Romney did well in 1st Presidential Debate

[_beastie]

FiveThirtyEight increased Romney's odds of winning the electoral college from 12.9% to 15.1%. Yeehaw.

The FiveThirtyEight forecast did show a clear shift toward Mr. Romney on Friday, giving him a 15.1 percent chance of winning the Electoral College — up from 12.9 percent on Thursday.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Of course, it's still early for the debate bounce. Maybe it will end up improving Romney's odds even more. He may make it all the way up to 20%.

But rest assured that the first debate put fire in Obama's belly and stirred in competitive streak, just like losing did for Romney. I predict Obama will be much stronger in the future debates. I also predict that the jobs number will give Obama a bit of a bounce, as well.

In the end, I don't believe the first debate is going to change the election, although obviously it has helped dispirited republicans.

[_Ceeboo]

Good morning, beastie

But rest assured that the first debate put fire in Obama's belly and stirred in competitive streak,

For the sake of my beloved Democrat friends, I sure hope so.

just like losing did for Romney.

Typo?
Wishful thinking?
Really how you saw it?

I predict Obama will be much stronger in the future debates.

I don't think it's possible for him to not be stronger than he was in debate #1. Do you?

In the end, I don't believe the first debate is going to change the election

Surely, these debates have little/no impact on many (I would suspect that this would include folks like Ceeboo and beastie), but they have and do indeed sway the pool of undecided.

The entire collection of debates (from 1 to 4) are about reaching this pool. Fighting for their votes is the entire and sole focus.
in my opinion, momentum plays a huge roll and it clearly matters.

Just my take.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_beastie]

just like losing did for Romney.

Typo?
Wishful thinking?
Really how you saw it?

Romney was losing badly before the election. That put fire in his belly. I believe that, along with nonstop practice for the past several years, is why he did better than Obama.

I don't think it's possible for him to not be stronger than he was in debate #1. Do you?

Unless he falls asleep.

The entire collection of debates (from 1 to 4) are about reaching this pool. Fighting for their votes is the entire and sole focus.
in my opinion, momentum plays a huge roll and it clearly matters.

Just my take.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Part of the problem is that a large segment of undecided voters are simply uninformed voters. They will not be swayed by the debate, when many of them probably didn't even pay attention to it. Yes, some undecided voters are involved and informed. But many are not.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-2 ... ction.html

Vavreck asked thousands of voters -- both decided and undecided -- a battery of basic, multiple-choice questions about who’s who in politics. The questions were designed to be easy. You didn’t have to know that John Boehner is Speaker of the House. You just had to know he is a congressman rather than a judge or the vice president.

According to Vavreck’s polling, only 35 percent of undecided voters could identify Boehner’s job as “congressman.” Only 69 percent could say that Joe Biden is the vice president rather than, say, a representative. Only 17 percent can identify Chief Justice John Roberts as a judge.

Decided voters have an easier time rattling off the job titles of Boehner and Biden, as well as those of Harry Reid, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi. (Interestingly, they struggle more than undecideds to identify Roberts.)

That’s likely because decided voters are paying more attention to the election. About 43 percent of decided voters say they’re following the presidential election “very closely.” Only 12 percent of undecided voters say the same.

xplain why debates typically have little effect on elections. They’re the least likely to care about a gaffe -- or even to know when one has occurred. They’re more likely to throw out political mail and tune out political ads. If they live in a swing state, they’ve already been buffeted by -- and proved immune to -- months of commercials and phone messages.

Vavreck has been tracking a group of 44,000 voters since December 2011. When she started, 94 percent were already leaning toward a candidate. Of the 6 percent who were truly undecided, 33 percent now say they’re going with Mitt Romney and 37 percent with President Barack Obama. The ranks of the original undecided voters were partially replenished by voters who had expressed a preference in 2011 but have since grown uncertain. Of the new undecideds, slightly more were Romney supporters in 2011 than were Obama supporters, but the total numbers are small.

There’s little reason to believe that undecided voters in this campaign will break sharply toward one candidate. The votes of the undecideds seem to be roughly evenly split, and if any big news happens between now and the election, they’re likely to be the last to know about it, and the least interested in following up on it. If Obama is going to turn this into a rout, or if Romney is to salvage a win, it will probably require changing minds that are already made up, or increasing (or suppressing) turnout among base voters.

In other words, don’t expect the votes of the mythical undecideds to actually be decisive. It’s likely to be the decided who will, well, decide.

In my opinion, the main benefit of Romney's win of the first debate was to encourage republican voters. They were getting very dispirited and that could affect turnout.

[_Ceeboo]

Romney was losing badly before the election.

Ohhh, yes!
Because the thread title is "Romney did well in 1st Presidential debate", I thought you were suggesting that Romney lost the deabte. (My sincere apology for the misunderstanding)

Unless he falls asleep.

for what it's worth, I suspect Obama will be much, much better on the next debates.

Part of the problem is that a large segment of undecided voters are simply uninformed voters.

Without question, I agree with you.
But, this is nothing new. in my opinion, it has been this way for decades (perhaps from the very origins of US Presidential elections)

They will not be swayed by the debate

With respect, I disagree with you completely.
in my opinion, there is a pool of people who are greatly (in some cases soley) impacted/swayed by these debates and the victor of these debates alone (in their view) determines what lever they pull (Thank God they removed the chad system)
.

In my opinion, the main benefit of Romney's win of the first debate was to encourage republican voters. They were getting very dispirited and that could affect turnout.

Indeed!
Momentum and Rallying the troops was clearly an outcome from debate #1.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_moksha]

[_krose]

Thanks for posting this, Señor Pingüino. I was going to, but got distracted by football and real life.

I tell you, Bagley is almost always pitch perfect. I don't know how he consistently does it.

[_palerobber]

Romney's "victory" in that debate was via perception. He was perceived not for individual "points" (which there were) but for being the only person on stage who had authority, control, and confidence. He revealed his actual ability to be President. His "performance" was as memorabe as Obama's, just that his was more preferred for the purpose.
If you really need to go through specifics we can, but it seems rather tedious...but you can decide.

so you can't think of any specifics that will break through with voters and you declare Romney the victor based on style points and media spin. i don't think we have much disagreement there. hey, in politics that's still a win, but these warm fuzzies Romney generated Wed. can easily fade. fundamentally, "authority, control, and confidence" have never been his problem. his problem is that people don't like him and don't like his platform.

sorry, but the consensus of scientifically conducted public opinion polls isn't 'speculation', it's evidence. and currently the evidence suggests Romney is losing the E.C., badly. even if he were able to win every state where Obama currently leads in polls by 5 points or less (using RCP composites), he'd still lose the E.C.

well, that is just not accurate...you need to re-visit RCP and a few others.

100% accurate at the time posted -- you're either confused or lying.

that denial was accurate. 5 trillion over 10 years offset by reduced deductions doth a "cut" not make.

lol, that's a good one. so please tell us what deductions Romney will eliminate. ...and while you're at it, please tell us how Romney's "not a tax cut" is going to spur economic growth by not putting any money back in taxpayers' pockets, and especially by not letting the super rich keep more of their own money for "job creation". good god, is there no bottom to this mendacity?

"Voucherizing" medicare is not a bad idea either, no matter how hard you try to demonize the word.

so you like Platform Romney better -- good for you. the American people don't so much.

we'll see how much of a loss it was for Obama when the next polls come out for Florida, OH, VA.

You mean these? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... elections/
Romney is up by 2 and 3 in Florida
Romeny is up by 1 and down by 1 in OH (even)
Romney up 1 and 3 in VA

easy there, cowboy. you may want to hold off celebrating until we get a few more readings from non-partisan pollsters. but in any case, i've already conceded that Romney helped himself very much in the debate by posing as a moderate. my main point was that he had to have a great debate performance due to starting out so far in the hole. to my point, the current average of post-debate polls in CO, NV, WI, IA, and PA still find Romney behind. so even if his bounce holds up in Florida, OH, and VA he still falls short of 270 electoral votes.

[Guest]

so the first swing state in which we get a broad sample of post-debate polls is Ohio (from 5 different polling firms).

Average, 10/4 - 10/8, Obama +0.8
SurveyUSA, 10/5 - 10/8, Obama +1
CNN/Opinion Research, 10/5 - 10/8, Obama +4
ARG, 10/5 - 10/8, Romney +1
Rasmussen Reports, 10/4 - 10/4, Obama +1
WeAskAmerica, 10/4 - 10/4, Romney +1

this is why i say Romney was down 2 touchdowns going into the debate. he pulls off a performance that the media are calling historic and rightwingers are wetting themselves over, and yet at the height of his post-debate bounce he still trails in a state which he must win to even have a chance of getting to 270. Obama played a soft "prevent defense" in the debate and Romney picked up some garbage points, but he still needs a lot of things to bounce his way to pull off the comeback. not impossible of course, but still less than a 50% chance i'd say. we'll see.

[_cinepro]

Obama played a soft "prevent defense" in the debate and Romney picked up some garbage points, but he still needs a lot of things to bounce his way to pull off the comeback. not impossible of course, but still less than a 50% chance i'd say. we'll see.

Considering how things have been going the past few months, I'm happy with "garbage points"!

[_palerobber]

as of this morning, 3 more swing states have now accumulated at least 4 post-debate polls: Virginia and Colorado

VA
Average, 10/4 - 10/9, Obama +0.6
NBC/WSJ/Marist, 10/7 - 10/9, Romney +1
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac, 10/4 - 10/9, Obama +5
PPP (D), 10/4 - 10/7, Obama +3
Rasmussen Reports, 10/4 - 10/4, Romney +1
WeAskAmerica, 10/4 - 10/4, Romney +3

CO
Average, 10/3 - 10/9, Tied
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac, 10/4 - 10/9, Romney +1
ARG, 10/5 - 10/8, Romney +4
Rasmussen Reports, 10/7 - 10/7, Obama +1
University of Denver, 10/4 - 10/5, Obama +4

MI
Average, 10/4 - 10/8, Obama +3.7
Detroit News, Obama +7
Gravis Marketing, 10/5 - 10/8, Obama +2
EPIC-MRA, 10/4 - 10/6, Obama +3
Baydoun/Foster (D), 10/5 - 10/5, Obama +3

still waiting for more data from Florida, where we've only seen 3 post-debate polls.