Obama did little to stop the arterial bleeding.
I still think that Obama’s Debacle in Denver is too much to overcome. This was his best format to gain ground – and he didn’t. His performance and the performance of Smirkin’ Joe last week gave all the hard-core Donks a tingle up their respective legs but I don’t think it will change the trend of a shift to Romney. Too little, too late – especially with the last debate looming, one focused on foreign policy. This last one promises to be a disaster for Obama, putting on display the most recent examples of his failures in the Middle East, his flagging support of Israel and the fecklessness of his policy of “leading from behind”.
There also will be another potential hit to the Obama campaign when the October unemployment numbers are released on the Friday before the election (November 2nd). It is entirely possible that the number will go back above 8% as people go back to looking for seasonal work in retail, don’t find work and the “household employment” numbers “normalize”.
Still predicting a landslide…all signs point to a 1980 redux.
As I expected, Crowley was awful, looking and acting like Kathy Bates from the 1990 movie, Misery. She often lost control of the debate and when she did, she inevitably regained it by stopping Romney and not Obama.
She cut Romney off on Benghazi when he was clearly correct, later changing her tune but stealing a dramatic, and possibly game changing, moment. She will be proven wrong…oops, she already has admitted she was wrong.
Worst moment of the event: when these “undecided” voters clapped for Obama – that kind of did in any thoughts that these were really “undecided” voters.
Romney was strong on the economy but I think missed a couple of important opportunities to bring up the lack of a budget for three years and the Democrat’s involvement in the economic crash.
I said during the primaries that this was going to be an election on the economy and Romney hit it out of the park on that subject while Obama still tried to ignore the past four years and talk about gauzy, soft-focused visions of skittle-shitting unicorns at some point in the future.
I liked Democrat Kirsten Power’s tweet (via Legal Insurrection):
Ace at AOSHQ pretty much sums up my feelings on the debate – Obama a slight win on style points (compared to the first debate, all he had to do was show signs of life to do better) and Romney a decisive win on the points that matter to voters – the economy, energy and jobs.
You [k]now, as far as “Debate Winner” it’s pretty close with those registered voters. CBS gives it to Obama, among registered voters 37-30. CNN’s registered voters gives it to Obama 46-39.
But on actual issues — the ones that will determine this election — Romney destroyed him.
CNN’s focus group claimed they thought Obama “won.” They had it something like 14 for Obama, 15 draw, 6 Romney.
But even that group said this– on the question of “Who offers a better vision for the future?,” Romney edged Obama 18-17.
Now that’s very slim. I wouldn’t read too much into that.
But consider: More people think Romney presents a better vision for the future — the quickest possible shorthand for “who should be President?” — and yet he didn’t “win” the debate?
You always have to question what the criteria people are employing when you ask them who “won.” I think people are rating the performance. And narrowly saying, onperformance, it was a close thing, but edge to Obama.
But ask about who actually reached them on the most important issues, and it’s Romney, all the way.
So they seem to be distinguishing between performance and substance.
Romney wins the substance, pretty clearly.
I’ll take it. And give Obama his charity performance points.