Monday’s third and final presidential debate

nonpartisan conservative?

that's an interesting word salad

3rd Debate in one sentence: Mitt Romney wouldn't do anything differently from President Obama because he's doing everything correctly.

I doubt you would be saying that if Obama got clobbered. This does seem to be the meme on the right side of the web, though...

Cycloptichorn

Debates numbers 1 and 2 comported with the conventional wisdom that debates don't matter much.

Debate number 1 was the game changer, and it was such as much because of Obama's performance as Romney's which is quite sweet given what an arrogant narcissist the president is.

Having changed the game in Debate #1, all Romney had to do was avoid a meltdown, which he did. He was also able to sharply focus his debate strategy in terms of appealing to the voting blocs he was targeting.

Obama, on the other, hand having performed so poorly in Debate #1, had to go for a knock out in the next two. He was the aggressor in both bouts and the aggressor can usually "win" on points, but he needed a knock out to upset the image of Romney in Debate #1 that in one evening, convincingly countered the millions of dollars spent by the Obama campaign on attack ads. He didn't get it and you could see the desperation in his eyes last night as Romney continuously clinched and threw a sharp jab here and a sharp jab there, but never giving Obama to room to throw a haymaker.

It was a masterful performance by Romney and required a high degree of self-discipline and mindfulness. It didn't look like anything special, but it was.

The next day the Left is clamoring that

A) Obama clobbered him (he did not)
B) All that Romney did was agree with Obama (which was not the case)

Reaction B is particularly telling, and demonstrates the frustration of Obama supporters.

Let's assume the reaction is accurate. It leaves Obama supporters sputtering that Romney failed miserably because he agreed with their guy. Not a very convincing condemnation.

The campaigns have internal polling that doesn't suffer from the statistical tricks those with biases do. Theoretically, at least, these polls should be the most accurate any can be because the campaigns aren't tying to spin themselves, they want to know the lay of the land as clearly as they can.

We never learn of the results of these polls, but we can make some assumptions about what they say.

Imagine the corners of two prizefighters getting a glimpse of the judge's scoring cards.

The corner of the fighter who is ahead will tell their guy to fight smart, stay away from or tie up the other guy, because the fight is his to lose.

The corner of the other fighter will scream at their guy to mix it up, go for broke and get a knockout. It will make their guy vulnerable to the counter-punch, but it's the only way to win.

Who looked like which fighter last night?

So which is it? a game changer or the fact that debates don't matter much. Pull your head out of your ass and get it right.

Not even if he could do all the outlandish things he's promising, like 12 million jobs in 4 years. Puh-lease.

You have trouble with reading comprehension, don't you?

You’re the one who said debates don’t matter much and then said it was a game changer. So which is it?

I wrote that Debates #2 and #3 comport (look it up) with the conventional wisdom that debates don't matter.

I didn't write that debates don't matter.

I wrote that Debate #1 was a game changer --- which you would infer, if you had the intelligence for such a subtle Jedi mind trick, means that I don't hold with the conventional wisdom.

Ask a grown-up to explain it to you.

I figured that would be your lame ass excuse. Another conservative imbecile on the path to extinction. Don’t forget to take your other half h20Fool with you.

What a pathetic come back.

You're a moron, plain and simple.

You still don't understand why your argument is idiotic.

Try eating more fish. They say it's brain food.