Basically this.This is where the GOP is smarter than the DEMs. When Obama did bad the base freaked out and panicked and media had no reason to claim anything but Obama failed. When Romney did bad the base refuses to admit it at all and proclaims Romney the winner so the media calls it a tie.
All quiet at my office job today so far. Means Obama won hands down, lol
How many people watched the debate last night?
And why are Republicans stuck in 1984?
ImpotentRageTears.jpg
I am very surprise on how good of a job Crowley did.
The audience clapping at Crowley is burned in my brain.
Didn't nearly all polls show Obama winning the debate, though?
Didn't nearly all polls show Obama winning the debate, though? It takes some shameless spin to suggest that it was a tie because, while the polls show he lost, diehard republicans said "nut-uh!." Close races bring ratings but there's a point when twisting the facts becomes blatant lying.
The media seems to be calling this one a tie in spite of this thread's thoughts to the contrary.
Nah- every mainstream outlet I'm reading is saying Obama won but it probably will not be as inconsequential as the first debate.
And who would have thought Romney would lose it on Libya of all things. So dumb Mitt.
Really enjoying the intense silence in the office today. Surrounded by republicans and they're all just so busy this morning.
Going in for early voting after work. My blue vote will get absorbed by a thick TN red, but at least I can help to keep Cohen in for Memphis.
I had the today show on and heard the words "In a debate everyone is calling a tie...".
Ugh.
I am very surprise on how good of a job Crowley did.
By scoring big on the economy, gas prices, and Libya, Romney continued his victorious string of debate wins. He looked more presidential than Obama did and showed himself to be an articulate, capable, attractive, compassionate leader with sound ideas.
[…]
But this debate goes to Romney. It seals his momentum and will lead to a big win.
Romney pandering for the Brony vote
Interesting how they made Obama the red line and Romney the blue line. I'd have expected the opposite, traditionally.Likelihood of victory, by the prediction markets (intrade, betfair, iem).
As a reminder:
Oct 3 - First debate
Oct 11 - VP debate
http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2012presidentindividual
I love Dick Morris. Has this guy ever been right?
Alan Colmes just shat in Tucker Carlson's swanson dinner like nobody has done since Jon Stewart. Just made my fucking day.
Tucker really is a piece of shit.
This is about the Libya exchange.
"Candy threw out something that is fundamentally dishonest."
'The administration for 2 full weeks said it is not an organized terror attack "there is no dispute about that" '
He repeated "fundamentally dishonest"
"leaving the impression with the audience that the president said something he didn't say"
Colmes got tired of his smug bullshit. "For you to say you don't act on behalf of the Romney campaign when you put out that video that basically went nowhere a couple weeks ago is basically ridiculous."
Who is the hell was this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tD2H6AX1fE
You should watch msnbc on the weekends!MSNBC during the day feels completely different from MSNBC at night
She looked so terrified of Romney after she called him a liar on live TV, and though she tried to qualify the whole thing, the damage was done, and it was pretty brutal.
Missed it live, any other highlights other than libya and Binders I should be seeking out?
Good morning!
New Nevada polling out this morning, for your consideration.
Obama: 48
Romney: 45
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/19836...ada?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
This was taken between the two debates, when Romney was doing "well" in the polls. Seems like Nevada is ours.
knew the shitty media would call this a tie. obama had to win in a landslide before they could call it a win for him. even then they would probably say obama had the victory but it wasn't a crushing victory like romney had in the first.
I wish there could be a big push in the next cycle to get people in non-swing states to vote for third party candidates who better fit their views. Imagine if the current electoral map had Jill Stein with the west coast on lockdown, Obama strong in the north/rust belt and probably northeast, Romney in the midwest and that crazy Constitution Party guy getting a few states in the deep south. If we had three to five viable candidates on the map going toward election day every time, the country would be far less polarized. In fact, I think it's the only antidote to that.
Some slogan like "If you're in a swing state, vote realistically, if not, vote idealistically" could have some seriously good long term effects.
If we had three to five viable candidates on the map going toward election day every time, the country would be far less polarized. In fact, I think it's the only antidote to that.
only liberals would do this and republicans would win every time. come on. you forgot they all get their marching orders from the same place?
I just don't get people like this, on either side. Ugh.
http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assassinate-romney-explode-after-debate/
How long did it take Bush to call 9/11 an act of terror?
A third party president in a congress dominated by Democrats and Republicans is a waste of time. He/she would get filibustered into oblivion. If you want a viable third party, get more third party people into congress. When they form a sizeable group in congress THEN start considering a third party president.
I just don't get people like this, on either side. Ugh.
http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assassinate-romney-explode-after-debate/
It goes far beyond this, but Facebook and Twitter has made it far too easy for idiots to spout off their stupid thoughts in the spur of the moment.
not possible
Parental failure, really. People aren't ready for the idea that everything they say is public, all the time.