If Obama won the second debate, why no bounce?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am curious about this. Pinheads lined up to proclaim Obama the clear "winner" in the 2nd debate, and some "right-wing" talking heads jumped on that bandwagon as well. Many of us on the right, simply didn't see Obama winning, but we were hooted down by the masses, who proclaimed certain victory in spite of any supporting evidence. From our perspective, Romney appeared to clobber Obama on the economy and his dismal record, while Obama's only real "points" of the night came from the benevolence of the moderator, and the unfair advantage he was given.

Well, a few days have passed and we've had time to gather post-debate polling data, but the strangest thing has happened! Instead of Obama gaining ground, he seems to have actually lost more ground to Romney. How can that be, pinheads? How can Obama have WON the debate so clearly, yet the American people weren't moved at all?

Before the debates, most analysts said Obama needed to at least make a good showing, he didn't need to clearly win, a tie would have been fine, compared to the previous debate. Well, apparently he didn't tie Romney either, because his poll numbers continue to tank. Keep in mind, we're to the point in the cycle where movement in either direction is very small, as most voters are already decided, some have already voted. In order for Obama to now reverse the trend Romney is on, he will need to completely annihilate Romney in tonight's debate. Unlikely this will happen, but you can expect Liberal Democrats to come out swinging as soon as the debate is over, proclaiming their guy the clear winner again. It's just too bad the hot air from Liberals can't win the presidency for Obama.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

it's because people define winning by incorrect standards. It doesn't matter if you win on the merits, or facts. What matters is if you can convince more people to vote for you, or less people to vote for the other guy. That is the only reason they are getting up and having these debates in the first place, and that is the standard by which they should ultimately be judged by.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

it's because people define winning by incorrect standards. It doesn't matter if you win on the merits, or facts. What matters is if you can convince more people to vote for you, or less people to vote for the other guy. That is the only reason they are getting up and having these debates in the first place, and that is the standard by which they should ultimately be judged by.

Again, if Obama had such a stellar showing in the 2nd debate, why did he not convince voters? If the purpose of the debates is to win voters, and Obama didn't do that, how can you say he "won" the debate? You're absolutely correct, if we judge by who best appealed to voters, Obama DIDN'T win the debate, Romney clearly DID.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

If the standard for "winning" is courting voters, then:

Again, if Obama had such a stellar showing in the 2nd debate,

He didn't have a stellar showing. A stellar showing would imply he won votes.

If the purpose of the debates is to win voters, and Obama didn't do that, how can you say he "won" the debate?

You can't.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

of course, people do like to decide who won a debate on an intellectual, merit based level. That doesn't make them incorrect. But it's second rate with regards to what really matters.

It is important to very clearly define what winning means when having a discussion about this stuff. Otherwise you'll have two people saying different things, both being correct, but having separate arguments.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well, Romney didn't make any gains either, he's been falling back in the past few days. Obama hasn't had a bounce on the level Romney did after the first debate, as Romney went from basically dead to halfway dead and almost in the running, and Obama hasn't fully slain the bad guy once again, but that doesn't mean that Obama lost. That's stupid.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's going to be so great in November, watching the bad guys get their asses kicked again just like in 2008. Rightists, America hates you too, and we're going to show you it! Justice is sweet! America is a liberal country, it has always been a liberal country, it was liberal from the first time we kicked the rightists asses in 1776, when kicked the rightists asses oncemore in 1865, and it will never falter, never fail to rightism! I love my country, I love this country that conservatives hate (well, they hate everyone but the white, wealthy, Christian men - and this election has shown that you can't build a majority off of that).

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

America is a liberal country

Conservatives remain the largest idealogical Group in the U.S.:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

It's going to be so great in November, watching the bad guys get their asses kicked again just like in 2008. Rightists, America hates you too, and we're going to show you it! Justice is sweet! America is a liberal country, it has always been a liberal country, it was liberal from the first time we kicked the rightists asses in 1776, when kicked the rightists asses oncemore in 1865, and it will never falter, never fail to rightism! I love my country, I love this country that conservatives hate (well, they hate everyone but the white, wealthy, Christian men - and this election has shown that you can't build a majority off of that).

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

How could I have been so silly. The wise American people see through the folly of wishy-washy namby-pamby liberalism, they don't want to totter around like women on bound feet*, they want to go straight for socialism.

*Actual phrase often used by Mao.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well, Romney didn't make any gains either, he's been falling back in the past few days. Obama hasn't had a bounce on the level Romney did after the first debate, as Romney went from basically dead to halfway dead and almost in the running, and Obama hasn't fully slain the bad guy once again, but that doesn't mean that Obama lost. That's stupid.

But polling numbers indicate Romney is gaining and Obama is not. Romney has never been "basically dead" and if that was your perception, I guess you misjudged things. Obama hasn't lost, no one said that, and it would be stupid to say that. But Obama certainly didn't win the second debate, that is obvious from the polling data. The election is 11/6, we'll know then if Obama lost.

 

[Airstrip One]

The debate was actually broken down into portions. People thought Obama won overall, but Romney won in very important areas such as the economy (kind of like how people said Ryan beat Biden in likability). I think that the only important category that Obama was thought to have won was foreign policy, and that was thanks to Lollipop's peanut gallery comments.

 

[Damocles]

Well, Romney didn't make any gains either, he's been falling back in the past few days. Obama hasn't had a bounce on the level Romney did after the first debate, as Romney went from basically dead to halfway dead and almost in the running, and Obama hasn't fully slain the bad guy once again, but that doesn't mean that Obama lost. That's stupid.

He's back on the uptick in the RCP average.

More interesting to me, it appears as if Romney may just take CO.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/co/colorado_romney_vs_obama-2023.html

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

He's back on the uptick in the RCP average.

More interesting to me, it appears as if Romney may just take CO.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/co/colorado_romney_vs_obama-2023.html

not if the libertarian neckbeards have anything to say about it

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The debate was actually broken down into portions. People thought Obama won overall, but Romney won in very important areas such as the economy (kind of like how people said Ryan beat Biden in likability). I think that the only important category that Obama was thought to have won was foreign policy, and that was thanks to Lollipop's peanut gallery comments.

I think Obama got plastered, but since Obama had been plastered in the first debate, there was this tendency to find a way to not say he got plastered here too. If for no other reason, to make the third debate more interesting. I think he'll get plastered again tonight, but look for the libs to claim he won, and thus won the debates in total. The fact that the polls haven't reflected this, is totally irrelevant to libs.