After a lackluster performance in the first presidential debate, all eyes were on President Obama last night, looking for him begin a new narrative and go on the offensive, or once again wilt under Romney's bright, confident sound bites. But just who came out the winner?

According to a poll running on Yahoo, Romney once again came away with the night's victory. While the poll is still open, out of 637,055 votes, Romney bests President Obama 54 percent to 46 percent.

President Obama was certainly the candidate with something to lose last night. Many noted his performance in the first debate was stodgy, stiff, and timid. Although, much of that appearance may have to do with President Obama's inherent disdain for the debating process, says writer David Maraniss, author of "Barack Obama: The Story."

The author of says he learned Obama's weaknesses while he was researching him for his biography, and that those same aspects bubbled up in the first debate. Obviously, things didn't go great that evening.

"I think it was sort of a lot of elements that came together in the worst possible way for him," said Maraniss, whose book came out earlier in 2012.

And just what's to blame for President Obama's poor performance? Overconfidence, a staunch hatred for the concept and formality of presidential debates, and an aversion to confrontation were all contributing factors, said Maraniss.

Because President Obama doesn't relish confrontation, he often fails to attack his opponents on issues when he has an easy opportunity, according to Maraniss.

Romney, however, has no problem looking square in the camera and reciting his campaign slogans. And many think that's why he won again last night.

"People are hiring a leader, not a scientific expert ... or a wonk or know-it-all," said Samuel Popkin, a UC San Diego political scientist and occasional Democratic campaign consultant, and author of the book, "The Candidate," about winning and holding the White House. "They're looking for trustworthiness, a person who will think of them when it matters."

Other authors offer a similar sentiment; while we say we want candidates to spout facts, we really don't -- it's more important to appear unique, confident, and consistent than herald statistics or facts.

Lillian Glass, a body language expert and author of "I Know What You're Thinking: Using the Four Codes of Reading People to Improve Your Life," thought President Obama's incessant note taking may have lost him points with many.

"It can be perceived as being rude, inattentive, not really listening to what the other person is saying and being preoccupied with your own thoughts," says Glass. It's fine to jot down an occasional note, she says, "but when they consistently write while the other is speaking, it is disconcerting."

President Obama's smug reactions to some of Romney's remarks may not have done him any favors either. It can easily be construed as condescending, says Glass.

As a general rule, candidates "should never mug or make faces or have a condescending smile or laugh inappropriately. People are judging them by what they see, just as they're judging them by what they hear."

Although, you shouldn't agree with your opponent too much, either - a successful candidate knows how to distinguish themselves without resulting to gimmicks or mocking behavior, according to Glass.

"Candidates should avoid nodding in agreement to anything but statements praising our soldiers, complimenting their spouses and thanking the host school," says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor of political communication at the University of Pennsylvania and author of "unSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation."