<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Presidential debate discussion</title>
                <link>http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=f67a2f8871/height=//width=</link>
                <description><![CDATA[ Presidential debate discussion]]></description>
                <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:56:10 GMT</pubDate>
                <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:03:55 GMT</lastBuildDate>
                <ttl>1</ttl>
                <language>en-us</language>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[8:56 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:56:40 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><img src="http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/avitars/phpN1Dnsj48-LowellBrown.jpg" width=48 height=48 align=left style="margin-right: 5px;" border=0 />&nbsp;</td><td>Our live chat will start soon. Please send in your questions and comments. </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:02 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:02:13 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><img src="http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/avitars/phpN1Dnsj48-LowellBrown.jpg" width=48 height=48 align=left style="margin-right: 5px;" border=0 />&nbsp;</td><td>Welcome to our live chat on last night’s presidential debate. I’m Lowell Brown of the Waco Trib. Joining me are two Baylor University professors, Matt Gerber and Patrick Flavin, who are experts in debate and political science, respectively. Welcome, professors. Please tell everyone what you do at Baylor. </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:02 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:02:40 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><img src="http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/avitars/defaultavitar.gif" width=48 height=48 align=left style="margin-right: 5px;" border=0 />&nbsp;</td><td>I am the Director of Baylor’s nationally ranked debate program, and have been in that position since 2003. I am also an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication. I teach classes on Argumentation, Corporate Advocacy, Legal Communication, and the Rhetoric of American Foreign Policy.  </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:02 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:02:56 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[My name is Pat Flavin and I’m an assistant professor of political science at Baylor.  I research and teach classes on American politics, public opinion, and voting. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:03 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:03:02 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The professors will be answering your questions for the next hour, so please send them in. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:03 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:03:14 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Let’s tackle the big question first: Who won the debate and why? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:03 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:03:40 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I believe Romney won the debate, in convincing fashion, for 5 primary reasons. 1) Romney offered specific answers, especially on job creation. In fact, he offered a very specific, 4-point plan to create jobs. Obama not specific on this question. 2) Romney sounded better, and seemed more confident. Obama seemed disinterested and aloof, and had trouble explaining his own policies. 3) Romney won the Healthcare segment of the debate, mainly because Obama conceded that ‘Romney-care’ worked in Massachusetts, and that states could take the lead in health care. This was the knock-out blow in my opinion. 4) Body language. Romney had better eye contact with Obama, Lehrer, and the audience. Obama looked down a lot, and positioned his body to face the moderator, rather than face Romney directly. 5) Presence. Most debates have a certain “feel” to them, and this one just felt like Romney was in control from the outset.  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:04 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:04:05 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[My opinion is that Romney performed better.  Public opinion polls also report Romney as the winner.  He was more assertive and steered the debate where he wanted it to go.  This is a natural advantage of a challenger who is taking on an incumbent, and Romney used the opportunity to his advantage. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:04 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:04:43 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[What was the “highlight reel” moment that will live on in the race?<br/> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:05 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:05:16 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Romney’s admittance that “I like PBS, I like Big Bird, and I like you Jim Lehrer, but I would still cut the federal subsidy to PBS.” ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:05 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:05:35 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I don’t think there were any lasting memorable moments that we’ll be talking about in 10 years.  Romney prepared some good barbs and landed a few of them.  For example, his quip that the President is entitled to his own plane and house, but not his own facts. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:06 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:06:00 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[5 minutes in and we already covered Big Bird! Did anything happen last night that you think will shift the dynamics of the race?  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:06 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:06:28 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Historically, presidential debates don’t move public opinion much and aren’t “game changers.”  That’s especially true this year when very few Americans are still undecided about who they are going to vote for.  I expect a 2-3% bump for Romney nationally, which is consistent with past bumps for the challenger from the first debate. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:06 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:06:47 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I thought that Romney dominated the debate. However, I think he will only see a modest bump in his polling numbers. I’m not sure the debate did anything to change the minds of voters who have already decided, and I think the undecided voters (what few there truly are) will wait to see what happens in the next two rounds of debate.  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:07 Comment From James]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:07:00 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Why would Obama not ask Mitt about his 47% comment? His refusal to show Americans his taxes? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:08 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:08:49 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Obama's strategy was to avoid the fray, be Presidential. It would have been unseemly for Obama to have asked that question, especially given that Obama's administration has a reputation, be it deserved or not, for being secretive. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:09 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:09:00 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Obama's strategy was to play it safe.  He never really went on the offensive.  Perhaps he thought pointing to the 47% comment or Romney's refusal to publicize his taxes as "un-presidential" and would leave it to others in the campaign.  That may change, however, in the next two debates.  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:09 Comment From Pete]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:09:15 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The varying polls all seem to have a liberal or conservative slant based on the source.  Which polls are believeable? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:10 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:10:40 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Very few! At least in regards to the debate last night, most polls, be they from Democrat or GOP-leaning polls, show Romney "won" the debate. But be wary of polls. I am glad to see that you are skeptical!
<br/> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:11 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:11:44 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[All polls have what are called "house effects" (they lean Democrat or Republican) that we can measure over time.  So, one poll in isolation shouldn't be given much weight.  Instead, look at news sources that aggregate several polls together and give an average, they tend to be more reliable and give a more accurate indication of where the race stands. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:11 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:11:56 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Both candidates hammered particular points pretty hard. Romney repeatedly said Obama would cut $716 billion from Medicare, while Obama kept saying Romney had failed to provide specifics on his plans for taxes, health care and Wall Street reform. How much of last night was spontaneous debate versus talking points, and does the distinction even matter?  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:14 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:14:36 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Yes, the distinction matters. Both sides got their "talking points" into the debate, but there was actually more one-on-one verbal sparring last night than I expected. In my opinion, Romney won the Jobs and Healthcare segments of the debate. Romney offered a 4-point, specific job creation plan, while the president offered nothing specific on that question, outside of a vague reference to "war savings" and "balancing the budget". Obama's response here didn't answer the job-creation question at all. 
<br/> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:14 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:14:49 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Both candidates prepare exhaustively for the debate and try to stick to their talking points as much as possible.  As a result, we didn't learn a whole lot new about either candidate last night.  Jim Lehrer had a few instances where he challenged the candidates to speak more off the cuff (such as asking them directly whether they support or oppose financial reform or Medicare changes), but for the most part neither candidate was pushed too far out of his comfort zone. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:15 Comment From BaylorClass]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:15:10 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[What did you think of Obama's energy level and what do you think he should do differently in the next two debates. Sic'em! ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:15 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:15:17 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Romney also shockingly won the Healthcare segment as well. Obama conceded that Romney-care worked in Massachusetts, and that it would be a good model for the US ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:16 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:16:59 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Most pundits criticized President Obama's lack of energy.  Some even said it appeared he didn't want to be there.  I think it would benefit him to be more assertive and energetic in the next two debates.  He could, for example, directly challenge some of Romney's claims and press him for more details about his proposals. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:17 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:17:18 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Obama seemed, tired, disinterested, aloof, and frankly, rattled at times. His body language was 'defeatist', and it seemed like he was debating from a position of inferiority all night, when afterall, he is the incumbent candidate with a lead in the polls.  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:17 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:17:36 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[What about Romney? Any advice for him going forward? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:19 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:19:12 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Romney needs to be careful about stealing time in the debate, and appearing to steamroll the moderator, as was the case last night. Though Obama actually spoke a total of 3 minutes longer than Romney! It sure didnt seem that way.  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:19 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:19:59 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Build on his strong performance.  One of the advantages of a challenger is that, despite all of the campaign commercials and news reports about him, some voters still haven't formed an impression of him.  The debates are an opportunity to present himself unfiltered to voters.  Not so much for Obama.  Whether you like him or hate him, nearly every American already has an opinion about the current president. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:20 Comment From Brett Bolte]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:20:08 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Okay, so Romney won the debate last night. There's no question about <a href="http://that.The" target="_blank" >that.The</a> problem is, Romney isn't going to cut military spending. (Neither is Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning President, BTW).That will make Raytheon happy. He's not going to close any of our 900 bases in 140 countries. We don't need to spend $1 trillion a year to defend our shores. (We do need $1 trillion if are going to continue to attack every country with dictators and Muslims in it). He should cut money out of the military budget or we will go bankrupt. We're going to go bankrupt, anyway, to be honest. Hell, we're bankrupt now, it's just that the Chinese haven't called the loan yet. But, doing something sensible like closing half of those 900 bases and saving our country from bankruptcy will be spun as "making our veterans homeless”, and “unpatriotic", and all that garbage. What is so unpatriotic about trying to prevent your country from being owned by China, the dollar nearly worthless, and 70% of our citizens dumpster diving? When no one wants to loan us money so we can buy stuff made in China (because they know they’ll never get repaid), the dollar is gonna collapse. That’s when it will get real interesting. When the welfare check is in the mail, but it won’t buy anything, the Free Stuff Army is gonna go ballistic. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:21 Comment From Kelly]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:21:09 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I got the impression that President Obama's strategy was to give Romney enough rope to hang him self once the fact checkers do their thing. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:22 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:22:18 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Professors, any thoughts on the last two comments?  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:22 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:22:21 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Kelly, I dont think attacking Romney's arguments after the fact in the media will have nearly the impact that a better performance from Obama could have made.
<br/> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:23 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:23:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Brett, alot to cover in your post, but I will say this. If all of your arguments about the economic and military rise of China are true, shouldn't the U.S. bolster, or at least retain its current military presence in Asia? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:23 Comment From Anonymous]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:23:47 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Advice for Romney going forward....Double Windsor next time. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:24 Comment From Guest]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:24:59 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Will this have any real impact on polling in battleground states like Ohio? That is, can these debates really impact voters when the issues concern dry policy stances on the economy, deficits and job creation numbers (themselves highly suspect)? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:25 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:25:23 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[To respond to Kelly -- Both campaigns will try to spin the debate in their favor.  But, I think it's a dangerous strategy for either to rely more on spin after the fact than the debate performance itself.  Casual observers of politics will watch debates, but few will tune in to the hours of spin offered afterward. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:25 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:25:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Kelly, you are correct though, Obama definitely played defense like the Baylor Bears played against West Virginia last weekend. Baylor dropped back in "prevent" defense and hoped Geno Smith would make a mistake. He didn't. Obama also played prevent defense last night, avoided big mistakes, was slow and pensive, and hoped for Romney to make a mistake. He didn't.  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:27 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:27:05 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I dont think the debates will "move the needle" very much in the battleground states....it seems like those states have few true undecided voters.
<br/> ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:27 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:27:25 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I expect Romney to make up a little ground in battleground states (like Ohio) where he is behind.  But, the problem is that there simply aren't many undecided voters still left out there to convince. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:27 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:27:41 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[So, I again agree with Matt! ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:27 Comment From Pete]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:27:48 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Can Romney really win? And Brett Bolte's comment hit the nail on the head.  His voice is that of the people. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:29 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:29:53 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Pete, no, I don't think Romney can win. I thought the Republican campaign took too long to gather momentum, and I think this election was over about a year ago. That said, Romney will probably win all of the debates. He is a stronger speaker and debater than Obama.  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:29 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:29:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Even after Romney's strong debate performance, Obama remains the favorite.  Looking at the Electoral College math, Romney would have to have a great October to turn the tables.  But, it's certainly a possibility.  That's what makes campaigns interesting. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:30 Comment From Ken]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:30:21 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Matt, the term "political football" comes to mind in your post. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:30 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:30:38 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Jim Lehrer seemed like an entirely ineffective moderator. If it's going to run like that, why have a moderator at all? How do you think Lehrer did? And, can good moderating produce a better debate? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:30 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:30:42 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Ken, yeah, I know...guilty!  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:31 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:31:49 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Jim kind of disappeared during the debate, and got steamrolled by both candidates at different points in the debate. I think a stronger moderator would have enforced the time limits more strictly.  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:32 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:32:58 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Yes, agreed.  Lehrer has performed well as the moderator in past debates, but seemed unsure and tentative last night.  Once he allowed the candidates to talk over him, it continued all night. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:33 Comment From Guest]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:33:37 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The 47 percent question that never got asked Wednesday night but could arise in one of the next debates -- is this a winner for Obama or Romney? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:35 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:35:13 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I think it's a winner for Romney. Every day and week that passes is more time and distance from the 47% comment. Obama should have played that card while it was still fresh and resonant with the audience. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:36 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:36:04 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[To add to that, I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama bring up the 47% comment in the next debate.  He danced around it last night by arguing that Romney's policies would hurt the middle class.  But, as more time passes, bringing it up becomes less effective. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:36 Comment From Andrew]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:36:16 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Gov Romney emphatically stated several times that his plan for tax cuts would not add to the deficit, and combated Pres Obama's assertion that eliminating deductions and loopholes would not make up for the amount of lost revenue. Given that the CBO uses "static" as opposed to "dynamic" scoring of legislation (meaning any legislation which cuts taxes will likely be scored as having an impact on the overall deficit), could his statements result in a "read my lips" moment if he is elected and appears to backtrack on that promise? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:37 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:37:08 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I was literally thinking "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" as I was watching the debate! Great point Andrew. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:38 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:38:32 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Certainly a possibility.  At the very least, the pressure from the media and the Obama campaign for more details about exactly which deductions/exemptions would be dropped will increase leading up to the next debate. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:38 Comment From James]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:38:48 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Romneys performance must give heart to conservatives, but it is likely that Obama will come out hard and fast in the next one, an attack dog. How will a modertor manage to keep tow attackers in tow? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:40 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:40:43 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I think Romney will,or at least he should, try to be Mr. Nice Guy in the next debate. I dont think it's a given that Obama comes out in "attack mode".  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:41 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:41:05 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[One positive from Jim Lehrer's performance as moderator last night is that he tried to draw clear distinctions between the candidates for voters.  So in the next debate (which is a town hall format) if the two candidates attack each other directly because they have different policy views, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:42 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:42:27 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<table><tr valign=top><td><img src="http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/avitars/phpN1Dnsj48-LowellBrown.jpg" width=48 height=48 align=left style="margin-right: 5px;" border=0 />&nbsp;</td><td>Mitt Romney went for the details all night, with the whole, "a woman from wherever said to me," thing. But Obama didn't. Why wouldn't you go for that? Did Obama lose points because he did stay more generalized, without folksy examples? </td></tr></table>]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:44 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:44:51 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Obama used a couple of personal examples too, but Romney was more effective.  But, I think he had to be given polling data that shows Americans view him as less sympathetic and able to relate to regular folks.  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:44 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:44:55 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Romney pulled out one of Bill Clinton's old strategies, to "go folksy". It helped him create identification and resonance with his target audience (the middle class). Obama, on the other hand, simply invoked Clinton directly, at two points in the debate. Obama needed more narratives/examples. Point: Romney. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:45 Comment From Kelly]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:45:19 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I would have liked for them to address finance reform, and what has been done to prevent "too big to fail" from happening again. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:46 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:46:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Kelly, I agree. Though Romney made repeated attacks on Obama's designation of 5 banks as "too big to fail", and thus eligible for federal bailout protection, he offered no specifics on how he would replace/change the current banking/finance regulations. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:48 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:48:05 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Yes, Romney was very specific about what parts of Dodd-Frank he doesn't like, but light on the details about what he would replace it with. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:48 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:48:17 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[A lot of times people lament how presidential races focus on process and gaffes over policy. This debate featured a lot of policy discussion. How do you think the candidates did in terms of drawing distinctions between their positions?  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:51 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:51:41 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[I was pleasantly surprised.  So much attention is focused on gaffes and personality that we often forget that presidential debates are one of the few times that an audience of millions of Americans sit down to really think about public policies they support and don't support.  Last night I thought both candidates did a good job sticking to policy, and trying to draw clear distinctions between themselves for voters. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:53 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:53:42 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Agreed with Pat, both sides clearly laid out their differences.  ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:53 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:53:57 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[This is from another Trib staffer: What to make of facial expressions during a debate? Each candidate had his share of smiles, chuckles, and head nods, usually expressing dismay or frustration with their opponent's comments. Do those things work well with the public? Can they be off-putting, or if done appropriately create some connection with the audience? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:55 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:55:27 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Obama used more "negative" body language. Lots of looking down, shaking his head, faced the moderator instead of Romney, it was a little off-putting. Romney appeared a little rigid at certain points, and his face must have hurt from the 90-minute smile, but he did well. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:56 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:56:25 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Romney: Red tie (agressive, elite)
<br/>Obama: Blue tie (passive, blue-collar) ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:56 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:56:25 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[They likely have a minor effect creating a connection with the audience.  I doubt, however, that many voters decide who they will vote for based on who smiles more or has better eye contact.  More importantly, since most people watching already have a pretty firm opinion about both of the candidates, the effect of body language is muted. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:56 Comment From Joe]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:56:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Do you think Clint Eastwood was perplexed that two humans were talking to each other instead of inanimate objects? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:57 Matt Gerber]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:57:51 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Good one Joe! Eastwood should moderate the next debate and enforce the speech times with a "Go ahead, violate the speech times, make my day!" ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:58 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:58:10 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[At the town hall style debate I believe the candidates will have chairs (or stools).  Maybe we'll hear what the chair's plan is for taxes or Medicare! ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:58 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:58:35 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Clint Eastwood as debate moderator would certainly be entertaining! ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[9:58 Comment From Andrew]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:58:39 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Pres Obama has been widely criticized for his overall demeanor last night, although his likeability is still strong. Gov Romney has been widely criticized for being out-of-touch with average Americans, although both of you believe he "won" last night. Policy differences aside, what stylistic attributes will be helpful and hurtful in a Town Hall debate? Does either candidate have an inherent advantage in this format? ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:01 Pat Flavin]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:01:31 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[The town hall format advantages whichever candidate can better relate to the audience.   Bill Clinton was great at that.  Romney and Obama strike me as both average on that skill, so I don't think either has an inherent advantage. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:03 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:03:35 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Well, we’re out of time. Thanks, everyone, for participating. Professors, it’s been fun. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:03 Lowell Brown]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:03:42 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Our discussion today will be archived on this website for those of you who’d like to return to read it later. ]]></description></item>
<item>
                    <title><![CDATA[10:03 ]]></title>
                   <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:03:55 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[<div class="clearingspace" style="line-height: 3px;">&nbsp;</div><a href="http://www.coveritlive.com/index.php?option=com_altcaster&task=register&referral_code=LiveBlogReferral" target="_blank"><img src="http://cdnsl.coveritlive.com/templates/coveritlive/images/cil_thanks_en.jpg" border="0" /></a><br><div class="clearingspace" style="line-height: 3px;">&nbsp;</div>]]></description></item></channel></rss>