So I'm on the web and I've seen allot or Republicans complaining that Obama got more talk time than Romney , so I went ahead and did a word count check in the debate. Obama spoke 7506 words. Romney spoke 7984 words. A 478 word differential. Obama spoke for 3 minutes and 14 seconds longer than Romney did adding up to 194 seconds which is not even half of the word advantage. So since you are mad about the time and claim its unfair that means that I can be mad about the word count right? If you feel that Obama had an advantage for informational purposes , then that means that since words hold more information and understanding than numbers do when considering the context of the debate that means Romney was allowed to have 478 more words of info and thus was unfair right? Now I'm not on any ones side here, but seriously why the hell are people nit picking so badly that they have to talk about time as an unfair advantage when it really wasn't and word count can be viewed in the same way? I'm an undecided voter and this kind of idiotic crap makes me question the party's confidence and seems desperate to me. Any thoughts?
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
My thought.... It takes Obama a lot longer to speak cause he keeps saying, "uh" and "Let me make this very clear" and then "uh" again as he's trying to spin out a web of misleads and half truths!
When it comes down to practicality the time limit is a bit ridiculous altogether. How is a presidential candidate supposed to explain all their views in 2 minutes? Putting that aside, as ridiculous as this argument might seem, it can be quite valid. Time is different than an amount of words. A person is given a set time, and he can do whatever he sees fit in those minutes. We're not giving a limit on words - that's completely impractical! Some sentences just need more words to be more coherent. But giving more time is different, because if Obama would want, he could speak a tad faster and stick in more words, which is all within his power. 3 minutes and 14 seconds extra for someone on the other hand can be a time for them to answer a whole new issue! The time limit for a single question is 2 minutes per candidate. A whole question could be answered and clarified in this time!
Keep in mind that the same thing can be said with few or many words. However time can give you more time to say DIFFERENT things.
I hope I was clear...
By the way, it's awesome you counted the words. That takes loads of patience!
The President is known to be a 'thinker' and makes certain his words are expressed exactly as he wishes them; thus the lower word count and longer time given.
Mr. Romney, on the other hand, says little, doesn't think before he opens his mouth and has the gall to tell the President of the United States, who regardless of personal feelings, should be respected, tells the President 'I'm speaking, you can speak when I'm finished'......when the President was only going to move his position from sitting to standing. He also must have said ,"I know what it takes" 50 times (Romney) and never explained how. He has very little control over his constant need to be Mr. CEO and run the show. It's not unfair about the time.....what matters is that it wasn't 10 minutes longer. The moderator also was to blame for not controlling the time better.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 49% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47%.
Gallup poll Romney 51% +1 Obama 45% -1 6% MORE FAVOR ROMNEY YES YES
Pew, which in mid-September showed Romney trailing President Obama by eight points, now shows him leading the president by four points among likely voters — the first time Romney has led by that much. The poll has Romney at 49 percent and Obama at 45 percent
As Candy "I cant believe I ate the whole thing" Crowley Interrupted
The fault lies with the Republicans for going for glamour somewhat of dynamism and journey on an identical time as figuring out on a working mate. Forgive me for sounding impolite, yet I fail to comprehend precisely what the Republicans observed in Sarah Palin different than glamour. confident, she is brave and smart, yet it is the achieveable placed up of the vp of the main effectual united states of the international that we are speaking approximately, so they must have given greater recommendations whilst figuring out on the candidate for this placed up. Obama's part has chosen Biden, and few could have any problems with that. confident, possibly Biden's completed some bloopers, yet so has the others, and to boot, he's very dynamic, concentrated, nicely-poised and seems to nicely known his place okay, as we observed on the Vice-Presidential debate. on the different hand, Palin confronted consistent scrutiny together with her intense-ware spending and different allegations. She grow to be probable between the excuses McCain lost via a landslide in this election.
Word Count! That only shows that Obama thinks and talks slower than the challenger...no wonder he has no viable plan for American jobs.
Joel you missed that fact that the moderator interrupted Romney 29 times and Obama only 9.
word count doesn't matter.. its a time thing.. just because obama is a slow field worker and cant speak too fast has nothing to do with a 50/50 split of the time for the debate..
@Composer, your name for Romney isn't going viral, sorry... isn't that an Obummer?
It wasn't even, I'm glad Obama had more time. Talking about his grandma and not answering questions was better for Romney. He can take all the time he wants, because the more he talks, the less presidential he sounds. I'm glad he was given more time to prove what a lame excuse of a president he is!
Well Obama got more time on the first debate than WRONGNEY too, but the result was different. It is not how much time you talk, but the way you deliver it.
I love how all you have to do is say 'LOL' in the answer box and you get 2 points and a thumbs up.