Poll: Obama Leading Romney 49% To 46% Ahead Of Second Debate

[virtualtraveller]

Romney is a bully, he came across in this debate as a bully, interjecting, arguing directly with Obama, making taunting gestures and asking questions directly to the president when in fact that was the audience's job, a few times I wish Crowley had been a bit more forceful and threatened to turn off his mike for a bit, this is how he won the last debate, but if you watched it on CNN where there was an audience 'approval meter' every time he interrupted or criticised Obama instead of answering the questions, they gave him negative marks. Obama stood his ground well without lowering himself to the same bowser style. Being a forceful debater is about the only thing Romney has to offer, all his remarks are half truths or 'are you better off than 4 years ago' conveniently overlooking the world recession caused in part by a Republican administration. I'm glad Obama put him in his place so effectively over the cheap political capital he's trying to squeeze out of the Benghazi attack.

[Jingthing]

Both may not fully deserve to be elected, but one will. I don't think either candidate is the dream candidate for the majority of Americans on either side of the American ideological divide.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

Obama is coming out the winner of debate 2 in all post debate polls and even Krauthammer has stated that Obama won on points. So I think it's fair to say that public perception does matter and Obama won the debate. Trying to say it was a draw when the public overwhelmingly thinks Obama won it is simply not credible.

There will be polling results all over the place before Thursday comes but from what I've read so far, Obama has won in the overwhelming number of polls but that isn't the same as an overwhelming number of people polled saying he won. He didn't outscore Romney by that much. The first poll released of people who actually watched the debate had 37% saying Obama won. That's a far cry from the 67% who said Romney won the first debate. Is it strong enough to stop Romney's momentum? Time will tell.

[Jingthing]

I would agree with that. The majority public perception is that Romney won debate one bigger than Obama won debate two. But Obama did win. If he had lost debate two, that would be a serious problem for Obama's reelection hopes. He won. So the race continues and yes the demographics still do favor Obama.

[notmyself]

Both may not fully deserve to be elected, but one will. I don't think either candidate is the dream candidate for the majority of Americans on either side of the American ideological divide.

You often find yourself in the position of having to vote for the least bad which in this case is an easy call.

[koheesti]

Romney is a bully, he came across in this debate as a bully, interjecting, arguing directly with Obama, making taunting gestures and asking questions directly to the president when in fact that was the audience's job, a few times I wish Crowley had been a bit more forceful and threatened to turn off his mike for a bit, this is how he won the last debate, but if you watched it on CNN where there was an audience 'approval meter' every time he interrupted or criticised Obama instead of answering the questions, they gave him negative marks. Obama stood his ground well without lowering himself to the same bowser style.

I had the same feeling, Obama didn't go into the negative for ignoring the mod nearly as much- until the very end.

Being a forceful debater is about the only thing Romney has to offer, all his remarks are half truths or 'are you better off than 4 years ago' conveniently overlooking the world recession caused in part by a Republican administration. I'm glad Obama put him in his place so effectively over the cheap political capital he's trying to squeeze out of the Benghazi attack.

Obama actually lied or misled practically everytime he opened his mouth this debate. Maybe that's why he was so silent last time because he was afraid of getting caught.

He again brought up that he would take the money we are saving by not fighting two wars and blah, blah, blah when there is no savings, we borrowed that money (as he himself said in the first debate).

Obama said he was for self-reliance. LO-F'n-L.

He said he has done wonders for the coal industry, has treated women fairly in regards to pay - both untrue.,

Almost everything out of his mouth about Benghazi was a lie. Well, most of his answer he dodged it all together, talking about ending the Iraw war like promised for instance when that was all set up by the Bush Admin before he even took office.

He talks about inheriting an awful economy but left out that he took office in Feb 2009, the recession ended in June 2009 before his policies too effect and when they did, the economy started sliding again and hasn't stopped.

Name a topic - Obama lied or misled. He has a 4-year record to run on and didn't do too well defending it, and he laid out no plan for the future.

The sad thing about it all, is that Romney also avoided answering questions and should have show a little more respect to Candy. If he had, he would have walked away with a victory hands down.

[koheesti]

Oh, the only thing worse than watching Obama and Romney in this second debate was being subjected to how well their campaigns thought they did. You mean Obama's campaign manager thought he won? Really? And Romney's campaign manager thought that Romney won? Really? Karl Rove thought Romney won and John Kerry thought Obama won? WOW! How is any of that even close to being news? What a waste of time at 5:30 in the morning to watch that crap. That's why I like watching the debates on CNN with that undecided voter real-time graph at the bottom. It gives a better, more accurate idea of how they are doing in the minds of the people who count - the voters.

[keemapoot]

^ I agree, the Libya card is a very minor issue in this campaign, despite Republican attempts to blow it up. Americans have come to expect screw ups abroad, such as er...Iraq.

no its most certainly not ( now ) !!

http://www.dailymail...-Watergate.html

Then there's 'fast & furious' or the many leaks coming out of the White house which have jeopardized U.S Navy Seals and the security interests of her allies. There are many Watergates surrounding the Obama administration, yet the press seems reluctant in the extreme to follow them up, indeed it appears to do the opposite.

You guys can keep beating the coverup conspiracy drums, but really that's not where the election will be decided. BTW, interesting that in spite of Hilary taking a bullet for Obama on Libya, he did unequivocally confirm that the buck stops with him on this. So, some prior discussion I had with UG about this almost seems moot regarding Hilary's positioning for 2016 and whether this would hurt her. Seems to have slid right off her back.

[uptheos]

I'd vote for the candidate that says, "we're not paying back the debt..........do what you like"

[keemapoot]

I'd vote for the candidate that says, "we're not paying back the debt..........do what you like"

Is that the same guy who declares China a currency manipulator the day after he is elected?

[uptheos]

I'd vote for the candidate that says, "we're not paying back the debt..........do what you like"

Is that the same guy who declares China a currency manipulator the day after he is elected?

Need to get it down somehow - seems the easiest way.

They're doing it in Europe, get billions in bailouts and when it has to be paid back there's riots.

[keemapoot]

I'd vote for the candidate that says, "we're not paying back the debt..........do what you like"

Is that the same guy who declares China a currency manipulator the day after he is elected?

Need to get it down somehow - seems the easiest way.

They're doing it in Europe, get billions in bailouts and when it has to be paid back there's riots.

Can you imagine the riots at Wal-Mart when all their cheap crap disappears? Worse than Greece.

[uptheos]

I'd vote for the candidate that says, "we're not paying back the debt..........do what you like"

Is that the same guy who declares China a currency manipulator the day after he is elected?

Need to get it down somehow - seems the easiest way.

They're doing it in Europe, get billions in bailouts and when it has to be paid back there's riots.

Can you imagine the riots at Wal-Mart when all their cheap crap disappears? Worse than Greece.

The rioting of Wall-Mart People, now there's something I'd pay to see!

Edited October 17, 2012 by uptheos

[GiHadOrange]

Obama targeted women and Ohio and he achieved his goal of shoring up their support. Romney was weak on his women issues responses iin respect to the pay equity issue (Ledbetter), contraception and his nonsensical comment about women in his cabinet.

Romney should have said, "I'm interested to hear the President explain why women in his own administration are paid less than the men"

In the woman issue i was more impressed by Romney than by Obama. The Potus had just some anecdotes about his single parent mother to offer, meanwhile Romney came up with some figures and statistics, next to this cabinet story.

[uptheos]

Presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley was heavily criticised this morning after appearing to side with Barack Obama during last night's debate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218841/Presidential-Debate-2012-Outrage-moderator-Candy-Crowley-sides-Obama.html#ixzz29YE4Gv3d

[chiangmaikelly]

The rioting of Wall-Mart People, now there's something I'd pay to see!

Did you like the 2011 riots in London then?

[uptheos]

The rioting of Wall-Mart People, now there's something I'd pay to see!

Did you like the 2011 riots in London then?

Obviously you haven't seen The Wall Mart people (google them in images).

[chiangmaikelly]

The rioting of Wall-Mart People, now there's something I'd pay to see!

Did you like the 2011 riots in London then?

Obviously you haven't seen The Wall Mart people (google them in images).

Sorry but I think anyone who pay to see people riot is a bit daft.

[GiHadOrange]

Isn't the economy the most important thing right now?

Of course the economic is more important.

Looks like Obama could not disprove the claim that he is a socialist.

[GiHadOrange]

^ I agree, the Libya card is a very minor issue in this campaign, despite Republican attempts to blow it up. Americans have come to expect screw ups abroad, such as er...Iraq.

no its most certainly not ( now ) !!

http://www.dailymail...-Watergate.html

Then there's 'fast & furious' or the many leaks coming out of the White house which have jeopardized U.S Navy Seals and the security interests of her allies. There are many Watergates surrounding the Obama administration, yet the press seems reluctant in the extreme to follow them up, indeed it appears to do the opposite.

But you got a lot of talks about Big Birds in the media. Isn't that not enough?

[samran]

Isn't the economy the most important thing right now?

Of course the economic is more important.

Looks like Obama could not disprove the claim that he is a socialist.

Unfortunately the American right's definition of 'socialist' bears absolutely no resemblance to the definition used in the rest of the world.

By any measure in any other western democracy, the Democrats - and Obama- would be a right-of-centre party.

[GiHadOrange]

The rioting of Wall-Mart People, now there's something I'd pay to see!

Did you like the 2011 riots in London then?

Obviously you haven't seen The Wall Mart people (google them in images).

Sorry but I think anyone who pay to see people riot is a bit daft.

Take his advice, google: People of Walmart.

It will more likely look like a John Waters film than a real riot, but i can understand that a quite a few people would not understand why to pay for a John Waters film or even watch something like that.

[chiangmaikelly]

Did you like the 2011 riots in London then?

Obviously you haven't seen The Wall Mart people (google them in images).

Sorry but I think anyone who pay to see people riot is a bit daft.

Take his advice, google: People of Walmart.

It will more likely look like a John Waters film than a real riot, but i can understand that a quite a few people would not understand why to pay for a John Waters film or even watch something like that.

John Waters the guy famous for brown stripes and a 300 pound Transvestite? That John Waters. You want me to watch Pink Flamingo?

[Ulysses G.]

It's really true. When a side is complaining about moderation, you know that is always the LOSING side.

Well they certainly lost on that question. However, now Candy Crowly is admitting that she and Obama were wrong and Romney was right. If a moderator is going to do "fact" checking during the middle of a debate, they better have their facts straight.

[GiHadOrange]

It's really true. When a side is complaining about moderation, you know that is always the LOSING side.

Well they certainly lost on that question. However, now Candy Crowly is admitting that she and Obama were wrong and Romney was right. If a moderator is going to do "fact" checking during the middle of a debate, they better have their facts straight.

Fair enough.

Does that mean she didn't got upset after someone complained?

[GiHadOrange]

Obviously you haven't seen The Wall Mart people (google them in images).

Sorry but I think anyone who pay to see people riot is a bit daft.

Take his advice, google: People of Walmart.

It will more likely look like a John Waters film than a real riot, but i can understand that a quite a few people would not understand why to pay for a John Waters film or even watch something like that.

John Waters the guy famous for brown stripes and a 300 pound Transvestite? That John Waters. You want me to watch Pink Flamingo?

Yes.

Now google: people of walmart.

And rethink why some people might be willing to pay to see them rioting.

[Scott]

This topic is about the election and polls. It's not about rioting, so I think we can drop Walmart and other off-topic subjects.

[Ulysses G.]

Regardless of who "won" (a lot of political commentators thought it was a draw, but most of the instant polls gave a slight advantage to Obama), most of the Obama campaign narrative has been how "radical and dangerous" Romney supposedly is, but Romney came across as competent, moderate, and normal once again. He is quickly turning all those fallacious attack ads into a gigantic waste of money. My guess is no bump in the polls for Obama and continued, slower momentum for Romney. Could the whole election end up turning on the last debate?

Edited October 17, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[keemapoot]

I'd vote for the candidate that says, "we're not paying back the debt..........do what you like"

Is that the same guy who declares China a currency manipulator the day after he is elected?

Need to get it down somehow - seems the easiest way.

They're doing it in Europe, get billions in bailouts and when it has to be paid back there's riots.

Below is what Xinhua had to say about it today. Romney has forgotten more about global trade and China trade than Obama will ever know, and he knows he's just playing a political card. But, everything is fair at this point. In reality, Romney, if elected, knows he has to play ball with China for the good of both countries.

It seems Obama takes a more objective view on the dilemma facing the U.S. manufacturing industry, as he admitted that some low-paid and low-tier jobs will never return to America.

Romney's willful attacks on China and unfair trade rules do not necessarily mean that the billionaire, a veteran investor who used to profit handsomely from doing business with China, does not know the root of problem -- he said only said so to further his campaign.

U.S. politicians need to paint a truer picture for their constituents. This picture should embrace China's rise and acknowledge that engaging with China will amplify win-win results, but scapegoating, isolating and vilifying China will hurt both sides. The economic interests of the world's top two economies are far too intertwined for these economic powers to handle a break up.

http://news.xinhuane...c_131912698.htm

Edited October 17, 2012 by keemapoot

[geriatrickid]

It was rather hyporitical of Romney to play the China card. After all, it is the USA that has gone cap in hand looking for foreign investors.The largest holder of US debt are US citizens. Yes, China holds about 25% of the foreign holders' debt, but it is not because they want it. They have no choice, if they want to do business with the USA. If China could, it would reduce its US holdings, but any attempt to significantly reduce its holdings would negatively impact the US economy and result in a financial loss for the Chinese. Romney and all those complaining about Chinese investments should ask themselves the bigger question of how it happened. They complain about the trade deficit with China, but those Chinese investments act to reduce the trade deficit.Imagine the implications if tomorrow, China says, ok, America, you don't like us holding your debt, fine, here you go, we're dumping our investments, see you later, and whoosh, the US economy takes a hit and thousands lose their jobs.

It was laughable that the candidates were attacking Apple's manufacturing supply chain and sourcing from China. In case they didn't know it, Apple is a multinational and sells to markets other than the USA. It's nice that Romney, aka Mr. outsourcing, now wishes to push the doctrine of manufacturing Apple products in the USA, but he forgets that the Chinese government like many western governments has actively supported its manufacturing industry. If the USA wants to compete then it must step up to the plate with training programs and direct tax incentives and Romney said he wants less government. He can't have it both ways. The strategy to support the US auto industry retained a core manufacturing capability and prevented the loss of skilled jobs. That is something Romney opposed. If the US government wasn't indirectly helping Boeing, and the EU, not helping Airbus, they would lose even more market share to Brazil supported Embraer, the Russian supported industry and even to the Canadian supported Bombardier. That's the reality. Ideally governments wouldn't subsidize industry, but imagine the fallout if the USA slashed its bloated farm subsidy programs or the EU cut its farm subsidies.