Who won the debate?

I was pleased with the President's performance. I thought he did a good job of outlining Mitt Romney's true financial plan and his constituency aka the super rich.

The super rich... you mean like Oprah Winfrey?

Your posts show you obviously don't like people who are not Kaukasian!

zolderopruiming1, what a ridiculous and stupid reply to my question.

likethebike, I'm still waiting for an answer from you (since Ms. Winfrey is an Obama supporter).

Of course the key moments tonight were Romney being handed his lunch during his disastrous lie about how the president never mentioned that the attacks in Libya were 'acts of terror'. Is this guy that dense that he doesn't know there's something called video tape? He really thought he had the president there, and it was brilliant when the president said to him 'proceed governor', and Romney just took the rope.

Get your facts straight, intheghetto, and stop twisting things to fit your own "dense" agenda.

Moderator Candy Crowley went on to side with Romney about the administration's confusing account, saying it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest, and she said after the debate that Romney "was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."

But Obama also hadn't explicitly labeled the Bengazi strike as an "act of terror" as early as he claimed, though his comments on Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden indeed included that phrase, perhaps with that interpretation.

"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. "Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three days after the attacks, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters: “This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive.”

Also, U.N. Ambassador Rice appeared on Fox News Sunday on September 16 and stated: “What sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many people around the world. Now, our strong view is that there is no excuse for violence. It is reprehensible and never justified. But in fact there have been those in various parts of the world who have reacted with violence.”

Matthew Sheffield of Newsbusters.org blasted Crowley for stepping in during the debate, saying she was trying to “save Obama from his administration's dreadful bungling of the Libya situation. She owes the American people an apology for inserting herself into the debate in such an inappropriate and embarrassing fashion.”

The exchange over Benghazi is sure to focus more attention on what the administration knew, and when, regarding the Benghazi attack.

The Obama campaign may ultimately have mixed feelings about the exchange, considering that it is bound to elevate the public discussion of Benghazi in the days leading up to the third and final presidential debate on Oct. 22, which will focus on foreign policy.

Obama kicked ass !!!

Of course the key moments tonight were Romney being handed his lunch during his disastrous lie about how the president never mentioned that the attacks in Libya were 'acts of terror'. Is this guy that dense that he doesn't know there's something called video tape? He really thought he had the president there, and it was brilliant when the president said to him 'proceed governor', and Romney just took the rope.

Get your facts straight, intheghetto, and stop twisting things to fit your own "dense" agenda.

Moderator Candy Crowley went on to side with Romney about the administration's confusing account, saying it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest, and she said after the debate that Romney "was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."

But Obama also hadn't explicitly labeled the Bengazi strike as an "act of terror" as early as he claimed, though his comments on Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden indeed included that phrase, perhaps with that interpretation.

"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. "Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three days after the attacks, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters: “This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive.”

Also, U.N. Ambassador Rice appeared on Fox News Sunday on September 16 and stated: “What sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many people around the world. Now, our strong view is that there is no excuse for violence. It is reprehensible and never justified. But in fact there have been those in various parts of the world who have reacted with violence.”

Matthew Sheffield of Newsbusters.org blasted Crowley for stepping in during the debate, saying she was trying to “save Obama from his administration's dreadful bungling of the Libya situation. She owes the American people an apology for inserting herself into the debate in such an inappropriate and embarrassing fashion.”

The exchange over Benghazi is sure to focus more attention on what the administration knew, and when, regarding the Benghazi attack.

The Obama campaign may ultimately have mixed feelings about the exchange, considering that it is bound to elevate the public discussion of Benghazi in the days leading up to the third and final presidential debate on Oct. 22, which will focus on foreign policy.

Slice and dice all you want, doesn't make a difference. The rest of the world knows what happened last night. It was the most dramatic part of the debate, and it was for a reason. You want to interpret it another way..go right ahead.

Last edited by intheghetto on Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:51 am, edited 2 times in total.

@ Blue River: Lol!

Republicans love to over-parse semantics because they have nothing of substance to offer the American people, and if that's where they want to take this election, fine -- we know exactly how well the semantic-laden 'You didn't build that' convention worked out for them.

Listen, there's an easy way to tell who lost a debate : whichever side whines the most and loudest afterward. One look at this thread tells you who that is.

I understand how disappointing this must be to my conservative friends, there had been so much build up over the past week about how Romney was going to force the President to "man up" and take responsibility over Libya. They thought this would be the debate that put Obama away once and for all!

The Libya moment came, and their guy blew it in every conceivable way. After the President's impassioned statement about his grave concern for the men and women he sends over seas into harms way and the sheer despicability of turning their deaths into a political issue, sheerly despicable Mitt Romney gleefully jumped on the chance to use dead Americans to advance his political agenda against the Commander-In-Chief--He thought he had Obama on the ropes, but then the rug was pulled out from under him -- he was fact-checked by the moderator! In his haste to attack Obama, he got his facts wrong, and despite Crowley's almost pitiable "well, you're kind of right, too" addendum, the body language of the candidates was clear: Obama was the righteous, concerned leader of our nation, and Romney was the sleazy political hack, using dead Americans as rhetorical grenades.

Romney also gave women's issues activists a veritable storm of snippets to use against him in advertising. When he was governor of Massachusetts, he had 'binders full of women' that he could have hired after just discovering that women didn't get hired for these positions as much as men! (One wonders exactly why he didn't discover it in corporate boardroom, etc for all of those years before he became Governor). He also realized that "if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible" Why the extra flexibility? So they can leave early to go home and make dinner! (This was actually the reason he gave -- in the twenty first century). Oh yeah, and his plan will create so many jobs that companies will be desperate to hire -- even if they have to hire women! It was truly one of the most tin-eared responses I've ever heard from a major party political candidate.

Obama also won on points of Immigration (Romney's adviser wrote the Arizona law), Oil leases ('Use it or lose it), Coal ('Mitt as gov said 'this plant kills' now he's a coal booster), and any number of other issues that he sliced and diced his opponent on.

Romney's insinuation that the idea that he doesn't care about 100% of the American people came from the negativity of the Obama campaign is just too much to take. Let's review the tape:

When Romney tried to paint this as a product of negative campaigning, I was hoping the President would say "Governor, my campaign didn't put those words in your mouth." And this wasn't a Biden-esque slip of the tongue, this is what Romney really believes, in the clearest, plainest language he could have spoken.

Obama's closing remarks are the perfect summary of why the election in this choice couldn't be clearer:

We have a President who likes the American people, and believes it's his job to look out for all of them on one side-- and a challenger who pretends to when he knows the cameras are rolling on the other.

Romney 51% Obama 45%

Newsmax

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/ ... cking_poll

The rubber match is coming up!

Yes! The third and final presidential debate will be on Monday, Oct. 22, which will focus on foreign policy, and there'll probably be more attention on what the Obama regime knew, and when, regarding the Benghazi attack.

I can't wait!

Romney was fact-checked by the moderator! In his haste to attack Obama, he got his facts wrong, and despite Crowley's almost pitiable "well, you're kind of right, too" addendum...

Romney realized that "if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible" Why the extra flexibility? So they can leave early to go home...

Obama also won on points of Oil leases ('Use it or lose it)...

We have a President who likes the American people, and believes it's his job to look out for all of them on one side--...

Fact checked by the moderator? If you saw the video which was shown
on CBS' Evening News again yesterday, you'll see why she said "you were
right too". CBS followed that up with the Obama administration going out of
there way not to say it was a terrorist attack. I do wonder where all our great
conspiracy theorists are at this moment? Ask yourself this question if you dare,
why would they want to cover that up? You might not like the answer.

I can only speak from experience to say that the women I worked with (many
years ago) would really have appreciated being able to take care of their children.
If you find offense in that, I guess you just don't like women. At least the one's
who have children.

You should ask the great people of Louisiana if President Obama won on the
subject of oil. You could broaden the question to all who live along the Gulf
Coast. Even better to everyone who can't afford to fill their vehicles gas tank.

Don't have it in front of me, but I liked the CBS snap poll after the last debate:

Who do you think is better qualified to run the economy?
Obama 35% Romney 50%

Those percentages are only from memory, but very impressive. Good stuff.

People still watch political debates? The ultimate factual exchange program!

Up next foreign policy.

I'm curious to what Romney's going to say
about Obama's policy towards Israel. With
the near 30,000 dead civilians in Syria, you'd
think that would come up too.

Romney was fact-checked by the moderator! In his haste to attack Obama, he got his facts wrong, and despite Crowley's almost pitiable "well, you're kind of right, too" addendum...

Romney realized that "if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible" Why the extra flexibility? So they can leave early to go home...

Obama also won on points of Oil leases ('Use it or lose it)...

We have a President who likes the American people, and believes it's his job to look out for all of them on one side--...

Fact checked by the moderator? If you saw the video which was shown
on CBS' Evening News again yesterday, you'll see why she said "you were
right too". CBS followed that up with the Obama administration going out of
there way not to say it was a terrorist attack. I do wonder where all our great
conspiracy theorists are at this moment? Ask yourself this question if you dare,
why would they want to cover that up? You might not like the answer.

I can only speak from experience to say that the women I worked with (many
years ago) would really have appreciated being able to take care of their children.
If you find offense in that, I guess you just don't like women. At least the one's
who have children.

You should ask the great people of Louisiana if President Obama won on the
subject of oil. You could broaden the question to all who live along the Gulf
Coast. Even better to everyone who can't afford to fill their vehicles gas tank.

Out of there way? It's out of their way!
Vote Obama for better education!

Out of there way? It's out of their way! Vote Obama for better education!

You really got me this time.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential
Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Mitt Romney
attracting support from 49% of voters
nationwide, while President Obama earns the
vote from 48%. One percent (1%) prefers
some other candidate, and three percent
(3%) are undecided.

These updates are based upon nightly polling
and reported on a three-day rolling average
basis. As a result, todays update is the first
based entirely upon interviews conducted
after the second debate. Before the first
presidential debate, Obama was up by two
49% to 47%. Following that debate, Romney
was up 49% to 47%. Now it's a one-point
race with two days to go before the final
debate. Romney leads by six among
unaffiliated voters.

This week, three states shifted from toss-up
to leans Romney - Florida, North Carolina and
Missouri. The race ramains a toss-up in Ohio,
Virginia and Wisconsin.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential
Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Mitt Romney
attracting support from 49% of voters
nationwide, while President Obama earns the
vote from 48%. One percent (1%) prefers
some other candidate, and three percent
(3%) are undecided.

49% + 48% + 1% + 3% = 101%

You should try another polling source; you know, one that can add percentages correctly.

Also, the Rasmussen Reports is not considered neutral in its polling work.

TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group". According to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who co-developed Pollster.com, “He [Rasmussen] polls less favorably for Democrats, and that’s why he’s become a lightning rod." Franklin also said: "It’s clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person’s results.”

The Center For Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign. The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush reelection campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions nor assisted Republicans.

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls. Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll; the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party -- he says jump and they say how high.'"

Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index.

In March 2012, Media Matters for America criticized Rasmussen Reports for portraying itself as politically independent while headlining two Republican fundraising events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports#Other_2

The polls are such a mess at this point. A few years ago, it wasn't an industry unto itself. Last night, I threw a whole buncha data into Excel, and pivoted around . . . changed states this way or that, with all the different polls. Just doing basically what they do: it's really silly, and you mess with the results, if you like. I can give "Nevada" to the President, or I can take it away . . . etc.

I learned nothing.

There is one poll that counts. Get out and vote.

rjm

Of course the key moments tonight were Romney being handed his lunch during his disastrous lie about how the president never mentioned that the attacks in Libya were 'acts of terror'. Is this guy that dense that he doesn't know there's something called video tape? He really thought he had the president there, and it was brilliant when the president said to him 'proceed governor', and Romney just took the rope.

Get your facts straight, intheghetto, and stop twisting things to fit your own "dense" agenda.

Moderator Candy Crowley went on to side with Romney about the administration's confusing account, saying it took two weeks for officials to say more definitively that the attack was more than an out-of-control protest, and she said after the debate that Romney "was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word."

But Obama also hadn't explicitly labeled the Bengazi strike as an "act of terror" as early as he claimed, though his comments on Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden indeed included that phrase, perhaps with that interpretation.

"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. "Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three days after the attacks, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters: “This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive.”

Also, U.N. Ambassador Rice appeared on Fox News Sunday on September 16 and stated: “What sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many people around the world. Now, our strong view is that there is no excuse for violence. It is reprehensible and never justified. But in fact there have been those in various parts of the world who have reacted with violence.”

Matthew Sheffield of Newsbusters.org blasted Crowley for stepping in during the debate, saying she was trying to “save Obama from his administration's dreadful bungling of the Libya situation. She owes the American people an apology for inserting herself into the debate in such an inappropriate and embarrassing fashion.”

The exchange over Benghazi is sure to focus more attention on what the administration knew, and when, regarding the Benghazi attack.

The Obama campaign may ultimately have mixed feelings about the exchange, considering that it is bound to elevate the public discussion of Benghazi in the days leading up to the third and final presidential debate on Oct. 22, which will focus on foreign policy.

If you are so confident, why are you SHOUTING?



rjm

49% + 48% + 1% + 3% = 101%

You should try another polling source; you know, one that can add percentages correctly.

Also, the Rasmussen Reports is not considered neutral in its polling work.

It might have been me. I still have to look to type numbers.

All polls are skewed one way or another. My point remains,
Romney is winning in most polls now.

If Obama wasn't calling it an act of terror than just what was that phrase doing in this context? What other reason could there be to use that phrase? What other subject was this press conference about? Not of course, that it matters one whit. The Right's always looking for some fake outrage. Whether Obama called it an "act of terror" or not doesn't mean the country's won't bring the perpetrators to justice. Such a turn of phrase wouldn't erase the act? Again a controversy purely contrived and even worse so for being false as he did call it an act of terror.

On Oprah, I don't get your point. Yeah some rich people like Obama so what? Inexplicably there are pool people who like Romney. That doesn't change that Romney has one group of people he wants to satisfy at election and it's a very tiny well to do group.

The Right's always looking for some fake outrage. Again a controversy purely contrived and even worse so for being false as he did call it an act of terror.

Is The Right now considered to be CBS, ABC and CNN?

I guess people are tired of the debates. No one on either
side had written anything. Oh well...

I enjoyed it though it was probably the most boring of the
three. Obama had zingers and I thought Romney stung
him a few times on things like the Obama apology tour.

I was surprised by a few things. Romney taking control
of the debate by steering it back towards the economy
several times. Also by Romney's strategy of treading
lightly. His team must really believe they are going to
win. You don't play prevent defense unless you're in
the lead.

I was too ill for the debate last night. By the time I woke up it was over. It doesn't matter a ton anyway. Outside of John McCain style military force can control everything and the "world transforming" insanity of the neo-cons there has been barely a hair's difference between the two parties on foreign policy in decades. Stuff like the apology tour has to be made up by people like Fox and played up by Romney because Barack Obama, on foreign policy, has been a fairly right wing president. Romney can't boast up differences on Afghanistan because he believes basically as Obama does on the country with only semantics about the leaving date a thorn of contention. Drone program, arguably the most controversial foreign policy of the Obama presidency, he believes in that too. You have to go out to the Kucinichs and the Pauls who never come closer to the candidacy than those initial debates to find really difference.

One big difference, though, that does exist exemplifies in the idea of an Obama apology tour, the Republican idea that, except for Israel because of that domestic Jewish voting block, American foreign policy should be nothing but one extended middle finger to the world, the disdain for the UN and collaborative decision making on issues that truly impact the entire world, the disrespect for other cultures, the prohibitive bars to negotiations that basically demand concessions before negotiations start, the contempt for international collaborations, human aid etc. I just don't get it. Even worse, there's the impression that the world does or should revolve around the US. Kofi Anan, was on the Daily Show, last week and made a significant point that probably would have prevented the Iraq war had anyone in the Bush administration been willing to listen. He pointed out that not every bit of bluster and information that comes out of these countries is directed or meant for our ears. The most significant example of this of course was Hussein's defiance in the wake of UN/US resolutions proclamations. Hussein, whom our intelligence pretty much knew had no WMD, wanted someone to think he did. That someone was not the US but neighboring Iran. That was all for their benefit and the Bushies took it all at face value. Similarly right now, every decision we make in Pakistan should be looked at in the light of not how if affects our relationship with Pakistan but how it reflects Pakistan's relationship with India. To them that's the most important thing. I'm not saying that should prohibit us from protecting our interests but we have to realize that the US's interest is not always the interest even of our allies, that they have their own issues. This is why President Obama should be hailed for his decision on Bin Laden, for not seeking Pakistan's approval before moving in. It was a move of great boldness because if Bin Laden was not there it could have collapsed US Pakistani relations. On the other hand, though, with the government of that country cultivating relationships with Al Queda as a sort of protection against India, then if the US had asked to gone in, Bin Laden might have been gone.

I was too ill for the debate last night. By the time I woke up it was over.

Here it is in full, in case you want to watch: