The last world thing was one of the more interesting dynamics ...

When Obama thought he was going to have the last word he seemed to attack Romney with talking points of questionable accuracy, and Romney seemed to be willing to fight the moderator to get the time he needed to respond to those claims.

This is one of the reasons I think Obama (seemed to) perform so poorly. I could be wrong but I suspect that he was planning on "playing defence" through each of the segments and then going on the offensive at the end of each segment (assuming the moderator would stick to a strict schedule); when Romney was able to "get in the last word" and respond to Obama's "attacks" he disarmed them and seemed to "win" each segment.

Perhaps you should look at the entire debate before you comment.

Also, good for you. Some people have different styles during debate. Because the responses were going for way over their alloted time, it can be permitted that a bit more detail be added to notes, lest "a couple of words" will have completely forgotten meaning by that time.

A poker face means something completely different, but thanks for playing.

I saw the complete opposite. Rmoney got the last word in with points of questionable accuracy, and there was no chance for response to those claims. You cannot say one side was doing it and not the other.

The line which sums up the whole debate pretty nicely:
"Is Gov. Romney keeping all his plans secret because they are too good?"

people only see what their bias' allow them to see...

I watched chris matthews on the matter and agree 100%.
Romney made a bunch of gaffes that Obama just did NOT seize on.
For example, Romney said, "you said premiums would go down. They've gone up"
Now, Romney should know, because in 'his own state' when he enacted the universal healthcare, premiums went up too. Then they went down drastically. Why didn't the president say a damn thing about that? He should be like "your own state's premiums went up, and then went down. It's part of the process, and misleading the public to say they are going up and pretending ilke the second part of the process doesn't happen"

Then when Romney was like "we didn't have a board mandating procedures", Obama said "our board simply looked at what some places were doing right, and made them standard". Romney countered that his example proved his point, that chicago clinic was private. Obama never says "No, Mitt, that's my point. We have an example of a private clinic doing a lot of things right, and we adapt to their process. Whether the clinic is public or private makes no difference, the point is, the board's job is to make the public offering more competitive, and NOT what you're saying it's there to do"

Or like when Romney says "that's not my tax plan", he didn't counter "nobody knows what your tax plan is, I'm simply looking at the deficit, looking at what you promise to reduce, look at what you promise to cut, and we've come up with the 7 trillion number. For the past 18 months you've said one thing. Now a week, two weeks ago, it's all different. So I apologize if I''ve assigned an imaginary number to your imaginary tax plan, but I've come to this debate with all my cards on the table because I'm confident in my plans, and I can't say the same for you"

Romney was like a boss battle covered in glowing red weak points, and obama was just like, "nah, i'm good".

Agreed. I can generally tell what people's responses are on this thread based on their posts on other political threads.

Plus not cutting anything of relevance to most people, and also reducing the deficit?  You know, I also like to hear utopian talk to.  Doesn't mean I think it is real though.

Expectation management is part of it, and what you said could be a possibility. I am not sure, in the day of the Internet, where all you have to do is google to get info, if the debates really do much.  So not sure why there would be much of a game changer out of it.  So, what can be said is true. The goal is to win elections, and debates, at best, have some sort of unindentifiable possible impact on the election that isn't quanitifiable.  The debates aren't sporting events, which produce won-loss records.

In 2004, GW Bush was pretty bad in a number of debates, and people though Kerry won.  It didn't have an impact on the end result.  Kerry still lost.

Or how about when Romney says like 'those 3% of small business employ 50% of the workforce'.
THOSE AREN'T SMALL BUSINESSES. They make hundreds of millions. You can't stand on one side of the fence and say "i'm for the little guy", and then say "those fucking massive giant companies are little guys too". But that shouldn't come to any problem for Romney because he thinks people who make 250k are middle class.

Goddamn Obama, you struck out big time. Romney has no concept of what living conditions and incomes are like for anyone under a mil$. Goddamn seize on that. It is a complete fucking disconnect from the people he's claiming to be representing.