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.

I thought Obama had more time and was bummed when I could not find a tally last night to counter these people that said Romney had more time.

boohoo - So, Obama is not a leader . . . we knew that.


I do not recall hearing it mentioned; the biggest surprise for me was that Obama only mentioned bin Laden once.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

Factcheck.org releases their piece this morning.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious...-declarations/

Boom.

Romney totally won..... but I'm still voting for Gary Johnson.



.

The fact is, the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center (APPC), the sponsoring agency behind FastCheck.org, is itself supported by the same foundation, the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION, that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms. Also, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Ph.D. is the Director of the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Jamieson's newest book entitled “Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment” is a hit piece against the Conservative voices in the media on television, radio, and in print. View the book’s Table of Contents: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/echochamber


Seriously? How can anyone interested in journalistic integrity, from either side, condone this being sold as an "objective source"?



?




.