General public would say Romney won but he still didn't offer much specificity on how he would get them done. There were sweeping under the carpet by leaving it to the state level. Obama was too passive and just reiterated his same points
Romney was FAR more impressive. He was poised, concise, and clear. Watching Obama trip over his words while delivering cheesy, long-winded responses was beyond painful.
It seems like everyone is saying Obama lost because he wasn't nasty enough. The liberals are saying he should have gone for the jugular with the low blows (47% stuff). who won on the facts?
...this is beyond puzzling, and just shows cherry picking at its' best. Other countries that spend around 42 percent of their economy on government? Belgium, Canada, Finland, Germany, Israel, Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Romney: I don't want to go down the path to Israel.
It depends what you call fact. Romney's plan has no specifics. It's like string theory, it's great but you can't really test it. Obama on the other hand said a lot of what he has done, some of it was overstated, some of it was spot on. With Obama the mechanism of his plans seem plausible, with Romney, it's magic. Can Romney pull off magic? Sure. It is possible, but possible does not equal plausible.
That is the problem with Obama. He only truly fights with his back against the wall (remember that big speech in Iowa). By nature, he is not a nasty, mean person. Otherwise, you have seen plenty of references to Mitt's 47% remark.
Not EVERYONE. CNN poll: Romney 67%: Obama 25%. We seriously need to check the brains of those 25% How come so many people are in denial just because they support someone?
Obama had so many things he just did not use. The 47% comment. The fact that Mitt Romney was 47th in job creation in Massachusetts. Romney's ambiguous position on healthcare. He must really think he already has this in the bag.
I think next debate is just going to be mud-slinging, quips and zingers; seems that's what the American people want. Why, all of a sudden, no one thinks Obama should be too "explainey", but Clinton went straight explain w**** at the convention and he crushes it? What's the difference?
The thing is, the conventions are all about your platform. They are all about specifics. You have an unlimited amount of time to express your plan. The debate is all about you being better than the guy next to you. You don't have time to explain it, you need to just cut to why your plan is better and call out the guy next to you when he's lying/wrong. You have to limit your responses to short snippets. You lose time by explaining every little aspect. Obama should have gone into the debates with the stance, you didn't tell us a damn thing during the RNC, you didn't tell us a damn thing tonight, what changes in November? He shouldn't have spent so much time saying this is my plan, that is his, and this is why mine is better. You can't express that in 2 minute intervals.
B Kardashian will have plenty of time to hoop and celebrity gazing next year. His skinny ass will be gone and our nation will be whole again. Where were his protectors and teleprompter tonight? I can't believe I've just witnessed a live ass kicking on TV to you libtards' favorite protected minority!
I owe you an apology, I guess many people agree with you... Having said that... Do you think it changes anything?
I think the winner of a debate should be whomever has the more aligned plans, goals, and ideology as you the viewer do. So either candidate is right depending on the person. But unfortunately the winner by many accounts is who comes off better personality wise. And for many uninformed and undecided voters in the past, that's been the decision maker. "Oh, I think I'd rather have a beer w/ A instead of B." "It just seems like X is better than Y" How about actually deciding which plan you like better? This crap drives me crazy every election. That said, I think Romney definitely won on the personality metric. Obama could have easily turned it around on Romney on many points not to mention bringing up Bain or the 47% quotes. I wonder if he was advised to save it for the last debate, where the last impression before people head to the polls might be the most important one. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it seems like those would be obvious talking points.
Obama lost because Romney was talking circles around him by comprehensively and systematically attacking Obama's policies while the president just stood there reciting the same talking point over and over for each issue. Romney said 5 things per issue, Obama said 1. If Obama actually had done more explaining the debate would have been a wash. Just throwing out insults in the next debate like the Left wants him to isn't going to give him any traction. It's going to make him look clueless.
I won't give a detailed or nuanced response to the debate. Fact-checkers will have a field day with this debate but I'm not here to talk about that tonight. Romney won, pure and simple. I have to just give him that. He hasn't had a good night in a really long while. He earned this one and he deserves to enjoy it. My congratulations to him for this victory and I'll raise a glass (of water) to his supporters as well. A win's a win and a loss is a loss. My guy lost and yours won. I won't fight you fellas on anything tonight.
