The second presidential debate 2012 showdown with President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is Tuesday night. Live Blog coverage will follow the 2012 elections town hall political sparring match between the Democratic and Republican candidates.
Tonight's Presidential Debate
According to the latest Rasmussen Reports "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll," Mitt Romney has a slight edge over Barack Obama among "likely" voters (49% to 47%). Apparently, the missteps the sitting president made in the first 2012 presidential debate caused a rare turnaround.
In the first showdown, "a very close race shifted ever so slightly from narrowly favoring President Obama to narrowly favoring Mitt Romney. Either way, it remains too close to call," said Scott Rasmussen.
Presidential Debate Round 2: What's at Stake?
With just over three weeks until voters hit the polls in the 2012 elections, Obama and Romney have a lot to gain and lose.
President Obama, who had a commanding lead ahead of the first presidential debate, suffered from a lackluster performance in the first showdown. By his own admission, the celebrated public speaker admitted to a horrible performance.
Mitt Romney, however, has to prove to the American people that he is not a one-hit-wonder by building on the momentum gained in the first meeting.
While the former Massachusetts governor won on style points in the first debate, he still trails in the Electoral College based. However, the undecided voters in swing states could tip the scales in his favor on November 6.
Romney scores high on the economy, despite Obama making good on creating jobs, ending wars overseas, drawing down troops, taking out Osama Bin Laden, lowering taxes for the middle class and lowering the unemployment rate below 8% for the first time since he took office.
And while Mitt Romney makes a strong pitch on the economy, he lags in trust, especially among women.
Follow the presidential debate 2012 in this Live Blog and on Twitter (#presidentialdebate). Coverage begins tonight at 7:00 p.m. EDT.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 70
I would appreciate watching or listening to the alternative candidates.
If gas prices were driven by decisions made in the White House, it’s a safe bet that any incumbent president would do everything possible to drive them lower ahead of a re-election campaign. With the possible exception of the unemployment rate or the Dow Jones industrial index, it’s one of the few numbers voters care most about when they head to the polls. But while the notion that the government could somehow control gasoline prices is appealing, the reality is that the price you pay is set daily, sometimes hourly, by market forces around the world.
Despite the recent Bush administration's strong support for the oil and gas industry, pump prices rose from a low of about $1.20 a gallon in 2002 to a peak of $4 a gallon before crashing below $2 shortly before Bush left office in 2009 as the full force of the recession kicked in and abruptly cut demand. Shortly after Obama took office, prices began a steady climb again and kept rising, but the remain just shy of the 2009 peak.
A handful of governments around the world, including major oil-producing nations, artificially lower pump prices through subsidies, in effect selling gas produced in state-owned refineries at a loss. In the U.S., state and federal taxes add to the price collected at the pump by gasoline retailers.
In the 1970s, the Nixon administration tried imposing gasoline price controls to tame a prolonged inflationary spiral that sent the prices of all commodities soaring and to blunt the impact of a price spike brought about by an Arab oil embargo. The result was widespread rationing and long gas lines.
U.S. energy policy has encouraged the exploration and production of crude oil, the biggest single variable in the pump price of gasoline, through tax subsidies that promote drilling. Those tax breaks, which were expanded during the Bush administration, have helped spur a boom in domestic production that has reversed a 20-year decline in U.S. output.
U.S. demand for gasoline peaked in 2007 and has been declining steadily since then. Part of the reason, as Obama mentioned in Tuesday’s debate, is that the recession cut into demand for energy. But gasoline consumption is also falling because the cars and trucks are becoming more fuel-efficient. Obama cited his administration’s efforts to drive fuel efficiency standards higher.
As domestic demand has fallen, U.S. refiners have continued to squeeze more out of each barrel of oil. If the U.S. market were a closed system, the surplus gasoline would tend to drive down prices. But the system isn’t closed. With domestic demand falling and capacity inching higher, refiners have been exporting gasoline to overseas markets. Last year, the U.S. became a net exporter of gasoline and other refined products for the first time since 1949.
Strong global demand, especially in high-growth developing countries such as China and India, has more than offset the U.S. gasoline surplus and kept gasoline prices high.
Short of tapping into our oil reserves (which would be a very short term fix), there is really nothing a president can do about gas prices.
"Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts."
For clarification, President Obama did use the words “act of terror,” but he was referring to the original terrorism attack on 9/11/2001 in context, not the Libyan 9/11/2012 attack.
Crowley’s intervention indicated that she was not a moderator but rather an Obama partisan that was there to protect Obama.
After the debate, Crowley admitted that in the debate Mitt was right and she was wrong. If she had stuck to her duties as moderator the problem wouldn’t have arisen in the first place.
I honestly don't know the answer to this. It would have been neat to have seen ALL the questions submitted beforehand, even if only a few were chosen due to time constraints.
I've tried to understand the other side of things for quite some time, because I appreciate all sides of something. And once again, I am sorry if you feel that way.
I will let you go with a "thank-you" for the prayers for my husband. They were much appreciated, and I believe they helped.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I told Vic I guess I am now banned from all conservative leaning posts. There are plenty of people who have said things far more vicious than anything I could ever say, because I am not a vicious person. In fact, I've gotten mellower with age...like fine wine? Anyway, I doubt if John will ever make a complete recovery. Last night he spoke of dying, which scares me. I'm really shaken at the thought of anything like that happening. But prayers can only help, so thank you for continuing them.
Crowley chose about 12 of them herself (15% - a LOT of room to 'cherry-pick).
Plus the people IN the 80 were chosen by someone - Gallup I guess did a poll, and if someone SAID they were undecided - they were in the pool (of course both sides could lie and claim independant), that is narrowed down to about 100 by someone, and apparantly narrowed again to about 80.
That is certainly a ton of screening, choosing, picking etc.
And this was unfair. It is NOT representative of the way our country is going. Someone said ninety percent of the people who are voting have pretty much already made of their minds. Does this mean the debate catered to ten percent of our population?
I didnt mind so much that the attendants were all undecideds - the people that have already decided would watch, maybe but most would not change their minds based on this debate. PLus anyone already decided would most liokely as "gotcha" tupe questions of both candidates.
But they were screened and chosen, then narrowed down (by who knows what criteria), then out of 80, the moderator choose which 10 or 12 questions would be asked.
Tons of room for bias there.
Very INteresting demonstration of her bias, was the interuption and disputoing of Romney on the Emabassy shootings (act of terror), Cnn Anderson Cooper asked her about it, and she said after the debate, she looked again and Romney was right, and she was wrong - a bit too late of course. For those wanting for a chance to claim Romney liedt, they already had their so-called "proof".
There was one point in the debate, they were showing the clock behind obama - the 2 minutes expired, and after 10 or 15 seconds I timed it - he went on for another minute 5 after – more than a 60% increase in his allotment, and she never said a word.
There was also a time or two, I thought it was interesting when she choose to not allow follow-up responses but insisted they go to the next question – it seemed to Favor Obama, that Romney not respond – but maybe that is just me.
I already have learned on my own, that Obama lies all the time, cheats when he seems to feel like it, and quotes “facts and figures” that are either nonsense, or mathematically impossible.
Romney , made Obama look dumb when bringing up the facts about the oil drilling, which after the debate was put up to show the exact numbers and again Obama was caught for the liar he is... Obama, never did answer why, the 4 Americans was never given any more security... he dances all around that by trying to convince people that he was the man, the legend in his own mind.. how many times, did he NOT answer the questions but beat his own drum.. When he said, he got Bin Laden.. or Bin Laden is dead? Was he trying to convince himself or the people...lol What a joke he is...