romney had the same demeanor i thought as the 1st debate, but obviously obama stood out more because of how pathetic he was the 1st time around.
Stylistically I also thought Romney grating and petty, especially toward Crowley. But I don't like Romney, so my opinion on that kind of thing doesn't count for much.
As for the "lead," we'll see. I'm of the belief that the fundamentals of the election matter much more than debates or conventions. Romney did well last week, but his bounce was always likely to fade regardless of what came after. If Obama is considered to have won a follow up debate -- which is the case -- that bounce is likely to fade faster than it would have otherwise.
But like I said, overall I don't think these things matter very much when it comes down to it. A better (not "right," but better calibrated) overall message, better surrogates, a more organized ground game, more money, electoral history relative to whose been in power recently (in other words, the effectiveness of the blame game), and outside factors (the economy, wars, etc) are the determining factors in elections. Not body language or big bird or a good zinger or that crap.
On balance I think those factors favor Obama. That's why he was ahead in the run up to the debates, and it's why I think he'll ultimate claim victory.
I guess I didn’t see it that way at all, CBS’s snap poll had Obama winning 37 to 30 percent (They had Romney winning the first debate something like 68-35 and had Ryan winning his debate 48-44), but Fox’s focus group had Romney winning by about the same margin so I figure it was pretty much a wash since CBS leans left and Fox leans right. As for Romney being wrong about Libya, I don’t think that is accurate at all, Crowley even released a statement saying her “fact check” of Romney was inaccurate and the President didn’t straight up call the event an act of terror but rather just used that phrasing at one point in his speech. I thought both men did fine, and therefore the debate will not change the polling any which is good news for Romney.
as far as the debate last night went, i thought both candidates showed energy and were a lot more into it than the 1st one, especially obama, but i dont think that obama won by a landslide over romney even if he won, and the polls pretty much show that after lastnight? what was it like 46 percent thought obama, 39 romney, and 15 undecided?
it was practically even, and i thought romney didnt regress from the 1st one. next weeks one should be real interesting because its on foreign affairs, looking forward to it.
I saw it as a draw. Admittedly, after the first debate it would have been disastrous for Obama to come out flat again. Both men showed passion and determination to get their views expressed.
That said, no matter who wins the election, we are ALL screwed
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
The point about what happened with Libya/Crowley is one of perception. It looked bad, which is what I said. This is not about you and I arguing about who should be President or who's right, because that's irrelevant. It's about how it looked. Crowley stated the thing basically the right way during the debate and clarified afterward, in that Obama said "act of terror" (applying the term generally, I know, but he did use those words, which means Romney was incorrect to claim he hadn't used them).
Like I said, I don't believe debates change these races (outside extreme examples, like Rick Perry's "oops" momen). In other words, they don't create new normals. They move things in the short term, after which the bounce fades. Regardless of what happened last night, Romney's bounce was due to fade. The fact that Obama won the debate just means the bounce will fade faster. Next week is a whole new debate, the result of which will move the polls for another week. After which things will settle down again to about where they were three weeks ago, imo.