" a debate. It could be widely seen as a Romney win, but that's different from if he "won" outright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.158.83 (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree as well. Romney "winning" the debate is very subjective. The actual outcome, even though it was strongly in Romney's favor, is obviously much more complicated than "win". The text in the body describing the various analyses is the correct way to handle it. Shouldn't be in the infobox (and the VP debate shouldn't be a "tie" or anything either, when that's added.) Simply because most commentators said "Romney won" doesn't make a presidential debate an event that can be won or lost, unless the CPD actually sets win/loss rules. (Though, it'd probably be fun to watch the scoring. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why is this website referenced? Fox News is arguably more objective. You can not tell me with any seriousness that HuffPost is credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.33.73 (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Huffington Post is certainly a credible source. DanielDPeterson + talk 21:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

User:132.206.33.73, claiming that the HuffPost is a liberal, let alone "left-wing" outlet, as many on the political right do, is outright ridiculous. However, Daniel, HP does have a pretty clear bias in favor of the Democrats. It should therefore be included with some caution, just like other clearly biased outlets including Fox News. --195.14.220.12 (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Most people agree that FOX is conservative and HP is liberal.--171.33.200.152 (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how you can claim that HuggPost isn't a liberal website. Every list of liberal websites I've seen has it on it. This is a short list and it lists it as #2. 207.42.135.25 (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC) http://www.topsite.com/best/liberalReply

Does anybody think this is worth mentioning? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139750/-Punish-CNN-for-Bogus-Poll-Remove-Candy-Crowley-as-a-Moderator

DanielDPeterson + talk 21:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

It seems highly relevant and reliable. The question seems to be, are CNN's actions being debated more widely? Otherwise, this shouldn't make up more than a concise paragraph in the article. --195.14.220.12 (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're kidding right? The DailyKos is an uber left-wing blog. Thismightbezach (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article stated "Nearly every media commentator agreed that Romney won the debate" with this source, which cannot be accessed and verified because it's behind a pay firewall.^[1] How many media commentators were surveyed? How many said Mr. Romney "won" the debate? Did they use that term? 72.94.162.159 (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is no such requirement that sources be free; read WP:PAYWALL. Toa Nidhiki05 00:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can we add info for the upcoming debates about what time they are scheduled to start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.65.111 (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

It says in the lead that all debates are scheduled to start at 9 PM EST.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Since Wikipedia in international, consider using UTC, too. Auchansa (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The neutrality template for the Oct. 3 debate section needs explanation here. Otherwise it should be removed. It's meaningless to declare a section as non-neutral with no explanation. How is it non-neutral? Cresix (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I added it after reverting a removal (done without a summary but seemingly a valid neutrality point), though that seems to be gone now...so I just removed the template. (Hmm, thought I mentioned it here, guess not.) The "dubious" on Jim Lehrer as a moderator is ridiculous too, since he was obviously the moderator, and nobody's brought up why that template was stuck there. How well he moderated isn't relevant to the infobox, so I removed that as well... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Would this be something worth putting on the page? IVN.us will be hosting an online debate between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein on October 18th. http://ivn.us/ca-election-center/2012/10/11/ivn-us-to-host-first-online-presidential-debate/ vDub (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The first debate, in this article, has a sentence...The performance of Jim Lehrer as the moderator was also widely criticized for frequently allowing the candidates to speak over their time limits.[19][20][21]

This second debate had a notable event, even the subject of whole news articles, about Candy Crawley making commentary, not the usual moderating. She said something like "Obama is correct". It was something about the Libya attack being terrorism. Romney was trying to say that Obama didn't say it was terrorism until 2 weeks later. The truth is that it's hard to determine the cause, Obama did use the word "terror" during a speech the day later, but Obama did not declare it terrorism for 2 weeks.

Actually, my opinion is that it's not terrorism. Terrorism is supposed to make you scared, like a bomb blast. What this seemed to be was an attack and takeover but it was done by a terrorist group. Well, terrorist groups also use the toilet but toilet use is not terrorism.

Anyway, the point isn't whether Romney or Obama is right. The point is that Candy Crowley jumped in and this is very unusual.

Again, not for or again either candidate, just that Candy Crowley did something very different. If Jim Lehrer is mentioned, Candy Crowley has even more notability to be mentioned. Auchansa (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

To be perfectly objective, I have introduced my idea and will leave the writing to someone else. For such a hot article, that might be the best way. I don't have any interest in fighting or reverting. Peace, man. Auchansa (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Completely agree; it's not common for a debate moderator to step in and fact check on the spot like that. (Candy noted Obama did say "act[s] of terror", but also that Romney was correct about the Obama administration blaming it on the film for a couple weeks, and there are of course many opinions on both the fact check and Obama's comments.) Summarizing the entire Libya exchange is probably the way to go, since that seems to have been one of the "big" moments of the night, other than those silly binders full of women. (Though it is quite likely to lead to some editwarring as you suggest...which I'd rather not deal with at the moment either.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Total agreement. Each candidate scored several points, each had less-than-ideal answers on different questions. The MAJOR controversy of the 2nd debate was Crowley intervening (inappropriately, and incorrectly). It is a very substantive issue, and the urgent issue was derailed, and now is deferred to the third debate.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Seems like there is total agreement to make this addition. Yet nobody has written one. Therefore, this is the first draft.... Auchansa (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

During the debate, moderator Candy Crowley created controversy when she interceded during a disagreement on whether Obama actually declared the Libyan consular attack as terrorism or whether Romney's assertion that Obama erroneously blamed an anti-Muslim video as the cause for two weeks before blaming it as a terrorist attack. Crowley was seen as agreeing with Obama's position when, in fact, Romney's assertion was correct. ^[1] However, Crowley did correctly note that Obama did use the word "terror" during his news conference after the attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchansa (talk • contribs) 11:23, October 20, 2012‎

That's a good start, but it biases it to Romney's assertion being correct, when both can be said to be correct in various ways. (And Crowley agreed with both of them at the debate, and was correct on pure technical grounds in doing so. But her later comments as well as the many other analyses complicate things.) Also, it creates the same problems with "act of terror" vs "terrorist attack" as at the debate itself; Obama's position is that it was a suspected terrorist attack from the start and that he declared it as such, but that the events unfolded unclearly. Romney's position is that "acts of terror" referred to terrorism in general, as previous attacks were mentioned, or that it was just too vague to be considered labeling the attack as terrorism. The first sentence could be added in, but then we're not explaining the "why". – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

First, some quotes, with supporting sources:

• Crowley said in part, during the debate, "He did call it an act of terror."[1]
• In his Rose Garden remarks, the President said in part, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, ..."[2]

The answer to the question of whether the President called the Libya attack an act of terror in his Rose Garden remarks rests on comprehension and interpretation of those remarks. The "act of terror" term came in his closing remarks, after the President had interjected general comments such as "Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks." Perhaps secondary sources can be found offering opinions on both sides of that question.

• Bryan Monroe, CNNPolitics.com Editor, said in part, "... as to the original accusation from the conservative critics that Obama never mentioned "acts of terror" until weeks after the attack, they were wrong. Crowley was right."[3], but that doesn't address the issue of whether or not the President called the Libya attack an act of terror.
• Beltway Confidential in the Washington Examiner said, "Debate moderator Candy Crowley admitted that Romney was right to address the president’s response to the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, but he “picked the wrong world.”[4] That source includes a video of Crowley's statement, where she restates the part quoted by the Examiner by saying that she thought that Romney "... picked the wrong - kind of - way to go about talking about it."

There are no doubt other sources out there on this. See also WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

There were also criticisms about how many times Candy Crowley interrupted Romney, and about how she let Obama get the last speech on most of the questions. She allowed Obama to speak first and last on 3 questions, and allowed Obama to speak last on 8 of the 11 questions. I think that's pretty significant and worthy of including in this article.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/17/Crowley-interrupts-28-times-Romney http://www.volokh.com/2012/10/17/2d-debate-audience-questions-were-balanced-time-allowed-was-not/

Also I agree with what is said above. Taken literally Obama never called Benghazi a terrorist attack in that speech, but it was a vague statement and since he spoke both of 9/11/01 and Benghazi it can easily be interpreted either way. Regardless it's odd that a moderator would take a side on any issue during a debate, and is worthy of adding.

207.42.135.25 (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

This Candy Crowley incident doesn't make Obama or Romney terrorism policy look bad, but it did make it sound like Romney was lying, which we know is not true. This whole issue wouldn't have been important if Candy Crowley did not interrupt. This is because even if the worse Romney interpretation is used, that Obama didn't know it was a terrorist attack for two weeks, so what? Below is a new version incorporating all suggestions. So far we have 100% consensus to have Candy Crowley mentioned which is amazing. Usually some partisan objects. Auchansa (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

During the debate, moderator Candy Crowley created controversy when she interceded during a disagreement on whether Obama actually declared the Libyan consular attack as terrorism or whether Romney's assertion that Obama erroneously blamed an anti-Muslim video as the cause for two weeks before blaming it as a terrorist attack. Crowley was seen as agreeing with Obama's position. ^[2] Crowley said in part, during the debate, "He did call it an act of terror."[5] In his Rose Garden remarks, the President said in part, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, ..."[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchansa (talk • contribs) 03:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The part that talks about Jim Lehrer seems pretty one-sided to me. Plenty of people though he did a good job. Lawrence O'donnell who is no right-winger speaks about what a good job he did here. I thought it could be added to offer a more balanced opinion about his performance.

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2012/10/lawrence-odonnell-defends-jim-lehrer-debate-performance.html 207.42.135.25 (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Totally agree, Lehrer moderated exactly as he said he would. Am a little bit reluctant to edit, as this section is already unduly long, but Lehrer has always been a proponent of the Lincoln-Douglas style, and had pushed when asked to moderate before to allow more back and forth between candidates. He just did it this time, as he said he would. This is totally different from the Crowley bungle, which was NOT what she said or should have done, and which she later admitted was a bad mistake. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

- The term 'general consensus' is problematic: you either have a consensus or you do not.

- The two adjectives 'assertive' and 'tough' are presented in a problematic way: by putting the second in quotation marks, there is an implication that 'tough' is a less precise adjective than 'assertive', which I find untenable.

- The use of the term 'meme' is problematic, as the notion of the meme has never gained widespread acceptance in cultural studies.

Jamesthecat (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is there an opposition to objectively mentioning the speaking time of the two candidates during the debates and/or providing any commentary on such. If not, I encourage someone to do so, as it seems to be completely relevant information. - RoadView (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on United States presidential election debates, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121027001808/http://rt.com/usa/news/rt-third-party-debate-stein-249/ to http://rt.com/usa/news/rt-third-party-debate-stein-249/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121027235900/http://nader.org:80/2012/10/25/ralph-nader-to-host-third-party-presidential-debate-in-d-c-114/ to http://nader.org/2012/10/25/ralph-nader-to-host-third-party-presidential-debate-in-d-c-114/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/onpolitix/mitt_romney/Voters-get-their-turn-to-ask-the-debate-questions_45134245
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121017192932/http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/3274 to http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/3274
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121019191955/http://www.forextv.com:80/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack to http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121005090810/http://www.c-span.org/Debates/Events/Presidential-Debate-on-Domestic-Policy/10737434292/ to http://www.c-span.org/Debates/Events/Presidential-Debate-on-Domestic-Policy/10737434292/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121015000419/http://www.c-span.org:80/Debates/Events/Vice-Presidential-Debate/10737434293/ to http://www.c-span.org/Debates/Events/Vice-Presidential-Debate/10737434293/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121018014941/http://www.c-span.org/Debates/Events/Town-Hall-Presidential-Debate/10737434294/ to http://www.c-span.org/Debates/Events/Town-Hall-Presidential-Debate/10737434294/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121025133253/http://www.c-span.org/Debates/Events/Presidential-Debate-on-Foreign-Policy/10737434295/ to http://www.c-span.org/Debates/Events/Presidential-Debate-on-Foreign-Policy/10737434295/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121026004530/http://www.c-span.org:80/Events/Third-Party-Presidential-Debate/10737435220-1/ to http://www.c-span.org/Events/Third-Party-Presidential-Debate/10737435220-1/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121109032711/http://rt.com:80/usa/news/us-stein-johnson-foreign-036/ to http://rt.com/usa/news/us-stein-johnson-foreign-036/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120902034946/http://www.centre.edu/centredebate2012/ to http://www.centre.edu/centredebate2012/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120908032932/http://debate2012.lynn.edu:80/ to http://debate2012.lynn.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United States presidential election debates which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2012 Lynn Debate.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply