My thoughts on all four debates. Romney started in the first debate by igniting his base and making them believe he can win this election. In the second debate he showed that he has a better vision for the economy which is the main issue of this election. In tonight's debate he looked presidential and didn't come off as a crazy repug who can't wait to press the nuke button. I think he threw off Obama by not attacking as much as he did in the first debate. Mitt worked the middle tonight. During VP debate Biden came out as the Demo attack dog and ignited the base. Ryan portrayed himself as a viable VP option and someone you don't have to worry about them sticking their foot in their mouth. Obama in the first debate had a nice lead and played to not make any mistakes. This worked against him and opened the door for Romney to make this a ball game. His base was also dismayed. Obama in the second debate after being told by his base he needs to attack Mitt, came out and fired. He won on points but failed to give America a vision for another four years. But he did ignite his base. In this last debate Obama was hoping for more attacks from Mitt but Mitt hugged him instead and this messed Obama up. He continued his attack though out the debate and again failed to present his plan for another four years. He ignited his base again but did not present well to Indys and and undecided. Overall, these debates were more about Romney turning the tide. Obama has done his best to ignite the people who voted for him last time. Romney looks like a more bipartisan candidate and Obama looks like the more extreme name calling gotcha candidate. Now I know that most of this board is hardcore demos and their is a small but contentious group of repugs, that is fine and I know that many of you will never agree with me. I voted for Obama/Biden during the last election but this time I vote for Romney/Ryan. What say you? How did you view the debates overall? Who do you think they helped more? How will they affect the election. Are they important? P.S. the debates did not make my decision but they didn't hurt it.
Voted for Obama in '08, and I will again though with reservations. If a moderate conservative like John Huntsman were the GOP nominee, I might've voted for him. The 1st debate was Obama giving the lead away like the Texans gave the game away to the Packers last Sunday night. Romney was capable, but Obama made him look better than he was. Every debate since then has been damage control and Obama being himself. I think he won the 2nd and 3rd debate, but not overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, given the state of politics now, no human effort in subsequent debates could have erased the disastrous first debate performance. The 1st debate gave Romney a chance to live. The 47% fiasco a week before the first debate was where his campaign should've expired instead. This election is much closer than it ever should've been because of that one debate. Normally they aren't that important, but Obama underestimated how crucial that first one was. My vote is decided based on the actions and lengthy history of a candidate's policies, not a BS debate or speech where they do a 180 every chance they get.
You might have considered simply posting your thoughts in one of several campaign threads. All this thread amounts to is you trumpeting what you see as a glorious, winning Republican campaign, starring Mitt Romney. It reeks of desperation, considering what happened tonight, in my humble opinion.
Actually, I thought it would be fine to start a thread to discuss the debates overall. Not just talk about one debate. Sorry, I don't mean to take anything away from your thread on the third debate. I didn't know you had become a moderator.
If you look at just points tonight Obama won the debate. He was on the attack more often tonight and that is great for his base but that is not the point of the third debate. The point is to portray to the American public that you are level headed and show the middle and Indy voters you are able to stop with the party tactics. Obama won tonight on party tactics, but Romney won when it came to appealing to the average undecided independent voter. This is all coming from someone who voted for Obama in '08.
Romney is following a playbook he discovered in Massachusetts. I think for those who are swayed by debates, what would've clinched it for Romney would've been a devastating gotcha that would've lingered for 2 more weeks. "There you go again..." Mr. Etch and Sketch needed that to generate sustained buzz and momentum for the news cycle. A boring tie doesn't accomplish that for the critical swing states. Don't take my word for it. I already did my research and made up my mind a long time ago.
I scored the 3 debates like the following: Round 1 10 - 7 Romney Round 2 9.5-10 Obama Round 3 9 - 10 Obama Romney is positioned well after the debates and if he goes with what he said in the first debate, I don't mind 4 years with him. If he conforms back to his base, then I'd be disappointed. To the more right leaning members of the board, guys I think it's OK to admit Romney lost the last two debates, but it was close enough that the massive beat down he put out in the first debate gives him more than enough chance to win the election. Continued shtick of a political DB (aka Troll) on a message board really kills any legitimate discourse and takes away credibility when/if you post something actually insightful :shrugs.
your pretty much right because romney is the top 1%'s b****. and everyone knows it. just keep on talking about this but you know he is completely bought by all his friends in the country. and thats also why he is going to lose. because luckily there are not enough idiots to believe his schtick.
I really wanted this guy to get the nomination (even though there was 0.00000000000001% change of him getting it). Seriously, US needs to be pulled back to the centre.
I love it... Obama kicks Romney in the rear in the second and third debates and Fox News twists it to "Well yeah Obama won on points but..." and then the minions with their marching orders parrot what Fox said as there own opinion. Romney had a good first debate (although that was mostly Obama having a terrible debate), but even with that, Obama's odds of victory are creeping back up .... 65% to 67% and now some as high as 70%...
And I will never listen to you again on any matter of importance because you think intrade numbers mean squat when it comes to an election. Like I have said before, I voted for Obama during the last election because he seemed to be an intelligent man and I was hoping he wouldn't tote the party line. Unfortunately I was wrong. If anything during these debates Romney looked least likely to tow the company line. There are quite a few repugs that are upset Romney did not go after Libya but I like Romney more for not going Rush Limbaugh and understanding peace is the goal.
The first debate which Romney won was the most important. That's because for a lot of voters it was their first time seeing Romney. Previously they thought he was the caricature painted of him. It was dispelled that first debate, so many people who'd believed the caricature of him won't believe the bad stuff about Romney anymore. But Obama was so bad that first debate it was like Romney was running his offense without any defensive pressure. The second two debates Obama clearly won. It was like seeing Romney fold once the defensive pressure was stepped up.
#1 You said Romney clearly won with independents in debate 3, even though the polling numbers show independents favoring Obama in the third debate by a huge margin. 2. Who said anything about intrade? I sure didn't.
It's too bad that Obama has lost swing folks like you, you know, compulsive scripture quoting, hardcore GWB cheerleader birther sympathizers like yourself - not sure how he will overcome this loss. Stop lying. You will go to hell.
A word on the debate moderators and the debate formats. The format for the first and third debates were pretty much the same. And both Jim Lehrer and Bob Schieffer both handled them in a very similar style, both doing excellent jobs. As far as I am concerned, this is a really great format for these debates. I hope the town hall format is scrapped and they just go with this format exclusively from now on. If they want to alter whether they are standing or sitting or whatever, fine. The Vice Presidential debate conducted by Martha Raddatz was OK, but she did treat the candidates somewhat differently, interrupting Paul Ryan quite a bit more often. And she intervened in the discussion generally a bit more than was desirable. Nevertheless, she did not blatantly jump in and help one of the candidates or start listing out left wing talking points. This debate was moderated well but not excellently. The second debate moderated by Candy Crowley was a model for how much a moderator can screw up a debate and show partisan bias. She actually intervened in the debate to help President Obama, which after the first debate he did appear to his supporters like he was in need of. And the information that she interceded with was debatable at best. Wasn't that what the candidates were supposed to be doing? Needless to say, she destroyed any lingering claim to being a non-partisan journalist that she had, and ended her presidential debate moderating career once and for all. Grades: Jim Lehrer - A Martha Raddatz - B Candy Crowley - F Bob Scheiffer - A
He would post African articles if they supported Romney, these guys are desperate for stuff that boosts their confidence.
