Second Presidential Debate Round Up in Tweets and Tumblr

Last night’s Presidential debate, the second, was moderated by a woman (Candy Crowley), a first in 20 years, and held at Hofstra University. The town hall format had the candidates answering questions from a group of self-declared undecided voters.

In 90 minutes, topics covered were the future of jobs after college, economic questions, immigration, equal pay for women, and Benghazi. Also in those 90 minutes, 7.2 million Tweets were sent, according to Twitter. That’s not a record though. The first debate saw about 10 million tweets, making it the most tweeted U.S. political event ever.

What were the top #debate Tweets?:

Jeremy, the college kid who asked about jobs:

The economy:

 

Immigration:

 

 

Benghazi, Libya:

 

But Twitter really blew up when the candidates were answering a question on equal pay for women. Romney said, ““And – and so we – we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks,’ and they brought us whole binders full of women.”

Almost immediately, Tumblr pages called “Binders Full of Women” showed:

And this:

and my personal favorite:

All jokes aside, who do you think won this debate? What are your thoughts on Candy Crowley as moderator?

(Photo of candidates screenshot  from Youtube)

Click here to sign up for Baristanet's free daily emails and news alerts.

49 COMMENTS

  1. I’m happy to see that our President at least has a pulse. That said Candy, helped him out on the Benghazi issue. He only said “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” and proceded to talk about some film in front of the UN, The View and other stomps fore the next 2 weeks. I’ve made my feeling known about the president’s ineptness on this issue. At least Crowley admitted later she was wrong. The horses have left the barn on this issue and it isn’t over, even her life line isn’t going to help him.

    “After the debate, Anderson Cooper was the first member of the CNN post-debate group to question whether or not Romney really got the Libya issue wrong. They then brought Crowley on and after all the damage she had done during the debate, she finally admitted that Romney was “right” but “picked the wrong word.”

    It is a shame that ombama has no record to run on and still can’t answer how he will move this country forward. I think if you like Romney you think he won, if you like obama he won. Nothing earth shattering. I like the NY Post editorial on it. But I’m biased.

    https://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/mitt_on_points_BEDauXYQeNYfODYc6pstjK

  2. Foxnooz at it again! Hannity– an infantile tweet, boy what a loser. He should become the president of the hairsplitters society. Meanwhile, others on the Foxnooz payroll decide to hang and quarter the moderator. Malarkey TV of the most shameless kind.

  3. As I said in another thread, I didn’t see a winner or loser here, it was more of a draw, with both sides having their good and not-so-good moments. But as Herb so aptly points out above, this debate will not sway people whose minds are already made up.

  4. I didn’t think the questions were terribly deep. Nor did the questioners seem terribly impressive. As for the quality of the debate itself, it was on the level of posts here on political issues. Meaning not terribly impressive. Obama didn’t even actually “answer” more than one question. (When someone from either party says “That’s a good question,” it usually means no real answer is forthcoming.)

    But really, Spiro T., give it up with the “Foxnooz” stuff already, it’s a bore. Have you ever watched MSNBC (a network I don’t ever see mentioned here much, now that I think of it) when the “progressives” are in full verbal resentfulness mode? Do you honestly think that the likes of Lawrence O’Donnell and Ed Schultz are even mildly more bearable to sit through than Hannity?

    Anyway, all such matters seem to pale before the apparent total collapse of the Yankees.

  5. Actually, you are right … Obama did not clean Romney’s clock – he merely reset the cuckoo that we all know resides inside Romney’s policies.

    Your serve, sport.

  6. No thanks cathar, I believe I will be continuing to call out foxnooz on their vindictive, fallacious nonsense. But I don’t watch MSNBC, so I’ll leave the skewering of that network up to you if you are so inclined.
    And with all due respect, MM, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a right winger admit to seeing their candidate getting an ass whooping. Can you remember that ever happening?

  7. I know an ass whupping when I see one. That was no ass whupping. I DID see both parties interrupt the moderator at times, go over their respective time limits, and raise their voices but it was really just theatrics to me. I don’t think one side performed better or worse than the other.

  8. Ah herb, I’m delighted to see that you are finally playing by the rules.

    I remember a time not so long age when you were lifting entire quotes from the NY Post and taking credit for them as your own. Not nice!

    Do you recall or shall I refresh your apparently porous memory?

    A lesson learned the hard way.

  9. It could be different this time, ROC– According to one of the senior talking heads on your side of the aisle — none other than Mr. George Will, his eminency himself…… who has taken us Americans to task for being afraid to fire our first black president despite his inferior performance. … So Obama gets re-elected exclusively due to white guilt, ( the theory goes..) and Hannity gets another 4 year contract …and all Sean has to do for those 208 weeks of greenbacks is whine and kick and yell “reverse racism!” on a daily basis !

  10. “The problem here is that the particular Gallup Poll you cite was taken before last night’s debate.”

    What does that change? I repeat. No candidate polling above 50% in the Gallup poll in October (despite debate bounces) has gone on to lose.

    Perhaps it’s completely different this time around.

  11. ROC- Interesting concept of George Will’s – white guilt swaying an election that should naturally go to the truly superior candidate -Romney, but, yet, might not, and for all the wrong reasons. As for me, I don’t know if Obama will win, but, you can imagine, I sure will vote for him.

  12. “That was Candy Crowley? I thought it was Troy Polamalu”

    Except that Candy is a much better Strong Safety debate moderator.

  13. “I sure will vote for him.”

    I feel your pain Spiro. I remember 4 short years ago hoping against all hope it would somehow be different that time around – that the polls were wrong, that Democrats were oversampled, that Gallup was biased. I remember anxiously reading any theory which offered solace. Remember the “Bradley Effect”? It’s going to be a hard 3 weeks Spiro, but no matter what happens I’m rooting for you! And you truly have my sympathy.

  14. ROC, the country is pretty much split down the middle, and has been so for a while, and it probably will be for some time to come. It is therefore reasonable to give either candidate roughly a 50/50 chance of winning, no matter what qualities they possess or lack. People seem to vote their “values” more than anything else, and the candidate that more closely represents their “values” gets their vote, whether or not they like the candidate’s personality, their successes and failures, or pretty much anything else. So who knows? Romney may take it, or, probably just as likely, it might go to, (as some on your side describe him), “that Socialist Muslim out to destroy America from within.”

  15. No Herb, Crowley did not admit she was wrong. She specifically said today that she had nothing to backtrack. And she is correct.

    Last night she said “He did say acts of terror, called it an act of terror. But Governor Romney, you are perfectly right that it took weeks for them to get past the tape.” His insistance that he was correct about the words was his gaff, which he made worse by pursuing it as he did, but she corrected the facts while still acknowledging his essential argument.

    After the debate she said “You know, again, I heard the president’s speech at the time. I sort of reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we’d probably get a Libya question, so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So we knew that the president had said, you know, ‘these acts of terror won’t stand,’ or whatever the whole quote was…..I think actually, you know, because right after that, I did turn to Romney and said you were totally correct but they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape and that there was this riot outside of the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn’t. So he was right in the main, I just think that he picked the wrong word.”

    I know it’s nuanced, which doesn’t make for good talking points, but she was absolutely correct.

  16. “It is therefore reasonable to give either candidate roughly a 50/50 chance of winning, no matter what qualities they possess or lack.”

    The bargaining phase? So soon. Very admirable Spiro.

  17. No bargaining, ROC ( I’ll leave that up to the professionals) , just stating a simple fact that’s been the trend from day 1, when Obama took the oath of office and, immediately thereafter, the Tea Party took off like the bubonic plague and gun sales went through the roof.

  18. But of course the president has also polled above 50% in October several times as well. So I guess, according to ROC, he can’t lose either.

    Well! What will we do? Both Romney and Obama have polled above 50% in October, and ROC says that means they’ll both win!

    This WILL be historic, after all!

  19. By the way ROC, you might want to have Candy Crowley check your facts.

    Ronald Reagan was down 6 points in the Gallup on October 17. He won.

  20. “Ronald Reagan was down 6 points in the Gallup on October 17. He won.”

    So? I said nothing about 6points. I’ll say again. Once a candidate polled above 50% by gallup in October they always went on to win. I don’t know how to say it clearer than that cro.

    In 1980 neither Carter nor Reagan ever got above 50% owing mostly to Anderson’s presence.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/flashback-gallup-had-carter-up-4-points-over-ronald-reagan-in-september-1980/carter-reagan/

  21. “Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

    According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).”

  22. Sure, herb, you have a good point if they earn less than their male counterparts for the same kind of position- despite equal qualifications. But is that the case?
    When it comes to three of the biggest salaries in the WH, we see that the president is male, the vice president is male, and it’s not till we get to secretary of state that we see a highly paid female, so right there, we see at least a 2:1 skewing of the results.
    If we had your dream team of Palin/Bachmann as the two big earners, with Ricky Santorum as secretary of state, we’d see a different salary skew, right?

  23. herb seems to be struggling with the term “median”.

    The president earns 400K. Senior staffers generally top out at 170K.

    The complete list of all staffers and their salaries is in the public record, and can be viewed through CNN website as well as others. Look it up and revel in the new “scandal”!

  24. Personally I believe our country, especially The East Coast, has become way too “hyper-neurotic” about “being kind and being fair”. I have enough white guilt to fill the dead sea. Trust me. But obsessing over whether to use the term black or african-american prior to a lunch meeting is just getting kooky and unnecessary. We are still a culture that accesses hate way too easily. However pretending that we don’t is a big ol’ band-aid. I believe there is a lot of pretending going on in our times and if we keep pretending to love each other soooo much we never truly will. The next revolution is here, whether we like it or not.

  25. I, too, have a problem with the term African-American. Unless you know for certain the person in question is from the African continent, the term is useless. For than matter, a white South African is technically an African American. Then, of course, there is Black American, White American, Asian American, etc. Why not just refer to them all as Americans and call it a day?

  26. There really couldn’t be any better confirmation that Romney must be ahead than Baristanet’s sudden disinterest in the election and the abrupt silence of Montclair’s liberals regarding the same.

    Does anyone have any hope that the debate tonight will turn it around for the President?

Comments are closed.