POLL: So...who won?

[Streetbull]

Vote.

[SkinnyDip]

I'll say Romney looked more fluid at answering the questions. However, whomever wins the election, the American people lose. Two candidates that aren't going to do much to make America better and if we champion who some is stating they're not going to expand broke programs as our Conservative opposition, please tell me it'll get better.

[T150]

Props to Romney, not for a particularly great performance, but for looking good in contrast to Obama's sickeningly bad one.

As multiple fact checkers have since confirmed, Romney stole the night with the most amount of brazen bullsh*t, most notably running away from his toxic budget and fabricating statistics with almost no follow up from Obama.

Romney took all the right opportunities, flat-footed Obama basically took none, despite being handed more. If it was part of some grand strategy to stay above the fray, it didn't work.

[saloman]

I think President Obama thought if he kept his mouth shut Romney would make a fatal mistake but Romney didn't do that and Obama's passive tone didn't help him. In terms of substance, Obama was winner. In terms of strategy, Romney was winner. Obama should have expected Romney to lie and to flip flop on his own campaign promises. Obama should have come prepared to confront these things instead of trying to take the high road with Romney.

[StateIron]

I think President Obama thought if he kept his mouth shut Romney would make a fatal mistake but Romney didn't do that and Obama's passive tone didn't help him. In terms of substance, Obama was winner.]In terms of strategy, Romney was winner. Obama should have expected Romney to lie and to flip flop on his own campaign promises. Obama should have come prepared to confront these things instead of trying to take the high road with Romney.

Oh lawd.

[saloman]

Oh lawd.

I don't know how you could say otherwise when the substance of Romney's words was mostly lies and flip flops.

[YARDGORILLA]

I think President Obama thought if he kept his mouth shut Romney would make a fatal mistake but Romney didn't do that and Obama's passive tone didn't help him. In terms of substance, Obama was winner. In terms of strategy, Romney was winner. Obama should have expected Romney to lie and to flip flop on his own campaign promises. Obama should have come prepared to confront these things instead of trying to take the high road with Romney.

You have swallowed too much substance............................GTFO

[Meatros]

Props to Romney, not for a particularly great performance, but for looking good in contrast to Obama's sickeningly bad one.

As multiple fact checkers have since confirmed, Romney stole the night with the most amount of brazen bullsh*t, most notably running away from his toxic budget and fabricating statistics with almost no follow up from Obama.

Romney took all the right opportunities, flat-footed Obama basically took none, despite being handed more. If it was part of some grand strategy to stay above the fray, it didn't work.

Pretty much this, although I do think Romney put on a good performance (not merely a satisfactory one).

I think this was a good display by Romney and I would be surprised if he didn't get a bump in the polls.

In fairness I've only seen 1/2 the debate though. Performance wise, I think Romney took the day. Rhetoric wise it was a bit closer, but I think that Romney came out on top. Fact wise, I think the edge has to go to Obama, specifically with regards to taxes - I do not feel that Romney effectively laid out why his plan wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. Obama was mostly vague in this respect and I think Romney only nailed him once on specifics, but didn't really go in for the slaughter. Romney had a good line about his sons, but I don't think he actually cleared up the issue which is why I detract a bit from him on this portion. As I said though, I only saw the first 1/2, so take my comments on that.

[metroins]

I couldn't tell. Romney made a bunch of **** up so it sounded good and Obama didn't call him out on it. In my opinion Romney stuttered a lot and came across as fake while Obama didn't have much conviction to.call him out n

I didn't hear anything from Romney other than "I won't kill jobs" when he said he'd put 12 million to work I laughed, that's the entire unemployed population, so he will have zero unemployment.....that's a lie.

[YARDGORILLA]

I couldn't tell. Romney made a bunch of **** up so it sounded good and Obama didn't call him out on it. In my opinion Romney stuttered a lot and came across as fake while Obama didn't have much conviction to.call him out n

I didn't hear anything from Romney other than "I won't kill jobs" when he said he'd put 12 million to work I laughed, that's the entire unemployed population, so he will have zero unemployment.....that's a lie.

Really?


Maybe you should have stop playing pin the tail on my winky and listened with some intellectual honesty.

[ScubaStevo]

I think President Obama thought if he kept his mouth shut Romney would make a fatal mistake but Romney didn't do that and Obama's passive tone didn't help him. In terms of substance, Obama was winner. In terms of strategy, Romney was winner. Obama should have expected Romney to lie and to flip flop on his own campaign promises. Obama should have come prepared to confront these things instead of trying to take the high road with Romney.

Bleeding heart 1% supporting iphone owning capitalist hating lib gonna bleeding heart 1% supporting iphone owning capitalist hating lib

[YARDGORILLA]

Props to Romney, not for a particularly great performance, but for looking good in contrast to Obama's sickeningly bad one.

As multiple fact checkers have since confirmed, Romney stole the night with the most amount of brazen bullsh*t, most notably running away from his toxic budget and fabricating statistics with almost no follow up from Obama.

Romney took all the right opportunities, flat-footed Obama basically took none, despite being handed more. If it was part of some grand strategy to stay above the fray, it didn't work.

It wasn't about Romney's "right opportunities" and Obama being "flat footed".

It was about the right ideas and flat-line, status quo belief system.



And hello there.

[Meatros]

I couldn't tell. Romney made a bunch of **** up so it sounded good and Obama didn't call him out on it.

In a debate, this counts towards Romney, as it should - I mean really, we have to think, why didn't Obama call him out on it? Either it's because he's (Obama) a poor opponent (in which case Romney scores a point) OR it's because he's uninformed on the facts (which is even worse). I suppose there could be a different response, maybe it was 'strategy', but if that's the case, then it goes towards the poor opponent part of the spectrum since this strategy is a bad one.


On a different note, from what I saw, the moderator wasn't doing a good job moderating. I felt that he'd give Obama a chance to rebut, but would try to cut Romney off - now, I realize that there is a set time limit and all, but it felt extremely uneven.


ETA: Possible clarity.

[YARDGORILLA]

In a debate, this counts towards Romney, as it should - I mean really, we have to think, why didn't Obama call him out on it? Either it's because he's a poor opponent (in which case Romney scores a point) OR it's because he's uninformed on the facts (which is even worse). I suppose there could be a different response, maybe it was 'strategy', but if that's the case, then it goes towards the poor opponent part of the spectrum since this strategy is a bad one.


On a different note, from what I saw, the moderator wasn't doing a good job moderating. I felt that he'd give Obama a chance to rebut, but would try to cut Romney off - now, I realize that there is a set time limit and all, but it felt extremely uneven.

Moderator?

Poor opponent?

Excuses. Excuses.


Man vs. Child

[Meatros]

Moderator?

Poor opponent?

Excuses. Excuses.


Man vs. Child

?

What are you talking about? I'm not making any excuses. I'm calling it as I saw it. It's interesting that you've gotten defensive from what I wrote. I feel like you didn't really read what I wrote (or if you did, you simply skimmed it).

[saloman]

You have swallowed too much substance............................GTFO

I gave your savior credit. Don't get upset teatard.

[FChumChum]

?

What are you talking about? I'm not making any excuses. I'm calling it as I saw it. It's interesting that you've gotten defensive from what I wrote. I feel like you didn't really read what I wrote (or if you did, you simply skimmed it).

Obama had 4 extra minutes..

[Meatros]

Obama had 4 extra minutes..

Right, which is one indicator of what I was saying.

Do you think I was saying the Moderator was moderating in favor of Romney? Because if so, you need to reread what I wrote:

"On a different note, from what I saw, the moderator wasn't doing a good job moderating. I felt that he'd give Obama a chance to rebut, but would try to cut Romney off - now, I realize that there is a set time limit and all, but it felt extremely uneven."

In short, he was being unfair to Romney.

[dr_D]

I said this in another thread, but I thought Romney was far more eloquent and articulate whereas Obama tried to hold a policy debate and may have lost some people in the details.

Obviously, substance wise, I thought Obama was better, but these types of debates are not about substance and policy (voters are just not that well-versed on them) but about who has the better talking points.

Apparently the key for Romney is to look like a conservative Democrat (or a Massachusetts Republican), he practically threw his frothing from the mouth conservative base under the bus.

[saloman]

I said this in another thread, but I thought Romney was far more eloquent and articulate whereas Obama tried to hold a policy debate and may have lost some people in the details.

Obviously, substance wise, I thought Obama was better, but these types of debates are not about substance and policy (voters are just not that well-versed on them) but about who has the better talking points.

Apparently the key for Romney is to look like a conservative Democrat (or a Massachusetts Republican), he practically threw his frothing from the mouth conservative base under the bus.

Absolutely. That was evident from the moment he said a free market must be regulated to be free.

[YARDGORILLA]

Vote.

You forgot the actual answer.







AMERICA.


AMERICA won last night.

[kusok]

You know the drill OP, where is the Goldman Sachs option?

[TE]

For the 2 guys who say Obama won in regards to 'substance'. Can you please elaborate? I'm not flame baiting. Just with him looking like a scolded child, I found his points rather elementary and full of fluff. He couldn't debate with Romney in any regards to Economics. He was clearly outmanned. Almost to the point where I wonder if he's thinking to himself, "this guy sure knows his stuff about business. How come none of my advisors sound this smart?"

And honestly, not flame baiting, just would like to know what substance he won on. And yes, I know Romney wasn't exactly accurate on all of his statements. LOL!

[YARDGORILLA]

You know the drill OP, where is the Goldman Sachs option?

Really?



C'mon bro. There is more to the politics of the country than that.

[BalkanPrince]

I dislike them both equally but I am watching the debate now and Romney so far has wiped the floor with Obama.

[kusok]

Really?



C'mon bro. There is more to the politics of the country than that.

I don't believe there is.


We live in a plutocracy, and that will never be addressed. Course never changes regardless of who is in office and what promises they make and what lies and bull**** they spew on these poor theatrical plays presented on corporate media idiot boxes aka TV.

[frank112]

For the 2 guys who say Obama won in regards to 'substance'. Can you please elaborate? I'm not flame baiting. Just with him looking like a scolded child, I found his points rather elementary and full of fluff. He couldn't debate with Romney in any regards to Economics. He was clearly outmanned. Almost to the point where I wonder if he's thinking to himself, "this guy sure knows his stuff about business. How come none of my advisors sound this smart?"

And honestly, not flame baiting, just would like to know what substance he won on. And yes, I know Romney wasn't exactly accurate on all of his statements. LOL!

^This. You lib/dem *******s are trying so hard to not give full credit to someone that you're making **** up. Obama had less substance than a bag full of air.

Also quick insight on something Obama said last night which proves my point. He pointed out how well Obamacare was working and mentioned how insurance companies were starting to give rebates to the various companies when they underutilized provider services as the plan intended.

Well what was unintended was the fact that the rebates were being given to the corporations and not the actual employees who also paid a share of the premiums. Whats starting to happen is that the employees are getting pissed off that their company is receiving these rebate checks because of how good they're being by not visiting the doctor as much. So you know what's happening? You guessed it, employees are basically saying "phuck my company, they're profiting off me never going to the doctor" so everyone is going to the doctor more and more which is raising costs like crazy.

How do I know? My wife works for one of the largest health insurance companies in America in the distribution division and she says that she is seeing this first hand and that this is a train wreck which is going to do nothing but raise premiums in the long run.

Thanks Obama

[dr_D]

For the 2 guys who say Obama won in regards to 'substance'. Can you please elaborate? I'm not flame baiting. Just with him looking like a scolded child, I found his points rather elementary and full of fluff. He couldn't debate with Romney in any regards to Economics. He was clearly outmanned. Almost to the point where I wonder if he's thinking to himself, "this guy sure knows his stuff about business. How come none of my advisors sound this smart?"

And honestly, not flame baiting, just would like to know what substance he won on. And yes, I know Romney wasn't exactly accurate on all of his statements. LOL!

I quickly skimmed through the debate video, and for the most part Romney was just making talking points whereas Obama would bring up specific policy issues that his particular actions tried to alleviate. Nothing wrong with what Romney did. As I said in my first post, the vast majority of voters are not policy wonks so detailing specifics probably lost/confused people. Romney had a more clear and concise message/theme. Obama didn't really have any theme to his arguments -just sort of went through a list of things.

I didn't see any particular winner in regards to economics. I have a grad degree in econ so I tend to dismiss (republican) talking points (since they are grossly oversimplified and/or completely wrong), but Obama didn't make any forceful argument (well he didn't make any forceful arguments all night).

edit: To add to the economics part: Republican talking points are made to come across as intuitive
with intuitive defined as

Using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive

[saloman]

For the 2 guys who say Obama won in regards to 'substance'. Can you please elaborate? I'm not flame baiting.

And yes, I know Romney wasn't exactly accurate on all of his statements. LOL!

I think you've answered your own question. Regardless of what Obama said, Romney abandoned his own tax plan, and lied gratuitously. His substance was deception.

[illriginalized]

Romney was aggressive from the few clips I've seen this morning while getting ready for work. But... lol I was right all along. You idiots still think there's a difference between the two on the real issues in America.