General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAt Debate-Watching Party in Suburban Ohio, Voters Are Less Than Thrilled ~ NYT
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. Id like to see Obama be very forceful in defending his own actions as president. And I wouldnt 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 dont know the specifics of these things, so some of it didnt mean a lot to me, said Mr. Gardner, the host. Like I said before we started, I hate the Im going to repeal what you did and do something thats better! Who doesnt 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
(13,776 posts)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
(51,855 posts)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
(15,650 posts)renate
(13,776 posts)I guess I'm old enough to not know what that is or how to do it...
woolldog
(8,791 posts)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
(1,477 posts)& 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
(15,650 posts)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
(60,012 posts)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
(1,983 posts)mzmolly
(51,855 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)I doubt it. He was a jerk.
Indpndnt
(2,391 posts)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
(51,855 posts)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
(2,391 posts)The commercials from this will be spectacular! Plus, Big Bird! The freak wants to kill the bird.
tblue37
(66,127 posts)Cha
(306,799 posts)vowing to kill Big Bird was not all that impressive?
Thanks mzmolly!
Apparently, killing Big Bird is a big no no.

Thanks.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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
(8,515 posts)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
(30,674 posts)StarryNite
(11,190 posts)
barbtries
(30,132 posts)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
(11,243 posts)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 didnt 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
(51,855 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 4, 2012, 08:16 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.