The Final Debate
Thank God for snap polling. Kos is right. It's the best develop in presidential debate coverage since the invention of television.
The pundits clearly wanted to give this one to John McCain. They want a close election, and if left to their own devices, I think most of them would have declared McCain the winner. You could tell in the immediate post debate coverage that many of them were leaning that way. But they hedged their bets. They held back. And they did so because they knew that any minute the results of several snap polls and focus groups would be released and they might well show Obama to be the winner.
And sure enough they did, by huge margins:
CNN...................................Obama 53%, McCain 22%
CBS....................................Obama 58%, McCain 31%
MediaCurves.......................Obama 60%, McCain 30% (among independents)
MSNBC Focus Group...........Obama 20, McCain 7 (of 27 Missouri undecided voters)
The bottom line is that Obama was more substantive, more versed in policy, and he came across as more intelligent, more reasonable, and more likable. That's why he's winning.
The pundits clearly wanted to give this one to John McCain. They want a close election, and if left to their own devices, I think most of them would have declared McCain the winner. You could tell in the immediate post debate coverage that many of them were leaning that way. But they hedged their bets. They held back. And they did so because they knew that any minute the results of several snap polls and focus groups would be released and they might well show Obama to be the winner.
And sure enough they did, by huge margins:
CNN...................................Obama 53%, McCain 22%
CBS....................................Obama 58%, McCain 31%
MediaCurves.......................Obama 60%, McCain 30% (among independents)
MSNBC Focus Group...........Obama 20, McCain 7 (of 27 Missouri undecided voters)
The bottom line is that Obama was more substantive, more versed in policy, and he came across as more intelligent, more reasonable, and more likable. That's why he's winning.
posted by A.L. at 10:43 PM
17 Comments:
Preach it. And the snap polls seem to be sparing us the stupidity of spin room interviews ad nauseum. On CNN they did give Bill Bennett the first opportunity to cast his spin. Later they interviewed Hillary Clinton and then McCain campaign chair. But soon the snap polls made it clear who the real winner was.
Now if we could only figure out a way for the pundits to lose ...
In case you didn't notice, on Fox McCain was 88% while Obama was 12.
Do you also need to buy goods Guangdao foot shopping and worry about acid? wholesale
And discount china wholesale stores also did not
have time Car video
to do some MP3 player
shopping With MP4 player
more and block mp4 watches
the development Men's outerwear
Women's outerwear
Mens outerwear
skin care products
wholesale mp3
wholesale mobile phones
digital camera wholesale
consumer electronics of networks, Internet psp accessories
shopping is wedding dresses
also more wholesale silver jewelry
convenient, now you wedding dress
only need bluetooth headset
to Ceramic tile
sit in memory cards
front of the wholesale digital cameras
computer, drinking wholeslae clothing
coffee, visit wholesale clothing
the website can be wholesale furniture
elected to their gps devices
favorite wholesale mp3
products, we Memory Card
can be here for Memory Stick
you More wholesale furniture
choices, many wholesale
practical, durable, wholesale atv
affordable, attractive wholesale electronics
merchandise, wholesale jewelry
there's the same wholesale handbags
for you, we gps devices
will provide wholesale shoes
you wholesale electronics
with quality wholesale t shirts
service! I hope wholesale digital cameras
you can Wholesale jewelry
here in our shopping pleasure to welcome you!
For some neutral observers (like the "Economist"), McCain turned in a much improved performance. I did not see it myself, but some of his grimaces and obvious irritation with Obama did not help him much.
McCain is fighting the perception that he is losing. If he had turned in a laid-back, relaxed performance he actually might have done better. But to many his inensity looked like desperation to land a punch.
As he did not challenge subjective perceptions of him, he lost. Even the "Economist" thought so, citing Obama's calm and collected demeanour under pressure.
The same topic that caused Obama to win the second debate put him clearly ahead in the third: health care. He was also stunningly superior on the economy, education, and abortion. We already knew he had made the better V.P. pick, but it was nice that the question was raised.
It was clever of his team to have baited McCain into going after him on Ayers, where Obaama was waiting for him. McCain wasted a lot of time running up the negative meters with independents and he was slammed by the best counter punch of the night in "that says more about your campaign than it says about me." McCain deflated after that. Obama also got to point out that Ayers was the center of McCain's whole campaign for several weeks which is a judgment issue.
In all three debates Obama spoke to independents. McCain spent them posturing to his ultra right base by expressing slogans from an ideology people are sick of and demonstrably has not worked.
Many of the pundits were indeed wrong (again). They seem to believe that attacking an opponent with baseless lies and innuendos scores points that count equally with legitimate and substantive policy expressions. They want a boxing match, not a debate.
Anonymous said...
In case you didn't notice, on Fox McCain was 88% while Obama was 12.
Only 88%? If a Republican can't get 98% of Fox's audience, he's in deep peanut butter.
The more I think about it, the more I'm not so sure McCain had his best debate. Regardless, it was a losing effort (and damaging to McCain I think), but there was little to recommend it over McCain's previous efforts.
McCain seemed to attack, but he had in the other debates as well. Obama is so deft at parrying and countering without looking put upon, that he doesn't seem to suffer from the usual disadvantages associated with "being on the defensive." It is really quite remarkable.
To be clear, being a silver-tongued orator (which Obama is) should not be -- and is not -- a qualification for being President any more than the opposite is a disqualifier. Rather, if a candidate can believably and simply articulate a set of attractive policies, voters may well view that candidate as attractive.
McCain's problem here is that an honest assessment of his proposals reveals them as unattractive to the vast majority (excepting, of course, the rich). He can't compete on a simple policy level with Obama, so he's forced into misrepresenting his own and Obama's policies (see, 'Joe the Plumber' narrative) in order to hoodwink voters sufficiently to gain their vote.
But having to hoodwink voters makes coherently discussing and arguing about policy very difficult. Truly, only the most glib, forked-tongued GOP spokespeople come off sounding believable. A forked tongue, however, is conspicuously absent from McCain's toolbox. This becomes painfully obvious as he stumbles through the recitation of subterfuge that he is reduced to. Lying is more complicated than telling the truth.
Though the 'Joe the Plumber' theme could have been an effective framework within which to compare and contrast policy, it fell flat because McCain was forced to fill it with untruths. People understand that even businesses with several million in revenue may not retain $250,000 in profit. (NPR's All Things Considered covered the bookkeeping distinctions well near the end of the first hour today.) McCain is forced to misrepresent the definition of 'small business' and so he fails. His gobsmacked and audible reaction ('Zero? Zero?') to Obama's 'Here's your fine: ZERO' was priceless. I had faulted Obama previously for not responding to the 'fine' question, and this time Obama landed a haymaker.
McCain was weak and Obama was strong in the discussion of women's wages and the Supreme Court case making it harder from women to bring a case. Obama's remarks spoke common sense to ordinary people. McCain's reaction was a technical, "No statute of limitations would be a trial lawyer's dream." McCain is apparently not familiar with the concept of tolling a statute of limitations until one becomes aware of one's damage. And it's just a loser to oppose equal pay for equal work. But McCain, inflexible and unadaptable, took the bait.
Indeed, McCain is so unadaptably entrenched in his Party of the Rich ideology that even this week, remarkably, he could not deliver a set of new economic proposals that had any appeal to the middle class. No, the new dreck is nakedly slanted to the benefit of the rich.
For the first time, I feel sorry for John today. He's way overmatched, he's been steered into a dishonest and dishonorable campaign that has left him a caricature and a laughingstock bereft of (or flip-flopped on) anything decent he ever stood for. And I'm proud of a majority of the American people for apparently seeing through the lies and attacks this time around. Better late than never. On to November.
whatisyourevidence -
"His gobsmacked and audible reaction ('Zero? Zero?') to Obama's 'Here's your fine: ZERO' was priceless. I had faulted Obama previously for not responding to the 'fine' question, and this time Obama landed a haymaker."
I totally agree. I'm going to take a leap of faith and say that it'll be up there with Reagan's "There you go again" or Bentsen's "You're no Jack Kennedy" as one of those brief, immortalized debating moments. I think it's McCain's genuinely dumbfounded reaction to the "Here's your fine: ZERO"-line that really does it. I don't think I've ever seen a candidate this flabbergasted.
Though the 'Joe the Plumber' theme could have been an effective framework within which to compare and contrast policy, it fell flat because McCain was forced to fill it with untruths. People understand that even businesses with several million in revenue may not retain $250,000 in profit. (NPR's All Things Considered covered the bookkeeping distinctions well near the end of the first hour today.)
You just don't get it. What the American people heard was Barack Obama saying he was going to "spread the wealth around". Obama was telling Joe the Plumber and every other American that if any of us try to become successful, Obama will take your money away and give it to someone else. You can spin it all you want, you can even cite references from NPR, it doesn't matter. The American people heard that they were going to be royally screwed by Obama if they tried to become successful.
This has been what the Democrats have wanted to do for the last 40+ years (and earlier), and what Obama is all about. Obama isn't any kind of a "Robin Hood", since he doesn't bother spreading his own wealth around (and we have the tax records to prove it); he's going to make theft by his administration legal.
And while McCain may not have been as successful at hitting Obama on this during the debate, his ad sure hits it out of the park.
Observe the working of the right-wing mind: "Spread some of the wealth around" becomes, in Steveil's fevered brain, "spread the wealth around." And from there, he's off on a paranoid delusion that Democrats are going to come and take his money.
I like to think the vast majority of Americans, even those of us crazy enough to vote, are saner than that. I predict that there will be no long-term effect from the "Joe the plumber who isn't a plumber and doesn't even pay the taxes he already owes" kerfuffle.
Of course, Obama could have, perhaps, avoided this by suggesting that, if Joe makes more than 250K, he could afford to pay his fair share of the cost of making this country work -- but I suspect the right wing would have seen this also as an indication of an intent to confiscate their assets.
Dear SteveIL;
I actually appreciate some of the content you bring to the discussion in this blog. I do not, however, appreciate the tone you bring nor the tone you manage to incite in some of the responses to you.
I'd like to make a request. Imagine this blog comment section is a group of mostly like minded friends having a good time thinking about things in their own way. Then you come in with different ideas and the insight that we are all off base this way or that. My request is that you respect the friendly tone of the (usually) friendly group, even if you have your own insights to offer.
Your tone is often so belligerent and emotionally provocative that one feels punched in the nose. You may think that most people here are delusional. But need you so destroy the pleasant tone when trying to make your point?
You may rebut that people dish it out on you too. I agree. They do and I wish they wouldn't. But you are almost always the instigator, raising a pleasant and, I think, often informative conversation into a a string of meaningless insults.
So please, keep making your points. But please watch the blood pressure in yourself and that you incite. Unless your goal is simple sabotage, I think you would have more of an impact, in terms of convincing people, if you showed more respect in your tone.
Thank you for your consideration.
-Andy
Observe the working of the right-wing mind: "Spread some of the wealth around" becomes, in Steveil's fevered brain, "spread the wealth around."
Duh!!! Gee, what else would anyone think "spread the wealth around" means? I think it means "spread the wealth around". What you said is just too, too funny. LMAO
Seriously, the government spreading the wealth around is a whole lot different than you and me spreading our wealth around. I'll explain.
See, Joe the Plumber wants to spread the wealth around in the proper way, not provide giveaways like a government run by Barack Obama. Joe, and millions of others, wants to start a business, and hopes to expand it so that he can hire others to help; this is making jobs. And as he makes more, he can spend more on his business, which provides others with jobs, since someone has to make the stuff Joe buys. And, Joe is providing an opportunity for any workers he hires with the incentive to maybe want to start their own business, and so on. Even if Joe spends some of his profits on himself and his family, isn't he still providing jobs to others, since someone has to make the stuff Joe buys, just as all of us do?
What Obama wants to do is take away Joe's, and every other American small businessperson's (and big ones too), ability to do these things by taking Joe's money and giving it to someone else. This taken money isn't going to provide someone with a job; it's just a handout. This is much different than paying taxes to support the existing infrastructure.
I predict that there will be no long-term effect from the "Joe the plumber who isn't a plumber and doesn't even pay the taxes he already owes" kerfuffle.
What an awful thing to say. Who in the world are you to question a guy who actually has to work for a living? First off, he is a plumber, and doesn't need a license if he's working for someone else (which he is). Second, did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason he owes some taxes is because he's overtaxed already (as in property taxes), as many are? How can you attack an ordinary guy for doing what should be done by you, me, and especially the media, asking questions of Obama? Or is it a sin to even question The One?
Someone I greatly respected once told me "I don't mind paying taxes on my income -- because that means I'm making money."
Of course, he wasn't a Republican. Republicans think it's perfectly OK for money to vanish into the pockets of the people who created the "Credit Default Swap" market and operated a Ponzi scheme while, thanks to legislative maneuvers by their friend Phil Gramm, federal regulators were forbidden to interfere.
Now about 30 percent of our retirement money (which, Steveil, please note, was pre-tax) has vanished.
On the other hand, making an imaginary "plumber" pay an additional 1K or so on money he isn't going to make is a huge issue.
Oh, and BTW, Steveil, you seem to assume that nobody here has ever done honest labor or plumbing. You would, as usual, be horribly wrong. As a person who has actually paid all the taxes I've ever owed, I think I've earned the right to criticize Joe the "plumber".
You still don't get it. Joe the Plumber has exactly the same power you, me, and everyone else who comments here has, the power of his/her one vote. Joe asked Obama, a man who is running for President of the United States, a question and didn't like the answer Obama gave him. And how is the response? To call Joe names, to question what he does for a living, and so on and so forth. That is why your first response to me about Joe was so awful. Joe didn't like the answers Obama gave him, and you didn't like that one bit. Even after the election, Joe will still be a plumber (a real one) and a working man, just like all of us, while Obama may very well become the next President of the United States, with real power, more than just the power of a vote. That's quite a bit of a different job than a plumber or anything else we do.
And yet, Joe is the one demonized. For asking a question and not liking the answer.
And I don't believe I need to say any more than that.
Stevil said: You just don't get it. What the American people heard was Barack Obama saying he was going to "spread the wealth around". Obama was telling Joe the Plumber and every other American that if any of us try to become successful, Obama will take your money away and give it to someone else.
I'll echo the previous refutation of this: it's absolutely absurd, and it's not "what people heard." The gap between the rich and the rest of us has ballooned under the Bush Tax Cuts, and "people" want a more fair, more ordinary not-so-tilted-to-the-rich distribution of the tax burden. Let's compare: a few thousand dollars means a big difference to a working family, while a couple of hundred thousand bucks of tax savings garnered by the top 5% means a second yacht, or the equivalent redundant decadence. Spreading the wealth = more balanced tax burden. And we have always had progressive taxation in this country: (1) with success comes responsibility, and (2) without the framework below, the success isn't possible. Giving back to, and building up that framework is required. "Trickle-down Economics" never did that - look at the minimum wage at a 50+ year low in real purchasing power after six years of Republican rule. Let's live in a country where we all rise up together (instead of the rich leaving the rest behind). "Trickle-down" is a central propaganda pillar of the Party of the Rich by which they've justified tilting tax policy in favor of themselves, and there's never been a shred of legitimate academic evidence otherwise. Period.
On Joe the Plumber, when I heard the audio of his approach to, and conversation with, Obama, I immediately thought he was a "plant." You just can't hit McCain's (misleading) talking points any better. And Joe's entire scenario is absurd: he's "saving" on a $40,000-ish yearly income to "buy" a business with a yearly profit stream of $250,000!? That is on it's face absurd. To purchase a profit stream of $250,000 yearly, you'd have to lay out a very large purchase price (we're talking millions) that Joe isn't capable of building up with his salary in anything short of his working lifetime (and fortuitous investing). It is crystal clear in any case that Joe was completely confused regarding the difference between "revenue" and "profit" making his entire exchange with Obama an exercise in confusion and absurdity. If he wasn't a plant, he might as well have been.
On asking Stevil to be civil, it's pointless. He's a talentless third-rate propagandist who enjoys poking our crowd with a sharp stick (these assaults thinly disguised as argument) in order to irritate us and hijack the thread discussion into being about him. He traffics in naked misrepresentation that is transparently false to anyone engaged in the political scene.
I have suggested before that A.L. has more patience than I would in continuing to allow him to post here, and I treasure free speech. But Stevil's isn't "political speech." It's just the most blatantly false propaganda, designed and intended to dirty up this blog, irritate its regulars, hijack thread discussions and probably earn duffle-bag redeemable points from some Republican organization. Trolls like Stevil intend to mute newer-member participation in liberal blogs by turning the comments into a nasty, repulsive crap fight. And I think the membership here is restrained and appropriate in responding, so Stevil fails to a degree.
But if I wanted to read unsubstantiated, third rate Republican propaganda, I could go to Republican blogs. I don't really want to read it here, and I think its presence adds nothing to this site. And it is damaging to some degree. Think if there were five or six trolls spamming the comments with Stevil-style assaults. While Stevil is amusing and easy to beat up on, just a little increase in the noise would make commenting here entirely less fun.
Later polls have even bigger margins, much bigger, including Fox with Obama 65% and McCain 35%. Yes, Fox. You can see a chart at my blog here.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home