“The Messiah” has lost any number of debates. I recall him losing more than one in the Democratic primary in 2008 and at least one to McCain in 2008 as well. Here I’m defining “losing” as losing in the snap polls after the debate.
But Obama’s still winning, and until we see some polls that indicate that this debate has done what no debate has since 1980, I’m going to stick with the CW that debates don’t move voters very much.
Think progress isn’t a fact checker. Of their first five accusations, none qualify as even a “myth”, much less a lie. Just typical liberal advocacy from that site.
What is the point of this? Knocking down a (truly ridiculous) straw man doesn’t advance a conversation, it poisons it.
And? You say that like its a bad thing.
Well, that certainly settles that! And no bothersome arithmetic or citation to trouble me!
I didn’t see the debate. The morning headlines were noticeably different depending upon the source.
I live overseas and check the websites of many of the English language world newspapers.
Internationally the headlines included:
‘Game changer’: Romney debate win sparks Republicans (Sydney Morning Herald)
Romney gains upper hand in first presidential debate (Johannesburg, Mail & Guardian)
Romney lands blows in TV face-off (Hong Kong, The Standard)
Romney rocks the vote after first debate triumph (London, The Times)
Obama team reconsiders strategy after Romney debate win (Dublin, Irish Times)
At Denver debate, Romney takes the fight to the president (Times of Israel)
In the US
Romney, Obama square off in polite debate (San Francisco Chronicle)
Obama and Romney, in First Debate, Spar Over Fixing the Economy (New York Times)
So interesting. Top headline on NYTimes: “After Debate, Obama Team Tries to Regain Its Footing”.
I think what accounts for the difference is bias. Most outsiders looked at the debate and objectively saw that Romney won. A lot of media practicioners in the US are not so objective.
You are right. I was responding to a post from another thread and I mistakenly posted this here. It’s not a strawman.
:rolleyes:
That is an editorial, not a news story. Their news coverage of the debate called it “Obama’s debacle.”
I am afraid such subtleties may be lost on our friend adaher. 
Obama may have overstate the 5 trillion tax cut but he made sure to note that Mitt was missing some vital steps to explain his how his plan would not result in a deficit. Also the $6,000 may have been from an outdated plan, but the new plan hasn’t been looked at closely enough to know how much the out of pocket expense would be. For a guy that keeps changing his mind, it seems that he would need to put out more details on how he wants things done to persuade voters. I guess he “won” the debate in that he seemed more confident and on the offensive. However, he has continued to mis-represent the facts at the very least.
Exactly! Even the debate thread here was full of passionate liberals talking about how Obama got his ass kicked.
Just because the media admits the obvious it doesn’t mean they aren’t biased.
They sometimes cover Monica’s blue dress too, but that doesn’t mean that over a four year span 95% of their coverage isn’t favorable to the Democrat.
Ah. When the media report on a Republican superiority, it’s because that superiority is obvious and overwhelmingly true. Other times, when they’re reporting a Democratic superiority, it’s because they’re biased and evil.
Has anyone else noticed that the Republican strategy of late is “Hey, look- we’re just as bad as we think you are!?”
Someone called him the Messiah in another thread? Link please?
Ah…There’s somewhat of a difference between saying that Obama lost the debate with the implication that this means he was somehow the less-qualified candidate and saying that he didn’t do well because Romney got away with lots of lies and deceptions that Obama did not very effectively rebut.
The claim of liberal media bias is non-falsifiable. No matter how much the coverage seems to favor the right wing, the right wing will say it should have been more to the right.
You mean they haven’t received their accreditation from the National Institute for Fact Checking yet? Come on, adaher, couldn’t you at least offer a rebuttal to even a few of the points made there?
Why should he? The points as you call them were bare assertions.