Romney won the debate, in the same way Paul Ryan gave a good speech. Everything he said is going to be picked to pieces by fact checkers over the next week. Obama really needs to bring his A game in 2 weeks though, he really stumbled through this one.

Obama's strategy in the campaign thus far has been to demonize Mitt Romney. It has worked until now because most people haven't heard Mitt Romney directly - normally just sound bites and talking heads paraphrasing what he's said.

 

It won't continue to work because Romney just got direct exposure to the American public, and showed that he wasn't a three-headed monster, and he knew his stuff better than Obama.

 

There were a couple of moments in the debate that I think Romney called out Obama - the tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas ("I have no idea what you're talking about," followed by the President changing the subject), along with "not being specific enough" even though Obama cited several points in his policies and plans.

 

One of the things that hurt Mitt Romney the most during the primaries was the fact that he was a Republican from a very liberal state - Ideologues absolutely hate bipartisanship. Moderates love it though, and Romney can consistently point out examples of being bipartisan while simultaneously point out examples of Obama being an ideologue.

 

 

I'd like to see Obama talk about the 47% remark in the next debate, because I'd love to see Romney slam him about the 14% Obama was pandering to 5 years ago.

Which reminds me - Romney hazing people in high school (50 years ago?) is dug up by the media, but Obama race baiting 5 years ago was covered up. Media bias.

Obama's strategy in the campaign thus far has been to demonize Mitt Romney. It has worked until now because most people haven't heard Mitt Romney directly - normally just sound bites and talking heads paraphrasing what he's said.

 

It won't continue to work because Romney just got direct exposure to the American public, and showed that he wasn't a three-headed monster, and he knew his stuff better than Obama.

 

There were a couple of moments in the debate that I think Romney called out Obama - the tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas ("I have no idea what you're talking about," followed by the President changing the subject), along with "not being specific enough" even though Obama cited several points in his policies and plans.

 

One of the things that hurt Mitt Romney the most during the primaries was the fact that he was a Republican from a very liberal state - Ideologues absolutely hate bipartisanship. Moderates love it though, and Romney can consistently point out examples of being bipartisan while simultaneously point out examples of Obama being an ideologue.

 

 

I'd like to see Obama talk about the 47% remark in the next debate, because I'd love to see Romney slam him about the 14% Obama was pandering to 5 years ago.

Which reminds me - Romney hazing people in high school (50 years ago?) is dug up by the media, but Obama race baiting 5 years ago was covered up. Media bias.

 

Romney didn't know his stuff better, he straight up lied through the entire debate, even bringing up the lie of the year from 2010, that Obamacare is somehow a government takeover of healthcare. Obama lost because he let Romney get away with lying, not because he didn't know what he was talking about.

 

As for that video, it was an absolute embarrassment to Hannity. If anything it's a case of Fox race baiting by trying to paint Obama as some sort of Black Nationalist when nothing he said was in any way like that. God forbid someone talking to a group of a certain denomination discusses issues relevant to them...

I'm not sure about lying, but I know Obama supporters are saying he appeared hesitant because, when you're the one in charge, you can't promise everything under the sun, and you need to be more considered. Even if that's wise, it still means he lost the debate. New York couldn't decide between the two; take that swing nationwide, and Romney won. Whether it affects the polls is another thing.

As for that video, it was an absolute embarrassment to Hannity. If anything it's a case of Fox race baiting by trying to paint Obama as some sort of Black Nationalist when nothing he said was in any way like that. God forbid someone talking to a group of a certain denomination discusses issues relevant to them...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bam-vid-called-race-baiting-article-1.1173368#ooid=I0ZXEyNjpnfCdoMXulS8XIOcpzf13thD

 

10 days before he said that, congress waived the Stafford act requirement, so New Orleans (like New York and Miami) didn't have to match 10%. Oh, and Obama voted against that bill.

Obama's strategy in the campaign thus far has been to demonize Mitt Romney. It has worked until now because most people haven't heard Mitt Romney directly - normally just sound bites and talking heads paraphrasing what he's said.

 

It won't continue to work because Romney just got direct exposure to the American public, and showed that he wasn't a three-headed monster, and he knew his stuff better than Obama.

 

There were a couple of moments in the debate that I think Romney called out Obama - the tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas ("I have no idea what you're talking about," followed by the President changing the subject), along with "not being specific enough" even though Obama cited several points in his policies and plans.

 

One of the things that hurt Mitt Romney the most during the primaries was the fact that he was a Republican from a very liberal state - Ideologues absolutely hate bipartisanship. Moderates love it though, and Romney can consistently point out examples of being bipartisan while simultaneously point out examples of Obama being an ideologue.

 

 

I'd like to see Obama talk about the 47% remark in the next debate, because I'd love to see Romney slam him about the 14% Obama was pandering to 5 years ago.

Which reminds me - Romney hazing people in high school (50 years ago?) is dug up by the media, but Obama race baiting 5 years ago was covered up. Media bias.

 

Romney didn't know his stuff better, he straight up lied through the entire debate, even bringing up the lie of the year from 2010, that Obamacare is somehow a government takeover of healthcare. Obama lost because he let Romney get away with lying, not because he didn't know what he was talking about.

 

As for that video, it was an absolute embarrassment to Hannity. If anything it's a case of Fox race baiting by trying to paint Obama as some sort of Black Nationalist when nothing he said was in any way like that. God forbid someone talking to a group of a certain denomination discusses issues relevant to them...

 

That's what bothered me a bit...I would've liked a fact checker on some of these issues. Obama said Romney had $5 trillion tax cuts and $2 trillion spending planned, Romney said that was not true at all and he would not add to the deficit. Well, what is it now? That's not exactly a small difference.

 

Overall, Romney did quite well and of what I've seen from republican candidates, I like him more than most. Most of what he said sounded fairly decent to me. As a businessman, economy&taxes is kind of his field, so it's not surprising he seems to know his stuff. The big disagreement I had with him was on military spending. Partly also on Health care, but then I'm not too familiar with the American system, so I have no clue of how much truth there is in Obamacare taking money out of Medicare etc.

 

I agreed with Obama on most things, but he wasn't the winner of the debate. Major point for me was that when Obama attacked Romney, Romney retaliated and said Obama was misrepresenting him. When Romney attacked Obama, he most accepted and evaded it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QlwilbVYvUg

 

Its party time chumps.

Not sure who of you watched the VP debate, but I thought Biden was just plain rude. I think the final count was that Biden interrupted Ryan about 82 times during Ryan's allotted 2 minute responses.

 

The impartial consensus seems to be that if you read a transcript of the debate, it was even, if you listened to it on a radio, Biden was more dominant and authoritative, and won, but since the thing was on T.V., Biden made an ass out of himself by smiling and laughing through the entire thing.

I believe it was CBS that did a poll of undecided voters and 50% had liked Biden, 31% liked Ryan, and the rest were still unsure.

 

I listened to the first half of the debate online, before moving to a TV and I thought Biden did a much better job. His laughing and smiling didn't bother me too much. I thought he had a lot more confidence in himself and in his answers. Ryan spoke like he was reading a script, and when asked directly about what the Romney-Ryan ticket planned to do, his responses read like they didn't have an actually plan and it was something they'd figure it out after they'd get elected. That really worried me to be honest.

 

A little part of me really wanted to like the Romney-Ryan ticket, but the fact that they haven't been able to supply any details of what their willing to do to turn around this country is a big reason I voted for the Obama-Biden ticket again (absentee ballot arrived Tuesday).

Biden won.

Biden won hands down, anyone claiming he was rude is just trying to salvage something from Ryan's defeat.

Sees_all logic:

• The President was very polite to Romney during their debate--he did badly.
  
• The VP was very rude to Ryan during their debate--he did badly.
  

All either had to do was avoid performing a Stockdale Manouver. Neither did. In the end, people will vote for the top name on the ticket.

 

However...

 

The wise is in quotation marks so big the image macro can't actually show them

Biden won hands down, anyone claiming he was rude is just trying to salvage something from Ryan's defeat.

Or that he was rude...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa16wBG9J78

 

Being polite is waiting for your turn to speak. You can verbally/intellectually smack someone down all day long in a debate, and as long as you're waiting your turn to speak, you're polite.

 

Seemed like any time Ryan was making a point, Biden started talking to confuse it.

That's what a debate should be. The two candidates should actually engage, not be given a set period of time to spew talking points.

That's what a debate should be. The two candidates should actually engage, not be given a set period of time to spew talking points.

Engaging doesn't mean interrupting. That's the reason each candidate talks in turn for short amounts of time - so they can engage.

I think if you're talking about the relative manners of each candidate, you're not talking about the talking points themselves, of which there were plenty in that debate. I'd hazard a guess that next month, most people will not be worrying about whether Biden is polite--they will care about what he and Obama are going to do differently to Ryan and Romney to create jobs.

I only watched the first half hour of it, but I found that Biden deserved to interrupt Ryan. Some of the accusations Ryan was making were plain ridiculous.

Unofficial time is 43:00 for the President and about 41:00 for Mr. Romney.

 

I feel like Romney had a few opportunities to slam the President but missed them. When discussing the permits for drilling, I don't think that Romney should have engaged with the President.

 

The two things that I was surprised about, but pleased is that Libya and Fast and Furious were brought up. Both are major scandals for the current administration.

Obama won quite clearly, although Romney did better than I expected him to in this format. Romney's biggest mistakes came when he tried to attack the president, especially on Libya which should have been an easy chance for Romney to get some free shots in at Obama, but ended up being his worst moment of the night.

 

I don't expect Obama to gain too much in the polls next week from this, but it should allow him to keep his lead in Iowa and Ohio as more and more people vote early there. If he can keep his lead in Ohio and Iowa, hold Wisconsin and stop Pennsylvania or Michigan from coming into play, Obama will win. Nevada, Colorado and Virgina being close gives him a safety net too.

I think the significance of the polls is being overplayed. On election day, some people threatening to abstain or vote the other way always come back to whoever's been governing for the previous term. Romney needs to be ahead a couple of points in the polls, not just about even in a few of the states he must win in order to have any real chance of winning.

 

From an outside perspective, it's staggering that despite running possibly the most poorly run election campaign that I have ever seen, Romney actually still has a chance of doing this. If Obama does win, and the economy's in the shape it's in... this election was there for Romney's taking.

I'm voting on Friday by absentee when I go home for the weekend.

 

My choices for significant positions include:

President: Mitt Romney (R-MA): Businessman

Vice-President: Paul Ryan (R-WI): Economist

Senator: Pete Hoekstra (R-MI): Businessman

Congressman: Dr. Syed Taj (D-MI): Physician

 

In each case, I don't actually like any of the four candidates. They're just not as terrible as the incumbent parties in those positions. Oh, and, of the four, only Paul Ryan is a lawyer or career politician, so that's a huge plus. At least Paul Ryan is an economist as well.

I don't much like the idea of lawyers in politics to be honest.

I thought Romney missed a few opportunities that really could have made him stand out to undecided voters. Like when he was asked what made himself different from Bush, but choose to temporarily deflect the question to respond to the previous question. I thought that was very important question to answer, especially for undecided voters.