The Great Debate Megathread! Black Lincoln versus whiter, richer Douglas!

[merithyn]

Romney can have the debates, because Obama is going to win the election.

Obama has this locked up because two groups of people are stupid:  The people who think that the Tea Party is good idea, and women who vote.

You think voting for Obama is stupid? Because it looks like Obama has locked up the Soccer Mom vote.

[Eddie Teach]

A debate isn't like a football match though, your other metaphor's better.  It's like a boxing match, with the audience (and punditocracy) as judges.  There's always a winner, and even if you don't knock your opponent out you can win on points - which Romney did.

I think the real issue is whether this is 2004 or 1980.

There's always somebody declared a winner, but it's really only a win if it affects voters' minds.

[DGuller]

A debate isn't like a football match though, your other metaphor's better.  It's like a boxing match, with the audience (and punditocracy) as judges.  There's always a winner, and even if you don't knock your opponent out you can win on points - which Romney did.

I think the real issue is whether this is 2004 or 1980.

I don't buy it.  If every debate has to have a victor, then most debate "victories" are meaningless, because marginal decisions aren't going to move shit, and so you devalue the term.

[CountDeMoney]

DENVER (The Borowitz Report)—Millions of Americans lost consciousness on Wednesday night between the hours of 9 and 10:30 P.M. E.T., according to widespread anecdotal reports from coast to coast.

The sudden epidemic of sleepiness prevented voters from watching more than a minute or two of the first Presidential debate between former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, which the few observers who remained awake have called the most tedious in American history.

Moderator Jim Lehrer's opening instruction to the audience that they remain silent proved unnecessary, since within minutes most of them sat with their heads tipped forward, drool visibly dangling from their mouths.

Mr. Obama began the debate with a high-risk tactic that seemed designed to alienate huge swaths of the country—the use of math and facts—but ultimately his words seemed unlikely to turn off many viewers, who were soon off on their journey to dreamland.

Mr. Romney's much-trumpeted "zingers" were nowhere in evidence, except for a mystifying non-sequitur attack on PBS's Big Bird.

The only fireworks came at the very beginning of the debate, when Mr. Obama congratulated his wife, Michelle, on their twentieth wedding anniversary, drawing this response from Mr. Romney: "I disagree with your decision to marry Michelle. On Day One, I'll reverse it."

[merithyn]

And the biggest thing was he left Mittens off the hook when he said he wasn't proposing a $5 trillion deficit bump with his tax cuts, which is simply an outright lie.  Never bothered to challenge Mittens at all on it.

He hammered that home several times early on in the debate.

[Sheilbh]

I agree that the apparent decision for Obama to look presidential rather than hammer Mitt was not the optimal strategy.

He didn't look presidential.  He looked tired.  Especially at the point when he was saying how he was raring to fight for the American people, he looked exhausted and beaten.  Romney on the other hand seemed full of ideas and engaged.

Obama won't make the same mistakes again, but just to make sure he should be spending a lot of time with Bill.

[CountDeMoney]

And the biggest thing was he left Mittens off the hook when he said he wasn't proposing a $5 trillion deficit bump with his tax cuts, which is simply an outright lie.  Never bothered to challenge Mittens at all on it.

He hammered that home several times early on in the debate.

Not in the way that wins debates.

[garbon]

D4Gul unwilling to cede even mini-victory to Romney?

[Sheilbh]

I don't buy it.  If every debate has to have a victor, then most debate "victories" are meaningless, because marginal decisions aren't going to move shit, and so you devalue the term.

Most debate victories are meaningless.  Kerry won all the debates in 2004.  Clinton won more than she lost in 2008.  Debate's don't matter because of who wins or loses but because they illuminate something about the men running for office. 

The debates that did matter, in my view, were 1960, 1976, 1980, 1992 and 2000.

As I say I don't think Obama lost this debate in a significant way - in the way, say, Gore did in 2000 or Carter did in 1980.  I think it's more like 2004, he lost the debate like Bush but it doesn't necessarily matter.

[DGuller]

D4Gul unwilling to cede even mini-victory to Romney?

If you force me to pick a winner, with no draws allowed, then of course Mitt wins.  But, as I said, I think that's a silly way to decide debates.  Not all the debates are going to be decisive either way.  A lot of them are just entirely forgettable in a week's time.

[derspiess]

MENBC is pissed.

[merithyn]

The biggest way that Romney won this debate was in coming off like a decent, likable guy. It was the biggest thing he was lacking before tonight.

[CountDeMoney]

Papa Joe's up next, taking on the little whippersnapper "I don't have time to give you all the math" from Wisconsin, but as we know from 1988, the Veep debates don't affect the outcome.

Unless Paul Ryan winks at the camera.

[CountDeMoney]

MENBC is pissed.

You should've seen the first 5 minutes immediately after the debate.  *This* close to Maddow breaking out the defib paddles for Big Ed.   

Chris Matthews put the debate loss completely on the President.

[FunkMonk]

I can see this debate performance maybe galvanizing Republicans who've been disheartened by the Romney campaign over the last couple of weeks.