[Kahuna]

Game Over!

[carlo3b]

This is a DEM pollester.. It could be raising the bar, so they can show him having a better serge after this debate.. Foiled!.. LOL

[Catsrus]

Ooh, those numbers are significant.

[FlingWingFlyer]

“Big Bird, Binders, Horses and Bayonets!” Sorry that’s all we’ve got! - DNC

[comebacknewt]

Romney +9 with Indies.

Obammy with 51% Disapproval.

I personally don’t think this election is over yet, but those are devastating numbers for an incumbent to have two weeks before the election.

[ObozoMustGo2012]

How much movement does everyone predict tonight’s debate will bring to the polls?

[goldstategop]

Look at the D+ oversampling and packing it in with female voters.

Even with those advantages, all O can manage is 47%.

I don’t see him getting out of the cellar in the next two weeks.

Game over, indeed.

[stanne]

“55% women”

Ouch!

[Jet Jaguar]

It seems PPP knows what is up and will continue with biased polls. Future business be damned.

Poll ping.

[Oldpuppymax]

Barry didn’t get any bounce for the 2nd debate and the MSM were far more tickled about that performance than they are about this one.
Although Romney let a number of easy kills go by, he did what was necessary—he made no dumb statements and gave the media no ammunition to take into the last couple of weeks.

[nathanbedford]

Game over

Agreed. This is one more in a long series of polls in which Obama cannot get above 47%. Interestingly, Karl Rove had the same number for Obama on his chalkboard in his interview on Greta after the debate. Obama has hit his ceiling.

So to put in terms of numbers what we all had been talking about in words, Obama's problem and his unavoidable failsafe in this debate was to do something which would elevate him above 47%. He could have been very passive and hope that Romney committed a gaffe but Romney is not the gaffe type. Obama knew this was the bottom of the ninth so he took is only option, he swung for the fences and tried to provoke Romney into a gaffe or at least disparage him enough so that the numbers would change.

But the problem for Obama is that disparaging Romney hardly elevates Obama's numbers. Obama's numbers are stuck at 47% because the remaining 48% or 49%, at least, have made up their minds and they are unalterably opposed to giving Obama four more years.

Consider Obama's dilemma going into the debate. His record is terrible and therefore he cannot run on his record. He made a decision long ago to run a campaign of diversion hoping to destroy Romney as a viable candidate so that Obama could stop him at one of his firewalls. Romney dismantled this strategy in his first debate. This third debate is nothing but a reprise of the second debate which in its turn was an attempt to accomplish in the debate forum what Obama had squandered hundreds of millions of dollars to accomplish with television advertising. In other words, Obama is still trying to gain by tearing down Romney.

But Obama's problem is not that Romney is held in high esteem and is vulnerable to personal attack, Obama's problem is that the electorate has made a judgment about Obama and more than half the people have decided against him. Attacking Romney does not rehabilitate Obama. Attacking Romney does not even bring Romney down to the point where the electorate says a plague on both your houses and so we better stay with the devil we know. That only works if Romney walks into the trap.

So when we say that Romney looked "presidential" in a debate we mean simply that Obama has not solved his dilemma. His problem is mathematical and these numbers will not change absent a major gaffe, deus ex machina, or an October surprise . The first did not happen, the second will not happen, and the third may yet play out-but I do not think so.

[Lacey2]

Thought you all would find this interesting:

William J. H. Boetcker was a motivational speaker and is the source of many of the snippets we hear today by politicians and media types. As you read them consider which Party is guilty of doing just what Mr. Boetcker condemns

There are several minor variants of the pamphlet in circulation, but the most commonly-accepted version appears below:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.

You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting
class hatred.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn

You cannot build character and courage by destroying men’s initiative and independence.

And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

Also this:

Boetcker also spoke of the “Seven National Crimes”

I don’t think.
I don’t know.
I don’t care.
I am too busy.
I leave well enough alone.
I have no time to read and find out.
I am not interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._H._Boetcker