Talk Elections

I know its early and it just started but you will all thank me 2 hours from now.

Gary Johnson.

Rick Perry

Herman Cain...he was the one

Sorry but....Newt won this one.

I can't watch it yet so I'm assuming it's Joe the Plumber again.

Romney's trying to go moderate hero. His base is not going to approve. He's so done.

The debate is not yet over, but so far, Mitt is mopping the floor with Barack.

Romney's presidential and calm. Obama hasn't said anything too snarky, but Obama's comes off as peeved.

Romney.

Willard did slightly better, but there was no game changer, so I guess President Obama won.

This one went to Mitt.

Romney by T.K.O.. Not by knockout.

Tie

Obama ground his teeth; bad visual.

A good performance; surprisingly little ego.  

Mitten!

Mitt.

Really a tie, but a Romney win due to much lower expectations.

Romney was clear, concise, felt confident and was on target.  He went on the moderator a few times which was bad. His closing was good.

Obama started off slow, felt sluggish, and was a bit defensive. Near the end, Obama had a good closing.

I feel that Romney won the debate.

Romney -- definite stumble for Obama, although he didn't say anything dumb enough to cause him news cycle problems.

Romney. Not even close.

Romney.

In soccer it would be a 4-1.

I think Mitt won, however,  I don't see a big bounce on it.

Obama played it very safe.

Mittens

Obama was kind of off, so Romney won. However, this wasn't a decisive win like the first 2004 debate was for Kerry.

First time I agree with this troll.

Romney won on points but it wasn't anything special and Obama improved as the debate went on.

Romney won, race will tighten to Obama +1.5 by the next debate.

Romney won by about 2:1 in football terms.

But Obama will probably do better in the 2nd and 3rd debate and fully attack Romney.

Mitt won. I had higher expectations for Obama, to be honest, but he didn't really gain traction until the final 30 mins.

Romney won on the theater but it was one of the most unbelievably dishonest performances I've seen. The problem for Obama is that it's virtually impossible to pin Romney down and attack him on anything. Romney's established his ability and willingness to change his position entirely on a dime, as many times as it takes, depending on wherever he's speaking.

All Romney has to do is say "No, that's not my position" and Obama can do nothing about it in a debate setting without looking petty; there's no way to prove it even though you can immediately show Romney is an outright liar as soon as the debate is over with video of his previous statements and policy positions. It's impossible to debate jello, and that was Obama's problem.

Romney. Obama was constantly on the defense, and Mitt looked more comfortable and delivered his lines more clearly. It wasn't a landslide, though. I don't think it will be a game changer, but it will definitely halt any momentum Obama has and possibly give Romney a small bounce in the polls.

Big Obama win for me personally.

For audiences, probably a narrow Obama win.

For MSM, a solid Romney win (which they have to hope will allow them to keep the race going).

This debate does two important things for Romney, neither necessarily being swaying swing voters.

1. It'll give Romney positive news for the next few days, which he needs after a couple bad weeks.
2. It has Republicans excited once again about the election, something that didn't really happen with the convention.

For those two, Romney is the clear winner.

Every time Obama tried to attack, his numbers went down.

Romney won, better stage presence and whatnot, as others have stated. I think Obama won the closing statements though, he made a passionate plea for his re-election, while I thought Romney went through all his points too quickly.

I think obama won the first half hour though Mitt won the entire thing. Isn't the first half hour the most important.

Hate to tell you folks this, but a CNN poll already shows that most viewers felt Obama won. Romney only seems to win in the minds of political junkies like us.

Obama seemed above the fray, while Romney came across as a spoiled, rambling loser.

Obama dominated the first half or so. Then he started to become fairly listless which allowed Mitt to take over.

Van Jones: Romney connected.

I love the "In Soccer terms..." comments. I'd say 3-1 or 4-1.

Sometimes you have to be honest with yourself bandit. Even James Carville says Obama was off tonight.

Cutter said Romney won on style/prep. Hell, even Chris Matthews said Romney won.

Exactly, Obama was terrible on offense against Romney.  Not surprisingly he's never been challenged on the straw mans he campaigns with, so Romney gained yardage every time Obama tried to run a play.  If this was football, Obama got shut out; he scored zero points, and probably had negative yards.  Romney was a very smooth machine that produced first down after first down.  

I knew Obama would win the instapoll! Did you see the %?

Dominating.

The pundits don't get to decide that.

Where are you getting these early numbers?  I don't see them showing any.

Where? I'm watching and they haven't reported it yet.

link to cnn poll?

Obama was definitely off his game in the second half but do keep in mind that Carville is a Clinton diehard and clearly hates Obama as a person.

That's my boy.

The Austrian thinks it was 3-2 but well, what Austrians know about football?

It was a 4-1,

Yeah, Romney definitely won this round.  Obama was very hesitant and long-winded, and Mitt ran hard to the center.  He played fast and loose with the facts a couple times, but nobody's going to care.

I think Obama had the edge early, as Romney seemed to get flustered a few times and spar with Lehrer; but the second half was definitely strong for Mitt.

Doubt he is being serious... I haven't seen a poll on CNN and I've been watching for a while :P

You do all realize that Obama will probably win the instapolls right?

CBS KN instant reaction poll: Big win for Romney. By 46-22 say think  won, 56% have better opinion of Romney, Romney cares up from 30 to 63.
We need to hit him, and hit him hard.

Hannity is probably giddy as a kid on Christmas right now.

They are doing the focus group later.  

Romney at 31.8% on Intrade.

As long as we're throwing soccer scores around, I'd call this one 1-0 Romney.

A very typical sort of Democratic way of losing. Obama spent most of the debate desperately trying to make the debate substantive and coming at Romney under the assumption of how Romney previously described his own policies. But whenever tax cuts were brought up, Romney basically just started denying his own plan in whatever way he could. "Tax cuts? Huh? Five trillion? Who? Me? I would never!"

It's a very bluntly dishonest way of performing in a debate but it's a frustratingly successful one because Obama can't have any response. How can you respond to someone who has such a sparsely detailed plan that he just changes it on the fly?

Romney will get a significant bump out of this.  CO, WI, NH, VA, and maybe IA will swing into Romney's favor.  OH is the only state left for Obama.  

Say what you want about FOX News, but in a focus group they're talking to right now, an overwhelming % thought Romney won the debate, and a decent chunk of the undecideds said they've made their mind up from the debate.

I expect Obama campaign to hit Romney hard on throwing his tax plan under the bus.

LOL, at Dems.  Obama wants to attack the technocratic guy with over ten times more details and specifics than him.  Hypocritical whining is all you got?  

He didnt change his plan.

www.mittromney.com

Nate Silver ran a post today talking about how the first debate usually helps the challenger. It's usually their final chance to put themselves and their ideas out there free of caricature from the other side. People think, "hmm, maybe he's not so bad after all." Mondale actually gained in the polls after his first debate with Reagan. But debates usually aren't the game changers they are made out to be, unless one guy just completely blows it out of the water/sucks it up.

Romney won, but not enough to shake up the race in any big way. And there's still two more debates to go, in which, historically, the incumbent comes back swinging.

Just remember, Hungary won 8-3 against West Germany in 1954 and West Germany won the Championship anyway.

CSPAN giving the triumph for Romney.

Obama lost yardage every time he tried to go on offense.  Straw men are harder to sell when you aren't the only one on stage.  

Romney did what was required; he was energized to be there, showed that he cared and has a plan, and despite blinking a bit much (bright lights maybe?) appeared poised and presidential.

Obama underperformed. Looked out of sorts, with enough awkward silences that when added together could fill their own segment. Tired or just not jazzed to be there, he spent too much time looking down (bright lights perhaps?) and trailing off on tangents most vague it was hard to tell if he even cares. Long story short, it was his to lose and that he did.

Technocratic? Romney is a lot of things but he ain't technocratic. He proposes repealing Obamacare, but what to replace it with? No specifics, and two competing answers for that matter; on the one hand, it's a state issue, on the other, he'll actively replace it with something. What? We don't know. His tax cuts would cost roughly 5 trillion, how do you make up the money? He can't really say. Obama asks how he would avoid savage domestic spending cuts to make up for the cost, Romney just says "I won't do that." No, seriously, just trust him. Repeal and replace Dodd-Frank? With what, we don't know.

Each time Obama tried to establish, not what Romney's policies would affect as Obama saw them, but simply what Romney's policies self-descriptively are, Romney would just immediately deny whatever they were characterized as. We weren't having a debate over policy effects, because Romney continued again to be deliberately evasive on what his policies even are. It is ridiculous that a candidate is campaigning on shapeshifting policies that change from audience to audience, from sentence to sentence. It seems to display poorly on a candidate that doesn't seem to have the confidence in his own policies to even openly and specifically lay out what they even are, let alone defend them.

It is an effective strategy, but the least you could do is admit its cynical dishonesty.

Don't worry, Romney will have just as tough a time selling outright fabrications in the next two debates.

Now I'm listen to Obama's fans on CSPAN crying because they haven't enough time.

CNN RV POLL

Who won?
Romney 67%
Obama 25%

CNN Flash poll out: Romney wins 67-25

At the end of the day, Romney is still Romney, his policies are still the same and there was no game changer in the debate. Romney's win is that he made it through the debate without giving the opposition any fodder to use against him.

I hardly think it would have been a good idea for Obama to go too aggressive, that can backfire.

67-25 Romney victory

REGISTER VOTERS CNN

WOW!

You were right Bandit...Obama won

Haha, I seriously doubt that... and I was really thinking along the lines of the polls CNN does after the debates. I'm not sure what the CBS KN Poll is exactly.

Also, you people remember John Kerry right? He blew Bush out of the water is a much more undisputed way in his first debate with him and still lost.

Mitt got a B. Obama got a B-. No lead for Romney though in the polls.

Obama was meh, Romney was energetic and the only obvious gaffe was joking about firing Big Bird. This was a very necessary lift for Republicans who were going to vote for him anyway, and will firm up some undecideds.

It was mostly a very boring debate and I'll be shocked if it's a game changed, if only because this feeling of enthusiasm from seeing your maligned candidate express himself fluently and effectively on tv is very familiar to me from 2004, and Kerry still lost.

Obama doesn't seem to be a good debater. Fortunately, like Bush and unlike Romney, he's a good campaigner with a large and devoted base.

This is the first good night our Republicans have had since Paul Ryan was named and we had polls showing WI was a toss up. Enjoy it.

I will admit, I'm surprised by that.

It may be a game changer.


Every time he did, the CNN dial rating dropped.

Indeed, going hard negative on Romney was not an option.

Listen, the president who has yet to pass a full budget for a fiscal year (over 3 years without a budget) can not lecture a ticket with perhaps the two biggest policy wonks in American politics.  Romney could have knocked him out with this point, but probably held back because he didn't want to risk a big swing / he was winning by so much / and it's a stupid straw man anyway.    

When in the past several decades has a first debate ever been a 'game-changer'?

Anybody else scared to look at Drudge Report right now? I'm afraid my computer might ejaculate on me.

Part of CNN's poll: Romney's more likeable then Obama 46-45 after the debate.

It's official: We're living in the twilight zone.

Didn't it bring 2004 from a Bush lead to a virtual tie?

Kerry may have won on certain style points, he certainly didn't have a substance edge anywhere close to the blowout Romney just ran up.  

Check it out at RCP's graph. It's a little confusing because Bush's convention was late, but it reduced Bush's lead to 2 points from more.

Obama got embarrassed.

That's exactly backward on pretty much every point.

Thank you for making this post, and the others in this thread. Unfortunately, voters are imbeciles and once again they've proven how easily they can be fooled and led wherever by an incessant stream of outright lies, dishonest crap, bullsh**t, platitudes and so forth.

Romney didn't do badly and Obama was mediocre, but I have a hard time telling myself that Romney honestly won, because if he did it's through lies, bullsh**t and more lies.

Extremely frustrating that nobody can take on Romney's dishonesty and lies. The media was too busy ejaculating all over itself in excitement at Romney's win and what that entails to actually do its job, but I won't blame them. Few in the media today are actual journalists who do their job, most are overpaid morons or hacks.

Drudge Report

Romney won. I am livid--Obama was ABOMINABLE tonight, the night he could have finished Romney off for good

You ever watch Talladega Nights? you remember when Ricky Bobby crashed and lost his mojo and that french dude went ahead in the races? this is what happen. Obama will get his balls back in the next debate but for now he needs to recover.

This is rediculous.

Media outlets are claiming it was a clear win for Romney, but they're just trying to sell this election as competitive. Romney was more aggressive, but this debate was not the "game changer" it was made out to be. I only watched about half of it, but unless the ground collapsed under Obama and he fell into a giant sinkhole, this debate will be forgotten by next week, let alone election day. If Romney gets any bounce from this, it will be maybe a point nationally. Lower tier swing states that are marginally in Obamas column now will become toss ups but I saw nothing that will erase a 6-8 pint advantage in Ohio, Nevada, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, or even Iowa.

This whole thing is completely overblown.

A B  vs a B-? It's funny how fanatics watch de debate....it was a A- vs an F.

Romney wins. Subject matter was dry as hell, and that's Mitt's strong suit. Big minus for talking about firing Big Bird, though. That'll haunt him.

Ricky Bobby knew haw to race before the crash ...Obama would have to learn how to be a serious person from scratch.  

Romney won, such that it is; he was more energetic (I had the misfortune of hearing Obama’s performance deemed ‘professorial,’ which is evidently the most horrible of traits to exhibit in what is still branded a serious discussion of policy) and avoided making a fool of himself, which is all he really needed to accomplish from the outset. Of course, he effectively skirted addressing his deficiencies—and yes, Obama did perform admittedly poor here—but everyone knows the nature of these debates freely permits this.

But this by no means entails a monumental tightening in the polls. Tonight clearly wasn’t that decisive.

wow....just watched chris matthews...lov it...

romney now leads

CNN focus group of undecided voters:

Romney had more high points.

5 to 16 Romney won.

8 to 8 split vote changes, which is Obama's best news tonight.

He will now accept his accolades.

I don't understand all of the complaining about Lehrer. He let the candidates talk. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing - as a debate viewer, I'm always frustrated by moderators who insist on strict adherence to the arbitrary time limits that have been set beforehand.

Romney

He actually provided the best debate moderation I've seen; I was very surprised. That Obama was too spineless to seize the opportunity the way Romney did can only speak for him and his campaign.

CBS poll of undecided voters:

Winner:

46% Romney, 22% Obama.

Opinion of Romney:

More Favorable:  56%

Less Favorable:  11%

Cares about your probles:

Obama:  69%

Romney:  63%

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57525698/poll-uncommitted-voters-say-romney-wins-debate/

Have to think this means several of them were already Obama voters..

Lehrer was terrible.  His questions weren't even close to focused and he got run over by the candidates while trying to enforce time limits.  It was a very weak moderating performance.

No, they were all undecided.

Why should he enforce arbitrary time limits?  Ideally, the only function a moderator should provide is to ensure that both get a chance to speak and that they actually debate rather than spout soundbytes.

My view - Romney won the debate, for a number of reasons...
a) Obama got off to a bad start, he looked annoyed and only got into his stride well after the half-way mark
b) Romney dropped a number of clangers (especially medicare) and Obama didn't touch them... I dont get it. Yes, don't be a prick... But don't be ... You know, the other either
c) Romney won the expectation war, Obama was set up to fail and add that Obama seemed flat and Romney looked more poised, so a blow out was pretty much destined from the start...

BUT - I think Obama won the substance war, problem being, style always trumps substance in these things.

I doubt anything beyond a Romney meltdown would have resulted in a win, but Obama deserves a lot of blame for allowing the perception of a bigger win that it actually was.

That's what I liked. Let the men speak! Would you prefer John King?

Exactly. Romney in no way "ran away" with the debate, but Obama failed to articulate his policies, or Romney's for that matter, that made it appear otherwise.

I agree with Polnut's analysis; all the talk about 'zingers' was misdirection, and it seems to have thrown Obama off his game.


I prefer a conversation directed by the candidates - things tend to be more policy-focused that way, which was clearly the case in tonight's debate. A debate fueled by horse race garbage and cheap confrontations may be more interesting, but it doesn't contribute to a healthier political environment. (In other words, I completely agree with Napoleon and TrueFederalist's responses, which appeared as I wrote this.)

yes the guy with less substance than the other guy won on substance.  Also the guy with the least amount of specifics raised a great point in bringing up the other guys specifics. 

Because by not enforcing time limits, the debate left little time for the last of the six topics - governing.  They ran out of time.

The rules are the rules.  Time limits aren't arbitrary.  They are a necessary part of any debate, forcing candidates to be more concise than they otherwise would be and leaving time for other topics.

Romney "ran over" Lehrer more than Obama. It just depresses me because when I go out to volunteer for the President I see a lot of people working really hard for him and then when he's limp in a debate and doesn't aggressively take the last word, it upsets me. I haven't felt this way about Obama since 2008, after Sarah Palin was picked but before she was exposed, when Obama was getting questioned by Republicans about what he did as a community organizer. You caught a glimpse of him then stripped away, a young man again, uncertain of himself. Oh, brother. The difference is, back then he hadn't been President, and now he has; legislatively, in terms of economics, he's actually done well, he's outperformed (how many Presidents before him failed to pass health care reform?), to such an extent that a Republican Presidential nominee like Romney now feels compelled to agree with him on one issue after another and go shadow-boxing at the margins of his policies; but he doesn't get a lot of credit for it for various reasons. And he's still not very good at defending himself during these debates. But what can we do? Life is, what it is. If Romney wins, depression will just replace anxiety in my national outlook. Revert to what it was during the Bush years, except worse.

My 71 year-old grandma texted me tonight and said "Romney kicked ass." I'm inclined to agree.

Big win for Romney tonight. He came on as tough and in charge of the discussion whereas President Obama come off as disinterested and "tired". I suspect that Obama's advisers told him not to go on the offensive against Romney, and it backfired massively. Romney was more prepared it seemed and frankly talked circles around the President. The thing is Romney had to win this debate or else this campaign could very well have been over. He knew he had to win this or his attempt at succeeding where his father George Romney failed in 1968 would be lost forever.

I dare say this is perhaps the worst debate performance in Obama's political career. Sans maybe his debates where he was beaten by Hillary in 2008. Obama completely let Romney get away with attacking him and only responded in a dull voice going on about the details of his policies. Obama was playing defense big-time. He didn't even bring up the "47%" remarks. Romney was clearly much more energized and ready for this.

I suspect in the coming days we will see the polls tighten in the swing states and nationally. This really is a big flub for the President's campaign. It reminds me of how in 2004 the only time the Bush/Cheney people were really worried they might loose was after John Kerry creamed Bush in the first debate.

Obama is going to have to come out on top in the next debate between them or this could be over. They might be able to stop Mitt's momentum in the VP debate next Thursday however.

Not seen it, so dunno.

However, the statements seem to suggest that it went Romney's way. What was the main focus of the debate?

Pertaining to the argument over time limits, both sides have a legitimate case.  Adherence to the rules is important, but it's definitely better to see a substantive debate than for the candidates to simply repeat their previous talking points.  

The consensus seems to be that Romney won the debate.  Although it wasn't a runaway, I'm inclined to agree.  Romney was more aggressive than I was expected, and Obama was surprisingly demure.  He looked tired and tended to look down while Romney was speaking, while Romney stood firmer and straighter.  I'd be interested to see what body language experts have to say in their analysis.  In a sense, he looked and talked like someone who was losing, despite the polls having him even or ahead.  

I think Romney did win the war of substance, in that he articulated how lowering unemployment would help the deficit and how lower taxes would help lower unemployment.  He offered a competing vision of America.

Now, if, within the fortnight, we get bad employment numbers (they are due Friday), it will validate that Obama has failed.  Either a static rate, and/or no growth in employment could be the one-two punch that knocks Obama out.  Conversely, good numbers could save Obama. 

Mitt Romney was the 49ers to Obama's Denver. That was embarrassing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2-d3oUdO0Q

Alright, let's just return to reality for a minute here... nobody 'wiped the floor' with anybody.

Obama was disappointing and flat, Romney was better than he was in all of the GOP primary debates... The Romney people did an extraordinary job of ensuring that Obama could only 'win' in an extreme circumstance. But Romney could have still 'lost' so I'll certainly give him and his team credit for that.

I don't know how anyone is genuinely surprised by the outcome... Obama is not a great debater, Romney has had months to work on this and is a smart guy... I should stress I'm not making excuses for Obama, because he should have been better than this.

Hopefully, this serves as a wake-up call to the president...

Obama was a great debater in 2008, and he is supposedly running against a Mitbot. 

Clinton got his wake up call in 1994.  Obama put the alarm on doze. 

Then we saw a different Obama in 2007/8...

As long as we're grading their performances, I'd call it a B+ vs. a C-. Romney was energized, aggressive, all while still being respectful, and seemed informed and caring. Obama was bland, didn't really hit back, and countered few if any of Romney's claims. This was Romney's best performance of the campaign. If only he'd been able to include a few details for his plans and policies, Romney could have knocked this one out of the park. (And if he hadn't made that inane Big Bird comment.)

The little engine thought it could, but realized it couldn't?

That was like a Politico level of unrelation to the point, but that's unsurprising of late...

Yeah, Clinton was smart enough to consult with Dick Morris. Obama simply surrounds himself with Chicago sycophants who bought into the hype.

Obama on substance, but clearly Romney on putting on a show, and that's what counts with the American voters.

So Romney gets a moderate bounce, I agree.

Romney, definitely. He came off as very prepared and as a viable alternative to the President, while Obama seemed like he was tired and didn't want to be there.

Romney took Obama to the woodshed.  Keep in mind that this is the first look at the matchup for a lot of casual voters.  This will alter not just votes but LV composition / enthusiasm.

I expect we'll see some Romney +2 - +5 national polls within a week.  If he came out with a plausible immigration reform package, he could end this.

(I'm still voting for Gary Johnson.)

If you read a transcript of the debate, you'd probably be puzzled to learn that Romney was considered the overwhelming winner.

This was all about style. Romney had far more positive body language. Was often speaking directly to the camera. Was speaking far more enthusiastically. Obama looked defeatish, was squirming, didn't look like he wanted to be there. Romney won COMPREHENSIVELY on style, and style is what gets you debate wins in these types of TV "debates".

Romney was the obvious winner. This one's coming down to the wire, fellas.

Romney (although I accidentally clicked Obama), but not massively. I found myself agreeing far more with Obama on the substance.

Remember that Obama has to do a full-time job as well as run for re-election; Romney doesn't.

There's no doubt that Romney was better prepared, but Obama didn't lose because he wasn't well enough prepared. He lost this big primarily because of his body language. It doesn't take too much preparation to at least seem excited about ones own plans and seem excited to be able to address the american public. This is where Obama failed the worst.

I didn't watch it. But it's fairly clear from the reactions here that Rhymney won.

Joe Biden is going to beat Paul Ryan?? I mean you really can't expect that to be an outcome with a chance of happening...  maybe a 5-10% chance?  Biden needs to try to tie or not lose big, best shot at it.  

I've been watching MSNBC people say things like "He didn't even bring up the "47%" remarks" or "He had so much to go after Romney with".  Also, this weird line about Romney not being specific or "abandoning his plan", than they will mention that Romney was way to wonky to really connect to regular people.  

This is a really interesting thing to observe because you have the 'leftist press' confronted with reality and it seems like their is a chance that they will figure things out, but then they cling to the last weak 'lefty lies' you possibly can.  

Obama didn't bring up the 47% thing because Romney was standing there. You can't use despicable strawmans when the guy is allowed to respond.  The leftists are really saying: "if only Obama would suspend reality and say empty platitudes that magically made everything better, than he would have won."  It would have been like when Obama lied about tax credits for moving a factory over seas... Romney could just set up his expertise on the subject, outline some facts and hammer Obama with a "I don't know what you're talking about."  

Than they are on this tax plan thing as if they actually think Romney hasn't been running on a revenue neutral tax cut/reform plan for over a year and a half.  Do they believe their own propaganda?  Do they really think Romney was cutting taxes on the rich and raising them on the middle class?  

Than they grasp at the flimsiest line about "details".  Romney knew the ins and outs of everything, Romney is a technocrat who has a team of guys running 100 models and simulations on everything, whereas Obama kinda wanders awkwardly without displaying any firm grasp of anything.  

Lol.

I can be pretty emotional, and I was blasé about this last night and equally so this morning. If I weren't, I'd have taken a break from here. But let's break down what we know:

Romney won the debate. He was energetic and articulate and controlled the time flow. Obama looked tired and disengaged.

Romney cut off the "loser" narrative. He invigorated Republicans who had written off his candidacy (you can see that here--The Vorlon is back, and J.J.'s posing volume is way up) and this will pay dividends among donations and volunteer work. A lot of people who were going to vote for him apathetically are now back in the game because he doesn't seem like such an awful standard bearer for his team.

But what else happened?

Obama lost by looking dull, but he didn't make any gaffes or give Romney anything he can hang on to. This is important. What's Romney going to say after this debate about Obama? Obama didn't "admit" something he shouldn't have, he didn't make any failed attacks, he didn't look angry or testy. He was a non-entity. That made Romney look good, but it didn't give him anything he can ride other than that he won the debate. That's too meta.

Romney gave Obama some powerful ammunition. If we don't hear Obama say "You can't close the federal budget deficit by firing Big Bird" in the next few days, I'll eat my hat. It plays into every stereotype about Romney that the Dems have so successfully tarred him with. Similarly, he agreed he was voucherizing Medicare. Obama will use that, as well. I repeat my above point - what did Obama hand Romney that he can then use?

Romney did well by shaking the etch-a-sketch. This was a good thing for Romney - he needed to stop campaigning as a tea partier and run as a moderate. It was the right thing to do. It also threw Obama off his game because suddenly Romney was running against his ridiculous tax plan (which, let's be honest, would never be passed anyway), bragging about Romneycare, bragging about his record in Massachusetts. This will give conservatives some pause but they will forgive him because he's doing better. However, he didn't put to rest the questions about his tax plan not adding up.

People still don't like him and find him dishonest. Romney did well because this was a forum for him to issue pure, unfiltered bull[Inks]. Which is what politicians do. But unlike George W. Bush or Bill Clinton, who had licenses from the media to do that and get away with it because they were so good, Romney is still hated by the media and considered a liar. He's going to get fact-checked if he tries to keep running with some of his misrepresentations, and the same people who were pleasantly surprised by his performance are going to be brutal in their return to form.

He didn't sway the undecideds. Mostly because the undecideds right now are not easy to reach and aren't looking for the same things as a disillusioned Republican. But the polls showing Romney won the debate are also saying undecideds split or didn't care.

We've seen this picture before. This is exactly what happened with Kerry. I came out of the debates in 2004 thinking, wow, I'm really proud of this guy, he's smart, he's got the potential to go the distance. We know how that ended.

How is referring to the guy's own words captured on videotape, completely in context, a "despicable strawman"?

Can someone link to these dial ratings?

All good points, brittain33. Bringing up 47% would have been a risky gamble; it could easily have backfired and allowed Romney to go on about poverty.

Yeah, I was wrong about that, but people do generally like to have their initial opinions reinforced (and most people were expecting an Obama victory). I was definitely surprised by the poll results. But I did caveat what I said with a "probably" for the record. :P

I have to think Obama chose not to go with any of his previous attack lines because Romney's debate prep would have outfitted him with good responses, and Obama would prefer to make those attacks on the campaign trail where Romney can't reply directly, seeing how effective Romney was in this format.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=9ace0839-f6ed-4a7f-8889-7392b50b1dea&d=0


Bay Area:

Romney 41
Obama 38

Substance aside, Romney came across as more likeable, which is probably the most surprising result of this debate. He made a dynamic and energetic impression, while Obama looked annoyed at times.

I really don't agree with that one and even the instapoll showed an even split on the likability question. To each his own though, I guess. 

Probably best to answer this question on Monday. 'Morning after' analysis is always dangerous.

Right, he likes to pretend Romney "wrote off half the country" or "doesn't care about half the country" or "only cares about the rich"  all untruths (which weren't captured on tape, they are completely invented distortions) that Obama pedals in order to construct a strawman.  I personally find hanging your hat on complete distortions unserious and somewhat despicable.   Romney would not only be able/allowed to respond, but he was obviously well prepared and likely would have inflicted a lot of damage on BO.  The president takes huge risks every time he spouts unserious rhetoric because he looks really bad when/if Romney points it out.   

Romney came in with something like a 10 to 20 point deficit in likeability and walked out up a point... That means he was more likeable in the debate or he was even but strongly appealing to the segment that changed their opinion of him on the likeability question (which would be a type of win/edge).     

This.

Boiled down to its essence: Some Democrats are still fooled by the hype and unwarranted fears. It's just that.

Romney is the greatest champion of free market economics since Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan. He is a tolerant conservative on social issues. He is not a monster. Nor is he unprepared, unlike Obama last night.

Then many people should be very afraid.

Today's post-debate coverage has been less unfavorable to the president than I had expected. What I've seen has focused more on how policy-oriented / boring / confusing to undecided voters the entire event was than on anything else, and some reports have really torn into a few of Romney's claims.

Romney clearly won the initial debate (though he did come off an unlikeable and bullying, I'm not sure that's worse than coming off as disinterested and tired). If the Obama campaign, which if nothing else is well-organized and terrific at pushing a message, can turn this around over the weekend to a discussion of Romney's ninety minutes of non-stop lies and fabrication, they can still win the election.

Romney crushed him. Loved it. I avoided the forum last night expecting this poll to say Obama won the debate 70%-30%. It was the other way around.

Yeah, the media coverage has been a lot less sensationalist about Romney's victory than I'd expected. It's...actually...almost even-handed and fact-based coverage, so far as I've seen? Color me pleasantly surprised.

I think people are supremely over-stating the greatness of Romney's performance and equally under-stating the disaster that was Obama's. Ironically, it was Obama who had a Windows Vista powered robot-like malfunction. Paraphrasing:

Obama: "Your tax plan cuts taxes by 5$ trillion for the wealthy"

Romney "Untrue. (proceeds to explain how the claim is false)".

Obama: (shaking his head, eyes a million miles away): "Your tax plan cuts taxes for the wealthy by 5$ trillion, how can you do that and reduce the deficit?".

Mitt Romney, to my surprise, was able to deconstruct Obama's strongest talking points with relative ease. I came away with the impression that Obama had not prepared for this debate beyond memorizing a few half-baked talking points and applying them to keywords.

That said; Mitt Romney's performance was mostly safe and when judged on it's own merit rather than in the context of competition with the President's - it was simply an above-average outing, good but not stellar or memorable.

As a Republican, I'm worried that this may have been his Mondale-Reagan moment. The narrative of 1984 was turned on it's head when the wonky, boring Mondale made a fool out of the typically charismatic, well-liked Reagan. Then Reagan got his act together in the second debate and...

In closing, Republicans need to remember that we just witnessed Obama at his worst vs. Romney at his constant. It would be ill advised for Romney to assume that he will be across the stage from the same person in the next debate.

Thats actually a really good point. The standards are so low, so even if the President comes in and matches Romney's performance --its going to be seen as a win.

Romney perfromed somewhat better than Obama in the debate in my opinion.

The thing is that if both did normal then you would see 70-30 thing, as yes there is a high proportion of liberals on the forum, but Obama didn't do that well, but at the same time, Romney didn't 'crush' him, but did have an advantage.

Exactly. Speaking of low standards; I wonder how much confidence his advisers placed in his ability to properly prepare. Team Obama was unusually forceful in tempering expectations for this debate. Flash forward to the debate where Obama delivers an unenthusiastic, unprepared performance. This means one of two things:

1) Barack Obama simply lacks depth of knowledge (doubtful).
2) Barack Obama's big weakness is playing defense and answering criticism, and the his staff came to grips with this too late. (more likely).

From a Republican perspective, I worry that with more time and emphasis, Obama can master the art of properly responding to direct criticism and apply that mastery to his typical style. That is not a given, however. In short, it's entirely dependent on the degree of Obama's mental fortitude. It's always been said that he is cool and unshakable, we will know for sure in the weeks to come.

I forgot to mention in my earlier post how weird it is that Mitt Romney's mention of Big Bird seems to have been the most memorable moment of the debate.

Mitt won the debate but will lose the consequences.

I actually have to agree with this. Note that I don't support Mitt Romney though. I think in all honesty, the President may have just not been wanting to deal with the debate on his anniversary. But at the same time, I tend to think one must put aside personal feelings when it comes to a job that you have to do. In Obama's case, the hardest job of all. I don't think Obama can truly afford another flub like this though. It could be like how it's been pointed out now, it COULD be a Reagan-Mondale moment.

I think if one thing's for sure, we've seen President Obama learn from mistakes in the past, and to Governor Romney's credit I think his fierce primary battle helped prepare him for President Obama. Now, maybe I'm jumping the gun here, but I think we can agree that the VP debates are gonna end with Congressman Ryan likely beating Vice President Biden. Again, I'm probably jumping the gun here, I'm not entirely sure how Bush41 held up against Mondale's VP so I'm not sure.

But I think Obama's got a chance to solidify a steady lead if he can project energy into the debates.

I'm expecting Biden to beat Ryan... just a gut instinct. That was the same one that expected Romney to win yesterday.

While I'm not so sure Romney's performance was overrated, I do agree that Romney shouldn't get complacent.  Obama will not doubt be more prepared next time, and use a lot less negative body language, but in terms of substantive point-making, Obama is not likely to improve dramatically. 

As for Romney's performance being overstated, I have to disagree.  He answered the president's attacks effectively, made his points clearly, and looked good while he did it.  Admittedly, I missed the first half-hour of the debate, but I thought he did a good job from what I saw, and from what I hear the first half-hour was even better.  I can understand Republicans overselling it, but even Democratic observers gave Romney the win for the night.  I almost couldn't believe this:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/10/03/californians-watch-as-obama-romney-clash-on-economy-in-1st-debate/

The sample group, which was known to be Democratic-leaning, favored Romney's performance by 14 points!  Admittedly there was a large undecided segment (about 20 percent), but the result is still very good for Romney. 

I'm sure Obama will improve next time, but I'm more worried about the VP debate next Thursday.  Biden is an experienced debater, and will doubtless try to derail Ryan with all manner of tricks.  Then again, Ryan has charisma and a good command of the issues.  I suspect that Biden will try to push him into a corner on abortion or other social issues, but Ryan is smart enough to avoid it if he's prepared properly.  I'll be happy if Ryan makes it out with a draw. 

Obama is terrible when he's off his teleprompter. I expect that they'll give him an earpiece in the second debate like a hearing aid so that he can just say whatever they tell him to say.

His address after winning the Iowa caucus in 2008 was off teleprompter.

boy that's thinking on your feet.  All those tough questions and challenges from your opponent... O' wait, never mind

Yes, but this was his worst debate by far, and the fact that he messed up doesn't mean that he is bad without a prompter when he has done well without the prompt

If you want to see him on his feet watch the 2008 debates or a press conference.

I was about to get outraged by Politico's comment comparing Mitt "I was for the Stimulus before I was against it" Romney to Milton Friedman, but then I realized he's a troll and brushed the dirt off my shoulder.