Pretty boring-expected this given the fact they agree on most things. Probably why Romney pivoted to the economy as often as possible and why Obama used this as a time to harp on flip flops.
All things considered, a slight Obama win, but Romney did what he needed to do. This certainly didn’t scare away any voters from either IMO who hadn’t chosen already, which is a plus for Romney. All told, the winner of the three debates in total in Romney-not often you can say this, but if he wins the election, you can 100% point to that first debate as THE turning point. Even solid showings by Obama in the past two cant undo that damage.
Definitely going to be watching the polls carefully, this will be an interesting one, At this point, barring gaffes, THE decider for many undecideds IMO will be the Nov 2 jobs report. Another big drop is a huge gust in the sails for Obama, a spike is a nail in the coffin. I just don’t see anything else having tehe same impact in the next couple weeks.
I just saw a moment with Van Jones on CNN, where like you said earlier, a gentleman next to him gave him the "what the fuck are you talking about " glare as Van Jones spouted his drivel.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
CNN poll says 48&-40%, Obama wins. Not surprising. I don’t think that means much to polling.
[/quote]
Ouch… That is a huge spread…
Not the blood bath of the first debate by any means. I’m kinda taken back by how big that spread is. [/quote]
What did the demographics look like though-I know cnn’s polls have been a touch rep heavy recent,y post debate. Did they swing the other way? That could explain the spread. If however that did come from a rep heavy sample, I could be mistaken in my “no biggie” analysis…
LOL Ron Paul is the only American politician that discusses how much more vital US relations with Canada is more important than any other country in terms of security, economic growth and energy security. Why is Israel the US’s greatest ally when Canada sends troops to Afghanistan and joins the US on military ventures? No love for Canada lol
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
CNN poll says 48&-40%, Obama wins. Not surprising. I don’t think that means much to polling.
[/quote]
Ouch… That is a huge spread…
Not the blood bath of the first debate by any means. I’m kinda taken back by how big that spread is. [/quote]
Nevermind, it is among debate watchers… Who cares, lol. Likely voters are all that counts. And those is Florida and Ohio are the most important ones, lol.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
CNN poll says 48&-40%, Obama wins. Not surprising. I don’t think that means much to polling.
[/quote]
Ouch… That is a huge spread…
Not the blood bath of the first debate by any means. I’m kinda taken back by how big that spread is. [/quote]
What did the demographics look like though-I know cnn’s polls have been a touch rep heavy recent,y post debate. Did they swing the other way? That could explain the spread. If however that did come from a rep heavy sample, I could be mistaken in my “no biggie” analysis…[/quote]
That jnd guy and Nate Silver get all mad when people talk about party ID in polling, shhhhh.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Check the CBS poll. 53-23 for Obama. Tie, 24%
Come on now…That sounds like a bad sample to me. The CNN poll sounds reasonable.[/quote]
Another bullshit sample:
[i]This CBS News poll was conducted online using GfK’s web-enabled KnowledgePanel?, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 521 uncommitted voters who have agreed to watch the debate. Uncommitted voters are those who don’t yet know who they will vote for, or who have chosen a candidate but may still change their minds.
GfK’s KnowledgePanel participants are initially chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel?.[/i]
Romney went into tonight’s debate with specific goals:
Not to look bellicose.
To attract women.
To attract independents.
And I believe that he accomplished all three.
Most people have already made up their minds by the final debate. But women, as we’ve seen can be swayed away from the President. For Romney to take the less aggressive path was, I think a brilliant move. By doing this he did not look like the war monger that the press and Obama wanted to paint him to be. He also scored points with women and independents by taking the high road. And Obama hurt himself by trying to interrupt Romney on three occasions.
Romney: “Excuse me I’m still speaking…”
I knew at the outset when the topic was on Libya and Romney didn’t mention Benghazi that this was the path that he had chosen. And, by the way, this was not a strategy given to him by an adviser it is one that he himself had chosen according to insiders.
While Obama wanted to continue the nasty fight that broke out during the second debate Romney kept him at bay and threw jabs from a distance.
By taking the high road he looked more Presidential. And when Obama tried to correct Romney on Navy ships by mentioning that “we have things that go under the water called submarines” he looked condescending and out right snarky. Who doesn’t like that sort of thing? Most women!
When the debate turned to the economy as it did about 35% of the time Romney scored very well. The number one issue in the voters minds is the economy and number two is taxes according to recent surveys. Near the end Romney hit it out of the park on the China question and once again turned it into an indictment of the Obama economy. And his ending was quite powerful as well.
Of course as predicted the moderator leaned Obama’s way by interrupting Romney three times and allowing Obama to speak more often and close one (or was it two?) more time than Romney.
I am guessing that Romney did better than many of you think. He sat side by side with the President of the United States who gets daily foreign policy briefings and sounded more Presidential.
I think tonight might be remembered as Romney going large and Obama trying to keep it small and petty.
Yup, twitter will blow up with #bayonets tomorrow, but it is a small thing. Jobs making ships is a big thing.[/quote]
Good point. Creating jobs through building naval ships? Who wouldn’t get behind that as a plank?[/quote]
Raytheon is big around here.[/quote]
Right,and I’m just north of you and BAE is big up here. I hate that somehow because Romney wants more military spending it is somehow associated with him wanting to build giant wooden fucking ships. Military spending does trickle over to private enterprise…which in turn helps create non gov’t jobs
This isn’t good for Obama. According to CNN poll, can so-and-so handle Commander and Chief Job, 63% say yes for Obama and 60% say yes for Romney. Pretty much a tie. I say bad for Obama because, if the poll is reflective of likely voters, he can’t really hang his hat there, either. Also, I saw a tweet saying they were tied on likeability. So, I stand by my original assessment. Foreign policy, a wash. Economy, Romney had a double digit lead in the last CNN poll (not sure if it was asked this time, yet). That makes me think, barring some surprise tabloid shocker, Romney is going to win this.
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
LOL Ron Paul is the only American politician that discusses how much more vital US relations with Canada is more important than any other country in terms of security, economic growth and energy security. Why is Israel the US’s greatest ally when Canada sends troops to Afghanistan and joins the US on military ventures? No love for Canada lol[/quote]
I think they mean the greatest ally in the middle east. Because obviously England is a bigger ally to us too.
Yup, twitter will blow up with #bayonets tomorrow, but it is a small thing. Jobs making ships is a big thing.[/quote]
Good point. Creating jobs through building naval ships? Who wouldn’t get behind that as a plank?[/quote]
Raytheon is big around here.[/quote]
Right,and I’m just north of you and BAE is big up here. I hate that somehow because Romney wants more military spending it is somehow associated with him wanting to build giant wooden fucking ships. Military spending does trickle over to private enterprise…which in turn helps create non gov’t jobs[/quote]
Those jobs are best created in failed green energy projects.
Yup, twitter will blow up with #bayonets tomorrow, but it is a small thing. Jobs making ships is a big thing.[/quote]
Good point. Creating jobs through building naval ships? Who wouldn’t get behind that as a plank?[/quote]
Raytheon is big around here.[/quote]
Right,and I’m just north of you and BAE is big up here. I hate that somehow because Romney wants more military spending it is somehow associated with him wanting to build giant wooden fucking ships. Military spending does trickle over to private enterprise…which in turn helps create non gov’t jobs[/quote]
Those jobs are best created in failed green energy projects.
[/quote]
I was yelling “Solyndra!” at the TV when energy came up, why Romney didn’t call him out on that is beyond me, he failed to do this in the 2nd debate as well.
“Hey Mr. Prezzy, how do you justify wasting half a Billion taxpayer dollars on green technology when that company went bankrupt within a year?” is a question he should have asked.
I just saw a moment with Van Jones on CNN, where like you said earlier, a gentleman next to him gave him the "what the fuck are you talking about " glare as Van Jones spouted his drivel. [/quote]
Hey, according to twitchy Matthews took a whole 8 mins to call o’s falling poll numbers racism.
Yup, twitter will blow up with #bayonets tomorrow, but it is a small thing. Jobs making ships is a big thing.[/quote]
Good point. Creating jobs through building naval ships? Who wouldn’t get behind that as a plank?[/quote]
Raytheon is big around here.[/quote]
Right,and I’m just north of you and BAE is big up here. I hate that somehow because Romney wants more military spending it is somehow associated with him wanting to build giant wooden fucking ships. Military spending does trickle over to private enterprise…which in turn helps create non gov’t jobs[/quote]
Those jobs are best created in failed green energy projects.
[/quote]
Yup, twitter will blow up with #bayonets tomorrow, but it is a small thing. Jobs making ships is a big thing.[/quote]
Good point. Creating jobs through building naval ships? Who wouldn’t get behind that as a plank?[/quote]
Raytheon is big around here.[/quote]
Right,and I’m just north of you and BAE is big up here. I hate that somehow because Romney wants more military spending it is somehow associated with him wanting to build giant wooden fucking ships. Military spending does trickle over to private enterprise…which in turn helps create non gov’t jobs[/quote]
well paid jobs for highly educated people, who are going to be too expense to get a new job if they are over 50…
