I understand that many of today’s polls were from data gather a day or 2 after the debate. If there is that much of a delay then people’s reaction to jobless rate may tilt things the other way. I was still shocked that Mitt was on top. As an Obama supporter, I didn’t feel Mitt said anything. But I am biased and generally don’t agree with many republican platforms anyway. Also I love the idea of universal healthcare and I feel the DREAM act would have been wonderful. Also I thing gay people should be allowed to get married but I digress…
Mitt isn’t every likely to get someone like me to vote for him, but considering the goofs he has had on the campaign trail, just one “good” performance can bounce him up like that… Disturbing.
Heard or read, some pollster guys, says that when he gives Republicans bad news, they want to kill him. When he gives liberals bad news, they want to kill themselves.
Yeah, that’s the great thing about this place. People can spell and punctuate and express themselves verbally in ways that are oddly old school compared with its politics. Reminds me of the early sixties, back when education…uh, educated.
I would agree that Romney won in a split decision, maybe 7-5 rounds. But now I hear the talking heads say things like “Romney mopped the floor with Obama” or “Romney crushed Obama” and nobody calls foul, even Obama fans. It was a boring, almost substanceless debate, and only the media wonks think any mopping or crushing went on.
Well, to be fair even CNN’s immediate post debate audience had it 66% to 25% for Romney, which subsequent polls the next day reflected over most of the country.
Media spin in the meantime has brought that down but it was hardly a split decision. Romney was engaging and on top of things and Obama was peevish and behaved as though he could hardly be arsed to drone out his usual platitudes.
No contest, really. It’ll be interesting to see how he transforms himself for the next debate and whether he’ll be able to pull off the transformation.
I still haven’t met anyone who isn’t a Republican who thinks that Romney came off well at the debate. I don’t think Obama did well either, but Romney looked like a complete asshole. The split screens when Obama was talking were more uncomfortable than Curb Your Enthusiasm.
If you want to see some liberals who absolutely think Romney won the debate I suggest you check out the post debate activity in this forums Presidential Debate thread. Then check out how apopleptic the liberal media talking heads (Mathews, Sullivan, Carville, Maher, etc., etc.) were that night and the following day.
I don’t know about everyone else, but I was upset because Romney was giving huge openings to Obama that were just being ignored. He wasn’t even lobbing the pitches, he was setting them up on a pee wee batting tee. I think I actually yelled when Romney said that he wouldn’t lower taxes on the 1% and Obama didn’t nail that one out of the park. He’s been campaigning for months on 20% lower taxes for everyone. I mean, for Og’s sake, you don’t get a softer pitch than that.
[QUOTE=PRESIDENT OBAMA]
Well, for 18 months he’s been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he’s saying that his big, bold idea is “never mind.” And the fact is that if you are lowering the rates the way you describe, Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class. It’s – it’s math. It’s arithmetic.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, I wasn’t remembering Obama’s preface to that remark. I still feel the gist of his response was that Romney’s math doesn’t work and not that he just lied to 80 million people.
Fair enough… I also think that in addition to having a really off-night, he was unprepared for Romney completely walking back everything he had been saying. I don’t think he’ll be unprepared again.
Well, I think his tactic was “I’m way ahead in the race, don’t be too confrontational, and above all, don’t make a mistake.” I think that was coupled with the stress of being president (Turkey-Syria erupted that night, IIRC), the stress of campaigning, and it being his anniversary.
I think that confluence of factors is what made him appear tired and explains his unwillingness to engage Romney.
Once again, its monkey. We tend to overestimate the rational bases for our decisions, we think we think, when mostly we feel, we learn to read faces long before we learn to read words.
Case in point: Romney baldly but assertively lies about his tax stuff, Obama reasonably and factually rebuts. And the lie works and the rebuttal, however factual, seems weak and passive.
Obama is a wonkasaurus, a man deeply faithful to reason and fact, even where reason and fact are handicaps. The wonks think he won, he had the facts. The monkeys say he lost. And even if the monkeys are wrong, they’re right.
My wife thought Obama won. Perhaps on the facts he did, but I knew he was losing after he didn’t refute the $716 billion taken from Medicare lie the third time it was repeated.
Really all Obama needed to do to win was repeat Bill Clinton’s points from his convention speech. Romney left himself wide open for a raft of counter-punches that Obama never bothered to throw.
I’ve got to admit that I rarely know who “won” a debate until the pundits tell me. In both of the debates so far, it seemed to me they were pretty much talking over and past each other, saying pretty much what they’ve been saying all along and rarely, if ever, responding directly to the moderator or to each other, except perhaps to say, “Not so!” I support Obama and Biden, but I was neither unimpressed with Obama’s performance nor impressed with Biden’s.
And as others noted, I find it difficult to believe there are undecided voters out there who found anything in these debates that led them to a clear choice. There was nothing new, nor was there anything old that was spelled out in more detail or more clearly. As for those who seem to think that being “more animated” is worth extra points, how long before the debates turn into Punch ‘n’ Judy shows?
The debates should take place in written form, like we do here. Over the course of a week, maybe. When Romney showered shit down on Obama about what a terrible, awful, no-good job he was doing, just about every number in it was somewhere between shaky and nothing. It took Romney about two minutes to do it, it would have taken Obama half an hour to counter them, and he didn’t have half an hour.
And, as I said in the Pit thread, once you know someone lied, you should reevaluate your opinion on whether they won. The point of a debate is to provide information that will make me agree with you. Lying is cheating. If I just wanted to hear the guy say whatever, I’d listen to an ad. The point of a debate is that there’s supposed to be some sort of assurances that we are hearing the truth.
I understand people assuming he won at the time, even if they thought maybe he was a bit shaky. I don’t get people who still think he won now that it’s clear that he lied.
