Who most benefited from the debate series?

[Likely Voter]

All four debates are now over. Moving beyond who won this or that debate either on substance or or substance, the bigger question is, which ticket gained the most? Who comes out of the four debates stronger?

[angus]

Romney, for sure.  Before the debates he was a cross between Daddy Warbucks, the Senior George Bush, and Darth Vader.  He was lagging in polls.  Basically, a punch line.  Now, Obama is spending over five million dollars in Florida this week alone, and nearly as much in Ohio.  There's some minor panic among the talking heads, because there's a slim outside chance that Romney may be elected, and of course civilization as we know it will fall apart if he wins.  

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The Democratic ticket won all 4 debates, so I don't see how it hurt them.

But the American people lost the debates, because third parties were excluded.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Romney.

[J. J.]

Romney, largely on the first debate.

They both damaged their nice guy image (Romney's newly acquired one) in the second debate.  Tactical victory for Obama, but a strategic defeat.  Biden did more damage to Obama than he did to Ryan.  

Obama won the third, but Romney looked reasonable.  

[Landslide Lyndon]

Romney is the obvious answer. Frankly I'm mystified as to why the first debate moved his numbers on such a historic scale. It seems as if voters were looking for an excuse (any excuse) to embrace the challenger and when they found one after the first debate, they rushed to his camp.
 
That would be a logical thing to happen if Obama was an unpopular incumbent like Carter was in 1980. But with his approvals hovering around 50% and the fundamentals trending favorably (economic growth-albeit slow, booming stock market, falling unemployment, unpopular wars winding down) I would have expected a much more modest effect on his numbers.

If anybody can offer me a non-hack explanation ("OMG, RACISM!!!" or "Illegitimate Kenyan Socialist Obumbler was xposed to Amurica!!!") then he is more than welcome.    

[Silent Hunter]

Romney, who turned a likely clear defeat into a narrow one.

[Likely Voter]

My opinion....
Not to sound like a hack, but while I (and polls) believe Obama/Biden won 3 out of 4 debates, I think Romney/Ryan emerged stronger. The first debate reset the election and transformed Romney into an acceptable president. The subsequent lost debates didn't change that or didn't change it enough to alter the new dynamic. Romney went in a loser and came out a credible president.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Romney, who turned a likely clear defeat into a narrow one.

This, probably.

[Franzl]

Romney.

Hard to imagine why, but it's put Romney in a position to contend.

[rwoy]

The Dems won 3 of the 4 debates but Romney benefitted more because everyone already knew Obama.

The guy who is the big loser from these though is Paul Ryan.  All he had to do was outdo Joe Biden and he'd have been a serious contender for 2016.

[rwoy]

Romney.

Hard to imagine why, but it's put Romney in a position to contend.

Because Americans don't fact check.  The media is too afraid to fact check. 

So all a candidate needs to do is get up and say "when I'm President there will be free ice cream on Tuesdays" and they will win.

[Paul Kemp]

Romney. Obama had a chance at sealing the deal with a good performance in the first debate but he dropped the ball.

If Romney wins, the first debate will be the turning point.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Romney/Biden.

[Maxwell]

Quite obviously Mitt Romney, because he won that first debate handly, and even though Obama  and Biden won the three debates afterward, they weren't nearly as strong as Romney's win in the first debate, although the third debate had its moments of pure Romney capitulation.

[Sbane]

Romney is the obvious answer. Frankly I'm mystified as to why the first debate moved his numbers on such a historic scale. It seems as if voters were looking for an excuse (any excuse) to embrace the challenger and when they found one after the first debate, they rushed to his camp.
 
That would be a logical thing to happen if Obama was an unpopular incumbent like Carter was in 1980. But with his approvals hovering around 50% and the fundamentals trending favorably (economic growth-albeit slow, booming stock market, falling unemployment, unpopular wars winding down) I would have expected a much more modest effect on his numbers.

If anybody can offer me a non-hack explanation ("OMG, RACISM!!!" or "Illegitimate Kenyan Socialist Obumbler was xposed to Amurica!!!") then he is more than welcome.    

Moderate hero Romney showed up, basically. Contrast that with Obama who looked defeated and out of ideas and the race quickly reverted to what you would expect looking at economic conditions and his approval rating. The numbers have dropped even below his approval rating because people are looking for an alternative. Obama is still liked as a person, and many might even sympathize with him over the hand he was dealt hence the relatively high approval rating, but are desperately looking for someone who can improve the economy faster. The dumbass swing voters who weren't paying attention during the Republican primaries and the summer bought Romney's moderate hero schtick hook, line and sinker. Yay democracy!

[Spanish Moss]

But the American people lost the debates, because third parties were excluded.

Exactly.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Anyone who says anything else but Romney needs to remove their rose colored glasses. Mitt was heading for a blowout before the first debate, which seems to have had a biggest impact on the race of any of the debates. It actually made him a VIABLE candidate, which, before that debate, he appeared to be floundering around with really no chance.

[traininthedistance]

My opinion....
Not to sound like a hack, but while I (and polls) believe Obama/Biden won 3 out of 4 debates, I think Romney/Ryan emerged stronger. The first debate reset the election and transformed Romney into an acceptable president. The subsequent lost debates didn't change that or didn't change it enough to alter the new dynamic. Romney went in a loser and came out a credible president.

This is exactly the truth.  Huge win for Romney in Round 1, Obama/Biden won on points with all the others, but the first one was always going to be most important.

I actually thought, contrary to most people's opinion, Obama performed better in the town hall than in the final debate; there were a number of opportunities to rebut Romney's criticisms he just didn't take (pointing out the several free trade agreements he made with Latin America, for instance), and it seemed like Romney dominated the speaking time near the end.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Democratic ticket won all 4 debates, so I don't see how it hurt them.

I knew you'd be one of the two people voting Obama/Biden.  I wonder who the other blindly partisan person is?

Romney is the obvious answer. Frankly I'm mystified as to why the first debate moved his numbers on such a historic scale. It seems as if voters were looking for an excuse (any excuse) to embrace the challenger and when they found one after the first debate, they rushed to his camp.
 
That would be a logical thing to happen if Obama was an unpopular incumbent like Carter was in 1980. But with his approvals hovering around 50% and the fundamentals trending favorably (economic growth-albeit slow, booming stock market, falling unemployment, unpopular wars winding down) I would have expected a much more modest effect on his numbers.

If anybody can offer me a non-hack explanation ("OMG, RACISM!!!" or "Illegitimate Kenyan Socialist Obumbler was xposed to Amurica!!!") then he is more than welcome.     

I think there was a significant group of voters who likely weren't going to vote Obama in any case as they had already made up their mind about Obama, but weren't certain whether Romney would be a sufficiently better option as to be worth the bother of voting for.  The first debate thus served as a catalyst that caused these potential Romney voters to become firm Romney voters.  Even if the Obama/Biden team had won all four debates, there likely would have been a mild Romney bounce as some of those potential Romney voters would have found what they were looking for. It's why in general challengers love debates and incumbents loathe them.  Obama's disastrous first debate performance allowed for almost all of the potential anti-Obama voters to find a reason to support Obama's challenger at the same time.

[Eraserhead]

Romney, going by the first three, because the first one was the only one to have a major impact (which was pro-Romney).

I suspect it will still be Romney overall but I'm not going to vote yet because we clearly don't know what, if any, impact the third debate will have.

[TheGlobalizer]

Romney won by every relevant metric.

Sure, he's an etch-a-sketch, but no one gives a sh** except for people who were voting Obama anyway.

[renegadedemocrat]

Mitt.

[Mr. Morden]

Chris Christie, since Ryan failed to put in a strong enough performance to make him the runaway frontrunner for 2016, thus giving Christie and other potential challengers a better chance.

[milhouse24]

There's nothing mystifying about 8% unemployment, unless you're a liberal.

Romney is the obvious answer. Frankly I'm mystified as to why the first debate moved his numbers on such a historic scale. It seems as if voters were looking for an excuse (any excuse) to embrace the challenger and when they found one after the first debate, they rushed to his camp.
 
That would be a logical thing to happen if Obama was an unpopular incumbent like Carter was in 1980. But with his approvals hovering around 50% and the fundamentals trending favorably (economic growth-albeit slow, booming stock market, falling unemployment, unpopular wars winding down) I would have expected a much more modest effect on his numbers.

If anybody can offer me a non-hack explanation ("OMG, RACISM!!!" or "Illegitimate Kenyan Socialist Obumbler was xposed to Amurica!!!") then he is more than welcome.