Palin - Biden Debate

[Oleg Bach]

If you say so. I guess you must have some crystal-ball ability to see into the future that I don't possess. But then again, your definition of a "successful" political career requires nothing more than getting elected.

Oooh she got you on that one!

[guyser]

Expectations of Palin were so low all she had to do was get through it without a gaffe. She managed that well.

A bit hokey , but she was talking to middle america and from what I read the same people are tired of DC insiders.

Dont think anyone gained any votes from this . Biden didnt lose anyone either. His hammering on Bush kept the focus on Reps and the job they have done.

Biden wins the content portion, Palin the optics portion.

I have to admit I find her likeable even though beneath that veneer are some (to me) wacky ideas.

Although I find Joe more competent by a wide margin, something makes me want to count my fingers after shaking his hand.

[Oleg Bach]

If elected we may be counting our spare change.

[stevoh]

Palin seemed like a great lady to run into in the supermarket and have a chat about whats happening around town. Unlike during an interview, she was able to answer the questions she liked, rather than the moderators questions. This "dodge" meant no embarassing incidents like interviews with reporters. It seemed like she couldn't get past the climate change cause question fast enough.

Joe Biden seemed like a reasonably likeable politician with extensive experience and fairly typical boring political answers.

To me, it feels like most of Sarah's answers are scripted, and do not come from knowledge or understanding. When she talks from the heart, its believable. Otherwise, its like reading a teleprompter. Joe seemed to know what he was talking about, although I still can't figure out his point about McCains health care tax break.

So, all in all, not a game changer. Both did what they were supposed to do, played it safe, and as a result, probably not much effect on the election overall.

[Shady]

If you say so. I guess you must have some crystal-ball ability to see into the future that I don't possess. But then again, your definition of a "successful" political career requires nothing more than getting elected.

No crystal ball is needed. Just common sense. Governor Palin's political career has already been successful. Did you get that? GOVERNOR Palin. Meaning she's the current Governor of the state of Alaska.

[Liam]

Sarah destroyed the McCain/Obama debate on friday.

Maybe, but if the following numbers are to be believed, it also means a greater number of the public saw her get beaten:

CNN Biden 51 Palin 36

CBS Biden 46 Palin 21

Fox Biden 61 Palin 39

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2299

[Guest American Woman]

No crystal ball is needed. Just common sense. Governor Palin's political career has already been successful. Did you get that? GOVERNOR Palin. Meaning she's the current Governor of the state of Alaska.

I see you have the same strict criteria for "success" that requires only that one be elected and/or currently serving that b_c04 does. I guess that makes every politician who was every elected to anything "successful." a thousand times over.

In case you're still not getting it, Nixon was once the current president of the United States too. So yeah, a crystal ball would be needed, because one needs more than "common sense" to know someone's political career won't, at some point, "not work out" for them.

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe, but if the following numbers are to be believed, it also means a greater number of the public saw her get beaten:

My thoughts exactly. It's not a good thing for her and/or McCain that so many people were watching.

[guyser]

I guess you must have some crystal-ball ability to see into the future that I don't possess.

Nope, but as it stands now she is on everyones radar. Two years from now she will still be fresh, barring of course any major foul ups.

Considering McCain doesnt seem like an inspired choice from the right for various reasons, should mean she is the future.

Someone might come out of left...er right field and trump her, but as of now she looks to be the one come 2012.

Funny side note....I happen to read a predominanently right wing web site (its a gun web site after all) and someone posted how hollywood is advertising for a Palin look a like for a porn movie. The posts deriding the news as "disgusting" typical libtards" "how horrible people want to denigrate a furture VP or POTUS"......and then someone reminded them how virtually every single one of them call Hillary a C***, wanted to have her dead or worse for the last 15 years.

The cries..."that is different" Oh my, tis too funny. But then again, left webbies are no better.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Gov. Palin's "political career" has already worked out splendidly regardless of what happens in the election.

And proved that even a stuffed doll can pretend to be a vice-president

[GostHacked]

In other words...they are hardly reliable indicators at all....just ask John Kerry.

Alright, so what IS reliable then. If the polls were in the favour of your choice, would you be saying polls are just as irrelevant? I would guess so. Yes indeed just the final vote will matter.

You're trying too hard to sit on the fence...."hacking" an online poll is child's play with the scripting tools that I get paid to use every day.

Some someone who has something to gain, or who is bored and is killing time will partake in such a thing. Does not take many people. Just a lot of computers. And many people do pay attention and have faith in those polls. So with manipulation of the information, (don't deny that it does not exist), you can influence those votes. It's called propaganda! ... oh no wait .. Public Relations.

Yep...see John Edwards.

Well, if John is your type, I kinda prefer the ladies myself.

I have not watched much of these debates yet, going through it now. I am trying to get past her voice, which annoys the hell out of me. Palin seems to be giving more non answers than Biden so far.

American Woman

My thoughts exactly. It's not a good thing for her and/or McCain that so many people were watching.

Yeah because, they ramble on and you are left with a 'what?'. The question was ignored so they can campaign instead of debate.

[bush_cheney2004]

Alright, so what IS reliable then. If the polls were in the favour of your choice, would you be saying polls are just as irrelevant? I would guess so. Yes indeed just the final vote will matter.

Of course I would say they are unreliable...in all cases. It's not hard to figure out why this would be. But media pundits and advertisers need something to attract attention and fill in for the boredom. And to add further comedy, they will even discuss why the polling models were wrong after the election.

Some someone who has something to gain, or who is bored and is killing time will partake in such a thing. Does not take many people. Just a lot of computers. And many people do pay attention and have faith in those polls. So with manipulation of the information, (don't deny that it does not exist), you can influence those votes. It's called propaganda! ... oh no wait .. Public Relations.

Yes.....it is possible...but who gives a crap?

Well, if John is your type, I kinda prefer the ladies myself.

He is a lady.

[Shady]

He is a lady.

Soooo true!

God bless YouTube.

[Liam]

I don't find her folksiness genuine at all; maybe because it was forced to nauseating extremes. I'm small town too, I've even been to Wassilla, and I've just never, ever run into that many winks or that many "you betcha(s)." I think it gave her the impression that she's insincere too, but then I think it went beyond being "the impression" that she was-- I think she was. I honestly think she tried too hard to come across as 'just one of the Moms' and was really glad when Biden responded by stressing his role as a father and how meaningful that was. This idea that only a "mom" knows what it's like to be a parent is bull crap. She worked just like so many dad's do.

But if her political career doesn't work out, I'm sure she could find work if they ever make a sequel to "Fargo."

I just read a funny reaction to Palin's winks one woman had on another site: Here's what I thought when Palin "dropped" that first wink at us: "Did she just wink at us like she was America's cocktail waitress?"

[Guest American Woman]

I just read a funny reaction to Palin's winks one woman had on another site: Here's what I thought when Palin "dropped" that first wink at us: "Did she just wink at us like she was America's cocktail waitress?"

I'm glad I'm not the only one with such reactions. To read what people say here, they all find her so "likable." Even those who hate her views find her likable. Why, is what I'd like to know? I can only assume it's her "folksiness," which she seems to be playing up more and more. I'm not going to apologize for my dislike of her nor my criticisms. I don't want a possible POTUS that's folksy; I want one that's knowledgeable, and knows the proper protocol for dealing with heads of state. In that light, I put her "can I call you Joe?" in the same category as Bush's "Yo, Harper" or his giving the German chancellor a back rub. Who could forget the look she gave him? There's a time and a place for respect, and the VP/possible POTUS better, by golly, you bet'cha, *wink wink* realize that. Palin, apparently, doesn't.

To put it another way, if I'm suffering from a major illness, I don't want a "folksy" doctor, a "hockey mom/dad;" I want one who knows medicine, and I wouldn't be comforted by having one who had a "five week crash course," no matter how intense it was, no matter how "likable" he/she was-- and if I were in danger of having such a doctor "forced" on me, and that doctor was fine with forcing himself/herself on me, I wouldn't find him/her "likable." By the same token, I don't want a folksy hockey mom/dad dealing with a disastrous economy; I want one familiar with economics. I don't want someone who just had a crash course in meeting heads of state dealing with foreign affairs; I want someone who has been following foreign affairs all along, has already been interested in it, already has knowledge in that area. I don't want someone who looks to do God's work from a government office; I want someone whose faith in God in their private life is separated from my private life, my private life choices.

That Palin could be put in the position of possible POTUS is something I cannot, for the life of me, understand. I'm just heartened to see that the more people actually see and hear her, the higher Obama's ratings climb. I'm heartened to see that others who initially jumped on her bandwagon now feel the same way I do.

[kimmy]

Actually Online polls are a pretty good gauge to go by. Each IP address is recorded for the polls, you could only make one vote per IP address. Now this does not take into account that polls can be skewered any way you want. Also there is the possibility of using a proxy and voting by other peoples IP addresses to favour the vote one way or another. Kind of like how the Deibold electronic voting machines can be hacked.

The proof is in the pudding, Gost. Here's the CNN online poll quoted earlier in the thread:

From CNN:

Quick Vote

Who fared better in the vice presidential debate?

Sen. Joe Biden 74% 36986

Gov. Sarah Palin 23% 11417

Neither 3% 1294

Total Votes: 49697

...and here's traditional polls:

Maybe, but if the following numbers are to be believed, it also means a greater number of the public saw her get beaten:

CNN Biden 51 Palin 36

CBS Biden 46 Palin 21

Fox Biden 61 Palin 39

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2299

Still a decisive win for Biden, obviously. But the margins are 15, 25, 22 points, not the 51 points shown in the online poll. That's a huge discrepancy.

Even if the online poll does have some kind of mechanism to prevent someone from voting multiple times, they're still easily manipulated by activists or pranksters voting in blocks. (I sited some examples earlier: Matthew Sheppard: Time Man of the Year, Rory Fitzpatrick: NHL all-star, dumb-ass Winnipeg DJ: Top 10 Greatest Canadian, to point out a couple.) In each instance, it was a group with a common goal who tilted polls using block voting campaigns. *Any* "poll" where opinions are offered by respondees rather than solicited by pollsters is inherently unreliable for this reason.

In the case of the current US election, it is widely believed that Obama has a considerable edge amongst the demographic that is young and net-savvy and likely to volunteer their opinions in online polls. That is a factor that will tilt any online poll in a way that can't be assumed to translate to the electorate as a whole.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Still a decisive win for Biden, obviously.

Yes. Obviously. Which is exactly what the poll I posted showed. But I'm not surprised Palin supporters nit-picked about the numbers instead of the outcome, which was that the debate was, obviously, a decisive win for Biden.

[kimmy]

Yes. Obviously. Which is exactly what the poll I posted showed. But I'm not surprised Palin supporters nit-picked about the numbers instead of the outcome, which was that the debate was, obviously, a decisive win for Biden.

I was addressing the question of the accuracy of on-line polls, knucklehead.

Comparing your online poll to actual survey polls, one concludes that the online poll has potentially a +/- 26% margin of error, which means it's approximately accurate enough to determine whether it's day or night, but not much else.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

I was addressing the question of the accuracy of on-line polls, knucklehead.

Comparing your online poll to actual survey polls, one concludes that the online poll has potentially a +/- 26% margin of error, which means it's approximately accurate enough to determine whether it's day or night, but not much else.

-k

"Knucklehead?" You can't be serious. :lol:

Fact is, my poll showed the correct conclusion. To use your words, an obvious, decisive win for Biden.

[kimmy]

"Knucklehead?" You can't be serious. :lol:

Fact is, my poll showed the correct conclusion. To use your words, an obvious, decisive win for Biden.

The poll you posted was a statistical tie.

It's been demonstrated to have a margin of error of at least +/- 26% when compared to scientific polls, which makes the 51% margin of victory for Biden a statistical tie.

My point was, and remains, that online polls are useless. People who cite them are either naive or stupid.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

My point was, and remains, that online polls are useless. People who cite them are either naive or stupid.

They're none-the-less interesting, which is why I posted it, just as I stated. If you think I posted it as anything other than what it was, an interesting reaction to the debate, you're even more stupid than I thought you were. And that's saying something.

But in spite of all your time and effort to prove how useless it was, it correlated with the outcome: again, in your words, an obvious, decisive win for Biden.

Edited October 4, 2008 by American Woman

[blueblood]

i thought they both did well in the debate and kept it very civil. No knockout punches and no screwups, whoever won IMO is up to what ticket you support.

[betsy]

With that split screen, I bet a lot of viewers were focused on Palin even when it's Biden speaking. Biden's reaction (posture and expression) to some of Palin's witty punches indicate that this was quite unexpected.

Prior to the debate, the media made her into someone who don't know that much. One interview with Couric, Palin did not answer to Couric's direct question (one was about the kind of reading materials she peruse to catch up with foreign policy with Couric insisting that she name one specific example of reading material; the second was about naming another bill aside from Roe v Wade). After watching the debate, I now wonder if Sarah Palin purposefully led the media to paint her as such for it might have easily led the Democrats to underestimate her.

This woman led a merry debate. She has a sense of humor and seems like a nice person.

For those of you who had taped the show, check some of Biden's reaction to some of her punches. I could almost swear that there is some reluctant admiration for her in some of his reaction.

Edited October 5, 2008 by betsy

[Shady]

(one was about the kind of reading materials)

I'm suprised she didn't end the interview. That was a very insulting question. I've never heard it asked of Obama. Which newsapers does he read, other than the Daily Worker of course. They seem to treat her, and Alaska as some other planet.

For those of you who had taped the show, check some of Biden's reaction to some of her punches.

All he could do was smile. Especially when she brought up the taxes = patriotism, and Biden's vast criticism's of Obama.

As for debate polls, I can't help but laugh. Biden won the debate on points, but that doesn't necessarily translate to a win politically. As I've already stated the Bush/Gore debates as a perfect example. An even better example would be the Nixon/Kennedy debates.

[Guest American Woman]

Prior to the debate, the media made her into someone who don't know that much. One interview with Couric, Palin did not answer to Couric's direct question (one was about the kind of reading materials she peruse to catch up with foreign policy with Couric insisting that she name one specific example of reading material; the second was about naming another bill aside from Roe v Wade). After watching the debate, I now wonder if Sarah Palin purposefully led the media to paint her as such for it might have easily led the Democrats to underestimate her.

You can't possibly be serious. You actually wonder if Palin made herself out to be frighteningly lacking in knowledge just so the bar would be lowered so much that she wouldn't come across as a complete dolt during the VP debate? She lost a lot of support after those interviews, and rightfully so; support that hasn't been regained since the debates. Again, rightfully so. If you think she would purposely make herself out as someone "who doesn't know that much," I really have to wonder where you are coming from. Are you that desperate to excuse her lack of knowledge?

I don't think anyone "underestimated" her after the interviews, and if that had been the case, she would have 'won' the debate, which "obviously, and decisively" she didn't. She came across better in the debates because she didn't have to answer questions she had no answers to. She could stick to a script, which she obviously did. That didn't fool the majority of the viewers, though, since she most definitely did not win the debate-- and Obama's support continues to rise.