The consensus seems to be that Romney won last night's debate. He had low-ish expectations, but seemed to do better than average at presenting himself. Obama did not look comfortable, which is going to affect his whole appearance at debate. Not sure why, in domestic policy debate, he did not bring up some obvious lines, such as the 47% thing, and spent too long on the contentious $5 trillion 'gap'.

Debates rarely settle elections, but they can have an effect of confounding/confirming opinions. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few days to show if Romney has turned a debate win into additional support (or if Obama's loss on the stage will reverse his post-convention boost).

I listened to it on the radio, so I didn't see Obama looking uncomfortable, and while I thought Romney did fine, I thought it was a tie, with the only loser being the moderator they both walked all over. So I was surprised to hear the pundits giving it so clearly to Romney. Anybody else question the conventional wisdom?

No. Romney came off as significantly smarter and more energetic, and believe it or not, maybe even slightly more compassionate. He certainly seemed to believe in himself more than Obama.

The Intrade odds on Obama fell from 74% to 67 or 66%. That's significant. But it's still 2-to-1 Obama.

HERE is some AP fact-checking.

And from factcheck.org: HERE

Amount of distortion/lying: not huge and about even.

geojanes wrote:I listened to it on the radio, so I didn't see Obama looking uncomfortable, and while I thought Romney did fine, I thought it was a tie, with the only loser being the moderator they both walked all over. So I was surprised to hear the pundits giving it so clearly to Romney. Anybody else question the conventional wisdom?

If you watched it, you would not be surprised. Obama's optics were terrible and Romney's were good (not perfect, but very good).

I don't know if you saw Chris Matthews afterward. I recorded MSNBC. Chris was visibly upset. I think he would have been happier if his dog died. The other MSNBC pundits were mad at Obama.

It would be interesting to listen rather than watch, but watching, well, it was a rout. It was the Patriots against a Division II football team. It was a grandmaster chess player against a good park and rec player.

it was Dr. Fate vs. poor Ricky in Diplomacy.

As an independent, for me the most important part of the debate was when Obama talked about Romney care, and Romney mentioned that he worked with a legislature that is 80%+ Democrat. Romney successfully worked with the other side. He contrasted that with Obamacare which was a Democratic effort only, even after Romney's liberal state elected a Republican Senator. Obama said something like, I wish the Republicans in Congress would work with me. Although Democrats may accepts that as truth, I think it revealed Obama's weakness as a politician, his pettiness, and his partisanship.

Most independents want the two parties to work together so this was a very important factoid.

Well it's only one debate but Obama was off his game...did not land any effective shots at Romney (no references to Romney flip-flopping or the 47% comment, did not effectively state that while his medicare plan puts the burden on providers Romney/Ryan would put the burden on seniors, did not effectively challenge Romney's assertion that he was not going to cut taxes unless it was revenue neutral, etc). Obama was not very articululate (and, and, and--professional public speakers get rid of those kinds of uhs, ands, wells and so forth), looked down at his feet a lot when Romney was talking and sometimes chuckled when Romney said something he disagreed with. Romney was articuilate, prepared, and knew exactly what he wanted to say.

Bad strategy by the Obama camp thinking they could come in, not take any chances, and they would be fine. That strategy resulted in Obama coming into the debate with little energy and not with the competitive desire to win the debate. And it showed.

In 2004 Cheney helped to reverse the momentum that the Kerry had after beating Bush II soundlly in the first debate. The same could happen in the Biden/Ryan debate. We'll see. And I expect that Obama will come after Romney in the second debate

Well, RJ, I guess it is true that Romney would be able to work more with Democrats because Democrats would never refuse to work with a Republican president. However, are we supposed to reward Republcians with their intransigence with regard to their refusal to work with Obama except on their terms?

freeman2 wrote:In 2004 Cheney helped to reverse the momentum that the Kerry had after beating Bush II soundlly in the first debate. The same could happen in the Biden/Ryan debate. We'll see.

Now, I'll grant you that Biden should do well against Ryan. This will be Ryan's first national one-on-one debate. Biden has several primary presidential debates and a Veep debate under his belt.

On the other hand, to steal from Dennis Miller: Biden is your firewall?

And I expect that Obama will come after Romney in the second debate

I think this is right. I would expect Obama to be much, much better.

I think what most liberals have not acknowledged is that Romney was very good. It wasn't just that Obama was bad; Romney was in control. Obama had 53% of the time, but it seemed that it was Romney who spoke the most--because he had something to say (whether you agreed with him or not).

Well, RJ, I guess it is true that Romney would be able to work more with Democrats because Democrats would never refuse to work with a Republican president.

You didn't just say that. Do we really need to review the last two years of Bush's presidency?

However, are we supposed to reward Republcians with their intransigence with regard to their refusal to work with Obama except on their terms?

Very selective.

Snowe and Collins of Maine--hardcore conservatives? Party-loyalists? Corker? Brown?

If there were ever a Republican for President Obama to work with, it was Maine Senator Olympia Snowe. She was one of just three Republicans in the entire Congress to vote for his economic stimulus plan in 2009 and even tried to work with him on health care, but in an interview with ABC's Senior Political Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Snowe makes a remarkable revelation: She hasn't had a face-to-face meeting with President Obama in nearly two years.
Snowe said that if she had to grade the President on his willingness to work with Republicans, he would "be close to failing on that point." In fact, Snowe, who was first elected to Congress in 1978, claims that her meetings with President Obama have been less frequent than with any other President.

He's been on The View more than he spent time talking with moderates like Snowe. That's bad governance.

Well, RJ, I guess it is true that Romney would be able to work more with Democrats because Democrats would never refuse to work with a Republican president. However, are we supposed to reward Republcians with their intransigence with regard to their refusal to work with Obama except on their terms?

That is the Democratic view, and I agree that there is some truth to it. But it is also true that Bill Clinton and LBJ and JFK were able to work with Republicans. It's also true that Obama alienated Republicans with his stewardship of ACA. I don't think you can ever fully figure out who is at fault for the impasse in Washington. (Dr Fate posted while I was writing this and he makes fair points. After you get away from the evidence on this that will be presented by the left, and the right, at the end of the day it's like most marriages that fall off the rails. No one is perfect, and no one is completely to blame. But most independents realize that a better Obama could have made it work.)

Romney also pointed out that Obama let Simpson Bowles die in a file cabinet somewhere.

There are 2 key issues for me which are shared by other Independents:

1. Do you have a coherent plan for the deficit?
2. Can you work with the other party?

My own take is that neither has a good enough plan for #1, but Romney is much stronger for #2.

Well, what is the approval rating for Congress right now? I'm not sure most indepedents give Obama and Republicans equal share of the blame. And if you're primarily worried about the deficit Romney has signaled that he will make it far worse than it was under Obama. He is going to cut taxes five trillion dollars, he is not going to close enough loopholes to cover it because people won't like that, and he is going to raise military spending. Obama nas no such grandiose tax cutting measure, no large new spending programs,and there is going to be mandatory cuts in spending because of the debt ceiling agreement.

And, DF, I did give Romney credit.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman2 wrote:In 2004 Cheney helped to reverse the momentum that the Kerry had after beating Bush II soundlly in the first debate. The same could happen in the Biden/Ryan debate. We'll see.

Now, I'll grant you that Biden should do well against Ryan. This will be Ryan's first national one-on-one debate. Biden has several primary presidential debates and a Veep debate under his belt.

On the other hand, to steal from Dennis Miller: Biden is your firewall?

Biden has a very real chance of throwing up a legendary gaffe. (Perhaps he will call Ryan well-spoken and clean, or much worse. I can't believe they didn't dump him off the ticket.)

I will also say on my impression of the debate, I missed the first, like, 1/2 hour of the debate, where the pundits said that Romney did best, so it may not have been just the radio, but also the portion I heard.

I haven't seen t either, but I can only assume that Romney 'won' handsomely given that I've read as much in some very left-leaning media outlets. I tend to doubt that it'll have much effect though. How many undecided voters are there left ? RJ likes to call himself an independent but he's been firmly in the Republican camp for a long time now, so I'm not so sure you can read too much into his conclusions. My suspicion is that most voters now call themselves independents but at the same time most have already made up their minds and aren't likely to change them after a debate they probably never even watched.

geojanes wrote:Biden has a very real chance of throwing up a legendary gaffe. (Perhaps he will call Ryan well-spoken and clean, or much worse. I can't believe they didn't dump him off the ticket.)

I never thought this was a real possibility. I don't think Obama's ego would allow it. If Hillary was added, I think it would have added, but I don't think the President could allow himself to be seen as "needing" her.

On the other hand, Bill sure gave him a lift . . .

Back to the debate. I'm not so sure that it won't provide at least a temporary boost to Romney. I think there are more persuadable voters than the polls lead us to believe. Romney was strong on bipartisanship last night and I think that speaks to the middle.

We'll know by Tuesday-ish.

Okay, now, if this doesn't tell you what a biased, nonsensical outfit the NYT is, nothing will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opini ... cv8Tl68bwQ

Now, one could argue about Romney's plans. However, they are not "fiction." But, when the NYT says a debate is "unhelpful," what they're really trying to say is "Obama was whupped."

Sassenach wrote: RJ likes to call himself an independent but he's been firmly in the Republican camp for a long time now, so I'm not so sure you can read too much into his conclusions.

No I'm not. I really am undecided, still.