Debate Reaction

“Well, Scott, the uncommitted voters in our survey – immediately after the debate was over – gave a clear victory to President Obama this evening.” A CBS News poll of undecided voters favored Obama, 53% to 23%. Mitt Romney once again came in third, behind Tied, at 24%. A CNN instant poll of registered voters that violently oversampled Republicans found President Obama still won, 48% to 40%. A Public Policy Polling survey of swing state voters also came out in favor of the president, 53% to 42%.

To put in perspective this polling, consider the results of the polls after the first debate, considered to be a blowout even by us liberals in favor of Mitt Romney. Then, the the CBS poll of undecided voters taken immediately after the event showed the Republican winning the debate by 24 points. Last night it is Obama won by 30. Now let’s see our “liberal” lamestream mainstream whateverstream media fellate him now as they did Mitt Romney after the First Debate.

James Carville: “If this had would’ve been a Little League baseball game, they would’ve called the thing after four innings.”

Martha Raddatz: “President Obama humanized what he was talking about. He talked a lot about the troops. He talked about the survivors from 9/11. He talked about the people in Israel. So if, in fact, he was going towards the female vote, he probably got their attention with that sort of approach.”

Norah O’Donnell: “He repeatedly said that the President was right on issues, that he concurred with him on a number of issues. In fact, it was President Obama who said that Romney was having a hard time differentiating himself.”

ABC Fact Check: “One was when Mitt Romney repeated what he said before, that the President went on an apology tour when he became president. We’ve looked at all those speeches on those foreign trips. The President didn’t apologize for America.”

Howard Fineman: “The Obama people insist – and I think with some good reason – that Mitt Romney was just flat-out lying, not to put too fine a point on it, on the question of whether he, Mitt Romney, was willing to support direct federal help, the kind of help the President put forth, for the auto industry.”

David Gergen: “I do think that the Democrats and President Obama have a legitimate argument. The guy who came into these debates was not the candidate we saw in the primaries. We go back to the etch-a-sketch.”

Marc Ambinder: “Romney was betting that he did not need to take risks, and stands a better shot at winning the election the more people associate him with the economy. Deciding to let Obama once again be the aggressor carries real risks, because of the large audience, and because the contrasts in tone between the two candidates could be large enough that some voters who initially thought Romney crossed the credibility threshold might have second thoughts.”

Neil Cavuto:“I think that Mitt Romney botched a lot of things tonight.”

Larry Kudlow: “I think there’s a little too much valium in the Romney presentation tonight.”

Andrew Sullivan: “For Romney, he made no massive mistakes. No Gerald Ford moments. And since the momentum of this race is now his, if now faltering a little, a defeat on points on foreign policy will be an acceptable result. But this was Obama’s debate; and he reminded me again of how extraordinarily lucky this country has been to have had him at the helm in this new millennium.”

Matt Dowd: “But for the commander-in-chief, strong leader… he actually lost that strong leader tonight to the President.”

Chuck Todd: “They’re not claiming victory tonight… at times I felt like he was giving a book report, that there were a lot of world book facts that would show up in some of his answers.”

John King: “There’s no question debate coaches would score this one for the president.”

Greg Sargent: “Tonight, America was introduced to Peacenik Mitt — and watched him take a pummeling. I don’t know how much this will impact the overall dynamic of the race — it may not matter much at all — but it’s hard to see this as a good night for Romney.”

Josh Marshall: “The first half hour was a draw, though President Obama scored by default when Romney either didn’t or couldn’t attack on Libya. After that though Romney began to falter as Obama became more direct, organized and declarative. Romney seemed increasingly lost. Obama seemed comfortable, happy. The visuals told the story.”

More Josh Marshall: “Romney looked pained and rambling through most of the debate. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Romney sweat like that, literally or figuratively. And I think national security politics mainly revolves around demonstrations of strength and coherence. To put a finer point on it, dominance. On that count, Obama won hands down.

I don’t expect we’ll see a decisive move in the polls. My sense is that everyone is already up out of bleachers and rushing onto the field in this election, on both sides. Not many people are still hanging back — as many seem to have been prior to the first debate. But strength and clarity wins in national security politics — not catch phrases but demonstrations and body language. Romney looked weak; Obama looked strong. That’ll help him.”

Chris Cillizza: “Obama controlled the third presidential debate in a way not all that dissimilar from the way Romney controlled the first one. Obama clearly came loaded for bear, attacking Romney from the jump for a lack of clarity when it came to his vision (or lack thereof) on foreign policy.”

Joe Klein: “President Obama won the foreign policy debate, cleanly and decisively, on both style and substance. It was as clear a victory as Mitt Romney’s in the first debate. And Romney lost in similar fashion: he seemed nervous, scattered, unconvincing — and he practiced unilateral disarmament, agreeing with Obama hither and yon … on Iraq (as opposed to two weeks ago), on Afghanistan (as opposed to interviews he’s given this fall), on Libya and Syria and Iran. He didn’t have a single creative or elegantly stated foreign policy thought and, indeed, seemed foolish at times.”