Who Won The Presidential Debate? Mittens or Baracky?
 

Any why?

I actually really enjoyed this one.

Wasn't what I thought it would be.

Romney crushed him hands down.

Obama seemed lost...

Mitt all the way .Msnbc is bitch slapping obama was we speak lol

Either of them can say whatever they want so it will be impossible to know until the fact checkers go over each statement they made. Until then unless politics is your career "who won" is just based on who said the things you wanted to hear.

I thought Romney scored a lot of points in the first 20 minutes. Obama, got stronger as the debate progressed. Romney by a small margin

Why do you people believe anything that either one of those clowns say?

As much as i hate to say it Romney won that go around...

Who says anyone does?

Bill Maher said: "My rating: Romney won the debate, Obama had the facts on his side, and Lehrer sucked. Next debate, get @SethMacFarlane to host!"

I stepped out of the room and missed a few minutes but my boyfriend said that on his first day in office he'd grade schools.

Did he say that?

If so, didn't we already do that? Wasn't it called No Child Left Behind and didn't it ruin education?

I saw someone recommend Wanda Sykes. That'd actually be pretty funny because in the middle she'd yell "shut the fuck up, you know that is a lie... let me tell you the truth."

PS: I voted that Romney won, and I can't stand him.

I am not a Democrat. I am not any party.

I think they are all scumbags.

I think Mittens pushed some good buttons on what people want to hear.

Of course he lied, like they all do, but I think that he told better lies.

the facts are against Obama...

Not what he said.

Go USA!

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb...2rf7o1_400.gif

The girls were awesome!

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb...2rf7o1_500.gif

So what did he say he'd do on his first day in office? I missed that whole thing.

Incumbents usually come off a little flat in the first debate. It was that way with Bush, then he won the next few. The challenger has the benefit of debating for months and months so is well practiced. The incumbant is a little rusty.

Honestly, Romney won on energy but he didn't land any blows. I doubt this debate changed anyone's mind. The policies they talked about are ones everyone is familiar with.

But what is with Romney looking into the President's eyes and saying "the President". That's like looking into your wife's eyes and saying "my wife did you cook dinner tonight?" Makes you look like a weirdo.

Yeah those first 20 minutes I thought "oh fuck, maybe it's time for Obama to get diarrhea and excuse himself from the stage." Having said that, I don't think Romney gave many examples of what he'd do as President, but he did a good job of saying what you wanted to hear.

I'm not the kind of person who is going to jump on one side because of some dedication to a political ideology.

I really do like things that both men were talking about, but I think Romney won the debate from a technical standpoint. He seemed on point. The problems is, I don't believe a fucking word that guy says, and he's basically a sociopath who can be whatever he needs to be to suit the moment.

He says one thing on a national stage, but I'm more inclined to believe we saw the real Romney in the 47 percent video, when he was in private with his kind.

While watching the debate I spent a few moments obsessing over the idea of how much pressure it must be for a man to be on that stage. I wondered how cool it would be if one of them snapped and started crying like a little girl and just having a massive meltdown --and how it would be the biggest news story ever the next day.

He would site with Democrats and Republicans to find solutions together.

I agree with this.

We've never heard this before.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

He only said that he wasn't going to chase their vote and would concentrate on the other 53% for his campaign.

I guess you are talking about his success in doing it before :thumbsup

These are the same concerns I have. I believe him less than your average lying politician.

Oh boy.

:1orglaugh

The difference being that Romney did it when he was governor. Obama never has.

America Lost

Obama lost the first debate... no doubt.

Romney blinks like a mental patient.

first I want to say something about this bullshit 'working together' thing Romney spouted off about..........Romney did not have an opposition party whose leadership publicly acknowledged that their number one priority was to make him a one term Governor. The republicans made it perfectly clear that they were not willing to work with Obama on anything. (this is addressed not to you specifically baddog)


Obama got crushed and it was no strategy. It was obvious that the spin-doctors on what I will laughingly call the 'left' were taken aback by just how poorly he did. This close to the election it would have been moronic to plan that performance. I knew he was losing during the debate and missed a lot of opportunities to be aggressive and score points but when I heard he spoke for 4 minutes MORE than Romney I could not believe it. It really felt like Romney hogged all the time. If my perception was that far off and TBH I was hoping Romney would look like an ass then he nailed it.

Romney clearly won. (I hate both Romney and Obama.)

Choosing between these 2 fucks is like choosing between evil and more evil without knowing which is which.

Dems in MA didnt have a meeting pledging to make him a one term Governor .
In Wash DC the GOP are for something, Obama says good idea Im in. Then they are against it.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07...w-are-against/

:1orglaugh :thumbsup

------------

I feel Romney won the debate based on his eye contact and not looking nervous. He looked good up there, very confident. But I don't feel he won based on what he said, just how he said it. Also this is like picking a favorite WWE wrestler.

75.76% against barack!

This.

Romney won on style... As for substance, he said a lot of false things that Obama did not call him on immediately. You can call that a loss for the country, not sure it's a win for anyone long term.

Are you losing your mental capacities with age? Have you been checked by a doctor lately?

Romney was a lot more prepared and with that comes confidence, a result of making a career out of being a professional campaigner.

The Federal Reserve won.

I didn't watch the debates, did "the fed" or "Federal Reserve" get mentioned once? If not big win for the fed.

Hey, look everyone, someone intelligent, easy to win a arguement with bullshit :thumbsup

Mittens won, hand down.

Mittens kept attacking him on the economy, and he had some very valid points. The president promised a lot of things and has failed to deliver as of yet. When Obama responded he looked weak and vulnerable - which he was.

Oh, and Mittens blinks a lot. A LOT.

I have a hard time with people only talking about "who won" when we're talking about a debate which is to show your positions and say what you would do and answer some questions. It seems such a dull way to think of it that doesn't really help someone vote. And if someone is voting based on debate wins, sheesh.

I didn't hear too much hard data in the debate. I did think it was pretty telling that Romney turned away from the plans he's been campaigning on for reasons that seemed to be because the wind had shifted direction. What is his firm stance on anything besides the same rhetoric we've heard for four years? He said he had a specific plan and then said he didn't need a plan but rather he would set a tone and lay out a framework for what he wanted to accomplish. Well wtf. And he cited Reagan for that? Reagan who raised taxes 11 times while in office? How are you going to stop borrowing money and keep spending up and give more tax breaks and pave the streets with gold without increasing revenue? It's just so much fluff.

So for the tiny amount that it's worth, Romney was more aggressive so people will say he won the debate, which doesn't require winning to get votes, but is more like earning a cookie.

I thought they were both pretty lame and missed chances to make themselves more clear which is a loss for them both, and for us.

Romney definitely won, but how much its going to affect the overall election I think is overblown. He won because he sounded more confident, and he was able to spew out more facts and be quick on his feet.

The media, of course, is going to overblow it. They want as "close" of a race as possible, because it's great for their business.

I believe with the intade odds. Obama's chances of winning the election, the night of and AM after, went from 75% to 66%. How energized people are over this debate, will take a backseat to other news things that come out into the cycle, like another jobs report on Friday.

I follow the electorate. Romney can't win without Ohio, and prior to the debate he was losing there pretty bad. I believe the reason he was losing there bad is because ultimately they like the auto bailout, being so close to Michigan, and Obama has a much better field operation in that state than Romney. They have put a massive focus on winning Ohio, because they know if they win that one state, they win the election. This seems to not be in the news anywhere lol. If what I say is true, I find it hard pressed to believe that a singular debate is going to change the outcome of that particular state, or the election.

This is how I felt too, he seemed stronger early. Though when talking about energy, he contradicted himself early. Overall I thought Romney won.

If you really care about the outcome, vs the little details, boomark this page:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1860.html

He's very close to simply admitting defeat here, which means he would have to sweep literally every other battleground state to win.

Here's a good article from 3 hours ago:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...le-losing-ohio

Polls, debates, conventions, calling every race close whether it is or is not = ratings.
The media is not biased toward either candidate nearly as much as they are biased toward keeping it close.
Romney was behind, so a stronger debate performance gets overblown...
Had the candidate with a lead 'won' the debate they would have undersold the importance instead.
Regardless of which candidate or why, the media just wants to keep it close so people bother watching their commercials.


If either candidate had a 20 point lead and was clearly going to win, nobody would watch the next three debates.
When was the last time the media showed ANY candidate with a huge lead in any election.
Reagan crushed Mondale and in the run-up the pundits kept claiming 'anything can happen' like it wasn't already a very done deal.
People falling for the same routine every four years just doesn't make any sense.

That's the kind of data that actually matters much more than any poll, debate or speech.