>>>>>>>Only 17 flaming days to go... I can't believe how little political commentary is happening here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe a Romney landslide is so certain that no-one thinks it's worth discussing further ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's starting to shape up that way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Besides, what is there to discuss? I don't think anyone here is one of the saintly "undecided". ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>I just said the same thing. Always nice to agree with you ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>It's hardly wrapped up, though -- http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
>>>>>
>>>>>Were you in a yurt during the debate on Tuesday? ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Polls polls and more polls. I've had it with these freakn polls!
>>>>So far the most annoying thing I've seen on these stupid polls is when some idiot fox newscaster started talking about how these polls "don't really mean anything" - then went on to his story about their "poll of polls". Riiight - so they say none of them mean anything so therefor they're going to compile all this meaningless information into...arrrg what a bunch of morons.
>>>
>>>As Twain said, there are lies, damned lies, and politics ;)
>>
>>Quite true. Especially in an election where one of the candidates' teams has made it clear that they're not going to let "facts" run their campaign. That is soooo sad when they are willing to go ahead and lie because they figure they will end up with more votes from the people who believe the lies than the fallout from being caught lying. To make it worse - jackasses at places like FOX news get mad when the candidate is caught lying. For example - they were all up in arms over the debate moderators' pointing out that Romney was flat out lying - and she called him on it. Then fox news goes and says "hey they're not supposed to fact check until AFTER the debate". Yes. Only tell people the facts AFTER the debate is over and no one is watching anymore!
>>It's crap like this that has put me in the "unbelievably quite" mode I guess - it just upsets me too much to even think about it.
>
>I actually agree with the Repubs on this one that it is not the role of the moderator to call out for a fact check during the course of the debate. Her energy would have been better put into stopping both debaters from walking all over her with the time limits. Romney was worse but they were both pretty bad. Not only is that disrespectful and against the rules both sides agreed on, viewers don't like it. I was watching CNN and they had a real time graph at the bottom of the screen of the reactions of undecided voters. The only time it went into the negative was when the speaker went on and on and on past the time limit.

(Emphasis mine)
If your perception were accurate, how do you account for the fact that President Obama achieved so much more speaking time in both debates?