Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Debate Results; Spotlight on Defense Spending in Debate; Fast- Checking Obama, Romney on China, Trade; Military Families React to Final Debate on Foreign Policy; Candidates Skirt Libya Question Again; Campaign Enter Final Stretch

Aired October 23, 2012 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, ANCHOR, "CNN NEWSROOM": Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. It is 11:00 on the East Coast. It's 8:00 a.m. on the West Coast. So, good morning to you.

And, for everybody, you only have two weeks left to election day, 14 days for you to decide. Does President Obama get four more years or does Mitt Romney get a shot at the Oval Office?

They each made the case last night during the final presidential debate and, yesterday, we really wondered if anybody was going to watch because, after all, this big debate, third and final, was competing for eyeballs against two, huge, sporting events.

So, we do have a best measure this early on, but it is a strange one, a unique one, Twitter. Debate number one brought us 10.3 million tweets. Debate number 2, the number fell a bit to 7.2. And last night it fell further to 6.5 million tweets, which is still a lot of people.

But right after it was over, we had a chance to do more normal polling and we asked debate-watchers who won and here are the numbers. Forty- eight percent gave the victory to President Obama. Forty percent said Governor Romney got the best of it.

But, as our Dana Bash reports, regardless of the outcome, both men had a specific game plan to further their case.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Mitt Romney came wanting voters to see him as commander-in-chief. The commander-in- chief came determined to make sure that didn't happen.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you've offered an opinion, you have been wrong.

BASH: Time and time again, the President's harsh criticism dripped with sarcasm. OBAMA: A few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not al Qaeda. You said Russia.

And the 1980s or now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War has been over for 20 years.

MITT ROMNEY, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Our navy is smaller now than any time since 1917. The navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now down to 285.

OBAMA: I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916.

Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military has changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

BASH: Before the debate Romney advisers told CNN he would not be the scrappy candidate we saw in the last one. Instead, stay solid and steady, not take the President's bait.

ROMNEY: Attacking me is not an agenda.

BASH: Romney repeatedly blamed the President for failing to lead on global hot spots.

ROMNEY: You look at the record of the last four years and say, is Iran closer to a bomb? Yes. Is the Middle East in tumult? Yes. Is al Qaeda on the run, on its heels? No. Is -- are Israel and the Palestinians closer to reaching a peace agreement? No.

BASH: But, for the most part, Romney was calm in demeanor and remarkably agreeable on policy from Syria to Egypt to Afghanistan.

ROMNEY: Well, we're going to be finished by 2014. And when I'm president, we'll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014.

BASH: In fact, the Republican who Democrats try to paint as a warmonger used the opening minutes to position himself as a peacemaker.

ROMNEY: I congratulate them on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in al Qaeda, but we can't kill our way out of this mess.

BASH: Romney successfully got under the President's skin by repeating this allegation.

ROMNEY: And then the President began what I called an apology tour of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America. I think they looked at that and saw weakness.

OBAMA: Nothing Governor Romney just said is true, starting with this notion of me apologizing. This has been probably the biggest whopper that's been told during the course of this campaign.

BASH: One of the most fiery exchanges was not about foreign policy, but rather something decidedly American, the U.S. auto industry.

OBAMA: If we had taken your advice, Governor Romney, about our auto industry, we'd be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China.

ROMNEY: I am a son of Detroit. I was born in Detroit. My dad was head of a car company. I like American cars and I would do nothing to hurt the U.S. auto industry.

I said they need, these companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy. Fortunately, the President ...

OBAMA: Governor Romney, that's not what you said.

ROMNEY: You can take a look at the op-ed. You can take a look at the op-ed.

OBAMA: You did not say that you would provide government help.

ROMNEY: I said that we would provide guarantees and that was what was able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy.

OBAMA: Let's check the record.

ROMNEY: That's the height of silliness.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: Let me bring Dana Bash in now, live from Boca. This was supposed to be a foreign policy debate and it seemed to very frequently stray back to domestic policy and methinks that was part of the plan.

BASH: Oh, you would be right, especially for Mitt Romney who thinks that that is really his wheelhouse in terms of his own experience, but also because that's what Americans care most about.

They care most about reviving the bad economy in this country and, so, it wasn't an accident that both he and the President at various points turned the conversation back to the economy and, sometimes, it was much to the chagrin of the moderator, Bob Schieffer, because he was trying to keep it on track on foreign policy.

But the argument that Romney especially made -- the President to some degree as well, but -- is that they're all connected. You can't talk about foreign policy without talking about the economy because the global economy is what we're in now and, so, they're one and the same.

BANFIELD: Dana, real quickly, it was no -- you didn't need a rocket scientist. There was general consensus that, after the first debate, Obama lost. Even the liberal networks were saying he lost and he lost badly. Is there any consensus after this debate. The polls say he won, but what are people saying?

BASH: You know, it -- this -- there's not a clear consensus like the first one, but it seems as though most of the snapshot polls, including CNN's, show that the President did win.

What the Romney campaign argues is that he might not have actually won the debate, so to speak, but he went in and accomplished what he wanted to, which is to sit on the same stage with the commander-in- chief and come across as somebody who voters can see as commander-in- chief.

That was their goal and that's why I think that there were moments where you could almost see, Ashleigh, Mitt Romney biting his tongue, trying not to take the bait because that was his goal going in, calm, steady, cool, and that was the way he decided that he wanted to be the entire time.

BANFIELD: All right, Dana Bash, you have to leave sunny Florida and come back to D.C. It's nice to have you. Thank you. Appreciate it.

And now that the debate is behind all of us and the candidates certainly are back out on the road, Mitt Romney left Florida a short while ago and he's headed for a campaign rally in Nevada, big toss-up state.

But President Obama is staying in Florida and he's firing up the crowd by taking aim at his opponent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: If you've come down with a case of "Romnesia," if you can't seem to remember the policies on your website or the promises that you have been making over the six years that you've been running for president, if you can't even remember what you said last week, don't worry. ObamaCare covers pre-existing conditions. We can fix you up. We can cure this disease.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: So that was had this morning in Delray, Florida.

By the way, the early voting in that state starts on Saturday, but early voting opened up in two more states just today, Hawaii and Louisiana. So, at our count, that makes 31 states where people can already go to the polls. They may have already done it. They still have their chance.

For millions of people who have already voted, last night's debate was kind of window dressing. But for a lot of voters in those states who have yet to do so, they can watch last night's debate and just go right on out today and cast their ballot.

And then there are those millions of uncommitted voter who are still out there. About 10 percent of our electorate here in the U.S. could still change their minds before election day. Fourteen days to go. Lots of minds to change. So, for them, going into this debate last night was a virtual toss-up.

CNN's political editor Paul Steinhauser joins me live now from Boca Raton and our poll, as we said right off the top, CNN's polling done very late into the night, Paul, said that President Obama won this debate, but it's really only part of the story, as it always is.

You start breaking those numbers apart and you see a very rich picture. Can you draw that for me today?

PAUL STEINHAUSER, CNN POLITICAL EDITOR: Let's see that. The numbers behind the numbers, I guess you could say.

As you mentioned earlier, Ashleigh, 48 percent said the President won the debate. Forty percent said Mitt Romney, so a slight advantage for the President, a plurality there, but let's go beyond those numbers and how did the President get that plurality?

Take a look at this. A gender gap is one of the reasons why. You can see right here. Among debate-watchers -- again, this poll was of debate-watchers, not all Americans. But, among debate-watchers, Mitt Romney had a slight advantage on who won among men.

But look at that. The President with a very large, double-digit lead among women when it comes to who won the debate. So, that's one of the reasons.

Also, the other reason? Expectations. Look at this. The President, 59 percent said the President performed better than expected. That is 15 points higher than the 44 percent who said Mitt Romney performed better than expected, so expectations, another reason why, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: And just quickly, the very important issue for Mitt Romney going into this foreign policy debate was whether he seemed presidential. What did our polling tell us?

STEINHAUSER: Yeah and you were just touching on that with Dana. It seems Mitt Romney came out where he wanted to. Take a look at this. We asked in the poll of debate-watchers, you know, can both of these guys perform as commander-in-chief, can handle the job as commander- in-chief?

Look at Mitt Romney. Right there, competitive with the President, 63 percent said the President, but, of course, he's already been in the White House for four years. The bigger challenge was for Mitt Romney. Sixty percent say he can handle the duties of commander-in-chief.

And, finally, I think the most important number of all, did this debate change minds, at least among those people who watched this final face-off? And the answer appears to be no.

Look at that. Half said that they did not change their mind or make them more likely to vote for either man. Of the remaining half, basically, a draw. One other thing I've got to say about this poll, Ashleigh. There were slightly more Republicans, and I question it in this poll, than in a national average so it skewed slightly Republican, but overall, very interesting numbers, two weeks to go, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Fascinating, especially that 50 percent. Paul Steinhauser, thank you so much.

And we also have a lot more coming up on the debate particulars. But if you want to see the final presidential debate from stem to stern, and we have it all for you, just stay right here because we're going to replay the whole thing, the whole kit-and-caboodle, next hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go under water, nuclear submarines.

ROMNEY: Attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East.

I just want to take one of those points again. Attacking me is not talking about an agenda for getting more trade and opening up more jobs for this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Ouch. You know, what we knew going into last night's presidential debate was the substance, foreign policy, but what we didn't know was what the style was going to be and how these two were going to behave.

So, let's rewind a little bit and take a look back at this because, at times, they seem to agree to agree.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, I want to underscore the same point the President made.

OBAMA: Governor Romney, I'm glad that you agree that we have been successful in going after al Qaeda.

I'm glad that Governor Romney agrees with the step that we're taking.

ROMNEY: I couldn't agree more about going forward.

OBAMA: It sounded like you thought that you'd do the same things we did, but you'd say them louder and somehow that that would make it different.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BANFIELD: There were also the moments where there were several interruptions. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: I'm sorry. You actually -- there was a -- there was an effort on the part of the President to have a status-of-forces agreement.

OBAMA: Governor, here's one thing I've learned as commander-in-chief. You've got to be clear.

ROMNEY: That's -- OK, well, let's see. Can we come back? Let's come back to the ...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Stop the insanity. Then, of course, there were the moments where there were just flat-out zingers and attacks.

Pay close attention to those little lines moving on the bottom of the screen, the yellow and the green lines.

This is clear evidence of how our focus group of undecided Florida voters were responding to the attacks.

To get a little perspective on this, Amy Holmes, who's the anchor of The Blaze's "Real News" and the BuzzFeed's D.C. bureau chief, John Stanton. They both join me live to talk about this.

I saw serious dips when the attacks started and, Amy, I want to get your reaction first. They definitely flat-lined when people got testy and dipped below the flat-line when it got even testier.

But, generally speaking, don't voters sort of respond to the attacks?

AMY HOLMES, CNN CONTRIBUTOR AND CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Well, clearly the Romney campaign, as well as the Obama campaign to a certain extent, decided that trying to get tangled up in zingers and fire and heat and spice was not good for them, particularly for Romney.

Now, listen, Ashleigh, as a conservative, as a political junkie, I love my politics raw. I love it when they go after each other, but Mitt Romney ...

BANFIELD: Cable-news-style, right?

HOLMES: ... made a tactical decision -- yes, absolutely. But Mitt Romney made a tactical decision that trying to land those punches, throw those zingers at the President of the United States was a bad way to reach independents, moderates, swing voters and particularly women and, as you saw on your dials, voters, they don't like it.

They don't respond well when it looks like the candidates are just going after each other and not after the issues. BANFIELD: So, it's the immediate thing that we were measuring because they were truly responding in real-time, twisting their dial as they were listening to the debate live.

So, John, I want you to get in on this because our national correspondent, John King, had something very prescient to say about all of this and made a very interesting point about the after-effect, not the immediate effect, but the after-effect. Have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KING, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: People hate the negative ads and then you ask them on the way out of the polling place, why did you make your choice and they recite the last two negative ads they saw.

That's how it works. I'm not insulting voters, but, you know, one of the great things in traveling in the last several weeks as you go to these states is, you know, people do say they're sick of them, but they can't escape them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: So, John, is it a little like a car crash. We hate the idea it's there, but we stare and we remember it. The attack ads, you may not like them, but they stick.

JOHN STANTON, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, BUZZFEED.COM: They absolutely do stick. I think John is right.

You know, if you look at what happened this summer, for instance, with Mitt Romney with his tax returns and some of those issues, initially, people sort of frowned on Senator Harry Reid when he made some attacks like that, but they stuck and it became part of the sort of the way people view Mitt Romney.

Similar things have happened with President Obama with the apology tour, for instance, which came up last night.

And, you know, I think people do respond to them negatively in the beginning, but they sink in and they become part of how they view the candidate, how they view the election, and that's why no one is willing to ever give them up.

Even politicians say they don't like them and, yet, they turn around and beat on each other constantly, so (INAUDIBLE) ...

HOLMES: But, Ashleigh, that's the thing. The negative ads against Mitt Romney all summer long have evaporated after Mitt Romney's performance in Denver, and that's precisely the gamble that Mitt Romney was making last night, that he wants to carry that momentum forward and not allow the negative attacks to stick if he is boisterous or rambunctious.

BANFIELD: Thirty seconds left and, Amy, I've get you to start.

The likability factor among our polling dipped for President Obama with all of that attacking that may stick, the likability factor for him dipped. So, quick line from you, Amy, and a quick line from you, John.

Was it worth it on a foreign policy debate that might not have been watched by that many people to go for the gusto and, yet, perhaps lose in likability?

HOLMES: Well, look, when you attack your opponent, you might bring his negatives down, but you also bring your own negatives down.

I think last night you saw that Mitt Romney was playing for the center. He was playing for the undecideds, at the end, when he talked about bipartisanship.

President Obama was playing to his base. Those zingers were went to gin up his base because, right now, it is just a get-out-the-vote effort at this point.

BANFIELD: John?

STANTON: One of the -- you know, Obama can lose a little bit in his likabilities, but I agree with Amy that I think it's a little bit of a dangerous game to play. You start to see yourself go down even if you're bringing your opponent down.

BANFIELD: Good to have both of you, Amy Holmes and John Stanton. Thanks very much.

And, by the way, a reminder, you can watch or even re-watch if you already did President Obama and Governor Romney on their style and their substance, complete with that little wiggly dial today at noon Eastern. We're going to re-air the final presidential debate right here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: You mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: You might call that one of the big zingers from last night's debate, one that's getting a lot of traction today, as well, a big disagreement over defense spending, the how and the why and the how much to the tune of $2 trillion difference.

Governor Romney wants to beef up spending over the next 10 years. And, while the President wants some cuts, he essentially wants to keep spending right about where it is now.

Horses and bayonets, that line is really trending online, and it's all over TV today, as well. Conservatives like Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell are attacking the President for dismissing or even insulting the military. Liberals, well, they actually thought this was one of the better jabs from the night.

Retired U.S. Army general and CNN contributor "Spider" Marks, you might just say this is his wheelhouse. Did I say it's General "Spider" Marks who's live with me from Virginia?

All right, so, was this dismissive? Should I take the conservatives at their word that this was dismissive? You're the military man.

GENERAL JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED): Oh, I'd say it was very flip. In fact, I can't wait for the "Saturday Night Live" skit that's going to demonstrate horses and their irrelevance to military operations and bayonets.

You know, I think what the President really -- I think he missed an opportunity to say, look, our military is incredibly adaptable and let's not forget the very arcane point that when our special operations forces first went into Afghanistan and linked up with partisans in Afghanistan, post-9/11, they did that by horseback. That's just a small fact.

But my point is, of course, the military adapts. The navy is incredibly adaptive and needs to maintain a very robust presence. If the economy and if our debt is the number one national security challenge and I would suggest that it is, then we must be able to export and trade internationally and our sea lanes have to be protected and that is the mission of our navy.

BANFIELD: General, I understood what the President was saying when he said horses and bayonets are out of use, as well, and it did make sense to me, but it also was -- I had a question when Governor Romney suggested that 313 ships are required for a fully operational navy.

It is my understanding that's from an outdated assessment. Isn't that true?

MARKS: Well, I would not -- no, I would not suggest that for a second. I would say that you look at all the global comments, those areas that the United States Navy must ...

BANFIELD: I am only suggesting that because I've got research here that the navy secretary, Ray Mabus, said that the navy could carry out its mission with 300 ships. He did this based on just a very recent study.

He said the criticism was incomplete and inaccurate from Mitt Romney. That was just right there lifting it right from "The Los Angeles Times."

He says, "I think a lot of this criticism of the number of ships is based on either incomplete or inaccurate, outdated information or a failure to see beyond the short-term or a willingness to protect the status quo." So, I just want to know what the real story is with this changing world. What do we need? And who's right in this argument?

MARKS: Well, you know, the military, Ashleigh, has a Quadrennial Defense Review process. Every four years, they do a national security study and from that you derive what the force structure looks like.

I would tell you every one of those service chiefs goes forward with a wish list. It is not a wish list, but it's based on legitimate requirements and there clearly has to be some tradeoffs.

So, when the joint chiefs eventually sign up for what those QDR- results look like, of course, there has been horse trading and, of course, there have been tradeoffs that will take place.

The size of the navy is important only because of the readiness and the enhanced capabilities that are available to them.

If they don't maintain a level of readiness and that clearly goes right into the wheelhouse of states like Virginia and Maine in terms of development of those capabilities, the navy puts itself at risk and the nation's objectives at risk.

So, there will always be a debate in terms of what is big enough.

BANFIELD: And I think that the comment just based in Virginia that this is the home of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, one of the largest shipyards in the world, that probably resonated even more so.

General Marks, thank you. It's always good to talk to you and I always appreciate your perspective. Thank you, sir.

MARKS: Thanks, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: And, also, just a reminder, if you missed it, you can watch all of what we were just talking about or even part of it. The whole thing is replaying again right here on CNN, last night's final presidential debate, next hour, live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Our military spending has gone up every year that I've been in office. We spend more on military than the next 10 countries combined. China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, you name it. The next 10.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: And that's a lot of money.

If you want to know how much money we spend, our annual budget is 20 percent and that's so much that Christine Romans as the money person needed to come in to kind of break this down for us because I think people know we spend a lot of money, but when you see what it is, how much it increases and what might happen, it bears talking about.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So this is fact-checking the President and his claim yesterday that, yes, under each year of his administration you have seen defense spending increase in nominal dollars. 2008 we spent $21 billion, up to $711 billion in 2011. Yes, each year that number has gone up.

BANFIELD: And when he said the next 10 countries beneath us, combined, we still outspend them, that was remarkable.

ROMANS: And that's true. That is quite frankly the American way. The U.S. is the big defense spender in the globe. You look at the map with all those flags and you can see, $611 billion, we spend more than the rest of those other countries combined.

BANFIELD: I just want to flag this one here, China.

ROMANS: You want to flag that flag?

(LAUGHTER)

BANFIELD: I want to flag that flag. I don't think a lot of people would have thought that we outspend China in military spending.

ROMANS: About $143 billion. But China beats us in growth every year in its military. Because it is rising so rapidly, the growth of China's military is what a lot of people are watching. We out spend China 4:1 but China is not borrowing money to build its military. The United States is essentially borrowing money to keep its military going because we run these huge deficits. China's not expending cash. That's something the defense watchers are concerned about.

BANFIELD: These huge spending numbers could all are affected by something called sequestration. Quick lesson, if we don't reach a debt deal, automatic triggers come in, $50 billion per year cut from defense, which is a big chunk. However, something happened last night that tweaked my ear and made me think of you.

ROMANS: An Obama bombshell on the fiscal cliff. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: First of all, the sequester is not something that I propose. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMANS: It is not going to happen. He said it is not going to happen. That's something that caught some folks by surprise. He is about to enter into a big negotiation period with a lame-duck Congress to try to make sure the January 1st/December 31st deadlines don't happen. The President laid it out there and said it is not going to happen. You're not going to see the cuts or the tax hikes. We can't wait to see how they work that out. The President says it ain't going to happen. BANFIELD: That's the first I heard that. It was a little shocking to me. Pleasant surprise. However, and you have said this before, and it bears repeating-- even if it doesn't happen, there has been some damage done already, just in that magic word, uncertainty.

ROMANS: Absolutely. Even this morning, people are saying, people who cover Wall Street and cover companies are saying, how are you going to make sure it doesn't happen? Are you going to push it six months out? That's not going to end any uncertainty. That's still a problem.

BANFIELD: Christine Romans, thank you.

ROMANS: You're welcome.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: China is both adversary and a potential partner in the international community if it is following the rules.

MITT ROMNEY, (R), FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR & PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They sell us about this much stuff every year. We sell them this much stuff every year. So it is pretty clear who doesn't want a trade war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: President Obama and Governor Romney both promising in last night's debate to get tough with China. And they both were critical of China's trade practices.

CNN's Tom Foreman is checking the facts and breaking down the candidate's claims when it comes to China.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Ashleigh, as you know, both the candidates have spoken at length about China and the idea that China is using unfair trade practices to effectively steal American jobs. That made it a hot topic at the debate.

OBAMA: We are going to insist that China plays by the same rules as everybody else.

ROMNEY: In part, by holding out artificially the value of their currency, it holds down the prices of the goods, and it means our goods aren't as competitive and we lose jobs. That's got to end.

FOREMAN: The pledge from each candidate is clear, I will crack down on China. But can they really do that and do they have their facts right.

We'll look at the numbers first. Are we losing jobs to China? Yes, we are, about two- and three-quarter million over the past dozen years. Many of them are manufacturing jobs. If you look at the map and the Economic Policy Institute, you can see it is not even all over the country. The places with the darker orange color on a percentage basis have lost more jobs to China. So you have Oregon and Texas. And look at California over here. 3 percent of their jobs in the past dozen years lost to China.

The candidates say this is largely happening because, while America allows its value of the dollar to be set by the free market, and that determines the cost of labor, that China manipulates the cost of its currency so it can control the cost of labor because they have a lot of people they need to employ. They would like to keep labor costs low to attract a lot of business. Now, it is difficult to do a 1:1 comparison because productivity is very different between the U.S. and China. Let's look at it way as much as we can. If you had a U.S. factory and you wanted to produce something there, by the time you paid a laborer all the benefits, all the salary, and everything else, that's going to come out to about $34 an hour. To do the same thing in China, it is going to be more like $2 an hour. So the Chinese government has structured its infrastructure and everything else to support this idea, to bring factories in, to take advantage of that cheap labor and to put inexpensive products out to compete on the world market, and, boy, does it compete.

Look at this graph showing what has happened since 1985. This is how many Chinese products we were importing in 1985. And it has gone up and up and up so that -- this is a recession right here by the way, that dip there. It reached levels here, dropped down a little more, and a tremendous increase in the number of Chinese products coming into the United States since 1985. But now look at what we're sending over there. U.S. products in 1985 were about even with Chinese and now not nearly as much. It is far behind.

What can a president do about that? Well, they could put a trade barrier in place to stop the Chinese imports. If they did that, China would probably respond with trade bearers to U.S. products going there. They could say to U.S. companies, you can't go over there and take advantage of that cheap labor, but if that happens, those companies are at an even greater disadvantage on the world market, on top of which, you have to remember China has been buying a lot of U.S. debt. If China stopped doing that, it could make it hard for the government to borrow money to keep operating.

So when the candidates say I will crackdown on China, you can take them at their word. Certainly, the President has taken steps. Certainly, Mitt Romney says he will take steps. So this is true, but the simple truth is China is a strong competitor and it has withstood several efforts to rein it in and it will probably continue doing so. Even though they mean what they say, it is far from the last word on U.S.-China relations

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: Tom Foreman, you are so good at that. Thank you. Just helps to explain everything so clearly. Do appreciate it, Tom.

I want to take a quick look at the markets because it is not a good day. A 254-point drop is a bad day. That's official. We have been trading for about two hours now, and we have disappointing earnings and down grades in Spain that are triggering this early sell off. Apparently, had a couple of earnings reports coming out from DuPont and 3M, United Technologies. Big issues overseas, like we mentioned, primarily in Europe, and it's essentially throwing ugly ripples into our market. So there you have it. Sorry for the bad news. We'll watch this throughout the day and keep you posted on that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: When I am president, we'll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014. The commanders and the generals there are on track to do so. We have seen progress over the past several years. The surge has been successful. And the training program is proceeding at pace.

UNIDENTIFIED MILITARY SERVICEMEMBER: Dismissed.

(CHEERING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: These are images that are so touching and so familiar, troops returning home to their families. And as you can imagine, veterans and military families have a huge stake in what was said in last night's foreign policy debate between President Obama and Governor Romney.

Our next guest can relate all too well to this. Her name is Joyce Wessel Raezer, the executive director of the Military Family Association, and talks to military families all the time and she also pushes for changes in policies that benefit soldiers. And she happens to be a soldier's wife. Her husband retired from the Army and she has been a military spouse for on 30 years.

Joyce, thanks so much for being here.

If anyone has skin in the game, it is you, and the people you talk to on a regular basis. Do you think military families will be satisfied with what either of these candidates had to say last night?

JOYCE WESSEL RAEZER, DIRECTOR, MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION: Ashleigh, I think a lot of things that in the debates last night will pose more questions for military families than answers. And I appreciate the invitation to come talk about military families.

We didn't hear a lot, for example, about what's happening right now in Afghanistan. Military families are certainly reassured by the news of the drawdown of combat troops in 2014, but what about the 68,000 who are there now? What about their families? What about the holidays they're going to miss later this year? What about the folks are just getting ready to go to Afghanistan to continue that mission, and the tens of thousands of military troops deployed to other places around the world, sometimes in very scary places that aren't in the news? BANFIELD: This will seem like a strange question, only because soldiers, that's what they do for a living, they fight. But are those who are either in Afghanistan or getting ready to deploy to Afghanistan more concerned about the drawdown and the actual out-date than perhaps just the tools to do the every day job? Where do they fall in terms of what they want from this administration or what a next administration might be able to give them?

WESSEL RAEZER: I think, number one, what they want from any administration and from our nation as a whole as -- they want to know that the nation is behind them, that the nation understands that, yes, they have signed up for this job, but it is a family struggle sometimes to do that job. They want to know their families are taken care of and they want to know that for as long as they have to be in a dangerous place separated from the family they have the equipment to do that job, that their families have the support of their community back home. They can access quality health care. Their kids go to good schools. Their spouses can have a job, that they can communicate with each other. when they need help, counseling support is there. All of those things are just as important as all of the battle equipment in that servicemember's rucksack.

BANFIELD: And what about the future post-deployment when you're a vet? Was there enough said to satisfy vets in either side of the candidate's arguments?

WESSEL RAEZER: Ashleigh, in earlier segments, you talked about uncertainty and we've seen uncertainty in the stock market. Military families see a lot of uncertainty. There is the talk about what happens with the budget, how much and how fast will the defense budget be cut. And what does that mean in terms of training, in terms of support services for families, in terms of health care, in terms of pay? Those are uncertainties. We know there is a drawdown coming. Military members and their families are wondering about the uncertainty. What does that mean if you're talking about a drawdown in an economy that is still recovering?

BANFIELD: I can only assume that many families might have wanted to hear more. Thank you, thank you to our servicemembers.

Joyce, thanks very much for coming on today and talking to us. I really appreciate it.

WESSEL RAEZER: Thank you for your interest in this.

BANFIELD: And by the way, if our interest goes beyond just what we're doing today, and you want to watch the debate again, we'll be replaying the whole thing, the entire presidential final debate here on CNN in the next hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOB SCHIEFFER, DEBATE MODERATOR: The first question and it concerns Libya. Questions remain what happened, what caused it? Was it spontaneous? Was it an intelligence failure? Was it a policy failure? Was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: What really happened in Libya September 11th in that attack that killed our ambassador and three other Americans? That was the first question, the very first question asked at last night's foreign policy debate, but it was not the first time the question was asked.

In fact, this man, Kerry Ladka, asked the President in last week's town hall who made the decision to cut back security in Benghazi, and why, and he didn't get an answer. And again, last night, he didn't get an answer.

Kerry, thanks for coming back in. Nice to see you.

KERRY LADKA, UNDECIDED VOTER: Nice to see you, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Were you surprised it was question number one? And were you disappointed that question number one still didn't get answered.

LADKA: I wasn't surprised it was question number one. It seemed like they had a gentlemen's agreement to talk about it and then gloss over it. I'm not surprised also that they still haven't answered the question as to who denied enhanced security for the compound in Benghazi.

BANFIELD: So did this do anything for you? You've been an uncommitted voter --

LADKA: Correct.

BANFIELD: -- coming through debate number two, coming into debate number three last flight, did either one of the candidates -- apart from the Libya frustration -- say anything about anything else that tweaked for you and made you think, now I'm on board?

LADKA: The President just looked stronger to me. Governor Romney seemed to parrot everything the President said. I don't think he had one policy of his own. He just seemed to agree with everything that the President said, from Mubarak to Libya to Afghanistan, troop withdrawals. Governor Romney didn't impress me at all. I'm leaning towards President Obama.

BANFIELD: Does leaning mean I'm there, that's what I'll do?

LADKA: Not quite yet there, but I'm sort of leaning. The brain trust at Global Telecom Supply went for Romney --

BANFIELD: Your company, yes.

LADKA: My company -- for Romney committed. One committed Obama. And I'm leaning strongly in the President's direction.

BANFIELD: What about the "horses and bayonets" comment that -- LADKA: I thought that was great. I thought it was great.

BANFIELD: So you were one of the people that liked it. Others said it was dismissive of the military, it was offensive.

LADKA: I don't think so. I think the President was making a valid point. I think -- the way we fight wars now is tremendously different than the way we fought wars in early 20th century. I think, being president, Obama's on top of that. And I think he tried to strike the point that Mitt Romney is out of touch on foreign policy.

BANFIELD: I'm so glad that you've decided to come in and share these thoughts with us, because it one thing to see dials on television. It's another to talk to the uncommitted voters up-close and personal. You've had a chance to see these guys and actually speak with the President.

Thank you.

LADKA: Pleasure, Ashleigh. Thank you.

BANFIELD: Good luck on Election Day.

LADKA: Thank you very much. You, too.

BANFIELD: Be a good American. Everybody, make sure you go out and vote like Kerry is.

LADKA: Absolutely. Thank you.

BANFIELD: Also, to be a good American, to be a good voter, you need to know what's going on. If you missed the debate last night, I've got your back. We'll replay it all over again, last night's third and final presidential debate, in about less than six minutes. Stick with me. Back after the break, and the big debate coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Exactly two weeks until Election Day. President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney zeroing on in key swing states and that includes Florida.

And wherever the candidates go, Ali Velshi is going to follow because he's on the CNN Express bus.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALI VELSHI, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Ashleigh, we out to get you out on the CNN Election Express.

Two weeks go, before this election, we're starting here in Boca, the scene of last night's debate. We're headed to Lakeland, Florida; Orlando; Jacksonville; up through Georgia and South Carolina. Then into another battleground state, though some think it's not a battleground, in North Carolina, that it's swinging toward Romney, but we'll be there. Then into Virginia, where they are more interested in government spending than a lot of other places, because so much of Virginia particularly northern Virginia's prosperity comes from government activity. Then we're heading to Ohio, where we'll finish the trip up.

Florida's where we're at now. 19 million people, almost five million of those people over the age of 60. That makes Medicare and retirement and these markets a big deal. Look what's happening to the markets today. And it has 29 Electoral College votes. That's the important part. This state's in a dead heat. In the year 2000, Florida voted for George W. Bush. But in 2008 -- we can discuss 2000, that's up for debate for some people -- but that's where the Electoral College votes went. In 2008, it went for Barack Obama.

There are a lot of concerns in Florida. And last night's debate spanned those concerns. So that's what we're looking at here. That's why we're spending a few days in Florida in different environments.

As I said, seniors, Medicare, Social Security, all of those big concerns, but also, as you know -- you and I have talked about this before -- Florida is ground zero for the housing concerns, for foreclosures. This is still an area that has seen home prices plunge. People have difficulty getting loans. So we're talking about foreclosures, credit. Everybody in this state paying very, very close attention to what the Presidential candidates are saying, particularly about the middle class, about credit, and about Medicare and health care. You saw President Obama this morning made comments about Obama- care staying in place and being able to cut the deficit without cuts to Social Security and without cuts to Medicare. So that's what we're looking at now.

We'll be in Florida for the next couple of days. Hopefully, we'll get a chance to talk every day that I'm on the road, the battleground bus tour with the CNN Express -- Ashleigh?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: Ali, thank you so much.

And now, the replay of the final presidential debate.