News Scoring the Presidential Debate #1: Winners, Kill Blows & Major Subjects

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The debate analysis reveals that Barack Obama was perceived as more presidential and engaged than John McCain, who often failed to directly address questions. Obama effectively challenged McCain on key issues, particularly regarding tax breaks for oil companies and misrepresentations of his policies. His ability to clarify misconceptions about his tax plan and highlight McCain's past support for Bush's economic policies was noted as significant. McCain, while experienced, came off as condescending and avoided eye contact with Obama, which detracted from his performance. The discussion emphasized that the winner of the debate would ultimately be determined by public perception, with early polls indicating a favorable view of Obama. Overall, Obama was seen as calm, knowledgeable, and respectful, while McCain appeared more aggressive but less relatable. The debate's impact on voter sentiment and the candidates' contrasting styles were central to the analysis.

What was the score?

  • McCain won by a large margin

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • McCain won but it was close

    Votes: 9 23.7%

  • Obama won by a large margin

    Votes: 10 26.3%

  • Obama won but it was close

    Votes: 12 31.6%

  • It was a tie

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • Total voters
    38
  • #91
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
WhoWee said:
There is no money, there is no money, we have no money, we can't print enough money to pay for this bailout, the last bailout, the war, the escalating Afghan war, or any of your additional giveaway plans.
So let's vote for the dude that wants to cut tax revenues and escalate more wars.
 
  • #93
He ran a campaign?

Wow...he IS qualified to run the United States of America.Obama is an unknown quantity (his 4(?) years in the Senate appear to be a preparation for this run)...his resume is not that impressive...I don't think anyone would hire him to run a multi-national corporation based on his experience...do you?
 
  • #94
So why isn't McCain winning? After thirty years, you would think he could at least take down a Jr Senator without even breathing hard.

Last night he should have made mince meat out of the young Obama. So much for experience.

And if you want to talk about his resume, then we need to consider intellectual horsepower, which is McCain's real shortcoming. And no amount of training will make the difference.
 
  • #95
I found a link to Obama's resume...please read

http://obamasresume.org/Then, if you want a little diversion this is a comparison of Obama's resume to Palin's

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #96
Doesn't it bother you that a first term Senator is named to 5 or 6 (?) major committees (chair on 1)...and in only his 3rd year he's selected to run for President?

This appears to me that he was fast-tracked without a chance to make mistakes.

McCain is losing because people are sick of Bush and want change.

Again, Obama scares me because we really don't know him.
 
  • #97
Cyrus;1891509 Iran doesn't have a "republican guard" Ahmadinejad. Let's all say it together. Ahhhh-madin----ejad. It's really not THAT hard.[/QUOTE said:
Clearly, Mc Cain meant to say “Revolutionary Guard”. It is, I think, a very understandable slip and nothing I would judge a man by. Remember when Obama introduced Biden as “the next President” at the Democratic convention? Everyone makes these kind of slips all the time. The name “Ahmadinejad” probably stuck in his throat because of revulsion for such a dangerous fanatic. When I say that name I feel like spitting as well. But when it came to Russia and Georgia, Mc Cain had all the facts and first-hand experience and has Putin’s number down pat! I judge Mc Cain to be a good and honest man who will do what is best for his country. I don’t know what to make of Obama as he is still an unknown quantity and I have serious reservations about his past involvement with some fairly radical people as well as his naïve remarks about Pakistan. Pull ou of Iraq, but bomb Pakistan without consulting the Pakistan government? I vote for Mc Cain to have won the debate and I will be voting for him in November as well.
 
  • #98
IMO, McCain's statements about his "league of democracies" made the difference between the candidates clear.
 
  • #99
WhoWee said:
Then, if you want a little diversion this is a comparison of Obama's resume to Palin's

I fully expect anyone that falls for something as idiotic as that to be in perpetual awe of Sarah Palin's intellectual prowess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
Cyrus said:
All that's great. But it's a televised debate. Not a press conference, not a problem solving competition. If you want to win, you have to debate well. Debate is important because it shows who can think on their toes and outwit the other guy and smash him to the ground using facts.

Press conferences are simple: you go and stand in front of a group of invited press and basically read a speech that someone else has written off a card. A debate is completely different and, in my opinion, McCain did not look at all comfortable debating, and did not really want to enter into it. He would much rather that it were a press conference so he could read things off a card, rather than have to respond directly to Obama. You mention Obama uming and ahhing, but personally I don't think that is a bad trait whatsoever: it showed he took time to think about his question before rushing in and giving an answer. Thus, there was far less chance of him saying something that turned out to be wrong. In all, he looked more professional, comfortable, and a far more calmer choice for president.

You later mention McCain's comments on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, it's apparent that McCain has visited the area, but I don't think this is equivalent to him 'knowing what is going on.' Sure, you can visit as much as you like, but does he really know what it's like? Did he really go to the front line, and if he did, did he really see the typical view of a typical soldier? I doubt that very much.

Still, I don't see that this is a positive trait. In this day and age, we don't need our leaders literally taking us into war. Every leader, be he a president, prime minister, etc.. has aides, and people who are much better versed in certain areas to assist in making decisions. A president doesn't need to know everything, but rather needs to make decisions in a calm, collected manner. This, to me, is far more important than whether a candidate has visited a war area or not.
 
  • #101
MCCAIN:
First of all, by the way, I'd eliminate ethanol subsidies. I oppose ethanol subsidies.But he never says why. Is there a simple good reason for his stand?
 
  • #102
cristo said:
Sure, it's apparent that McCain has visited the area, but I don't think this is equivalent to him 'knowing what is going on.'

As I recall McCain visited Baghdad shortly after the occupation and was quoted as saying that the Baghdad market place was now safe. Of course he made his statements surrounded by a special forces unit and he was wearing a flak vest - pretty much the way most Americans dress for market?

Not exactly in touch with the realities that the residents of Baghdad faced at the time.
 
  • #103
schroder said:
Clearly, Mc Cain meant to say “Revolutionary Guard”. It is, I think, a very understandable slip and nothing I would judge a man by. Remember when Obama introduced Biden as “the next President” at the Democratic convention? Everyone makes these kind of slips all the time. The name “Ahmadinejad” probably stuck in his throat because of revulsion for such a dangerous fanatic. When I say that name I feel like spitting as well. But when it came to Russia and Georgia, Mc Cain had all the facts and first-hand experience and has Putin’s number down pat! I judge Mc Cain to be a good and honest man who will do what is best for his country. I don’t know what to make of Obama as he is still an unknown quantity and I have serious reservations about his past involvement with some fairly radical people as well as his naïve remarks about Pakistan. Pull ou of Iraq, but bomb Pakistan without consulting the Pakistan government? I vote for Mc Cain to have won the debate and I will be voting for him in November as well.

McCain thinks he's an expert in the area he should know the difference. Also, Obama should have started directly with, 'well john, maybe we should look at the revolutionary guard' and then after making him look bad slam him with some facts that counter McCain's argument.
 
  • #104
WhoWee said:
I found a link to Obama's resume...please read

http://obamasresume.org/


Then, if you want a little diversion this is a comparison of Obama's resume to Palin's



Come on Whowee, that youtube video is a joke. Did you get that from the Sean Hannity webpage?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
WhoWee said:
Doesn't it bother you that a first term Senator is named to 5 or 6 (?) major committees (chair on 1)...and in only his 3rd year he's selected to run for President?

This appears to me that he was fast-tracked without a chance to make mistakes.

McCain is losing because people are sick of Bush and want change.

Again, Obama scares me because we really don't know him.

According to your Barack resume website, he started as a state senator in 96', so he's been in government for more than ten years now. I don't see how that's a 'fast track'.
 
  • #106
If we let everyone (except maybe the worse 1%) out of prison in this country and told them...now behave and go get a job...stay out of trouble...what do you think would happen?

At a minimum, some of them would prey upon the other citizens. Others might take up arms with their (like minded affiliates - gangs) and become local narco-terrorists.

We don't do a great job of controlling these problems now...LOTS of reasons...but we know better than to dump everyone on the street unsupervised and unfed...right?

The new Iraqi leadership needs to address their local security in a positive way. They need to secure one area at a time and gain the trust of their citizens. Otherwise, the population only knows one way of life...submit to the greatest threat.

The big difference is we're never going to execute 100,000 people (nor should we) and bulldoze them into a ditch...and they know it...they'll just tolerate us until we leave.

How we leave might is probably the most important decision at this time...regarding Iraq.
 
  • #107
schroder said:
... The name “Ahmadinejad” probably stuck in his throat because of revulsion for such a dangerous fanatic. ...
That's no excuse for someone who is ambitious to be President. Petulant and petty is not pretty in a President.
I judge Mc Cain to be a good and honest man who will do what is best for his country.
I once did as well, but no longer now after the kinds of attacks that he has condoned under his name. After his embrace of the extreme Right as his only hope to be President. The ridiculous choice of the vapid valley girl from Alaska that makes him look all but too content to risk the country falling on the rocks of extreme division.

After his readiness to posture during this financial crisis, to misread the economy like Herbert Hoover, to deny his career as a champion of deregulation to avoid responsibility, to preen for the cameras, to disrupt the process, all in the name advancing his ambition to be President, shows to me a profound dishonesty and lack of honor in serving the country ahead of his own selfish interests.
 
  • #108
I agree the U tube video IS a joke (kind of my point)...but a sad joke at that...the truth is that neither Obama nor Palin are qualified...I'm really tired of bad choices.

As for Obama being a state Senator in Illinois since 1996...read what he did during that time...common theme workers pay protection, low income subsidy, voter rights...all noble enough...and all giveaways.

The point I'm trying to make is this...after 8 years of floating along in Illinois...how does this guy ride into Washington and jump into 5 major committees and move to the head of the Democratic party in a 2 1/2 year period unless someone is pulling his strings?

Was there nobody more qualified in the Democratic party than Obama and Hillary?
 
  • #109
When I re-read the transcript I find McCain to bouncing all over a topic and very difficult to read. I think Obama stuck to the questions better.

except when

This bit struck me as funny. It was almost going to break into a child's fight.

MCCAIN: So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, "We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth," and we say, "No, you're not"? Oh, please.

OBAMA: No, let me tell...

MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.

OBAMA: We will take a look.

MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.

OBAMA: Nobody's talking about that.

MCCAIN: Of course he encourages and other people encourage contacts, and negotiations, and all other things. We do that all the time.

LEHRER: We're going to go to a new...

MCCAIN: And Senator Obama is parsing words when he says precondition means preparation.

OBAMA: I am not parsing words.

MCCAIN: He's parsing words, my friends.

OBAMA: I'm using the same words that your advisers use.

Please, go ahead.

LEHRER: New lead question.


Obama gets one point for dismissing McCain. Next question :smile:

Has there been any word from Mr Kissinger on the issue?
 
  • #110
McCain : I know how to deal with our adversaries, and I know how to deal with our friends.



He scares me. :eek:
What if I'm not 'one of them' ?
 
  • #111
WhoWee said:
If we let everyone (except maybe the worse 1%) out of prison in this country and told them...now behave and go get a job...stay out of trouble...what do you think would happen?

At a minimum, some of them would prey upon the other citizens. Others might take up arms with their (like minded affiliates - gangs) and become local narco-terrorists.

We don't do a great job of controlling these problems now...LOTS of reasons...but we know better than to dump everyone on the street unsupervised and unfed...right?

The new Iraqi leadership needs to address their local security in a positive way. They need to secure one area at a time and gain the trust of their citizens. Otherwise, the population only knows one way of life...submit to the greatest threat.

The big difference is we're never going to execute 100,000 people (nor should we) and bulldoze them into a ditch...and they know it...they'll just tolerate us until we leave.

How we leave might is probably the most important decision at this time...regarding Iraq.

The problem always is: Do we have enough resources to lock up the bad guys or do we address the problem in some other (cheaper) way. In spite of what the Bush and the Neocons believe, we just don't have the money and lives to go around attacking and locking up EVERYONE.

The question now is do we have the resources to stay in Iraq or do we take a risk and set a withdraw date or do we take another risk and stay in Iraq? Which is the greater risk?
 
  • #112
At the end of the day...the new Iraqi leadership must find a way to govern themselves.

The issue is complicated for us because so manu of our private companies are now "in country".

Read today's headline

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080928/bs_nm/us_iraq_ge_siemens

$7 billion in contracts...hopefully the Iraqi's pay them and not us...maybe the answer is to charge our companies for protection...let them build it into their contracts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #113
To get back to the thread...

I think we all agree that it's a sad state of affairs when we need to put every word both candidates utter under a fact checking microscope...that we distrust our political system THAT much.

I think we also agree that the various news organizations promote their own agendas...instead of reporting the news...also bad.Here's a thought:What if we hook both candidates up to lie detectors for the next debate? If they lie...drop them into a dunk tank...like a clown at the fair.
 
  • #114
WhoWee said:
What if we hook both candidates up to lie detectors for the next debate? If they lie...drop them into a dunk tank...like a clown at the fair.

That's apparently already happened to Palin and it looks like McCain is still clawing to stay on the clown seat.
 
  • #115
I still don't know what to think about the Palin selection?

You know what I find even more interesting...certain Republican forces actually wanted McCain to consider Jeb Bush...hahaha.

Maybe she was the best available choice?
 
  • #116
WhoWee said:
I still don't know what to think about the Palin selection?

You know what I find even more interesting...certain Republican forces actually wanted McCain to consider Jeb Bush...hahaha.

Maybe she was the best available choice?

If she was the best of a bad litter, ... ouch. Because in the end that's all McCain was to the Republicans in the first place.

I liked Huckabee the best, but his policy positions were simply too faith based for me. In hindsight though I'd say he would have both energized the conservative base, his positions are about as extreme as Palin without the ethical and inexperience baggage, and not have become the kind of National running joke embarrassment that Palin has become.
 
  • #117
As for Obama, a few weeks ago I started to wonder if maybe he wasn't supposed to actually WIN(?)...just take away votes in the primary.

Hillary would have been guaranteed to win with Obama as co-pilot. This could have led to another 8 to 12 to 16 (?) year Democratic run.
 
  • #118
If you step back and look at the organization of our system...checks and balances...it does work...if given a fair chance.

I've come to believe we need the safest choice at president. Someone who understands world politics, the economy and a senior statesman...Governors make a good choice normally...(like him or not & I didn't vote for him) Reagan fit the profile. President should not be a learn on the job position...and no more namesakes.

I think our biggest problem is in the Congress. In the medical field we have general MD's and we have specialists.

We're always going to have lifetime appointments on the bench...part of the deal.

But, I don't think Congress should be so comfy.

I think we need longer terms for Senators...maybe 8 years and double that for committee heads (specialists)...and PAY them well...enough to keep them accountable. If you lie/cheat/steal...you GO TO JAIL!

The House on the other hand needs to be more representative of our population base (general MD's...lot's of common sense and accountability at home)...shorter terms and no "lifers"...if they're good enough to stay...make them run for Senate.

Again, just a thought.
 
  • #119
WhoWee said:
As for Obama, a few weeks ago I started to wonder if maybe he wasn't supposed to actually WIN(?)...just take away votes in the primary.

Hillary would have been guaranteed to win with Obama as co-pilot. This could have led to another 8 to 12 to 16 (?) year Democratic run.

I tend to agree with that. But I will say that Obama has grown to fill out his suit. And in the world we are living in today that presents this choice, it suggests oddly enough that Obama is the less erratic and the more thoughtful.
 
  • #120
I said this yesterday (and was chastised), but I think McCain in the known quantity and does want to finish his career strong...I get the feeling he hasn't lived up to family expectations yet.

Obama on the other hand, COULD BE VERY PRODUCTIVE in Congress. If he returned to Washington and led reform in the Senate (and tried to keep Nancy Pelosi in check) he would be a much greater ASSET to our country than if he becomes President and struggles with gridlock.

Please read what I'm saying...Obama COULD MAKE A HUGE IMPACT in a second term...then NOBODY would doubt him and he'd be the natural choice next time (sorry Hillary), you can always go back to WalMart.

I think these candidates (McCain & Obama) would compliment one another and could get a lot done IF they could find a way to work together.

United we stand...at the end of the day, I'm not aligned with either party. I'm an American first...no agenda...and very worried about our country and our long term security.
 

Similar threads

News 1st Presidential Debate (2016) thread
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
News Can Romney regain credibility after his Cairo/Libya Embassy blunder?
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
News Presidential Powers in Perspective
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
Programs Really need advice on what to major in
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
News Justice Department Drops Voter Intimidation Case
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
News Is the Media Neglecting to Report Iraqi Insurgent Casualties?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
News Did Scott Brown's Win Signal a Shift in American Political Landscape?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • Poll Poll
News What say should the church have in politics?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
News The lie of media liberal bias continued.
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K