TPM has the internals of the CNN poll of debate-watchers, which had Obama winning overall by a margin of 51-38. The poll suggests that Obama is opening up a gap on connectedness, while closing a gap on readiness.
Specifically, by a 62-32 margin, voters thought that Obama was “more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you”. This is a gap that has no doubt grown because of the financial crisis of recent days. But it also grew because Obama was actually speaking to middle class voters. Per the transcript, McCain never once mentioned the phrase “middle class” (Obama did so three times). And Obama’s eye contact was directly with the camera, i.e. the voters at home. McCain seemed to be speaking literally to the people in the room in Mississippi, but figuratively to the punditry. It is no surprise that a small majority of pundits seemed to have thought that McCain won, even when the polls indicated otherwise; the pundits were his target audience.
Something as simple as Obama mentioning that he’ll cut taxes for “95 percent of working families” is worth, I would guess, a point or so in the national polls. Obama had not been speaking enough about his middle class tax cut; there was some untapped potential there, and Obama may have gotten the message to sink in tonight
By contrast, I don’t think McCain’s pressing Obama on earmarks was time well spent for him. One, it simply is not something that voters care all that much about, given the other pressures the economy faces. But also, it is not something that voters particularly associate with Obama, as the McCain campaign had not really pressed this line of attack. If you’re going to introduce a new line of attack late in a campaign, it has better be a more effective one that earmarks. And then there was McCain's technocratic line about the virtues of lowering corporate taxes, one which might represent perfectly valid economic policy, but which was exactly the sort of patrician argument that lost George H.W. Bush the election in 1992.
Meanwhile, voters thought that Obama “seemed to be the stronger leader” by a 49-43 margin, reversing a traditional area of McCain strength. And voters thought that the candidates were equally likely to be able to handle the job of president if elected.
These internals are worse for McCain than the topline results, because they suggest not only that McCain missed one of his few remaining opportunities to close the gap with Barack Obama, but also that he has few places to go. The only category in which McCain rated significantly higher than Obama was on “spent more time attacking his opponent”. McCain won that one by 37 points.
My other annoyance with the punditry is that they seem to weight all segments of the debate equally. There were eight segments in this debate: bailout, economy, spending, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, terrorism. The pundit consensus seems to be that Obama won the segments on the bailout, the economy, and Iraq, drew the segment on Afghanistan, and lost the other four. So, McCain wins 4-3, right? Except that, voters don’t weight these issues anywhere near evenly. In Peter Hart’s recent poll for NBC, 43 percent of voters listed the economy or the financial crisis as their top priority, 12 percent Iraq, and 13 percent terrorism or other foreign policy issues. What happens if we give Obama two out of three economic voters (corresponding to the fact that he won two out of the three segments on the economy), and the Iraq voters, but give McCain all the “other foreign policy” voters?Issue Priority Obama McCain
Economy 43 --> 29 14
Iraq 12 --> 12 0
Foreign Policy 13 --> 0 13
==========================================
Total 41 27
By this measure, Obama “won” by 14 points, which almost exactly his margin in the CNN poll.
McCain’s essential problem is that his fundamental strength – his experience -- is specifically not viewed by voters as carrying over to the economy. And the economy is pretty much all that voters care about these days.
EDIT: The CBS poll of undecideds has more confirmatory detail. Obama went from a +18 on "understanding your needs and problems" before the debate to a +56 (!) afterward. And he went from a -9 on "prepared to be president" to a +21.
9.27.2008
Why Voters Thought Obama Won
by Nate Silver @ 2:05 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

317 comments
I have to say, rewatching highlights online (especially the you were wrong bit) really emphasizes the whole style of the two. Obama seemed secure, Mccain looked...angry.
Nice thoughts.
Btw, I think McCain's biggest missed opportunity tonight was when Lehrer asked about how the bailout plan might have to affect their spending plans in the next year, and Obama's answer consisted almost only of programs that he would not postpone. That should have opened a line of attack to portray Obama as unable to cut spending, unable to actually change anything, as a fiscally irresponsible liberal democrat, much better than his line about 800 billions of spending plans. But McCain instead followed up with a similarly unconvincing answer.
The bottom line is, Obama came off as strong, secure, knowledgable, unruffled and committed to the middle class.
He also was willing to look his opponet in the eye and challenge his record. By doing this, he also made McCain appear uncomfortable and hackneyed.
On the contrary, with McCain not looking Obama in the eye, he came off as in-secure or a liar. Because he didn't have the guys, or good manners to look Obama in the eye, or challenge him directly.
Those are the reasons Obama won this debate!
The bottom line is, Obama came off as strong, secure, knowledgable, unruffled and committed to the middle class.
He also was willing to look his opponet in the eye and challenge his record. By doing this, he also made McCain appear uncomfortable and hackneyed.
On the contrary, with McCain not looking Obama in the eye, he came off as in-secure or a liar. Because he didn't have the guys, or good manners to look Obama in the eye, or challenge him directly.
Those are the reasons Obama won this debate!
I think this debate goes down in the same context as the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960. McCain appeared Nixonian in terms of his appearance. McCain may very well have won on the points, as may pundits seem to suggest. The same was true in 1960 when radio listeners thought Nixon won. The body language tells the tale and voters seem to be moving towards Obama.
The Debate: Live Analysis
Obama 292, McCain 246
Sept 26 Polling Update
Youth Vote: The Draft in Your Future?
Not to call you out or anything, but you're pretty drunk.
Not that your overview is at all inaccurate-- i agree completely.
But your typos are the same sorts i'm correcting as i type.
Good post, though. McCain, while looking more "presidential" than a lot of us in the room might have expected, didn't do much to distance himself from the baggage he's accumulated this summer.
Obama, however, completely shed any of the unfounded "empty suit" stigma thrown at him from the eRight.
While they both expressed (quite effectively, from both sides) their ideologies, it was clear that Obama was far better in tune with what the american people wanted, and what america's responsibilities moving forward were.
Perhaps he didn't have quite the history book of anecdotes McCain did, but he communicated real change most effectively to, in my opinon, the undecideds.
And let's be honest, this election isn't about us; it's about them.
No surprise whatsoever that the notion of "spending more time attacking his opponent" and the candidate with the lower net favorability score are linked.
I do wonder if, one of these times, we'll see a greater emphasis on one-issue debates instead of 90 minutes for "domestic issues" or "foreign affairs." Totally different time, age, etc., but the Lincoln Douglas debates all dealt with slavery only.
Meanwhile, over at The Corner, McCain either won by a little or he won by A LOT. Nothing like a little objective analysis to brighten one's evening ...
Other than stuttering at the beginning of every answer, Obama's demeanor was clearly more "presidential," which is sure to help with undecided voters. While watching the debate. I didn't think John McCain's body language was particularly bad, but when I saw some split-screen footage afterward, it was clearly a big problem. I consider the individual points made to be pretty much a wash, but the difference in how each man presented himself is probably the most significant factor contributing to Obama's lead in the polls about the debate.
I think there is another point the pundits get wrong (does that make us pundits-pundits?): They just seem to care about who is on the defensive more often, or who gets to attack more often, or whose attack is a "stronger claim" (Ezra Klein). But it matters a lot more whose attacks are more credible (those scorecards lines on CNN were always going down when either of them was attacking), and who comes over as more convincing.
McCain refused to look at Obama...when he was being spoken to, looked at, and even when the moderator asked for person to person discussion. Disgusting. Even an 8 year old knows that you look at someone that is speaking to you! I suppose he just can't abide by an 'uppity Negro' talking back to him!
Besides, Obama is wayyy taller.
Let the "right wing nuts" spin this debate to make them feel good. The only problem is that the ship is sinking fast for McSame and McPalin is unable to come to the rescue.
It's cliched, but this *is* a change election. I think a lot of people desperately want to go in a new direction, but I don't think they want radical change and are understandably skeptical of the new guy. Tonight Obama came across as reasonable, confident, forceful at times and well versed on the issues (even if you didn't always agree with the particulars). He also didn’t muddle any answers on foreign policy the way Kerry did with that whole “global test” gaffe in the 2004 debate. Considering this was supposed to be John McCain’s strongest subject, the fact that Obama went blow-to-blow and fought him to a draw, was a victory if you ask me. In sum; I think he made people feel a lot more comfortable with him tonight. No, he did not score any knockout blows, but he didn't need to do that. I don't think he'll get a huge boost in the polls out of it, but it certainly isn't going to hurt him any.
Looking at these numbers, Can we expect a bounce for Obama in the trackers over the next couple of days?
I assume the +21 is the difference between ready/not ready and not +21 over McCain.
The +56 is crazy.
Obama evidently did better than I thought, and I thought he did really well.
I thought that there were many who wanted to vote for him, but would withold judgment until after the debates since he was something of an unknown quantity. It looks like undecideds like what they have seen so far.
Hopefully, the other debates go well. The VP debate is worrisome as expectations are so low for Palin and there is an assumption after the Couric interview that Biden will wipe the floor with her. Anything other than Biden being really nice while annihilating her will be seen as a Palin "win" or holding the line.
After these polls, I expect the punditry to decide that Obama won. In most of the post debate coverage I was able to stomach (on CNN), it appeared that most were hedging their bets on who won with the "tie" garbage so they would not be wrong.
I'm so out of touch with, well everything. I came away thinking McCain won the domestic section, and Obama beat McCain on foreign affairs. I wonder how much of this is all prior conceptions: If the mere instance of seeing McCain debating the economy, well or poorly, hurts his campaign.
truly, honestly as a full on Obama supporter I was disappointed. Not because I thought Obama performed weakly but because the Debate to the low information voter was boring, and disengaging. It was definitely a wash. I don't think anyone can claim a win but I was hoping Barack would nail it home. He just doesn't have enough Zingers!
I know, that's the "low" road, but he needs to just be forceful and NAIL IT HOME
say it bluntly and say it clear
almost like a bitch or rudely, I dunno
It just needed that UMPH
i mean McCain was equally uninspired and ultimately I think Barack was more eloquent and a better orator but I wanted MORE
this could have been so much more
more entertaining to the general joe schmoe
and more forceful
I respect BO's manners, it's fresh and new to politics but it's time for a little pizzaz and I know I'm sounding superficial but I sort of think we need a bit of that now when faced with such a phoney
Good analysis, Nate -- but it's also quite possible that McCain's demeanor impacted those poll numbers, too.
It's a lot easier to identify with a steady, calm, decent-seeming person than someone who comes off as contemptuous.
There's one thing I'm surprised I haven't seen mentioned yet: McCain was boring.
I was deeply interested in this debate and wanted to make sure I caught every word. I was evaluating while I was listen and working to translate the spin into English.
Despite this, I keep on zoning out while McCain was talking. He droned on like my old history teacher. It didn't matter what he was saying because it didn't make it past my ear to my brain. I realized I was doing this and tried to stay tuned in, but it got very difficult towards the end.
But Obama's speech patterns and tone were much more energized. When he spoke, I tuned back in and stayed tuned in. He caught my attention, rather than having me need to devote it to him.
It really doesn't matter how much McCain has to say on foreign policy if you're only hearing Obama.
Now, I heard about the body language thing later and checked it out. Yes, with the sound off McCain looks more energized and aggressive, especially towards the end. But I'm not looking at the screen while I'm staring at the air six inches in front of my eyes.
Let the "right wing nuts" spin this debate to make them feel good.
As a former FoxNews-Brainwashee, I was repeatedly told that Bush soundly won every single debate against Kerry. I just couldn't believe it, and it was the beginning of the end of me falling for FoxNews Bias. Looking back now, I have no idea how I ever let them corrupt my own thinking. They are so transparent now.
A quick point on body language: I actually thought McCain's worst moment of the night was the post-debate shaking hands with Obama and greeting Cindy. The McCain's just looked so awkward and unfriendly, especially next to Amazon Michelle who was tearing up a little.
Koszul - I agree, and I'll go farther: it seemed to me, especially at the end, that Obama was leading, and McCain was following him around the stage attacking what Obama said. He kind of reminded me of a chihuahua nipping at Obama's heels at one point.
I think Obama came off like a leader.
According to the pdf that should be +58 and not +56? Or am I missing something here due to sleep deprivation (posting from Europe) :)
I thought Chris Matthews had an interesting poll on his show. I can't remember the exact figures but is was undecideds going 40% saying Obama won, 38% saying draw, and 22% McCain win. If there is any drama left, its where does that 38% fall. If McCain can go after that number he might have enough votes to get to bring this thing close again.
I think Obama did do what his bottom line was, and that is look presidential, look up to the job. I have said before that I think this election will be won by the least George Bush-like candidate, and I think Obama managed to put McCain firmly with Bush.
By the way, just a quick bail out fight thought, as it popped into my head. The drilling question had eased some of the branding problems for the GOP, I wonder if the bailout doesn't take them back to square one on that if nothing gets sorted? And this time John McCain wouldn't be able to run away from it?
The pundits have called it for McCain. Thus he won big.
@DZ
*yawn* No one I have seen that isn't far right is calling this for McCain. Go to bed.
By the way, Jon's point about height is not without importance. I don't have the facts to hand, but usually it is true that the taller guy wins the election. Its a long time since we had a short President.
I wonder how McCain's demeanor will play in different states. I think it will play worse in North Carolina and Virginia than in Indiana or New Hampshire.
The South places huge emphasis on etiquette and being nicer longer than you want to be. Southerners have also been forced to confront how they treat black people more than people in other areas of the country have.
One of the reasons Gov. Ann Richards defeated Clayton Williams in Texas was Williams staging a moment where he refused to shake her hand. The media and voters just hammered him because he had crossed a line that "good people" just didn't cross.
Thanks a lot for the excellent data analysis.
I don't trust my judgment on debates because undecided voters have an entirely different perspective about politics than us junkies.
That's even more true of pundits. The problem is, of course, that a pundits misjudgment may become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I guess we are lucky that some of the media people are listening to you. Great job.
Considering his performance over the last weeks, John McCain did a good job of (showing up and) proving he can act like a grown-up.
However...
I watched the debate replay on CNN with the Audience-O-Meter and was a little surprised and pleased how the independent voter reaction dipped so strongly when Johnny went negative; went on the attack. The more McCain goes after teh pretty, smart, and polite dark fellow, the more the independents dislike him.
This may be where the election is won or lost, it seems. I'm OK with that. I Hope® it's a new trend of civility and substance over bluster and red meat in future politics.
America may be becoming less stupid, slowly but surely.
Interesting that an interactive poll on the fox news website has the debate 55-45 to Obama. (Yeah methodolgy and all that, but its fascinating that even readers of Fox News are calling it slightly for Obama)
does anyone else think Obama added a little gray to his hair? I swear his hair looked a little more gray, as if to add wisdom to his appearance. Seriously.
As a former FoxNews-Brainwashee, I was repeatedly.....
Even Fox News Greta was shocked tonigt with their own Frank Luntz focus group post debate analysis. I think it was around 65/30 Obama from independents.
Some of my liberal friends called me, and they were to a man pissed about Obama not putting McCain away tonight. Obama left a lot of easy points on the table.
I explained to them that tonight's debate wasn't about them, it wasn't for them. Obama was talking to the middle, to the independents and the uncommitted middle-class (read:white, unfortunately) voters who have had really nothing but "scary Muslim terrorist" emails from their racist Uncle Bob to judge Obama by. Think about it: when have *any* of these average voters ever seen or heard Obama speak fresh before, esp. if they're not Democratic primary voters? Campaign ads? Scary Fox news clips? This was a chance to see him and decide who he was. He was presidential and confident, and he reassured everyone that he can handle the job. People were waiting, even eager to be convinced in a "change election" year, what with Wall Street, health care, the economy, the war. All Obama had to do was not screw up and lead them all home.
Obama can preach to the choir next time, in the economic debates, when he can call on those Speechgiving +10 skills of his to shake the roof. This was the time to be the Dependable CinC, not the populist yelling about evil Republicans.
Yes, I think Obama's hair has gone more gray in the past few months. On purpose? Who knows. But I bet it cost less than McCain's $5k make-up job.
Did I watch the same debate as the pundits? On the terrorism question, McCain just had blundering about supporting veterans and building Star Wars (SDI) and being a POW, while Obama had a ton of great stuff. I don't know how anyone watches that exchange and doesn't come away thinking that Obama's the one with a grasp of foreign policy. Here's a section from the transcript:
OBAMA: Oh, there's no doubt. Look, over the last eight years, this administration, along with Senator McCain, have been solely focused on Iraq. That has been their priority. That has been where all our resources have gone.
In the meantime, bin Laden is still out there. He is not captured. He is not killed. Al Qaeda is resurgent.
In the meantime, we've got challenges, for example, with China, where we are borrowing billions of dollars. They now hold a trillion dollars' worth of our debt. And they are active in countries like -- in regions like Latin America, and Asia, and Africa. They are -- the conspicuousness of their presence is only matched by our absence, because we've been focused on Iraq.
We have weakened our capacity to project power around the world because we have viewed everything through this single lens, not to mention, look at our economy. We are now spending $10 billion or more every month. ...
So we have put all chips in, right there, and nobody is talking about losing this war. What we are talking about is recognizing that the next president has to have a broader strategic vision about all the challenges that we face.
That's been missing over the last eight years. That sense is something that I want to restore.
The comparison to the 1960's debate is interesting. McCain did have some strong talking points about foreign policy, but his body language and demeanor were terrible.
I originally didn't think much of McCain not looking at Obama, but after some review, I realize that it DOES show contempt, or uncertainty, and it definitely doesn't look dignified and "presidential."
Did Obama win the debate on TV while McCain won on radio? Someone should poll this.
I can't wait to see how this all filters into the polls tomorrow.
It's clear that Nate is the most brilliant statistical American mind running. No campaign hired him yet so I propose that he should auction his skills for fantasy baseball keeper leagues. It's not like Obama needs help anymore.
Game over man, game over. Hey Nate, pretend it's December. Will Alex Gordon be a better 1B than James Loney next year?
"Who do you find more attractive? Bruce Willis or Mel Gibson? This argument is so unbalanced that we can spend our time debating the superhunks."
What stood out for me was how little grasp either candidate has as to what's at stake regarding the upcoming financial meltdown or the proposed bailout. If that little matter doesn't end well, all of the other subjects debated, from Iraq to tax cuts, will seem trivial by comparison.
What good will peace in Iraq or tax cuts at home do the voters once the paychecks they get from their employers start bouncing like rubber balls in a few weeks?
"Even Fox News Greta was shocked tonigt with their own Frank Luntz focus group post debate analysis. I think it was around 65/30 Obama from independents."
I guess after a while people start to believe their own bullsh**.
The taller thing that Jon and Markymark brought up is pretty true. Kerry is taller than Bush so it not always true. Isn't Kerry 6'3" and Bush 5'11"?
How tall do you think McCain really is. I bet he adds at least an inch and is really 5'8" or 5'7". Plus people shrink as they age.
In a lizard/pack animal brain analysis someone looking you dead in the eye is in a dominant position to someone who refuses to meet a gaze. McCain looked very small both physically and psychologically.
Does anyone think they're gonna pull Palin before the VP debate next week?
Torrentprime-
McCain paid $5K for that. He should ask for a refund.
I did not watch the debate. As I see it, the media wants McCAIN to win and I will not give them my viewership nor participate in this sham.
In my view the media appears disassociated from the problems of the less fortunate in our society.
I don't believe that the Republicans who believe that gravity doesn't exist should get as much legitimacy as the Democrats who have learned that gravity exists.
We don't have a debate over gravity anymore. We don't debate whether the earth appears flat either.
Pure Republican capitalism does not work. We learned that in 1929. Yet the Republicans want to bring 1929 back again and again.
Besides 3 of the 4 debates will get held either in the old confederacy or on a border state. Only 1 of the 4 debate appears outside of that area of rednecks.
I might watch the debate in NY. I haven't decided yet.
Besides, I will watch a podcast of Countdown with Keith Olbermann Monday night to see his view of the debate. I will also watch a webcast of the Young Turks to see their opinon. I don't care about the dissociated press view of the debate.
http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/358931
McCain looked fidgety, while Obama looked presidential.
Joey-
McCain is stuck with Palin. He would look like an idiot and tee off his base if he dropped her or she "resigned". They can't just keep her out of the debate since that would look just as bad.
I think "sources" in the McCain campaign are going to say she has the flu or something a day or so before the VP debate and still have her debate, but the excuse is ready. The surrogates will say things like "Wow, she did so great and she was totally sick, but that is what mom's across America do all the time."
Jen: Just to be clear: I don't know if was tonight, and I'm too tired and buzzed to Google McCain's make-up, but I know McCain hired a make-up artist recently to the tune of 5 grand. I just don't know how many performances it covered. :)
"What stood out for me was how little grasp either candidate has as to what's at stake regarding the upcoming financial meltdown or the proposed bailout."
The question that was put forward to the candidates was something they honestly couldn't possibly answer without having an actual proposal in front of them to work on, as well as a chance to review budgets. It's an amazingly complex problem, one that can't be answered in a 2 minute time span. The fact that McCain attempted to answer it at all with a proposed suspension of all government spending made him look reactionary at best. Obama (as did McCain before the nut-bar statement of the night) did the only thing that COULD be done, and that was lay out the priorities.
Does anyone think they're gonna pull Palin before the VP debate next week?
I just don't see how they can...and survive. I think they would pull the 'Palin Cries' stunt first, to see if they gather any sympathy for a News Cycle.
"I did not watch the debate. As I see it, the media wants McCAIN to win..."
That might have been true as recently as two or three months ago, but I think that's changed.
BeanoCook said...
"does anyone else think Obama added a little gray to his hair? I swear his hair looked a little more gray, as if to add wisdom to his appearance. Seriously."
Obama joked once during the Primary season about how long it was lasting - that babies born when he announced his candidacy were walking and his hair is turning gray.
The graying is happening naturally. He didn't pay for it. LOL
Jen: Just to be clear: I don't know if was tonight, and I'm too tired and buzzed to Google McCain's make-up, but I know McCain hired a make-up artist recently to the tune of 5 grand. I just don't know how many performances it covered.
_________________________________
Can you imagine being his make up artist? I expect to see Mike Rowe try it out soon on the Discovery channel.
Blue,
Thanks for stating that. Every time McCain talked for long, I was reminded of the green screen time and Colbert's 'Make McCain exciting' challenge
McCain is absolutely stuck with Palin. The right wing peed themselves with glee when she was chosen; they would go nuts if she was withdrawn. It would all have to be spun as a "the evil left hurt my feelings or threatened me to withdraw" and it wouldn't work even then. No, McCain's stuck with her.
I will absolutely hold out the possibility that she is a rope-a-dope strategy: she could be poised to do well next week, and the lower her expectations, the higher she can rise. Biden needs to keep her off-balance, and I doubt the woman is easily thrown. I think the VP debate is the biggest wild card for both sides. I think the Obama camp is smart enough to know this. I don't know if Biden is calm enough to not get dragged into a trap. I'm worried.
"I just don't see how they can...and survive. I think they would pull the 'Palin Cries' stunt first, to see if they gather any sympathy for a News Cycle."
Health concerns with her newborn would be the only way to get out of it, but she would have to retire from politics completely for that to get any traction in the media.
Obama's 2 big mistakes:
1: When McCain went off on the grizzly bear DNA earmark. It is inconceivable that Obama's people did not know that that study indicated that the goddamn bears have re-populated themselves to the point that we can hunt them again! Stupid McCain! Stupid Obama debate handlers! Assholes
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5irG9_VulDpQnHaaAi3D4edO0Nd6gD937VFP00
The above was a factual mistake that Obama should've been able to exploit. The following was rhetorical...
2: McCain refers to offshore drilling as a "bridge" to energy independence...
While this is a concededly riskier gambit given polling showing many in favor of offshore drilling, the fact that McCain used the specific word "BRIDGE" should've been seized upon by any seasoned debater (I'm 36 and haven't "debated" since junior year of high school). The mere utterance of "bridge" by McCain should've led to ripostes such as, a "bridge" to offshore drilling without a comprehensive energy plan is a "bridge" to nowhere..., etc., repeat as necessary
Dammit it really pisses me off that these two openings were missed.
2
It seems that there is becoming a call among some Republicans that they SHOULD. And it can be done in a way that's somewhat tactful; she can say she needs to take care of her family or some crap.
All I know is I had a realization about this. First, if they do decide to pull her, they have to do it before the debate. They can't let her debate and then swap her out, or else their new pick won't have gotten to debate with Biden. Then I horrifically thought that if they replaced her with Romney, it could be catastrophic for the Democrats. Not only could Romney take on Biden with ease, but he would certainly galvanize the Republicans base, including bringing back any Republicans that defected BECAUSE of Palin.
"I don't know if Biden is calm enough to not get dragged into a trap. I'm worried."
Biden just needs to play defense and hope Palin screws up on her own. He needs to understand that if he tries anything fancy, it could blow up in his face.
"Biden just needs to play defense and hope Palin screws up on her own. He needs to understand that if he tries anything fancy, it could blow up in his face."
Agreed. He needs to give his answers straight and just nod and smile at her's. She can dig her own grave.
The historic trend is actually the candidate w/ the most hair wins~this is why I stand by my assertion that president Kerry is living at the wrong address. (Not hard to believe seeing that I'm from OH)Of course,I'm quite biased as I always bet on the sports team who look the best in their uniforms(shallow, huh?) I have a theory on the no-eye-contact prob. Have You ever been in an argument & stare at someone's lips instead of eye's?? It's very laughable. now this McSame-guy knew if he made eye-contact, he would lose cool, voters ALREADY perceive him to be a "loose cannon",right? By the way, be sure to check out Youtube clip of McSame saying "horseshit" twice while Obama reminds of his Spain gaffe~it's uncanny!
Obviously the camera wasn't on McCain the whole time, but when it was I saw McCain look at Obama ONCE. Obama addressed McCain several times and looked at him often while McCain was speaking. McCain looked anywhere but at Obama. Sometimes he seemed to be studiously ignoring him. At other times, usually when Obama was directly criticising McCain's position, McCain just smirked. It looked to me like McCain couldn't understand what Obama was even doing on the same stage as him. His obvious contempt for Obama is going to look more and more unattractive, particularly as the the election gets further out of McCain's reach and he gets more desperate and frustrated.
They can't *just* pull her. She's accepted the nod. There are actual legal concerns with the ballots in the states, I believe. The left would laugh themselves silly, and the right would have to explain why everything they said for 3 weeks didn't count. Not an easy thing. They need more than "we're nervous" to pull that trigger.
It takes more than a few nervous commentators to do it. Why? Well, because when Kathleen Parker and Ron from crunchycon made their comments today, they hard right went nuts and attacked them (free republic said that Kathleen attacked Palin because women who have had abortions feel guilty when faced with a women who didn't abort one of her own. Swear to God), and this hardens their attachment to Palin. If the GOP pulls her anyway, in a day or a week, those people don't just transfer their attachments.
"particularly as the the election gets further out of McCain's reach and he gets more desperate and frustrated."
You really almost have to feel sorry for McCain. This position has eluded him for so long, going back to the days when even the Democrats would've voted for him. He's had his sights set on this for so long, and it's like when he's FINALLY in that home stretch he completely falls apart.
CSS, joey,
I hope you're right. Biden's not known for his cool. I just hope he keeps his mouth shut. If he starts talking about Truman sending someone a fax, I'm gonna scream. :)
He's had his sights set on this for so long, and it's like when he's FINALLY in that home stretch he completely falls apart.
You know, it's funny. That means Obama's knocked out not 1 but 2 "expected/anointed/it's-my-time" candidates this year: Hillary and McCain. Damn, the man is good!
Mac is stuck with Sarah. If he was going to dump her, he needed to do it before the convention. At this point, he'd be pulling the plug, officially, on his already-on-life-support campaign.
If Biden can stay civil next Saturday and only put a couple of toes in his mouth instead of his whole entire foot, she'll self-destruct plenty, and EVERYONE will be watching this time. Mac won't be able to cover for her inadequacies again by "suspending" his campaign and flying to "Washington" to "help fix" the bailout mess. (All quotation marks are purposeful.)
I thought Obama won the economic argument and McCain the foreign policy argument slightly.
However, Obama proved he could stand toe to toe on Foreign policy and certainly closed that gap. He smacked McCain around on the economy.
Judging by the polls, the country believes Obama beat him soundly.
On another note, Chris Matthews pisses me off with the "Obama can't relate to the little people" STFU Matthews.
Does anyone know if Palin had to debate the Dem candidate for the governorship?
She may be a good debater. She does not seem to be a good extemperaneous speaker, but I think her body language and demeanor will be much better than McCain's.
McCain is supposed to be an expert on foreign affairs. Military - maybe, but he makes so many mistakes on foreign affairs.
Tonight I cringed at his "my friends" then babbled on about Pakistan. He forgot recent history, I guess. Benazir Bhutto was elected in 1988. Musharaff took over in a military coup in 1999. Bhutto returned to run again and was killed.
matt jh-
Just to be fair to Chris Matthews, how do you know he was not talking about Obama not being able to relate to McCain? :)
Jen said...
"Does anyone know if Palin had to debate the Dem candidate for the governorship?"
There is a YouTube video of a 3-way debate for AK governor. I don't have the link bookmarked.
How did she do? I will probably look for it tomorrow, but I am too tired and lazy to do it right now.
Check out the CBS poll internals. Obama destroyed McCain on the economy, and 60% believe Obama is qualified to be president now and it was 44%.
Well done Barack. Tell those rich pundits to stick it up their ass. You too Matthews.
Jen said...
"How did she do? I will probably look for it tomorrow, but I am too tired and lazy to do it right now."
I wouldn't have voted for her, but that doesn't mean much.
"She may be a good debater. She does not seem to be a good extemperaneous speaker, but I think her body language and demeanor will be much better than McCain's."
Which is why she will be greatly aided by the fact that the format of that debate will not be the same as this one. They will not be allowed to address each other or respond to each other. They have to simply answer the questions.
Hopefully Biden can stick with this and not try to use his time to attack her. I think Biden risks looking like McCain did tonight, wasting time talking about things that don't answer the question.
Don't beat Tweety up too much. He had a lot of good things to say about Obama tonight, and he really went after McCain for being so rude and pissy towards Obama. He couldn't let it go, actually.
Of course the pundits thought McCain won. They want a closer race after all! However, these undecided voters are all that matter. Obama definitely won the battle tonight, but much of the war left to be fought.
You Can't Have Military Hegemony while the Economy is in the Toilet!
The AK governor debate video was on CSPAN. Here is a link to a small piece of the debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1-B-OyQ-KI
As a scholar of Russian and Eastern European affairs, I was fairly impressed with McCain's quick rundown of the situation between Ukraine and Russia. The problem is that most independent/swing voters don't know or care who Viktor Yuhschenko and Yulia Tymoshenko are. They can't find Sebastopol on a map. It's gobbledegook. I suppose it scores some points for sounding impressive - McCain was able to pronounce all the names correctly - but again, no one knows the difference. And it came so late in the debate that I'm not sure how many people saw it.
Do you remember when Nate posted some clips of Palin in the Alaska Governors debate. She looked quite strong, totally different than in the interviews. It's just possible that she's been acting so incompetent to pull off a surprise in the VP debates. It's unlikely, but it's the kind of hail Mary that the McCain campaign seems to love.
I was quite impressed by a post-debate post on the Huffingtonpost. It was from a middle aged "Clintonista" woman and it sounded something like this:
"I had decided to vote Obama becuse I didn't want Mccain and Palin. Now that I've seen him and listened to him I am happy becuase I have reasons to vote for him and not just against the GOP"
this reminds me of what Wolfson (Hillary's campaign manager)said after Obama's accepptance speech:
"I've really never listened to him before today, I was concentrated on my campaign and did everything possible not to watch him. Now I say he'a a perfect candidate"
That's all quite natural. During the primaries many women were just listening to Hillary. They didn't really care about getting to know the other guy.
So I believe that Obama was speaking to Democrtas, to that 3-7% of democrat women, who had thought about voting McCain out of resentfullness. I think he got their vote today.
Also I wish to remember there are two more presidential debates. Obama had no need for a knock-out.
He's a good strategist. It will be a crescendo.
We must keep in mind that we watch this stuff every day and know every in and out.
For people who haven't seen Obama before, they had notions of Jeramiah right and a radical, an elitist. Tonight those low information voters saw a candidate who cares about the middle class and can hold his own with Foreign policy expert John McCain.
How many times have i and others claimed "What the hell is wrong with this country, Obama is so far ahead of McCain" well tonight those people tuned in and found out what we already knew, Obama is the man.
Watching the Alaska debate, I'm certainly not blown away by Sarah Palin, but she doesn't look nearly as bad as the Couric interview.
Maybe not a lot brighter than Bush, but there's no incoherent word salads. She does tend to kind of walk sentences around her point.
"Maybe not a lot brighter than Bush, but there's no incoherent word salads. She does tend to kind of walk sentences around her point."
Yes I noticed as well. By no means a train wreck at all like the Couric interview. Yet I can still absolutely see her distinct style of answering questions. Like she has to "fill them out" by making them wordier and maybe more impressive sounding than they are. All we want is an answer!
Thanks for the link smitty! She hemmed and hawed. It looks like there may have been a strong third party candidate in there. I wonder if that affected the race. She did come across much better than the Couric interview, but the questions seemed pretty philosophical versus complex policy issues.
How prescient was the question about a pregnant daughter?
Do you remember when Nate posted some clips of Palin in the Alaska Governors debate. She looked quite strong, totally different than in the interviews. It's just possible that she's been acting so incompetent to pull off a surprise in the VP debates
When she was talking about Alaskan politics, moose hunting, fishing, skidoos, I'm sure she was very confident and knowledgeable. Now however she's having to discuss issues she has no clue about, so she is unsure of herself, and i'm sure she's developing a complex with the media hammering her as incompetent every day.
I never thought I'd say this,but I feel sorry for her. I'm sure she would rather crawl in a hole than go onstage next week in front of the nation and look like a total idiot. All Biden has to do is answer the questions, let her hang herself, and if i were Biden, I'd even pick up for her at times, help her out. It's going to be ugly.
The reality is than this debate was a must win for McCain with him behind in the polls. For me it's also a victory for Obama in the debate who was for McCain (foreign policy).
The first debate is the most important(remember Reagan). Now i think McCain is in a very very big trouble.
just making the link clickable.
Palin Alaska Governor's Race Debate
she looks like a very capable debater to me. we could be in for a surprise if she isn't spooked.
Re: The comments in your post marked edit at the end were Obamas objectives. So I guess he had a pretty good debate.
The visual lost it for McCain. He always looked angry and or threatened. My advice to him is never play high stakes poker with Obama, you'll lose. Always.
What really shocked me was McCain's total lack of eye-contact with Obama. It is something he also did (or failed to do) during the 9/11 commemorations. From a psychological point-of-view, this suggests that for McCain, Obama is not just an opponent, but a kind of enemy. His body language while Obama spoke was exactly the same body language as when McCain is heckled during a town-hall meeting. Again, this would seem to be evidence of psychological instability. And of course, not once did McCain say that he agreed with Obama or that his opponent made a good point. Simply put, McCain seemed small, Obama appeared presidential.
I think there are some interesting points here. But I think people arent giving due justice to the precision goal targetting and mission completion of the obama campaign, it was rather masterful.
The whole point tonight was not to KO McCain, they wouldve never been able to pull it off effectively anyway tonight. The point of tonight was precision targetting at undecided voters who dont want mccain but when asked about obama..kind of shrug. His entire performance style was tailored directly to that group, calm and cool and knowledgable. And if you look at the polling data post-debate, they hit their target like a smart bomb.
Finally, it was a masterful decision because the target is meaningful, the whole reason so many voters are undecided is due to what i stated above, these are a huge chunk of the und's and it should influence obamas poll numbers by 3 or so in the coming days.
"I never thought I'd say this,but I feel sorry for her. I'm sure she would rather crawl in a hole than go onstage next week in front of the nation and look like a total idiot. All Biden has to do is answer the questions, let her hang herself, and if i were Biden, I'd even pick up for her at times, help her out. It's going to be ugly."
I've actually said this too.
I really do feel bad for her. First off, I DO like her. As a person. Like I'd wanna hang out with her at a gay club or something.
But it is just so clear that she has be thrust into this with completely inadequate preparation on the part of the GOP, as this was really a publicity stunt and more about her being a woman than actually qualified to be president.
I honestly believe that if they spent the next four (or eight) years prepping her, they could roll her out and she could truly be a viable and formidable candidate. Although, all of this disaster may have wrecked her chance at a political future. But she already has the charisma, as we've seen at the convention. She just needs the information and not press-ready answers to get her by. I think that she is really not interested enough in politics and has no real desire to have to perform at the level required of her right now. She probably accepted this blindly without realizing what she would have to do.
Of course I would never in a million years vote for her, only because her politics are the polar opposite of mine. But maybe one day we can be friends.
On the Palin/Biden debate ..
I think Palin isn't dumb or inarticulate without a script. In fact she's capable of coming off very well in those situations.
So long as the ideas she is expressing are her own.
The problem is that this doesn't work so well in a campaign context where she has to operate from the campaign's talking points at any length. She keeps second guessing herself and trying to remember what positions she's supposed to be holding.
This is very problematic for a vice presidential candidate, since they really aren't supposed to be free agents and she has to constantly check herself to make sure she isn't stepping on the campaign's messaging.
Probably the best thing to do is roll the dice and let her go off script for the debate. It's a gamble that she won't make a gaffe on policy or pull some far-right non-sense out of the air, but at least you're going to avoid the kind of stammering we saw in the interviews.
I watched the Palin AK debate and agree she was nowhere near as horrific as the Couric interview BUT I think that's because she was talking Alaska issues. Next Thursday is gonna be a whole new gig for her.
I liken it to having to cram for that midterm - you know about 50% of the stuff before you start to cram, hope to know 90% when you take the exam, but end up knowing 10%. The foundation of knowledge is just not there and it's gonna emerge early and often.
My prediction for McSame's next stunt is they'll have Palin give Biden a lap dance during the debate. If that happens...hell I'll early vote for the old man!
Segelke43 said:
.
"the fact that McCain used the specific word "BRIDGE" should've been seized upon by any seasoned debater"
Exactly right! I would have segued that into a 'bridge to nowhere' reference in a nanosecond. Don't understand why Obama didn't.
"Exactly right! I would have segued that into a 'bridge to nowhere' reference in a nanosecond. Don't understand why Obama didn't."
If he actually chose to leave it alone, he was smart. Going there would open the door for McCain to turn it around and say Obama and Biden both voted for that package.
Let sleeping dogs lie...
"Exactly right! I would have segued that into a 'bridge to nowhere' reference in a nanosecond. Don't understand why Obama didn't."
This was a McSame trap that Obama didn't fall for. Had Obama gone there, McSame would have pounced on him voting for it. The media has already muzzled Palin on this to the point it's out of her stump speech. Smart move on Obama's part.
fatastic site!
Did anybody notice there was a "black guy" on stage... I did not.
I am very curious as to see the responses of all those undecideds who might be considered slightly racist. If they were looking for any little excuse to vote against Obama on strictly racial/cultural lines... they didn't find it last night. In fact Obama taking hits from a aggressive opponent made him look very stable. For those voters who were looking for a "disgruntled black man" stereotype to come from Obama, got just the opposite. I think this debate practically removes race from this race!
I'm a neutral observer who watched the debate here in the UK. (it was 2am for us). Some thoughts:
1. It was pretty dull, at least by British standards where we used to seeing our top politicians arguing the toss in the House of Commons.
2. There wasn't actually much "debate"; rather they just simply answered the moderator's, increasingly frustrated, questions.
3. McCain looked fed up and angry most of the time.
4. Obama was cooler and calmer, but it did drift off with some of his answers. Too long and windy.
5. McCain nailed him on Iran I thought.
6. Obama was most convincing on Afghanistan and linking it to Iraq i.e. we wouldn't now have a problem in AFG if the US had gone it IRQ. McCain has no defence on that one.
7. Though Obama was also convincing at end: improving America's perception in the world. It might not matter much to voters in Ohio or Michigan, but it does matter to the UK.
8. I don't envy whoever gets elected. George Bush has stitched them both up with this Wall Street rescue plan, that whoever wins ain't going to have any money! They both stumbled through that one in the debate.
9. On details and some of the argument I though McCain had a narrow win, but at least Obama sounded more caring about the "middle class" and ordinary Americans - seemed more in touch with economic problems. Does that count more than who might bomb Iran first....?
Good and interesting website by the way. The On the Road posts give a far better insight into what is going on in the election
I saw what I thought might be a funny opening when McCain referred to the tribal regions of Pakistan. He talked about having been there. He talked about it being ungoverned since the time of Alexander the Great.
Obama could have just repeated, with a little bit of quizzical in his voice: "Alexander the great??"
OLD, OLD, OLD.
But it seems to me that Obama deliberately didn't go after McCain at every opportunity. The pundits love the battle. But Obama doesn't want to hit at every chance, I think. He chooses his moments and generally keeps those to policy rather than personality or character. This is much more about how it all feels in human terms than winning every since point, every single moment. It's why he can concede good points to others in these debates. He applauds others positions. And he is very likeable when he does it. Further, with race stereotypes being what they might be (I'm no expert), it's possible that attacking all the time would have branded him as dangerous. Steve Schmidt came out afterwards in the spin room and tried to label him naive and dangerous. Perhaps better to be conciliatory and calming by being even sometimes deferential to the older man.
I watched the debate on C-SPAN's site, which had absolutely horrible video quality. Instead of bothering to watch, I listened to most of it from across the room, without seeing most of the talking. I didn't notice McCain being terribly negative in terms of tone of voice, and obviously have no idea about his body language. I did notice quite a few open holes for attack in his points, the point where I'm wondering how many of them were put there to try to tempt Obama.
The biggest thing I noticed, though, which I am surprised to hear no one talking about, was what felt like a rather large amount of coughing and even wheezing from McCain. My perception might just be off, but that was what struck me as being the most potentially disturbing and Nixonesque quality of his performance.
Afterwords, I heard some laughable claim about McCain's hostile posture towards Obama being because "he was focused on the issues, not his opponent"; and what I remembered was clearly Obama ignoring quite a few ways to get at McCain to talk about the issues, while McCain spent a large amount of time trying to put down Obama instead of talking about things himself.
It's not quite a radio opinion, and it's certainly not unbiased towards McCain, but there you go.
If the criteria is who was more photogenic - Obama won - big surprise. If the criteria was - can Obama function without a teleprompter - Obama won again, though more narrowly. He pretty much said the same things over and over. He may not have had a teleprompter, but he did not stray far from the script. McCain was not nearly as articulate, but his answers had alot more flesh. I learned things about him and his views I had forgotten. Obama reassured me that if he could survive the first six months he probably won't screw up foreign policy too badly.
Obama did not convince me that he is going to be able to go toe to toe with Putin, or pretty much any other despot. Obama is more likely to have to use military force because our enemies do not beleive he will. On the other hand McCain did convince me that while he is likely to be Putin's worst nightmare, he is not likely to commit our soldiers unnecescarily.
But I am sorry, he lost on the economy. McCain does not need to alter his economic plan to account for the current financial difficulties, cutting spending is only a better idea. Between the pork attacks and the fact that no part of his massive increase in spending is expendable he lost credibility. Pork might only be 18B, but it is like drugs. If you can not get of the drug of pork how do you get off the drug of spending. Obama also needed to convince me that he is going to be able to increase spendign dramatically, and increase tax revenue dramatically - it does not matter where he gets it, it is still one hell of alot of money, without breaking the economy further. McCain on the other hand did an excellent job of divorcing himself from Bush. I wish McCain had addressed the issue that government regulation is what has screwed up mortgage and healthcare. But that is not a truth most of us are ready to hear yet.
There are numerous issues Obama is right on. Bush has squandered what little respect we have in the rest of the world, but there is a difference between identifying a problem and solving it. One of Obama's biggest failures tonight was his inability to convince me even in the areas I think he was right on, that he will actually make a difference. Since the end of the Democratic convention, McCain has been leading and Obama following. Even with the Wall Street melt down - an issue that should favor Obama, McCain is acting while Obama reacts, and talks.
But then again, I think asking how you expect to manage a budget if you can't say no to pork, is an important question rather than a visciuos partisan attack.
Of course my grandmother always voted for the more handsome candidate.
I listened to part of the debate on NPR, and watched the rest on PBS (no "Poll-o-Meters" on my screen), so it was nice to get the debate without any silly junk on the screen. I was thinking that the radio vs TV debate really was, to some extent, similar to that of Nixon vs Kennedy. McCain certainly sounded like he was doing well on radio - though Obama sounded like he was holding his own, so I cannot say McCain won, but if you just listened to NPR he certainly didn't lose by much if at all. But once you go to the TV you see Obama's demeanor, height and youth mext to McCain's, and it hits you that Obama really is calm, collected, young and willing to address the American people. McCain really comes off as angry, rude, ancient and not even willing to look at his own opponent, much less the voters. I'd be curious to see some sort of NPR poll of people who only listened to the debate without seeing it.
Full disclosure: I'm an independent (checked off "Decline to State Party Affiliation" on my voter reg) from Baltimore, leaning decidedly toward Obama.
dhlii said...
I wish McCain had addressed the issue that government regulation is what has screwed up mortgage and healthcare. But that is not a truth most of us are ready to hear yet.
Amazing.
The New York Times publishes an article today (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27sec.html?em) that states that "The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a longtime proponent of deregulation, acknowledged on Friday that failures in a voluntary supervision program for Wall Street’s largest investment banks had contributed to the global financial crisis, and he abruptly shut the program down."
What does that mean? The banks that were under the voluntary program will be regulated by the Federal Reserve under much stricter rules.
The Times article goes on to state, "The last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work,” [Cox] said in a statement. The program “was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, because investment banks could opt in or out of supervision voluntarily. The fact that investment bank holding companies could withdraw from this voluntary supervision at their discretion diminished the perceived mandate” of the program, and “weakened its effectiveness,” he added.
Mr. Cox and other regulators, including Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, and Henry M. Paulson Jr., the Treasury secretary, have acknowledged general regulatory failures over the last year. Mr. Cox’s statement on Friday, however, went beyond that by blaming a specific program for the financial crisis — and then ending it.
When Cox was in the House, he was one of the big proponents of deregulation and 'letting business police and regulate itself, as a free market should.'
Funny how he now sings a different tune, now that the results of deregulation have negatively hit the financial sector, and had that same affect on that sector worldwide.
If this debate was a push, Obama got the upper hand in the cycle. He was at his best slamming McCain's tax cuts for the rich and "let's make the most inequitable health system in the world more cutthroat" proposals. Issues where the polling is all Obama's. As much as they negotiated the domestic-policy-only debate to be the last debate, Obama's people look to have a major win brewing.
Daily Kos R2K tracking has Obama 49 and McCain 43
After watching the debate it strikes me that Obama missed a golden opportunity to really make the case against deregulation in a way that would connect with the American voters.
He probably did well enough to win the election, were it held today, but he should have destroyed McCain who was sitting there in the midst of this crisis like a fat clay pigeon.
We're in this crisis because conservative Congressmen and their corporate lobbyist allies pushed "deregulation, free the markets" as a governing idea.
"With lobbying led by Roger Levy [Citigroup Chairman], the "finance, insurance and real estate industries together are regularly the largest campaign contributors and biggest spenders on lobbying of all business sectors. They laid out more than $200 million for lobbying in 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics..." These industries succeeded in their two decades long effort to repeal the [Glass-Steagall] act."
And it's government DE-Regulation, the Enron loophole, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, etc. that have caused the crisis and Obama should have hammered this point home during the debate when he had the national audience.
The argument AGAINST deregulation was that:
"3. Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.
4. Depository institutions are supposed to be managed to limit risk. Their managers thus may not be conditioned to operate prudently in more speculative securities businesses. An example is the crash of real estate investment trusts sponsored by bank holding companies (in the 1970s and 1980s)."
Capitalism was supposed to regulate itself. Take the dead hand of government off of business, and watch the economic boom! Well that was always a vast stupidity, and now we see the result.
That kind of argument would resonate with voters right now. And winning this election while making that kind of populist argument would insulate us in the future from further such attempts by Republicans who really still believe this garbage, to further destroy government regulation.
We could have used government programs to guarantee mortgages and expand home ownership, just as many already do, without allowing banks, insurance companies and financial services companies to make these kinds of wild and shaky investments that are now bringing the entire economy down.
The American people are waiting for a real explanation why THEIR financial future is being threatened.
Angry mobs of people are now congregating outside Wall Street to protest the bailout. There's an increasing groundswell of ANGER about this. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26906502/
"As politicians and business leaders struggle to reach a deal on a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street, anger is reaching the boiling point on Main Street if readers’ e-mails to msnbc.com are any indication.
Some 300 protesters lashed out against a proposed $700 billion government bailout of the financial sector on Thursday. Demonstrators on on Wall Street in New York chanted: "You broke it, you bought it," and "bail me out, too!"
People didn't do anything wrong, and all we hear from Republicans is that somehow PEOPLE caused this by greedily wanting to own their own home, and not understanding the fine print of adjustable rate mortgages and other abusive lending practices.
Obama should have used this opportunity to demand real reform to protect homeowners, for instance. Why shouldn't people squeezed into foreclosure be protected and helped by allowing the bankruptcy courts to modify the terms of their mortgages to keep them in their homes -- because the banking industry is opposed? Screw the Banking industry! Why are we listening to their interests at a time like this as opposed to the people's interest?
I was left with two thoughts after the debate.
First, Obama is smart, but he's no Bill Clinton. Up until now I had thought that Obama had the intellectual gravitas, but Bill Clinton wouldn't have left so many nuggets unturned. Obama's stuttering speaking style did him in as he often seemed at a loss for words.
Second, McCain was very uncomfortable being there. He peaked at Obama once, when Obama specificlly addressed a comment to him, and the camera took it in from stage left. And if you look carefully, McCain pulled himself away from looking at the Senator from Illinois. I think the reason is he was very angry and was afraid he would blow his top if he treated Obama as if he were in the room. After all, to use the vernacular of the Internets, McCain got pwned by the Obama steamroller this week.
One amusing thing: McCain was forced to say he'd vote for the bailout plan -- whose specifics are still not known -- while Obama danced around it quite effectively. And no one has called Obama on it.
All in all a win for Obama on style, substance and termperament. He passed the C-I-C test, which was what he primarily needed to do. And he got McCain to press him on experience, which will become the narrative running up to the Palin-Biden debate,
Now if Obama can get rid of the remainder of his affectations and stuttering he'll be the perfect candidate.
As for the debate between the Ignoramus and the Gaffe-O-Matic (God love him), Palin's "debating" skills in the Youtube selection show she can be formidable, but that's on issues she has lived through and truly understands. And she uses her right-wing ideology to give her positions consistency. On the national stage she's quite lost, and only knows McCain's talking points, which makes her a caricature, and a pretty embarassing one at that.
Obama won the first debate by doing everything he needed to do, and I think he made it comfrotable for the Indies and Undies to come to him. And since they only need to break 25%-75% O to M, he cemented his lead in the election.
The stage is set for the VP debate, which will be viewed by as many people who saw this one -- at least -- and there may be several strokes within the McCain campaign as the Ignormaus reveals McCain's cynical reasons for selecting her -- a well used uterus.
Game. Set. Match.
Segelke43--
"2: McCain refers to offshore drilling as a "bridge" to energy independence...
While this is a concededly riskier gambit given polling showing many in favor of offshore drilling, the fact that McCain used the specific word "BRIDGE" should've been seized upon by any seasoned debater (I'm 36 and haven't "debated" since junior year of high school). The mere utterance of "bridge" by McCain should've led to ripostes such as, a "bridge" to offshore drilling without a comprehensive energy plan is a "bridge" to nowhere..., etc., repeat as necessary"
Spot on! When McCain said that I was yelling at the tv "Bridge to nowhere! Bridge to nowhere!" Obama could have even added "thanks but no thanks!"
Lots of missed opportunities, but McCain's body language was wierd and Obama looked presidential. That's all that will matter in the next week.
CNN now has a poll showing Obama won.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html
Obama became the next president last night, he solidified his gain by looking presidential.
Relax, Obama won every major poll last night, from CNN, to CBS to NBC.
Forget the details and how we overanalyze everything. He won every debate poll! Obama is winning, and now he has a path victory perfect solified, Kerry states plus CO, NM. NC and VA are just icing - this is setting up to be an easy 300+ EV election for Obama.
hi ho,
On the 'missed opportunity' on the McLameBrain 'bridge' comment:
As Joey stated:
If he actually chose to leave it alone, he was smart. Going there would open the door for McCain to turn it around and say Obama and Biden both voted for that package.
Let sleeping dogs lie...
I totally agree.
Did you see McLameBrain's reaction when Senator Obama let it lie? He looked like he was almost ready to break a blood vessel - he was REALLY biting his tongue. It was a nugget that he WANTED Senator Obama to pick up so he could hit him on something, but it was left lying out there with no comment. Senator Obama had to have known it was coming, and let it go for a reason.
oops! I meant Obama solidified Kerry states plus IA, CO, NM last night.
Obama wins!
"Spot on! When McCain said that I was yelling at the tv "Bridge to nowhere! Bridge to nowhere!" Obama could have even added "thanks but no thanks!""
Personally I'm really glad this was left out. There was no point in bringing Sarah Palin into this, this was about the differences between the presidential candidates tonight. Plus, considering McCain did have a strong record against the bridge, it doesn't get Obama anywhere versus McCain.
Likewise, McCain focusing on Obama's earmark requests opened up an opportunity to blast Palin but the point would have been way too clumsy and not the point of this debate.
I say tie. But i see Obama better in economic issues.
Mike in MD & Justin --
after reading your comments and other posts about the bridge, I think you're right. I guess that's why he's the candidate ... He really shows an impressive discipline and intellect.
Still, I find McCain so increasingly bizarre. I wonder what the next dabates will show. Will he dare to not look at Obama again?
Obama won the debate even if it was not a massive victory. But this is not what matters.
What he needs is close the gap between Dem/GOP 10pts favorability and his 4/5 points lead. This due to white middleclass male indies leaning Dem but who hesitate to vote for a young, black, first term senator with exotic background.
In an election about change people need to be reassured that the guy who proposes change is responsable.
And the polls show that he did reassure people that he was a safe and strong leader.I would expect him to get closer to the 10 pts dem's lead, maybe get 1 more pts or 2 before the VP debate.
The way to victory seems clearer for him every day.
Two points:
The one time McCain mentioned his "running mate" all the trackers (ind, dem, rep) ALL went down.
Second, I don't really care what any single poster on this site thinks, go read the polls and the debate and come back. The polls are what matters, everyone on this site knows who they are voting for.
I really want to see more polling, but it needs to wait two days. If Obama is still winning debate polls in two days (I think he will be) and Palin fails spectacularly, this sthing is over.
I think it is over now unless there is some swift boat moment we don't know about.
Early voting is already hapenning.
Game over!
The thing that grabbed me off the bat, and I guess it's just me since I haven't seen it mentioned, is that McCain looked pasty and old by *not* wearing a white shirt and a solid tie. That muddy blue shirt and striped tie didn't do him any favors at all, especially when contrasted with Obama's crisp white shirt that made him look impressive.
Also, McCain's jacket was too big and made his shoulders droopy, and it was wrinkled.
Agree, the McCAin visual was poor. His suit blended intot he background, his tie was distracting, and no flag pin!!!
As someone who used to analyze Federal budgets, the McCain "earmarks" crusade reinforces my impression that McCain has no idea what he is talking about. I nodded furiously when Obama said that the earmarks are too insignificant to close the deficits or pay for McCain's tax cuts. McCain simple doesn't know how to add here.
It also implies that earmarks are a waste of money, which most are not. One prime example used years ago was spending $50k to study honeybees, which lead to the discovery that they are going extinct. Honeybees are the backbone of our trillion dollar agricultural industry, so that strikes me as a good research investment.
Sarah Palin has undermined McCain on earmarks as a champion of the "Bridge to Nowhere". It has now entered the public's awareness that she was for the Bridge before she was against. McCain takes a great risk basing his economic strategy on a gimmicky crusade while his running mate was the queen of pork.
Obama also won the night on clips. His "You were wrong on Iraq" is being replayed over and over again, so the voters who didn't watch the debate will see this moment the most. It also undercut McCain's obsession with the Surge, saying that one lucky choice in a series of bad decision is not leadership.
The pundits watched a different debate than I did. McCain made some good points, but his tie was distracting, his tone was punchy and condescending, and he was down right insulting to Obama. Obama held his own and was not phased. He was his unflappable, pleasant self and I think that will resonate with the voters.
For the next debates, McCain needs to be more respectful and lighten up. Obama will be on more familiar turf, so the overall debates may add a couple points to his current 4 pt. lead.
Heaven knows what McCain is thinking about Palin v. Biden!
Buchanan just said how well Obama did.
All stations hammering on Palin for not showing up in the spin room like Biden did.
Palin turns into a bigger problem every day.
Nate, in general, I like your post, but I think you are really talking about the "strategists" that CNN has on--people who used to work for campaigns, are very biased one way or another, and love to hear themselves talk. And are very afraid to commit because they don't like to look wrong.
But everyone on the NewsHour's post debate coverage and the 9 (!) people on Charlie Rose last night-- whom I consider pundits in that they may have some bias but generally are print journalists who follow politics closely (including Halperin, Brooks, Will, Al Hunt, Jeff Greenfield, etc.)--all agreed that Obama won, if only slightly.
So, I'm not quite sure "pundits" have agreed that McCain won. I watched some of the CNN and MSNBC footage, and it seemed--like others here have said--that they were largely afraid to commit and kept saying it was a tie. The journalists whom I honestly think are a little smarter, albeit a little more boring, were able to recognize that Obama won, if only because he was able to hold his own in McCain's area of expertise. I expect more will move this way as the voters' polls become more available.
Interestingly, though I am a big Obama fan, I thought it was a tie or a slight edge for McCain, as McCain really gained strength at the end (though his answers made me want to bash my head in). I think I was over-worrying about people's reactions to some of Obama's answers, and I thought he didn't hit hard enough on Iraq. He should have been saying: "We've been hearing victory is at hand in Iraq from you guys for the past 4 years. Remember Mission Accomplished! So, how will we know when we've 'won' Iraq once and for all, Senator McCain?"
New Ras Iowa poll:
O: 51
M: 43
This state has been off the board for a while.
Telling people how proud you are of your "maverick" vice presidential pick? BIG mistake!
Being a classic CRANKY OLD MAN is GREAT NEWS!!! For John McCain!!!
In the polls and commentary, Obama seems to have done well by being respectful of/to McCain. However, I hope someone, someway, somehow, will point out that McCain is NOT taking care of veterans. His voting record is pretty bad.
We'll know in about 3-4 days who "won" the debate, when poll numbers rise or fall. All these snap polls across the networks or across the intrernet sites are polling only the viewers of that particular network or readers of that particular website. None of it is scientific and none of it is a valid sample.
If McCain's nymbers go up after this weekend, he won the debate. If Obama's go up, then he won the debate. If neither of their numbers go up, the debate was a draw.
I call this debate a tie. I don't think either candidate lost really any support, or gained much either. Both performed well. Obama won the first half, McCain won the second half.
Secondly, the next debate may favor McCain one regard, despite favoring Obama since it will be the economy. It is a town hall style debate, a style McCain thrives in.
Let's not forget. Obama turned down a series of 10 Town Hall Debates this past summer. He could've used that support in 2 weeks.
"If McCain's nymbers go up after this weekend, he won the debate. If Obama's go up, then he won the debate. If neither of their numbers go up, the debate was a draw."
Not quite that simple. There's a lot going on right now that can affect the polls.
"I call this debate a tie. I don't think either candidate lost really any support, or gained much either."
I agree that neither gained any new adherents, but that's a win for Obama. He also reassured skeptics and that's all he needed to do.
"It is a town hall style debate, a style McCain thrives in."
Overrated. He's also had some of his worst gaffes in these style sessions, and he won't be able to stack the audience this time.
"Let's not forget. Obama turned down a series of 10 Town Hall Debates this past summer. He could've used that support in 2 weeks."
I doubt he's concerned. The more that McCain supporters bring this up, the more clear it is that Obama was wise to turn them down.
50-44 Rasmussen.
Interesting that Kos is 49/43 and Rasmussen is 50/44. Talk about the numbers converging.
Damnit, in this day of immediate answers I can't believe I have to wait 3 whole days to be able to breathe a sigh of relief that the debate didn't kill Obama.
Rasmussen, Obama by 6.
50-44.
As I commented before the debate: history tells us that the Dems usually win on logic, and yet the media usually spins that the Reps somehow won on (points? emotional content? mysterious supernatural connectedness?).
We know who owns these huge media outlets. An if they repeat that McCain "won" enough, that may become common knowledge.
I'd be more scared of that scenario if someone, anyone, was saying that McCain won.
Rasmussen Iowa
Obama - 51
McCain - 43
Last month O-46,M-41
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/election_2008_iowa_presidential_election
How come nobody is talking about the "spending freeze on everything but the Department of Defense, for veterans and entitlement programs" McCain suggested? I bet that is the point he lost independents. Bush is already doing that and many Americans think that we're falling behind other industrialized countries.
I don't think McCain won, and I'm voting for him.
But, I don't think Obama won either.
I call it a draw. I guess the polls will decide what happens.
"It is no surprise that a small majority of pundits seemed to have thought that McCain won, even when the polls indicated otherwise; the pundits were his target audience."
Well, even though he has been bashing them with regularity in the past few weeks, they are still his base!
lots of good points being made, enjoying reading thoughtful posts
Penny, I had forgotten about Richards and Williams. I think you may be right that McCain's rudeness is more distasteful to southerners.
I'm very interested in all the analysis of the lack of eye contact. It seems to have really hurt the perception of McCain. His aggressive attacking seem to have hurt him, too. Obama was very smart to stick to his message and leave the snarling to McCain.
Bottom line -- Obama came off as the alpha dog, the one that has the dominant position and highest authority.
Two thoughts -
1) To Obama supporters disappointed, frustrated, depressed or in any other way feeling negative about last night's forum: Let it go, and learn from your candidate. Every time Obama starts to look "inevitable", the backlash kicks in. If Obama had done it the way you seem to want, even the Republicans who hate Sarah Palin (more than a few) would start to feel sorry for McCain. McCain seems tired and frustrated, and won't get any fresher as the race comes to the tape. Don't give his team an excuse to prop him up.
2) Between the Gibson and Couric interviews, Governor Palin's job in her forum has become a lot steeper. Yes, they changed the format to minimize the risk of gaffes, but Gwen Ifill is not a friend from Fox, like Hannity. Palin will have few opportunities to show that those disasters were not really her
Biden has already shown that he can go "off script" and it doesn't hurt Obama. He can relay how long he's known McCain (age), how McCain the candidate is different from McCain the senator (cynicism), how he worries about his "friend's" health (President Palin), all while answering the questions.
He should treat Palin like a freshman senator from his own party: with cordiality, a bit of sympathy, and slight surprise whenever she says something he disagrees with. Too bad he can't ask for clarification for every question...
Ok guys I think we're missing one important point. We are have all decided who we are going to vote for. Otherwise we probably wouldn't be here.
The debate is not won on impressing decided voters. The debate is won on impressing independent and undecideds.
Through that context, I believe that Obama won handily. He spoke to the independent. He promised a less violent foreign policy which undecided voters tend to be quite moderate about.
In contrast, McCain was sarcastic, unfriendly, and aggressive.
I think each candidate tied with base versus base. But Obama reached over to those independents and undecided voters.
Nate, you fail to mention this in your biased analysis:
The results may be favoring Obama simply because more Democrats
than Republicans tuned in to the debate. Of the debate-watchers
questioned in this poll, 41 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 27 percent as Republicans and 30 percent as independents."
Good point colorado conservative the CNN poll showed no movement,which is what we're interested in. However, the CBS poll showed a lot of movement towards Obama.
I'm fairly new to this site, and I continue to be amazed, impressed & delighted with the depth and rationality/sanity of the analyses. You guys are wonderful. You have a gift of sifting through the "noise" to the "signal," and that brings me to your site several times each week - not only because Obama's rising projections are a nice way to start the day, but also because I learn so much. THANK YOU.
Obama won, it is not what we feel, but what the polls show. CNN shows Obama won the women, and CBS shows he won the independents. This is a polling site, polls show :
OBAMA WON!!!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html
Rasmussen this morning shows an Obama bump, up to an amazing 6% lead for OBama with a right leaning pollster who does not cover cell phones. Obama has a HUGE lead right now. This is game over.
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This six-point advantage matches Obama’s biggest lead yet (see trends). Obama is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters, McCain by 54%. "
PRESIDENT _ ELECT OBAMA!
Obama up 50-44 in Rassmussen this morning and thats without the debate performance.
I'm also surprised no one has brought up the spending freeze comment.
Obama's lead is now as big in the Rasmussen poll as it was during his convention bounce. This is huge, movement like this almost never occurs outside a bounce. McCain is imploding, the Palin pick is falling apart and the back-pedaling on the campaign suspension makes him look stupid and voaltile.
Fuck, Paul Newman died.
R.I.P
I think this debate will be a wash. People are right when they say that its hard to determine a winner right away. In 2000, Gore was a late loser when the discussion centered on his mannerisms. In 2004, Bush lost the first debate clearly as the post-debate spin was about his ticks and annoyed looks. After one of their other debates, Kerry was the clear loser as the post-debate discussion centered on his Mary Cheney reference.
There was no moment like that in this debate. Conservatives will bring up Obama misquoting Kissinger. But Kissinger's position is still closer to Obama than McCain. John wants no relations, Kissinger wants diplomacy at the SoS level.
If anything, McCain's attitude towards Obama and his inability to look at him has a chance to cause some harm if there is traction on the issue.
This debate did not move the polls, most debates don't. That is a big win for Obama. He loked presidential, that is all he had to do.
Obama up 6 in RASMUSSEN?!
If I was a republican, I'd be pretty scared right now. Good thing I'm not :D
There was a photo up at sfgate last night showing the two of them shaking hands in sort of a half-embrace thing. I don't know if it was taken pre- or post-debate, but it's clear in the photo that Obama is looking directly at McC's face, and McC is looking PAST Obama at something in the distance. So even there, there was no eye contact.
It'll be interesting to see if McC's handlers tell him for the next debate, "Start making eye contact with him!" Because the eye contact thing seems to have been picked up in political discussions even on non-political blogs I've been reading. I saw it being described as "rude," "bad manners," "insensitive," and "WTF?" It was apparently really obvious to much of the debate watching public.
I'm really surprised that so many of you are picking on Obama's stuttering. I thought he did really well last night, and his answers were very smooth and forceful. I was watching it, and I said to my wife: "Someone coached him to stop saying 'Um.'" Overall, I mean, I thought Obama gave a pretty flawless performance. I know everybody wanted a gaffe or a zinger, but that's sort of like watching a football game for the injuries and the Hail Mary plays. We should be happy our team played so well and is still ahead in the championship.
Brian of UK:
Good observations. One point about the candidates' lack of clarity about their support for the bailout.
Neither one is ready to commit to it because it's so costly and the final countours aren't clear.
And both want to reserve the possibility of voting against the plan if it would give them a strategic advantage in the campaign.
They would each like to run "to the left" (the populist) side of the other. So do they "yes" to save the economy for the people? Do they vote "no" -- even as the plan passes Congress -- to continue their populist appeals?
Answer: tune in next week.
One of the running themes since the Sarah Palin nomination has been the inherent contradictions this creates regarding McCain's approach and talking points regarding experience.
I think this was in evidence tonight as well. McCain's constant snark about naivete and "just not understanding" makes it nigh well impossible for his campaign to say, with a straight face, that Biden will be out of bounds for taking that approach, and then some, in the VP debate. I hope he realizes that and doesn't hold back. Which is where his natural predilection would take him anyways.
Pundits like Chris Matthews etc don't look at the debates the same way undecideds and independents do. The pundits already know the candidates positions on all the issues, therefore they aren't really listening to them answers given, they are looking at who is "scoring points", aka being the most aggressive, attacking the most, making jokes and lightening the mood, showing empathy, etc. Matthews originally gave McCain some excellent reactions right after because it was clear that McCain attacked and most and was on offense for the entire thing. I would argue that the most aggressive lines aren't always the best ones. Frequently on the CNN graph line things, the green independent line dropped lower when McCain "got tough" while the Republican line soared higher. Oddly, the democrat line was the middle one. It's the independents who are turned off by aggressive toughness way more than the affiliated viewers, and I firmly believe that Obama won the independents and undecided voters this first round.
The right has a very easy out if they want to pull Palin. One of her kids gets sick, or the demands of VP campaigning compromise a child's life in some way, and leaving the ticket becomes a noble sacrifice of motherhood, unassailable in its sanctity.
I don't think this will happen, though. It's not like there's a better choice out there at this point.
I think it's funny, back when the Palin effect was at full strength, the gloating republicans were saying the only way for Obama to win was to dump Biden and pick Hillary, and now they want McCain to dump Palin! lmao!
RCP has McCain up 8 in Indiana by Ras. Don't see it on Ras' website - maybe it's still premium or it's actually from somebody else.
Ahhh, yes. 538 commenters get it right again. Righties were all over us for saying Palin was a flash in the pan. How did that work out, repugs?
McCan't can have IN. The safe routs looks like Kerry states plus IA, CO, NM - that is a winner. All else is icing and right now I expect BO to get one sizeable eastern state, maybe more, of VA, NC, and FL.
Don't forget to look at Youtube~McSame said"horseshit" twice when Obama mentioned his gaffe re:Spain!!! He could'nt look at him, as he would've lost his cool~that is all
I think IN may be a typo. There was no mention of an IN poll today on Rasmussen anywhere and the RCP links to the Iowa poll instead of an IN poll.
I felt that McCain's harping on earmarks was a red herring. I felt like shouting at the TV, "It's the war costs, you idiot." And McCain trying to paint Obama as a big spender just didn't ring true after the Reagan-Bush tag team of profligate spending and borrowing. Obama eventually made the point, but I would have liked to see him nail it right then and there. A bit of aggression when asserting an obvious truth is really OK.
McCain's repeated assertions that Obama "didn't understand" was borish and annoying, as were his running on about his experience and self assertions of readiness. All in all, McCain did better than I expected, and Obama seemed to be holding back.
That IN poll looks like an error to me. The only Ras polls schedule for today are Iowa (O +8), the tracking poll and Louisiana later this afternoon.
Is it possible that if Obama looks to be up enough to put this thing away on November 4th, say 4 points or so that his breadand butter, African-Americans, youth, new registered voters won't show up in the numbers they need to for him?
That Indiana poll is gone from RCP.
Ras Indiana has disappeared~I've never seen such a thing! Where has it gone???????
"Is it possible that if Obama looks to be up enough to put this thing away on November 4th, say 4 points or so that his breadand butter, African-Americans, youth, new registered voters won't show up in the numbers they need to for him?"
Possible. It's even more likely though that McCain's supporters would fail to show up because they know it's futile.
"Is it possible that if Obama looks to be up enough to put this thing away on November 4th, say 4 points or so that his breadand butter, African-Americans, youth, new registered voters won't show up in the numbers they need to for him?"
So I'm supposed to be worried that Obama might lose because he's polling too well?
People like going out and voting for a winner. If he starts moving away from McCain, odds are that it'll start affecting downticket races.
Eric-
IN may have been a liar poll. RCP is likely going nuts as their handlers at Fox are screaming for good news.
LOL!
"That Indiana poll is gone from RCP."
Yeah, that's weird.
I am not worried about folks not coming out, AA are truly energized and the theme seems to be this is a march to the polls that people are required to make.
Repugs are very worried about the youth vote, they are even putting up liar posters at places like Drexel that say kids should not vote if they have as little as a parking ticket.
Fucking repug liars!
No big moments. The bracelet exchange, I'd guess, mattered to undecided women. Every time McCain brings up that bracelet it doesn't help him. It's along the same lines as a soldier telling Nixon in 1972, don't let my friends have died in vain in Vietnam, win it. The truth is, though many feel passionately on both sides, there are probably more soldiers and certainly more of the public who say end the war and don't fight anymore dumb wars. If we're going to send our soldiers into a war, let's make sure it's for the right reasons. McCain was definitely right about the surge, but I think he lost the Iraq discussion because of this point.
It was obviously some sort of weird typo, taking O+8 IA and entering it as M+8 IN. So they took it down when they noticed.
yeah, that IN poll didn't make sense. With Ras showing Obama up 6 nationally, even in Ohio, close in Missouri, and up in VA, there is no way he's down 8 in Indiana. McCain would be happy to be up 2 in Indiana.
Do debate candidates usually not drink any water in this debate format? 90 minutes of talking, and they must have been parched afterwards.
Probably right. Don't mean to be Debbie Downer. If Obama's RCP average is +4 or more NOvember 4th and he loses, I'll just move to Calgary.
Did anyone else catch Jim Lehrer's slip early on when he asked how each candidate would "rule"? We don't have rulers, in spite of the last 8 years of little Caesar (root of Kaiser). We have presidents who govern (to the extent they are able). Much of the disgust with Bush derives from his refusal or inability to effectively govern.
After 8 years of Dumbo's "reign" it's an understandable slip.
FreeThinker said...
Did anyone else catch Jim Lehrer's slip early on when he asked how each candidate would "rule"? We don't have rulers, in spite of the last 8 years of little Caesar (root of Kaiser). We have presidents who govern (to the extent they are able). Much of the disgust with Bush derives from his refusal or inability to effectively govern.
Our current President is very similar in practice to the Queen of England.
Obama has a solid lead now, so expect the next 38 days of a complete slash and burn by Repubs.
This IN poll is a lie.
The last poll from Indiana in RCP was Rasmussen McCain by 2.
The new Rasmussen polls are
Iowa: Obama 51-43
Louisiana: McCain 55-40
I noticed that Obama slid into DC speak one time when he used Cheney's favorite lead in, "The fact of the matter is..." It will be a blessing when Cheney moves to Dubai and we don't have to hear that from every pol and newspeaker.
I thought the bit about corporate taxes was remarkable for its bad timing. Right now is a terrible time to complain about how unfair life is for American corporations. Not when the banks are asking for $700 billion.
I want to see polls from Rasmussen or Gallup about the debate.
The polls on the debate have been done by reputable agencies.
Rasmussen is getting more right wing via its evangelical founder, and Gallup is not a good pollster.
Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 43 - Obama +5
The polls on the debate have been done by reputable agencies.
Rasmussen is getting more right wing via its evangelical founder, and Gallup is not a good pollster.
I think Bush was awake in history class when they talked about Julius Caesar (marched into Rome, ignored the senate, destroyed the republic, consolidated wealth), but his legacy is more like Nero (spent public funds on private palaces, could not govern, presided over the destruction of Rome). I will be glad to see the back of him.
BTW anyone know why I'm getting this trash can on my posts? I'm using my blogger id, but can't seem to find a setting to remove it.
"BTW anyone know why I'm getting this trash can on my posts? I'm using my blogger id, but can't seem to find a setting to remove it."
Everyone sees a trashcan on their own posts in case they want to delete them. I see them on my posts, not yours.
Until I watched Joe Biden last night I was concerned the VP debate would be a problem.
Palin has performed so horribly and is so manifestly unready to lead and so unknowledgeable, that ANYTHING she does in the debate will be an improvement for her.
The bar is set on the floor. If she just shows up and doesn't start speaking in tongues, fall off the stage or misspell "Potatoe" she "exceeds expectations."
But Biden was much smoother and better able to blast McCain in 30 seconds than Obama was all night. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCTJLW0eSc4
Post a Comment