The following article provides some thought-provoking answers to the question: “Does it matter who won the presidential debates?” However, the critical issue may be: Will the American electorate take responsibility for discovering what the election actually represents? I’m not sure we’ll be comfortable with the answer to that question on November 7th.
Click HERE to read: "The Purpose of Presidential Debates"
The gentleman wrote:
Let me move to a more radical thought. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are capable men, as well intentioned as ambitious men seeking power can be.
I totally reject the above premise.
So, what follows in the article is meaningless.
Since the debates I call "him" the Little Imam. I used to call him the Grand Imam, but he was thoroughly cowed during the debates and lost that title. People saw the Little Imam for what he is, and compare him not only to Romney, but to the false image everyone had of him four years ago.
I find the article very interesting and "A debate is not about policy, it is impossible to state a coherent policy on any complex matter in 90 seconds" couldn't be more true.
BTW Jay, Obama "won" 2 out of 3 of the "debates."
Ha! Not according to focus groups Karl. Just one here.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/22/frank_luntz_focus_group_on_third_presidential_debate.html
When asked who won "the debates," voters say Romney 49-41.
Since the debates the Little Imam's crowds, which WERE small, have gotten smaller. Look at the crowds - they are DEAD. And doing stuff during his talk - they are talking to each other and working on their phones.
And since the debates Romney's crowds, which WERE large, have gotten HUGE. And again, look at the crowds - they are wild eyed. AND LISTENING to him.
You're dreaming buddy boy. But I still love ya.
Jay, really? I have NO idea what Romney stands for outside of the same economic 'plan' that every Republican stands for, which is lower taxes for the wealthy, less regulations and more defense spending...Google the Ron Paul video on Romney...it says it all.
I would normally say "no", but the first debate showed who Romney really is and that 0bama expected the office to be given to him again.
The other two debates were pretty worthless, even the libs admit Candy favored 0bama and was wrong when defending him. The last debate showed how desperate 0bama is. He spent most of the time attacking Romney and almost none telling what he will do more effectively in 4 more years of office.
0bama's snide and condescending remarks about 'We have aircraft carriers and submarines" just provided what a dork he is. You still must have a large enough navy to get forces to multiple places, even if it is only for disaster relief.
Well, remember the Biblical quote that even the blind can see. Have faith Buddy!
Ron Paul? (my eyes just crossed a bit! I hope that corrects itself!)
The debates are close to meaningless. The election will be settled between those who feed at the government trough, those who are uninformed and gullible against those of us who are educated on the issues and apply reason to our decision process.
Did you notice that Obama is on MTV and other entertainment shows seeking the votes of those who are uninformed?
I think the first debate changed a lot of minds about Romney. He was successfully defined by the opposition up to that event that when 67 millions saw him without the filter, he bacame a viable alternative.
Needless to say, I disagree with the author's assertion that debates don't matter. Carter, Mondale, Gore, and if Nixon were alive, would probably attest that they did.
