Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Romney was awfully sweaty. He didn't win the majority of post debate polls. 97% said he lost.
Why was he so nervous. Perhaps it was the "on the spot fact checking". Being called a liar as he lied.
He finally just caved and said the President's foreign policy was correct on every position.
Even Romney's son apologized.
Mr. President I apologize for wanting to fight you for telling the truth and calling dad a liar.
Yet Obama's odds of winning went from 61% before the debate to 57% now--part of an epic slide down from 79% on October 1st. Obama won the battle, but he's losing the war. This essay explains why:
Yet Obama's odds of winning went from 61% before the debate to 57% now--part of an epic slide down from 79% on October 1st. Obama won the battle, but he's losing the war. This essay explains why:
I don't buy this fading on the home stretch narrative. Undecideds often break to the challenger. That is what we have seen, and it started early, but it is stabilizing. Obama still has a structural advantage, and he actually performed quite well in the debates overall. I predict his strength on the ground, and particularly in the underpolled hispanic vote will give him a bump at the tape.
No one said it would be an easy race in this economy, but Obama is very clearly the superior choice. Romney is smoke and mirrors.
I wish I had seen that. I quit watching after I saw the onslaught of Willard Family start taking over the stage.
Ever since the campaign of '08, when Palin strutted her entire family, including her daughter's baby daddy, out on the stage at every opportunity, I've been somewhat sensitive to the inclination of republican candidates to exploit little kids for political points.
Funny, I love kids, but I had the same feeling. In 2008 Palin was dragging around her baby like a sack of potatoes. I am in no way saying that a child with a disability isn't a blessing and deserves to be loved and cherished. However, she really exploited the baby. I hope he finally got some sleep after the election.
Then you've got Paul Ryan talking about his "little bean" and how life begins at conception. Aw, how cute. They call their child "Bean." I guess if one of these little fertilized eggs makes it out of the womb, but its parents just lost their jobs and health insurance or need food assistance, they don't amount to a hill of them in his budget plan.
What debate were you watching? There isn't anyone out there saying Romney lost except you silly liberals here on C-D!
This is funny.
"It was Romney’s weakest performance of the three presidential debates — an instant poll by CBS found 53 percent of those surveyed believed Obama won, compared to 23 percent who gave the nod to Romney..."
I don't buy this fading on the home stretch narrative. Undecideds often break to the challenger. That is what we have seen, and it started early, but it is stabilizing. Obama still has a structural advantage, and he actually performed quite well in the debates overall. I predict his strength on the ground, and particularly in the underpolled hispanic vote will give him a bump at the tape.
No one said it would be an easy race in this economy, but Obama is very clearly the superior choice. Romney is smoke and mirrors.
We have a horse race on our hands, and it is fun to watch. I think the country survives either way, especially assuming that we retain a divided legislature. You've got your favorite and I have mine, your interpretation of the push and pull of the daily campaign is different than mine, but we'll both know more after we find out. We are going to an elect a president of all the people, one guy or the other, who must rise to the challenges we face--and lead through them.
We have a horse race on our hands, and it is fun to watch. I think the country survives either way, especially assuming that we retain a divided legislature. You've got your favorite and I have mine, your interpretation of the push and pull of the daily campaign is different than mine, but we'll both know more after we find out. We are going to an elect a president of all the people, one guy or the other, who must rise to the challenges we face--and lead through them.
I agree with this. We are going to elect a president of all our people. And that person deserves our good will.
Unfortunately, this is not the way the GOP congress sees it. They've made that abundantly clear. Quite aside from Romney/Ryan, I cannot accept the prospect of rewarding folks like Mitch McConnell, who swore to undermine this president during the darkest economic chapter of the last 80 years. Screwing their whole country for political power. If we do nothing, he'll be called a failure, and we win. Oh, and besides we cannot balance the budget because we sold our souls to Grover Norquist WTF! If R&R win, the GOP sleazeballs will have succeeded in the most cynical and treasonous of strategies. That goes against everything I believe in. The GOP has to lose. I'll consider them again in 2016. Not before.
The world is a more dangerous place now than it was in 1916. In 1916 the world was at war. If the world is even more dangerous today than it was in 1916, then more ships are needed.
There are more wars and more threats of war today and they are threatening in more places. Obama's comment just demomstrates he is in denial. Obama wants to take us back to 1916 capability.
The world is NOT "a more dangerous place now than it was in 1916". Where do you get this nonsense?
In 1916 Europe was in the midst of the Battle of Verdun - where in that ONE battle alone (and it wasn't the ONLY battle going on by a long shot) -fighting over ONE TOWN - there were an estimated 70,000+ casualties a MONTH - that's EACH MONTH for TEN MONTHS (nearly a MILLION casualties in less than a year). There were more soldiers killed in that ONE BATTLE than the US has lost in ALL it's wars since WWII COMBINED. That's more men killed than we lost in Korea, Vietnam, both of the Gulf Wars AND Afghanistan combined. Now clearly these weren't Americans because we weren't yet at war, but to say "the world is more dangerous place now than it was in 1916" is just utter nonsense. The threats are more complicated today because their nature is more subtle but the very subtle and "unconventional" nature of the threats means there is LESS demand for "conventional" forces (like regular naval ships) - NOT MORE - and greater demand for anti-terrorist and anti-insurgency type forces. It's not the type of threat you address by simply building more ships.
I agree with this. We are going to elect a president of all our people. And that person deserves our good will.
Unfortunately, this is not the way the GOP congress sees it. They've made that abundantly clear. Quite aside from Romney/Ryan, I cannot accept the prospect of rewarding folks like Mitch McConnell, who swore to undermine this president during the darkest economic chapter of the last 80 years. Screwing their whole country for political power. If we do nothing, he'll be called a failure, and we win. Oh, and besides we cannot balance the budget because we sold our souls to Grover Norquist WTF! If R&R win, the GOP sleazeballs will have succeeded in the most cynical and treasonous of strategies. That goes against everything I believe in. The GOP has to lose. I'll consider them again in 2016. Not before.
I'm not exactly on the same page, Fiddle, but I heard John Boehner say the other day that the President had not spoken to him for four months about the fiscal cliff, our most pressing challenge. It distresses me to no end that Boehner is not able to say "I called the White House last Saturday, told them I was coming at 2 PM on Sunday to talk about the fiscal cliff, and if that wasn't convenient I would be back every Monday, Wednesday and Friday until we hammered out a path through this." It also distresses me no end that the President is unable to say, "I called the congressional leadership of both parties to get together and hammer out a path through this, and I will repeat the call three times a week until they sit down with me and we get through this."
We've been poorly served by the leadership situation, a bipartisan criticism. We're in earnings season on Wall Street, and company after company is reporting poor revenues and a lousy outlook--most of them citing the fiscal cliff. A parade of CEO's of both persuasions have been on CNBC, saying things like "we all know what needs to be done, they just need to get together and do it." Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles are both saying we need leadership.
And that's just the most pressing issue, among many.
Going to vote tonight- my choice never change in regards to the three debates and the VP debate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Foreign Policy Debate: Coke or Pepsi?
