VP Debate

[carolaa]

I watched it, I thought they both did well. Palin did call him O'Biden a couple of times, but it was a total fluke, it usually happened when she would refer to Obama and then try and say Biden's name it would come out O'Biden. Biden grinned each time she did it, it only happened about three times. I thought it was funny.

Oh, yes, it was funny. She pronounced nuclear wrong - just like GW does. And she referred to Mr. Talibani. And she mixed up Wall Street and Main Street once. Those are the ones I caught, and I didn't even watch the whole thing.

[carolaa]

Here is an interview/debate with a couple of the 3rd party VP candidates:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/3/third_party_vp_candidates_matt_gonzalez

[Tom Wetmore]

...

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

But overall the scales tend to tip toward Biden.

I disagree there because Biden pretty much did as expected to whereas Palin exceeded expectations.

Yes, if I rode the Tour de France with Lance Armstrong he would do as expected and finish many hours ahead of me and if I finished at all I would exceed expectations. But to then conclude that just finishing without dying or serious injury that I won would be rather strange and hard to believe.

Palin won only if you grade her on a curve and grade Biden straight against a higher standard. That would be an unfair double standard. You are effectively saying "Give the little lady a break" and that is reflective of a sexist standard that judges women differently than men. Or alternatively you are simply grading them against their own respective past performance. That is not the way it works. They are competing against each other and compared to each other on this debate. That puts Biden ahead of her from the beginning and she never passed him and did not exceed his performance overall.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

Unlike sports, debate is subjective. When someone compares debate to sports they show their lack of understand of debate. Debate is graded by who got the most out of it. That is how a debate is won. The way that is measured is to look at the polls following a debate to see which way they go. Going into this debate Obama was ahead in the polls by 5.8 points when averaging all the polls out for the previous week. If the lead increases in the days immediately following the debate than it will be clear that Biden got more out of the debate. If that lead shrinks then it will show that Palin got more out of the debate. If the lead stays the same it will show the debate was a draw. That is the only way to objectively grade the debate. Other methods simply measure feelings which are too subjective.

[Dr. Shane]

Here are the ratings for the debate:

ABC 13,130,000

NBC 12,820,000

CBS 11,100,000

FOXNEWS 11,098,000

CNN 10,685,000

FOX 4,500,000

MSNBC 4,412,000

If one adds the FOX affiliates together with FOXNews that places them as #1 with 15,598,000. Impressive.

[John317]

Very impressive, I agree. CNN didn't do too well and MSNBC did even less well.

Apparently it means that more people watched this debate with Palin than watched the debate between McCain and Obama. I wonder why and what the effect of that will be.

[Neil D]

I am sitting on the sidelines, and noticing some differences...Tom tried to tell you by using the race anology...

The commentators are all saying Palin "did better" and "did better than expected in the debate". What they did not comment on was how she presented the her material. ABC was telling in that more than one 'neutral' voter/viewer said while she debated well, she had a poor grasp on how to effectively communicate the principles/ideas of her party. She was reciting from rote memory the ideas of how to combat certain arguements of Joe Biden.

Sorry guys, but you are still using your republican eye glasses and you are interpreting everything with republican filters....

And Shane, I am sorry, man...YOU ARE GOING TO VOTE REPUBLICAN AND WILL VOTE MCcAIN....

[Dr. Shane]

Well, my mentor, who is a life-long Democrat in Minnesota told me yesterday that after watching the VP debate he thinks he will be voting for McCain. I could hardly believe it. I told him that maybe this year we would be switching roles and he would be voting for the Republican and I would be voting for the Democrat.

[Tom Wetmore]

Unlike sports, debate is subjective. When someone compares debate to sports they show their lack of understand of debate. Debate is graded by who got the most out of it. That is how a debate is won.

And some people show their lack of understanding of a somewhat tongue-in-cheek analogy of comparative absurdity without considering the serious substantive analysis that followed. (In other words, read the second paragraph of my post again...) And no, true debates are not graded by who got the most out of it. It is all about persuasion, presenting your case and positions most effectively and persuasively which requires a grasp of the subject matter first and foremost and style second. You are confusing politics with debating. (By your measure, if the political audience was a bunch of drunken sailors, all Palin would have had to do to win anything in that arena would be to show a little leg and... and Biden would have lost no matter what...)

Originally Posted By: Shane

The way that is measured is to look at the polls following a debate to see which way they go.

And that is where you missed my point. I was evaluating the debate apart from the political impact. I am viewing it more for substance and true debate effectiveness. Measuring debate performance by the polling numbers is a very poor indicator of actual debate effectiveness and skill. I am well aware that the ultimate contest is political and the polls mean something quite significant in that regard. Unfortunately, a wink, a grin and a well rehearsed one-liner count more than substance with far too many in politics. That is why the debates have become just another campaign stump opportunity and resemble a real debate in form only. But my flagging confidence in the intelligence of American voters is reassured by the majority of polls about this debate that show more people have apparently grown weary of the cynical attempt to turn this election into a beauty contest wholly lacking in substance.

Tom

[Jeannieb43]

But my flagging confidence in the intelligence of American voters is reassured by the majority of polls about this debate that show more people have apparently grown weary of the cynical attempt to turn this election into a beauty contest wholly lacking in substance.

Tom

Hurrah! I too am glad more people are finally beginning to see through the flimsy shenanigans of the Repubs.

[Tom Wetmore]

Here are the ratings for the debate:

ABC 13,130,000

NBC 12,820,000

CBS 11,100,000

FOXNEWS 11,098,000

CNN 10,685,000

FOX 4,500,000

MSNBC 4,412,000

If one adds the FOX affiliates together with FOXNews that places them as #1 with 15,598,000. Impressive.

If you add the FOX affiliates together with FOXNews, to be fair you have to also join MSNBC and NBC since NBC and MSNBC have at least as close an affiliation as FOX and FOXNews. And that puts NBC/MSNBC in the #1 slot with 17,232,000.

The talking heads of FoxNoise, especially Bill'O the Clown, rant and rail against NBC and MSNBC as one and the same or at least with equal fervor as being the most liberal arch-enemy of all things conservative. And let's face it, FOXNoise-makers also tend to pit themselves against all other mainstream media, which includes ABC, CBS and CNN. That leaves the conservative news network, FOXNews and FOX, in a very distant last place 52,147,000 to 15,598,000. Despite the popularity of FOX among conservatives, the vast majority of Americans get their news elsewhere. The reasons should be fairly obvious to anyone not using the Republican Three Little Monkeys Filter...

Tom

[missionlady]

Quote:

cynical attempt to turn this election into a beauty contest wholly lacking in substance.

I'm sorry. I don't see that. Actually, I find that comment offensive.

I've listened to Sarah (she is my governor) and I heard a lot more substance from her than I have heard from Obama. And, yes to be fair, I have listened to Obama. Four years ago I thought I might be very likely to vote for him someday. Of course, that speech was supposed to be a general speech. But there has to be progression to substance.

But one of my biggest concerns with Senator Obama is his socialist views that he wants to impose on us. He and Senator Biden called it "fairness". What is fair about taking my hard earned money by force and giving it to someone that may not even be trying to work?

If we can just keep more of our own money, my husband and I will gladly give more of it to worthy causes. Come on, be honest, do you really trust the government welfare system to have good judgment when doling out your hard-earned money? I'd rather give it to ADRA, Adventist Community Services or a local church that has a good "Dorcas" department.

[Dr. Shane]

You are confusing politics with debating... I was evaluating the debate apart from the political impact.

Not at all. I competed in debate in High School. I understand it entirely. However a Presidential debate is not the same as a High School debate. A Presidential debate is all about politics. It is about winning the White House.

Now those that say Palin was rehearsed and repeating memorized lines are taking on the role of God. We don't know what was going on in her head. Only God knows that. How arrogant for anyone to claim to know as much as God Himself.

[Dr. Shane]

If you add the FOX affiliates together with FOXNews, to be fair you have to also join MSNBC and NBC since NBC and MSNBC have at least as close an affiliation as FOX and FOXNews. And that puts NBC/MSNBC in the #1 slot with 17,232,000.

[carolaa]

Here's the much-anticipated SNL spoof of the VP debate:

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/vp-debate-open-palin-biden/727421/

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

You are confusing politics with debating... I was evaluating the debate apart from the political impact.

Not at all. I competed in debate in High School. I understand it entirely...

Oh, OK. I wasn't aware of your High School debate experience.... Hmmm... ... Since you have already tried to peg me as blasphemously arrogant I guess I have nothing to lose by gently suggesting my debate knowledge and experience goes a bit beyond high school. I have judged high school debates. Standard law school curriculum includes a whole lot about debating in a real and practical sense, and even includes moot court appellate training and participation. (Kind of a sophisticated and specialize advanced high school debate...) But here is quick snapshot of a few relevant real life experience as a lawyer for close to a quarter century - I have participated in the full team effort to prepare a lawyer for his appellate arguments before the US Supreme Court (result - rare unanimous decision); reviewed and helped draft countless appellate and trial briefs; supervising and instructing trial lawyers and appellate advocates; not to mention developing and defending, verbally and in writing, countless legal opinions on a wide range of issues...

Originally Posted By: Shane

However a Presidential debate is not the same as a High School debate. A Presidential debate is all about politics. It is about winning the White House.

And Shane, that is the crux of the problem and part of my point. The temptation is to turn them into political theater that resembles debating superficially in form only. But that is a reflection of what politics have become - winning is everything and actually speaking to and discussing real issues seem to matter little and real substance, facts and truth seem to matter even less. And sadly as can be seen from your Republican reaction and that of FoxNoise polling results among their predominantly Republican viewers, those things apparently didn't really matter either in looking at this debate - scoring political points was all that counts. Depth and substance doesn't matter. Win at all costs no matter the foolishness of what results.

Originally Posted By: Shane

Now those that say Palin was rehearsed and repeating memorized lines are taking on the role of God. We don't know what was going on in her head. Only God knows that. How arrogant for anyone to claim to know as much as God Himself.

Some things just don't bear the dignity of a response...

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

The temptation is to turn them into political theater that resembles debating superficially in form only.

Tom

BINGO! That is what they are. In fact, the Presidential debate commission has been trying to get away from the dry debate format recently. In recent years they have been doing more of the town-hall and round-table format. Even this year, Obama and McCain were suppose to have more direct dialog than they did.

These guys aren't lawyers arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court. They are politicians in front of the American voters. If we are going to choose a winner by grading them with the debate criteria we may as well send them out on the basketball court for a game of one-on-one to see which is better at playing hoops. The best basketball player or best debater isn't necessarily going to be the best President. Thus, the one that most impacts the polls in their favor wins the debate.

[Dr. Shane]

Poll results for Rasmussen Daily Tracking remained unchanged Friday and Saturday after the debate. McCain picked up one point and went to 43% from 42% after the debate in the Gallup Daily Tracking poll. Obama remained at 50%. So using the polls as a measure, the debate was a tie with Palin getting a very slight gain for McCain. Both candidates put on a flawless performance.

[Neil D]

I've listened to Sarah (she is my governor) and I heard a lot more substance from her than I have heard from Obama. And, yes to be fair, I have listened to Obama. Four years ago I thought I might be very likely to vote for him someday. Of course, that speech was supposed to be a general speech. But there has to be progression to substance.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Drilling more will not relieve the problems of our current needs for around 7-10 years.

Actually the reason it takes 7-10 years is because of the legal challenges from environmental groups. If a law is passed saying that environmental groups have only 180 days to file such challenges and the courts must settle the challenges within another 180 days that will take care of the legal issues and reduce the time it takes to get oil out of the ground to about 1 to 3 years.

More over, additional drilling will generate more jobs and high-paying ones. (That means more tax revenue to fund alternative energy projects) It will decrease our trade deficit which will help strengthen the dollar.

[Woody]

I just heard that despite the bailouts ... that Obama wants to add trillions of dollars of extra programs. How do we afford all of his plans?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

How do we afford all of his plans?

Drill baby drill. More drilling, more tax revenue.

[Neil D]

I just heard that despite the bailouts ... that Obama wants to add trillions of dollars of extra programs. How do we afford all of his plans?

When I am creating a business, I have to pay money to get equipment before I get revenue from that business...When the energy programs are up and running, they will create good jobs, and will increase our tax base...And if we put the money in solar, and wind, and wave power, there's gonna CLEAN energy...not the dirty stuff that will take 10 years down the road to get to us...AND It can take days to get CLEAN energy up....as opposed to YEARS for the "drill baby drill" scenerio.

[Jeannieb43]

I just heard that despite the bailouts ... that Obama wants to add trillions of dollars of extra programs. How do we afford all of his plans?

He's going to start taxing the rich. Those who make more than $250,000 a year. Which is what should have been done in the first place. They ought to be supporting this country -- instead of being supported as "fat cats" by the Bush-y ideas.

[there buster]

Quote:

. Those who make more than $250,000 a year. Which is what should have been done in the first place.

Where have you been? People earning more than $150,000 a year already pay 60% of the taxes. The top 5% earn 35% of income but pay 60% of taxes.