If you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all: Common Repeats in the 2012 Presidential Debates

              Each of the Presidential debates were meant to be different: the first was meant to focus on domestic policy, the second was a town hall style debate with an emphasis in domestic and foreign policy, and the third was focused solely on foreign policy. However, even though all the mediators and questioners tried to ask different questions, both Governor Mitt Romney and President Barak Obama without fail returned to the same few points and constantly avoided questions.

In all the debates Romney focused on his 5-point plan and his ability to balance the budget and give jobs back to the people where Obama didn’t. He continually spoke about how his state, Massachusetts, was the best in the nation in just about everything and that that was a reflection of his policy decisions and actions. When it came to comparing himself to Obama’s policies he would always come back to, “32 million people were on food stamps before Obama took office, now 47 million are on food stamps” and “Obama promised to lower the unemployment rate and the economic debt, but instead he doubled it”. In my opinion, this was a smart course of action. Seeing as the economy and unemployment are two of the biggest worries in the minds of potential swing voters, Romney was successfully poking at the areas of Obama policies that were seemingly the weakest to the public.

Obama chose instead to focus heavily on his policies and advancement of green energy. Most of the debates he spent more of his focus on discrediting the plans of Romney. Obama would continue to hammer on Romney’s ideas especially on giving tax breaks to the middle class. Obama stated that Romney’s plan to pay for the tax cuts by closing loopholes and deductions of the rich would not be enough to cover the cost. In addition, Obama indicated that all of Governor Romney’s plans would only lead to 7 trillion more dollars of debt. If I were just judging on these arguing points in the debates, I would say this was a defense strategy of Obama when he really needed to take more of an offensive action. In an election as close as this one, Obama needed to fight harder to hold his position as president.

All in all to me the debates, while explaining some interesting ideas of both the governor and president, were mostly boring and repetitive. For the most part, if you watched one of the debates you got most of the information that was shared on the others.

Caroline Marso

Advertisements

About rowlanda12

This is a blog about the 2012 presidential election. Content is generated by students in Professor Heldman's Politics 101 class. She does not necessarily endorse the views expressed here.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s