Joe Biden vs. Paul Ryan in the 2012 vice presidential debate

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BobG
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
75 replies · 12K views
I like Charles Krauthammer's assessment:

If you read the debate as a transcript, it was a tie.

If you listened on the radio, Biden won.

If you watched it on TV, Ryan won.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
skippy1729 said:
I like Charles Krauthammer's assessment:

If you read the debate as a transcript, it was a tie.

If you listened on the radio, Biden won.

If you watched it on TV, Ryan won.

That's a interesting statement, but I don't think it's true. I think Biden did a really good job of showcasing where the Ryan/Romney really didn't have a plan. This I think would have come across very clearly both in a transcript and on the radio.

I do however think that Biden appeared quite condescending. But even from an independent standpoint, I don't see how that could have made Ryan seem to win.
 
Vorde: I don't really want to divert this thread with details but it was obvious that Biden/Obama have no plan other than more of the same. They are of the mindset that policies are delivered from Mount Horeb in 2000 page manuscripts and the legislators are to rubber stamp them. The Romney/Ryan plan of setting a framework of reform and letting the legislature hammer out the details in a bipartisan, public process is alien and incomprehensible to the Vice President.

Regarding your second point: Anyone who can maintain their focus and composure in the face of such childish antics is revealing a depth of character and trustworthiness. If I didn't understand a word of English, I would vote for Ryan over Biden based on this debate.
 


micromass said:
Characterizing abortion as "killing babies" also seems pretty wrong.

Wrong because it's inaccurate, or because you don't like the connotation?
 
Vorde: I don't really want to divert this thread with details but it was obvious that Biden/Obama have no plan other than more of the same. They are of the mindset that policies are delivered from Mount Horeb in 2000 page manuscripts and the legislators are to rubber stamp them. The Romney/Ryan plan of setting a framework of reform and letting the legislature hammer out the details in a bipartisan, public process is alien and incomprehensible to the Vice President.

Look skippy, I don't know what you've heard, but reality is different. If anything, Obama and company are far too hands-off when it comes to the legislature. He gave them carte blanche to draft a healthcare plan without significant input from the President. One of the parts of the bill that Obama championed, namely the public option, never saw the light of day because they attempted bipartisanship with an intransigent Republican minority. Ryan represents the very worst of Congressional partisanship and rancor. Seriously, this guy champions the destruction of the welfare state, and then screams when no one on the other side wants anything to do with it.

If I didn't understand a word of English, I would vote for Ryan over Biden based on this debate.

I think that fact was not in dispute even if Ryan were to have collapsed on stage in a blubbering fit, saying "you win, you win". Some people are just that partisan.
 
One thing that surprised me is that Ryan let Biden slide on a lot of issues that he oculd have come back at him on.
 
CAC1001 said:
One thing that surprised me is that Ryan let Biden slide on a lot of issues that he oculd have come back at him on.

My impression was that the moderator cut him short much more often than she did with the VP.
 
Angry Citizen said:
Ryan represents the very worst of Congressional partisanship and rancor. Seriously, this guy champions the destruction of the welfare state, and then screams when no one on the other side wants anything to do with it.

Sounds like 'Some people are just that partisan' when they demonize differing opinions.
 
azdavesoul said:
Sounds like 'Some people are just that partisan' when they demonize differing opinions.

There are legitimate opinions, then there are illegitimate opinions. Opinions cross the illegitimacy line when they advocate a second Gilded Age.
 
I thought that Ryan acquitted himself well, though I'm quite disappointed with his refusal to lay out details of the Romney tax plan. As far as I can tell, the Romney plan is his plan. At some point, the US voters will have to have some details, since it will affect us all. We already know what Obama will do, since we have a track record on his administration, but Romney/Ryan plans remain an enigma. I have trouble with that. There are partisans that will vote for them no matter what, but I would prefer details rather than buying a pig a poke.
 


Mech_Engineer said:
Wrong because it's inaccurate, or because you don't like the connotation?

Both: it's wrong because it's inaccurate and therefore I don't like the connotation.
 
Angry Citizen said:
There are legitimate opinions, then there are illegitimate opinions. Opinions cross the illegitimacy line when they advocate a second Gilded Age.

Perhaps you were watching a different debate. The Biden/Ryan debate did not include any references to a “Second Gilded Age”. As to “illegitimate” opinions, this seems to demonstrate a mindset where it is easier to label than discuss.
 
The Biden/Ryan debate did not include any references to a “Second Gilded Age”.

Sure it did. Medicare and social security privatization? Massively reduced taxes for the wealthy? I don't recall regulations coming up, but if they did, then Ryan would've advocated deregulation as well. The modern Republican Party stinks of 1890 - no doubt about it.
 
Both accomplished what they were supposed to accomplish.

If Biden won on substance, it's because Romney hasn't laid out many details of his plan; not because of Ryan's performance (it's Romney's place to lay out the details people are asking for; not Ryan's). Ryan showed good discipline and good composure in sticking to the role of Vice President.

If you're talking about man to man competition, Biden sticking it to Ryan on those lack of details would almost be a low blow - but the competition isn't man to man. The competition was team to team and it was entirely appropriate for the Obama/Biden team to put the Romney/Ryan team on the spot for details they haven't provided. It was appropriate to put them on the spot for positions that have shifted.

When it comes to general impressions of the person, though, I felt Ryan made a much better impression. Some of Biden's "stuff" was justified, but rudeness and disrespect became his primary weapon. After a while, he just appeared obnoxious.
 
Last edited:
russ_watters said:
According to CNN's Gallup poll, it was a narrow victory for Ryan, though statistically a tie: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-on-debate-winner-ryan-48-biden-44/?hpt=hp_t1
Acording to CBS's poll Biden won 50 to 31 over Ryan with undecided voters.

Fifty percent of uncommitted voters who tuned into Thursday night's vice presidential debate in Danville, Ky., said they see Vice President Joe Biden as the winner over Mitt Romney's GOP running mate Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., according to an instant poll taken by CBS News.

Of the 431 polled immediately following the debate, 31 percent deemed Ryan the winner, and 19 percent said they felt it was a tie. Party-wise it's a switch from last week's presidential debate, which uncommitted voters handed easily to Romney over President Obama.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57531059/poll-biden-takes-debate-over-ryan-uncommitted-voters-say

Biden was the clear winner according to Politico.

Joltin' Joe Biden wins the bout

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82323.html?hp=l1

Biden won according to Newsweek/Daily Beast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...cans-bazooka-joe-biden-won-the-vp-debate.html
 
Last edited:
This may be a little off, but is anywhere here an independent/unsure of whom they are going to vote for? I'd like to hear their opinion.
 
By and large: according dems, Biden won; according to reps, Ryan won.

They both won with respect to their own bases, tied with respect to undecided, and lost with respect to opposite base.

Wrong because it's inaccurate, or because you don't like the connotation?

Inaccurate. A fetus isn't a baby. It's a use of connotation through the abuse of denotation; a typical political tactic, a form of rhetoric.
 
On substance, I thought that each of them spent their time mischaracterizing everything. On style I though Biden was amazingly rude and that Ryan looked vice-presidential, whatever that means.
 
Pythagorean said:
By and large: according dems, Biden won; according to reps, Ryan won.

They both won with respect to their own bases, tied with respect to undecided, and lost with respect to opposite base.
Yep. my take as well of the media coverage.

Jimmy Snyder said:
On substance, I thought that each of them spent their time mischaracterizing everything. On style I though Biden was amazingly rude and that Ryan looked vice-presidential, whatever that means.
Ryan didn't do poorly, Biden just seemed to manage to put Ryan on the defensive from the beginning and it stayed that way.

The real winner was the moderator, Martha Raddatz. She should do the Presidential Debate.
 
Jimmy Snyder said:
... and that Ryan looked vice-presidential, whatever that means.

That he looked like the guy that always stands next to the man in charge?

The one strange thing, even if inconsequential, was the word Ryan chose in the Great VP Debate Drinking Game. He could have chosen a cool word like "Malarky"! Instead, he chose "my friend" and to spend the entire debate drinking. (And to think - alcoholics all over the country chose "literally", only to have Biden dump that word completely!)
 
Evo said:
Acording to CBS's poll Biden won 50 to 31 over Ryan with undecided voters.



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57531059/poll-biden-takes-debate-over-ryan-uncommitted-voters-say

Biden was the clear winner according to Politico.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82323.html?hp=l1

Biden won according to Newsweek/Daily Beast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...cans-bazooka-joe-biden-won-the-vp-debate.html
I'm not at all interested in what individual commentators have to say about who won and lost, but the difference in the polls is interesting. The Gallup poll was broader (but not necessarily more relevant) in that it just asked people who watched the debate.
 


CAC1001 said:
The law looks at it in different ways. If a pregnant woman is murdered for example, it can be charged as a double homicide. Otherwise though, the life inside isn't legally considered a human being until birth. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about the abortion issue. It isn't number one on people's list of concerns right now.
I'm not going to argue the legality of abortions. I'm saying people in this country have a need to make it their mission to dictate the lives of others they don't even know. "Oh you're gay? Well I'm going to go to the ends of this god given Earth to make sure you can't love and marry the one you want even though it doesn't affect me in any way except for the damaging of my completely idiotic, imbecilic religious convictions!"; "Oh you want to abort your baby because you were raped?! Too bad because that baby was still a gift from god even if you had to get that from the WORST POSSIBLE WAY A WOMAN COULD GET IT! I don't care that you have your own emotions, I just want my christian values upheld!". It is extremely ridiculous and I find it disgusting that these are the issues that people put on the same pedestal as foreign affairs and economics. These people complain about government telling the people what to do but they themselves do the same.
 
Last edited:
Vorde said:
This may be a little off, but is anywhere here an independent/unsure of whom they are going to vote for? I'd like to hear their opinion.

I sort of am, although I do lean left.

At first from watching the debates, I felt that Biden had definitely won. He was definitely controlling Ryan the whole time, and his smirk/laugh made Ryan look kind of foolish. He also seemed to make one really good point, that Ryan couldn't answer for. That is regards to their tax plan, several times he repeated the issue and Ryan wouldn't reveal any specifics on deductions that would be cut. He even asked specifically if Ryan could guarantee someone making $100k a year wouldn't lose their home owners deduction, and Ryan wouldn't answer. It seems as though the Romney/Ryan don't really have a tax plan, just a general cut 20% and make it work somehow plan.

Upon reading more this morning, it seems as though the government did in fact know that the Libyan embassy had requested more security. So I changed my mind a little this morning.

All in all? I think I am not going to vote. The most important issues to me are the economy and the deficit, and I don't trust either to handle it properly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Angry Citizen said:
Sure it did. Medicare and social security privatization? Massively reduced taxes for the wealthy? I don't recall regulations coming up, but if they did, then Ryan would've advocated deregulation as well. The modern Republican Party stinks of 1890 - no doubt about it.
The gilded age ended before 1900 and the income tax wasn't established until the 16th Amendment in 1913. So you must be suggesting that it is the mainstream position of the Republican party to repeal the 16th Amendment and thus abolish the income tax (for everyone, not just the wealthy, of course). Please provide a source for this claim or retract your assertion that the Republican party wants to re-establish gilded age policy.
 


WannabeNewton said:
I'm not going to argue the legality of abortions. I'm saying people in this country have a need to make it their mission to dictate the lives of others they don't even know.
Uh, yeah, of course: Passing and enforcing laws that determine what people we don't even know can and can't do is pretty much the fundamental function of government!
 
JonDE said:
Upon reading more this morning, it seems as though the government did in fact know that the Libyan embassy had requested more security. So I changed my mind a little this morning.
A request for security would not have gone to the President or VP, so Biden would be correct. The media are such idiots to not realize this.

WH Clarifies Biden’s Benghazi Embassy Security Comment

“He was speaking directly for himself and for the president. He meant the White House,” Carney said, deflecting notions that “we” meant the entire administration. “Those are things that are handled by security personnel at the State Department. So that, I think — it is very clear if you look at it in context in terms of what the vice president was responding to,” he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/wh-clarifies-bidens-benghazi-embassy-security-comment/
 
russ_watters said:
The gilded age ended before 1900 and the income tax wasn't established until the 16th Amendment in 1913. So you must be suggesting that it is the mainstream position of the Republican party to repeal the 16th Amendment and thus abolish the income tax (for everyone, not just the wealthy, of course). Please provide a source for this claim or retract your assertion that the Republican party wants to re-establish gilded age policy.

I would compare the republican party more with the 1920 policies. Inequality was sky high then like it is now. The economy even tanked in about the same length of time. And they had similar control over government.
 
Evo said:
A request for security would not have gone to the President or VP, so Biden would be correct. The media are such idiots to not realize this.



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/wh-clarifies-bidens-benghazi-embassy-security-comment/

Well the State department is part of the Obama administration, so he and Biden are responsible for it and its actions.

Now on looking it up further, I have changed my mind once again. It seems as though the additional requested security would have been stationed in Tripoli, not where the attacks occurred in Benghazi, so it wouldn't have made a difference anyways. Biden probably should have said that instead.