Poll: Who Won The Presidential Debate?

  • Comments (52)
President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney met in a debate Tuesday. Photo Credit: Flickr users jamesomalley and Gage Skidmore

WORCESTER COUNTY, Mass. ‒ President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney met Tuesday night in the second nationally televised debate.

Who came out on top? What were the defining moments for you? Vote in our poll and talk about it in the comments below. 

Poll

Who do you think won the second presidential debate?

View Results
Reader Results

Who do you think won the second presidential debate?

  • Barack Obama

    43%
  • Mitt Romney

    51%
  • Too close to call

    6%
Back to Vote

  • 52
    Comments

Comments (52)

joedell:

Even if Obamacare gets totally phased in they won't have the so called "death panels". No way will the people put up with that.

So they will just have to call them "retro-active abortion committees".

maximus:

I guess that's supposed to be ever so clever but it makes no sense. There were never any death panels.

graywolf:

Who is more stupid? Obama was hired by over 69 million voters ( some dead , and some voted more than once ), who totally ignored his defunct qualifications. He is doing a LOUSY job, with a record number of people out of work. He appointed 32 czars to do his job, at high salaries paid by the working tax payers, while Obama, his wife and children vacationed, and he campaigned for re-election.
He decided which laws to enforce and which ones to totally ignore.He has doubled the deficit. He has ruined the healthcare system. He continually flaunts the constitution as he sees fit.
And STILL, despite all these negatives, he stands an excellent chance of being re-hired!!!!!!!
Tell me, who is more stupid, the President or those who vote for him ????
A true leader LEADS, and Obama does not LEAD,he does not know how to lead. Our Congress for the past 4 years is the standing proof.

maximus:

This is so bizarre, so ill-informed, so delusional, that I fear for you, graywolf.

Are you okay?

maximus:

One more time: Taxpayers don't fund Planned Parenthood abortions. Period. That's the law.

Many of us do not believe that a tiny clump of cells is a person or should have the rights of a person. Women and girls, who are persons, should not be forced to give birth.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

joedell:

Lets see, the same people who support abortions by Planned Parenthood also favor banning guns. How many people died as a result of these two entities. Seems to me to be a conflicted stance. While I do support a womans right to decide I don't support making the public accessories to infanticide by using the publics money. The technology available to us now is so cheap that virtually anyone could afford the "morning after pill" and leave the rest of us out of that process. The decision for an abortion should be made by the person wanting it and funded by the person wanting it. Planned Parenthoods other programs; education and health services are worthy of support but should be funded as any other health program is funded by insurance, private donations and grants.
More people were killed in auto "accidents" last week than were killed all of last year by guns in this country. yet there is no effort afoot to ban cars. This logic is totally elusive to me. Further still one is guaranteed by law while the other is not. The crminal using a gun doesn't abide by the laws currently in effect so adding another law will help? This is still not making sense to me.
Businesses don't create jobs? They seek to eliminate them? Then I guess I won't ask where that person works or what he does.
By the way that was no earthquake the other night that was the supersized tank truck travelling to Holden carrying another load of "Kool-Aid".

commoncents:

Gray Wolf, come on, Please. I love how people are so blind as to what has happened in this country for the last 12 years. I am what you would call a true independent minded voter. In the past I have voted for Democrats and Republicans, I agree with different policies of both parties. Lets be real about this, if John Mccain became President four years ago we would still of had the recession and still have been in this mess. We are in this mess because of Bushes failed policies. What were the jobs being lost when Obama was sworn in? How much of a downward spiral was the economy in when this man walked into the oval office? I am not saying I am an Obama supporter, I wanted John Mccain to win four years ago but that did not happen. I am still undecided, I don't know which way I will go but blaming a Man that walked into a hornets nest seems unfair to me. How is one to make these magic policies that everyone thinks will get us out of the hole right away? When foolish politics are in play for a number of years it will take a number of years to correct them.

graywolf:

I am totally amassed at how UNinformed so many Americans are; Here we have a president who came out of nowhere, never held a job, was a Jr Senator for less than a year, and because he can speak so well (with a teleprompter) people are awed by him. He has done NOTHING for 3 1/2 years except take vacations and managed to anger all our friends in other countries. He has buried us in trillions of dollars in debt, and will absolutely kill this country if reelected. Our unemployment rate is NOT 8.2% it is over 19.5% because he and his cabinet refuse to count all the people who have had their unemployment checks run-out!! Do you realize that? They are out of work and NOT COUNTED as unemployed!!! Is this stupid or WHAT? Also, all those who lost full time jobs, but are working part time (with no benefits I might add) are NOT COUNTED EITHER !!
And ask yourselves, how in hell did a man with no job, just out of college a few years, get all the money to run for president? WHO funded him? I will tell you, George Soros, one of the very worst people on the face of this earth, a flaming liberal socialist.
If you vote Democrat because that is what you always do, or vote Republican because that is what you always do, you are wrong, that is why the unenrolled are largest voting block now in the country. Vote for who is the best to lead our country out of this mess, a proven business man.
If Obama is for the middle class, why does he want to raise the dividend tax from 15% to 29.5%? Does he not know that middle class people have 401K's at work? That people who are retired LIVE on those dividends?

John B:

Done nothing for during his presidency? Osma Bin Laden would disagree with you, but he can't because he is dead.

Thank you President Obama.

graywolf:

Obama had NOTHING to do with getting Osama. The CIA and military hunted this character down and several times they had to wait for the OK to hit him. FINALLY, as we neared ELECTION TIME, Obama gave the OK. Gee, I wonder why he waited until his ratings were in the dirt and he was headed into his 4th year as president. Seem stange to you John?
Obama is going to go down in history as one of our worst presidents.

joedell:

People need to read the book and do some research. The original intent of that mission was a snatch so the President could parade him in front of the American people and put him on trial.But one Seal took care of that dog and pony show. The looks on the faces of our leaders confirm this as they watched it unfold. They weren't expecting to see that which happened. Then half of those brave Seals get taken out on another mission. Payback maybe? Seals don't get taken by surprise or leave things "unsecured". "Friendly fire"? Godspeed to them who we can never repay.

keepitsimple:

This county doesn't need a BOSS, it needs a PRESIDENT! Re-elect President Obama!

Chris L.:

A president that appoints czars and sneaks through initiatives while the congress is on recess? Sounds like a Dictator to me...

A top "Boss" is a CEO... Chief Executive Officer. The President is supposed to be the chief of the Executive branch. Seems like a good fit to me...

union man:

Please think it over and vote republician

keepitsimple:

I did think it over and decided that voting for Romney would be the dumbest thing I have ever done in my life. I must say that it didn't take very long for me to come up with that conclusion. All I had to do was compare the two men. Presidents are supposed to be very special people. I see nothing special about Mr. Romney. Just another money hungry plutocrat.

maximus:

You are wrong Read My Lips No New Taxes,

Roe v. Wade has been chipped away to the extent that some states provide no abortion services at all. The very first law proposed by the new Tea Party radicals in Congress after the election of 2010 was to defund Planned Parenthood. Romney has pledged to do just that. On the federal level.

Whether you agree with a woman's right to control her own reproductive health or not, don't pretend the Republican party is not on a mission to effectively overturn Roe on the state level and the federal level using any means necessary. They have pledged to do it, they have done it incrementally, and women should be aware that this is a promise they intend to keep, even if it means redefining rape, trying to pass personhood amendments, and forcing women to undergo intrusive and unnecessary forced ultrasounds.

This is the Romney/Ryan Republican party. This is what you vote for when you vote for them.

Chris L.:

In my opinion Planned Parenthood should be funded privately. Then those who are morally opposed won't have to pay for it, and the government gets out of deciding when life begins and ends.

Those who believe in abortion could still choose to fund PP if it were 100% privately funded.

maximus:

Taxpayers don't fund Planned Parenthood abortions. That's the law.

76% of Planned Parenthood patients are seeking low-cost birth control options.

Abortions represent 3% of total services provided by Planned Parenthood.

Get your facts straight.

Chris L.:

So tax payers don't "technically" fund abortions... but tax payers still help fund Planned Parenthood. This enables them to direct more of their other funding to their abortion operations. No matter what your view, why do taxpayers need to be forcibly involved with an organization with such a controversial mission? That said, maybe we need to look at how wars are financed as well...

Would it be OK for taxpayers to start funding Al Quida as long as the money wasn't going to be used to kill Americans?

When the Feds help with something, it is effectively a stamp of approval. If they "stamp" something like this, they are essentially choosing sides on a very divided issue. I would like them to be more neutral.

SteveConsilvio:

Romney said that there should be no taxes on interest. That would bring his low 14% rate to zero.

Everybody borrows (house, car, education) except the rich. If the rich pay no taxes, we will be back to the 16th century with landed estates, where the nobles exempted themselves from paying taxes while owning and controlling everything.

He also said that the government doesn't create jobs, but that if he is elected he will create millions of jobs.

This is a choice between two men. Obama is not perfect, but he is leaps and bounds better than Romney.

Why do republicans keep electing the worst possible of all the candidates that run? What happened to statesmanship in the republican party?

R J:

Romney said that there should be no taxes on interest, dividends or capital gains for people making $200,000 or less.

Romney would not be included in that group and certainly would pay taxes on his investment returns. Your agument about the rich not paying taxes on these items is not valid.

He specifically said that his plan was for middle-income taxpayers.

From the transcript:

"But your rate comes down and the burden also comes down on you for one more reason, and that is every middle-income taxpayer no longer will pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. No tax on your savings. That makes life a lot easier.

If you're getting interest from a bank, if you're getting a statement from a mutual fund or any other kind of investment you have, you don't have to worry about filing taxes on that, because there'll be no taxes for anybody making $200,000.00 per year and less, on your interest, dividends and capital gains. Why am I lowering taxes on the middle-class? Because under the last four years, they've been buried. And I want to help people in the middle-class."

SHTF:

Have you ever been hired by a poor person?

John B:

If the founding fathers believed that King George the 3 would not have been overthrown.

cbemge:

Thank you Jenn B. Luke.

cbemge:

I hope people are responding to this survey based on what they actually saw and heard, not based on the candidate for whom they plan to vote.

Read My Lips No New Taxes:

And the president isn't surrounded by Yes Men and Women? It was another "He Said, She Said". Jenn "lose our civil liberties", if I am not mistaken the President signed the legislation to continue the "Patriot Act" What do you think the Patriot Act is for, legislation thanking our Veterans for a job well done, no it is to give the Government more intrusive powers. Here is a quote from Forbes Magazine, an article written by James Bamford "In his just-published cover story for Wired, Bamford lays out the NSA’s plans for a vast new facility in Bluffdale, Utah that aims to become a storage and analysis hub for the record-breakingly massive collections of Internet traffic data that the NSA hopes to gather in coming years not from just foreign networks, but domestic ones as well. Tell me now, do think this will not effect our civil liberties, the facility was proposed by the Bush administration and continued by the present (Obama) administration. Here is the link to read about, it will open your eyes about loss of civil liberties regardless of political party. In his just-published cover story for Wired, Bamford lays out the NSA’s plans for a vast new facility in Bluffdale, Utah that aims to become a storage and analysis hub for the record-breakingly massive collections of Internet traffic data that the NSA hopes to gather in coming years not from just foreign networks, but domestic ones as well."

From Wired.com http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1

As far as same sex marriage, that is a state by state issue, it has nothing to do with the Federal Government, and you a quite naive in thinking that the congress would even consider passing such legislation if proposed by Romney. The same goes for Pro Choice, there is no way that the congress will attempt to touch this law. The Supreme Court, maybe, but given the nomination process in the past, if a conservative or liberal judge steps down,
the new nominee usually has the same judicial philosophy. The president can and will nominate whomever he chooses, however the nominee must be confirmed by the Congress. And as the past shows, not a very easy task.

I beg to differ about "what a mistake it would be to elect Romney". We continue to print worthless money to continue the outrageous spending. We can not keep spending money we do not have, borrowing from China is not the way to do it. We must get our fiscal house in order or face the fact that our economy will fail. The President signed an Executive Order creating the Committee on Fiscal Responsibility. The Simpson-Bowles Plan was created by the president to find a way of controlling the spiraling deficit, when completed, the President ignored the findings, the spending continues!

"That's all I have to say about that"

keepitsimple:

It seems I've heard that song before! I didn't like it then and I don't like it now!

John B:

Business Do Not Create Jobs,

The misconception everyone seems to have is that businesses create jobs. That’s true in the sense that business provides the mechanism for people to contribute to making goods and services. But businesses don’t create jobs.

A good businessperson tries to reduce costs and run as efficiently as possible. That’s why automation so revolutionized the world—we could do more work with far fewer people. That’s why businesses pursue productivity, so they can scale up their production faster than they need to scale up their headcount.

Any businessperson who is acting in the interest of the bottom line should be trying to slow job growth or actively shed jobs within their company.

Jobs are created when a business experiences so much demand that it has no choice except to hire more people to cope with the demand. The demand drives the business to create more jobs.

Someone with the business experience of presiding over a growing business does not know how to create jobs; they know how to create demand for their specific products and services. This is a great skill for growing an individual business.

Growing a business isn’t the same as growing an economy. As Apple grows demand for its products, it grows demand in no small part by taking business away from its competitors. Apple does well, but Microsoft does less well that it otherwise would. Getting one business to do better is not the same thing at all as growing an overall economy so everyone does better.

http://www.steverrobbins.com/blog/2012/10/business-finance-and-jobs/ [steverrobbins.com]

Chris L.:

John, I see your point about demand leading to jobs, but wouldn't a better economy create that higher demand for goods and services (thus, room for business to grow)?
In your opinion, then, what should a president do to foster job growth?

John B:

Government spending is an excellent way to create demand. As President Romney wants to increase military spending by 10%. That is one form way to increase demand.
I would prefer roads, bridges, and schools, which also increases demand.

If austerity polices work in creating jobs, governments that cut back on public spending should see economic growth. This has not been occurring in Greece or Spain, or any other country. I don't want to copy failed policies.

Chris L.:

I would also prefer more roads and bridges, but what Obama's administration has been doing for the past 4 years has not been effective enough in turning around the economy.

So, if we don't want to copy failed policies, we should also avoid copying Obama's last four years (or Bush's for that matter).

John B:

The stimulus should have been bigger. GOP controlled states cut public spending sending teachers and other women onto the unemployment lines. If those cuts had not been made unemployment would have been lower.

maximus:

Your guys wouldn't pass a bigger stimulus!

Chris L.:

They're not my guys.

How big should the stimulus have been? It's a loan from future tax payers, and if it's not used wisely to create robust recovery, then there won't be a good enough economy to pay it back in the future. Things like the failure of Solyndra seem to indicate that the stimulus was not being spent effectively.

If someone mismanages your money, why give them more?

Jim Gonyea:

Republicans will refuse to admit it, but President Obama won this one. He countered Romney and kept him off balance. He moved around and seemed comfortable and he was definitely willing to mix it up. He chastised Romney at one point and Romney took it. President Obama used the phrase "not true" often and with good effect.

J of Shrewsbury:

Check the facts, Obama lied!!!!!!

Liberal:

Obama nailed him right at the end with Romney’s 47% comment about how seniors, social security recipients, veterans, students, active military, feel that they are victims who are now just looking for a government handout. That hurt Romney. The President also clearly exposed Romney’s war on Women’s rights. On the economy, Romney still refuses to explain where the money will come from, as in specifically which middle class tax deductions he would eliminate; Obama correctly called it a shady deal. And finally Romney looked stupid questioning whether the President had said that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist act. (Read the transcript Willard) He also looks to be bullying the moderator in these debates, like some pampered CEO who has never had to explain his actions and has been surrounded all his life by “yes” men. Obama clearly won the debate.

Chris L.:

From the President's Rose Garden transcript on 9/11/2012:

1: "Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi."

2: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

It is important to note that Obama only referred to the Benghazi attacks as "attacks", not "terrorist attacks". His reference to "acts of terror" was made in general as he was relating back to the events of September 11, 2001 and other terrorist acts in general, which makes sense given the anniversary.

Read the transcript in full, the context is very clear.

jenn.b.luke:

I'm not a big fan of Mitt Romney. Yes he has a good business sense but there's much more to being president than that. Romney and his running mate Ryan could do a lot if damage to the rights of citizens in this country. Much of what we have gained we may lose if they are elected like our civil liberties, pro-choice decisions, same sex marriage etc. I feel Obama truly cares about this country and for Romney it's all about business and his personal agenda. Clearly from the debate last night his thinking is back in the 50's with his statements about women leaving work early to go home and cook dinner. I hope people realize what a mistake it would be to elect Romney.

Sweetie:

Sounds like you agree with murder ?? As far as same sex marriages go it is against God and all homosexuals that do not change will pay. If Obama cared about this country he and his family would stay home and not spend some much of the tax payers money on exotic vacations.

Chris L.:

From the debate, it sounds like Obama wants to take the right to bear arms away from anyone labeled as "mentally ill" or "mentally unstable"...This could mean virtually anyone! For instance, anyone who's been depressed, or what about all those soldiers who come home with PTSD?

maximus:

Yes, and look at all the guns President Obama has taken away. Look at all the legislation he has proposed and passed. He's such a threat to the second amendment.

Paranoid, maybe?

Chris L.:

No, I don't even own a gun, and I don't have a little bomb shelter filled with army rations. ;)

The founding fathers put the second ammendment in there because they understood that oppression and terrible events have occurred all throughout history, and they will continue to happen, even in countries as great as ours. Were they paranoid?

Obama probably won't take away peoples' guns, but when the possibility is opened, it's only a matter or time before someone else years down the road exploits it to their own advantage.

It can't happen here, right?

maximus:

What happens now is that an assault weapon in the hands of a lunatic can mow down dozens of innocent people in seconds. Bet the founding fathers didn't think that would ever happen either.

Chris L.:

They did plan for that. Bad guys always find ways to kill. That's why it's so important that the good guys have access to guns as protection.

Assualt weapons are overkill, and I think they should be banned. Bad guys still have ways of getting them, though...

John B:

I use to sell guns in CT. The paper works states that if someone has been involuntary committed to a mental health facility in the past 20 years, they don't get a gun.
The involuntary part is that a judge bangs a gavel and sends a person away.
Do you want people who are crazy to own guns?

Chris L.:

Nope, I don't want dangerous crazy people to have guns. My point was that there are an increasing myriad of "mental illnesses".
Worst case scenario, what if a political movement or government moves to have their dissidents labelled as "crazy" whether or not they actually are. Then their guns would be taken away.
For instance, what if a popular or political movement portrays conservatives or religious as delusional or crazy? Then it's easy for a government to take away the guns.
Moreover, when Obamacare goes into effect, will government panels be able to decide what qualifies as a "mental disorder"? In the last century homosexuals were considered to be mentally ill, right? We now know that they are not, but certainly the negative implications of that notion were obvious.
This is a potentially very slippery slope.

maximus:

So your hypotheticals (potential, what if, worst case) take precedence over the actual insane gun violence that goes on in the actual world?

"...when Obamacare goes into effect, will government panels be able to decide what qualifies as a 'mental disorder'?"

What?

In Other News

News

Central Massachusetts Weather Outlook: Freezing Rain

News

Community Harvest Gets $10K Grant 'On A Whim'