The debate winner isssss........

[courseofhistory]

Independent voters gave Obama the edge by I'd say 65 to 49% overall on CNN. There was a ticker for Colorado independent voters on the screen and Obama went to 100% I'd say about 6-8 times and Romney about 4-5. Romney went below the line about 4 times and Obama never did. Obama got higher marks consistently on healthcare and education, economy maybe a slight edge. Women consistently gave him higher marks than men, especially on education and healthcare. I'm on another forum with about 6K members but only 20 or so posting regularly, predominately republicans and of course, they thought Romney did super! *rolling eyes*

If you weren't looking for details, I'd say Romney did pretty well.. But independent voters on the screen gave it to Obama by a pretty good margin.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Obama seemed honest, not trying to put on some spectacle like Mitt, who is a shape-shifter and will say whatever he thinks will get him approval.

You mean like talking Ebonics in front of mostly black crowds?

Get off you high unicorn

 

[Murf76]

Luntz just showed numbers off the charts for Romney's statements on bipartisanship.

 

[newpolitics]

Buhahahahahaha, you're kidding right???

Does it sound like I'm kidding? Are you kidding when you're asking me if I'm kidding? Get real.

Your entitled to your Opinion, but I am pretty sure you are in a small Minority.

I may be. I only caught the second half of the debate. I admit Obama seemed a little tired, I guess, but he was more respectful of the process and of the debate itself, which can not be said for Romney. When you're opponent is employing such bullshit, immature tactics (COMPLETELY disregarding the moderator in an effort to bad mouth his opponent), its hard not to also partake. I think Obama did a pretty good job resisting this temptation at retaliation at moments and keeping his composure amidst such immaturity and flame-throwing.

 

[Some Guy]

Been watching CNN. About spot on with their analysis, i think, in that it basically boiled down to Romney looking like he wanted to be there and Obama didn't. Maybe it was the presidential bubble and Obama being surrounded by advisors and media that enjoy the taste of his asshole around every turn. Obama didn't look at Romney much, he looked lethargic and and stumbled a little bit more.

I think the biggest error for the democrats coming out of this and perhaps going in were to harp on lack of specifics from Romney. Not that he has a tons of them but Romney threw out lots of specifics in different areas. Obama kept sticking to the "Romney doesn't give specifics" idea even when Romney was giving specifics.

Chalk one up for Romney without a doubt. Two more though and this could be an eye opener for Obama. I doubt he'll be this lifeless in the next one.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Does it sound like I'm kidding? Are you kidding when you're asking me if I'm kidding? Get real.

Your entitled to your Opinion, but I am pretty sure you are in a small Minority.

I may be. I only caught the second half of the debate. I admit Obama seemed a little tired, I guess, but he was more respectful of the process and of the debate itself, which can not be said for Romney. When you're opponent is employing bullshit tactics, its hard not to also partake. I think Obama did a pretty good job resisting this temptation and keeping his composure amidst such immaturity and subtle flame-throwing.

In otherwords Romney LEAD the debate. He drove it. Exercised leadership skills

 

[SniperFire]

Does it sound like I'm kidding? Are you kidding when you're asking me if I'm kidding? Get real.

Your entitled to your Opinion, but I am pretty sure you are in a small Minority.

I may be. I only caught the second half of the debate. I admit Obama seemed a little tired, I guess, but he was more respectful of the process and of the debate itself, which can not be said for Romney. When you're opponent is employing such bullshit, immature tactics (COMPLETELY disregarding the moderator in an effort to bad mouth his opponent), its hard not to also partake. I think Obama did a pretty good job resisting this temptation at retaliation at moments and keeping his composure amidst such immaturity and flame-throwing.

You mean he should have permitted Obama's baldface lies to stand unchallenged?

LOL

 

[Some Guy]

Regarding CNN, you know Romney did something right when Van Jones is giving him props, albeit regrettably.

 

[Eaglewings]

Romney did surprisingly well. Obama needs a fire under his butte...lol He will get it, and is just warming up.

I'd hope tha after he sees what a poor performance he gave tonight, he will come out guns blazing in the next one.

Blazing saddles

 

[newpolitics]

Your entitled to your Opinion, but I am pretty sure you are in a small Minority.

I may be. I only caught the second half of the debate. I admit Obama seemed a little tired, I guess, but he was more respectful of the process and of the debate itself, which can not be said for Romney. When you're opponent is employing bullshit tactics, its hard not to also partake. I think Obama did a pretty good job resisting this temptation and keeping his composure amidst such immaturity and subtle flame-throwing.

In otherwords Romney LEAD the debate. He drove it. Exercised leadership skills

When you lack integrity, leading the debate amounts to nothing.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I may be. I only caught the second half of the debate. I admit Obama seemed a little tired, I guess, but he was more respectful of the process and of the debate itself, which can not be said for Romney. When you're opponent is employing bullshit tactics, its hard not to also partake. I think Obama did a pretty good job resisting this temptation and keeping his composure amidst such immaturity and subtle flame-throwing.

In otherwords Romney LEAD the debate. He drove it. Exercised leadership skills

When you lack integrity, leading the debate amounts to nothing.

If what you say is true then that makes Obama even more inept than I thought. According to you he was lead around by a man with no integrity.

 

[SniperFire]

I may be. I only caught the second half of the debate. I admit Obama seemed a little tired, I guess, but he was more respectful of the process and of the debate itself, which can not be said for Romney. When you're opponent is employing bullshit tactics, its hard not to also partake. I think Obama did a pretty good job resisting this temptation and keeping his composure amidst such immaturity and subtle flame-throwing.

In otherwords Romney LEAD the debate. He drove it. Exercised leadership skills

When you lack integrity, leading the debate amounts to nothing.

To win election in 2008, Obama told us in debate with McCain that Obamacare would save the average family $2500 a year in premiums.

Was that having 'intergrity,' or do you just enjoy having smoke blown up your ass?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

A slight edge???? Mitt slapped Obama around like a piece of raw meat! My gawd, it doesn't get much worse than that.. Even the liberal media are saying the same.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama made Jimmy Carter look Awesome!

HURT: Obama the debater: Making Jimmy Carter look awesome - Washington Times

Bewildered and lost without his teleprompter, President Obama flailed all around the debate stage last night. He was stuttering, nervous and petulant. It was like he had been called in front of the principal after goofing around for four years and blowing off all his homework.
Not since Jimmy Carter faced Ronald Reagan has the U.S. presidency been so embarrassingly represented in public. Actually, that’s an insult to Jimmy Carter.
The split screen was most devastating. Mitt Romney spoke forthrightly, with carefully studied facts and details at the ready. He looked right at the president and accused him of being miles out of his depth.
Mr. Obama? His eyes were glued to his lectern, looking guilty and angry and impatient with all the vagaries of Democracy. This debate was seriously chaffing him.

In the middle of the blood-letting segment about jobs, Mr. Romney said good-naturedly: “This is fun.”

 

[Murf76]

In otherwords Romney LEAD the debate. He drove it. Exercised leadership skills

When you lack integrity, leading the debate amounts to nothing.

To win election in 2008, Obama told us in debate with McCain that Obamacare would save the average family $2500 a year in premiums.

Was that having 'intergrity,' or do you just enjoy having smoke blown up your ass?

Instead, it costs another $2500. per year. On a slightly different subject though, didn't Obama SOUND like he was re-running the old rhetoric from 2008? It was tired, stale. It sounded like a re-run, especially when he was reaching for the same sob-stories he offered four years ago. He kept trying to make those emotional arguments, but they sounded fake, like they were coming out of an out-of-print book rather than from real people.

 

[newpolitics]

Been watching CNN. About spot on with their analysis, i think, in that it basically boiled down to Romney looking like he wanted to be there and Obama didn't. Maybe it was the presidential bubble and Obama being surrounded by advisors and media that enjoy the taste of his asshole around every turn. Obama didn't look at Romney much, he looked lethargic and and stumbled a little bit more.

I think the biggest error for the democrats coming out of this and perhaps going in were to harp on lack of specifics from Romney. Not that he has a tons of them but Romney threw out lots of specifics in different areas. Obama kept sticking to the "Romney doesn't give specifics" idea even when Romney was giving specifics.

Chalk one up for Romney without a doubt. Two more though and this could be an eye opener for Obama. I doubt he'll be this lifeless in the next one.

You're not being... specific enough. Obama was charging Romney with not being specific about his plans for the future, such as with medicare, as he was laying blanket assertions such as "mine does this and that" without actually detailing what his plan is. It's easy to spout off possibilities from a non-committal standpoint when you're not in a position of power to do such things. Why should we trust Romney? He is known to say whatever needs to be said to gain public opinion in any given situation. He is two-faced. I don't know how people can like him. I have come to the conclusion that it is a default position to like Romney, because they simply can't stand Obama for ideological differences. People buy into the conservative hype of creating expectations for a president coming into term with a major recession, and based on this ultra-high standard, everything he does necessarily fails. They would never have applied the same standard to McCain had he won. No way. Therefore, it has nothing to do with what the president has or has not done since he was in office. It has simply to do with hating everything he has done, because he is not a conservative. In other words, it is one big ad hominem attack on the presidency, not attacking the "what" but attacking the "who," and when attacking the "what" it is only because of the "who." I find conservatives, for this reason, to be highly immature. With Bush, we had reason to be upset. He sent us into a war we didn't need to fight, and in doing so, spent money that we needed here. That is a good reason to be pissed. Being mad at a president for not miraculously fixing a major recession is not warranted, and is unjustified. The willingness to throw flame on a president trying to fix this situation because of ideological ire, is really immature.

 

[GuyPinestra]

There were no winners it was a stalemate

Your meds must've kicked in right after the introductions...

 

[GuyPinestra]

There were no winners it was a stalemate

That is correct. On the strength of the debate alone there was no clear winner or loser, I think there is the risk of significant fall-out from Romney's failure to provide the hard core conservatives with a single scrap of red meat.

I don't think the 'base' is going to react any other way that to be excited that Romney delivered the goods tonight. The message is going out to the moderates who will decide this election, and those moderates got a clear picture of Obama as an unprepared community organizer.

 

[newpolitics]

In otherwords Romney LEAD the debate. He drove it. Exercised leadership skills

When you lack integrity, leading the debate amounts to nothing.

If what you say is true then that makes Obama even more inept than I thought. According to you he was lead around by a man with no integrity.

Ummm... So what. That has nothing to do with integrity. In fact, this demonstrates integrity on Obama's part, not trying to take the lead, but trying to have a respectful debate about important issues that people need to hear about, instead of trying to lay down the next "zinger" to get a nice jump in the polls, as if this has anything to do with being a president. It is not a sign of strength to really give it your opponent, it is a sign of weakness, especially when it is used a compensatory mechanism for having no positive arguments of your own.

 

[G.T.]

Been watching CNN. About spot on with their analysis, i think, in that it basically boiled down to Romney looking like he wanted to be there and Obama didn't. Maybe it was the presidential bubble and Obama being surrounded by advisors and media that enjoy the taste of his asshole around every turn. Obama didn't look at Romney much, he looked lethargic and and stumbled a little bit more.

I think the biggest error for the democrats coming out of this and perhaps going in were to harp on lack of specifics from Romney. Not that he has a tons of them but Romney threw out lots of specifics in different areas. Obama kept sticking to the "Romney doesn't give specifics" idea even when Romney was giving specifics.

Chalk one up for Romney without a doubt. Two more though and this could be an eye opener for Obama. I doubt he'll be this lifeless in the next one.

You're not being... specific enough. Obama was charging Romney with not being specific about his plans for the future, such as with medicare, as he was laying blanket assertions such as "mine does this and that" without actually detailing what his plan is. It's easy to spout off possibilities from a non-committal standpoint when you're not in a position of power to do such things. Why should we trust Romney? He is known to say whatever needs to be said to gain public opinion in any given situation. He is two-faced. I don't know how people can like him. I have come to the conclusion that it is a default position to like Romney, because they simply can't stand Obama for ideological differences. People buy into the conservative hype of creating expectations for a president coming into term with a major recession, and based on this ultra-high standard, everything he does necessarily fails. They would never have applied the same standard to McCain had he won. No way. Therefore, it has nothing to do with what the president has or has not done since he was in office. It has simply to do with hating everything he has done, because he is not a conservative. In other words, it is one big ad hominem attack on the presidency, not attacking the "what" but attacking the "who," and when attacking the "what" it is only because of the "who." I find conservatives, for this reason, to be highly immature. With Bush, we had reason to be upset. He sent us into a war we didn't need to fight, and in doing so, spent money that we needed here. That is a good reason to be pissed. Being mad at a president for not miraculously fixing a major recession is not warranted, and is unjustified. The willingness to throw flame on a president trying to fix this situation because of ideological ire, is really immature.

qft.