I have another: you need to wait a few days for the polls to reflect whatever the results of the debate were (if any).
First, you need to look up the definition of immediately. It comes two paragraphs later and after two mentions of the Benghazi attacks. You must have missed this the several other times it’s been pointed out. Second, it is unfortunate that it wasn’t clear. If only there was some way we could find out if the President meant to include Benghazi when he said “acts of terror” that day in the rose garden. Oh, how handy, here is the transcript from Tuesday’s debate, where the President says:
The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.
So glad to clear that up for you! Or are you contending that the President was lying during the debate when he said that he was referring to Benghazi as an act of terror that day in the rose garden?
And good thing because the collective orgasm from the right would have made quite a mess.
But did he say it on a treadmill?
Okay, I finally listened to the debate. Listened, mind you, not watched. I have to say that you guys who are saying Obama trounced Romney must be smoking something. I’d give Obama a slight edge, so yeah, he won, but he definitely didn’t run away with it.
As much as I can’t stand that obfuscating, flip-flopper Romney, he definitely held his own in the debate. Obama needed a decisive win and, I’m sorry, this wasn’t it. I think the perceptions of some folks here are skewed by how poorly Obama did in the first debate. Taken on its own however, this debate was almost a tie.
Today would be the first day to track post-debate responses (Wednesday).
This was my take (which I think I may have mentioned earlier in the thread, but I’ll be damned if I’m going back to find it). I missed debate #1, so my expectations for Obama were in line with what we saw in 2008. And he met, and somewhat exceeded that.
But I was expecting GOP-primary Romney which we clearly didn’t get. He was in full-on moderate mode. He didn’t even respond to the defund PP comments, and walked back (somewhat) self-deportation. Nothing about abortion. Didn’t attempt to attack the premise of the women’s pay question. And his tax plan sounds nothing like what he was pitching in the primary - it sounds almost reasonable if you don’t like math very much.
It was an Obama win, but I doubt it moves the polls much. I think we’ll see a steady reversion to the O+1’ish pre-convention norm and a long election night where we sweat out Ohio and Colorado (and perhaps get a late-call in VA). See: 2004.
Or watched it on TV - because Obama looked very calm and confident on TV, while Romney looked nervous and shifty the whole time.
That is in fact the entire purpose of all the babbling.
So, your theory depends on an assertion of fact that is clearly contradicted by the evidence, then.
Did he say it in a box? Did he say it live on Fox?
Gallup is a 7-day rolling average. You need to wait until next week to see the clearest picture of how the debate either helped (or didn’t help) Obama.
ROMNEY: “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
Much better, right, conservatives? No problems with this, have you? Comparatively, Obama was a FAIL and Romney was an ATTABOY!
Video and audio-only are two different experiences with only a limited amount of overlap. Obama didn’t do as badly on the audio version of debate one, and Romney took a beating on the video version of debate two. See Nixon vs Kennedy for more details.
Hey!
Romney didn’t call the attackers terrorists! He didn’t even mention terrorist acts!
Nor would he for 14 more days. He must have been covering up!
Almost 2 hours.
crickets
So, when Obama talks about hunting them down, that’s his way of showing sympathy for the terrorists?
In addition, Obama is slaughtering Romney in the early voting, and the polls still have not rolled enough to reflect the debate.
Don’t get too excited. Obama is still comfortably ahead, even with this Gallup outlier (which apparently reflects a heavy sample of Southern states), Obama is still showing a 65% probability of victory on Nate Silver’s scientific formula thingy.
The Gallup will probably roll back to normal in a day or two. It’s out of step with the other polls.
Takes a while to unpack it all, lot of shit was said, and then there’s the “Did he really say what I think he said?” effect. Romney said at least four different things that I would dearly love every American to ponder for about ten minutes or so, maybe write a book report.
The fact checkers are working overtime. This will be good for those that survive.
Democrats always do better than Republicans in early voting; that isn’t news. It’s similar to how Republicans do better at the actual polls on election day. It’d only be news if Obama weren’t ahead in early voting. The news, as far as early voting is concerned, is whether Obama is doing as well as he was among early voters in 2008. There’s strong evidence that he is not.