And now the Google poll joins the fray, along with CBS, PPP, & CNN saying the President won the debate:

http://www.google.com/insights/consumersurveys/view?survey=7rlpln44hcouq&question=2&filter&rw=1&dataGen=3

10/17/2012 12:12:51 AM

you make yourself look foolish when you post an online poll. might as well post the poll on TWW's front page, Jake... unless that isn't really an online poll...

10/17/2012 12:15:42 AM

So according to Google 51.5 percent of folks think either Mitt Romney won or it was a draw.

So Obama still sucks after his performance 2 weeks ago right?

10/17/2012 12:20:12 AM

This calmac guy is a fucking idiot.

10/17/2012 12:23:36 AM

^^ or you could say 68.9% thought Obama won or it was a draw. So Romney lost this debate...

10/17/2012 12:30:08 AM

Quote :

"So according to Google 51.5 percent of folks think either Mitt Romney won or it was a draw."

lol christ almighty you're certifiably batshit insane

10/17/2012 12:31:27 AM

Yeah, that is just fucking ridiculous.

10/17/2012 12:44:55 AM

trolling is a art

10/17/2012 1:20:36 AM

Quote :

"HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. (AP) — Police say the Green Party candidates for president and vice president have been arrested at the second presidential debate. Nassau County, N.Y. police say Jill Stein, the Green presidential nominee, and Cheri Honkala, the vice-presidential nominee, were charged with disorderly conduct as they tried to enter the debate site at Hofstra University. The Green Party says in a statement that Stein and Honkala were walking with supporters toward the Hofstra campus Tuesday afternoon when they were met by uniformed police officers. Stein and Honkala then held an impromptu press conference in which Stein called the debate a "mockery of democracy." A third person was later charged with disorderly conduct."

http://news.yahoo.com/green-party-candidates-arrested-debate-011030548--election.html

10/17/2012 2:19:47 AM

Please proceed, governor.

10/17/2012 9:24:15 AM

all the President had to do to be successful in this debate is not look like an idiot...I think he was too aggressive personally and may have opened himself up to other ridicule...that being said...it's going to take a lot of effort to overcome that first debate performance.

Romney was comparable to first debate performance...I think he gets under Obama's skin really well by using his own record against him.

10/17/2012 10:00:58 AM

Quote :

"or you could say 68.9% thought Obama won or it was a draw. So Romney lost this debate..."

That was the point of the damn joke. I'm sorry that you think Republicans are so goddamn stupid that they can't even post humorous fallacy without instantly having the liberal cock of logic and justice rammed down their throats.

Certifiably batshit insane? Really?

Maybe if I wasn't so wound up over the tiniest Obama debate victory I wouldn't have my head so far up my own ass I could see (yet another) joke at Supplanter's expense.

But go ahead and keep the wagons circled around your prince.

[Edited on October 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM. Reason : -]

10/17/2012 10:03:07 AM

Obama was no more aggressive than Romney, he was just more effective at it.

10/17/2012 10:03:22 AM

it begins:

Quote :

" I saw nothing but anger out of Obama last night and it made me sick."

10/17/2012 10:09:08 AM

I can't decide what the best part of it was for me:

1. The Mod explaining the debate rules to Romney like a child

2. Romney using the term Arab to refer to the entire oil drilling culture

3. Romney being called out by the mod for lying about the Obama response to the embassy attacks.

Oh wait, it's #3.

[Edited on October 17, 2012 at 10:12 AM. Reason : z]

10/17/2012 10:12:00 AM

David Frum, former speechwriter for G.W. Bush, had this to say in response to Romney getting called out on lying about the Obama response to the embassy attacks:


That was one of their campaign's big trump cards and it was effectively neutered.

10/17/2012 10:22:19 AM

Michelle Obama clapped?? THE HORROR!!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/17/michelle_obama_broke_agreed_upon_rules_clapped_at_debate.html

10/17/2012 10:23:53 AM

There is no rule against being angry in a debate, but it does matter how you portray it.

Obama just tends to firm up his voice and talk faster when he gets ill, he points more than usual, clenches his jaw, and gave Romney at least one very obvious stare down.

Nothing wrong with any of that at all.

I would say he probably needs to do a better job of not letting Romney get under his skin. When Romney say that Obama wasn't his usual self at the first debate he just ran train on him all night. Last night he was up against a much better Obama and used his time to prod him repeatedly.

I thought this much at least was obvious, and I for one was not pleased with Romney arguing with the moderator. There were a few rebuttal opportunities I felt he deserved that he was not allowed, and Obama also spoke over 4 minutes longer than him, but even if Obama won by a little bit it was still a solid performance for Romney.

Obama really needed to blunt him last night and I don't think anybody realistically thinks that happened.

Between now and the next debate Romney can simply practice using Obama's emotions against him. Yes, Romney could also polish up a few things, like the Arab comment (even though I believe he mentioned Venezuela as well), and being certain of his gotcha before going for the gotcha.

I honestly thought both of them did poorly. Obama was better than 2 weeks ago, Romney was worse, but they're both a little awkward in that format and ultimately regardless of the question or context (or arguing), they always devolved into the same 5 or so policy points.

The answer to everything is energy, or education, or some old woman they met in Iowa. Blah blah.

10/17/2012 10:26:14 AM

You guys are really late to the game. Fox was all over bindergate a year ago. Stop trying to make this about Romney.

http://www.politicususa.com/fox-obama-binder-clip.html

10/17/2012 10:42:37 AM

Quote :

"Obama really needed to blunt him last night and I don't think anybody realistically thinks that happened."

well other than the majority of people who watched, that may be true

10/17/2012 10:44:22 AM

It's a shame the moderator didn't call out his Binder Full of Women lie:

http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2012/10/16/mind-the-binder.aspx

10/17/2012 11:10:46 AM

10/17/2012 11:49:32 AM

When one side is doing nothing but complaining about the questions and the moderator, it's pretty clear who won the debate. Although I'm personally even more pissed at Obama for not showing up to the first debate. He clearly could have put Romney down for good 2 weeks ago, and it's absolutely bewildering that he chose not too.

10/17/2012 12:25:47 PM

His strategy was to let Biden come out swinging first, because if he did it then he would risk getting stuck with the "angry black male" stereotype. You have to understand that if he was overly aggressive and came out swinging it could have given him a bad image.

But factually he destroyed Romney in the first debate.

10/17/2012 12:39:58 PM

From the @BIGBIRD twitter guy:
http://calecrout.tumblr.com/

Quote :

" Severe Conservatism is Dead - Even if Romney Wins I watched the debate last night like millions in America and around the world. Let’s get one thing out of the way: President Barack Obama wiped the floor with Mitt Romney. However, it wasn’t just what Obama did that was important. It’s what Romney did and has been doing along with Paul Ryan the past debates that is really shocking and well… devastating for the GOP. For years, America has had ‘severe’ conservatism shoved down its throat by the vocal minority that’s held the GOP hostage. The result is quite evident. A large section of American society has been made to fear women, gays and minorities. A large section of American society has been made to believe that government for the rich and by the rich is how America should be. A large section of American society has been made to believe that wars started abroad somehow keeps them safe. A large section of American society… but a minority of it. The majority is now more than ever disgusted by both the social and economic severeness of this moronic tirade. And how do we know that is so? Because Mitt Romney can’t tell the truth in front of tens of millions of Americans. He can’t defend his social policy. Neither can he defend his monetary policy or his designs for more meaningless defense spending. Twelve years ago and even 8 years ago, George W. Bush didn’t have to skew facts to appeal to the majority of Americans. Mitt Romney does. He has to misrepresent facts on his policies on both social and economic policy if he wants to win this election. So what happens after November 6? If President Obama wins… well, then severe conservatism is dead fair and square once again, but if he doesn’t, There are two scenarios: Either Mitt Romney wins and knowing that if he shows his true colors, in 2014, it will destroy the Republican Party’s brand in the mid-term elections. It will also make it impossible for a GOP candidate to stand in 2016 and misrepresent facts like him again. So he sticks with moderate Romney and severe conservatism loses fair and square. Or, Mitt Romney wins and decides to double down and go ahead with the policies he truly believes in and severe conservatism rules America for four more years. Tell me in 2016, after four years of trickle down economics, misogynistic laws and anti-gay legislation, a GOP candidate could stand in front of the American people and disassociate himself from Bush and Romney policies… The truth is here. And it’s far more frightening for severe conservatism than it is for liberalism. Mitt Romney can try to persuade the majority of Americans one more time that severe conservatism works - by misrepresenting it. And then it’s over for good. If you can’t sell it; it’ll be off the shelves. "

10/17/2012 12:44:08 PM

Quote :

"His strategy was to let Biden come out swinging first, because if he did it then he would risk getting stuck with the "angry black male" stereotype. You have to understand that if he was overly aggressive and came out swinging it could have given him a bad image. "

Nothing could have been worse than what actually happened, which was coming off like he just didn't give a shit. Obama's performance in the first debate is indefensible.

10/17/2012 1:00:51 PM

If he wins, I'm pretty sure it could be defended.

10/17/2012 1:10:30 PM

From a bigger picture standpoint, I think the entire series of debates has net benefited Romney. Prior to the first debate, the President had a strong position, enjoying significant leads in key states. All he had to do was at least check or slightly beat Romney to maintain his campaign's momentum. Remember, prior to the debate, there was a lot of talk on the Republican side of shifting funds from the Presidential race to more "winnable" congressional elections. However, the President bungled the first debate, giving Romney an opportunity to rally, regroup and resuscitate his candidacy.

Now, the President faces a tight election in a weakened position. Even though he had a good showing last night, it wasn't nearly enough to regain the advantage: he had to crush Romney to do that, and while I thought he won the debate, it wasn't decisive enough to shift the momentum. In the end, Romney was able to revive his candidacy while the President hasn't been able to squeak out any new advantage.

10/17/2012 2:19:59 PM

Quote :

"All he had to do was at least check or slightly beat Romney to maintain his campaign's momentum. Remember, prior to the debate, there was a lot of talk on the Republican side of shifting funds from the Presidential race to more "winnable" congressional elections. However, the President bungled the first debate, giving Romney an opportunity to rally, regroup and resuscitate his candidacy."

Actually, the only legitimate theory/explanation I've heard for Obama's first debate performance was to keep this from happening. He wanted the SuperPACs and the RNC to keep throwing money at an unwillable Presidential race, rather than help Senators and Congressman who've been struggling. Highly unlikely, but according to the polls, the Dem's chances to hold the Senate and gain ground in the House have increased substantially over the past few weeks, even while Obama's numbers have been worsening. At the very least, it's an unintended side benefit.

[Edited on October 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM. Reason : :]

10/17/2012 6:11:08 PM

^^Nope

10/17/2012 6:28:52 PM

I think that's pretty accurate actually. Obama's gain from "winning" last night surely won't make up the bounce Romney got last week from the first debate. Not even close.

Obama, with the economic numbers we see daily (even earnings are hitting at a high rate from what I've seen) is still in the drivers seat, though.

10/17/2012 7:51:16 PM

^^^

The guy is human. He just had a bad day. I don't think there is any real conspiracy.

10/17/2012 8:04:30 PM

Either way it was always going to be a close race because that's what the media wants.

10/17/2012 8:19:38 PM

I don't necessarily view it as conspiratorial, but Obama performed so poorly in the first debate that it appeared as if it was intentional. He didn't just have a poor debate; he seemed to willingly allow Romney to walk over him.

The down-ballot concept is intriguing, at the very least.

On a more town hall-specific note:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-candy-crowley-gets-tough-with-obama-and-romney/

[Edited on October 17, 2012 at 11:48 PM. Reason : ]

10/17/2012 11:47:59 PM

It's called a rope-a-dope, folks

10/19/2012 10:40:13 AM

Quote :

"Either way it was always going to be a close race because that's what the media wants."

10/21/2012 10:58:53 AM

An interesting point. Is it important that the election stay "close" in order for people to buy into the system and believe that their choice matters? With a political system as corrupt as it is, it's pretty hard to make the case that the voting/electoral system is somehow isolated in that retard.

10/21/2012 11:22:32 AM

The media doesn't want it to be close because of some conspiracy to keep people's faith in the election process, close races just get them more viewers and website hits and make programming easy to decide.

10/21/2012 1:09:08 PM

Quote :

"Is it important that the election stay "close" in order for people to buy into the system and believe that their choice matters?"

if you're talking about the media's coverage then no because because ^"close races just get them more viewers and website hits and make programming easy to decide"

besides most people are already aware that the difference between major party candidates is marginal and who ultimately gets elected has a relatively minor impact on their day to day lives. this has been clear since the Supreme Court handed the election to Bush in 2000 and the public didn't get of a fuck. their lack of reaction wasn't evidence of their stupidity, but of their understanding that the puppet on the left isn't much more interested in serving them than the puppet on the right.

10/21/2012 2:13:51 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/21/snl-second-presidential-debate_n_1996561.html

10/21/2012 3:26:17 PM