Wednesday, October 21st, 2020
 
 
 
Updates automatically
Twitter Link
CHN iOS App
 
NCAA
1967 1970

ECAC
1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1980 1986 1996 1997 2003 2005 2010

IVY
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978 1983 1984 1985 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2012 2014

Cleary Jell-O Mold
2002 2003 2005

Ned Harkness Cup
2003 2005 2008 2013
 
Brendon
Iles
Pokulok
Schafer
Syphilis

Debate analysis

Posted by ugarte 
Debate analysis
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: September 26, 2008 11:19PM

I don't want this to descend into partisan rancor - and if it does I apologize in advance. Regardless of how you feel about the underlying issues (to the extent that you can parse that out), how do you think the debate went.

It was interesting and a lot more substantive than I expected.

From my perspective, Obama clearly won the early financial crisis part of the debate. He effectively blamed the cause of the debate on the deregulation of the financial industry and painted McCain as a champion of that deregulation. (Again, I know some people think that Obama is wrong on the facts there but that is outside the scope of what I'm asking. Whether right or wrong, I think Obama made a convincing case.) I also think Obama did a good job minimizing the meaning of earmarks in the context of the cost of the war and other tax breaks.

On the foreign policy side, I'd call it something of a draw, which is sort of a win for Obama. I think McCain showed that he has knowledge and experience but I don't think he showed that Obama doesn't. The more contentious of McCain's accusations are easier to make when there isn't someone to respond. When he made them in a forum in which Obama could refute them immediately (he meaning of "no preconditions", for example) they lose some of their force.

I'm clearly an Obama partisan, so it is entirely possible that I'm seeing things through that prism and I'm curious as to how other people feel.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
Hostile Witness podcast
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: September 27, 2008 10:32AM

Leaving aside substance for a moment, I thought both of them had "style" problems. McCain's smile looks too much like a creepy old grimacing guy, and Obama kept waving his finger and wanting/trying to interrupt, as if refuting a point was more important than letting McCain finish. Obama also stammered a bit when excited about getting to a prepared point, and I thought McCain was overly and too frequently disingenuous when using memes like "defeat" to describe Obama's Iraq plan.

That having been said, I think this was McCain's debate to lose because foreign policy experience is supposedly his trump card over Obama. But as one commentator responded afterward to McCain's laundry list of 35 years of foreign crises, places he's visited, and dignitary name-dropping (many of which he mangled, by the way), "I was in Tbisli, too, but it doesn't make me right." I think Obama held his own, which in a debate McCain should be expected to win is a pretty strong showing, and the instant polls afterward certainly seem to agree. CBS's poll of undecideds showed 46% liked Obama more, and only 7% liked him less, after the debate than before.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Jordan 04 (---.nyc.res.rr.com)
Date: September 27, 2008 10:46AM

Beeeej
I think Obama held his own, which in a debate McCain should be expected to win is a pretty strong showing, and the instant polls afterward certainly seem to agree. CBS's poll of undecideds showed 46% liked Obama more, and only 7% liked him less, after the debate than before.

Well FOX News' text poll had McCain winning 82-16!
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: September 27, 2008 10:56AM

Jordan 04
Well FOX News' text poll had McCain winning 82-16!

I imagine there are less scientific ways of taking a political poll than 1) including only FOX News viewers and 2) asking people to text in order to be counted, but at the moment I'm having a hard time coming up with one.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Lauren '06 (206.12.54.---)
Date: September 27, 2008 11:48AM

Either I'm bitter or I haven't watched enough presidential debates in my life, but it sounded like the usual slogan-swapping to me. ("I saw this crisis coming years ago!" "Well I've been there, and this expert-guy has been my friend forever!" "Past eight years!" "Defeat in Iraq!";) I also enjoyed how they both refused to answer the "what wouldn't you be able to do in this economy" question for at least ten minutes.

McCain got off more than a few "Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand"s, but I thought they fell flat, and Obama did a good job characterizing McCain's statements as unfairly spinning his actual position. Maybe because he interrupted more.

To be honest, I'm not sure why I watched. Hyper-politicizing everything fills me with despair, and that's exactly what debates do. Ugh.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.nwrknj.east.verizon.net)
Date: September 27, 2008 02:17PM

Beeeej
Jordan 04
Well FOX News' text poll had McCain winning 82-16!

I imagine there are less scientific ways of taking a political poll than 1) including only FOX News viewers and 2) asking people to text in order to be counted, but at the moment I'm having a hard time coming up with one.

Well, maybe we could get a poll of people signed up for special alerts from the Drudge Report.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: September 27, 2008 07:44PM

Jordan 04
Beeeej
I think Obama held his own, which in a debate McCain should be expected to win is a pretty strong showing, and the instant polls afterward certainly seem to agree. CBS's poll of undecideds showed 46% liked Obama more, and only 7% liked him less, after the debate than before.

Well FOX News' text poll had McCain winning 82-16!
If 16% of the people watching on FOX thought Obama won, that's trouble for McCain.

The snap CBS poll had Obama winning (IIRC) 40-22 with 38% calling it a draw.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
Hostile Witness podcast
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: RichH (76.28.11.---)
Date: September 29, 2008 12:44AM

Section A Banshee
Either I'm bitter or I haven't watched enough presidential debates in my life, but it sounded like the usual slogan-swapping to me. ("I saw this crisis coming years ago!" "Well I've been there, and this expert-guy has been my friend forever!" "Past eight years!" "Defeat in Iraq!";)

Yeah, but it makes for a pretty good drinking game.

Political events become more fun when you treat them like sporting events. While in Ithaca for Homecoming, we didn't have a good answer as to "where can we watch the debate with a crowd and have fun doing it?" We had a crowd at "bar" on the Commons (also had the Mets & Brewers on), and other reports say that the debate was on in Pixel in C-Town.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Lauren '06 (206.12.54.---)
Date: September 29, 2008 01:23AM

Ah, but the ultimate drinking game will be the VP debates this week. I expect to be thoroughly entertained.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: billhoward (---.hsd1.nj.comcast.net)
Date: September 29, 2008 09:03AM

Heard 30 minutes on radio driving back the hotel then saw most of rest on TV.

Radio: Seems like a reprise of the Nixon-Kennedy debate of 1960 where radio listeners couldn't see Nixon's five-o'clock shadow or dark suit that merged into the background or the creepy look. So on radio, Nixon then and McCain now seemed okay.

TV: McCain seemed unhappy to be there when not speaking.

Overall: One of these two guys is going to be president? What a disappointment. They seemed to be bickering over who did or didn't waste $7 billion. Not much useful to say on either side. McCain may have gotten in a few licks mentioning "naivite" on the part of that kid Obama. Obama at least offered up one program that was so important it wouldn't get cut regardless, one of the few specifics I heard.

I wondered if McCain would turn into a hothead when Obama got under his collar; didn't happen. I wondered if Obama would sound like Michael Dukakas II Policy Wonk who'd put you to sleep with long discourses; he didn't fall into that trap but he also didn't have many memorably lines beyond "what you say is liberal, John, is just me standing up to George Bush's wrong ideas."

Now on to the VP debate. I hope Tina -- sorry, Palin -- doesn't melt down and start babbling again. It's funny when it's done for effect on SNL and pretty embarrassing when someone high up can't formulate a thought under pressure. From there it's one step beyond to babbling like the


Miss Teen USA contestant from South Carolina.

If it was a draw as some suggested, this was the the debate that probably played best to McCain's strength - foreign policy.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: September 29, 2008 12:22PM

I made a concious choice not to watch the debate even though I am thoroughly engrossed by politics and the election. Realistically there is absolutely nothing that Obama or McCain could say that would change my vote in November. So watching would be either an exercise in cheerleading or lambasting the other guy.

As is usual, opinions of the debate "results" track pretty well with people's partisan leanings. From what I have read and heard in analysis, strong conservatives tend to think that McCain had the better of things handily while liberals tend to think that Obama was superior. Neither had any obvious winning or losing moments. How this will play to those who are on the fence is unclear to me. I am pretty skeptical about the immediate "undecided" polls that the various outlets perform right after the debate. Only time will tell. (Plus, there's been some serious gaming of polls lately in terms of weighting by party affiliation.)
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Robb (---.ip.mcleodusa.net)
Date: September 29, 2008 11:07PM

KeithK
I made a concious choice not to watch the debate even though I am thoroughly engrossed by politics and the election.

Same here - I felt that a nice walk on Newport Beach was a much higher priority! :)
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: September 30, 2008 01:06AM

Robb
KeithK
I made a concious choice not to watch the debate even though I am thoroughly engrossed by politics and the election.

Same here - I felt that a nice walk on Newport Beach was a much higher priority! :)

At 3am Central European Time, I just opted for sleep. :-)

 
___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: DeltaOne81 (---.itt.com)
Date: September 30, 2008 11:31AM

I watch them to see if anyone screws up or to form my opinion of how they did. But, like Keith, agree that it'd never change my mind - although from the opposite side.

Independent voters seem to have come down on Obama's side by a modest margin (10 points?), but it may have been an expectations thing. Where all he had to do was show he could be presidential and well-versed. I think he did that, even if you disagree with him - and McCain's "what you don't understand" were for the most part proved untrue.

I think it really is an expectations game though - because I expected more of Obama and less of McCain, so I came away thinking McCain did the better job. Obama missed a bunch of punches and McCain landed a few more - at least in the upfront economic portion - than I expected.


If that's true, one thing Palin's got going for her this week is the expectations game is long since won. If she puts together one coherent sentence - and avoids any massive flubs - she'll exceed common expectations it seems.

If she holds her own on ever a modest portion of the subjects, it'll go a ways towards undoing much of the damage that the Couric, etc interviews have done.

Heck, maybe that was the plan all along.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Killer (---.fidelity.com)
Date: September 30, 2008 05:35PM

Just wondering, what with Sarah Palin's "hockey mom", and I guess what can best be called "soon-to-be-hockey-mom-in-law" credentials, does this thread risk being the first to be split by Beeeej and moved to the Men's Hockey forum?
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: RichH (76.28.11.---)
Date: October 01, 2008 03:27AM

Killer
Just wondering, what with Sarah Palin's "hockey mom", and I guess what can best be called "soon-to-be-hockey-mom-in-law" credentials, does this thread risk being the first to be split by Beeeej and moved to the Men's Hockey forum?

Lord knows that it's probably more relevant there than yet another Al & RichS pissing match.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Rita (---.hsd1.in.comcast.net)
Date: October 02, 2008 10:24PM

Section A Banshee
Ah, but the ultimate drinking game will be the VP debates this week. I expect to be thoroughly entertained.

What is the count on the number of times Sarah Palin (and now Joe Biden) have said "Maverick"? drunk. The past few minutes have been quite dangerous for whoever had that phrase tonight. yark
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: October 02, 2008 10:48PM

Rita
Section A Banshee
Ah, but the ultimate drinking game will be the VP debates this week. I expect to be thoroughly entertained.

What is the count on the number of times Sarah Palin (and now Joe Biden) have said "Maverick"? drunk. The past few minutes have been quite dangerous for whoever had that phrase tonight. yark

*belch* I lost count at eleventy-fleen.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: October 03, 2008 12:13AM

Biden was a little clunky but had a few excellent moments first, when he repeated the ways in which McCain will be exactly like Bush; second where he listed all the ways McCain was wrong about the war; third, where he listed the issues on which McCain is anything but a maverick. In a debate where I think very little will resonate, those points were made forcefully and, I hope, effectively.

Palin? Was the bar really set so low that this was considered an acceptable performance? When she didn't like a question she babbled some nonsense about energy. When she decided to stay on topic she started every answer with a minute of folksy, empty throat-clearing riddled with homespun cliche. I get that she was going for a down-home attitude but I found it incredibly cloying and artificial.

The pundits seem to be giving this to Palin but as far as I can tell it is because they are grading on a curve. Biden was more on topic, was more substantive both on his own policies and the McCain policies that he opposes and was much more human than I think people expected of him.

These same experts completely whiffed on the analysis of the first Presidential debate and I suspect that they are now 0 for 2. I give the round to Biden.

The CBS News flash poll gives the VP debate to Biden 46% - 21%.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
Hostile Witness podcast
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Lauren '06 (206.12.54.---)
Date: October 03, 2008 03:43AM

Beeeej
Rita
Section A Banshee
Ah, but the ultimate drinking game will be the VP debates this week. I expect to be thoroughly entertained.

What is the count on the number of times Sarah Palin (and now Joe Biden) have said "Maverick"? drunk. The past few minutes have been quite dangerous for whoever had that phrase tonight. yark

*belch* I lost count at eleventy-fleen.
Thank God Biden finally came out with a "shut up, he's not a maverick" spiel after the eleventy-fleenth time she said it. And I'm tired of writers who say calling Palin's voice "shrill" is sexist. It's shrill. Nails-on-a-chalkboard shrill.

You know what would be great? Debate pop-up video, where people go back and check the accuracy of everyone's statistics and other bullet points and stick them right up on the screen while they're being said. I'd be really curious on a lot of the details on both sides of this one. Many numbers were thrown around.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: nr53 (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: October 03, 2008 03:58AM

I probably should have posted this earlier but I didn't think about it until now. We had some fun playing bingo for the debates.

[www.newsweek.com]

I hope they do that for the other ones coming up. I found it actually made me pay more attention to what they're saying to see if I could mark it down. Sadly though, I didn't win.
 
Re: Debate analysis - Biden vs. Palin
Posted by: billhoward (---.hsd1.nj.comcast.net)
Date: October 03, 2008 08:39AM

Yes, the bar was set so low this was an acceptable performance by Palin. She made no gaffes that the SNL scriptwriters could use verbatim.

But as to the larger issue: Did Sarah Palin seem a person you want a heartbeat away from taking over for a guy who's old enough to be her father (or in the ever-expanding Palin family, a guy old enough to be her grandfather)? I didn't think so before and don't now. More importantly, I also believe that's the take-away for undecideds who might have been swayed.

Joe Biden didn't enunciate well at times, his sentences were tongue-tied in the way Palin's complete throughts have been tongue-tied, but he got his points across. He spoke powerfully about the loss of his wife in the accident and had an excellent closer with the "god bless our troops" line. Plus what he had to say resounded with mainstream voters better.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/03/2008 10:13AM by billhoward.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Jordan 04 (155.72.24.---)
Date: October 03, 2008 02:44PM

The veep debate didn't change the course of anything, so Obama continues to seemingly be on his way to a wide victory. It will be interesting to see how this effects next Tuesday, as being well behind and on his "home turf" (town hall) may force McCain to be uber-aggressive and feisty.

With greater public speaking or debating skills, Palin could have pulled off something impressive last night. However, given her dearth in these areas, I thought it came across as it was -- a regurgitation of talking points fed to her endlessly during "debate camp".
 
Re: Debate analysis - Biden vs. Palin
Posted by: RichH (---.northropgrumman.com)
Date: October 03, 2008 04:52PM

Oh, the game of lowered expectations is an interesting one. I think at the end, you could hear both parties release a sigh of relief. Palin didn't drool on herself and for the most part spoke in complete sentences with subjects, verbs, and predicates (dropping 'g's is folksy!). Biden stayed on message (and was concise!), didn't condescend or resort to sarcasm, and genuinely appeared to be pleased to debate Palin respectfully.

To me, the media reaction is the SNL target for this debate. "Hooray! She didn't embarrass herself again! Amazing performance!" Look at it. Palin seemed like she was there for a final exam in debate class, and Biden seemed to be running for Vice President of the United States. At least Palin's handlers may have realized that they don't have to keep her in a snow-globe 24-7.

And the folksiness angle? Can we stop this please? Two elections have given us a president based on the "I could have a beer with this guy" metric, and look where it's gotten us. I WANT someone better and smarter than me in that office. We're electing leaders not buddies.

OK. You want someone "folksy?" How about creating a voter-elected cabinet-level position. Secretary of Folksiness. They can go on TV every week and lay down all the "oh gollys" "fer chripes sakes" "you betchas" and "dern tootins" to fill up our gullets. They can go on an "Applebees tour" every quarter to hang out with those people who vote that way. Two-way communication. The SOF can update the people on what the executive branch is up to in plain-speak "one-of-us" language, and report back to the president what the pulse of the people is. Maybe host a variety show or something. They can do that while the smart, boring president does the boring paperwork and boring decision-making. Heck, expand the Press Secretary position to do that folksy stuff for the cameras.

Frankly, an analysis of the current administration probably reveals that this is the sort of setup they have anyway. Bush dances for the cameras and clears brush, and Cheney does all the grown-up work.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/03/2008 04:56PM by RichH.
 
Re: Debate analysis - Biden vs. Palin
Posted by: Lauren '06 (206.12.54.---)
Date: October 03, 2008 06:01PM

Rich, will you be finding yourself in the pacific northwest anytime soon? I need to buy you at least fifteen beers for that post.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: ftyuv (---.techtarget.com)
Date: October 06, 2008 05:24PM

Okay, someone has to point out the irony of rewarding a post that argues against the "I could have a beer with this guy" argument by buying the guy who wrote it fifteen beers. **]


Anyway, I completely agree with you, but you might be preaching to the crowd. There are various polls that point to Dem-leaning voters saying they consider issues more important, and GOP-leaning voters saying they consider "character" more important. Personally, I think electing someone based on how nice they are makes about as much sense as a toad in a volcano, but I guess that just betrays my elitist east-coast mentality.

One thing I don't understand is how Palin gets all of the "down to earth" points. The lady lives in a state so sparsely populated that 19 cities have more people -- that's the cities proper, not their metro regions -- and so rich that its tax rate is negative. She hunts moose and flies in her personal water-landing airplane... how many people in America actually fit that demographic? Biden takes the train to work every day, but somehow hunting animals in the tundra is more in touch with people's everday lives. And sorry, but how does being governor of Alaska make her qualified for radical changes in energy policy? Seems to me that if anything, it would make her more aligned with the problem than the solution.

Oh, crap. I meant to point out a small irony, and I ended up on a rant. Look at what I've become.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: October 07, 2008 03:52AM

There's also the irony that the last guy to win the presidency on the "guy I could have a beer with" demographic swore off alcohol decades ago.

 
___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Killer (---.fidelity.com)
Date: October 07, 2008 11:56AM

Matt Damon posed a question that I'd also like to hear answered, namely, just how old does Palin think the world actually is? I agree with him that we should not entrust the nuclear codes to someone whose understanding of science somehow allows for a world that is between six and twenty thousand years old, and who wants intelligent design to be given significant (maybe even equal) weight in science classes. Hey, if she pitches herself as an "expert" on energy, yet buys buys into the "young earth" theory, where exactly did all those fossil fuels come from?
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: October 07, 2008 12:14PM

Killer
Matt Damon posed a question that I'd also like to hear answered, namely, just how old does Palin think the world actually is? I agree with him that we should not entrust the nuclear codes to someone whose understanding of science somehow allows for a world that is between six and twenty thousand years old, and who wants intelligent design to be given significant (maybe even equal) weight in science classes. Hey, if she pitches herself as an "expert" on energy, yet buys buys into the "young earth" theory, where exactly did all those fossil fuels come from?
In what possible way does one's views on evolution or the age of earth have any relevance to energy policy? If you're a geologist searching for oil theories about how the oil was created/deposited matter in where you look for it. But for a politician? Where and when to allow exploration and extraction, the royalties you charge, how and to what degree you encourage alternative sources, these are all things in the here and now for which evolution/creation have absolutely no bearing.

Yes, I know you're trying to use her beliefs in this area as a proxy to say "she's a stupid, religious rube". Then just say that. Don't claim that there's actually some real policy reason for the question.

You actually listen to Matt Damon's political opinions and analysis? Seriously? Why?
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: RichH (155.104.37.---)
Date: October 07, 2008 12:58PM

KeithK
You actually listen to Matt Damon's political opinions and analysis? Seriously? Why?

Probably because Killer agrees with him. It's easy and natural to latch on to anyone saying what you're thinking if they have the advantage of using whatever fame they have to get on the TV. Is it any different than listening to any particular blogger? Keith's same question could be asked of any of the flapping jaws on TV. We're all assumed to be at least potential voters here...Jim Lehrer, Matt Damon, Sean Hannity, and Killer are all allowed to ask questions of our candidates in whatever forum they can. Maybe they won't get answered...and I'll listen and think about things fellow voters have to say as long as it's reasonably intelligent and relevant. ("Why are you so spunky?" won't get my attention)

Funny quote in a story I read about tonight's debate:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/07/MN2613CEGL.DTL
The good news about town hall debates: "The candidates tend to answer the questions more directly," said Mitchell McKinney, an associate professor at the University of Missouri who has studied the questions posed at town hall forums. "It's one thing to ignore what Jim Lehrer is saying, but quite another if you're seen as ignoring the question of an actual voter."

Wait...so Jim Lehrer isn't an actual voter? Why is it OK to ignore his question and not Lurlene from Arkansas?

That said, a thought relating to the content of Killer's post can be rooted in Keith Olbermann's most recent "Special Comment." There's an old lady who shot herself in the chest rather than be evicted (from K.O.'s comment) thanks to the mortgage mess we're in. We're in at least two wars, we have no real solution to a growing energy crisis, and the world's economies are crumbling in front of our eyes. Yet you still want to know most desperately how old she thinks the Earth is? Of anything you could ask her, THAT'S the one you choose??

And the candidates themselves...they're talking about the past friends each candidate has? Enough of that petty political bullshit. This isn't the time for it. There are crises all around us, and we still continue to be blind to it in our overall political discourse.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2008 01:01PM by RichH.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: October 07, 2008 02:27PM

RichH
KeithK
You actually listen to Matt Damon's political opinions and analysis? Seriously? Why?

Probably because Killer agrees with him.
Ya think? The "Why?" was a rhetorical question. But then, my opinion of Matt Damon is pretty well summarized by his prtrayal in Team America.

RichH
Wait...so Jim Lehrer isn't an actual voter? Why is it OK to ignore his question and not Lurlene from Arkansas?
But Lehrer isn't just a voter. He's a professional journalists. People expect a different kind of response to "ordinary people" than they do to professional journalists.

RichH
Yet you still want to know most desperately how old she thinks the Earth is? Of anything you could ask her, THAT'S the one you choose??

And the candidates themselves...they're talking about the past friends each candidate has? Enough of that petty political bullshit. This isn't the time for it. There are crises all around us, and we still continue to be blind to it in our overall political discourse.
As I said, these things are used as proxies. Young earth says "she's a dumb religious nut". Bill Ayers says "he's a radical leftist who hates America". If a candidate uses code I understand it because they don't want to offend large swaths of the electorate. When someone unaffiliated with a campaign does it it's really frustrating to me.

Why do we talk about this bullshit instead of "the issues"? Because most of the people who care about the issues pretty much made up their minds who to vote for six months ago. Those who haven't yet are not going to be swayed by the issues. Besides, if there is a government solution to the financial crisis it's not going to be one that a campaign can explain to the average, rationally ignorant voter.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: RichH (---.northropgrumman.com)
Date: October 07, 2008 02:51PM

ftyuv
Okay, someone has to point out the irony of rewarding a post that argues against the "I could have a beer with this guy" argument by buying the guy who wrote it fifteen beers.

Well, without getting too into the typical Alannis Morrisette referencing lesson about what is/isn't ironic, I don't think it's a big irony per se. It would've been moreso if I were asking for Banshee's vote.

In short: Dude! Shut up! You're gonna ruin my shot at getting fifteen beers!

Bender
The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention. Now that...is...irony!
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: RichH (---.northropgrumman.com)
Date: October 07, 2008 03:33PM

KeithK
But Lehrer isn't just a voter. He's a professional journalists. People expect a different kind of response to "ordinary people" than they do to professional journalists.

Well, I don't. OK, it's one thing to having a print journalist take an interview and form their words into an essay making a political portrait or statement about a politician's historical failings, hypocrisies, or positive attributes. But in a live debate, the moderator is acting as the voters' proxy. The candidates ARE talking to "ordinary people" not the "media elite" to use a buzzword I can't stand. The role of a moderator of a debate is to be a stand-in for us.

Why have we just accepted that it's OK to be talked to like 2 year-olds? Simply because that's how George has done it for 9 years? I'm tired of listening to candidate statements that are essentially right out of 4th grade civics class. "Freedom, liberty, democracy, maverick." Why don't candidates talk to us all the time like we, the voters, are adults?


Why do we talk about this bullshit instead of "the issues"? Because most of the people who care about the issues pretty much made up their minds who to vote for six months ago.

This is a very good point, and I cede that to you. But six months ago, we weren't in an economic free-fall. The climate is different now than it was in August, even. This is an ideal opportunity to find out each candidate's vision and plans for this altogether new stage of a big crisis. Even decided voters want to know that. Even undecided voters are pretty freaked out about "what happens next??" and "Whatchu gonna do to help us?"

IMO, the primary season was the time to find out "just who IS Barack Obama??" Because if we don't know that by now, what the hell have I been watching the past 18 months?

Tonight's debate should be all set-up for the candidates to discuss differing plans for this looming economic tumble. Instead, I'm sure we'll hear more about Bill Ayers and Charles Keating. Because the 24-hour news people love following shiny objects and saying "ohhh, SNAP!" about shit that is slung.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.net)
Date: October 07, 2008 03:54PM

jtwcornell91
There's also the irony that the last guy to win the presidency on the "guy I could have a beer with" demographic swore off alcohol decades ago.
Dude, get with the program. Irony is for the Eastern media elites.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: djk26 (65.91.169.---)
Date: October 07, 2008 04:49PM

RichH
Wait...so Jim Lehrer isn't an actual voter?

You probably know this already, RichH, but, actually, Jim Lehrer DOESN'T vote.

Here's a transcript of an interview with Larry King where Lehrer talks about not voting.

Personally, I encourage everyone to vote, especially someone who has seen the candidates up close. Even if you want to vote for someone other than the two of them, or "none of the above."
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: ugarte (---.z75-46-65.customer.algx.net)
Date: October 07, 2008 05:29PM

djk26
RichH
Wait...so Jim Lehrer isn't an actual voter?

You probably know this already, RichH, but, actually, Jim Lehrer DOESN'T vote.
In that case, I'm surprised that they answered his questions at all. The nerve of that fucking guy, wasting our time like that.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
Hostile Witness podcast
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: October 07, 2008 05:30PM

RichH
KeithK
Why do we talk about this bullshit instead of "the issues"? Because most of the people who care about the issues pretty much made up their minds who to vote for six months ago.

This is a very good point, and I cede that to you. But six months ago, we weren't in an economic free-fall. The climate is different now than it was in August, even. This is an ideal opportunity to find out each candidate's vision and plans for this altogether new stage of a big crisis. Even decided voters want to know that. Even undecided voters are pretty freaked out about "what happens next??" and "Whatchu gonna do to help us?"
In theory I agree with you. But in reality of a political campaign such substantive responses don't meet the risk/reward standard. Decided voters may want to know how the candidates will react to the crisis but the candidates aren't speaking to them because (aside from fundraising) there isn't any need to convince them. The undecided are likely to be swayed more by character and leadership qualities than by the details of how you would regulate this or bailout that. It kind of sucks but that's what the current election "market" seems to want. It's possible that a candidate could get elected by being a policy wonk and explaining to the American people what he would do but it hasn't happened yet so politicians , who are conservative (risk-averse) by nature, generally dont' try it.


IMO, the primary season was the time to find out "just who IS Barack Obama??" Because if we don't know that by now, what the hell have I been watching the past 18 months?
The majority of people in this country are not either 1) democrat primary voters or 2) political junkies. Those people probably did not learn who Barrack Obama is because they weren't paying attention six months ago. The majority of the electorate starts paying attention after Labor Day.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: October 07, 2008 05:33PM

djk26
Personally, I encourage everyone to vote, especially someone who has seen the candidates up close. Even if you want to vote for someone other than the two of them, or "none of the above."
I disagree. I fully encourage people to exercise their right not to vote if they aren't informed. Every extra voter dilutes my opinion. I don't believe in forcing someone not to vote or preventing them from voting but that's different.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: ugarte (---.z75-46-65.customer.algx.net)
Date: October 07, 2008 05:36PM

KeithK
It's possible that a candidate could get elected by being a policy wonk and explaining to the American people what he would do but it hasn't happened yet so politicians , who are conservative (risk-averse) by nature, generally dont' try it.
The last time someone tried to get elected by being straightforward about policy, he promised to raise everyone's taxes. Anyone heard from VP Mondale recently?

I'd appreciate it if the candidates would agree to give substantive answers to questions on the condition that (a) the answers would be published in a smart person's magazine like The Economist* or Foreign Affairs and (b) other, more mainstream outlets were not allowed to discuss the answers in front of the stupids - especially to translate it for them. This ban would extend to the candidates.

I know all of the reasons that this is condescending, unconstitutional and impractical and I don't even really wish that it were true, but I do so hate soundbite campaigning. The person who wins this election will be able to declare war and the job is sold like "New, Improved Tide with 75% more CHANGE AND/OR ICONOCLASM!"

*Sarah Palin's fave! (Sorry.)

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
Hostile Witness podcast
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: RichH (---.northropgrumman.com)
Date: October 07, 2008 05:38PM

KeithK
The majority of people in this country are not either 1) democrat primary voters or 2) political junkies.

Well, I'm neither (1) nor (2). I only pay attention because I'm a comedy junkie, and I'd like to know what The Daily Show, Colbert Report, The Onion, and SNL are talking about when they make their scathing political discourse.

Yay, fake news!
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: ugarte (---.z75-46-65.customer.algx.net)
Date: October 08, 2008 11:12AM

So, my friends, what did you think? I think that one won the evening. The format, supposedly McCain's strength - and, in person it might be - didn't seem like his strength. He looked frail, crabby, awkward and old.

I'd talk about substance but other than McCain promising both huge spending cuts and to buy all of the bad mortgages in the country, there wasn't really any new substance to speak of. What we are left with is intangibles and I think what came across from McCain was "get off of my lawn" while Obama seemed empathetic.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
Hostile Witness podcast
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: RichH (155.104.37.---)
Date: October 08, 2008 11:33AM

ugarte
So, my friends, what did you think? I think that one won the evening.

I'm still hungover from the "My friends" drinking game I played. Luckily my opponent had "fundamental." And please, show some respect. You should really capitalize That One's name.

[www.thatone08.com]
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Jordan 04 (---.host.starwoodhotels.com)
Date: October 08, 2008 11:40AM

RichH
ugarte
So, my friends, what did you think? I think that one won the evening.

I'm still hungover from the "My friends" drinking game I played. Luckily my opponent had "fundamental." And please, show some respect. You should really capitalize That One's name.

[www.thatone08.com]

Did you come up with rules on the fly for "overhead projector"?
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Rita (---.agry.purdue.edu)
Date: October 08, 2008 01:09PM

I thought Tom Brokaw had the two best questions in the "follow-up" part of the debate.
Paraphrasing...

1) Do you think that health care is a right, responsibility or privelege?

2) If elected, who would you consider for the position of Treasury Secretary.

I was surprised that neither candidate had a solid short list of candidates. Warren Buffet was mentioned by both McCain and Obama. I just thought with the economy tanking like it is, they would have a more concrete idea of who to put in that position and why.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: October 08, 2008 01:49PM

Rita
I thought Tom Brokaw had the two best questions in the "follow-up" part of the debate.
Paraphrasing...

1) Do you think that health care is a right, responsibility or privelege?

2) If elected, who would you consider for the position of Treasury Secretary.

I was surprised that neither candidate had a solid short list of candidates. Warren Buffet was mentioned by both McCain and Obama. I just thought with the economy tanking like it is, they would have a more concrete idea of who to put in that position and why.

My impression is that Phil Gramm was on McCain's shortlist, but he'd never admit that in front of fifty million viewers right now.

I also thought it was interesting that he mentioned Meg Whitman as a potential candidate because of her entrepreneurial success about 24 hours after eBay cut 10% of its workforce.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: October 08, 2008 01:54PM

Rita
I was surprised that neither candidate had a solid short list of candidates. Warren Buffet was mentioned by both McCain and Obama. I just thought with the economy tanking like it is, they would have a more concrete idea of who to put in that position and why.
Watching the financial crisis play out it seems pretty clear to me that very few of the folks in Washington have much idea what to do at the moment. Given this it doesn't surprise me too much that the candidates, neither of which is an expert on economics, don't know who to tap for Treasury or how to "fix" things (assuming that the government even can).

On top of that things have been developing rather quickly over the last month. It's hard to predict right now what things will look like in January.

I agree that a strong, clear message on what to do would be a benefit to either candidate.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Jordan 04 (---.host.starwoodhotels.com)
Date: October 08, 2008 02:11PM

I'm sure each candidate has a shortlist in mind, but the way the game is played these days, if you haven't vetted those folks 110%, you don't actually answer the question. The last thing either candidate wants or needs is a string of stories coming out over the next few days about skeletons in his potential Treasury Secretary's closet.
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: ftyuv (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: October 08, 2008 06:37PM

RichH
ftyuv
Okay, someone has to point out the irony of rewarding a post that argues against the "I could have a beer with this guy" argument by buying the guy who wrote it fifteen beers.

Well, without getting too into the typical Alannis Morrisette referencing lesson about what is/isn't ironic, I don't think it's a big irony per se. It would've been moreso if I were asking for Banshee's vote.

In short: Dude! Shut up! You're gonna ruin my shot at getting fifteen beers!

Bender
The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention. Now that...is...irony!

Actually, I use it ironically. "Oh, sure, I could have a beer with that guy! :-|"

In short: I've been pwned :(
 
Re: Debate analysis
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.nyc.res.rr.com)
Date: October 08, 2008 10:22PM

Jordan 04
I'm sure each candidate has a shortlist in mind, but the way the game is played these days, if you haven't vetted those folks 110%, you don't actually answer the question.
Well, except for... never mind, it's just too easy.
 

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login