Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

not sure Obama won, but judging by the whining about Crowley, it's pretty clear Romney lost.

Hopefully you are smart enough to realize that the two are not logically dependant on one another. A ref can have a bad game - and the team he was biased against can still win. Argue until you're blue in the face about who "won" or "lost" the debate - but the fact that Crowley made mistakes and people are pointing them out does not automatically mean that their candidate lost.

Hardly a fact. I don't believe that Crowley made any mistakes.

 

[CrossEyed]

I can see how people gave a slight edge to Obama last night, but this idea that it was some kind of decisive victory is wishful thinking. Both guys had their good moments and their bad moments. Obama had a couple more good moments. But it wasn't a momentum changer like the first debate, IMO.

This is shaping up to be an extremely close election. Probably going to come down to which base is more motivated.

 

[Fennis]

On a tangent - who picks the moderators for these debates? The reason I ask is that in virtually every debate you have the GOP complaining that the moderators are favoring the incumbent...that they lean to the left and it influences their moderation of the debate. So do the parties agree on a list of moderators from a preselected pool (like jury duty), does each debate get the moderator chosen by a different party? How does all that work?

Commission on Presidential Debates

the panel that selects the moderators and locations are made up of 1/2 Dems and 1/2 GOP.

 

[timschochet]

Is the last debate really on foreign policy? After reading the debate segments from last night on Lybia, I'm not sure that's the best way for Romney to leave a positive last impression. The reality is, no one knows what goes on behind closed doors in the White House. I assume Romney's left with the same sort of sources as we are. I expect him to struggle like Ryan did with Biden on these topics. You could tell he couldn't wait to get off of foreign policy.

I'm not so sure about this. The problem for Romney on the Libya issue wasn't that he was wrong on the substance, it was that he was wrong on the semantics. He has a week now to dig deeper on the substantive side and come out swinging. Everyone in here has basically agreed that Romney was made foolish not because he's wrong at the core of the issue, but because he got owned on a semantics issue. Semantics are easy to clear up, the facts behind the narrative the White House laid out will not be so easy for Obama to clear up.

Sorry, but this is still wrong.Yes, Romney got caught on semantics last night, but the audience reaction was largely because outside of the conservative talk show bubble nobody believes this is a worthy topic to begin with (well, except for BigBottom, I guess.) It would be a huge mistake for Romney to bring this issue up again. He should simply walk away from it, just as he should have from the very beginning.

Then why was it a question from the audience? And why was it prefaced with "a bunch of coworkers and I"? And why was it still on NBC's home page within the last week? And why was it one of the "high points" of last night's debate?You can keep saying "nobody cares" - but that doesn't make it so. Simply turning a blind eye to the facts does not make them cease to exsist.

I can't answer for why the individuals were talking about it. If I had to guess it was because they are reading NBC's homepage, CNN, whatever. As to why the networks are still covering it? Why do they cover anything? To make money. Hits = I suspect, if you were to ask folks to rank the importance of this issue among all the others this country faces, it wouldn't make the top 10...maybe top 15.

I agree that it isn't a top issue for most people, but the rest of this is , and so is Tim's stance here. It's pretty clear that some people care about this, even if you want to argue that they shouldn't. They do.

When I say nobody, what I mean is nobody that matters in terms of this debate. In other words, I don't believe independents and swing voters care about this. (Outside of Bigbottom, that is.) Conservatives certainly care about it, but they're already voting for Romney, so how they perceive this debate makes little difference.

 

[The Commish]

Then why was it a question from the audience? And why was it prefaced with "a bunch of coworkers and I"? And why was it still on NBC's home page within the last week? And why was it one of the "high points" of last night's debate?

You can keep saying "nobody cares" - but that doesn't make it so. Simply turning a blind eye to the facts does not make them cease to exsist.

I can't answer for why the individuals were talking about it. If I had to guess it was because they are reading NBC's homepage, CNN, whatever. As to why the networks are still covering it? Why do they cover anything? To make money. Hits = I suspect, if you were to ask folks to rank the importance of this issue among all the others this country faces, it wouldn't make the top 10...maybe top 15.

How do they get hits by posting things and running stories about things people don't care about? Please enlighten us on the marketing of stories "people don't care about" - and how that makes money.If you would like to put the paint brush down now and walk away, as you are getting close to a corner, feel free.

You don't think the sensationalism isn't in play here? The actual story isn't a major event. There's a reason, the event alone isn't being covered. Was just out on NBC, CNN and FOX and any of the articles on Libya aren't about the event. They are about how the event is impacting the election. They've trivialized four people dying for political purposes. It's sad really. These outlets don't give a #### about the details of what really happened. Seriously...this isn't difficult to see and it's quite pathetic IMO.

 

[The Commish]

Is the last debate really on foreign policy? After reading the debate segments from last night on Lybia, I'm not sure that's the best way for Romney to leave a positive last impression. The reality is, no one knows what goes on behind closed doors in the White House. I assume Romney's left with the same sort of sources as we are. I expect him to struggle like Ryan did with Biden on these topics. You could tell he couldn't wait to get off of foreign policy.

I'm not so sure about this. The problem for Romney on the Libya issue wasn't that he was wrong on the substance, it was that he was wrong on the semantics. He has a week now to dig deeper on the substantive side and come out swinging. Everyone in here has basically agreed that Romney was made foolish not because he's wrong at the core of the issue, but because he got owned on a semantics issue. Semantics are easy to clear up, the facts behind the narrative the White House laid out will not be so easy for Obama to clear up.

Sorry, but this is still wrong.Yes, Romney got caught on semantics last night, but the audience reaction was largely because outside of the conservative talk show bubble nobody believes this is a worthy topic to begin with (well, except for BigBottom, I guess.) It would be a huge mistake for Romney to bring this issue up again. He should simply walk away from it, just as he should have from the very beginning.

Then why was it a question from the audience? And why was it prefaced with "a bunch of coworkers and I"? And why was it still on NBC's home page within the last week? And why was it one of the "high points" of last night's debate?You can keep saying "nobody cares" - but that doesn't make it so. Simply turning a blind eye to the facts does not make them cease to exsist.

I can't answer for why the individuals were talking about it. If I had to guess it was because they are reading NBC's homepage, CNN, whatever. As to why the networks are still covering it? Why do they cover anything? To make money. Hits = I suspect, if you were to ask folks to rank the importance of this issue among all the others this country faces, it wouldn't make the top 10...maybe top 15.

I agree that it isn't a top issue for most people, but the rest of this is , and so is Tim's stance here. It's pretty clear that some people care about this, even if you want to argue that they shouldn't. They do.

When I say nobody, what I mean is nobody that matters in terms of this debate. In other words, I don't believe independents and swing voters care about this. (Outside of Bigbottom, that is.) Conservatives certainly care about it, but they're already voting for Romney, so how they perceive this debate makes little difference.

There are a lot of people that "care" about this, but I suspect they all have two traits in common:1. They are voting for Romney

2. They have no real idea of what happened. They just know that someone is dead "because of Obama"

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I loved the fact that Romney was caught lying about Obama by the moderator.

When Romney responded to the question, he charged that it took Obama days to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror. Obama called the incident an "act of terror" during his remarks on September 12, just one day after the tragedy.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said in the Rose Garden. "Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."

Obama interrupted Romney, telling the Republican presidential candidate to "get the transcript" of his remarks. When the governor doubled down on his charge, Crowley interjected, saying the president "did in fact" call the attack an act of terror.

"He did in fact call it an 'act of terror,'" Crowley said.

Freaking beautiful.

 

[jdelsas]

I personally think they tried to cram in too many different topics last night in too short of a time period for their to be any real substance...just when things started to heat up, the moderator would drive them towards a completely different topic. It seemed like half of the time they were arguing back and forth like a couple of kids seeing who could get in the last word (mostly Romney).

A few other takeaways:

Found it comical that both Romney and Obama butchered Lorrainne's name when she was up. Also, did she bring Horatio Sanz to the debate with her last night?

I wasn't expecting the moderator to be an ex-stripper turned man vs food.

 

[humpback]

Sorry, but this is still wrong.

Yes, Romney got caught on semantics last night, but the audience reaction was largely because outside of the conservative talk show bubble nobody believes this is a worthy topic to begin with (well, except for BigBottom, I guess.) It would be a huge mistake for Romney to bring this issue up again. He should simply walk away from it, just as he should have from the very beginning.

Then why was it a question from the audience? And why was it prefaced with "a bunch of coworkers and I"? And why was it still on NBC's home page within the last week? And why was it one of the "high points" of last night's debate?You can keep saying "nobody cares" - but that doesn't make it so. Simply turning a blind eye to the facts does not make them cease to exsist.

I can't answer for why the individuals were talking about it. If I had to guess it was because they are reading NBC's homepage, CNN, whatever. As to why the networks are still covering it? Why do they cover anything? To make money. Hits = I suspect, if you were to ask folks to rank the importance of this issue among all the others this country faces, it wouldn't make the top 10...maybe top 15.

I agree that it isn't a top issue for most people, but the rest of this is , and so is Tim's stance here. It's pretty clear that some people care about this, even if you want to argue that they shouldn't. They do.

When I say nobody, what I mean is nobody that matters in terms of this debate. In other words, I don't believe independents and swing voters care about this. (Outside of Bigbottom, that is.) Conservatives certainly care about it, but they're already voting for Romney, so how they perceive this debate makes little difference.

There are a lot of people that "care" about this, but I suspect they all have two traits in common:1. They are voting for Romney

2. They have no real idea of what happened. They just know that someone is dead "because of Obama"

I love how you guys speak for other people all the time, especially in such absolute terms. Sure, just ignore that someone in this very thread says they fit that description and does care, that an "undecided" member of the audience last night cared enough to make it the topic of his question, and that the media (not just the right wing media) is covering it, and they generally cater to their audience. Nah, you guys know what these people care about more than they do.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I agree that it isn't a top issue for most people, but the rest of this is , and so is Tim's stance here. It's pretty clear that some people care about this, even if you want to argue that they shouldn't. They do.

When I say nobody, what I mean is nobody that matters in terms of this debate. In other words, I don't believe independents and swing voters care about this. (Outside of Bigbottom, that is.) Conservatives certainly care about it, but they're already voting for Romney, so how they perceive this debate makes little difference.

Tim, You are aware that last night's audience was made up of Independent/undecided voters, aren't you?

 

[pantagrapher]

I loved the fact that Romney was caught lying about Obama by the moderator.

When Romney responded to the question, he charged that it took Obama days to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror. Obama called the incident an "act of terror" during his remarks on September 12, just one day after the tragedy.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said in the Rose Garden. "Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."

Obama interrupted Romney, telling the Republican presidential candidate to "get the transcript" of his remarks. When the governor doubled down on his charge, Crowley interjected, saying the president "did in fact" call the attack an act of terror.

"He did in fact call it an 'act of terror,'" Crowley said.

Freaking beautiful.

Not only that, but it was such a lame point to be making in the first place. As if being the first person to say "terror" is some kind of desirable presidential attribute.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So let me get this straight....The right was willing to vote for a guy who let 9/11 happen, lead us into a completely unnecessary war and dragged it through a second term.Any criticism of him was met with "Don't you support the troops".And at the risk of callous minimalism, the President who saw OBL killed under his watch is the foreign policy failure because the inmates overran the asylum in a moment you shouldn't expect to ever see repeated? Gotcha.

tough to see through this post who you are voting for

 

[pantagrapher]

I agree that it isn't a top issue for most people, but the rest of this is , and so is Tim's stance here. It's pretty clear that some people care about this, even if you want to argue that they shouldn't. They do.

When I say nobody, what I mean is nobody that matters in terms of this debate. In other words, I don't believe independents and swing voters care about this. (Outside of Bigbottom, that is.) Conservatives certainly care about it, but they're already voting for Romney, so how they perceive this debate makes little difference.

Tim, You are aware that last night's audience was made up of Independent/undecided voters, aren't you?

That guy who asked the Libya question was definitely undecided.

 

[GeauxTigers]

This debate was awesome. I was ready for Mitt and Obama to throw down the mics and start going at it.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Personally, I really hope they focus on topics like China and trade policies.

And Iran. And Afghanistan. Anything but Libya.

Yeah, who cares that Americans were killed in Libya, right?

 

[sublimeone]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.

I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:

Economy: Romney wins 58-40%

Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.

Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.

Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.

Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

 

[pantagrapher]

Obama won on style last night.

Classic.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

IMO, Romney's biggest mistake was asking Obama questions directly.

In a debate format like this, Obama is under no requirement to answer and the audience has an inherent appreciation for that, I think.

I thought Romney came off as a tool on several occasions. It's not just that he was asking Obama questions directly, but he was practically wagging his finger in his face a few times. The guy is the President of the United States after all -- you can show him at least a little respect.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Are people seriously interpreting this "act of terror" nonsense and anything other than an obvious but ultimately insignificant gaffe by Romney?

Amazing. Please continue.

I think it's a stupid issue, but he was right and Crowley was wrong. Crowley admits as much.

Several posters have asserted this but I can't find any link.

Here's one

She doesn't admit she was wrong there.

She admits that Romney's basic point was correct and that she was nitpicking his verbiage.

No, I didn't get that either. Certainly not the "nitpicking" part.Romney made a fool of himself by repeatedly asking if Obama used the words "act of terror." He was trying to catch Obama in a lie. That was his main point, not criticizing Obama for blaming the video. The latter would have been a valid criticism, but Romney never made it. His intent was much more direct: to show the TV audience that Obama made a statement that was clearly false. Instead, as Crowley correctly and properly pointed out, it was Romney who made the false statement. Highly embarrassing, and Romney deserves all the criticism he is getting for it.

I think Romney was rightly flabbergasted that Obama would parse the Rose Garden speech in such a manner and ignore all of his administrations efforts to deceive the world that this was some spontaneous act.

Up until now, Obama was somebody whose policies I disagreed with, but now I dislike him personally.

Romney was flabbergasted Obama would parse words and ignore earlier statements? Rich.

 

[identikit]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:Economy: Romney wins 58-40%Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

 

[Hilarity Ensues]

Obama was doing this pose all night.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I thought Romney came off as a tool on several occasions. It's not just that he was asking Obama questions directly, but he was practically wagging his finger in his face a few times. The guy is the President of the United States after all -- you can show him at least a little respect.

Eh. considering the campaign both guys have been running, neither has showed much respect for the other, so why fake it and start showing respect now?

 

[badmojo1006]

Obama was doing this pose all night.

And Romney had his smirk on all night

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So the takeaway is that the polls say Obama won by about an 8% margin. Unfortunately for him, they also say that he lost the economics debate by about a 40% margin. Also, the MSNBC panel's undecideds actually had Romney winning the debate overall. With the economy being the biggest issue for this election, I don't see how any rational person can claim last night as a big win for Obama when he is still getting clobbered on the #1 issue.

 

[identikit]

So the takeaway is that the polls say Obama won by about an 8% margin. Unfortunately for him, they also say that he lost the economics debate by about a 40% margin. Also, the MSNBC panel's undecideds actually had Romney winning the debate overall. With the economy being the biggest issue for this election, I don't see how any rational person can claim last night as a big win for Obama when he is still getting clobbered on the #1 issue.

Indeed,

 

[Todd Andrews]

IMO, Romney's biggest mistake was asking Obama questions directly.

In a debate format like this, Obama is under no requirement to answer and the audience has an inherent appreciation for that, I think.

I thought Romney came off as a tool on several occasions. It's not just that he was asking Obama questions directly, but he was practically wagging his finger in his face a few times. The guy is the President of the United States after all -- you can show him at least a little respect.

The debate rules the campaign negotiated and agreed to in advance specifically said they werent to ask any questions of each other directly.

 

[chet]

I thought Romney came off as a tool on several occasions. It's not just that he was asking Obama questions directly, but he was practically wagging his finger in his face a few times. The guy is the President of the United States after all -- you can show him at least a little respect.

Eh. considering the campaign both guys have been running, neither has showed much respect for the other, so why fake it and start showing respect now?

Respect is a two way street, and BO started by saying several times that Romney was lying.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

You know your debate strategy sucks when not only your opponent calls you out for lying but the moderator does as well. I wonder what type of conversation Mitt had with his fact checkers after the debate.

 

[The Commish]

You know your debate strategy sucks when not only your opponent calls you out for lying but the moderator does as well. I wonder why type conversation Mitt had with his fact checkers after the debate.

None....he's not running a campaign to be affected by fact checkers. New here?

 

[sublimeone]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:Economy: Romney wins 58-40%Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is very interesting indeed. It will be more interesting to see if this has any effect in the polls. From a strategic standpoint, this was probably the best Obama could hope for. Romney was not going to lay down like Obama did in debate #1 so there wasn't much of chance to regain all that was lost but he could stop the bleeding and he probably accomplished this to a certain extent. This was a battle of attrition. They both damaged each other and that is why the post debate polls read the way they do.

 

[GroveDiesel]

You know your debate strategy sucks when not only your opponent calls you out for lying but the moderator does as well. I wonder why type conversation Mitt had with his fact checkers after the debate.

So where do you stand on Obama's lie regarding oil and gas leases and production on federal lands?

 

[TobiasFunke]

You guys who don't think Obama gained anything last night are in luck. The Intrade price on Obama to win the election has jumped about two points in the last 12 hours. Use your super-duper insight that I'm sure isn't affected by your political leanings at all to short him now, and make big money! Good luck, fellas!

 

[bigbottom]

You know your debate strategy sucks when not only your opponent calls you out for lying but the moderator does as well. I wonder why type conversation Mitt had with his fact checkers after the debate.

So where do you stand on Obama's lie regarding oil and gas leases and production on federal lands?

What specifically was the lie?

 

[Hilarity Ensues]

Obama was doing this pose all night.

And Romney had his smirk on all night

yeah, but that's what Romney looks like all the time. Obama makes a conscious effort to do that weird arrogant thing with his head from time to time and it's just kind of odd. My link

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I loved the fact that Romney was caught lying about Obama by the moderator.

When Romney responded to the question, he charged that it took Obama days to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror. Obama called the incident an "act of terror" during his remarks on September 12, just one day after the tragedy.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said in the Rose Garden. "Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."

Obama interrupted Romney, telling the Republican presidential candidate to "get the transcript" of his remarks. When the governor doubled down on his charge, Crowley interjected, saying the president "did in fact" call the attack an act of terror.

"He did in fact call it an 'act of terror,'" Crowley said.

Freaking beautiful.

The best that Obama's statements can be categorized as would be "allusion". He didn't call the attacks an "act of terror" by name. He just didn't.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You know your debate strategy sucks when not only your opponent calls you out for lying but the moderator does as well. I wonder why type conversation Mitt had with his fact checkers after the debate.

So where do you stand on Obama's lie regarding oil and gas leases and production on federal lands?

What specifically was the lie?

I'm curious about this too.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

You know your debate strategy sucks when not only your opponent calls you out for lying but the moderator does as well. I wonder why type conversation Mitt had with his fact checkers after the debate.

So where do you stand on Obama's Romney's lie regarding oil and gas leases and production on federal lands?

Fixed.Romney: “Oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent.”

In fact, the Congressional Research Service has said that oil production on federal lands was up slightly in 2011 compared with 2007.

 

[Abraham]

I loved the fact that Romney was caught lying about Obama by the moderator.

When Romney responded to the question, he charged that it took Obama days to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror. Obama called the incident an "act of terror" during his remarks on September 12, just one day after the tragedy.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said in the Rose Garden. "Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."

Obama interrupted Romney, telling the Republican presidential candidate to "get the transcript" of his remarks. When the governor doubled down on his charge, Crowley interjected, saying the president "did in fact" call the attack an act of terror.

"He did in fact call it an 'act of terror,'" Crowley said.

Freaking beautiful.

The best that Obama's statements can be categorized as would be "allusion". He didn't call the attacks an "act of terror" by name. He just didn't.

WHO ####### CARES?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I loved the fact that Romney was caught lying about Obama by the moderator.

When Romney responded to the question, he charged that it took Obama days to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror. Obama called the incident an "act of terror" during his remarks on September 12, just one day after the tragedy.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said in the Rose Garden. "Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."

Obama interrupted Romney, telling the Republican presidential candidate to "get the transcript" of his remarks. When the governor doubled down on his charge, Crowley interjected, saying the president "did in fact" call the attack an act of terror.

"He did in fact call it an 'act of terror,'" Crowley said.

Freaking beautiful.

The best that Obama's statements can be categorized as would be "allusion". He didn't call the attacks an "act of terror" by name. He just didn't.

WHO ####### CARES?

Apparently a lot of people. But there are two arguments going on here:

A) Was Romney correct, strictly speaking, in his assertion that the President did not call the Bengazi attack an "act of terror"? The answer to this is "yes". So calling Romney a liar is incorrect.

B) Was Romney correct in bringing it up in the first place? The answer here, IMO, is "probably not."

At issue here is

 

[humpback]

You know your debate strategy sucks when not only your opponent calls you out for lying but the moderator does as well. I wonder why type conversation Mitt had with his fact checkers after the debate.

So where do you stand on Obama's Romney's lie regarding oil and gas leases and production on federal lands?

Fixed.Romney: “Oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent.”

In fact, the Congressional Research Service has said that oil production on federal lands was up slightly in 2011 compared with 2007.

Did you really miss this part?

 

[Hilarity Ensues]

You guys who don't think Obama gained anything last night are in luck. The Intrade price on Obama to win the election has jumped about two points in the last 12 hours. Use your super-duper insight that I'm sure isn't affected by your political leanings at all to short him now, and make big money! Good luck, fellas!

2 points! Wow! with volume of about 50,000 shares that's like, not really a big deal at all. With volume so low it would be extremely easy to manipulate that 'market.' And given the fact that intrade has become a political football itself it's no longer a reliable indicator.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I loved the fact that Romney was caught lying about Obama by the moderator.

When Romney responded to the question, he charged that it took Obama days to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror. Obama called the incident an "act of terror" during his remarks on September 12, just one day after the tragedy.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said in the Rose Garden. "Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."

Obama interrupted Romney, telling the Republican presidential candidate to "get the transcript" of his remarks. When the governor doubled down on his charge, Crowley interjected, saying the president "did in fact" call the attack an act of terror.

"He did in fact call it an 'act of terror,'" Crowley said.

Freaking beautiful.

The best that Obama's statements can be categorized as would be "allusion". He didn't call the attacks an "act of terror" by name. He just didn't.

Come'on Andy you are better than this.“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,”

 

[TobiasFunke]

You guys who don't think Obama gained anything last night are in luck. The Intrade price on Obama to win the election has jumped about two points in the last 12 hours. Use your super-duper insight that I'm sure isn't affected by your political leanings at all to short him now, and make big money! Good luck, fellas!

2 points! Wow! with volume of about 50,000 shares that's like, not really a big deal at all. With volume so low it would be extremely easy to manipulate that 'market.' And given the fact that intrade has become a political football itself it's no longer a reliable indicator.

Great, so you're in luck! Head over there and sell, sell, sell!

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

You guys who don't think Obama gained anything last night are in luck. The Intrade price on Obama to win the election has jumped about two points in the last 12 hours. Use your super-duper insight that I'm sure isn't affected by your political leanings at all to short him now, and make big money! Good luck, fellas!

2 points! Wow! with volume of about 50,000 shares that's like, not really a big deal at all. With volume so low it would be extremely easy to manipulate that 'market.' And given the fact that intrade has become a political football itself it's no longer a reliable indicator.

Proof?Anything?

Or is that just the voices in your own head talking?

Intrade has been a remarkably accurate in showing how the voting will go.

 

[bigbottom]

You know your debate strategy sucks when not only your opponent calls you out for lying but the moderator does as well. I wonder why type conversation Mitt had with his fact checkers after the debate.

So where do you stand on Obama's Romney's lie regarding oil and gas leases and production on federal lands?

Fixed.Romney: Oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent.

In fact, the Congressional Research Service has said that oil production on federal lands was up slightly in 2011 compared with 2007.

Romney's quote: "As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production is down 9 percent. " Oil production was down 14% in 2011 from 2010 levels. Assuming he misspoke and meant 2011, not 2012 (since we don't have total oil production data for 2012 yet), Romney's statement was correct. But Obama's statement was correct as well. Oil production on federal lands for 2011 was up over 10% from 2008 levels. So neither of them lied on that point. Romney was looking at the most recent year's data, while Obama was looking at the three years of his tenure in office.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I loved the fact that Romney was caught lying about Obama by the moderator.

When Romney responded to the question, he charged that it took Obama days to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror. Obama called the incident an "act of terror" during his remarks on September 12, just one day after the tragedy.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said in the Rose Garden. "Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."

Obama interrupted Romney, telling the Republican presidential candidate to "get the transcript" of his remarks. When the governor doubled down on his charge, Crowley interjected, saying the president "did in fact" call the attack an act of terror.

"He did in fact call it an 'act of terror,'" Crowley said.

Freaking beautiful.

The best that Obama's statements can be categorized as would be "allusion". He didn't call the attacks an "act of terror" by name. He just didn't.

Come'on Andy you are better than this.“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,”

All I'm saying is that AT BEST he's implying that the attack was one of terror. This statement does NOT overtly categorize the attack as such, however.And anyway, how many times do you want me to say that, given that the implication is enough, Mitt should have left it alone? Because the next time will be the third.

 

[Hilarity Ensues]

You guys who don't think Obama gained anything last night are in luck. The Intrade price on Obama to win the election has jumped about two points in the last 12 hours. Use your super-duper insight that I'm sure isn't affected by your political leanings at all to short him now, and make big money! Good luck, fellas!

2 points! Wow! with volume of about 50,000 shares that's like, not really a big deal at all. With volume so low it would be extremely easy to manipulate that 'market.' And given the fact that intrade has become a political football itself it's no longer a reliable indicator.

Proof?Anything?

Or is that just the voices in your own head talking?

Intrade has been a remarkably accurate in showing the voting will go.

The total volume for Obama: 1,875,334 Total Volume for Romney: 370,236

How difficult do you think it would be to manipulate this market by one wealthy individual?

 

[Thunderlips]

IMO, Romney's biggest mistake was asking Obama questions directly.

In a debate format like this, Obama is under no requirement to answer and the audience has an inherent appreciation for that, I think.

I thought Romney came off as a tool on several occasions. It's not just that he was asking Obama questions directly, but he was practically wagging his finger in his face a few times. The guy is the President of the United States after all -- you can show him at least a little respect.

Not since Clinton has this been true about the "loyal opposition".

 

[TobiasFunke]

You know your debate strategy sucks when not only your opponent calls you out for lying but the moderator does as well. I wonder why type conversation Mitt had with his fact checkers after the debate.

So where do you stand on Obama's Romney's lie regarding oil and gas leases and production on federal lands?

Fixed.Romney: “Oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent.”

In fact, the Congressional Research Service has said that oil production on federal lands was up slightly in 2011 compared with 2007.

According to the transcript I'm reading, you've misquoted Romney. Here's the quote: "As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production is down 9 percent. " Oil production was down 14% in 2011 from 2010 levels. Assuming he misspoke and meant 2011, not 2012 (since we don't have total oil production data for 2012 yet), Romney's statement was correct. But Obama's statement was correct as well. Oil production on federal lands for 2011 was up over 10% from 2008 levels. So neither of them lied on that point. Romney was looking at the most recent year's data, while Obama was looking at the three years of his tenure in office.

And more importantly, the idea that the president has very much to do with this is nonsense. In most cases it takes many years to go from policy change to a change in levels of production. What's being produced now is a reflection of leasing decisions made mostly during previous administrations. Advances in drilling technology and market prices also play a role. And in any event, production on federal land is only a small share of the market, particularly with respect to oil obviously. Debating these minor changes in production one way or another is a dumb point to make for either side.

 

[Thunderlips]

Obama was doing this pose all night.

And Romney had his smirk on all night

yeah, but that's what Romney looks like all the time. Obama makes a conscious effort to do that weird arrogant thing with his head from time to time and it's just kind of odd. My link

It means "S'up, Foo?"