President Barack Obama eclipsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the second presidential debate Tuesday night, commanding the stage in a manner that many people found a reassuring contrast to his performance in their first debate, according to NBC Politics' computer-assisted analysis of more than 1 million debate comments on Twitter and Facebook.

Through midday Wednesday, a large plurality of comments reflected a belief that Obama did better in the debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.:

That works out to a 58 percent to 42 percent edge for Obama among commenters who expressed a clear opinion.

---

Sharp exchanges between Obama, Romney at second debate

Romney was sharply criticized for his comments on equal opportunities for women, a topic that has been a consistent drag on his appeal since NBC Politics began tracking social media sentiment in the presidential campaign in February. Commenters particularly believed that Romney stumbled badly in asserting the he had reviewed "binders full of women" when assembling his Cabinet when he became governor of Massachusetts in 2003:

That unusual phrase was the inspiration for an online meme that took off almost as soon as the words came out of Romney's mouth and for thousands of jokes during and after the debate:

But many commenters also assessed it seriously as evidence that Romney was dismissive of women:

NBC Politics reviewed 1.05 million posts on Twitter and Facebook through noon ET using a tool called ForSight, a data platform developed by Crimson Hexagon Inc., which many research and business organizations have adopted to gauge public opinion in new media. It isn't the same as a traditional survey, which seeks to reflect national opinion; instead, it's a broad, non-predictive snapshot of what's being said by Americans who follow politics and are active on Facebook, Twitter or both at a particular moment in time, and why they're saying it.

More social media analysis from NBCPolitics.com

Explainer: Can you scientifically quantify social media opinion?

A visualization of the data indicates that the general discussion was focused heavily on Obama, rather than Romney, after what was widely characterized as a lackluster performance during the first debate Oct. 3 in Denver. Even those who said Romney did better Tuesday night did so by drawing direct comparisons to the president, whose name was the single most-cited word in pro-Romney comments:

Some were put off by Obama's aggressiveness:

But many more were reassured by Obama's bounce-back from his earlier subdued performance:

The initial consensus was that Obama supporters were relieved — relief that was expressed in hundreds of in-your-face posts like this one:

Five key issues omitted from first two debates

Testy exchanges over topics ranging from the economy to energy to women's rights dominated the second presidential debate between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, sparking vigorous commentary across the spectrum Tuesday night.

The rematch was a very different occasion from the first debate — a "throw-down," as NBC News' Brian Williams called it.

Here's a selection of the reaction from NBC News analysts and others:

Brian Williams, anchor of 'NBC Nightly News'
"In terms of energy, in terms of body language, in terms of flashes of genuine anger, the kind of DeNiro 'Raging Bull' factor on the floor of this event tonight, it was a vastly different event than any we have seen so far this election cycle.

"In terms of the phrases that may live forever: When Governor Romney said 'binders full of women' when talking about a search for employable Cabinet-level women in the state of Massachusetts. And 'it's just not true' was the president's rejoinder over and over."

---

David Gregory, moderator, 'Meet the Press'
"I think liberals can breathe a sigh of relief. It's not curtains for the president. He showed up and showed up big tonight. He was more aggressive; he had a lot of fight in him. A little light on his vision for the future, Brian — but no question he made a point of studying his opposition research on Romney. And as you mentioned, over and over again he said, 'What Mr. Romney said, what Governor Romney said just isn't true.'

Truth Squad: The second presidential debate

"Romney was strong, too, wrapping the economic troubles of the last four years around the president's neck. He stumbled on this issue of Libya, saying the president didn't call it an act of terror immediately. That's just not true, according to the transcript.

"A lack of civility in this debate, a lack of control at times, and I think in some cases there were some interesting questions, like the comparison between Romney and Bush, where I think voters would have benefited from a little more interaction, a little more debate in the debate."

Savannah Guthrie, NBC News White House correspondent
"I find it a little bit ironic since this debate was supposed to be all about a fight for female voters, and yet we see these two alpha males at one point circling each other on the stage.

"I think there's no question in watching the performances what the objectives were for each of these respective candidates. President Obama clearly wanted to 're-disqualify' Romney. The Obama campaign had had a good deal of success over the summer and fall portraying Mitt Romney as this uncaring, out-of-touch corporate titan. Clearly, President Obama wanted to get that image back into voters' minds attacking Mitt Romney from the very get-go and never letting up.

Obama, Romney bicker over the debate clock

"And Mitt Romney, on the other hand — his objective was clearly to connect with the ordinary voter. He had a softer tone many times, many times trying to show that empathetic soft side."

Chuck Todd, NBC News political director
"A good lawyer — I would imagine Savannah would agree with this — should know the answer to a question before you ask it. And that's where Mitt Romney, I think, stumbled there at the end on the Libya question.

"Overall, clearly a different President Obama. He came out wanting to make sure he let people know he wants a second term. He was much more engaged. Definitely seemed to study the Romney playbook. He appeared to take Romney as a more serious threat there.

"Romney was rather strong for the first half of the debate. But that Libya moment: You saw the president — you could tell by the way that they seemed to almost practice some of their motions. It was clear the president made the decision when Libya comes up, 'I'm going to stare Romney down right in his face' and vice versa. And that moment is going to be one that's going to be replayed and replayed.

Sharp exchanges between Obama, Romney at second debate

"We could debate whether what was the tone of what the president was inferring when he said 'act of terror' at the time of Libya. But Mitt Romney seemed to stumble, and he seemed to be rattled after that question. He was a different Mitt Romney, I would argue, for the last 15 minutes of that debate.

"Where does this set the race? I think this is one where both bases feel engaged by their guy. I think there's certainly some disappointment in the conservative base that Romney wasn't tougher on Libya. We're headed for a grind-it-out 22 days."

Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager
"I think the president clearly dominated the debate. The American people saw a strong and decisive leader. That's because he laid out the facts, the facts of his record and where he wants to take this country, detailed plans.

"But he also exposed Mitt Romney for his lack of details on his plans and how his math doesn't add up on his tax plans — how his math doesn't add up on his jobs plan. And I think the more he exposed Mitt Romney on what he was saying in his facts, the more Mitt Romney got combative.

"It was a great debate. It was a great discussion. The president is very pleased. We were able to get out a strong, decisive case for why the president deserves a second term, and we're going to continue to fight for it."

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, Romney's practice debate opponent
"I think he (Obama) was even more annoying than I was at times. The president clearly came out as a different style tonight. We knew he was going to come out swinging, and he did. He telegraphed that he was going to do that. But that doesn't change his record and doesn't change his vision for the future.

PhotoBlog: Watching Americans watching the debate

"And Chuck Todd said earlier he didn't lay out a vision. I agree with that. You can change your style, but that doesn't change the reality that you've got a lousy record. He didn't try to defend it. Then you also haven't laid out for the undecided voter what's going to change in the next four years."

Poll: Who won the second debate?

Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, on oil and gas production clash
"Oil production did fall by 14 percent offshore and onshore, but that was only in one year, from 2010 to 2011, and it was largely the result of fallout from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

"Mr. Obama is right. Since he took office, oil production on federal lands is up. Even with the 14 drop last year, overall production on federal lands is still up 10.6 percent since 2008.

"In terms of natural gas production, natural gas production on federal lands is down and has been declining since 2003, according to the Energy Information Administration, mainly because of a decline in offshore natural gas drilling."

Jim Nussle, budget director for former President George W. Bush
"I think both candidates appealed to their base. That was job one for both candidates and different than the first debate. I think President Obama performed well in energizing his base.

"The second thing they had to do was appeal to the independent voters — the undecided voters, more especially, the people in the audience asking questions and people at home who still, believe it or not, have not made up their minds. ...

"I think the tenor of this debate is going to turn on the fact that the president still — again, this time for the independent voter, the undecided voter — did not lay out a plan for the future, and I think that's going to set the tone for the rest of this campaign."

Keith Boykin: White House aide to former President Bill Clinton
"I think the president ... did a good job of listing what his accomplishments are. He went through the 5.2 million jobs. He went through the 31 consecutive months of private-sector jobs growth. He mentioned the war in Iraq being ended. He mentioned the Osama bin Laden attack. He was successful throughout the night because for every single question, he pivoted and turned it into an attack on Mitt Romney, which is something he completely failed to do in the first debate."

Sarah Fagen, senior aide to former President George W. Bush
Romney "gave a devastating critique of Obama's tenure in office, all the things that he did from Obamacare that he thought was bad to Dodd-Frank — and then went on to say all the things he didn't do: immigration reform, Social Security reform, Medicare reform. That was, I thought, Mitt Romney's most effective moment."

 

COLUMBUS, OH -- Feathers were ruffled on Sesame Street on Tuesday when the Obama campaign launched a campaign ad starring Big Bird.

The new spot, which airs on cable networks, mocks Mitt Romney for saying during last week’s debate that he would cut public funding to the Public Broadcasting Service – even though he likes Big Bird.

But Sesame Workshop – the nonpartisan nonprofit behind Sesame Street – wasn’t pleased. In a statement, Sesame Workshop objected to the ad: “We have approved no campaign ads, and, as is our general practice, have requested that both campaigns remove Sesame Street characters and trademarks from their campaign materials.”  

---

The ad begins with an ominous voiceover listing the names of Wall Street criminals, including Bernie Madoff and Kenneth Lay. The deep, dramatic voice then says, “It’s not Wall Street you have to worry about; it’s Sesame Street.”

The camera then cuts to a shot of Big Bird sleeping.

President Barack Obama has seized on Romney’s Big Bird comment to argue that his Republican challenger would crack down on beloved American institutions such as Sesame Street but would allow Wall Street to run wild.

Speaking to a crowd of 15,000 in Columbus, OH the President said, “Today (Romney) decided we’re going after Big Bird. Elmo’s making a run for the border and Oscar is hiding out in a trash can.”

Emphasizing the Sesame Street theme, recording artist will-i-am kicked off his performance at the Ohio event by playing the Sesame Street theme song.  

The Obama campaign has also dispatched Big Bird mascots to stand outside Romney campaign events and even Michelle has entered the fray. On Tuesday, the first lady told supporters in Loudon, Va.: “We all know good and well that cutting Sesame Street is no way to balance a budget.”

Related: 'Sesame Street' wants Obama campaign to yank ad mentioning Big Bird

Speaking in Van Meter, Iowa, Romney fired back: “These are tough times with real serious issues. You have to scratch your head when the president spends the last week talking about saving Big Bird.”

The Romney campaign noted that Obama has in recent days made more public references to Big Bird than Libya – where the U.S. consulate was recently attacked and the ambassador killed. 

But the Obama campaign stands by its strategy.

“The point we’re making here is that when Mitt Romney was given the opportunity to lay out how he would address the deficit … his first offering was to cut funding to Big Bird and that is absurd and hard to take seriously,” Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters.

With polls showing Romney improving since the debate, it remains to be seen whether the president’s “Big Bird Offensive” will sway undecided voters.

But one thing is clear – Big Bird says the campaign ad doesn’t fly.

 

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.

The analysis suggests that as debate over a news event continues unmediated over time, the impact of the conventional wisdom of journalists and partisan commentators can be mitigated.

Before the debate, Romney partisans — never shy about criticizing what many of them see as the news media's bias against Republicans — had predicted that Obama would be declared the "winner" regardless of how it unfolded:

---

But as soon as the debate had finished Wednesday night, commentators and television analysts — including some generally considered sympathetic to Obama — agreed that the president had lost:

As the consensus spread through the news cycle, it was echoed on Twitter and Facebook on Thursday, according to NBCPolitics' analysis, which examined slightly more than 1.3 million postings beginning at 10:30 p.m. ET Wednesday, when the debate concluded, through 11 a.m. ET Friday.

NBCPolitics.com uses a tool called ForSight, a data platform developed by Crimson Hexagon Inc., which many research and business organizations have adopted to gauge public opinion in new media. It isn't the same as traditional surveys, which seek to reflect national opinion; instead, it's a broad, non-predictive snapshot of what's being said by Americans who follow politics and are active on Facebook, Twitter or both at a particular moment in time, and why they're saying it.

More social media analysis from NBCPolitics.com

Explainer: Can you scientifically quantify social media opinion?

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

A visual representation of the discussion in the 90 minutes immediately after the debate, as pundits chewed it over on TV postgame shows, indicates the breadth of consensus. Notice that even when people talked about Obama, one of the primary subtopics was "Romney Won The Debate":

Now look again. Even as Romney was being hailed as the victor in the minutes immediately afterward, a small question was already being raised about "Facts."

By late Thursday afternoon, those questions had become prominent, as commenters cited analyses by partisan and nonpartisan fact-checkers:

Particularly influential was a commentary Thursday morning by the liberal blog Think Progress:

Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney's strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama's policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths.

Arguments like that planted the idea that Romney had "lied his way to victory," an idea that Obama supporters began spreading with enthusiasm:

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

A visual representation illustrates the shift:

The analysis suggests that Twitter and Facebook can be powerful disseminators of opinion once commenters have time to digest the news and marshal their arguments, as was efficiently perceived in this comment:

 

FISHERSVILLE, Va. – Capitalizing on momentum from Wednesday night's debate, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan whipped up their base here in rural Virginia with a raucous rally complete with fireworks, live music and pointed new attack lines aimed at their Democratic opponents.

"I got the chance to ask the president questions that people across the country have wanted to ask him, such as why is it that he pushed Obamacare at a time when we had 23 million people out of work? I asked why is it that the middle class is still buried in this country – why is it we have 23 million people out of work?" Romney said, ticking off several more debate topics. "I asked him those questions and you – you heard his answers."

Romney wove highlights from the debate into his traditional stump speech, revisiting the showdown that was watched by 62 million Americans.

---

"What you didn't hear last night from the president is why it is the next four years are possibly going to be better than the last four years. He doesn't have a way to explain that, because he has the same policies for the next four years as he had for the last four years," Romney said. "He said go forward. I call it forewarned, all right?"

Ryan also weighed in on the debate for the first time, predictably praising the man at the top of the GOP ticket.

“Every now and then, we see a glimpse into the future. Last night, we saw a clear picture. We saw a clear choice," Ryan said. "Last night, America got to see the man I know: a leader, a decisive man, an optimistic man, a man with a plan to get people back to work and to protect our freedoms.”

Thursday's event showed a tilt back toward the Republican base. Country music star Trace Adkins warmed up the crowd with a 30-minute set, and the National Rifle Association officially bestowed its endorsement of the Romney/Ryan ticket.

“We stand on the edge of an Obama cliff with our freedom. If President Obama gets re-elected, he’s going to have one to three Supreme Court appointments," warned Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president.  "And I guarantee you this: If that happens – one to three more Sotomayors and Kagan – we can kiss our constitutional right to own a firearm in the United States goodbye along with a lot of the rest of our freedoms. And we can’t let that happen.”

With the first presidential debate out of the way, the focus turns to the vice presidential debate next Tuesday in Kentucky.

On Thursday, Romney and Ryan pounced on the vice president's statement earlier in the day that Democrats aimed to repeal the so-called Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

“Last night President Obama made it very clear he’s going to raise taxes. Today, Vice President Joe Biden made it even more clear,” Ryan said. “In Iowa … he asked if he and President Obama wanted a trillion dollar tax hike and his response to himself was, ‘Yes we do.’ That’s a direct quote, friends. Well, Virginia – no, we don’t!”

Romney piled onto his running mate’s remarks: "The vice president blurted out the truth today. They plan on raising taxes on the American people, and that will kill jobs. We will not let that happen. We want to create jobs, not kill jobs in this country.”

Democrats cried foul at that and other comments by Romney touting his own tax plan and accusing the President of trying to raise taxes on middle class Americans.

"Clearly, Mitt Romney thinks facts don’t matter – but the hard-working Americans who he’d punish with his policies do,” said Obama campaign spokesperson Lis Smith, who accused Romney of a "streak of dishonesty."

As the weekend approaches, Romney continues to campaign in Virginia before heading to the battleground state of Florida, while Ryan continues to prep for the debate and raise money for the GOP ticket.

Throughout a summer of political turmoil over the budget, taxes, national security and gaffes, one issue — health care — has consistently defined the presidential campaign as President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney head into their first debate Wednesday evening, according to NBCPolitics.com's computer-assisted analysis of more than 3 million comments on Twitter and Facebook.

Every day since June 28 — when the Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which Obama signed into law in 2010 — "Health Care" has been the No. 1 driver of conversation about the president, making up more than a quarter of positive commentary, according to the analysis:

---

Among negative commenters, "Obamacare" has consistently been the top driver, as well, only occasionally trumped by "Gas Prices":

Taken together, the two categories make up slightly more than 44 percent of all commentary on Obama over the 3+-month period, an emphasis that's easy to see in this visual representation of all election conversation around the president:

For this report, NBCPolitics.com analyzed 3.46 million social media posts using ForSight, a data platform developed by Crimson Hexagon Inc., which many research and business organizations have adopted to gauge public opinion in new media.

More social media analysis from NBCPolitics.com

It isn't the same as a traditional survey, which seeks to reflect national opinion; instead, it's a broad, non-predictive snapshot of what's being said by Americans who follow politics and are active on Facebook, Twitter or both at a particular moment in time, and why they're saying it.

Explainer: Can you scientifically quantify social media opinion?

More than three months after the court's decision, and even as the issue has receded in media coverage, health care is still what they're talking about:

For Romney, the debate may offer an opportunity to more clearly define himself. Over the same 3+-month period, primary drivers of positive conversation have emphasized Romney's personal characteristics over specific issues:

Critics of Romney have also zeroed in on their general perception of him. The leading negative topic — by just 1 percentage point — has been "Women's Issues" (generally access to abortion and equal pay). Right after that come questions about his connection to "real Americans," his convictions and his religion.

Likewise — and in contrast with Obama — the visual representation of all 1.14 million posts about Romney indicates a high interest in whether he can win in November, as opposed to his stands on specific issues:

NBCNews.com will live-stream the debate from Denver at 9 p.m. ET.

When you're watching the first presidential debate Wednesday night, don't believe what you see. Online, that is. As Mitt Romney and Barack Obama make their inevitable slip-ups and fact-challenged assertions, bring your well-trained skepticism to every computer, cell phone and tablet screen near you.

Jokes that seem to catch fire on their own -- remember Clint Eastwood's invisible Obama from the Republican convention? -- might not be quite so organic. Twitter themes that seem to be everywhere might not be popular so much as purchased. And stinging one-liners that show up in your streams and news feeds might make you chuckle, but they are probably half-truths, and most definitely not a great tool for picking the leader of the Free World.

Even if you aren't on Twitter, virtually all political reporters are, and they increasingly take their cues from it. This is the first presidential election in which social media will play a mainstream role, and it's important to remember not everything is as it seems online.

---

Four years ago, Facebook and Twitter had only just begun to capture the world's imagination (Pew says that 10 percent of the electorate used social media in 2008 to research candidates, and Twitter was scarcely 2 years old on election night). But with this election cycle, the social media giants are now key outlets for candidates to transmit their messages to voters. While social media may appear to offer unfettered, uncontrollable discussion of candidates and their positions, the campaigns are hard at work learning how to manipulate the tools to their advantage. And there's added spice to the Internet element of this season's presidential campaign -- because social media is so new, rules of engagement are lacking.

For example, Barack Obama famously held a surprise virtual town hall on Aug. 29, offering to take questions from Reddit.com users, embracing that site's standard "Ask Me Anything" (AMA) format. The event was unusual because it occurred during the height of the Republican National Convention, breaking the well-established convention that candidates don't upstage each other during their opponent's convention. Obama almost certainly wouldn't have held a traditional press conference that day -- but a Reddit AMA?  Who's to say that was a violation of unwritten politicking rules? When suspicion arose that questions from the AMA might have been less spontaneous than they first appeared, many observers chimed in with cynical reminders that real-world town halls and press conferences also include plants. Who's to say what rules should apply on Reddit?

About the same time, Romney's campaign made what is believed to be the first major campaign purchase of a "sponsored hashtag," attempting to corral discussion on Twitter around the topic "#AreYouBetterOff?" Simultaneously, a parody Twitter account named MexicanMitt was temporarily suspended. A month or two earlier, Romney's number of Twitter followers shot up by a surprising amount. Are such hashtag purchases tasteful? Was suspension of the account coincidental? Is it fair to purchase followers? Again, the online rules aren't clear. 

There is little argument that Obama's campaign, which held an exclusive on grass-roots Internet campaigning last time around, holds a major advantage over Romney on Twitter and Facebook. Some of that is pure demographics -- new Web tools skew younger and more liberal. But some of it is the result of well-timed sarcasm campaigns. Each time Romney trips over his tongue, you can be sure a cascade of social media comedy  -- a "meme," in Internet lingo -- will follow. Sometimes, that's an organic outpouring of creativity. Sometimes, that's the work of an Obama supporter like Matt Ortega. He told Salon earlier this year that he was behind a website named "EtchASketchMittRomney.com," which appeared almost immediately after top Romney aide embarrassingly said that the candidate's campaign positions in the GOP primary could be easily changed, as if they were written on an Etch-A-Sketch. Ortega said he owns dozens of other similarly sarcastic websites, all powered by the pickup they get on Twitter and Facebook. Ortega is a Democratic consultant, but swears the sites are unpaid hobby work.

Turning candidates into punch lines
There's certainly nothing wrong with being funny. Obama's Reddit chat didn't break any rules; neither did Romney's Twitter advertising. But is social media a free-for-all? Perhaps, said Brad Phillips, a media consultant who runs MrMediaTraining.com. But he's not convinced that social media has made things worse. Campaigns have always stretched the rules -- and the truth -- to get any advantage possible, he said.

"Think about the Willie Horton ads (pillorying Michael Dukakis in 1988). So many others," Phillips said. "If the Internet existed in those campaigns, would they have used online tactics? Of course." Nor would campaign managers from elections past have fretted about scheduling a virtual press conference during an opponent's convention, he said. In some ways, he's surprised there hasn't been much evidence presented yet of "dirty tricks" online, such as the whisper campaign during the 2000 primaries alleging that John McCain had an illegitimate child.

On the other hand, Twitter and Facebook have created one huge new avenue for attack, Phillips said -- the power of humor. Once upon a time, the biggest threat to a candidate could be a misstep so bad that it became fodder for late-night TV humor on Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show."

While that's still true -- an unplanned appearance on David Letterman's Top 10 List can really hurt -- Twitter and Facebook allow campaigns to create their own late night butt-of-joke moments without needing a comedy writer to see it their way. It's easy to argue that the real damage from Clint Eastwood's halting Republican Convention speech came from the hours of sarcastic Tweets and Facebook discussions that began before Eastwood even finished speaking.

"In the past, you knew a crisis had jumped the firewall when it appeared on late night TV as a joke....that meant the issue had gone beyond being just a story for political types," Phillips said. "You wonder if same dynamic is played out now online. If you can make a candidate a punch line (in social media) you've scored a hit."

Phillips also said sarcastic memes could slowly but surely wear down a candidate's chances, cumulatively building and impression that "a candidate is a joke," which would be hard to counteract.

"Is that clean (campaigning)?" he asked. "I don't know. But in future political cycles, I believe candidates will have to pay a lot more attention to this."

Clean or not, University of Virginia professor and presidential politics expert Larry Sabato has been sharply critical of both campaigns -- and political reporters -- for getting caught up in what he calls the "Gaffe Game." Hunting for the next one-liner is a poor way to evaluate presidential candidates, he says.

"When we tire of Gaffe Game, let's have a POTUS Spelling Bee. Would be about as revealing," he said recently in his own Twitter feed.

Scoring points through sarcasm is hardly new, but Sabato believes social media has indeed accelerated the gaffe obsession in this election cycle.

"Many people are on (Twitter) for hours every day. Do they make it worse? Is the pope German? They drain every gaffe of every ounce of meaning and political advantage," he said. "Every time a candidate has a blunder or tongue-twister, Twitter explodes with commentary defending and deriding the candidate."

On the other hand, there is hope, Sabato thinks. Social media seems to accelerate the news cycle, too, meaning that gaffes come and go quicker than they would in the past.

"They … destroy the gaffe quickly -- it burns itself out on Twitter faster than it would otherwise," he said.

Campaign zingers now 140 characters?
So does social media help or hurt the election process? Naturally, it's impossible to say. But it's important to note that voters shouldn't be fooled by what might seem like more personal connections offered by candidates through Facebook "Likes," "personal" e-mails and Tweets. In Phillips' impression, candidates are far more sterilized and prepackaged than ever.

"The candidates are so carefully controlled, access to them is controlled, they are trying to prevent any kind of YouTube moment. (Candidates' moves) are planned within an inch of their lives," he lamented. It's hard to believe that only five presidents ago, reporter Sam Donaldson and President Ronald Reagan sparred during fairly spontaneous press conferences. And vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro spent two hours answering reporters' questions about her tax returns.

Today's candidates usually hide behind carefully orchestrated digital personas, lobbing one-liners over the wall in an attempt to slowly move the needle on the small number of undecided voters who will swing the election.

"Candidates are giving away the ability to have a knockout fantastic answer," he said. "They are just trying to advance in inches not in yards," he said.

That raises the discouraging possibility that the key to who wins and who loses on Nov. 6 could be which candidate comes up with the best joke that fits in 140 characters or fewer.

* Follow Bob Sullivan on Facebook.
* Follow Bob Sullivan on Twitter.

 More from Red Tape Chronicles:

• Mom forces TSA to shell out $3.99 for confiscated peanut butter
• Why your next 'Passw0rd' may not be a password
• Airlines charge passengers 'you-get-to-sit-with-your-kids' fee
• Revealed: The real source of Apple IDs leaked by Anonymous
• The truth comes out: CEO says 'stupid' consumers deserve big fees
• Firms' deletion of online critiques draws cries of 'censorship'
• Poll: Cellphone users dump apps to spare privacy, then lose phones
• At Tampa convention, protesters can carry guns, but not puppets

 

 

Updated 10:07 p.m.

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, each battling furiously for a win in Saturday's South Carolina primary, pointedly questioned each other's experience to be president, while being forced to account for standing questions about the challenges they face to winning the nomination and beating President Obama.

The two leading candidates in South Carolina's primary this weekend largely avoided sniping at each other in the first half hour of the debate -- a spirited affair less than 36 hours before voting begins in the Palmetto State -- but engaged each other more directly as the evening progressed.

---

Gingrich was pressed to explain his past support for a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance, and his manner of leadership as speaker of the House, a tenure described by critics as erratic.

But Gingrich scored early -- and decisively -- with a fiery response to allegations from an ex-wife that drew wild applause from the crowd in attendance.

Romney, meanwhile, had to defend his business record and answer questions as to why he wouldn't release his income tax records, all while relitigating conservative criticism of the health care reform he signed as governor of Massachusetts.

Through this, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, crowned the winner this morning of the Iowa Caucuses after a retabulation of results, was anxious to take on both Romney and Gingrich, distinguishing himself as a steady if not-flashy alternative to the two leading candidates.

The debate, the 17th of the cycle, followed one of the most dramatic days of the 2012 campaign. Thursday saw Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s exit from the campaign trail, new extramarital allegations against Gingrich, polling data showing Romney’s advantage slipping in South Carolina, and a new declaration by the Iowa GOP anointing former Santorum – not Romney – the winner of its Jan. 3 caucus after certifying official results.

Perry drops out of GOP presidential race, endorses Gingrich

The tone of the forum was set early when Gingrich angrily assailed CNN moderator John King for opening the debate by asking Gingrich to answer allegations made by his ex-wife, Marianne, in an interview with ABC News, saying the then-speaker of the House asked to engage in an "open marriage," or else he would file for divorce.

"I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate with a topic like that," Gingrich said, earning wild applause from the audience. "To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine."

Gingrich angrily rebuffs questions about ex-wife

Gingrich disputed the allegations as "false," and his three fellow Republicans onstage resisted piling on. ("Let's get on to the real issues," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said.)

Recent pollng of the race suggests that Gingrich has been enjoying a late surge in South Carolina, one that could threaten Romney's bid for a win that, his campaign hopes, would all but seal the nomination for the former Massachusetts governor.

An NBC News-Marist poll released Thursday found Romney leading at 34 percent among likely primary voters in the state, followed by Gingrich at 24 percent, Texas Rep. Ron Paul at 16 percent, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum at 14 percent, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 4 percent. But in the latter half of the two-day poll, following Gingrich's strong performance during a Monday debate, Romney's lead winnowed to five points.

NBC poll: Newt Gingrich gains ground on Mitt Romney in South Carolina
 
South Carolina has correctly predicted the eventual Republican nominee since the inception of its primary in 1980; in each subsequent contest, the winner has gone on to become the GOP standard-bearer.

Romney has sought to project an air of inevitability surrounding his candidacy, but has been dogged by questions about the business practices of Bain Capital, the private equity firm he cofounded, that go to the core of his argument that he is the candidate most experienced to repair the U.S. economy. Romney's work for Bain also made him wealthy, and Romney's GOP rivals have pressed him to release his tax returns.

He dealt with both issues Thursday evening. Romney sought to explain Bain's work in greater detail, highlighting instances in which its work created jobs. He avoided engaging with Republicans, like Gingrich, who have questioned Romney's private sector record.

"I'm someone who believes in free enterprise," he said. "And I'm going to stand and defend capitalism across this country, throughout this campaign. I know we're going to get hit hard from President Obama, but we're going to stuff it down his throat and point out it is capitalism and freedom that makes America strong."

Romney also faced pressure to release his tax returns. He said he would release records -- going back an unspecified number of "multiple" years -- but not until April, by which time the primary may well be settled.

It was Santorum, though, who put the most pointed questions to the two frontrunners. Santorum, who served in Congress while Gingrich was speaker, raised questions about whether Gingrich's conduct as a leader would lead to a "worrisome moment" for the GOP.

"Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich. He handles it very, very well," Santorum said, later adding: "I knew what the problems were going on in the House of Representatives when Newt Gingrich was leading there. It was an idea a minute, no discipline, no ability to be able to pull things together."

That exchange opened up a broader, sharper discussion between the candidates on their backgrounds. Romney characterized Gingrich as a lifelong insider, and again touted his business experience as the best qualification for his candidacy.

"I was in business 25 years. So you're not going to get credit for my 25 years," Romney said. "I don't recall a single day saying, 'Oh, thanks heavens Washington is there for me.'"

But Romney was also put on the spot by Santorum, and later, Gingrich, over his record in Massachusetts. Gingrich accused Romney of continuing to support abortions even after having announced his opposition to abortion rights. And Santorum went on the attack on Massachusetts health care reform.

"It is not a free-market health care system. It is not bottom-up. It is prescriptive and government. It was the basis for Obamacare," Santorum said.

Romney stumbled at moments and offered wonky answers in response to the criticism, repeatedly vowing that, for whatever his past record shows, he would govern in opposition to abortion rights.

"I did my very best to be a pro-life governor. I will be a pro-life president," Romney said. 

Texas Rep. Ron Paul at times fell to the background, having to make quips at moment about not being afforded an opportunity to join the scrum onstage.  At one point, when the moderator was ready to move on after a question on abortion, the crowd complained that Paul hadn't been given an opportunity to answer.

The debate came after one of the most momentus days in the campaign. Perry ended his bid for the nomination and threw his support behind Gingrich, who has shown signs of revival in South Carolina, and who has sought to rally conservatives under the banner of being the best alternative to Romney.

That narrative shaped Thursday night's debate, which saw Gingrich engage in frequent crowd-pleasing answers, dropping references to Ronald Reagan and taking frequent shots at the media.

Whether Romney did much to reverse his slide likely won't be known until Saturday, when South Carolinians head to the polls. Debate settings have been a strength for Gingrich, and he, Paul and Santorum have relished the opportunity to pile on Romney in these settings. (Another debate is scheduled for Monday night in Florida.)

The debate, hosted by CNN and the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, was broadcast at 8 p.m. ET.

The Tea Party and Occupy movements have each generated considerable attention and helped shape the conversation heading into the 2012 presidential election. But seldom have the two sides engaged in a dialogue.

NBCPolitics.com aims to change that on Wednesday with a Web-only discussion between six members of the two movements – three Occupy protesters and three members of Tea Party affiliated groups. And we'd like you to participate.

---

The one-hour event, which will be live streamed on Wednesday from 4-5 p.m. ET, will be moderated by MSNBC TV’s Richard Lui. See below for an introduction to our panelists, all of whom are activists we’ve encountered in the course of reporting on the two movements.

 

Among other things, we’ll ask them about the issues most important to them, similarities and differences between the two movements and the impact they feel they are having on the political process.

Related story: Occupy 2012: Firmly disorganized, driven by dreams

We’d also like to involve you in the discussion and invite you to submit questions for our panelists in the comments area below, on Facebook, Twitter or Google Plus.

Then check back on Wednesday at 4 p.m. ET to watch the event live, or look for it after the fact on msnbc.com.

Here are our panelists, who will be participating from various locations via webcams:

‘Occupy’

Sergio Ballesteros, 30, from Los Angeles area. A high school teacher for four years, he is now pursuing his master’s degree in urban teaching at UCLA and working occasionally as a substitute teacher. He camped outside City Hall for about six weeks at the Occupy Los Angeles encampment and was among those arrested when police cleared the site on Nov. 30.

Tim Weldon, 35, of Poughquag, N.Y., left his part-time job helping the disabled to find work to take up “occupation” He helped kick start the working group think tank at OWS. He has a master’s degree and used to work in post-conflict reconstruction and development in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. He came home two years ago to find a job but could only find the part-time one.

Elli Whiteway, 21, a senior Christian ethics major at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., who is involved in the Occupy Nashville protest. Her interest in community, dialogue, ethics and social justice motivated her to seek out and support the local movement. Her parents are Tea Party supporters. 

Tea Party

Monica Boyer, 36 of Warsaw, Ind., works as a college secretary. Boyer founded a Tea Party-affiliated group named for her county, Kosciusko Silent No More, which has about 200 regular members. She also co-founded Hoosiers for a Conservative Senate, aimed at defeating longtime Republican U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar in the primaries next spring.

Chuck MacNab, 79, a retired airline captain from O’Fallon, Mo. He is a founder of K & N Patriots--named for the high traffic intersection of state supplemental roads K and N, where the group holds a rally and meeting every two weeks at a corner gas station. His main concern is that we have gone too far in the direction of big government, and have too many constraints on freedom. 

Sharon Snyder, 74, of Madison Heights, Mich., is a member of MODESCO and the Troy Area Tea Party Michigan, a Christian Tea Party affiliated group. She says she got involved in the movement on Income Tax Day in 2009 and ended up helping to organize a bus trip to Washington, D.C., for a Tea Party event.