2nd Presidential Debate - Hempstead, New York

Ozymandius2011

More CNN poll findings:

Who debate makes you more likely to vote for:
25% Obama, 25% Romney, 48% neither

Stronger leader: 49% Romney, 46% Romney

More likeable: 47% Obama, 41% Romney

Who spent more time attacking opponent: 49% Obama, 35% Romney

more caring 44% Obama, 40% romney
Who answered questions more directly 45% Romney, 43% obama

Economy 58% Romney, 40% Obama
Healthcare Romney 49% healthcare, 46% Obama

taxes 51% Romney, 44% Obama
Deficit 59% romney 36% Obama

Duck Soup

Romney surrogates currently trying to spin the Romney screw-up on the Rose Garden speech. Probably the biggest of the talking points tomorrow.

I thought Candy Crawley got pushed around a little, but she hung in there and tried to rein them in.

Somebody on one of the political shows made a good point last week about amplification of the narrative. Once an initial consensus - large or marginal - is reached, over the following days the broad consensus becomes amplified and more pronounced. We saw this with both the Romney performance (which was an undeniably decisive win), but also with Biden in the Veep debate. Both fed into the polls eventually.

I'm guessing a 1 or 2 point bump for Obama by the end of the week.

nagilum2

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

More CNN poll findings:

Who debate mae you more likely to vote for:
25% Obama, 25% Romney, 48% neither

Stronger leader: 49% Romney, 46% Romney

More likeable: 47% Obama, 41% Romney

Who spent more time attacking opponent: 49% Obama, 35% Romney

more caring 44% Obama, 40% romney
Who answered questions more directly 45% Romney, 43% obama

Economy 58% Romney, 40% Obama
Healthcare Romney 49% healthcare, 46% Obama

taxes 51% Romney, 44% Obama
Deficit 59% romney 36% Obama

Those are not good numbers for Obama at all. But I notice that CNN is saying that republicans watched this debate 8 points higher than the 2008 sample so I think those may be a little exaggerated.

Be like Nutella

Obama won clearly and Romney self-harmed as well.. but, this particular victory lap will only fill so many column inches and news cycles... the debate however has produced and concentrated a very simple two stage battle.

'Benghazi dishonesty'

'Imbecilic -20% unpaid-for Tax plan'

These are the two fights in play til the minute the next debate starts.
How the media treat these two items is where it's at.

Benghazi

Being optimistic: Obama deals with the Benghazi dishonesty by 'almost' apologizing about the 'mix up' between the original narrative and the true narrative clearly stating that it was basically an assassination of sorts and not relative to the video or rioting... and basically navigates that diffusion better and more definitively. BUT it was scumbaggery of the highest order and to say I hope Obama 'navigates' that one to win is as bad as everything I've justifiably accused so called Romney supporters who I'm still convinced are only behind him to get their man in even though they know he's...well...just to be one more name caller in here... a slimey sneaky poisonous amoral rattish snake oil salesman...ahem... had to get that out of the systemn there... but yeah Obama's crowd are scumbags with how they dealt with the attack.

Being pessimistic: The subject of the attack and its emotional element and 'terror related' news gold category make this the fight which receives the most exposure and therefore media works hard for Romney (and their ads) right up to and through the next debate as a perfect distraction taking adequate limelight intensity off his unspecific stupid tax plan last min hail mary 50 yard speculative toe bog.

-20% unpaid-for Tax plan

Being optimistic: All of the respectable newsies focus on the I'm just going to call it 'tax hoax' and intelligently dismantle all credibility on Romney's side and undecideds just use their critical faculties and side with the rational moral choice of Barack Obama (although I don't find his drone war moral or rational but that's a personal sticking point)

Being pessimistic: Tax loopholes, exemptions, blah blah what am I a fukcing accountant? all that stuff is not selling ads fast enough or spiking viewers in prime time news cycles therefore gets less play time than good old staple 9/11 originated 'terror bulsh1t' and so Benghazi scandal gets the full scandal treatment and Romney benefits.

some of that made sense to me, hope likewise.

Carcharodon

The whole Benghazi thing is one of the most politically twisted issues ever, the Republicans are really trying to milk it, pretty disgusting attitude in my opinion.

Bad people do bad things in the world all the time, sometimes all we can do is react, a bit of grounding is need on the whole issue.

Ozymandius2011

More post-debate polls:

Fivethirtyeight.com wrote:

Two other polls gave Mr. Obama a somewhat clearer advantage. A Battleground poll of likely voters in swing states who watched the debate had him winning 53-38.

An online poll by Google Consumer Surveys gave Mr. Obama a 48 percent to 31 percent edge among registered voters.

There were also two scientific surveys about the debate conducted among voters in particular states.

A Public Policy Polling survey of Colorado voters who watched the debate found 48 percent declaring Mr. Obama the winner, and 44 percent for Mr. Romney. Mr. Obama’s advantage was clearer in the poll among independent voters, who gave him a 58-36 edge. However, the candidates were roughly tied when Public Policy Polling asked them how the debate swayed their vote, with 37 percent saying the debate made them more likely to vote for Mr. Obama, with 36 percent for Mr. Romney.

Finally, a poll of California voters who watched the debate, conducted by SurveyUSA, found a 56-32 edge for Mr. Obama. It it is no surprise that Mr. Obama won a poll of California voters, and the poll showed a tie, 44-44, among independents in California. Still, a similar poll of California voters by SurveyUSA had given an edge to Mr. Romney after the first debate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you think Obama won then, yes or no?

I'm bemused as to why you're spending more time on disecting the questions asked than the answers given by the 2 candidates for President of the Unites States.

The moderator wasn't bad. She moderated well. Why shouldn't she clarify a point being made? The whole point of the debate format was that the candidates should not have been addressing one another, Romney baiting Obama was out of line and it needed to be addressed. She brought clarity to the situation and allowed the debate to move on. I know the GOP won't see it this way.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LuckyLloyd

Obama edged it. Good performance when it was needed most.

nagirrac

The Benghazi issue was going to blow up for the Republicans at some point. Yes the administration mucked up the media response to the attack but pointing fingers at the administration for not doing enough to prevent the attacks was always likely to backfire and brings up some challenging questions for Republicans. Should George Bush be held accountable for 9/11/01? Hindsight suggest security was pretty shoddy for that one.

Franticfrank

I think Obama just about came out on top in that debate. Milking the Libya incident is really starting to reflect badly on Romney, and Obama's rebuke came across very strongly. When you look at statistics about the last presidential debate, this was certainly one improved performance by Obama. He looked like he wanted to be there and he stood his ground.

20Cent

Here is the Rose Garden Speech after the attack in Benghazi
http://youtu.be/rDANcaPx1xg

Obama clearly states "No acts of terror will weaken our resolve" now it might be argued that he wasn't refering to that attack in particular but it was strongly implied. If one wants to be pedantic about it I suppose they could argue that which I'm sure many will. Remember that the full picture as to what had happened wasn't fully clear at this stage. Would you want a President who waits until they get all the facts before speaking or someone who shoots off the hip before full facts are available?

Anyway here he is the next day in another speech clearly calling it terrorism.
http://youtu.be/5INluIOJx94

So Romneys assertion that it took him 14 days to call it an act of terror is clearly wrong.

Duck Soup

For those who didn't catch the debate last night, here it is in its entirety.

Laois_Man

What jumped out at me was American whining over petrol prices up to $4 per gallon now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doing a quick maths jig, the US Gallon, converted to our gallon, then converted to litre and then the currency conversion results in Americans paying €0.81 per litre where we're paying €1.70. Yeah, me heart bleeds!

Amerika

Anyone know when exactly Candy Crowley signed onto the Obama campaign?

DB21

Amerika wrote: »

Anyone know when exactly Candy Crowley signed onto the Obama campaign?

Ah, I was waiting for this. Do enlighten us, Amerika, as to how the moderator has an obvious (though not obvious enough to be called on it by the debates commission) Democratic bias this time.

Memnoch

DB21 wrote: »

Ah, I was waiting for this. Do enlighten us, Amerika, as to how the moderator has an obvious (though not obvious enough to be called on it by the debates commission) Democratic bias this time.

Didn't you know? Anyone who doesn't believe that Obama is a foreign born, communist, secret Muslim is biased as far as GOP supporters are concerned.

P.S. Also, reporters aren't allowed to mention facts. Journalism is also not a good idea as far as the GOP is concerned. Opinion 'balance' and conspiracy theories all the way.

Mr.Micro

Obama edged it in the second half. Romney sounded desperate at times, repeating himself and his 5 point plan, and saying Obama did not mention the terror attack in the rose garden.... A big blunder for Romney, it left him looking stupid. He must have not studied the transcript. Effectively, Romney will turn the US into an environmental disaster, as he intends to drill and extract oil, gas and coal from everywhere, at any cost it appears.

Romney did better than I expected, but his look is too slick and corporate, he looks so false with that incessent grin, or smirk. Obama, like him or not, was calmer and measured.

hooradiation

Amerika wrote: »

Anyone know when exactly Candy Crowley signed onto the Obama campaign?

What is "the second you felt the debate was not going in Romney's favour"?

dropkickrugby

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because it was undignified, and not remotely comparable to a sporting event or television show given the importance of this election.

nah, i dont think it was undignified or uncomfortable. Two guys dont like each other, they disagree and argue and dont pretend otherwise, that's life baby, down in the trenches in reality, and way better than pretending you like someone. And you obviously don't watch eastenders enough

dropkickrugby

Laois_Man wrote: »

What jumped out at me was American whining over petrol prices up to $4 per gallon now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doing a quick maths jig, the US Gallon, converted to our gallon, then converted to litre and then the currency conversion results in Americans paying €0.81 per litre where we're paying €1.70. Yeah, me heart bleeds!

i have no sympathy for them either, but when your oil companies and car manufacturers own your government for 50 yeras, they get away with making car engines of 4 and 5 litres to keep the yanks guzzling. So cheaper over there definitely, but they use more of it (in general) thanks to their corupt political system. THe fight they put up against Obama's recent fuel efficiency standards was phenomenal!

THe average crown vic saloon for example is 4 or 5 litres i think - think dublin taxis like corollas, only with 4 or five litres.
Madness

Duck Soup

Just re-watching clips from the debate on the morning shows. Romney's bumbling on Libya isn't getting better with age. The broader feel - especially the body language - is of a relaxed Obama and an occasional petulant Romney. I genuinely feel that you can parse and micro-examine each topic and moment, but people react to a gut feeling and an overall impression. Romney looked smaller. He didn't enjoy being challenged and didn't react to it well.

joseph brand

Memnoch wrote: »

Didn't you know? Anyone who doesn't believe that Obama is a foreign born, communist, secret Muslim is biased as far as GOP supporters are concerned.

P.S. Also, reporters aren't allowed to mention facts. Journalism is also not a good idea as far as the GOP is concerned. Opinion 'balance' and conspiracy theories all the way.

Neither is Science, College and Education. Prayers and prejudice trump 'book lernin'.

Rick Santorum: "We Will Never Have The Elite, Smart People On Our Side." "The conservative movement will always be. . . the basic premise of America, and American values will always be sustained, through two institutions: the church and the family."

In multicultural America, which church exactly? Why am I questioning Rick? I should know better.

joseph brand

From last night:
Obama: When Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he "stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, ‘This plant kills.’"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgLYryI8g

Would this mean that he's flip-flopped again? Am i being presumptuous? Who is Mitt Romney?

Overheal

hooradiation wrote: »

What is "the second you felt the debate was not going in Romney's favour"?

I paused my DVR on that exact moment when Romney went >_< after accidentally getting upset about "MEXICAN Drug Lords" in his response about assault weapons. It was the one time of the debate where he was perfectly happy to be cut off by the moderator without complaint.

Laois_Man wrote: »

What jumped out at me was American whining over petrol prices up to $4 per gallon now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doing a quick maths jig, the US Gallon, converted to our gallon, then converted to litre and then the currency conversion results in Americans paying €0.81 per litre where we're paying €1.70. Yeah, me heart bleeds!

And when we were paying half as much, you were still paying twice as much. This hasn't really changed, to my knowledge.

What annoyed me most about the gas price response from Romney is he quoted the gas price of $1.86 per gallon when Obama was inaugurated. As Romney well knows, this is true of January 2009, but in the Summer/Fall of 2008 - this exact same period in the election cycle we are at right now: during the election - the price of gas was over $4/gal. What followed was economic collapse. This is what crashed the price of gasoline. Yet somehow, Republicans have seen fit to use $1.86 as a talking point as if to say "Look how well the economy was doing when Obama took office, Bush got gas back down to $1.86!"

southsiderosie

dropkickrugby wrote: »

nah, i dont think it was undignified or uncomfortable. Two guys dont like each other, they disagree and argue and dont pretend otherwise, that's life baby, down in the trenches in reality, and way better than pretending you like someone. And you obviously don't watch eastenders enough

The US model is not the same as the Parliamentary system - this was far more combative than most Americans are used to. And since I am an American and live in the US, yes - you are right about Eastenders!

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Actually, I thought Obama seemed quite comfortable by the end of the debate discussing whatever issues were at hand. As for the 72% question, I though ti was kind of stupid, but to your point, Obama did note that women were now the majority of university graduates, IIRC.

Amerika

DB21 wrote: »

Ah, I was waiting for this. Do enlighten us, Amerika, as to how the moderator has an obvious (though not obvious enough to be called on it by the debates commission) Democratic bias this time.

It was that obvious to you too eh.

Crowley purposely allowed Obama almost 10% more time to give his point of view in the debate. And she accomplished this by giving the floor to Obama after constantly cutting Romney off with things like: . "let me give the president a chance here." "We have all these folks here" when Romney tried to correct falsehoods by the president, "Before we get into a vast array…." then going into a completely different question. "speak to the idea of self-deportation," and my favorite… "Sit down, Mr. Romney."

Crowley picked the questions and who they would be targeted towards. Much of her selections were examples provided in order for Obama to shine. And WTF was with that question, DIRECTED TO BOTH CANDIDATES, "I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both of you are Republicans, I fear the return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George Bush?" Really?

And the big one which will resonate for quite some time… The claim by Obama that directly after the attack on the Libyan consulate he called it a terrorist attack. Crowley saved the day for Obama there by declaring him, incorrectly for that matter, right. The president was referring to his statement "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." But he only used that phrase after talking about the original attacks on 9/11 of 2001! There was no indication that "terror" was applied to the Benghazi attack. As a matter of fact Obama refused to call it terrorism when asked point blank later on The View. Now some might argue on both sides the meaning of the claim, but Crowley didn’t allow viewers to draw their own conclusions, or let both candidates make their arguments about what Obama’s statement did or did not mean. She just suck her two sense into it an declared that Obama’s interpretation was right. Later, after the debate, she acknowledged that Romney was correct, but that was to only about 1 million viewers. 60 million saw her give cover for Obama. Oh well I guess, eh?

And didn’t she also figure, knowing the questions she herself picked, that the topic of drilling for oil would also be a contentious one. Didn’t she also "fact check" to see if drilling was reduced on public land and waters, and look into the cuts to federal oil permits. Why wouldn’t she also interject "facts" to Obama’s fabrications? No, she meley stated to Romney "It’ doesn’t quite work like that."

I guess it doesn't!

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

It was that obvious to you too eh.

Crowley purposely allowed Obama almost 10% more time to give his point of view in the debate. And she accomplished this by giving the floor to Obama after constantly cutting Romney off with things like: . "let me give the president a chance here." "We have all these folks here" when Romney tried to correct falsehoods by the president, "Before we get into a vast array…." then going into a completely different question. "speak to the idea of self-deportation," and my favorite… "Sit down, Mr. Romney."

Crowley picked the questions and who they would be targeted towards. Much of her selections were examples provided in order for Obama to shine. And WTF was with that question, DIRECTED TO BOTH CANDIDATES, "I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both of you are Republicans, I fear the return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George Bush?" Really?

And the big one which will resonate for quite some time… The claim by Obama that directly after the attack on the Libyan consulate he called it a terrorist attack. Crowley saved the day for Obama there by declaring him, incorrectly for that matter, right. The president was referring to his statement "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." But he only used that phrase after talking about the original attacks on 9/11 of 2001! There was no indication that "terror" was applied to the Benghazi attack. As a matter of fact Obama refused to call it terrorism when asked point blank later on The View. Now some might argue on both sides the meaning of the claim, but Crowley didn’t allow viewers to draw their own conclusions, or let both candidates make their arguments about what Obama’s statement did or did not mean. She just suck her two sense into it an declared that Obama’s interpretation was right. Later, after the debate, she acknowledged that Romney was correct, but that was to only about 1 million viewers. 60 million saw her give cover for Obama. Oh well I guess, eh?

And didn’t she also figure, knowing the questions she herself picked, that the topic of drilling for oil would also be a contentious one. Didn’t she also "fact check" to see if drilling was reduced on public land and waters, and look into the cuts to federal oil permits. Why wouldn’t she also interject "facts" to Obama’s fabrications? No, she meley stated to Romney "It’ doesn’t quite work like that."

I guess it doesn't!

Wow, these are the exact talking points that popped up on my Facebook feed last night from my friend who is a GOP strategist. Well done.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

And when we were paying half as much, you were still paying twice as much. This hasn't really changed, to my knowledge.

Don't you wish our automobiles could run on nuance instead of cold hard cash.

What annoyed me most about the gas price response from Romney is he quoted the gas price of $1.86 per gallon when Obama was inaugurated. As Romney well knows, this is true of January 2009, but in the Summer/Fall of 2008 - this exact same period in the election cycle we are at right now: during the election - the price of gas was over $4/gal. What followed was economic collapse. This is what crashed the price of gasoline. Yet somehow, Republicans have seen fit to use $1.86 as a talking point as if to say "Look how well the economy was doing when Obama took office, Bush got gas back down to $1.86!"

How about that. In a reaction to the high gas prices at the time, Bush announced he would expand drilling on public lands and waters, which then resulted in the driving down of the price of oil. Perhaps Obama could take a cue here?

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

Wow, these are the exact talking points that popped up on my Facebook feed last night from my friend who is a GOP strategist. Well done.

Guess it's hard to argue with obvious observations from the debate, eh? So... was I wrong on anything?

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Anyone know when exactly Candy Crowley signed onto the Obama campaign?

Rational, cogent discourse called for you.

Didn't leave a message.

Amerika

joseph brand wrote: »

Would this mean that he's flip-flopped again? Am i being presumptuous? Who is Mitt Romney?

Perhaps that's why Romney is now pursuing "Clean Coal?" Just perhaps.

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

It was that obvious to you too eh.

Crowley purposely allowed Obama almost 10% more time to give his point of view in the debate. And she accomplished this by giving the floor to Obama after constantly cutting Romney off with things like: . "let me give the president a chance here." "We have all these folks here" when Romney tried to correct falsehoods by the president, "Before we get into a vast array…." then going into a completely different question. "speak to the idea of self-deportation," and my favorite… "Sit down, Mr. Romney."

Crowley picked the questions and who they would be targeted towards. Much of her selections were examples provided in order for Obama to shine. And WTF was with that question, DIRECTED TO BOTH CANDIDATES, "I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both of you are Republicans, I fear the return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George Bush?" Really?

And the big one which will resonate for quite some time… The claim by Obama that directly after the attack on the Libyan consulate he called it a terrorist attack. Crowley saved the day for Obama there by declaring him, incorrectly for that matter, right. The president was referring to his statement "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." But he only used that phrase after talking about the original attacks on 9/11 of 2001! There was no indication that "terror" was applied to the Benghazi attack. As a matter of fact Obama refused to call it terrorism when asked point blank later on The View. Now some might argue on both sides the meaning of the claim, but Crowley didn’t allow viewers to draw their own conclusions, or let both candidates make their arguments about what Obama’s statement did or did not mean. She just suck her two sense into it an declared that Obama’s interpretation was right. Later, after the debate, she acknowledged that Romney was correct, but that was to only about 1 million viewers. 60 million saw her give cover for Obama. Oh well I guess, eh?

And didn’t she also figure, knowing the questions she herself picked, that the topic of drilling for oil would also be a contentious one. Didn’t she also "fact check" to see if drilling was reduced on public land and waters, and look into the cuts to federal oil permits. Why wouldn’t she also interject "facts" to Obama’s fabrications? No, she meley stated to Romney "It’ doesn’t quite work like that."

I guess it doesn't!

Romney had as much time as Obama and plenty of opportunity to correct Obama, if he believed he was out of line. I would be scared Romney's gung-ho visions for his administration.

Would the US have any friends under his leadership? Does he know how much the US owes to China in debts? His vision appears to be isolationist and to reduce the nation to an environmental nightmare in drilling and mining for energy. Where is there a balance?

Obama was realistic and balanced.

Mjollnir

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Romney had as much time as Obama and plenty of opportunity to correct Obama, if he believed he was out of line. I would be scared Romney's gung-ho visions for his administration.

Would the US have any friends under his leadership? Does he know how much the US owes to China in debts? His vision appears to be isolationist and to reduce the nation to an environmental nightmare in drilling and mining for energy. Where is there a balance?

Obama was realistic and balanced.

That's what's so amusing about the teeth-gnashing and childish whining, all over the net now, about magical 'bias' and Obama getting more time:

If Romney is actually right on the issues, why couldn't the quality of his rhetoric and responses easily counter the crippling blow of being given 3 minutes or so less than Obama?

Amerika

hooradiation wrote: »

What is "the second you felt the debate was not going in Romney's favour"?

Actually I never felt it was going bad for Romney in his points. I did realize though that in addition to Republicans being up against Democrats and the media, they are now also up against debate moderators.

And I did find it quite entertaining that in the CNN polls, Romeny won on each of the issues, yet Obama won the debate??? Someone’s got to explain that one to me.

dropkickrugby

southsiderosie wrote: »

The US model is not the same as the Parliamentary system - this was far more combative than most Americans are used to. And since I am an American and live in the US, yes - you are right about Eastenders!

fair enough on eastenders But i lived there myself for 6 years, and the people i knew knew appreciated reality as much as I do.

dropkickrugby

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps that's why Romney is now pursuing "Clean Coal?" Just perhaps.

Just perhaps? The brainwashing continues.....Christ.....there is no such thing as clean coal, it is a myth. Obama is using the terms to placate the sensible people who realise global warming really is an issue, and at the same time trying to keep the stupid people onside who think they should burn everything. Vice versa for Romney. They are both being disingenuous by using the term but it serves a purpose for the coal lobby, and for both candidates.

There's no such thing as clean coal.

edit- but hey, dont take my word for it
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870599,00.html

Amerika

After the debate, it seems the majority of MSNBC's panel of "undecided voters" were swayed towards Mitt Romney because of his performance (regardless how the MSNBC guy spins it). Isn’t that a kick in the teeth?

Be like Nutella

I was going to say this is just something funny... but actually it stopped being funny a while ago

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

Amerika

dropkickrugby wrote: »

There's no such thing as clean coal.

I think it was Big Bird that directed me to this sight.

Odd... it doesn't look like satire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/4468076.stm

Duck Soup

Amerika wrote: »

After the debate, it seems the majority of MSNBC's panel of "undecided voters" were swayed towards Mitt Romney because of his performance (regardless how the MSNBC guy spins it). Isn’t that a kick in the teeth?

Yeah, I actually watched that segment. After the debate, one undecided had decided to vote for Romney. One undecided had decided to vote for Obama. The rest had decided to remain undecided.

Even in the bubble, it's kicking yourself in teeth to describe that as a majority.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

How about that. In a reaction to the high gas prices at the time, Bush announced he would expand drilling on public lands and waters, which then resulted in the driving down of the price of oil. Perhaps Obama could take a cue here?

GWB took gas from $1.50 to $4.12. Lets not take cues from him.

You have tried to say this before, and it's simply false: GWB did not get from $4.12 to $1.86 by saying he was going to expand drilling. What took $4.12 down to $1.86 was the collapse of the housing market and the onset of the financial crisis.

Isn’t that a kick in the teeth?

Only if you think the election cycle is some kind of game. Ultimately it really doesn't matter what the people on television say, or what polling data you want to try and extrapolate from 8 hand-picked people. What matters is who will be elected, and what they will do. Spend less time in the lazy-river of partisan rhetoric.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

What matters is who will be elected, and what they will do. Spend less time in the lazy-river of partisan rhetoric.

Okay, help me out here... please point me to where Barack Obama mentioned anything about a second-term agenda in the debate... anyone?

(and simply being the anti-Romney doesn’t count)

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, help me out here... please point me to where Barack Obama mentioned anything about a second-term agenda in the debate... anyone?

(and simply being the anti-Romney doesn’t count)

Don't confuse yourself: there is always the third option, that I am critical of both candidates in this election cycle. Also, do not resort to an Appeal to Ignorance, by saying that because Obama doesn't have a plan, that I shouldn't want to see a plan from Romney either.

You can't point me to the math of Romney's budget. $5 trillion in lost tax revenue, $2 Trillion in increased military spending. Romney didn't refute this point either. He simply said "the cuts" make this up. When asked however, he never brought up any of which cuts are going to be made. (30 minute mark in the video -> 34 minute mark is where Romney finally mentions he plans to make cuts, but never says what will be offset)

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Don't confuse yourself: there is always the third option, that I am critical of both candidates in this election cycle. Also, do not resort to an Appeal to Ignorance, by saying that because Obama doesn't have a plan, that I shouldn't want to see a plan from Romney either.

You can't point me to the math of Romney's budget. $5 trillion in lost tax revenue, $2 Trillion in increased military spending. Romney didn't refute this point either. He simply said "the cuts" make this up. When asked however, he never brought up any of which cuts are going to be made. (30 minute mark in the video -> 34 minute mark is where Romney finally mentions he plans to make cuts, but never says what will be offset)

Hmmm... so you got nothing, eh?

Conas

Watched the whole debate last night, and Obama was the clear winner in it.

Romney's attitute towards the rest of the world quiet frankly stinks. He doesn't like Iran, he doesn't like Russia, he doesn't like Afghanistan, he doesn't like Cuba, and he certainly doesn't like China. It''s only a matter of time before he doesn't like us. What kind of a leader would he make? A one that hates the whole world. This Republican obsession with foreign policy is disturbing, and since the next debate is going to be on foreign policy Romney has to lose. We'll get WW3 with this guy in charge. Romney will add to the debt, which Bush caused when he started illegal wars that he paid for on a credit card, which the Obama administration then had to pay off.

Leave the rest of the world alone and let them do their own thing and solve their own problems. It should have nothing to do with America. End foreign aid, look after your own people first. Get out of countries that you aren't wanted in. Don't use your military like toys, and have them stuck in the Middle East, where they are fighting solely for the interests of corporate America and nothing more. End the Federal Reserve. Romney will have none of this.

Ron Paul is so right!!!

hooradiation

Amerika wrote: »

Actually I never felt it was going bad for Romney in his points.

You'd think this would spark more comments on said substance, as opposed to endless complaining that everyone is just so mean and out to get your preferred candidates.

Mjollnir

Did anyone else notice the utterly dripping condescension from Romney when questioned on whether his numbers were correct?

He sneered "OF COURSE" they're correct, after all HE'S the one who made them and he has spent time in the business world, after all, had balanced the budget of the Olympics, failing to mention that he only did so w/federal money, and had balanced the MA state budget, failing to mention that MA state law requires[b/] that the budget be balanced every year.

He was incredulous that someone would dare question his word, like it was holy writ.

That told me all I needed to know about him and his character.