Was it really the debate, or is the super PAC money kicking in?

[wildeyed]

People are freaking out about the poll numbers and blaming the slight change Obama's debate performance. But I am wondering if it is also reflective of the super PAC advertising expenditures. Over the summer, all I read about was how much special interest money was being invested in this race, but no one seems to be talking about it anymore. The advertising barrage should really be kicking in about now, right?

I always thought this would be a close race, that it would be the Obama ground game against the Romney billionaires. Which is what it seems to be coming down to. Not that the debate performance HELPED. But I didn't think it was all that bad. I don't watch TV, and certainly not in PA, FL or OH. I am wondering if the poll tightening we have seen is more reflective of the ridiculous amount of money being spent on this race than a few debate missteps? Or perhaps that the media is more interested in the debate storyline than trying to figure out what other factors are at work and that is driving people's perception of Obama as a weak candidate? Curious what others think.....

[oswaldactedalone]

1. The debate for sure

Robme surprised us by acting competent and polished even as he told his lies. Obama looked weak and ineffectual as he didn't hit Robme where he was weakest. Robme unloaded his whole arsenal and Obama kept his powder dry. All Obama had to do was fire back at least some but chose not to. He was too worried about looking Presidential and not worried enough about parrying with his foe, ie, actually debating.

[treestar]

2. You could be right

I think there could be many factors. If it's just the debate, that's giving a ton of power to the MSNBC pundits.

Also Rmoney is a shiny new object to people who are only starting to pay attention. They don't know him that well yet.

[regnaD kciN]

3. I think not, because...

...Obama's drop in the polls was pretty much nationwide, and apparently stronger in the non-swing states, where there is practically no advertising at all. In fact, it seems that, the more advertising seen in a state, the less it was likely to sink for Obama.

I do agree that the dip wasn't entirely due to the debate -- but, as I've written before, I think some of it was also Romney's "negative bounce" from the 47% tape starting to ebb.

[uponit7771]

4. NIETHER, horrible poll sampling and MSM group speak. By Sunday Obama was back up in polls and rMoney

...had ticked up his base and that was it