Dr. OlympiaLiu总统辩论很少影响大选 (10/04/2012) Update 10/07/12
期盼已久的 Presidential Debates 首场结束。 看表面，Romney 赢了舞台，但，深入想一想，完全不是那会事。 正像网友说，Obama 的数字是经过白宫有关专家计算出来的，不是 空穴来风；而Romney 真不亏为大奸商，他捡好的说，此次不敢抛弃47%了，而是 迎合100% 人（不论贫富）的心理 。 但，明眼人一看就明，他是信口胡说，毫不负责。 他没有任何根基去证实。 所以，媒体指责是：Honest less - 大骗家， 他在忽悠人民。
他的忽悠，可在短时间内，影响Election Poll ， 但 不会影响太大。目前，Obama还是占上风。
从美国历史看，Democrec-民主党是一直占优势的，但Ragen，就是那个好来坞演员出身的总统， 把历史翻了个。但，美国叫Republican- 共和党的Bush 败家子给毁了，Obama 接手烂摊子，历史上，尚无有人能在4年任期内，扭转乾坤。但目前从经济，就业，各方面已有了好转。我们不能叫 Romney 去摘桃， 不能叫胡汉三回来。共和党的 Romney为了赢得人心，说得天花L 坠，但，共和党若赢，出于其党的本性，必要真的抛弃广大人民，为少数为富不仁的富豪服务；
而Obama，他是第二代移民的黑白混血儿，跟我们一样，在美国上学，拿学位，辛苦工作，当上了总统。他之前的Cliton，也是类似出身。所以，Democracy - 民主党- Obama 的政策是为包括你我在内的99%以上人民的。 大家要看党的本质，不要被一时舞台表现而忽悠。
再说，美国政治学科学家们，研究了从1960 – 2004 历届大选。 历史证明：辩论好坏，很少影响大选，因为每人都带观点来看TV。大家不会忘记几天前，Romney还在“自家人”会上把47% 美国人踢出。 难道几十分钟的 Debate 就全然扭转多半美国人的看法吗？ 别天真了！
但， 也不可掉以清心，下棋常有独马反败为胜。目前看，Obama 还占上风。不过，
鹿死谁手？ Only Time can tell U！
我记得2004 身材修长的克里（John Kerry），赢了三场辩论（ 他太太就是每家每户饭台上都有的Ketchup -红柿酱的大老板）， 但被比他年轻的 George W. Bush 赢了大选。Obama 此次辩论前就请Kerry作予演的教练 - Coach， Kerry当反面人-假想政敌Romney， 他一再盯嘱小马：要稳，勿出格， 导致08 表现拘谨， 但，不像 Romney 信口雌黄， 谎言一片。
Presidential Debates Rarely Have Much Effect on Election Outcomes
In most cases presidential debates such the one coming up on Oct. 3 don't have much effect on an election.
From Al Gore’s loud sighing to Jimmy Carter saying he consulted his 12-year-old daughter on nuclear proliferation, presidential debates are full of memorable moments. But despite the fanfare that surrounds each election cycle’s televised events, historical data shows the debates are rarely game changers..
“There are a handful of cases in which a debate had a notable effect on the polls,” political scientist John Sides says. “But most debates don’t produce that kind of shift.”
A 2008 Gallup study found that between 1960 and 2004, there were only two years where debates made a difference in actual votes. Instead, the most common outcome of the presidential debates is a slight popularity bump. But that bump doesn’t necessarily translate into votes.
“They sometimes have a short-term effect, a bounce in response to the debates, but at the end of the day there often is not much of an effect,” says Robert Erikson, author of The Timeline of Presidential Elections.
Data from the Gallup study also saw no direct correlation between the winner of each debate and the winner of the presidency. The 2004 Kerry vs. Bush debate was cited as an example. Kerry was considered the victor of all three showdowns, but still lost the election.
There are numerous factors responsible for the disparity between who “wins” the debates and who wins the election. Political scientists say one of the biggest reasons is that those who are watching the debates already have their minds made up.
“By [debate] time voters have pretty much picked their candidates,” says Erikson. “Some are undecided, but they are probably not paying attention…People who are political and have a party affiliation are hard to dislodge by the debates. And those rooting for their favorite candidate, even if he is doing poorly, aren’t necessarily going to change their mind.”
Even if a large number of open-minded, undecided voters watch the debates, history shows that the events are typically lackluster and therefore unlikely to influence a person’s interpretation of a candidate. “Usually the candidates fight to a draw. They are well prepared and the format of the debates gives them equal time,” Sides says. “So it’s hard in that context to have a stunning victory or a terrible defeat.”