3rd Presidential Debate (Please see MOD COMMENT post #175)

vetinari

Clear enough win for Obama. Not sure what Romney was at with the passive approach. It didn't work for Obama in the first debate. It didn't work for Romney in this.

gilmour

Hannity on Fox just had Sarah Palin commentate on a foreign policy debate

Duck Soup

While there's a feeling that Romney ended up proving what he was trying to avoid proving - that he is a foreign policy rookie - one of the more significant exchanges of the night could be over the auto bailout. Romney ended up sounding like he was against it before he was for it. How that will play out the mid-west states, particularly Ohio, could be very significant.

jimmyjon

In fairness to Romney it must be difficult to debate foreign policy against someone who's briefed on the topic every day for the last four years, but nonetheless Obama took that advantage and pulverised him.

Conas

Romney's vision of the world and the future, is a vision that is out of touch with reality, and pure rubbish. All the Republicans do is try and scare the American people into thinking the world is a bad and evil place, through people like Romney and the sell outs at Fox.

I mean look at us here. We have never lived in more peaceful times in Europe, I don't know what this obsession with Russia and Poland is. Romney talks about showing some backbone, yet the Republicans have taken the spine out of America and crippled the country, through woeful and horrendous foreign policy during the Bush administration. Romney has made it clear, you'll get more of the same if he's President.

I don't listen to what chickenhawks have to say on Foreign Policy anyway. Obama should have tackled Romney on why he ran and hid to France during Vietnam, over a war he first of all supported and then ran and hid from. Romney has been contradicting himself all his life. He probaly never done an honest days work in his life. He's a farce, a joke, and he'd make a nothing President.

Waitsian

Duck Soup wrote: »

The fascinating thing will be to watch how the narrative plays out in the next 24 hours.

I'm really looking forward to Jon Stewart's take on it.

Duck Soup

Much as I liked the horses and bayonets exchange, I think my favourite line of the night was "Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s."

Succinct and memorable. Obviously a scripted line, but major kudos to the Obama campaign writers.

Duck Soup

Emerging mutterings out of the Romney camp that what they wanted out of tonight was (a) no gaffes (b) not to appear as a warmonger and (c) seem generally moderate and appealing, with a eye particularly on the female voters. So, they claim, they were content to have no fireworks and make the night dull and safe.

Unfortunately, as Obama discovered in the first debate, if you cede the field completely to the opposition, they'll score goal after goal against you.

Amerika

I smiled at the comments here during the debate about Obama crushing Romney. Both candidates foreign policy positions are pretty much the same. No major differences here.

I'll give a narrow win to Obama in this debate. Odd the moderator allowed them that large block of time to talk about domestic issues.

vetinari

Duck Soup wrote: »

Emerging mutterings out of the Romney camp that what they wanted out of tonight was (a) no gaffes (b) not to appear as a warmonger and (c) seem generally moderate and appealing, with a particularly eye on the female voters. So, they claim, they were content to have no fireworks and make the night dull and safe.

Unfortunately, as Obama discovered in the first debate, if you cede the field completely to the opposition, they'll score goal after against you.

Exactly, I think Romney was very worried about coming off as another Bush. He avoided that but at what cost. If there's one thing that's been established in these debates is that the more forceful debater is considered the winner. Two debate losses in a row (plus the VP debate) can't be good for his momentum.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Odd the moderator allowed them that large block of time to talk about domestic issues.

Frankly domestic issues are primarily about what this election is about.

Duck Soup

The third Presidential Debate from last night, in full.

joseph brand

Duck Soup wrote: »

Much as I liked the horses and bayonets exchange, I think my favourite line of the night was "Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s."

Succinct and memorable. Obviously a scripted line, but major kudos to the Obama campaign writers.

There was little quip before the line you quoted:
"the 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back" referring to Mr. Romney previously saying Russia was America's biggest geopolitical foe.

Now that was funny. Romney looked a wee bit silly using his newly found word 'tumult'.

Tweeted as the families came onto the stage after the deabte:

Bob Cesca ‏@bobcesca_go
Romney shouldn't bend over or crouch down. He looks like one of those old foldy wooden rulers.

Romney looked so awkward and uncomfortable. I was waiting for the towel to be thrown in, and he sat there with that forced grimace/ attempt at a smile.

joseph brand

For those short on time, here's the debate in 100 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKfmuifRiHk

Mark200

Wrong debate ^

Here's the one from last night in 100 seconds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCG8VILWgTQ

Mr.Micro

joseph brand wrote: »

Romney looked so awkward and uncomfortable. I was waiting for the towel to be thrown in, and he sat there with that forced grimace/ attempt at a smile.

He is now Mr. Peace. He deliberately avoided the risk of being labelled a war monger. It all sounded so hollow from him when he was on about the Middle East being ablaze. Has he not heard of the Arab spring and regime changes in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia etc? Of course there is going to be trouble until things settle down. I thought he did ok overall, but he is a chameleon in reality and adapts to suit his audience. That is the worry about him, his constant change or flip flops.

Obama won the debate, he was sharp, caustic and presidential. I am not sure it will be enough to get him first over the line. Romney looks electable after the 3 debates and the economy and jobs is the real issue IMO. The Americans may just want a change to do that and may believe that Romney has that edge to deliver.

Min

Amerika wrote: »

I smiled at the comments here during the debate about Obama crushing Romney. Both candidates foreign policy positions are pretty much the same. No major differences here.

I'll give a narrow win to Obama in this debate. Odd the moderator allowed them that large block of time to talk about domestic issues.

This is what I was going to post, they basically have the same foreign policy, but then Obama kept Bush's defense secretary.

Duck Soup

I think that strategically what Romney tried to do last night was take foreign policy off the table as an issue and make it inert. This was Obama's strongest opportunity to re-disqualify Romney as a potential president by showing up Romney's lack of knowledge and naivety in policy.

So Romney just hugged him closer. Every time Obama would lay out a policy, Romney would find a way to run down the clock and effectively say "I agree with the president." The desired effect would be for people to go away thinking "Same same on foreign policy" and therefore make their voting decision based on domestic policies such as the economy.

It was partially successful. Obama was prepared for all eventualities and, once he'd divined that Romney was playing it safe, he was free to point out that last night's foreign policy position from Romney was at direct odds with Romney's foreign policy position last week, last month, last year.

As I said last night, the warm and safe Mitt persona was particularly crafted with an eye on female voters. And ultimately, it's all about how it played with those micro-targeted swing voters.

SlickRic

the problem is that the general electorate are not that intelligent.

most will see last night as pretty much a draw, when in reality, Romney was shown up as not having a fúcking clue, while also managing to contradict himself all over the place.

also, it's hilarious how moderate Romney has become compared to the last 3 years.

lies, lies and more lies over the last couple of months. pathetic. but the unwashed masses will eat so much of it up.

wonderfullife

for me the most interesting aspect of the debate was for America foreign policy = Middle East + China.

Europe wasn't mentioned period, Mexico and Canada (bordering countries) not mentioned, latin America mentioned very briefly, Africa doesn't exist beyond Egypt apparently.

so what is Americas foreign policy? Under either man? Pacify everything in the Middle East, back Israel to the hilt even though they're a large cause of a lot of the problems, and basically try "sort out those sneaky Chinese with their exploding communist Capitalism!".

Duck Soup

The key thing in all this is momentum. Averages of all polls show that the momentum Romney was riding after the first debate effectively came to a grinding halt after the vice-presidential debate. Romney continued to make small advances in swing states, but he's still behind.

Most averages - Real Clear Politics, Five Thirty Eight - show a statistical dead heat at the national level with tight races in pretty much all the battleground states.

But back to momentum. If the third debate shifts popular sentiment back even a point or two to Obama, that would be crucial. If the narrative changes from the election slipping away from Obama to a second wind for the campaign, that could make all the difference.

Hazys

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57537519/trump-i-have-very-big-news-on-obama/

Donald Trump looking for attention again...he has very big news on Obama which he will release Wednesday.

What are the odds its birth cert related? Get a life Trump

Hazys

Paddy Power odds on the Winning Candidate:

Obama: 2/5
Romney: 15/8

Thats a sizable lead to Obama but in the polls it says they are neck and neck...how could Paddy Power be so wrong or how could the polls be so wrong?

[-0-]

SlickRic wrote: »

the problem is that the general electorate are not that intelligent.

Where is the general electorate intelligent? Look at Ireland's history with FF, FG and the current state of affairs.

Duck Soup

Hazys wrote: »

Paddy Power odds on the Winning Candidate:

Obama: 2/5
Romney: 15/8

Thats a sizable lead to Obama but in the polls it says they are neck and neck...how could Paddy Power be so wrong or how could the polls be so wrong?

Because the national polls have it neck-and-neck, but Obama's maintaining a lead in enough battleground states to get him over the line. Romney's deficit in a number of the battleground states - particularly in the mid-West - makes it difficult for him to carve out a path to 270 Electoral College votes and the bookies' odds reflect that.

nagilum2

Hazys wrote: »

Paddy Power odds on the Winning Candidate:

Obama: 2/5
Romney: 15/8

Thats a sizable lead to Obama but in the polls it says they are neck and neck...how could Paddy Power be so wrong or how could the polls be so wrong?

Oddsmakers set odds so that they make the most money, not according to actual win probabilities. People frequently overbet the both favourites and their favourite sides. So perhaps in Ireland and Europe, a lot of people are "betting with their heart" on Obama, or perhaps they are simply greatly overweighting his odds as a favourite.

That's the best explanation I can come up with for bets on Romney getting odds more than 4 1/2 times better than Obama. Nothing in any analysis I've seen would indicate the ratio should be that large.

Amerika

IMO… The American people don’t care all that much about the candidate’s positions on foreign policy in this election cycle. It's the economy, and Romney continued to keep it in the forefront. All Romney needed to do is show he’s not the warmonger that the Obama campaign has painted him to be. Romney avoided this and did it well (how very Reaganistic of him ). Some people here point to the 'bayonet' gibe by Obama as the key point of the debate (news flash: the US military still uses bayonets). What the electorate here will remember most from this debate was Romney’s attack against Obama’s international 'apology tour,' and his follow-up line of 'we do not dictate to other nations, we liberate them.' American’s care about how the US is perceived in the world. And granted, it is more of a self-perception viewpoint than anything else, but that's politics and Romney hit a home run along those lines.

Romney continued to look presidential and Obama looked small and petty. Even though most of the pundits give Obama a win in this debate, I think it will be Romney who will benefit most, and will receive a bump in the polls because of it.

MadsL

Amerika wrote: »

Some people here point to the 'bayonet' gibe by Obama as the key point of the debate (news flash: the US military still uses bayonets).

But horses not so much huh?


(Can't resist)

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

IMO… The American people don’t care all that much about the candidate’s positions on foreign policy in this election cycle. It's the economy, and Romney continued to keep it in the forefront. All Romney needed to do is show he’s not the warmonger that the Obama campaign has painted him to be. Romney avoided this and did it well (how very Reaganistic of him ). Some people here point to the 'bayonet' gibe by Obama as the key point of the debate (news flash: the US military still uses bayonets). What the electorate here will remember most from this debate was Romney’s attack against Obama’s international 'apology tour,' and his follow-up line of 'we do not dictate to other nations, we liberate them.' American’s care about how the US is perceived in the world. And granted, it is more of a self-perception viewpoint than anything else, but that's politics and Romney hit a home run along those lines.

Romney continued to look presidential and Obama looked small and petty. Even though most of the pundits give Obama a win in this debate, I think it will be Romney who will benefit most, and will receive a bump in the polls because of it.

Newsflash: Obama never claimed that the military doesn't use bayonets.

You're welcome.

Amerika

MadsL wrote: »

But horses not so much huh?


(Can't resist)

LOL... I think people realize the horses work function has been given over to Hummers. And the horses a$$ function has been given over to politicians.

Be like Nutella

Duck Soup wrote: »

I think that strategically what Romney tried to do last night was take foreign policy off the table as an issue and make it inert.

100% agree


Thank you crazy republican right for pushing Romney right into the center and becoming less of a risk to world peace and thank you Romney for not listening too much to John Bolton... I only ever cared about how fcuked up the next guys foreign policy would likely be and there was a genuine risk that the next republican guy would blow this Iran crap up in all the wrong ways... but because it's Romney and because he needs all attention on domestic economy he literally agree with 99% of Obama's foreign stuff which is a lot better than it could have been if one of those primary jokers like Gingrich had won.

Only problem is we're talkin Mitt Romney here so literally everything he said last night might actually be complete total bullsh1t as there are no limits it seems to how much he can contradict himself or change positions with the wind... never seen anything like it in politics in my life. He a calculating lying trickster and he has no respect for republican voters and stands for nothing at all in this world which is just about the saddest thing to see one man do.

But he doesn't want the US in Syria (tough call but I agree with it, to an extent), he doesn't want to sour relations with Pakistan (most dangerous country in the world, not as a nation but as a chaotic possible failed nation) and he doesn't want to preemptively strike anyone for any reason it seems which is so much better to hear from a potential republican president it makes me smile. Can you believe it? two options for US president... and neither are stupid or insane? amazing!

7 billion people breathe a sigh of relief.

phhheeewwwwww

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manic Moran

I didn't see the previous debate. I come into work the next morning, and as I'm checking social media, I see a swarm of 'binders full of women' things. "WTF?" Eventually I figure it out. This morning, I come in, and I see a swarm of bayonet and horse related things. I figured there was something in last night's 'debate' as well. Sure enough....

Got to love the way these things get drilled down to ridiculousness.

Amerika

Be like Nutella wrote: »

7 billion people breathe a sigh of relief.

phhheeewwwwww

LOL. So the world breathes a sigh of relief because George W Bush’s framework remains in place in that our foreign policy is essentially a military policy? Granted the candidates stayed clear of any talk involving ground wars… but drone strikes, military training, military aid, and some sort of attack (presumably air strikes) on Iran if Israel is attacked or Iran gets ‘the bomb’ remains our foreign policy cornerstone in the middle east.

wonderfullife

Bottom line after the neo-right-wing Bush administrations, the world rightly or wrongly see it as simple as: Republicans in = bad news. In Obama they have a guy they sense they can deal with, for the most part, and attitudes towards Americans and America have improved immeasurably since he took office.

Romney would effectively be Bush-lite. I could live with that but would much prefer Barry O. to steer the ship.

FatherTed

Be like Nutella wrote: »

100% agree


Thank you crazy republican right for pushing Romney right into the center and becoming less of a risk to world peace and thank you Romney for not listening too much to John Bolton... I only ever cared about how fcuked up the next guys foreign policy would likely be and there was a genuine risk that the next republican guy would blow this Iran crap up in all the wrong ways... but because it's Romney and because he needs all attention on domestic economy he literally agree with 99% of Obama's foreign stuff which is a lot better than it could have been if one of those primary jokers like Gingrich had won.

Only problem is we're talkin Mitt Romney here so literally everything he said last night might actually be complete total bullsh1t as there are no limits it seems to how much he can contradict himself or change positions with the wind... never seen anything like it in politics in my life. He a calculating lying trickster and he has no respect for republican voters and stands for nothing at all in this world which is just about the saddest thing to see one man do.

But he doesn't want the US in Syria (tough call but I agree with it, to an extent), he doesn't want to sour relations with Pakistan (most dangerous country in the world, not as a nation but as a chaotic possible failed nation) and he doesn't want to preemptively strike anyone for any reason it seems which is so much better to hear from a potential republican president it makes me smile. Can you believe it? two options for US president... and neither are stupid or insane? amazing!

7 billion people breathe a sigh of relief.

phhheeewwwwww

Except he was toeing a different line during the primaries. So which Mitt will we get if he's elected?

Ozymandius2011

A number of blogs/news outlets including Forbes and MSNBC are reporting that the Romney family including Tagg Romney are investors in the e-voting machines (Hart Intercivic ones) in Ohio. Could the GOP steal Ohio like they did Florida 12 yrs ago?

BlaasForRafa

Amerika wrote: »

Romney continued to look presidential and Obama looked small and petty. Even though most of the pundits give Obama a win in this debate, I think it will be Romney who will benefit most, and will receive a bump in the polls because of it.

I doubt that you could be any more biased if you tried.

joseph brand

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's amazing what flip-flopping, pants-on-fire-lies and a lack of any details or specifics or personal tax returns, can do for a candidate. The fact that the polls have the race neck-and-neck is proof that dishonesty works. It certainly does in Wall St.

Romney threw Obama a 'curveball' in the first debate, by not being himself. But in the indelible words of George W Bush; "Fool me once shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Obama was prepared for the following debates, Joe Biden likewise.

I'm not sure that the first debate was crucial, since the second and last debates are fresher in voters' minds. Debates in which Obama clearly came out on top. Surely winning the last debate would be more crucial?

OVERALL DEBATE SCORES:
Obama 2-1 Romney
Biden 1-0 Ryan

Amerika

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I doubt that you could be any more biased if you tried.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Amerika

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

A number of blogs/news outlets including Forbes and MSNBC are reporting that the Romney family including Tagg Romney are investors in the e-voting machines (Hart Intercivic ones) in Ohio. Could the GOP steal Ohio like they did Florida 12 yrs ago?

LOL... 'It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes' - Joseph Stalin

You don't think there will be the utmost scrutiny over the OH count? I bet they even bring in the UN to oversee it.

Ozymandius2011

Amerika wrote: »

LOL... 'It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes' - Joseph Stalin

You don't think there will be the utmost scrutiny over the OH count? I bet they even bring in the UN to oversee it.

These machines failed security and software testing in 2007.

Amerika

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

These machines failed security and software testing in 2007.

Yeah, and wern't they fixed in time for the November 2008 election when McCain Obama won? Hmmm... perhaps there still wre problems in 2008.

Amerika

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It's a brazen conflict of interest for the owner of the company that owns the machines to be the son of a Presidential candidate.

And wouldn't it be a LIE to state that "the owner of the company that owns the machines to be the son of a Presidential candidate?"

http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-investment-in-voting-machines-2012-10

Be like Nutella

Amerika it is not true to say Obama's foreign policies have been similar to Bush's years... although he did inherit a load of Bush legacy stuff.

Not that I agree totally with Obama's actions - as I've said before the drones thing for instance makes me sick and I will never forgive Obama as a man for personally overseeing the drone murder that's been going on in Waziristan. That being said even the step up in Drone use was different to Bush... who used them quite sparingly in comparison... not that Bush ever had a bleedin clue what he was doing... everybody with more than 2 brain cells is fully aware of who was in control of Bush's foreign policy and it starts with neo and ends with cons.

Obama has played the Israel ass licking game differently... as Romney says putting daylight between himself and that sadistic animal Netanyahu... which he is absolutely right to do morally and geopolitically and which is completely against AEI Neocon style i.e. anti-bush style

Obama has played the Iran (who does not have a nuclear weapons development program) game more intelligently although he shouldn't have gloated the way he did last night referring to how he has personally crippled their economy essentially which is nothing whatsoever to be proud about and shows how coldhearted Obama is capable of being.... but again having not landed on the side of preemptive bombing is again anti-cheney,anti-bush, anti-AEI, anti-neocon and better for the world as a whole.

He's admitted how stupid America was to do the things they've done in decades gone by and tried to make amends for those things by firstly doing his best to apologize for things America has done like propping up the very dictatorships he supported revolt against and did so in a subtle and brave way when he traveled to Egypt and was greatly received.... and opposed to what Romney said there is so much needless blood on American hands the world deserves an outright apology for the WMD debacle and the 50-150,000 men women and kids killed as a result of lunatic neocons pulling the strings of a depressingly illiterate incapable embarrassment that was George W Bush.

Oh Obama is not afraid to get his hands dirty and take out a few dozen 'haji's' with chicken sh1t drones to keep the American people believing he's the big man (when clearly he's just creating more and more hatred breeding more and more jihadists) BUT he does things small and relatively accurately as opposed to what Cheney, Pearle and Wolfowitz had in mind which was massive expression of American power given any excuse at all to create the world America deserves, which, as it turned out... completely backfired and has created more hatred for America and left America entirely embarrassed for voting in 8 years of painful Bush sh1te.... and Obama certainly has not represent similar foreign doctrine in any way shape or form, guilty as he is personally for the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians by drones in Pakistan.

Yes, America has ended genocide in the case of a late Kosovo appearance via untouchable stealth bombers, but has also stood open eyed and allowed preventable mass genocide in the case of Rwanda and Clinton. America is not the worlds police man. never was, nor does the world want it to be and I think Obama understands that. There are certain American principles which the world admires but it is not evident in the actions of America in the world and I could name a hundred examples where America has done the most inhumanly evil acts in the name of national interest or in some cases personal interest. The whole thing is a myth and it has always been a myth - America however CAN have massive positive impacts on certain situations out there such as the Israel Iran debacle - reigning in a bloodthirsty Israeli leadership and helping to get Kadhafi out. America is in a position to have certain effects on the further escalation of bloodshed in Syria but Obama knows that there is a limit to what he can do as sad as that clearly is. Romney has no experience of the world and these matters and has been a business suit in government clothing rather than the statesman that Obama clearly is and accepted and respected to be around the world.

Obama has single-handedly saved and restored so much of what Bush burnt as regards the world's respect for America. Bush made you all a laughing stock especially by being voted in twice jesus how did that happen... Obama is a credible leader with his moral compass, mostly, in the right direction which is an America the world wants influencing global situations and that is why I hope he stays on. Romney is an unknown, even to Romney... he literally will just adapt to what 'wins' for him and has no qualms sacrificing any remotely identifiable principles for political gain... which in business seems like an impressive set of skills however in the real world of people and the governance of people (who don't have 100 million dollars and a Harvard degree) is sick an amoral and not worthy of the leadership of what clearly could be such an amazingly great country.

Ozymandius2011

Amerika wrote: »

And wouldn't it be a LIE to state that "the owner of the company that owns the machines to be the son of a Presidential candidate?"

http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-investment-in-voting-machines-2012-10

Okay but the link is still close enough to be a cause of serious concern. As your link says, Tagg Romney's fund Solamere, has partnered with HIG - which has a controlling interest in Hart Intercivic which do own the machines. And HIG executives are active supporters of Romney.

And I was not lying but reporting what the blogosphere was saying.

The Bishop!

Amerika wrote: »

You don't think there will be the utmost scrutiny over the OH count? I bet they even bring in the UN to oversee it.

Good call.

United Nations-affiliated election monitors from Europe and central Asia will be at polling places around the U.S. looking for voter suppression activities by conservative groups, a concern raised by civil rights groups during a meeting this week.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/263141-international-monitors-at-polling-places-draw-criticism-from-voter-fraud-group

Catherine Engelbrecht, president of the Tea Party voter fraud suppression group True the Vote is none too pleased apparently.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Min

Hazys wrote: »

Paddy Power odds on the Winning Candidate:

Obama: 2/5
Romney: 15/8

Thats a sizable lead to Obama but in the polls it says they are neck and neck...how could Paddy Power be so wrong or how could the polls be so wrong?

I put €20 on Romney at 2/1, odds went to what you have quoted, today Romney is down to 13/8 with Obama at 1/2.

I put €80 on Obama to be below 302.5 electoral college votes at 5/6, PP since lowered it to 290.5 at 5/6.

The debates made Romney a credible alternative to Obama.

joseph brand

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, but Romney is selling snake oil. Of course he's tried to make it sound like a great plan, he's a salesman. He couldn't give a rats about Americans. The first debate would have been a lot different if Romney had been himself, whoever that is. I have no clue what Romney believes in, bar mormonism. Feel free to enlighten us as to how he'll pay for his lowered tax rate?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How disingenuous of you. Obama by all accounts won the 2nd and 3rd debates. Obviously Dem supporters are going to applaud Obama for these two debates. Likewise, Rep supporters keep harping on about the first debate, ignoring the two recent ones. And that's fine. Also, Reps seem pretty quiet on the Biden/ Ryan trashing. Hmmmmm. . . . . .

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think I'll ignore the polls from now on. I prefer to wait and see. Besides, with all these polls having the candidates neck-and-neck, I wonder if there's anyone who stands to make more money from pushing this 'fact'. After Lehman and LIBOR, I'm quite skeptical.