Oh, I see. He was trying to show he'd made an effort to include women in his cabinet as Mass governor. However, it may have come out a bit patronising - was he also showing his commitment to affirmitive action, or was he indulging in tokenism?

It didn't offend me, but then again I'm not a woman. It also wasn't an answer to the question, which was a wider one about women in the workplace, rather than just about his appointment practices.

And checking, I don't get how he's being completely truthful. Two of his female cabinet members served under his predecessors (Celluci and Swift). Jennifer Davis Carey was at Consumer Affairs and Business Administration and Romney moved her to Elder Affairs. Jane Wallis Gumble was at Housing and Community Development throughout all three governorships.

Did he really have to go to "women's groups" to find two people already in the Administration?

My wife and I got a kick out of the "binders full of women" comment. We had fun hearing it literally, wondering about them suffocating in there. Ultimately I think that Romney did answer the question: a growing economy creates more opportunity for everyone, including women.

I found both candidates to be disappointing on the facts. They are both stronger when criticising their opponent, but neither candidate can explain how he can create jobs AND reduce the deficit.

For the first question, when the young man asked about getting a job when he gets out of college, I would have preferred a candidate to say something like: don't look for the government to solve your employment problems. Businesses will pay you what you are worth. Your job is to be worth something by learning something of value and showing that you are dedicated to your work. The job of government is to create clear rules and get out of the way. Anyway, as I've said, I'm not someone with a political future.

RayJay, that still wasn't the question, though. It was also about workplace equity - women not just being able to get jobs, but those jobs being regarded as equal in status to when a man does them. Like paying the same amount, for example. Like putting coverage for women's health issues on a level playing field men's health issues (contraception v impotence cures).

General 'fix the economy' solutions won't necessarily deal with that.

The Onion puts out the best headlines, "Nation Tunes In To See Which Sociopath More Likable This Time."

freeman2 wrote:CNN has it 46-39% Obama. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... in-debate/ The CNN poll says it is weighted towards Republicans (33 percent Republican and Democratic as opposed to 33 D and 25 R normally used)

Weighted toward Republicans? Hmm, well, if you think a +8 Democratic model is likely this year, good luck.

That poll is within the margin of error, "The CNN poll was conducted by ORC, with 457 registered voters who watched the debate questioned by telephone after the end of the debate. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points."

The CBS poll cited was wrong--Obama won 37-30. http://www.cbsnews.com/

Yeah, I had a typo. The key factor was the almost 2:1 edge on the economy.

55-49 percent of the uncommitted voters in the CBS polls say that Obama was better at directly answering the questions; the rate of uncommitted voters who thought Romney was better on the economy while heavily in favor of Romney changed in Obama's favor as a result of the debate. And of those uncommitted voters 56-43% thought Obama was better for the middle-class.

Even if Obama "won" last night, the real problem is he lost in terms of the economy. The secondary problem is there is another debate Monday, so the effect won't be much.

I suspect we will see polling Monday morning that shows Romney with at least the lead that he has today.

Ray Jay wrote:For the first question, when the young man asked about getting a job when he gets out of college, I would have preferred a candidate to say something like: don't look for the government to solve your employment problems.

Romney did say that--much later. He said, "Government does not create jobs" twice.

Businesses will pay you what you are worth. Your job is to be worth something by learning something of value and showing that you are dedicated to your work. The job of government is to create clear rules and get out of the way. Anyway, as I've said, I'm not someone with a political future.

^ This is a deep bit of truth. Romney should have used it like a hammer. For example:

1. A college education is not for everyone and not every degree is worthwhile. If you get a doctorate in the history of dance, you may not find a good job (true example) in your field. If you major in "Chicano Studies," "Women's Studies," "African History," or "European Literature" you may not find a good job. That's because "businesses will pay you what you are worth" and you have not "learn[ed] something of value."

2. Women do not earn 72 cents for doing the same job men are paid a dollar for. Those studies compare disparate work and claim they are "the same." Men tend to far outnumber women in dangerous work, for example. *Interesting note: it has been frequently reported that women who work for the President are paid less than the men. Oh, the outrage!

3. The role of government. President Obama disagrees with you. His entire scheme has been to tilt the playing field in favor of industries he likes.

Neal Anderth wrote:The Onion puts out the best headlines, "Nation Tunes In To See Which Sociopath More Likable This Time."

Probably Gary Johnson.

The key was undecideds. So far, it looks like Romney did better.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/msn ... 54728.html

I don't see how an undecided could watch the debates and think, "Oh, wait, Obama is doing a good job."

Now, they could get frightened by Romney, but I think an "undecided" voter is looking for a reason to vote, period. They've already soured on Obama or they would not be "undecided."

Yes, DF, the uncommitted voters in the poll were 2:1 in favor of Romney on the economy but prior to the debate it was 71-27% among those voters and after it was 65-34 percent Romney. So the significance of that poll was that Romney lost ground among uncommitted voters on the economy as a result of the debate

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... nd-debate/

freeman2 wrote:Yes, DF, the uncommitted voters in the poll were 2:1 in favor of Romney on the economy but prior to the debate it was 71-27% among those voters and after it was 65-34 percent Romney. So the significance of that poll was that Romney lost ground among uncommitted voters on the economy as a result of the debate

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... nd-debate/

Hey good point!

Talk to me next Thursday/Friday. Obama will still be trailing in the polls and you'll be predicting victory. I'm fine with it.

I am not worried at all.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Neal Anderth wrote:The Onion puts out the best headlines, "Nation Tunes In To See Which Sociopath More Likable This Time."

Probably Gary Johnson.

He does seem to be the more likeable of the sociopaths. For those who've not taken a gander:

Gary Earl Johnson (born January 1, 1953) is an American businessman, a former Governor of New Mexico, and the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 election. Johnson served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, as a member of the Republican Party, and is known for his low-tax libertarian views and his strong emphasis on personal health and fitness. While a student at the University of New Mexico in 1974, Johnson sustained himself financially by working as a door-to-door handyman. In 1976 he founded Big J Enterprises, which grew from this one-person venture to become one of New Mexico's largest construction companies. He entered politics for the first time by running for Governor of New Mexico in 1994 on a fiscally conservative, low-tax, anti-crime platform. Johnson won the Republican Party of New Mexico's gubernatorial nomination, and defeated incumbent Democratic governor Bruce King by 50% to 40%. He cut the 10% annual growth in the budget: in part, due to his use of the gubernatorial veto 200 times during his first six months in office, which gained him the nickname "Governor Veto".

Johnson sought re-election in 1998, winning by 55% to 45%. In his second term, he concentrated on the issue of school voucher reforms, as well as campaigning for marijuana decriminalization and opposition to the War on Drugs. During his tenure as governor, Johnson adhered to a stringent anti-tax and anti-bureaucracy policy driven by a cost–benefit analysis rationale, setting state and national records for his use of veto powers: more than the other 49 contemporary governors put together. Term-limited, Johnson could not run for re-election at the end of his second term. As a fitness enthusiast, Johnson has taken part in several Ironman Triathlons, and he climbed Mount Everest in May 2003. After leaving office, Johnson founded the non-profit Our America Initiative in 2009, a political advocacy committee seeking to promote policies such as free enterprise, foreign non-interventionism, limited government and privatization.

Interesting when you consider that New Mexico is a strong state for Obama.

Gosh, it seems that Romney was being economical with the truth on female candidates for his cabinet. Apparently (link at bottom), what actually happened was that bipartisan women's groups (under the umbrella 'MassGAP' and led by the Massachussetts Women's Political Caucus [MWPC]) got together in 2002 to address the issue (as they saw it) of under-representation of women at senior levels of the State's governement. They got together a report (perhaps in a 'binder' or two) listing all of the women qualified for every position that the Governor would be filling.

They did this before the election, and presented it to the victorious Governor Romney when the results were known. So, it was not the case, as Romney asserted in his anecdote, that he instigated the process of looking for women. It may well have been the case that prior to his election the only people he'd seen to fill the posts were men (but as above, I doubt that is true either).

The thing about this is it's not really a big point, so why would Romney tell such an easily checked fib? The way he did it appears to have turned off (or at least prompted ridicule from) supporters of women's causes, and the issue of affirmative action is not usually one that will fire up the Republican base (at least not to support it).

Oh, and apparently the proportion of women in senior level appointed positions fell from 30% when he took office, to 27.6% when he was leaving it.

I'll try the link - I suspect most people will have heard of it:

Mind the Binder David S Bernstein, Boston Phoenix.

Comments such as this one from Romney and many others from both candidates are calculated to appeal to key demographics, presumably undecided women in this particular case. Although the media can intelligently criticise the comments, I wonder whether the candidates and their advisors have already taken that into account. In fact, it may just be that they have a very low estimation of the average American's intelligence.

Discussions of the deficit are equally depressing. Neither candidate's numbers add up. What would happen if a candidate was honest with the American people? Perhaps that's been tried and those candidates don't make it past the primaries ...

On the non-Republicrat candidates, Jill Stein tried to 'crash' the debate and was arrested for a protest outside (ahh, that cheirshed 1st Amendment!). She, Johnson and arguably Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party are outsiders but are on the ballot in enough States to be elected (Goode would need a couple of write-ins to reach 270 EC votes, and Rocky Anderson is a long way short). I know that there's a 'third party candidate debate' with all four next week - hosted by Larry King - and between Stein and Johnson tonight, but these are online only, not televised.

It becomes a catch-22 situation. A small party does not 'qualify' for CPD televised debates because it doesn't have the recognition, and will be marginalised generally on the media circuit. But because they are excluded from the unofficial (and sometimes semi-official) two-party state of affairs, they don't get the traction to build up recognition and support that would get them at the top table. Looking at the full set of candidates including write-ins for very minor parties, there is a large range of views: Tea Party, Prohibitionist, White Supremacist, Conservative (America's Party and American Independent), Whig, Objectivist, Reformist, a plethora of socialist parties including my favourites the SPUSA with Stewart Alexander, and the Peace and Freedom Party as well as a bunch of Independents (some of whom are perhaps publicity seekers). Now you can't invite them all to a Presidential debate, it would be ridiculous. But there are lot of views that are just not being heard. Similarly, you get people who have mixed "conservative' and 'liberal' positions who find themselves excluded by both main parties. Socially conservative but economically liberal (eg: Randall Terry) or or vice versa (the Modern Whigs?) face a choice of which to junk in favour of the others.

Not that there's really a lot of difference in the actual positions of Obama and Romney on a lot of issues. Sure, one is more liberal than the other, but neither is in anyway extreme. But democracy seems poorer for not including the views of a lot of other perpectives, and when the clash is less of ideal or substance but more about 'identity' and machine politics.