Presidential Debate Discussion
- Thread starter sn00pie
- 61 comments
- 3,867 views
- 38,956
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
McBama? Not much debate here. I'm having more fun watching Bob Barr's live commentary.
Both candidates have been saying the same things and avoiding issues, principles, and reason. These guys are throwing informal fallacies like crazy.
Both candidates have been saying the same things and avoiding issues, principles, and reason. These guys are throwing informal fallacies like crazy.
- 12,825
They say the first debate is far less about actual contents, than about looking statesman-like or like a man of the people. Obama looks frustrated with the calm way McCain presses simple points whereas he wants to address points in-depth, but can't where McCain isn't opening up for discussion.
- 3,626
- Sydney
- Gai-Gun
I am watching it right now. It seems that McCain is intent on discussing Obama's record on the issues although the questions are about what he would do about them.
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
I don't know, I thought McCain looked ill-at-ease... he wasn't even looking at Obama, whereas Obama was left talking to the side of McCain's face for the most part.
McCain looked very uncomfortable and rather uneasy most of the time. His body language was very tight, and he appeared somewhat hunched over. Beyond that was the rather snarky smirks he had on his face constantly, which I've always found disturbing. Like you mentioned, not once did McCain ever turn to look at Obama to address him directly, which must reflect some level of a lack of respect towards the Senator from Illinois. Beyond that, McCain was very quick to jump on the microphone, raise his voice, and talk over Senator Obama, which at least in my opinion was extremely unprofessional.
The question of "who won" really comes down to what you had expected to see accomplished. It had been expected that McCain would fare quite well against Obama on most of the foreign policy issues, but I believe to that end, Obama had a surprisingly good performance with explaining his ideas/positions and defending them. Obama appeared very much in a Presidential manner, and if that is what you choose to measure it by, it seems fairly clear that he would have taken the cake. McCain did what McCain always does, utilize the standard "I'm a POW, this is my wristband, I'm a veteran, I have experience" talk to get his point across. Something my Mom and brother both noted while watching it with me, particularly in reference to the questions on Iran and national security post-9/11 is the "scare tactics" that he employs in his discussion of the issue.
Politico.com has a great summary of the debate here, as does the Washington post, and the Wall Street Journal.
To go into some of the post-debate polls:
CBS said the following with their focus group
CBS Insta-Poll
...From my least-favorite Fox News:
Lastly from CNN...
CNN post-debate Poll
I personally would call this a narrow victory for Obama, but given that it was not supposed to be a debate he was to do well in, it ends up being a bigger win than it should have been.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
FoolKiller's immediate decision
I can't believe no one caught that and I saw it first thing.
And if anything I think this shows that polls mean absolutely nothing. They are poor sample sizes, have tons of room for human error, and there is no oversight outside of teh peopel doing the poll.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
Perhaps some people think both would make the right decision? Though, presumably those people would be balanced out by the folks like ourselves who think neither is the more appropriate checkbox.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Not really, it is quite a valid question - not all polls/questions have mutually exclusive answers... notice that the questions of the type "Who would do better at..." are mutually exclusive and hence the total always comes to 100% or less, but "Would you trust x with...?"-type questions could easily have up to 100% for each candidate... it just goes to show who is more trusted, not that some people only trust x and others only y...
But don't take my word for it, here's how to conduct a poll
But don't take my word for it, here's how to conduct a poll
Last edited:
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
And this is all why I hate statistics when it comes to polls. If the questions were asked exclusive of each other they should not be reported together.
The best way to report on a poll is to list each question and then show the percentage for each available answer below it.
Either way it still shows that the people polled are idiots. They think either guy will make a right decision about the economy.
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
Notice the sign in the background? It may be important to note that Cindy McCain's cash comes from Anheuser-Busch. Not sure why they didn't think about that one...
All is fair in love and war as well:
Its safe to call this debate a "draw" as to who actually won in my book. Biden clearly became upset several times during the debate, Palin sounded too scripted and gaffed on several things as well. I do not think this will move any voters strongly in either direction, but if anything, it will put the light firmly back on Senator McCain and Senator Obama... And that tends to be where McCain loses out. His campaign pulled out of Michigan yesterday, he is losing ground (big time) in other battleground states. The longer the economy circles the drain, the easier it is for Obama to win.
- 7,889
- SolidFro
- RRoDzaaah!
Is the Dr. Luntz video you posted just as dubious because they held it at a hotel? Cindy McCain doesn't own Anheuser-Busch, she inherited a wholesaler of Anheuser-Busch.
Gaffes, gaffes?
👎
About those internet polls...
Daily Kos: Get Out There and Spam Every Poll
Looking around the web this morning, we see a whole lot of silly, meaningless Internet polls asking who won last night’s debate—and in quite a few of them, Joe Biden seems to be doing quite well, even coming out ahead of Sarah Palin.
Curious, isn’t it? Why would Biden be ahead of Palin in so many Internet polls? Were we just imagining that she crushed his hair-plugged head in ways it has never been crushed before?
No. The answer is simple, and it’s the same reason why Ron Paul did so well in online polls while totally failing to reach the general public. The “progressives” and the Kos Kids are going around the web and stacking every poll they can find, in an organized effort to skew the perception of the debate as much as their little blank hearts can manage.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31452_Daily_Kos-_Get_Out_There_and_Spam_Every_Poll
The users at Daily Kos call it "Freeping for Jesus". I don't know which one creeps me out more, this or The Obama Youth.
Last edited:
- 10,309
- San Francisco, CA
- Vasco506
- Vasc0
Since when have internet polls been reliable anyway??? Regardless, I don't think Palin won the debate. She did better than everyone expected (not hard to do when the bar was pretty low), but she stuck to her script the whole time, dodged a lot of questions in doing so, and Biden nailed her a few times as well.
- 7,889
- SolidFro
- RRoDzaaah!
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
Well, that was an interesting debate. McCain came off pretty edgy, on the attack, and seemed uncomfortable a lot of the time. When you're down by 10 points nationally, that can be expected I suppose. But as to what he did to bring voters in, I am unsure of it. MSNBC noted that having him suggest that the government should buy out the mortgages backfired with Republicans, which I found fairly surprising.
Nevertheless, Obama stayed on-topic and answered questions. It is not as though McCain didn't, but in general, it seemed that Obama did a far-better job of getting his points across while talking to the American people.
Key thing I noticed that no one is really talking about:
After it was done, McCain ran out of the building. Obama stayed and made sure he shook hands with everyone in the audience, and made certain that his points came across to them. Interesting...
Nevertheless, Obama stayed on-topic and answered questions. It is not as though McCain didn't, but in general, it seemed that Obama did a far-better job of getting his points across while talking to the American people.
Key thing I noticed that no one is really talking about:
After it was done, McCain ran out of the building. Obama stayed and made sure he shook hands with everyone in the audience, and made certain that his points came across to them. Interesting...
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Perhaps McCain has given up on Tennessee too?
Reports suggest that this second debate went largely along the same lines as the first - that Obama came out on top, but neither candidate won decisively. However, given Obama's lead in the polls, the pressure was on McCain to put in a strong performance to buck that trend. Although some reporters suggest that McCain did well, it seems that the take home message is that he didn't do nearly enough...
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Care to elaborate? As a comment on "the economic constraints of US military action around the world", I think his analysis is pretty much bang-on. Obama is right to suggest that the war in Iraq was never and was never going to be the right way to tackle Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan... but who was it that made the spurious connection between 9/11 and Iraq, anyway?!?
He is also right to suggest that, as a result of focusing on the wrong target, US ability to tackle more imminent and pressing threats has been hugely compromised. Whether or not a conflict with Iraq was justified/legal/necessary/inevitable, Bush - and by extension McCain also - should not be allowed to dodge the justifiable criticism they deserve for failing to defeat or bring to justice the perpetrators of 9/11. Yet the US taxpayer has paid a hefty price nevertheless. It is hard to say that Iraq has been a success by any measure, but being sympathetic/hugely optimistic, you might say that there is a slim chance that Iraqis may live to see the long term benefits of getting rid of Saddam Hussein... good for them. But what exactly has that got to do with the risk to the average US citizen - either at home or abroad - from Islamic fundamentalism and from states/regimes who are hostile to the US? I'd argue that the war in Iraq has been a godsend (if you pardon the phrase) to some of the US's biggest real threats...
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
- 38,956
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
There are no states hostile to the US. Dead or ailve, Osama Bin Laden already won. Look how much money we've spent and what we've lost by the actions of our own government. The real enemy of Islamic fundamentalism is the regimes of their own countries. Beating them requires their country's people sympathetic to our causes (trade, travel, peace) instead of their causes (overthrowing their government, etc.). War and occupation don't foster sympathy, peace, or anything constructive for us. That's why these terrorists/fundamentalists gain prominence and popularity when they would otherwise be maggots on the fringes of society.
