Unusual but she was fair. If she had only said that the Governor was incorrect without pointing out that his overall point of the delay was correct then I'd have a problem with it. She was fair. If it "flustered" the Governor that's a tell.

 

Never seen it happen before. It's really not part of her job or is it? I'll be the first to tell you I'm not up on debate rules.

Obviously, 99.99% of us are not going to hang at the level of economists so overall I agree. However, I think you have to do your homework and not cherrypick.

 

I agree in theory but how many people have the time, energy, or intelligence to do so? I don't think half of the questioners last night understood the answers.

Never seen it happen before. It's really not part of her job or is it? I'll be the first to tell you I'm not up on debate rules.

 

Not sure about rules but I found it effective as it stopped the Governor from carrying on. Again, she admitted he was partially correct. It should be a non-issue.

 

If she had said he was wrong about his tax policy which obviously is open to much interpretation then I'd have a problem with it.

I agree in theory but how many people have the time, energy, or intelligence to do so? I don't think half of the questioners last night understood the answers.

 

I bet half couldn't repeat what the answers were.

 

As to the first point I'm advocating we make the time and energy so our intelligence is higher.

Not sure about rules but I found it effective as it stopped the Governor from carrying on. Again, she admitted he was partially correct. It should be a non-issue.

 

If she had said he was wrong about his tax policy which obviously is open to much interpretation then I'd have a problem with it.

 

Fair enough I just found it unusual. There will be plenty of time to discuss Libya next week.

Fair enough I just found it unusual. There will be plenty of time to discuss Libya next week.

 

That is going to be interesting next week. I'd either lay out a timeline of what was known when or I'd nip it in the bud and say "we screwed up." I wouldn't debate it.

I bet half couldn't repeat what the answers were.

 

As to the first point I'm advocating we make the time and energy so our intelligence is higher.

 

Clyde, there's only 24 hours in the day. Some people would require around the clock for years.. Most people, some highly educated, have no clue. It's like me trying to work on a car or do carpentry work, not a chance.

That is going to be interesting next week. I'd either lay out a timeline of what was known when or I'd nip it in the bud and say "we screwed up." I wouldn't debate it.

 

Agreed

Are you saying that we just have to trust that it will work?

 

 

Not at all. I'm just saying that anyone can find an economist with good credentials that will either say one plan works or another doesn't. And you can bet they will have it backed up with all kinds of impressive numbers. For myself, I always assume a plan will not work or that it's not going to be passed as is anyway. However, isn't your question how most people end up deciding how to vote? With all the policies thrown out in a campaign and with all the experts supporting or challenging these pollicies, they don't know who to believe. At some point they do just what you're asking about. That is why there are always so many discouraged voters for the next election.

Who would have thought Libya would win the debate for Obama? But I think it did. Obama came across as totally presidential and Romney seemed lost on how to handle the issue.

 

Candy won the discussion on that issue.

Are you saying that we just have to trust that it will work?

 

That's what happened 4 years ago. "Hope and change"...

It does get frustrating. And while sometimes they do skirt around issues, I truly believe they have an answer to a lot of the questions but believe they will come off an "un-politician" like if they answer directly or still leave two minutes on the clock. They get caught up with hearing themselves and their own voice.

 

One lady asked how they will help women even the pay for the same job as their male counterparts. Obama spent 4 minutes talking about his grandmother (you know, the typical white woman) and how she climbed to a managerial position with a bank despite not having an advanced degree then hitting a glass ceiling. OK. Then Romney fumbled around to talking about an entire stack of applicants for a job was all men and that he did not like that and the ultimate solution is to have a good economy. Riveting and insightful there, Governor.

They consulted their binders full of women.

 

.

A Gallup poll out today has Romney with a 6 point lead. The poll was taken before the debate. Regardless, that is a stunning turn around. This could be a Bush Gore in reverse when it is all said and done.

That's what happened 4 years ago. "Hope and change"...

 

Trust me. It doesn't go unnoticed that we are now hearing that numbers can be skewed anyway you like when in 2007 all we hard was the definitive negative impact of then candidate Obama's healthcare plan. I don't recall all of my friends on here saying then that all of those numbers should be questioned.

A Gallup poll out today has Romney with a 6 point lead. The poll was taken before the debate. Regardless, that is a stunning turn around. This could be a Bush Gore in reverse when it is all said and done.

 

As I've stated I always use FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right for a guage.

 

On Oct 11 the the chance of winning dropped to its lowest point for the President at 61%. Today it's at almost 66%.

 

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com