Social media analysis: Who really won the debate?

[ProSense]

Social media analysis: Who really won the debate?

By M. Alex Johnson, NBC News

The immediate consensus that Mitt Romney won Wednesday's presidential debate has eroded significantly as fact-checkers have weighed in and supporters of President Barack Obama have fought back, according to NBCPolitics' computer-assisted analysis of more than 1.3 million post-debate comments on social media.

<...>

Obama took a beating Thursday, reflecting the view that he had been passive and had passed up opportunities to attack Romney:



<...>

By Friday morning, the counterargument that Obama had actually won on substance had taken root, with online sentiment now favoring the president:



- more -

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14244918-social-media-analysis-who-really-won-the-debate

Fascinating stuff!

[warrior1]

1. Ed, Chris and Rachel

need to see this.

[OldDem2012]

6. Bighead Ed and Tweety were completely insufferable...

....they gave what amounted to aid and comfort to the enemy.

Loudmouth jerks.

[CheapShotArtist]

23. Ed Bighead?

[IMG][/IMG]

[coldbeer]

15. I think it will sink in next week

Obama was masterful!

He kind of gave Mitt a shovel to dig his own hole.
And Mitt dug deep!

I think Ed, Chris, and Rachel will wake up.

[sendero]

17. Please..

.. Obama was not masterful. He was nervous, disengaged and languid.

Romney was lying from the first word from his mouth, and that smug smile he was sporting when Obama spoke is worthy of a smack on the jaw.

But Obama can and hopefully will do much better in the next debate. And the bounce Romney got is already dissipating in the mists of folks realizing what a pack of bullshit he was selling.

[OldDem2012]

40. If Romney doesn't get more than a 1-2 pt bounce from his debate "win"...

....then we'll know the President won on all of the most important levels. If Romney fails to get any "bounce", or loses even more ground by the end of next week we will know that he lost the debate due to self-inflicted wounds.

I'm thinking you must have missed the part where the President allowed a manic, whacked-out Romney to completely backtrack on nearly every one of his previously stated beliefs. The Obama Campaign is already running ads asking what Romney really believes because of the disparity between his stated beliefs before the debate and what he claimed during the debate.

And finally, are the right-wingers still going to vote for a candidate who threw them under the bus?

[sendero]

42. That's why I said.....

... he was lying.

The man has not a shred of integrity and anyone paying any attention at all knows this now, he basically repudiated everything he has been campaigning for in one fell swoop.

But you only get to do that once.

[BlueMTexpat]

65. It's true that he [Mitt] basically repudiated everything

he has been campaigning for in one fell swoop.

But I am bemused by why you think that he will only get to do that once. This is, after all, Mr. Etch-A-Sketch. He takes a new position every time he opens his mouth. He's been doing it for months - years, even - and getting away with it.

It's practically impossible to have any kind of meaningful debate with an Etch-A-Sketch candidate, especially when it was announced beforehand that this one would come prepared with "zingers" rather than data and has demonstrated nothing but contempt for fact-checkers. Responding to this shadow-boxing (or as I have heard it described as "Gish Galloping&quot would only degenerate into playground-like infighting - and that's exactly what Mittens hoped for. President Obama didn't take the bait on Wed night.

The only way that we will ever see a meaningful "debate" between these two is if Mitt actually plays by the rules and demonstrates how Obama's policies are clearly wrong and how he would propose practical and pragmatic ways to correct those deficiencies. Because Mitt has nothing to offer other than "cut government," "repeal Obamacare," "cut taxes," "cut regulations," and "fire people," "vouchers," etc. and generally wants to let capitalism rum rampant without constraints, he basically can do nothing other than to try to reinvent himself and come out swinging, just as he did. One is simply unable to rebut or respond to someone like Romney who will say anything, anytime, including something 180 degrees opposite from what he just said five minutes earlier. With the assistance of his MSM enablers, he might even sway those people who equate bombastic belligerence with intelligence and logic.

Mitt may even have deluded himself that his God will miraculously put him in office - or, more likely, that his GOP allies will be successful in suppressing the vote and stealing the election for him.

I am not too worried about a miracle from the Almighty, but I do worry about what Mitt's GOP allies will do. If anything, they're more unscrupulous than he is - and that is saying quite a lot.

[sendero]

69. I was not clear..

.. he can do it a thousand times. He's actually not getting away with it this time, and each time he does it the cost will be higher.

[BlueMTexpat]

70. Thanks for clearing up my

confusion! I totally agree.

[CthulhusEvilCousin]

49. Weird

It's weird that my first impression of Obama is the complete opposite of this. Certainly, I saw Obama collecting his thoughts, but disengaged and languid? I found his answers to be incredibly substantial, and most of the time Mitt just repeated himself to things Obama would say.

[sendero]

50. Maybe that was just in..

... comparison to the manic Romney. But yes, I thought Obama was moving slowly and perhaps thinking slowly as well. I've seen him in debates before and he was much better.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I think Romneys full frontal assault of lies threw Obama a curve that he had difficulty handling.

[cliffordu]

61. Of course there is the idea of not interrupting your

Enemy when he's busy setting himself on fire....

You used languid in a post up above....and now 'slowly' in this post, twice....

Then, "threw Obama a curve he had difficulty handling.... "

Because he was languid and slow...?

Is that code for lazy?


What exactly are you getting to??

[mazzarro]

55. Absolutely right!

It is sad that Obama, despite recent past dealings with the rePIGs, continue to give them the benefit of doubt and never goes on the attack until he has been clobbered and dragged through the mud. He had better learn this lesson now and not repeat this crap in his second term otherwise he will be causing more damage to the Democratic Party and it's candidates for a long, long time to come.

[cliffordu]

62. You mean like he did when he used the same tactics to shred the Clintons ???

You mean like that?? Yeah, he should listen to you.

[newspeak]

58. yeah, I like what john stewart said

the president had two minutes to respond to williard's comments-"lie, lie, liar, lie, lie, lie." of course, pres. obama couldn't say it, but it would have been delicious to see in fantasy world. It's too bad we didn't have someone publicly say that about little boots and the iraq lies.

[DarleenMB]

60. I beg to disagree

I saw a man who was keeping a tight rein on himself. Every lie Rmoney told caused President Obama's jaw to tighten.

The problem, as I see it, was the the President was trying to actually answer the questions. There was no possible way to counter all the lies literally flying out of Rmoney's mouth. Not to mention the fact Rmoney was talking so fast and bullying his way over Lehrer that there was no way the President could get a word in edgewise.

[Doctor_J]

68. jesus h christ

Obama was masterful!

Give it a rest. He was awful - timid, confused, ill-prepared, and decidedly unpresidential. The Obama we saw Wednesday was the reason he got trounced in 2009-2010. No confidence, no principles, no leadership, no ability to stand up to those bullying him. Another "masterful" performance like that and Rmoney will be back in the race;

[Release The Hounds]

26. You can add Jon Stewart to that list too.

[ywcachieve]

2. Lies were flowing out of Romney's mouth like air.

I always thought of President Obama as the winner, he had facts.

[HuckleB]

3. Keep pushing people to read the transcript. It says everything.

[Downwinder]

4. google "romney big bird"

About 271,000,000 results

[hughee99]

5. Good news, because most potential voters are social media users

who posted comments right after the debate, so you know it's a good demographic cross section they have.

I hate to say it but suggesting the debate winner can be determined by post debate social media posts (leaving aside that most voters aren't regular social media users), makes this article read a lot like someone who decided to write a piece on how Obama really won and then looked around for some sort of justification to back it up.

[ProSense]

8. I hate to tell you this

"I hate to say it but suggesting the debate winner can be determined by post debate social media posts (leaving aside that most voters aren't regular social media users), makes this article read a lot like someone who decided to write a piece on how Obama really won and then looked around for some sort of justification to back it up."

...but 1.3 million random opinions will beat out 430 people in a skewed sample any day.

You can keep believing that America is stuck on Thursday night's spin, but Romney is being destroyed by his lies.

He didn't step all over his debate high because he thought it was a great idea.

Romney On 47 Percent: ‘I Said Something That’s Just Completely Wrong’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021475193

Ask Big Bird, and he'll tell you: Mitt fucked up!

[Indpndnt]

24. Exactly. And I really loved how Willard himself brought up his biggest weakness (47% video)

right after his debate 'triumph.' Such perfect timing he has! He's run out of feet to shoot himself in. What's next? Annie's feet? Or does he go for their boys' tootsies first?

[hughee99]

31. 1.3 million random opinions likely don't represent 1.3 million people

as many tend to post not just one message. And given that the demographics of regular social media users are certainly NOT the same of the voters in general, quantity doesn't equal quality.

I can ask a million people in certain parts of New York City or San Francisco and guarantee that President Obama is up by 40 points, but that doesn't make it scientific or accurate either.

I'm not stuck on someone's spin. I watched the debate twice. A campaign isn't about having the right ideas, it's about selling whatever your ideas are to the people. Romney was the better salesman on that night. In the end, his technique may backfire and cost him more than he gained, but I don't think that has happened yet, because the people who haven't made up their mind yet MAYBE watched the debates but likely don't spend a whole lot of time listening to the talking heads or watching the political news. There's a reason they haven't yet made up their minds in a campaign where the two candidates are so very different. They don't pay a lot of attention. When they do, you have to be on your game.

[ProSense]

35. They represent a hell of a lot more people than 430 over 50 whites who lean Romney. n/t

[hughee99]

45. And if someone releases a poll of 430 over 50 whites,

I'll be equally dismissive of that poll too.

[ProSense]

52. Well,

"And if someone releases a poll of 430 over 50 whites, I'll be equally dismissive of that poll too."

...such a poll has become the basis for Mitt's "win."

So, about that CNN Snap Poll
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021466107


You see, I think the OP gives a more accurate picture.

Like I said, if Mitt really thought he had scored a huge win, he would never have come out today and apologize for his 47 percent comment.

If he did this to bolster his "win," then he's too stupid to be President.

Chaos: The media pundits/Mitt's campaign are having a melt down
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021481398

[hughee99]

57. The snap poll wasn't the reason I thought Mitt won.

I thought he performed better after watching it (better salesman anyway, not better ideas).

[ProSense]

36. Another thing:

I'm not stuck on someone's spin. I watched the debate twice. A campaign isn't about having the right ideas, it's about selling whatever your ideas are to the people. Romney was the better salesman on that night. In the end, his technique may backfire and cost him more than he gained, but I don't think that has happened yet, because the people who haven't made up their mind yet MAYBE watched the debates but likely don't spend a whole lot of time listening to the talking heads or watching the political news. There's a reason they haven't yet made up their minds in a campaign where the two candidates are so very different. They don't pay a lot of attention. When they do, you have to be on your game.

Not everyone agrees with you on Romney's performance. This was from that night:

Democratic Pollster: Romney Scored Some Points But Not Enough
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021467583

[hughee99]

46. Obama's deputy campaign manager did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251117927

In your link of Romney not scoring enough points,

"The memo by Democratic pollster Geoff Garin of the Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group comes from a dial-in session in Aurora, Colorado of mostly "weak Democrats and independents" who voted for Obama but are open to supporting Romney. Among the panelists who already leaned toward Obama, Romney scored some high marks but President Obama did as well. "

It's about people who specifically already voted for Obama in '08 and Romney wasn't able to sway those who are already leaning toward Obama. While certainly good news, that doesn't make it an Obama "win" either.

[ProSense]

48. So you're

"It's about people who specifically already voted for Obama in '08 and Romney wasn't able to sway those who are already leaning toward Obama. While certainly good news, that doesn't make it an Obama "win" either."

...expecting Obama would have swayed people who voted for McCain?

I mean, if CNN polled people who leaned or supported Romney, how is this different?

The fact is the OP analysis is of real opinions, more than a million of them.

[hughee99]

56. I don't know if it's more than a million of them.

Since its based on a number of posts not a number of individuals. It's a subset of general voters (just those who post politically on social media), which may include far more Obama voters already than Romney voters.

[ProSense]

59. Let's say

"I don't know if it's more than a million of them. Since its based on a number of posts not a number of individuals. It's a subset of general voters (just those who post politically on social media), which may include far more Obama voters already than Romney voters."

...you're right. The OP still shows a shift in opinions, and likely some of those were independent voters, possibly some Republicans. Also, unless 200 comments can be attributed to each individual, it's still a better indicator than a skewed poll of 430 over 50 white voters.

[hughee99]

66. Are my only two choices to believe a survey of social media

or a poll of 430 over 50 white voters? I don't put much stock in either of them, and wouldn't use either to try to support my argument that someone won the debate.

[OldDem2012]

41. What exactly was Romney selling? Most voters are smart enough to....

....know the difference between cow-pies and apple pies.

You need to start giving them more credit.

[hughee99]

44. Romney is polling around 43%

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/05/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE8931E420121005

"The online tracking poll conducted between Monday and Friday showed 46 percent of likely voters backed Obama, versus 44 percent for Romney.

Obama had led Romney by 6 percentage points in the poll released on Wednesday and the edge narrowed to five points - a 48-43 percent lead for Obama - in polling up to Thursday. That was the first including a day of interviews after the meeting in Denver."

It's safe to say at a significant number of people can't tell the difference.

[ProSense]

47. Republicans

"It's safe to say at a significant number of people can't tell the difference."

...can't tell the difference.

Romney gains after debate ... with Republicans (Obama with independents)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021473097

[Fumesucker]

7. Obama is a long game player and DU is relentlessly about the short game for the most part.

Obama stood aside and let Romney be Romney and now everybody's talking about the bird.

I think it was Napoleon who said not to interrupt when your enemy is destroying himself.

[cr8tvlde]

9. I was laughing and crying ... the 60's meets the 80's meet ... Our Boy Mitt.

So many memories...thanks. Love The Hook.

[ProSense]

10. Bird is the Word

What the hell was Mitt thinking?

[We People]

11. Love it!!

[Cha]

12. Prescient, dude! Poppa u mau mau

Poppa U Mau Mau Poppa U Mau Mau!

[CakeGrrl]

14. That's it in a nutshell.

Today, the "winner" is awkwardly walking back yet another statement as the lasting impressions of the debate are that he flipped on major campaign positions and wants to do away with Sesame Street.

What did he win, again?

[OldDem2012]

43. LOL!!! Thank you!! nt.

[truebluegreen]

13. Heh. n/t

[Skraxx]

16. New Media Has Completely Changed The Game

It hasn't sunk in to the establishment and old media that there is a new, more powerful game in town.

[sendero]

18. Yes sir..

.... (or madame) there is. The MSM just does not control the message any more.

[Skraxx]

19. And It Was Friggin' Quick!

By historical standards.

We're the mutherfuckin' village now, and they better get used to it.

[Iliyah]

20. The corporate media and hate radio

spewed such venom. Even our side was horrible. Obama knew what he was doing. Mittens came out swinging BS and the so called journalist ate it up. CNN had a complete BS snap poll. I don't know about CBS, but I must say it was one-sided. Obama knew what he was doing. Mittens used an technique trying to bate Pres O into gaffes. Obama knew what he was doing. Now Pres O have material re: ads. . . Even Mitt had to go to his favorite Fake News station to get out the word about 47% which is a effing lie.....

[bigtree]

21. here's a pro-active reason why

More people under 25 get news from digital (60 percent) than “traditional” sources such as TV, radio and print (43 percent).
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/189819/pew-tv-viewing-habit-grays-as-digital-news-consumption-tops-print-radio/



HERE'S HOW THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN USES THESE VIDEOS:

from yesterday:

______ Today, Obama for America is running the Promoted Trend on Twitter using the #ForwardNotBack hashtag leading to a video that came together in mere hours.

Barack Obama@BarackObama
What Romney failed to deliver on last night: the facts. OFA.BO/zbSvXk
4 Oct 12

Obama is also running anti-Romney expandable ads on key swing state news sites with a message aimed squarely at younger voters, along with a more-general anti-Romney ad takeover mirroring the #ForwardNotBack theme on HuffingtonPost.com.

The Obama paid trend links to search results topped with a video tweet from the Obama camp: therein lies about a minute-and-a-half of mainstream media response to the debate, all suggesting statements by Republican Mitt Romney were light on facts. TV coverage clips are coupled with several screenshots of equally damning conclusions on Twitter about Romney statements from non-partisan fact-checking groups FactCheck.org and Politifact.

"The results are in. Romney played fast and loose with the facts," states text that introduces (yesterday's) Obama video. (Same format as today's)

Before the debate, Obama's campaign surrogates played down his chances of scoring high points last night, in part because Romney had more recent debate experience and more time to prepare. Today's video-enhanced Twitter move seems to follow that strategy. Rather than highlighting the President and his own words, the video uses trusted media outlets to reinforce one of Obama's primary messages last night: Romney's claims regarding issues such as healthcare and his tax plan are not based in fact.


read: http://www.clickz.com/clickz/news/2214850/obama-attacks-swiftly-on-twitter-jabs-romney-on-swing-sites

[ProSense]

25. The Internet numbers are impressive.

A few years back, the total was 10 percent.

[patrice]

22. What calls itself "the Left" listens to itself too much & refuses to filter for Rongny trolls. nt

[Indpndnt]

27. Willard tossed red meat to his base with the promise to kill PBS.

But he put a face on that promise. An adorable, beloved Muppet face. Because Willard is just that stupid.

[Kalidurga]

28. Ha I knew it.

It was still a rough couple of hours watching everyone trip over themselves declaring Mitt the winner. There were a few besides me that declared Obama the winner. My reason is simple. Obama didn't tell 27 lies in 32 minutes. And I harped on this before, Mitt looked constipated, Bill Maher says he looked like he was holding onto a fart. I believe I was right about the constipation thing, but you could convince me it was a fart face either way. Any who, Ed and Chrissy got on my nerves with their ranting and raving. I am almost over that. Also Obama was clearly distracted I counted 3 times that he was making eyes at Michelle, no one seemed to notice that either. Oh well, not the first time I've seen what few others have, probably won't be the last.

[hrmjustin]

29. My sister called me a day later to tell me i was wrong , and Obama did much better than...

... I and others thought.

[rocktivity]

30. The power the Internet has given voters to define their own role in in the political game

and not have to settle for what the MSM force feeds them has ALWAYS fascinated me. I've been thinking about it since 2005 -- and now that we have NBC doubling down on their insistence that Romney won the debate, I'm beginning to feel downright psychic!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1202358

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1248477


rocktivity

[DallasNE]

32. I Knew This Was A Knee-Jerk Reaction With MSM Wanting A Horserace

And posted this on Wednesday night following the debate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=118556

[DallasNE]

37. And This Is A Cut-And-Paste Of A Yahoo Post Thursday

"How does one critique a debate. Don't you have to define the ground rules ahead of time? For instance, is it only stage presence even when rude or is it more involved. Does content matter and to what degree. Romney, for instance, spoke for 38 minutes and fact checkers gave him 27 "false" ratings in the time. Plus, how fair is the fight if one person shows up with a whole new set of proposals for the debate -- which person do you debate; the one you prepared for or the one that actually showed up. I actually think Obama should have ignored what Romney said last night and debated the one he prepared for because that was going to be the Romney on the campaign trail on Thursday. Let Romney protest "that's not what I said" and Obama counter with "that's what you said October 2nd in Tampa".

[mountain grammy]

33. Rmoney's behavior was shocking to most

He was completely in charge, lying his way into the hearts and minds of the "liberal media," so much so that the real liberal media, our friends at MSNBC, totally freaked out. Everyone is coming back to their senses. One thing is perfectly clear; Mitt Rmoney must never be president of anything.

[Liberalynn]

38. A fellow Democratic friend of mine

is a very kind hearted person, who would never intentionally be mean to anyone. She said to me today that even though she is a huge Obama supporter part of her felt a bit sorry for Romney because he is so awkward and because so many people mock him out.

I had to laugh because she got this really angry look which I have never seen on her face before and she said "not after that debate". She said Romney was a liar, rude, mean, and disrespectful to the President & that Romney now deserves to be mocked and critcized even more than he already has been. I wanted to hug her and say that's the fighting Dem spirit!

[Michigan Alum]

34. My very biased Repub mother agreed that Romney acted like a jerk. SHOCKER!

She hardly ever says anything negative about Repubs - especially Romney. If she thought he was jerky you can be sure there are a lot of others.

[Warpy]

39. I said that night that bullying the moderator and

rudely talking over Obama didn't win anything but the asshole of the night prize. Obama won every point as far as substance goes. Romney simply restated Obama's points in unflattering GOP boilerplate without taking them apart or offering much of his own.

I saw the same sort of thing happening in 2008, people willing to give it all to McLoser the first night because the pundits did, but changing their minds when they'd had a chance to think about it a bit.

[anAustralianobserver]

54. lol I knew Romney won in one way (certainly not style) but I couldn't put a finger on it.

The asshole of the night prize captures it. I'd also nominate him for 'a Gingrich' for audacious bullshitting.

Being presidential and winning the public's heart, not so much.

[treestar]

64. Audacity

that is not to be admired in and of itself as some seem to do.

It would be true to say I do not have the courage or audacity to get up in front of people and lie because it might help my cause. I would be embarrassed to do it. And that's supposed to be a bad thing. It supposed to be passive or cowardly. Yeah, I just don't think these people's values are that good. If they really thought Rmoney "won" I can pretty much judge them as valuing form over substance, drama for its own sake and the rewarding of liars so long as they do it plausibly.

[treestar]

63. I agree, I hated seeing Rmoney's type of behavior "rewarded."

The pundits are a disgrace. They should have been ahead of the ball in determining the form over substance matter. People should turn them off as they offer not assistance whatsoever. They are drama junkies and emotional bullies, and I don't think they are sincere in a damn thing.

[MADem]

51. Big Bird won. Obama maintained. rMoney damaged himself. Lehrer lost. nt

[pansypoo53219]

53. i watched it. i thought they were tied, cause while mitt was pushy

i thought obama spoke more to america. not teevee.

[libodem]

67. Good!

It upsets my sense of fair play for someone to win a debate, by opening up a gunny sack lies, and dumping them out on them out on the floor. All those trained robotron pugs do is repeat, pre-memorized, talking points, no matter the question or subject.

Glad some real analysis has finally occurred. Those graphs look more like the truth of the matter.

[MADem]

71. This will disappoint a few oddball naysayers here who don't understand the influence of social media

I'm quite certain...

[bushisanidiot]

72. A little fact checking goes a long way with voters

The pundits were clearing wrong wednesday night

[BigD_95]

73. Face it... Obama was awful

He didn't have to attack like crazy or even bring up 47%.

But when mitt cried like he cared about jobs. Obama could have atleast said how when Mitt was Gov they were 47 or 49 in jobs. Also when he was gov he out sourced state jobs.

I mean mitt has a record as a gov and it wasn't great.

[ProSense]

74. "But when mitt cried like he cared about jobs."

Maybe that's why people changed their mind about the debate.

I mean, Romney lied, and he looked like a maniac doing it.