It's a stupid question, of course. Romney came off better than Obama unless you know how much outright lying he did, but this only matters to those willing to change their voting status at this point. Those folks are few in number. Obama's had nearly six years of high visibility; Romney gets to play the energetic outsider -- the moderate for Christ's sake! -- because no one cares to read up on his long long history of corporate thievery and run-of-the-mill right wing nastiness.
But he's not a moderate, and he won't be able to play make-believe on that score for very long. His liabilities are as they always were: Paul Ryan is a brittle ideologue (his role in the debt-ceiling fiasco will do Biden some favours), Romney himself is pure corporate kleptocrat spiced plus a few insane social views and plenty of blandly conservative ones; Obama's ability to drive xenophobes insane doesn't extend to most Americans; the economy is changing and Obama's handling those changes decently; and as the ACA kicks in more and more over years, one of the great injustices in our country's modern history will be rolled back bit by bit (which, yes, voters actually do notice).
There are a lot of factors working in Obama's favour as there always have been, Romney's actual beliefs (and total lack of policy plans) not least among them.
Did this debate change the minds of actual voters? Not really, no.
So it doesn't matter what the idiots on CNN and Fox News think (it never has). Obama performed poorly, Romney did superbly, but facts are facts and Obama's still going to win by 4% just like I've predicted for literally years.
Yawn.
