I wasn't too enthusiastic about watching tonight but this game has totally changed my mind. This will make it fun. Thanks Rachel, Rachel's team, and Mr. Staake.

OR as a friend said this morning...'this is important people. So let's figure out a way to make it tolerable. There are a multitude of drinking games.

I find most of them wonkless. I suggest drinking at any mention of
education, alternative energy, infrastructure, and public health. This way you
will remain relatively sober or, if you decide to substitute bites of Grand
Marnier truffles, relatively diabetic comatose free.

In addition to the bingo cards, you might also like this -- a summary of how the parties and candidates are working to "reposition" one another on issues. http://www.ed100.org/partisan-values/

Both sides have no doubt performed the Luntz vocabulary training exercise. Gingrich popularized his list of words he gave to republicans to memorize and use. The trick is that there are political catchwords that can be shown statistically to trigger sentiments in your listeners that tend to favor your political point of view.

For example, if Romney channels Gingrich, a bingo card for him would have: abuse of power; betray; bizarre; bosses; bureaucracy; cheat; coercion; collapse; consequences; corrupt; corruption; criminal rights; crisis; cynicism; decay; deeper; destroy; destructive; devour; disgrace; endanger; excuses; failure ; greed; hypocrisy; ideological; impose; incompetent; insecure; insensitive; intolerant; liberal; lie; machine; mandate(s); obsolete; pathetic; patronage; permissive ; pessimistic; punish ; radical; red tape; self-serving; selfish; shallow; shame; sick; spend(ing); stagnation; status quo; steal; threaten; traitors; unionized; urgent ; waste;

Which terms will very likely never come up? The topics are economy, health care and "governing".

For example a shallow debate on the Economy would not mention:

• ECB, Draghi
• U6 (unemployment)
• "Volcker Rule" /Too big to fail
• Pareto
• automation

If we had a real competition of ideas, we might be offered more than a binary decision between two speakers. Ross Perot forced a wider debate when he was on stage, but these alternate debate voices need not be regarded as spoilers. Preferential voting would allow Ron Paul and a Green candidate to command at least 10% of likely voters. If either were up on stage, then you might get some of substantive terms. You might even generate some interest in some heterodox analysis of what is happening with the 1% versus the rest of us. Terms like "reserve army of labor"- that the 1% needs in order to keep production costs as low as possible. Neither Obama nor Romney will use any terms that suggest that this is part of the dynamic, and it is because there really won't be much of a range of political choices represented up on that stage.

Be sure to watch the pregame show and the instant critique afterwards! After all how can you,a mere mortal, decide who won without being told by a self appointed and anointed political hack.

Anyone know where I can get a link for the live stream of the debates on MSNBC? I would GREATLY appreciate it.

My bingo card includes:

"absolutely!"; "disingenuous"; "double down"; "under the bus"; "unsustainable"

ok i reall think if romney said he was god i would vote for pres obama

and reall romney looks like herman munster and ryan looks like eddy munster

wow is romey full of it

Joke: make the poles closer and closer ,more money more money. We all no right from wrong .

LOL You guys are nuts. That's just too funny!

ok lets put it this way romney is a joke blah blah did not really understanding.well i dont think romney really knows what he saying