Ryan was ok but Biden was a heavy-hitter. Most people say the debate was a draw, I don't agree I think Biden won, but that is not important. What was important was that Biden has got the Democratic base energized because he hit Romney hard where Obama had failed to do so. Ryan was so low-key and without a a lot of passion. Ryan did not effectively answer Biden's attacks on Romney as favoring the rich, threatening social security and medicare, being extreme on abortion, and being inexperienced in foreign policy. I don't think Biden's smirking and so forth will make a big deal of difference. Ryan did well enough to meet the "are you able to step into the presidency" test.

And I think Biden went a long way towards boxing the Romney-Ryan into that far right-wing conservative corner that Romney realizes he can't be if he wants to win. Moderate Mitt cannot be allowed.

Still, Obama needs to step it up next Tuesday (and mostly that means not allowing Romney to pretend he is a moderate). That will be the key debate--I don't think the last debate will matter.

As an independent, this sounds to me very much like the debate analysis of a biased partisan who is skewing each perception and deduction in the direction of his hopes and wishes.

I saw the debate as even. Both sides dodged specifics.

Was anyone else turned off by the rudeness of Biden's interruptions?

I don't disagree too much, purple, but a draw is still good for Biden because expectations were that he could mess it up. He didn't really, and Ryan did not dominate as some think he would based on prior performance.

Polling of independents straight after the debate had Biden 'winning', but polling of adults had him as losing or drawing. One key factor is really where the floating voters are - and you are only a sample of one but it would be interesting to see your own opinion of the debate itself, rather than your opinion of what someone else's opinion is.

What was important was that Biden has got the Democratic base energized because he hit Romney hard where Obama had failed to do so.

I think this is the key point. Obviously I have no real way of knowing, but my suspicion is that the polling bounce Romney got out of the last debate was mostly down to natural Republicans who had previously been massively disappointed with him as a candidate suddenly seeing something they liked and getting more enthused (with the mirror effect for natural Democrat leaning voters after Obama's poor showing). I really don't believe that most people are so shallow as to be swayed significantly by one debate. If Biden has managed to fire up the base then he may have helped to get more of the core vote out, which surely has to be the most important factor.

danivon wrote:I don't disagree too much, purple, but a draw is still good for Biden because expectations were that he could mess it up. He didn't really, and Ryan did not dominate as some think he would based on prior performance.

Ryan had never been in a debate like this. Biden has been in plenty, having run for President. So, I don't think there were many predicting Ryan would dominate. The main question about Biden was would he issue some crazy gaffe. No, but he did act like the world's greatest boor, and he did substantively misrepresent the truth about Benghazi.

Polling of independents straight after the debate had Biden 'winning', but polling of adults had him as losing or drawing.

I saw a mix of polls. The CBS poll had Biden winning, but when looking at the internals, it wasn't that big of a win--and we really don't know who their "undecideds" are or where they're from. New Yorkers probably loved Biden's performance. How did it play in Wisconsin? Colorado? Virginia? Probably not as well.

I think bbauska is on target. Biden's performance was over the top. If he had been aggressive and not a maniacal, laughing, interruption machine, I would have given him a slight edge in performance. However, I think this debate won't have much impact either way because many voters will be turned off by the sheer rudeness he displayed.

Brokaw (worth watching):

Brokaw, however, approached the Vice President’s performance a bit more critically, saying that he simply “can’t contain himself” before pointing to the fact that Biden continued to smirk or laugh while he and Ryan discussed serious, solemn issues like Iran and Libya.

He says later, "I just don't think you should be laughing during a discussion over thermonuclear war."

Well I am a lawyer purple--my job is to put the best possible interpretation of facts in favor of my client However it sounds like you did not see the debate so how can you critique my opinion? If you saw the debate then you should be able to state why you disagree with my opinion I agree with Sass regarding what happened after the first debate. The error that liberals made after the first debate was to be so negative about Obama's performance A lawyer I worked for right out of law school was very big on never allowing negative feelings about what happens in a jury trial or arbitration to show If a lawyer shows he thinks his case is weak what is a jury going to think? And liberals acted like the sky was falling (I include myself) and made things even worse, starting with the Obama team who delayed going into the "spin" room after the debate to give their best gloss on what happened

Freeman2,
What portion of Purple's words made you think he did not see it? He questioned your perception, and provided no analysis himself. Just because someone does not provide personal opinion, does not mean they have not seen the debate.

Perhaps that IS a "lawyer" thing...

I don't know how Carney's statement can be squared with Biden's. Maybe that takes a lawyer?

If Obama/Biden were the only ones not "in the loop" regarding Libya, I don't think that's a plus for them.

Close examination of words,brad Purple says this "sounds like"...To me, that indicates Purple did not have first-hand knowledge.Why? Because if Purple had seen the debate he would not say "sounds like" he would just say my perceptions are skewed.And being very attentive to what language signifies is kind of a lawyer thing

Why would Obama be involved in determining the appropriate level of security for an ambassador? You are not going
To score points against Obama on this because even if we assume security is inadequate that determination would be made at a much lower level in the hierarchy

Biden's statement can be squared with Carneys because Biden's "we" did not include lower-level State Department employees

freeman2 wrote:Why would Obama be involved in determining the appropriate level of security for an ambassador? You are not going
To score points against Obama on this because even if we assume security is inadequate that determination would be made at a much lower level in the hierarchy

Because they told many different stories in the days afterward--on many occasions blaming the video.

Does anyone believe that Susan Rice went on 5 TV shows the Sunday after the attack and was winging it (had no official message from the White House)?

Please.

Do I think it will damage Obama? No, not until all the truth is known, which will probably be after he loses.

I felt that the words "this sounds like" were describing your comments. I can see the difference, but do not think of it that way. Perhaps it is the rest of Purple's sentence that alludes to the this; "debate analysis of a biased partisan who is skewing each perception and deduction in the direction of his hopes and wishes".

The words "biased partisan" and "his" denote who he was speaking about. The "debate analysis" is what Purple was talking about. Since yours was the only analysis on this forum at that time, I see it differently than you do.

Perhaps Purple could clarify?