Did you see where Romney was talking about the fact that he had met of the former Navy Seals killed in Libya? He talked about his courage in coming to fight the attack when he was in a safe place. And he said that's what Americans do they go where they are needed and he said we are needed. He sort of comparing his campaign to the bravery shown by Glen Doherty, the ex Navy Seal.

It turns out that a friend of Glen Dohert said that Doherty had talked the meeting that had occurred with Mitt Romney. And the friend said Mr. Doherty was not impressed with Romney, that Romney had introduced himself four times in the course of the evening, forgetting each time that he had already introduced himself to Doherty. The friend said Doherty thought it was pathetic. A little more insight into the character of the man.

The toughest thing Paul Ryan was up against all night was not so much Biden but trying to defend Romney's chameleon feckless stances on everything. It's that prior to signing onto the VP spot Ryan actually had a concrete specific ideology on which to stand.

Anybody else notice Biden called Syria 4 times the size of Libya geographically. I winced. I thought it was a huge gaffe, but then I realized nobody else saw he was wrong.

I also appreciate Neal's comment above. Romney's "chameleon feckless stances on everything" was a challenge for Ryan, but I wonder if they are for everyone else. Part of me wants him not to be the right-wing nutcase that he showed in the primaries, but another part of me wonders just what the heck he stands for, if anything.

geojanes wrote:Anybody else notice Biden called Syria 4 times the size of Libya geographically. I winced. I thought it was a huge gaff, but then I realized nobody else saw he was wrong.

I heard the same thing, but as he went on it was clear enough that he meant that Libya was four times the size of Syria, not vice-versa. Really. It was clear enough from the context as he continued.

The second debate ended ten minutes ago. As far as I can tell the punditry seems to be saying Obama had the best of it. We'll see if this assessment becomes the conventional wisdom. IMHO the result was different: Romney came off slightly better. He evaded fewer questions. The Prez seemed to get rather widely off track at times. Besides being more focused, Romney also seemed more upbeat and confident. So I predict a further (slight?) upward bounce for Romney, though fact-checking-type news over the next 24 hours could influence this significantly. [I hate to predict fact-checking but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Prez comes off worst there also.] I see this debate as reinforcing the impressions created by the last, not as the Prez effectively countering the bad impression he left last time. Sure, the Prez did better, but he did not outshine Romney, and I call that a failure. I think Romney did a rather good job of painting him as a failure, and Obama's continuing inability to really hurt Romney just strengthens that impression.

Romney's just a better candidate. I'm not convinced he'll be such a good President, but he sure seems to be the more skilled candidate. How did Obama do so well last time? One: George Bush's negatives rubbed off on McCain. Two: Obama had a glowing (albeit thin as tissue) past instead of a record tough to defend. Three: McCain wasn't as effective or attractive as a candidate as Romney is. Bottom line: it's taken Romney a while to convince enough people he's a credible occupant of the Oval Office but he seems to have cleared that hurdle. Given Obama's negatives, that's all Romney really had to do.

BTW Obama missed a great opportunity. When the question was Romney vs. Bush Mitt gave a good answer, but Obama could then have said, "Now let me tell you what Mr. Romney and Mr. Bush have in common..." and proceeded to name half a dozen top Romney advisors, identifying each as a "Bush retread". I think he could have gotten away with that and it would have been very effective.

Purple wrote: I hate to predict fact-checking but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Prez comes off worst there also.

The biggest "fact check" error (I predict): Obama saying he called the Libya attack terror on Day One. That is, at best, arguable. What is inarguable is that his spokesman, Carney, denied that a few times, Ambassador Rice claimed it was a result of the video and not terror, and the President himself blamed the video, not Islamist terrorism, on more than one occasion.

Romney's just a better candidate.

Who would have predicted that? Obama was so good in 2008, but maybe part of that was just McCain being a total stiff?

I'm not convinced he'll be such a good President, but he sure seems to be the more skilled candidate. How did Obama do so well last time? One: George Bush's negatives rubbed off on McCain. Two: Obama had a glowing (albeit thin as tissue) past instead of a record tough to defend. Three: McCain wasn't as effective or attractive as a candidate as Romney is. Bottom line: it's taken Romney a while to convince enough people he's a credible occupant of the Oval Office but he seems to have cleared that hurdle. Given Obama's negatives, that's all Romney really had to do.

Personally, Obama still has a pretty good rating. It's his policies people don't like--and I think Romney was effective in pointing to those tonight.

BTW Obama missed a great opportunity. When the question was Romney vs. Bush Mitt gave a good answer, but Obama could then have said, "Now let me tell you what Mr. Romney and Mr. Bush have in common..." and proceeded to name half a dozen top Romney advisors, identifying each as a "Bush retread". I think he could have gotten away with that and it would have been very effective.

That was a lame question. Crowley picked the questions and that was a softball for Obama.

Romney could have nailed the President on Libya. Instead of asking him a question (generally not a good idea--but, I thought it was good with regard to investments in China), Romney should have recounted the timeline--Rice's TV appearances, Obama's answer to Behar on The View, his appearance on Letterman, and his UN speech--no mention of terrorism.

On the big issue--the trend--I think you're right. I think this will solidify Romney as the front-runner and make the President all the more desperate.

First of all, Obama clearly reignited the base. That is a big issue in this race, because Romney does better when you consider likely voters as compared to registered voters. Obama's base was depressed after the first debate. Romney also looked bad on women's issues, immigration, and he was crushed on foreign policy. He could not explain his tax policy in any coherent fashion and because he was attacked he sounded defensive at times. Romney's argument is that the economy is in shambles and you should trust him that he will fix the economy. That's it. But his ideas are a regurgitation of Bush--cut taxes and raise military spending. He also tried to challenge Obama in a direct way and Obama stared him right down and Romney retreated. A total reversal of the first debate. And I thought Romney's appeal to middle-class voters was insincere.

The best Romney can hope for I think is that the race stays even. I guess I should be concerned about what an independent like Purple thinks, but even if independents (usually just old-time Republicans who have turned away from the party by the extremists in the party) don't get moved the Democratic base will be. There is no way this race keeps trending Romney.

Sorry DF there is a tape of Obama making reference to the Libya incident as an attack of terror the day after the incident. And the moderator called Romney on it. Doesn't look good for your credibility when you get called on a factual error by the moderator

freeman2 wrote:Sorry DF there is a tape of Obama making reference to the Libya incident as an attack of terror the day after the incident. And the moderator called Romney on it. Doesn't look good for your credibility when you get called on a factual error by the moderator

Right.

Except Crowley was wrong.

First, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/ ... in-speech/

Second, if he was so clear on the matter, why was Susan Rice telling a different story a few days later on five shows? Why was the President's spokesman (Carney) telling different stories? Why did the President, two weeks after the attack, refuse to call it terrorism? http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/lib ... index.html

September 25 -- President Obama on ABC's The View," in response interviewer Joy Behar's question, "I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?":
"We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there."

They had real-time video!

Defend the President all you want, but get the facts first.

I think this is a good summary of the debate.

Who won? I think it was close, and would not argue with anyone who gives it one candidate or the other. Obama may have had a small edge in the weeds, in part because of the moderator, who gave him more time and (if I’m not mistaken) more follow-up opportunities. But I think Romney had the edge in the big picture debate on the economy.

The one poll I’ve heard about tends to confirm my impression. A CBS survey gave the debate to Romney by 37 percent to 30 percent. But the respondents found by almost a 2-1 majority that Romney won on the economy.

Who gains? It depends. If voters want to reelect Obama but need to be convinced that he can hold his own in a debate, then Obama will gain, just as George W. Bush did when he hung in there with John Kerry in the two encounters that followed Bush’s poor first debate performance.

But if, as may well be true, voters do not really want to reelect Obama, but need to be satisfied that Romney isn’t evil, isn’t Bush, and has workable ideas for the economy, then my guess is that the challenger’s performance tonight was another step on the road to “sealing the deal.”

As for Candy Crowley, she was even worse than I expected for reasons that should be clear from what I’ve written above. May this be her last appearance as a presidential or vice presidential debate moderator.

Now, if people are satisfied with the economy and think Obama's doing a good job, I think you're right, freeman2. Otherwise, I don't think you're going to be happy.

CNN has it 46-39% Obama. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... in-debate/ The CNN poll says it is weighted towards Republicans (33 percent Republican and Democratic as opposed to 33 D and 25 R normally used)

The CBS poll cited was wrong--Obama won 37-30. http://www.cbsnews.com/

55-49 percent of the uncommitted voters in the CBS polls say that Obama was better at directly answering the questions; the rate of uncommitted voters who thought Romney was better on the economy while heavily in favor of Romney changed in Obama's favor as a result of the debate. And of those uncommitted voters 56-43% thought Obama was better for the middle-class.

The question is not whether people are satisfied with the economy--people know it is more complex than that. Romney has to demonstrate two things: (1) that he will be better on the economy, and (2) that the beneficial effect of his policies will reach beyond the rich. And Romney has to win convincingly on the economy because he is weak on foreign policy. And why voters would trust him on the economy when his plans are so vague is beyond me.

And why voters would trust him on the economy when his plans are so vague is beyond me.

This made me laugh:

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

Shameless bit of propaganda of course, but quite an effective one I thought.

Very funny.

I did not watch the debate, so I've no idea of the context for this...

When I woke up, my gf was reading the news and started laughing about Romney and 'binders full of women'. Is he setting up a pre-internet dating agency?

I saw a reference to it on a UK based political polling website as well. I suppose I'd better see why it's apparently a gaffe.