It's really amazing how one debate completely turned the tide

[sg0508]

I actually thought Romney would do well in the debate as the challenger typically does in debate #1, but I never thought you would see what we are seeing.   

I'll go back to what I've been saying (and I'm an Obama supporter this time around)...the economy, the economy, the economy and it appeared that for once, perhaps a perceived to be bad economy (his fault or not) would be overcome, but yet again, it looks like that issue may trump the incumbent. 

Again, not to say it's completely like 1980, but it seems like a lot of voters planned to vote democratic thinking that Romney just didn't have it or whatnot and then, his "stirring, yet untruthful, top 1% smirk" in the debate completely turned it around. 

It really appears to me that Romney could actually steal this thing and that OH is the last state of the group of states that Romney needs to turn.  I thought CO and VA were over, but suddenly Romney has a real shot at them.  FL was hanging tough for the president, but it looks like that one may be gone now and even NH is warming up to the republican ticket. 

Surreal to say the least.

[Frodo]

Like another poster said, it really does seem like voters were looking for an excuse -any excuse- to abandon Obama and support Romney.  And it seems like the first debate gave it to them.  If President Obama doesn't turn the tide in the second debate, he is done.  

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Yeah, a lot of people were gonna vote for Obama because they just didn't want the Romney they'd heard about. But thanks to Tagg Romney telling his father to move sharp-center in the debate, they now have a reason to vote for him. And I don't believe Obama will win the second debate by a big enough margin to shift the race back to where it was in September. The debate took away the advantages that Obama had begun to enjoy, especially on the "Who's Better For The Economy" question. He's gonna have to really connect to get that back.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Anna Navarro, a Republican Strategist on CNN, said yesterday that in the second debate Obama needs "step up, stand up, cheer up, look up or pack up."

[ilikeverin]

I just don't understand.  I really don't.

[sg0508]

Yeah, a lot of people were gonna vote for Obama because they just didn't want the Romney they'd heard about. But thanks to Tagg Romney telling his father to move sharp-center in the debate, they now have a reason to vote for him. And I don't believe Obama will win the second debate by a big enough margin to shift the race back to where it was in September. The debate took away the advantages that Obama had begun to enjoy, especially on the "Who's Better For The Economy" question. He's gonna have to really connect to get that back.

If you had to take your guess at the outcome of the Old Dominion today, what do you think? That 7pm close is the clear Bellweather tipping point this year.

[sg0508]

I just don't understand.  I really don't.

Like Bill Clinton said at the DNC, unless people are "feeling it", they vote you out and we've all learned that people vote their pocketbooks. If you were unemployed four years ago and you're unemployed today, or you took a lesser job to survive and/or you got unemployed during the last four years, you're looking for any reason to vote the incumbent out.  Some things don't change.

[Psychic Octopus]

This is why chattering about how candidates are "dead" is useless and premature. For god's sake, we saw Newt Gingrich rise from the grave twice in the primaries. Things aren't over until they are over. Anything is possible.

Like another poster said, it really does seem like voters were looking for an excuse -any excuse- to abandon Obama and support Romney.  And it seems like the first debate gave it to them.  If President Obama doesn't turn the tide in the second debate, he is done. 

I concur that Obama needs a victory to regain momentum, but I'd hardly say that he is done if he loses. Obama still has an electoral advantage. The election is being fought on Bush 2004 states (with the exception of NH and WI). Now, if Romney starts pulling even in states like Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, then that'd be cause for concern.

[milhouse24]

There were a lot of random polls beginning in January to August that showed Romney tied or beating Obama.  It was very strange, but the Wash/ABC polls really woke me up and realized that it would be a really close election no matter what the media, Hollywood, or pop culture said.  The 2010 election proved how weak Obama had become and the Democrat brand.  The Tea Party really grew into a movement with a lot of swing voters and middle class white people.  To me, it never seemed that the "Hollywood media" showed the real dissatisfaction on the ground that people had with the Obama administration or the state of the economy.  The "Hollywood media" had people on the Obama bandwagon for mostly superficial reasons and social issue reasons, and it created a echo chamber where democrats and liberal activists believed the hype and that Obama was hugely popular and would sweep the map in a re-election.  It was really the most absurdly delusional belief that Obama would win in a Reagan 84 landslide.  Most liberal activists never took Romney seriously, laughed at all the Republicans, and basically just mis-underestimated the popularity of the Obama brand.  

[ilikeverin]

I just don't understand.  I really don't.

Like Bill Clinton said at the DNC, unless people are "feeling it", they vote you out and we've all learned that people vote their pocketbooks. If you were unemployed four years ago and you're unemployed today, or you took a lesser job to survive and/or you got unemployed during the last four years, you're looking for any reason to vote the incumbent out.  Some things don't change.

Well, sure, the economy's not great.  I just don't understand how a debate where nothing particularly noteworthy happened—no gaffes, no witty one-liners—has led to a four point change in the polls in a year where until now the polls had basically been the most static of any presidential election year since the beginning of polling.

[sg0508]

I just don't understand.  I really don't.

Like Bill Clinton said at the DNC, unless people are "feeling it", they vote you out and we've all learned that people vote their pocketbooks. If you were unemployed four years ago and you're unemployed today, or you took a lesser job to survive and/or you got unemployed during the last four years, you're looking for any reason to vote the incumbent out.  Some things don't change.

Well, sure, the economy's not great.  I just don't understand how a debate where nothing particularly noteworthy happened—no gaffes, no witty one-liners—has led to a four point change in the polls in a year where until now the polls had basically been the most static of any presidential election year since the beginning of polling.

Politicians breed on dumb people.  They are salesman.  They HATE smart, educated people who can put 1 and 1 together.  They look for people who will believe anything they hear.

[Silent Hunter]

I concur that Obama needs a victory to regain momentum, but I'd hardly say that he is done if he loses. Obama still has an electoral advantage. The election is being fought on Bush 2004 states (with the exception of NH and WI). Now, if Romney starts pulling even in states like Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, then that'd be cause for concern.

Agree. It is entirely possible to lose all three debates and still win the general.

I thought for a while that this wasn't going to be a Reagan-1984 landslide, but that Obama's win would be convincing. Now I think it will be a narrow, 2004-size win.

[Cryptic]

We're not going to recover the lead we had at the start of the month, but I do think good performances in the 2nd and 3rd debates might nudge Obama back into the lead, even if it's only 1 or 2 points. 

As for why one debate changed the game so much, it's the saying "People vote their fears, not their hopes."  Before the debate, people feared Mitt Romney, but the debate changed their perception enough they now fear the economy more, even though the President's Approval ratings are still good. 

I think we can still pull this out of the fire, but it is going to be a narrow win, like Bush's victories. 

[Frodo]

Like another poster said, it really does seem like voters were looking for an excuse -any excuse- to abandon Obama and support Romney.  And it seems like the first debate gave it to them.  If President Obama doesn't turn the tide in the second debate, he is done. 

I concur that Obama needs a victory to regain momentum, but I'd hardly say that he is done if he loses. Obama still has an electoral advantage. The election is being fought on Bush 2004 states (with the exception of NH and WI). Now, if Romney starts pulling even in states like Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, then that'd be cause for concern.

That's why I said the second debate is crucial -despite the setback in Denver, Obama still retains -as you said- an electoral advantage.  If he doesn't turn things around in New York on Tuesday, he will lose what remains of the built-in advantages of incumbency.  

[Bandit3 the Worker]

All because the media flapped its spleezo yip.

[BM]

It's not that surprising really. Everyone should have known Romney would shift to the center in the debates and that Democrats were going too far in attempts to make him out to be a monster. That image wasn't going to hold up like it could have for Gingrich or Santorum. Romney just isn't "that guy". And Obama has always been an overrated politician outside of campaign rallies.

Anyone who thought Obama was going to win in another landslide hasn't been paying attention the past 4 years. He could still very well win, but it was always going to be close.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama was Tom Dewey with his moderate heroism.

[Maxwell]

I think Obama is done if he does as badly as he did in the first debate. Of course, that isn't likely to happen, but who knows, he's really not a good debater.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Yeah, a lot of people were gonna vote for Obama because they just didn't want the Romney they'd heard about. But thanks to Tagg Romney telling his father to move sharp-center in the debate, they now have a reason to vote for him. And I don't believe Obama will win the second debate by a big enough margin to shift the race back to where it was in September. The debate took away the advantages that Obama had begun to enjoy, especially on the "Who's Better For The Economy" question. He's gonna have to really connect to get that back.

If you had to take your guess at the outcome of the Old Dominion today, what do you think? That 7pm close is the clear Bellweather tipping point this year.

I still think advantage Obama by 1-2 points. A PPP poll had him up 3 last week, and an CBS had him up 5. Only NBC had Romney up 1.

[Likely Voter]

It isn't that 'amazing'. Challengers usually win the first debate and get bumps. In the case of Mondale he was so far behind it didn't change the race. Perot and Clinton got bumps against Bush Sr. Bush Jr got a bump against Gore (who was kind of an incumbant). With Kerry he went from 6 behind to 2 behind, putting him back in the game but he wasnt able to build on it. Romney essentially got the same kind of bump as Kerry, but he was only 3 behind so in his case the debate put him ahead (in the national polls). I actually pointed out that possibility before the debate. While I didnt expect Obama to do as badly as Bush in 2004, it was clearly a possibility.

[Psychic Octopus]

Like another poster said, it really does seem like voters were looking for an excuse -any excuse- to abandon Obama and support Romney.  And it seems like the first debate gave it to them.  If President Obama doesn't turn the tide in the second debate, he is done. 

I concur that Obama needs a victory to regain momentum, but I'd hardly say that he is done if he loses. Obama still has an electoral advantage. The election is being fought on Bush 2004 states (with the exception of NH and WI). Now, if Romney starts pulling even in states like Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, then that'd be cause for concern.

That's why I said the second debate is crucial -despite the setback in Denver, Obama still retains -as you said- an electoral advantage.  If he doesn't turn things around in New York on Tuesday, he will lose what remains of the built-in advantages of incumbency.  

Ah, OK. Then we agree. Though I think Obama's organization is stronger in those states, so I don't think the Democrats have that much to worry about. But of course, anything's possible.

[opebo]

I just don't understand.  I really don't.

Obama is a black, you see.  A lot of white voters don't like blacks. 

[J. J.]

I think one poll made it a horse race. 

The VP debate does not appear to have changed the poll numbers.  The Libya answer can open up potential problems.

A possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election. 

[opebo]

A possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election. 

A white realignment to Southern Style voting, perhaps, but nothing else.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A possibility of a realignment is hovering over this election. 

Shut up