30
   

Presidential Debate! Tonight!

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 10:52 pm
@Debra Law,
And the last time I heard the FOX News poll results, it had McCain beating Obama by the same margin.

Geez, how can these polls differ so much?

One interesting, but equally unscientific, poll is on AOL

Poll results show a virtual tie between the two (the closest to the actual outcome of all three), but has McCain favored over Obama by about 6 points in both ability to handle foreign policy and the economy.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 10:54 pm
@okie,
Thanks

There you go Chai2.

Care to make a retraction?
0 Replies
 
LionTamerX
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 10:54 pm
@Foxfyre,
That's not at all what he said. Kissenger basically affirmed both positions.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 11:03 pm
@LionTamerX,
LionTamerX wrote:

That's not at all what he said. Kissenger basically affirmed both positions.


??? Explain please.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 11:04 pm
@okie,
There are many areas where Obama had things wrong, but it takes more than a casual listener to sort through the slickness of Obama. Another area where Obama had it wrong was the issue of attacking Pakistan. McCain had the exactly correct take, we may have to make a strike here and there, but we don't insult the Pakistani government by making pronouncements, and we should try to preserve the fragile relationship and cooperation, what little there is, with Pakistan. Obama is too naive to see the nuances of all of this. I think this stems from inexperience and lack of knowledge of the situation.
Debra Law
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 11:05 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
The FOX news poll won't reveal the results. As of now, on my computer, it's been "loading" the results for 30 minutes.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  5  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 11:07 pm
My own opinion.

McCain "won" the overall debate on substance, but in terms of the campaign, Obama came out ahead because he more than held his own.

I enjoyed it, and thought it was one of the better presidential debates I've seen.

Both candidates should feel good about their performances.

McCain did much better on the opening discussion concerning the economy than I expected, and Obama did better on foreign policy than I expected.

If this thread is any indication of the intense subjectivity people are bringing to these debates, then the process is pretty useless in terms of helping to decide who should be president.

It appears clear that the people who score these debates, for a living, are looking for gaffes and zingers; not substance. There were none and so the consensus among pundits is it was a draw with perhaps and slight edge to one or the other.

Anyone who contends that either candidate delivered a knockout is devoid of any objectivity.


Debra Law
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 11:10 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I'm not running for president of the U.S. Thus, if I make a typo, no problem. According to your analogy, however, a presidential candidate's inability to pronounce the name of a foreign leader is equivalent to an A2K poster's typo?
barackman28
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 11:18 pm
@Debra Law,
It is not and Senator Obama's excellent speaking voice and demeanor showed how slovenly and disorganized McCain really is. I think that anyone who votes that McCain won the debate is just feeling sorry for an old man who is over the hill.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 11:20 pm
@Debra Law,
At least McCain knows how many states there are, and that 10,000 people probably didn't die in Greensburg, Kansas.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 11:20 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Good post, Finn
Miller
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 11:23 pm
@barackman28,
barackman28 wrote:

Senator Obama's ...demeanor showed how slovenly and disorganized McCain really is.


What did Obama's barber do to the back of his head? Looks like there's either a big scar or a major bald spot on Obama's head.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 11:25 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

There are many areas where Obama had things wrong, but it takes more than a casual listener to sort through the slickness of Obama. Another area where Obama had it wrong was the issue of attacking Pakistan. McCain had the exactly correct take, we may have to make a strike here and there, but we don't insult the Pakistani government by making pronouncements, and we should try to preserve the fragile relationship and cooperation, what little there is, with Pakistan. Obama is too naive to see the nuances of all of this. I think this stems from inexperience and lack of knowledge of the situation.


Obama is too concerned with his appearance.

Why?
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 12:00 am
@okie,
Quote:
I hope he tries, and Palin might chew him up and spit him out.


That's a truly scary thought, Okie, but that moose huntin' governor just might do it and enjoy every minute.

I had some awful thoughts about moose meat and Biden, but decided not to go into ghoulish detail.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 12:14 am
The Fox Detroit straw poll had Obama ahead by quite a bit.
The Drudge Poll at midnight:
{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...
MCCAIN 66% 122,238
OBAMA 32% 58,744
NEITHER 2% 4,190
Total Votes: 185,172
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  3  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 12:20 am
@Diane,
Diane wrote:

I'm also glad that Gwenn Ifill sp?) will be moderating at the vice presidential debate. The simple fact that Gwenn is a woman (and not Katie Couric) will put Palin in a position of not being able to bluster her way out of factual answers. I think Palin has a way of making men defer to her, perhaps not consciously, but in a way that is instilled in men from the time they are children.
Agreed. Biden may or may not contain himself. I do think Palin is severely overmatched... and I think that will be clear enough that the "man bullied a woman" thing will be overshadowed by a politician clobbered a politician. But then, I'm not the target audience for that kind of thing, so I really don't know.

Diane wrote:
Okie, I too was impressed with McCain's ability to reel off all those names and historical events.

I have a notion that McCain spent hours trying to pronounce those names without spitting out his dentures. And I kept waiting for him to mention his experience in the Civil War...
Laughing
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 12:30 am
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

Good post, Finn
I agree on that one.

However, Finn, you are trying to help McCain get away with a bold Strawman on Kissinger. Obama basically stated that not talking to rogue states hasn't worked, is a bad plan, and that even Kissinger had said as much (Which is True.)
McCain spun it to Kissinger never said The President should Meet without preconditions... and Obama is immediately heard saying, "Of course not."

This is a clear Strawman because Obama never suggested Kissinger had said it with the qualifiers that McCain, not Obama, added. This is a textbook Strawman (dispute a weaker or caricaturized version of what your opponent said, then pretend you disputed what he actually said.)

McCain largely got away with this twist, so far, but that doesn't make it true.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 12:33 am
@OCCOM BILL,




Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 12:35 am
I don't watch presidential debates anymore. I find that they're an enormous waste of time. The candidates simply repeat the same talking points that they've been repeating throughout the campaign, and, in the end, my position remains exactly the same. The people whose opinions about the debates matter are the undecideds, and I'm not one of them. That's why I don't pay much attention to the substance of the debates, but I do pay attention to the reactions to the debates.

It's not very important what one candidate or the other said (unless they made a major mistake), it's important how the overall debate was perceived. George W. Bush proved that in 2000. That general perception, in turn, is formed fairly quickly -- usually within a couple of hours after the debate. And according to the growing consensus, Obama won:

Sam Wang, at the Princeton Election Consortium wrote:
We have a variety of ways to gauge reaction to the first debate. All point in the same direction: an Obama win.

Obama did better among undecided voters in a CBS survey. Frank Luntz’s Fox focus group (read the 11:35 entry) showed that a majority was “moved” by Obama’s performance, especially his criticism of McCain’s judgment errors on the Iraq war. CNN/Opinion Dynamics has a phone poll showing that 51% thought Obama won vs. 38% McCain.

CNN had a test group insta-reaction showing reactions among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. in a tracker plot at the bottom of the screen. This was addictive to watch. Obama spent more time well above the average, though he sometimes sagged toward the end of his longer answers. On the other hand, during an answer on Russia I noticed Obama’s numbers soaring among all three groups.

According to the same tracker, when McCain made repeated attacks on Obama’s readiness and experience, audience reaction tended to go downward, especially toward the end. He came off as mean, even to some conservatives (here’s an an extended reaction). Here’s a reaction from Washington Monthly.

My own quick reaction: The criticism that Obama is a poor match for McCain in foreign policy is over. McCain did all right; he was calmer than I had been expecting him to be, but his contempt for Obama shone through. He never looked Obama in the eye. I don’t think this is good for him. Overall, I believe this was a bad night for John McCain. Look for Obama’s lead to solidify or widen tomorrow.

Source (with links)

So, according to the general consensus, Obama won, and that's all that matters. What the candidates said or didn't say really is beside the point. Is that fair? Well, no, not really. But, as Mr. Dooley pointed out a long time ago, "politics ain't beanbag."
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 12:38 am
@Debra Law,
I made no analogy.

I just pointed out that someone who finds it so terrible that a candidate can't pronounce a foreign name, is unable to correctly spell the word "pronounce."

I also asked, "So what?"

Yours might be a more meaningful contribution if you explained why you think either is such a big deal (or not), rather than attempting to aggressively cover yourself on your typo.

I can't pronounce every foreign name out there; can you?

Even if I was running for president I don't think I could always properly pronounce Ahmadinejad, and I know I would have trouble spelling it.

I guess that disqualifies me, and about 301,139,946 other Americans from becoming presidency.

(The actual total population of the US, at this minute, is 301,139,947. I've reduced it by one in the above because we all know there is one American out there who will never mispronounce Ahmadinejad - BARRACK OBAMA!)

Of course McCain did a very good job with Saakashvili and some other nasty furen tongue twisters, but maybe that's because he actually has met them.

Obama's elocution wasn't tested because he had no stories to tell of his meetings with foreign leaders.

I'm sure the "preparation" in which Obama will immerse himself before meeting, unconditionally, with Ahmadinejad will include proper pronunciation of the little miscreant's name.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 09:30:35