The second presidential debate was declared a draw by most of the media. Given media predispositions, that judgment is not good news for Obama.

Obama’s campaign is losing air like a punctured balloon.Like the emperor in the fable, he is now seen as naked by much of the country. Momentum has shifted to Romney. He needed to shift momentum back in order to have a chance. By most accounts, he failed to accomplish any momentum shift. Tying a battle when you are losing the war does not help.

Romney should have won the debate (and some believe he did). Even though he was debating against two people (Obama and to a lesser extent Crowley), he had the facts on his side.  This debate was not conducive to the orderly presentation of facts. Obama used the format wisely, to protect himself against the indefensible facts of his first four years. In that sense, Obama had a good performance, using aggressiveness to keep Romney off stride.

Facts are powerful. Form can only dominate in the absence of substance. Obama has an edge in presentation and performance. Romney has the facts on his side, but he did not effectively utilize them in this debate. Obama has no chance if forced to defend his claims against facts.

For example, Obama claims he created 5 million new jobs. For that to be true, he must have destroyed more than 5 million. Thomas Sowell used this observation to point this fact out:

Economist Edward Lazear has cut through all of Barack Obama’s claims about “creating jobs” with one plain and inescapable fact — “there hasn’t been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office.” Whatever number of jobs were created during the Obama administration, more have been lost.

Most of Obama’s distortions involve economic claims. While it may be impossible to prepare for every outrageous claim, the following graphic contains six charts which refute most of Obama’s most egregious assertions:

Each one of these charts is a refutation of Obama’s claim of a recovery. Mr. Romney should commit this information to memory and succinct points which can be used to counter Mr. Obama’s false claims.

There is no defense against facts except lies or other distortions. Yet, these facts are so damning that they are definitive. Reasonable people, if presented with this information, must conclude that Obama’s economic policy has been a failure, and likely made matters worse.

Lies caught on camera are devastating. They, alongside the actual facts, make great campaign commercials. Obama’s claim of recognizing the Libya attack as a terrorist event is an example. Juxtapose that debate claim with film footage of his blaming some obscure video for a fortnight afterwards and you have exposed a blatant lie and a deliberate attempt at a cover-up.

Granted that Obama was dealt a difficult hand when he assumed office. Aren’t most presidents? Isn’t that a primary reason for changing horses or parties? Obama’s situation was more difficult than most. Whether it was worse than anyone else is moot. To this observer it was not worse than the one inherited by Ronald Reagan.

Having lived through that period, I would argue that Reagan’s problems were at least as difficult as Obama’s. Reagan’s problems today seem less so because most did not experience them. They also seem small because of the manner in which Reagan responded. Obama’s problems seem worse, also because of the way that Obama handled them.

Investors Business Daily provides a comparison of what they claim are comparable points in the Reagan-Obama recoveries. From these graphs, the only comparability appears in the elapsed time.

The facts are still on Romney’s side and so is the momentum. If he is able to convey them better in the next debate, the outcome of the election will not be close.