Good morning Jeff,
A list of debate parties in the area can be found in this article. http://winnetka.patch.com/articles/want-to-attend-a-debate-party.
Have a great day!
Melanie

In listening to post-debate comments, what those in a focus group liked best was when Romney said he would sit down on day one with Republican and Democratic leaders to get the job done.

This is the first time many have seem Romney and Obama go head to head. Up to now Obama has been able to define Romney to the American people as one not qualified to be president.

Finally Obama was confronted by one who was not about to be intimidated. Romney's performance proved to Americans that he is a viable candidate ready to be president. Most in the focus group thought so. A number switched their loyalty to Mitt Romney..

Obama, in contrast, looked lost and befuddled without his teleprompter.

I will sit down with party leaders the day after the election also. Doesn't mean I'll have a clue as to what to talk about.

Hey Jose ~
Nice try...but clearly you are still in the dark. EDUCATE yourself on the issues. Who told you the stuff you posted? Why don't you check-out information from the source -- read for yourself. Stop spreading lies and misinformation -- it's no good for your or for the Latino community.

Fake

@ Nikki Simon,

Very well Stated. Jose has been reading too many of those latino propaganda papers owned by some of the same publishers that helped ruin Central America that all of the illegals escaped.

Ironic, isn't it? We have a whole slew of Hispanic voters that are going to be voting for everything they left their countries behind for.

Oh well... At least Romney wiped up Obama on this debate. Unfortunately, the Hispanic vote is going to vote for anything that has a (D) behind their names and really does not have a clue of what's dragging down the economy.

Jose:
Do you work for Hugo Chavez? Chavez said he would vote for Obama. You should try listening to the facts instead of what Hugo tells you.

Jose doesn't even know the candidate's name. Rodney??

nice

That's funny. Mr. Lehrer will be more fair than your scenario.

So, are you going to admit that you were wrong?

Walter, I'm actually shocked how well he did. He certainly knew the issues FAR better and articulated his plans FAR better then Obama did.

What debate were you watching?

I'm definitely with you there, Guido.

Maybe we could have a Patch eye-gouging party. Think Lennie would come?

Count us out for the eye-gouging party. Nobody wants to be in charge of cleaning that event up.

Bad Nightcrawler! Bad!

Sticking your head in the sand is never a good alternative.

"Sticking your head in the sand is never a good alternative."

My eyes are wide open. The fact that I cannot listen to these creatures speak without retching has no bearing on my knowledge of their machinations.

Jim,
Most people aren't going to actually listen to what the candidates say. They will be so busy supporting their candidate and bashing the opposition that if we are lucky a few people will listen and learn.

You have the Jose types who get misinformation somewhere and then spread it and then you get the Dan types who are offended even before the candidates speak a word. What is the point of the debate if it isn't to explain the differences in the candidates? And the candidates couldn't be more different than each other. And the misinformation on the candidates couldn't be farther off.

There ya go, RB- you can be our official reporter and let us know what they say!

Unfortunately my daughter has to watch it for homework so it'll have to be on.

Ummm... note to RB,

Obama's first two years in office he had a Democratic led House of Representatives that said Yes to every wasteful spending plan conjured up.

Just because a Republican House of Representatives does not go along with every wasteful spending thing under the sun .... does not meant that's a BAD thing.

Digging yourself deeper throwing good money after bad when you are in a debt hole is never a solution that ends up with good results.

Just ask Solyndra.

RB:
Did you get your specifics from Romney? He certainly laid many of them out. I wish the president had done the same. Most of what he appeared to lay out were inaccuracies. Of course we have tons of specifics from the last 4 years of the Obama administration. Just look at the number of people on welfare from when he started to now. Look at unemployment, start until now. Look at foreclosures....the list could go but that would not be fair.

Read The Economist. A conservative magazine. Most economists agree that the Obama budget will grow the economy faster than the Romney budget. The Romney budget will tank the economy back to the recession Mr. Obama has pulled us out of. Also, Most workers are now saying that Mr. Obama will be better for the economy. So, let's recap. Economists and workers agree that Mr. Obama is better for the economy that Mitt Romney.

"Read The Economist. A conservative magazine."

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

"Most economists agree that the Obama budget will grow the economy faster than the Romney budget."

A presidential budget cannot grow the economy. One cannot take money from productive people at gunpoint, redistribute the loot, and expect growth beyond what otherwise would have been realized.

"the recession Mr. Obama has pulled us out of."

I used to believe some fairy tales, too.

@RB,

I read The Economist and what you state about "most" economists agreeing with Obama's plan is certainly not true.

In fact, there's a good article in The Economist showing that all of that Borrowed money under the Obama Administration during the first two years when he had complete control yielded the LOWEST Return on Investment ever seen for the last 50 years.

Spending Trillions of Dollars of borrowed money on garbage is NO long term sustainable economical solution to the big mess the country is in. All it did was kick the can down the road and create bigger problems to be dealt with for another day.

Whoa, you mean you have the details of the Romney budget? I thought his running mate was afraid the details might bore us ... or confuse us.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/03/162246678/paul-ryan-says-tv-and-politics-dont-always-mix-does-he-have-a-point

Socially liberal, economical conservative....free markets for one!

Well stated David,

RB obviously does not read The Economist consistently. Maybe he picked up the magazine once and read some article with the bogus statements he made... but he obviously does not read it consistently.

Probably has little clue to what it takes to be called an "Economist" in the first place. (It's not that hard..)

RB - you still have it wrong. The Economist is Keynesian and beleives the govt should 'correct unfairness created by capitalistic free market forces". The Economist supports a carbon tax, legalized drugs, legalized prostitution, same sex marriage, progressive taxation, govt regulation of smoking, bans on parents spanking children, gun control and opposes capital punishment. They support a strong central bank and govt intervention in most economic affairs. If I recall correctly, they once published an obit of God. They endorsed Sen Kerry and Pres Obama.

I'm not saying I disagree with all of the views expressed in the Economist. I'm just saying RB has clearly not read much of the magazine if he calls it conservative.

Yes, we need more tariffs and trade wars.

It's simply stunning that the republican candidate for president wants to start a trade war with China. I expect economic ignorance from leftists; Romniac knows better and it's disgustingly foul that he stoops to the level of leftists.

Cause the states are doing so well with education

Every morning when I take the train downtown, I see a spray-painted message on a side of a building that says "Sally Sells."

What are you holding Sally?

Romney deserves the clap.

Of course he has. Where have you been?

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/mitt-romneys-contrived-trade-war/

There wasn't any difference maker for you, Mac. You decided four years ago who you weren't going to vote for this year.

So Obama was pretty bad last night I heard. Romney told a lot of lies and Obama didn't confront him I guess. I've got to hand it to my daughter. She said she didn't understand the debate because Romney didn't say anything that was consistent with what he's said before (just for the record, she hates politics so I don't talk to her about it- she came to the conclusion on her own). The truth is, no debate is going to sway McCloud or sway me. It's the independents who have to decide who's more reliable overall. If they base their opinions just on debates, then they ain't too bright.

Romney stood up straight and spoke with authority. I guess that pretty much does it for many people. If you actually listened to what he said, it was totally different that what he's said for the past year. And when pressed for details by Obama, there were none. But he was obviously well coached. I remember another Republican who "looked good" in the debates in 2000.

Sully: "So Obama was pretty bad last night I heard. Romney told a lot of lies and Obama didn't confront him I guess."
You proudly have a closed mind and didn't even watch or listen. Yet you know Romney lied?

Yeah Ed, I'm pretty sure he did. Either that or he has a really hard time sticking to the same idea for more than a few minutes. In either case, that doesn't sound like the kind of leader I'd be looking for. No principles or the short term memory of a two year old? Hmmm.

Sully you RICH guys need to give more.

Poor people never create jobs. Everything rich people spend money on creates jobs, from restaurants to second homes to luxury boats. The emphasis in our country should be on creating opportunity rather than making everyone equal in wealth.

"Thank you Mac for voting against your own best interests"

Voting for your own best interests is something a child does.

Voting against ones own self interest is something just a child dies? Guido, it's not just McCloud. It's all the others who have been sold on the idea that the great American dream still exists. That anyone at any time can pull themselves up to become millionaires if they just work hard enough. There are a lot of people who work very hard to do the best, but there are not a lot changing to higher tax brackets at the moment. I'm guessing you work hard, or you did, but are you a millionaire? Did your dream come true when republicans were in office? McCloud, how about you? Did you climb the ladder to the ultimate level? The game doesn't work that way anymore. The wealthy want to remain and become more wealthy. Do you think they want any more competition?

"It's all the others who have been sold on the idea that the great American dream still exists"

Wow, I thought I was a pessimist. What a sad outlook to have on life.

"There are a lot of people who work very hard to do the best, but there are not a lot changing to higher tax brackets at the moment."

Au contraire: http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/12/for-richer-and-for-poorer
http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/11/84-percent-of-americans-are-richer-than

"Did your dream come true when republicans were in office?"

My dreams are independent of the specific War Party team that's in power, red or blue.

"The wealthy want to remain and become more wealthy. Do you think they want any more competition?"

Ah yes, the Fixed Pie Theory of Wealth. That one can still believe in such fairy tales is an indictment of our public schools.

Rich guys need to give more? What gives you the right to determine how I spend or don't spend my money. The last time I looked it was MY money. I earned. I paid tax on it. To suggest that we do more is outrageous. YOU give more money. Wait until the government keeps dropping the level of those who must pay more? When they bring the level down to your income or your income goes up to meet their level, how are you going to feel? Probably just like Warren Buffet. He could send the government more money, but he doesn't. He just talks a good game but still plays the tax code. He could change the structure of his income so he had to pay more. He could do that today....but does he?

It is very disingenuous to try and redistribute other people's money. When someone comes into your house and robs it, that is also redistribution of income. Are you OK with that?

Rob, the tax cuts have been in place Obama's whole term. Regulations have been filibustered, as have job bills. So, what are the job creators waiting for? What were they waiting for while Bush was in office? If education is so important, why make it harder for qualified students to pay for it?

"Regulations have been filibustered, as have job bills."

How are regulations, often initiated at the whims of unelected bureaucrats, subject to filibuster? Isn't the addition of 12,000 pages of regulations evidence against your theory?

"So, what are the job creators waiting for?"

Among others: Demand for their products. Slowing the rate of added regulation that could impair investment into the business. Tax certainty.

"If education is so important, why make it harder for qualified students to pay for it?"

Increased federal involvement adds to the price of tuition. The same is true for health care.

Sully

Seems the job omprovement has happen since Republicans took over the House. When Harry going to do something worthwhile?