Which would be great... if it was true.

Which it isn't as far as i can tell

All he's got on the budget is

http://www.barackobama.com/plans/budget

Romney's budget plan seems complicated by comparison

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/fiscal-responsibility

Media consensus seems to be that Romney won, so now we're going to get subjected to a week (or however long it is until debate #2) of constant media analysis over whether this is a game-changer or not.

I will be interested to see if it has any impact on the polls. Everyone talks about Kennedy-Nixon, but honestly Kennedy-Nixon (the entire election) was one of those "too close to call" things that could have gone either way on election day, statistically.

I don't know, i'd say I got a lot of new info about Mitt Romney's plans. 

His policies seem much less top down and more noninterventionist.  That's a big plus really.

He talked negative about regulations, but only certain regulations, showing a lot more finese about issues.  He wants to repeal the big legislation but not everything from it.  Just the part he see's damaging.

If he ran the camapign like he did the debate he'd be doing better.

I just read that apparently at the end of the debate Obama said "Good job, you probably won." 

Either way, this could be surprisingly deadly for Romney.

I mean, if he doesn't get a bump from this at all?  Or even just a small one.

THAT becomes the story... and he's toast.

I wouldn't be shocked if the popular vote is closer then the polls say though.  If your familiar with how poll modeling works.  State wise Obama should still take it pretty easy though.  The Electoral Map is just too heavily tilted towards democrats.

romney's strategy is to be really bad... really really bad

At most that would say undecided voters don't give a damn about the elections

Which is likely true, all things considered. I'd bet quite a few younger undecideds were watching South Park instead.

I was watching some written commentary about the debate, and from what I heard, Romney was an ignorant douchebag. Like Bill OReilly, you don't 'win' by shouting over the moderator and your opponent, you 'win' by having better points.

Yet the american people seem to think that shouting louder means you won. Honestly, I HOPE you get Romney. Serves your country right for being full of morons who are easily swayed by loud noises.

-moderated Kasz216

First of all, how does one "watch" written commentary? Wouldn't that be reading? Then you go on to say, "from what I heard". Let me get this straight. You were watching some written commentary which you heard? You are incredibly illogical and nescient.

Romney was far from ignorant and a douchebag. If you did not even watch the debate, kindly keep your sentiments to yourself. Quite frankly, it's obtuse to consider this post any further.

I think you should watch the debate and then consider never reading articles from such a biased source ever again

Intesrestingly enough.... Ralph Nader disagrees... as does... pretty much everybody, inlcuding major democratic campaign sources. 

I just got done watching a segment on MSNBC where Ralph Nader said Romney showed he had a "Firm grasp of the facts" while Obama "had 12 factual errors that I counted."

That was shocking... what the heck happened to Ralph Nader?

First he supported Ron Paul, and now he's saying Romney made much less factual errors?