• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who Won?

Who won tonight's debate?


  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .
Its universally agreed mitt romney won...because the moderator couldnt control him
 
Its universally agreed mitt romney won...because the moderator couldnt control him

Wow, Obama lost because of the moderator... always an excuse for Obama's failures, isn't there?
 
Only a rubber stamp could say that Obama won that debate.
 
I think you'd better look up "Pyrrhic victory", it's looking more like October Surprise. Here's the surprise - Obama's oration fails when he has to try to defend his record rather than relying on his hopes and dreams.
 
it cured my insomnia :lol:
 
Honestly last time around I thought he wiped the floor with Palin, but obviously that's not saying much. Ryan will indeed be a much more formidable opponent even if I think half of the stuff that comes out of his mouth is complete BS.

Whereas everything Biden says is pure gold. :D

Sorry dude, anyone who thinks Joe Biden is the height of intelligent speech has no standing to criticize Palin. Lol.
 
Its universally agreed mitt romney won...because the moderator couldnt control him

no. romney won. because Obama did not show up
the moderator was excellent
he let them have at each other
hell, he even allowed Obama to have four more minutes of debate time than romney
i especially like that he repeatedly narrowed the topics, to keep both from going off on tangents
 
Romney ran away with it. I was surprised, and actually warmed up to him. He's so not Bush that it was refreshing. I remember listening to Bush and wondering if I was dreaming or if this was really a potential candidate.
Caught my attention on their worldview question:
Romney's view - declaration/constitution
Obama's view - we have the capacity to use government for so much more
Couldn't be more clear to me (rhetorically of course, who knows what either will actually do!)

Biggest worry I have with Republicans these days is pushover/puppet candidates like Bush, or insitutionalized politicans from ages past. Romney appeared to be neither.
Obama was on the fence the entire time, was a little hard to watch. I like the guy, he delivers great prepeared speeches, but contrasted with Mitt he was the follower to Mitt's lead.
 
Confirmation bias, I suppose, but I thought Romney came across as sneering and arrogant and disrespectful.

Obama was flat, but I thought he made no offensive remarks.

Obama won.
 
Whereas everything Biden says is pure gold. :D

Sorry dude, anyone who thinks Joe Biden is the height of intelligent speech has no standing to criticize Palin. Lol.

Yep, straw man alert.
 
Last edited:
Confirmation bias, I suppose, but I thought Romney came across as sneering and arrogant and disrespectful.

Obama was flat, but I thought he made no offensive remarks.

Obama won.

To me Romney came across as aggressive without being offensive, which is probably the best outcome for him.
 
Sure and like I said, if people are judging it by looks alone, then they are judging them the wrong way. I judge them differently. /shrug

Who "won" a presidential debate should be judged based on the effect that it has on the majority of voters, not on the effect it has on you, the individual.

The majority of voters use superficial measures to decide who won. Ergo, the person who does best in the superficial sense wins the debate. If voters were truly informed on the issues, there would only have been a loser from the debate, and that loser would be the American people.

Since the American people are content with nonsense, however, we are getting what we (collectively) deserve.
 
Who "won" a presidential debate should be judged based on the effect that it has on the majority of voters, not on the effect it has on you, the individual.

The majority of voters use superficial measures to decide who won. Ergo, the person who does best in the superficial sense wins the debate. If voters were truly informed on the issues, there would only have been a loser from the debate, and that loser would be the American people.

Since the American people are content with nonsense, however, we are getting what we (collectively) deserve.

This, pretty much. Debates are won and lost on style, less substance.
 
To me Romney came across as aggressive without being offensive, which is probably the best outcome for him.

I think both our confirmation biases are biased, StillBallin. I doubt these debates affect as many as 1% of the vote, though they are interesting.
 
Who "won" a presidential debate should be judged based on the effect that it has on the majority of voters, not on the effect it has on you, the individual.

The majority of voters use superficial measures to decide who won. Ergo, the person who does best in the superficial sense wins the debate. If voters were truly informed on the issues, there would only have been a loser from the debate, and that loser would be the American people.

Since the American people are content with nonsense, however, we are getting what we (collectively) deserve.

Icanthearyou.....Iamanobamaphile.....LOL.
 
Romney won, Obama lost.

Romney didn't win big, Obama didn't lose big, but the gap between because one had a good debate and one had a poor one seems large.

Mitt shocked me. After 08 and 12's primaries, I was NOT high on him as a debater. I agree with a talking head on CNN who stated that this was unlike anything we've seen from Romney before and his best national debate that he's done.

I also disagree on the specifics issue. I think he came prepared for that insinuation and actually did a great job of reframing the situation with his statements regarding broad goals and then bipartisan efforts to get the specifics. IF he continues to nail that correctly, which is questionable, then he can manage to deflect the "specifics" attack while simultaneously winning points for presenting himself as someone who wishes to smooth the partisan divide.
 
I think both our confirmation biases are biased, StillBallin. I doubt these debates affect as many as 1% of the vote, though they are interesting.

I agree with your second statement. But on the contrary, Romney performed a hell of a lot better than I thought he would. Obama didn't do poorly, but seemed too laid back and on the defensive. As much as I think that Romney is full of ****, I give credit where it's due - he had a solid stage performance.
 
I agree with your second statement. But on the contrary, Romney performed a hell of a lot better than I thought he would. Obama didn't do poorly, but seemed too laid back and on the defensive. As much as I think that Romney is full of ****, I give credit where it's due - he had a solid stage performance.

Ya, I hadn't watched Romney speak before. He wasn't bad -- and Obama was far too flat.
 
no. romney won. because Obama did not show up
the moderator was excellent
he let them have at each other
hell, he even allowed Obama to have four more minutes of debate time than romney
i especially like that he repeatedly narrowed the topics, to keep both from going off on tangents

He made those debating be the stars, rather than trying to make himself the star of the show. He did a good job MODERATING, not necessarily DIRECTING as people seem to want moderators to do sometimes.
 
To me Romney came across as aggressive without being offensive, which is probably the best outcome for him.

Actually this is one of the traits I think highlights why I thought Obama was a strong debater in 08.

I described it earlier to a friend in stating that Obama had the capacity in debates to be extremely aggressive and attacking while doing so in a very civil and academic tone. It allowed the attacks and aggression to land, but it gives a different emotional response in a viewer than someone doing such in a tone that is emotional or angry/annoyed. It's a rather difficult talent to have, but is very effective.

Romney, by the way, has been one of those that had a hard time attacking or being aggressive and not coming off emotional or angry or petulent when doing it in his previous debates. It's why I didn't have a lot of expectations for him yesterday. However, he shocked me because he basically pulled off that same tactic that Obama used in '08.

I also think that is what somewhat helped to throw Obama off his game. His own style was played right back against him, and that's a style that...in part...feeds off making the other person emotional due to the attacks, and thus giving the impression that you're above such things and the more collected one. Obama got a bit flustered, and couldn't get Romney to go onto the full defensive (instead of the attacking defensive stance he was in for most of the debate), and didn't quite seem to know how to react to that style of debate coming his way.

I think the next debate however will be far closer as the cats out of the bag now in a way in terms of Romney's approach to these debates.
 
Back
Top Bottom