Actually the only polling methodology I have seen that shows any real effect from the debate is the predictive markets, and Obama started making a recovery in thos between 8:00 and 9:00 this morning (central time) after hitting a low of 66% chance of winning. Meanwhile Romney dropped about the same time after hitting a high of 35.5% (yes, I do realize that means there is according to these a .5% chance that both will be elected- an artifact of the two markets being tracked seperately.)

I'm confused by your remark. I'm not a pundit, and my comments in my post were my own, so I'm befuddled by your commentary.

I also wasn't trying to convince anyone of my perspective. I was responding to the OP with my own review of the debate.

pundit |ˈpəndit|
noun
1 an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public : a globe-trotting financial pundit.
2 variant spelling of pandit .

See, he was just paying you a compliment by calling you an expert. Alternatively, a Hindu scholar.

The PBS comment shows he has no flipping idea how to make cuts. PBS gets $440 million a year. This is 0.012% of the national budget. Cutting this funding nets you nothing.

And Obama seemed tried and like he didn't want to be there... given that it took place on his wedding anniversary, this makes perfect sense.

Something Obama did say afterwards makes perfect sense, as I was thinking about it the whole debate: Romney walked in and basically said that everything Romney had been saying for the last 3 months was wrong. It was a flip-flop writ large.

Indeed. The fascinating thing to me is that it revealed quite a bit about Obama. If I could stomach it, I'd almost be interested in watching the rest of the debate to see if his demeanor ever changed.

It's bizarre to see someone debating with a person who's willing to completely change all of the assumptions coming in, and not go for their throat for doing so. I was befuddled back in the first Bush debates why Gore didn't just start talking about Preston Bush. I'd think that would be an easy win. Similarly, Romney gave Obama a huge opening for just hammering away on Flip-Flop. Obama probably wasn't prepared with all of the facts for that, but I'd think it's something the campaign has been putting some focus on and Obama should have some juicy details on it.



The only thing I'm expert at is sticking my foot in my mouth. That might qualify me for Talk Radio, but I hope I'm not that much of a blowhard.

Actually I was more impressed with Obama's statement about the discord between the parties- when he described the conflicts he has had both with Republicans and his own party as "Fights that needed to be had", and his accusation (which I thought was dead on) that romney had not shown the backbone necessary to stand on principles when necessary.

My apologies. It seemed you were defending a previous post that was arguing that my opinion was wrong (which it can't be, as it's an opinion).

I do agree with the sentiment that Romney won; I just don't think it was a huge, sweeping victory that's going to win him the race (which a lot of pundits seem to be implying).

I find this amusing, mainly because it tracks well with my thoughts as to how the race will proceed after this debate. Obama may not have done well, but he probably did enough to win.

You're aware that the President doesn't write those laws and thus specifics are kind of pointless right? Congress is in charge of writing any future budget and he specifically said he's keeping the options open so that lawmakers of both parties could contribute. It's not like 4 years ago Obama released a plan detailing where he'd spend the additional 5 trillion in debt and which industries and employees he'd regulate out of business.

This debate is about what I expect when one side is arguing from spin and the others facts, figures, and logic.

The former being Romney's side of course.

Romney claims he has a plan- specifically his "five point plan". In fact if you go here his web site claims to outline his pan to create jobs- but at least when i look at it all it shows me are several blank sheets- about what I expected. Everyone proposes a plan as a place to start negotiations. If he had said "No, I don't have a plan, because my plan wouldn't be what was enacted anyways" that would be oe thing, but he has been touting his plan for a year now, and nobody has seen what it is. I'm thinking we are looking at another "list of known communists" situation.