*** Who Won the Final Debate? ***

[Nemesis 1]

I'm confused. Before you said he needed to inspire the masses; now it's his base.

Can you clarify which you mean?

I can he needs to get the 97% Black racist vote out , A thing that willl hang in history till histories end. History will also teach Alot of whites left the side of the messiah as he was only a man and just an average man at that , That went to chicago got hitched to the machine . Which doesn't take alot of smarts . But requires a man who would go against the will of the people.

 

[Fern]

I propose a simple definition of "win." If you are ahead in the debate polls, you "won," especially if it translates in to an electoral shift in your favor. These debates are 100% political. They are all about gaining or losing votes. There is no other purpose. That makes the definition of who won and lost much simpler. Accordingly, it doesn't matter if you spent the entire debate farting into the mic. If the majority thought you won, you won.

I think you just said much the same thing I did, albeit much shorter and with much less detail.

I will disagree with your last sentence, and this is largely the point of my post. The "majority" has long known who they were going to vote for. IMO, it doesn't help Obama to have his supporters think he won, likewise with Romney. And I doubt it hurts with their supporters if they think their guy lost. I think we're well past shoring up votes with the base. I think because the race is close they should looking to add that last slice of votes remaining known as "undecided". This is what I'm referring when I said "details" in the polls and gave some examples. I also specifically mentioned women because that demographic seems to have shifted lately like no other and war, being a foreign policy matter, is relevant here.

This also why the "win the battle lose the war" cliche seems applicable here. IMO, it's possible to "win" the debate yet lose that last slice of remaining undecided voters.

No matter, under your briefer standard or my longer one, we cannot know who won until a week or so when the polling is done and we see the debates effect on votes (not polling about debate performance).

Fern

 

[cybrsage]

I'm confused. Before you said he needed to inspire the masses; now it's his base.

Can you clarify which you mean?

His base is part of the masses. Doing either will work for him.

 

[Socio]

Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok
Not really.

Obama was more aggressive, but that doesn't mean he was acting like he was behind.

I still haven't heard a single tangible argument for how Romney won this debate.

How about this one;

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...age_romney_won_the_presidency_last_night.html

Voters Decide on President by Body Language: Romney Won the Presidency Last Night

Words don't matter as much as body language when voters decide on the man they trust to lead the nation. Despite all the policy debates, all the fact checking, all the pundits, we don't weigh and balance and research, not most of us. We don't even use our forebrains. We use the most primitive part of our brains, the part that can smell danger, that smells who is the alpha male, who is the omega, who is the rogue. The nose knows who is the real leader. We can smell a winner.

Mitt Romney passed the smell test for the third time last night, and Barack Obama failed.

 

[Theb]

 

[Moonbeam]

How about this one;

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...age_romney_won_the_presidency_last_night.html

That was a great one. It was full of the same insanity that infects you, part of the altered universe you live in, the false alpha male of a foreign pack who doesn't smell white. You are insane. Only a mad man could see an alpha male in that total phony. His whole foreign policy was me too me too me too. Pull your head out of your ass.

 

[bfdd]

http://www.ora.tv/ora2012/thirdparty

here are more debates if you're interested in more choices besides just R and D

 

[nextJin]

http://www.ora.tv/ora2012/thirdparty

here are more debates if you're interested in more choices besides just R and D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yy5wArfuIA

720p

 

[buckshot24]

Game, set, match, Obama wins.

Why didn't you register months ago so we could stop all this bickering? Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[irishScott]

Game, set, match, Obama wins.

Is this you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llQ5xIYbre4

 

[ericlp]

Romney clearly fell apart all over the map. I think he shape shifted so much he doesn't even know what lie he told last. I already predicted Obama is going to win. So... I wasn't really interested in foreign policy. So... I thought the debate was rather boring but it was fun to watch Romney get slapped around a bit.

 

[bfdd]

Man the free and equal debates tonight were great. Virgil has a fan in me after tonight. Love his voice.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

How about this one;

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...age_romney_won_the_presidency_last_night.html

Let's see... right-winger writing in a right-wing e-zine decides that Romney won based on completely subjective impressions of "body language":

Choosing a president isn't a beauty contest, although good looks help. It is about masculinity. It is about confidence and calm strength. Romney was the happy warrior of the debate. He was the guy so big he doesn't have to pick fights or show off his muscles. They are obvious from his stature and how he conducts himself. Obama was the junk yard dog, trying to protect his turf by mean looks and threatening to bite. He didn't actually get his teeth into Romney a single time. Obama's attempt at a steely gaze came across as unpleasant, hostile, even silly. He didn't faze Romney, and he didn't win anyone's confidence. He made himself smell nasty. A snapping dog doesn't make people feel safe.

That's not a tangible argument. It's not an argument at all -- it's just partisan hack cheerleading.

 

[cybrsage]

He is right, though. Obama came across as petty and childish when he decided to show his true nature - a condescending ass.

 

[Agent11]

Romney lost. Deal with it.

 

[buckshot24]

Let's see... right-winger writing in a right-wing e-zine decides that Romney won based on completely subjective impressions of "body language":

How does one decide objectively who won?

Don't bring polls in this because its just a bunch of people subjectively telling us who they thought won.

 

[trenchfoot]

Funny, when Romney won the first debate and most Dems freely admitted it, the polls REALLY meant alot to some Repubs here at P&N. lol

 

[zinfamous]

I would agree this is a good definition to use. Using it, we know Romney won smashingly in the first debate. I am not sure about the other two, they were both rather boring (the first was as well, due to Obama being drugged just prior to it) so I cannot easily say.

lol.

you are such an obtuse hack.

 

[zinfamous]

How about this one;

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...age_romney_won_the_presidency_last_night.html

LMAOROFLROFLSOCKSBBQ.

jesus tapdancing christ. the hacks in this forum will pull out he most obscure, most nonsensical flubbery to support their preposterous notions, agreed-upon by no one, invented purely in some Beckian vapor cloud, and supported by nothing.

Just to avoid admitting that their "team" gets trounced in an inherently meaningless political scrum.

get the fuck over yourselves. It would be hilarious if the lot of you weren't so latently pathetic with your obfuscation.

 

[zinfamous]

How does one decide objectively who won?

Don't bring polls in this because its just a bunch of people subjectively telling us who they thought won.

right.

so now polls support nothing.

so Romney is leading in nothing. Obama is leading in nothing.

all debates were even. Romney never "won" dick. Obama never won, and certainly never lost, dick, in these debates. There is no longer any evidence of such, as you have now claimed.

please realize this new truth: you have now proclaimed the above statements to be fact in your estimation. Without the only source of acceptable validation, there are no longer any debate wins or losses for anyone. This is the bed you now sleep in.

OK, let's keep going on your piddly circle jerk of a dance, if it makes you this happy to avoid the reality that you must shit in.


so, now that the debates can no longer matter in your mind, you are effectively done with this conversation. Please step aside so that the next maroon can enter.

 

[buckshot24]

right.

so now polls support nothing.

Context matters. Charles didn't like subjectivity so he shouldn't use polls which includes a bunch of people using subjective criteria.

so Romney is leading in nothing. Obama is leading in nothing.

all debates were even. Romney never "won" dick. Obama never won, and certainly never lost, dick, in these debates. There is no longer any evidence of such, as you have now claimed.

please realize this new truth: you have now proclaimed the above statements to be fact in your estimation. Without the only source of acceptable validation, there are no longer any debate wins or losses for anyone. This is the bed you now sleep in.

OK, let's keep going on your piddly circle jerk of a dance, if it makes you this happy to avoid the reality that you must shit in.


so, now that the debates can no longer matter in your mind, you are effectively done with this conversation. Please step aside so that the next maroon can enter.

You jumped the shark on my statement. I didn't say polls aren't valid. I said, using Charles disdain for subjectivity, that he couldn't use polls to support his contention that Obama "won" the debate. Meaning "who won the debate" polls.

 

[zinfamous]

no, you simply said "polls are subjective, so don't bring them into it.

your statement was purely about the subjectivity of polling, that is all.

it is there for everyone to see.

in every argument you have made about these debates, you use polling to support your arguments. they are subjective, so they are now invalid.

you use polling in every single thread at ATP&N to support your claims.

is it subjectivity you reject? polling? the nature of subjectivity in polling? which is not valid?

 

[buckshot24]

no, you simply said "polls are subjective, so don't bring them into it.

your statement was purely about the subjectivity of polling, that is all.

So context doesn't matter, what an asshat you are. I never fucking said that polls don't matter AT ALL. Dumb ass.

it is there for everyone to see.

Keep it up you're doing fine.

in every argument you have made about these debates, you use polling to support your arguments. they are subjective, so they are now invalid.

Since I never claimed that polls are worthless, who gives a shit?

you use polling in every single thread at ATP&N to support your claims.

I suppose you can show us some of those instances.

is it subjectivity you reject? polling? the nature of subjectivity in polling? which is not valid?

I already explained it to you. Re-read what I wrote.

 

[buckshot24]

Let me be clear, I think subjectivity is fine when figuring out who won a debate. It's been my point about these two "wins" for Obama. Debate points don't matter.

 

[Socio]

Another way to look at it;

Even conservative talking heads concede Obama won on points however Romney's favorability shot up so it looks like the debate went just how he wanted it to.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/23/debates-deliver-favorability-edge-romney/

BOCA RATON, Fla. — Mitt Romney crossed a major threshold early this week, briefly moving above 50 percent in his favorability rating, according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls — giving the Republican a lead over President Obama for the first time on that measure.

So it looks like Obama got more points, but Romney garnered more voters.