General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

[SeattleIrish]

Draw. Tie goes to the runner/ incumbent.

I believe the general impression will be that Gov. Romney won this round. I'm not in the Romney camp, but I perceived him as winning this debate fairly handily. Perhaps even "game change" handily. He was more assertive, more "likable" than he generally is perceived to be.

I'm hoping some others saw it as a draw. I'm hoping. If that's partisan sniping, please delete.

s.i.

[JasonEvans]

I formed my opinion before I started listening to the pundits... and it so happens that my opinion is exactly the same as the pundits... Romney won. I dunno if he won big, but he certainly won.

Romney was able to hit Obama a number of times on the theme of "you've had 4 years and it ain't working!" That has always been Romney's best attack and he got a chance tonight to firmly present it to the American people. Obama had little of a response. Heck, he almost seemed to be nodding and agreeing with Romney at times during these attacks. I thought Obama was quite subdued.

Of course, the answer Obama tried to give, but did not give forcefully enough, was "ok, buddy, tell us exactly what you would do differently! And give me some specifics, not just generalities. We've been waiting to see specifics from you for a loong time." Obama alluded to this at times, but I think he needed to hammer Romney on it more. He needed to do more citing of Romney's background and history (and the history of his running mate) to show the "scary" things he THINKS Romney would do... and then he needs to say, "But I am not sure what he is going to do because he won't tell us... which is even scarier than guessing based on his history!"

It is worth noting that my explanation of Obama's attack is waaay longer and more complex than Romney's simple, "it ain't working," line of attack. This is why Romney is at a huge advantage in taking on an incumbent right now. Obama's defense has to be more sophisticated than Romney's attack.

So, I thought it went about as bad as possible for the President, short of him making some kind of really bad verbal gaffe. The question now is how much it shifts the vote. There is little question that a huge percentage of the electorate is already decided. We can only guess how many are really open to changing sides or being persuaded, but more experts seem to think it is about 7-10% of the likely voters. Clearly, a large chunk of those were Obama backers prior to tonight. Did Romney flip some of them... probably. Did he flip enough to take some of the swing states out of Obama's column, I sorta doubt that. He might have flipped Colorado or Florida, which seem to me to be the closest states right now, he might have made Virginia a real toss-up, but I doubt he took Ohio, Nevada, or Iowa away from Obama. So, Romney still has a good bit of work to do to win the election, because without Ohio, Nevada, and Iowa, he's well short of 270.

I will close with this... I think Romney did do something major tonight. He ensured that the party will not desert him. He was in major danger of losing GOP dollars and having the party write him off. If nothing else, they will stick firmly in his corner until the debates are done, continually hoping he can pull off another performance like tonight, which could give him a real shot at winning this thing.

-Jason "even Jim Carville is saying Obama was sleepwalking tonight... that is bad!" Evans

[Udaman]

That's not political sniping....I think those who support Obama are going to be upset. Those who support Romney are going to energized. The real problem, as I see it, for Obama, is that this debate will give Romeny what he hasn't had the last month - a ton of positive stories from the press. He's going to be praised, and lauded.

The game is on now...this is going down to the wire.

[AtlBluRew]

I'm not in the Romney camp, but I think he won the night. I agree that he'll get a bounce. That said, my liberal friends on Facebook seemed to be watching a different debate than I saw. Where I saw Romney as energetic, they saw frenetic and annoying. Where I saw Obama as listless at the beginning, they saw "Presidential."

All agree though that Lehrer had no control.

[OldPhiKap]

I have been surprised that the pundits think this is a loss for Obama although it seems the attacks are more on style than substance. On a populist substance point of view (regardless of whether that is good policy or not) I thought Obama did well. Romney was good hitting his points like he has throughout the Primaries. Roughly a tie, doubt it moved the needle much although the press wants a race and may push the story.

[sporthenry]

No way. Look at MSNBC...they are going nuts. They are saying Obama lost and lost big.

Unfortunately, I think Obama did just what I thought he would do....he went soft. He didn't go on the attack.

Romney is going to see a HUGE bounce from this. A week from now, this thing is going to be tied in the polls and every swing state will be within 1-2% for either candidate.

So, if you are an Obama supporter...what's the silver lining? That Romney won't be able to come across like this again. In the next debate Obama will come out swinging and everyone will be saying "he did a much, much better job this time."

By the way...the moderator (and I like Lehrer) was totally and utterly useless. I've never seen anyone this bad.

Also....I don't see how Romney could say that he's not cutting taxes on the wealthy. He clearly calls for a 20% tax cut across the board....it will cost $5T...pretty much all the math says that.

I would agree that Romney definitely won the debate portion but as your last part alludes to, it will be interesting to see what, if anything Obama can do with his fabrications. Obama wasn't very good with exploiting the differences, seemed to stutter and his constantly going back to the $5 trillion didn't seem to have the intended effect. Didn't bring up the 47% comment and seemed to get caught up in the little things. Romney on the surface stymied him with Dodd-Frank although I think many independents were wondering who this Dodd-Frank guy was.

Politifact seemed to think Romney stretched the facts a bit more but not sure what Obama can do about it now. I think it'd be more interesting to see facts/figures on a PowerPoint presented at these debates or even a moderator who fact checks this stuff because it becomes misleading for both sides.

Romney started to get a little more specific and I guess it was pretty ingenious to not give any specifics beforehand so he caught Obama off guard. Obama couldn't really rebut him on the spot and I thought Romney did better giving specifics. I'd still like to hear what he wants to cut and he'll have to do a better job explaining his economic policy but for independents, he definitely sounded pretty good tonight.

[Mike Corey]

Romney won on style. More importantly, he will win the news cycle through the weekend. He will get a bump in the polls, too.

Obama was passive. Threw a few punches that were punctuated with "uhs" and ellipses. And let Romney go unchallenged for much of the night. Romney ran against his own platform and it was very effective. Obama ran on fumes.

Will be interesting to see how much one night will affect an 18-month campaign.

[JasonEvans]

CNN post-debate poll finds...

Who won? Romney 67%, Obama 25%

CBS's post-debate poll finds 46%-22% say Romney won. But, far more importantly 56% have better opinion of Romney, and, most importantly, the number who say Romney cares about people like me went from up from 30 to 63%

Huge win for him tonight... huge! Flipping the "cares about people like me" number cannot be overstated in its importance!

-Jason "'nuf said" Evans

[Tom B.]

even Jim Carville is saying Obama was sleepwalking tonight... that is bad!

Carville had the best one-line summation of the debate: Romney looked like he wanted to be there, and Obama didn't.

[tommy]

Obama supporters have to be upset with his performance. He was very flat. His speech was halting, making him seem unsure of what to say. He didn't attack at all. And perhaps most bothersome was how Obama was nodding, as if in agreement with a number of things Romney said, or in acknowledging that Romney attacks were on target, and then flashing an overly broad smile at inappropriate times, Joe Biden-style. Maybe all that nodding was some sort of effort to seem gentlemanly or above the fray or bipartisan, or whatever.

Dude, it's a fight. The other guy came ready to fight, and you shrunk from it. That is not what people want to see from a President. This is going to hurt the President in the polls, for sure. Romney now seems plausible, and palatable, to many more people than he did a few hours ago. The next debate can't come soon enough for Obama. And when it does come, he better have his head in the game, and he better be ready for a knife-fight. That means bring a sharp knife. Or two.

[sporthenry]

Obama supporters have to be upset with his performance. He was very flat. His speech was halting, making him seem unsure of what to say. He didn't attack at all. And perhaps most bothersome was how Obama was nodding, as if in agreement with a number of things Romney said, or in acknowledging that Romney attacks were on target, and then flashing an overly broad smile at inappropriate times, Joe Biden-style. Maybe all that nodding was some sort of effort to seem gentlemanly or above the fray or bipartisan, or whatever.

Dude, it's a fight. The other guy came ready to fight, and you shrunk from it. That is not what people want to see from a President. This is going to hurt the President in the polls, for sure. Romney now seems plausible, and palatable, to many more people than he did a few hours ago. The next debate can't come soon enough for Obama. And when it does come, he better have his head in the game, and he better be ready for a knife-fight. That means bring a sharp knife. Or two.

I also think the VP debate being next hurts Obama. He has to wait another week to get in front of the camera and he has to hope Biden doesn't put his foot in his mouth. From what I've seen with Ryan, he has done well in his stump speeches and I think the fact he actually owns up to the fact Obama wasn't to blame for the recession resonates with Americans. He doesn't blame Dems as much as he comes across as saying we can do better.

Ryan usually comes in as more likeable than Biden and this debate could be his introduction to a lot of independents who don't watch the conventions. That could build a lot more momentum for Romney/Ryan.

It will also be interesting to see how the foreign policy debate develops. Mitt apparently has some things he wanted to attack Obama on in terms of foreign policy but on the surface it appears it will come down to Romney threatening war to Obama trying to use diplomacy. Romney will apparently attack Obama over Syria and Libya and probably threaten force on Iran but it seems Americans are more interested in avoiding foreign entanglements and don't want to trade a Q for an N.

[captmojo]

After tonight's performance, the president has a mountain to climb in recovery.

I'd bet he's in hopes that said mountain isn't on Libyan soil.

[Reilly]

Neat look at when more states were competitive ...

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cry...p-was-in-play/

[CameronBornAndBred]

CNN post-debate poll finds...

Who won? Romney 67%, Obama 25%

CBS's post-debate poll finds 46%-22% say Romney won. But, far more importantly 56% have better opinion of Romney, and, most importantly, the number who say Romney cares about people like me went from up from 30 to 63%

Huge win for him tonight... huge! Flipping the "cares about people like me" number cannot be overstated in its importance!

-Jason "'nuf said" Evans

In chat last night one of the folks said "these debates matter little because so few people watch them". I don't agree with that, but even if it is true that they aren't watched, people ARE going to wake up to poll numbers like Jason posted. The interwebs are plastered today with "Romney wins debate"...and that alone will form opinions in the minds of those that didn't care to watch the actual event.

[Jarhead]

Maybe Romney won the debate, but i can't say for sure. Leher must have learned his skill from the replacement refs in the NFL. He was totally useless. The debate would have been much better if they just sat the candidates at a table face to face, and let them talk to one another.

Over the course of the campaign thus far, I haven't had to worry about campaign issues as much as most people do. As a military retiree on Medicare I have been insulated from many of the issues faced by most people, but in the debate Romney repeated this many times. He was going to cut taxes 20% across the board, but his cut would be revenue neutral. OK, sounds nice, but how was he going to do that? He covered that, too. He would cut or do away with deductions and exemptions to keep the same revenue flow on personal taxes. I felt that punch in my wallet.

They only deduction I take is the standard deduction. My mortgage has been paid off, and the only medical expense i have is my Medicare premium, because of the fact that military retires on Medicare get full health care coverage. I did a quick estimate, and that tax cut would actually increase the amount of tax I pay by a little more than 20%. To be fair, I considered it a wash. Political speak if you will, except that that tax cut of 20% included the very wealthy. I guess that's where the 5 trillion dollar deficit that is bandied about comes from. Romney denied that amount. Smoke and mirrors?

[PSurprise]

Overall, I think Obama should have been more aggressive. And trying to look at the debate independently, I think Romney had a much better night overall. I think the best thing for Obama is that there are 2 more debates after this one for him, and if he does well (or at least better) in one or both, I think most people will forget about this one. The American public has such a short attention span imo.

[AtlBluRew]

I wondered why the Romney campaign let it out that Romney had been practicing zingers since August. IMO, it took some of the potential impact out of any zingers used. Having watched the debate, I recall only one thing that remotely qualified, in my mind, as a zinger. That line was, "As President, you can have your own house and your own plane, but not your own facts." As zingers go, that's pretty weak.

I wonder now if the leak about zingers was meant to lull the Obama camp into thinking the debate would not be as substantive as it was. Alternatively, maybe it was meant to keep Obama off some of the obvious lines of attack ... the 47% quote, tax returns, etc. Perhaps Obama thought that that if zingers were prepared, they were obviously prepared as retorts to the obvious attacks, so I'll forgo those and deny Romney the sound bites.

[tommy]

I wondered why the Romney campaign let it out that Romney had been practicing zingers since August. IMO, it took some of the potential impact out of any zingers used. Having watched the debate, I recall only one thing that remotely qualified, in my mind, as a zinger. That line was, "As President, you can have your own house and your own plane, but not your own facts." As zingers go, that's pretty weak.

I wonder now if the leak about zingers was meant to lull the Obama camp into thinking the debate would not be as substantive as it was. Alternatively, maybe it was meant to keep Obama off some of the obvious lines of attack ... the 47% quote, tax returns, etc. Perhaps Obama thought that that if zingers were prepared, they were obviously prepared as retorts to the obvious attacks, so I'll forgo those and deny Romney the sound bites.

Maybe, but at some point (30 minutes in? 45?) don't you have to realize that Romney is not utilizing the zinger strategy, and instead is making forceful points, is talking substance, is remaining on message, is bringing enthusiasm, is attacking you without seeming unreasonable about it, and you need to change your approach to counter what your opponent is bringing? In sports, a good coach calls a timeout and makes an adjustment, or several. Obama made no adjustments to what was going on. He didn't react to the way the debate was going at all. He remained subdued in manner and wonkish on substance, with overly long answers that had no zip to them at all. He allowed his personality to shrink and Romney to present himself as the likable, engaged guy.

I do think it would be wise to see what the actual polling numbers show, not just the flash "who won?" reaction-type polls. And to keep in mind that the most valuable post-debate polls are going to be those that also polled as recently as possible pre-debate, so as to have a good feel for how much impact the debate actually had, as opposed to other relatively recent events like Libya.

And I will say that the VP debate being next is not really great for the Democrats. Biden is not the one the Dems want to get the "we have to get more aggressive now" message and have him really go off the reservation against Ryan. There are plenty of other reasons to worry about that debate, and now this is one more big one. The guy who has to get some fire in his belly is Obama, not Biden. From Biden, the Democrats want to project maturity, steadiness, experience, etc., and try to let Ryan come off as the wild-eyed, Ayn Rand-worshipping extremist who's too green to understand the way the world really works.

[A-Tex Devil]

He was going to cut taxes 20% across the board, but his cut would be revenue neutral. OK, sounds nice, but how was he going to do that? He covered that, too. He would cut or do away with deductions and exemptions to keep the same revenue flow on personal taxes. I felt that punch in my wallet. . . .

I guess that's where the 5 trillion dollar deficit that is bandied about comes from. Romney denied that amount. Smoke and mirrors?

Obama did a poor job of explaining what the $5 trillion means. Perhaps his staffers, rightly or wrongly, believe that if he tries to explain any more, Americans will get glossy eyed, but it's a hugely important point that Romney/Ryan continue to get away with avoiding.

20% tax cut across the board = revenue neutral, or is it $5 trillion in decreased revenue? Chris Wallace (so surprisingly!) tried to corner Ryan on it (video upthread) and Ryan stuttered his way out of the corner. But the dems need to have a clear and succinct way to attack this. Go the Wallace route, but don't let up.

(1) You will cut taxes by 20%. How much is that 20% over 5 years? Revenue neutral? Impossible. It can't be revenue neutral without something counterbalancing it. Which we'll get to. How much is the cut? You know exactly what we are asking and you are purposely avoiding it. Say it!! Saaaaay it!!!

(2) OK. Now that you've put a value on the cut (albeit forcing us to pull teeth), and you have said the reduction in deductions/credits/loopholes will make up for that. Give us some specifics, because we don't understand how that math works without hitting a lot of the credits/deductions, etc. that the middle class count on. Show your work.

It's hard to do that succinctly and prevent glaze forming on the eyes of Joe Voter, but I think it's important and that there has got to be a way to force the hand here. Campaigns have been won before on gimmicky economic policies that in application just completely don't work. If Romney pulls this out, I think it's important that we understand better how he can make a 20% cut revenue neutral. Maybe the strategists think he can get away without ever having to say anything until he's elected. That would be disappointing in many ways.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Having watched the debate, I recall only one thing that remotely qualified, in my mind, as a zinger. That line was, "As President, you can have your own house and your own plane, but not your own facts." As zingers go, that's pretty weak.

I noted as soon as he said put it out there, "Geez, he's been waiting to use that one". It was not only so noticeabley prepared, he also stumbled on it when he finally got the chance to use it.