News VP Debate: Palin Wins, Biden's Nuclear Claim Questionable

[tribdog]

I got to say both candidates did a pretty good job. I'm giving the win to Palin though. She did much much better than I was expecting. There's more than looks there. I just have one comment and one question.
1. I wish politicians could answer a question when they are asked one. Nothing against these two, but if I tried answering a question on a test the way they do I wouldn't expect a single correct answer.
2. Biden said that Afghanistan has nuclear weapons and had deployed nuclear weapons. Did I miss Afghanistan nuking someone? Or was he talking about a test?

 

[cristo]

I got to say both candidates did a pretty good job. I'm giving the win to Palin though.

Check out the "mark your diary" thread.

 

[OrbitalPower]

I'm pretty sure biden was talking about Pakistan, as the question was about Iran and Pakistan, which one was more dangerous.

 

[OrbitalPower]

LOL. Keith Olbermann is just going over all the things Palin did wrong.

Keith is so biased, but at least he uses facts to make his case unlike fox noise.

She one of the generals names wrong, the number of troops deployed, etc.

I love how MSNBC talks to me like a human being that can understand big words and complete sentences, instead of the soundbite nonsense on the other cable networks (and the outright propaganda on fox noise).

 

[Cyrus]

I got to say both candidates did a pretty good job. I'm giving the win to Palin though. She did much much better than I was expecting. There's more than looks there. I just have one comment and one question.
1. I wish politicians could answer a question when they are asked one. Nothing against these two, but if I tried answering a question on a test the way they do I wouldn't expect a single correct answer.
2. Biden said that Afghanistan has nuclear weapons and had deployed nuclear weapons. Did I miss Afghanistan nuking someone? Or was he talking about a test?

You gave the win to Palin? Wow......... errrr, no. Sorry there. You're wrong.


I gave the first debate win to McCain. But this one, she clearly lost. By miles. All she said was sound bites over and over and over again. Most of them the same just rephrased differently.

"We're mavericks."

The question was about the economy...

Yeah but were mavericks!...MAVERICK!

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I think they both did pretty well but I wouldn't say Palin won.

And OrbitalPower was right, Biden was talking about Pakistan having deployed nuclear weapons.

⚛​

 

[tribdog]

You are right, I meant Pakistan.

I gave the first debate to Obama. I give the second to Palin.
Now, because I'm scientific I have to ask myself why. Could I be biased against old people? Yes, that is a definite possibility. so is the possibility that I prefer the better looking candidate. I think I judge the way I do based on the feeling I get about how much I "like" the person. I don't really care as much about the facts because I know lots of dumb people who know a lot of facts and decisions at the upper level are never a one person affair.

 

[gravenewworld]

WHat did you expect from someone who has been a Senator since they were 29 years old? Biden absolutely mopped the floor with Palin, especially when it came to foreign policy issues.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I only heard the begining. It sounded like Palin was tripping up from the get go and Biden was giving her a little push.

From clips of her debates in the AK governors race she seems pretty sharp so long as she actually knows what she's talking about.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Palin did better than I had expected. I hate when she answers a question with pep rally talk though. Biden won, but it was close.

 

[gravenewworld]

Biden schooled her on the Constitution, but what do you expect from someone who has a JD and who still teaches Constitutional Law at Widener University every year?Biden schooled her on the politics of the Middle East, but what did you expect coming from someone who has been on the foreign relations committee?Biden won this show hands down.

 

[LowlyPion]

2. Biden said that Afghanistan has nuclear weapons and had deployed nuclear weapons. Did I miss Afghanistan nuking someone? Or was he talking about a test?

No that was definitely Pakistan. That was the predicate of the question discussing which was more of a threat - an unstable Pakistan or a nuclear Iran.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My favorite Palin answer was: I may not answer the questions the way that you and the moderator would like.

Now that was funny! What she meant was that when she can't answer the question, she will say whatever she wants. I'm sure that the core thought it was spunky, but I suspect that the Inds saw it as the dodge that it was.

 

[LowlyPion]

My favorite Palin answer was: I may not answer the questions the way that you and the moderator would like.

Now that was funny! What she meant was that when she can't answer the question, she will say whatever she wants. But I'm sure that the core thought it was spunky.

I'm sure that was her practiced failsafe line. If cornered say ...

 

[rootX]

My favorite Palin answer was: I may not answer the questions the way that you and the moderator would like.

Now that was funny! What she meant was that when she can't answer the question, she will say whatever she wants. I'm sure that the core thought it was spunky, but I suspect that the Inds saw it as the dodge that it was.

I loved this one!

Palin adopted her trademark colloquial tone for her first response, suggesting the best barometer of public sentiment on the economy could be found on the sidelines of a children's soccer match.

"Turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, 'how are you feeling about the economy?'," Palin said. "And I'll bet you'll hear fear in the parent's voice."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/usvotes/story/2008/10/02/vp-usdebate.html?ref=rss

Most of her answers were scary. Like relying on army for foreign relations ... or not negotiating with dictators. And above one, asking general public for economic health.

 

[Cyrus]

Anyone see Bill O'fool right before the debate? He started SHOUTING at the senator of Mass. and the senator was calling him stupid, O'fool told him he's saying a load of BS - literally.

And before this they had on Carl Rove, and O'fool treated him soooooo kind and nice. This network is so full of s*** its amazing.

Adding insult to injury, he started with his talking point about how FOX is rated number one, and MSNBC is way down at 26.

Anyone also notice how high tech and nice CNN has become? Even their website is really nice.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I loved this one!
http://www.cbc.ca/world/usvotes/story/2008/10/02/vp-usdebate.html?ref=rss
Most of her answers were scary. Like relying on army for foreign relations ... or not negotiating with dictators. And above one, asking general public for economic health.

I had to roll my eyes at that. Of course Biden pulled out a similar response, I think something to do with talking to his mechanic or something.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Anyone see Bill O'fool right before the debate? He started SHOUTING at the senator of Mass. and the senator was calling him stupid, O'fool told him he's saying a load of BS - literally.

And before this they had on Carl Rove, and O'fool treated him soooooo kind and nice. This network is so full of s*** its amazing.

Adding insult to injury, he started with his talking point about how FOX is rated number one, and MSNBC is way down at 26.

Anyone also notice how high tech and nice CNN has become? Even their website is really nice.

The radio station I listen to, KFI am640, is owned by clear channel and a fox news affiliate. They read the news twice an hour just like regular news, no spin I can detect. The only affiliated reporter that is a staple on any of the shows is a Liberal and big supporter of Obama, he covered the DNC for them. Most of their local political talk show hosts are conservative but tend to be rather even handed. They're all tearing apart Palin and McCain. They don't like Obama either but they are fair about it at least.

 

[Pythagorean]

what really bugs me about the neo-cons is the way they throw around buzz words and spend all their time appealing to the average joe with pathos.

Both Obama and Biden both appeal to me with logos more so than pathos. They're arguments seemed valid (if not sound... that is, I don't know if their premises are true). The neo-cons hardly ever make valid arguments. They throw a flattering buzz phrase in and attach their conclusion.

I miss the Republican party.

 

[BobG]

Palin was excellent for about the first 20 minutes. Considering how people absorb these things, that was pretty huge - it affects their attitude for the rest of the debate. Most of the debate, I felt she was spinning her tires until she finally found some traction. When she did find traction, her responses were pretty strong. Combined with a strong initial impression, Palin had a good debate, politically.

On the other hand, Biden was outstanding. A lot of his responses made the listener think vs. just tossing out sound bites. In a way, maybe they made the listener think too much. In some of his responses about McCain's record, that thought would remind listeners why they like McCain in the first place. These were always in responses where Biden balanced McCain's positives with his blemishes. Obviously, Biden only mentioned the blemishes, but you couldn't go to those places without the unmentioned positives of McCain sitting just out of sight. I think, in a serious debate, a candidate has to go there and confront those kind of things head on and Biden did a very good job of it, but most Presidential/Vice-Presidential debates aren't serious debates. Everyone's scared of those kind of debates.

From a debate perspective, Biden just mopped the floor with Palin. From a political perspective, only getting beaten soundly without embarrassing herself was a success for Palin. At least her incompetence isn't the big story anymore.

That doesn't mean it's disappeared. After the debate, Soledad O'Brien noted something interesting about the response chart CNN ran. Meaningless folksy BS to fill in empty space didn't cut it. Listeners could see she was just spinning her tires when she was at her worst.



She's a pretty weak candidate at this point in her career. So much so that, if the McCain/Palin ticket loses, she'll probably fade back into obscurity as soon as this campaign is over. She's a case history on the perils of bringing someone too inexperienced into the race.

Edwards was weak in 2004. That "Two Americas" speech would have worn pretty thin if that's the only tool he had in his bag. Four years later, he was a stronger candidate with more depth. Not enough that he should have beaten the likes of Richardson, Biden, and Dodds, but he did.

I felt Clinton and Obama would show even weaker than Edwards in 2004. Both turned out to be very strong candidates. I think the campaign starting so early (beginning of 2007) was a big plus for Obama. He grew a lot over the campaign, plus we've seen him so much for so long that he doesn't seem like the new kid lacking experience anymore.

Just in recent history, you have two "inexperienced" candidates that did very well. A rookie that survived his first campaign and came back stronger. Palin could wind up demonstrating the risk that goes along with that inexperience.

 

[LowlyPion]

This was an incredibly orchestrated happening last night for the Republican Party. It was an all hands on deck full frontal charge up Cemetery Ridge in Gettysburg.

The very flower of the Republican Party was turned out to sound bite the public to numbness, to pretend that Palin offers anything but cutsie recitation of practiced phrases. I was truly impressed at the all-star talking heads - from Rove to Guiliani to Thompson to Lieberman to Buchanan - locked stepping as if it means their very existence, which of course it does.

With the general opinion at large thinking that Biden won, it looks like Rove's frontal assault on the electoral college has fallen short of cresting the hill. I think with the watershed moment of the campaign resulting in the Republican's limping off down the road, withdrawing from contesting Michigan, they have relegated themselves to fighting a rear guard action to salvage what they can of those candidates that they can. But McCain is no longer on that list.

 

[Q_Goest]

Palin presented herself brilliantly as the ‘soccer mom next door’ (the Republican paradigm). But… I don’t get it… Why do Republicans believe “the guy next door” or “soccer mom” is the right pick for Pres? Seems to me that’s the WRONG person for President - just look at Bush. My neighbor can’t lead a country, can yours? I want someone SMART behind the wheel this time, someone that’ll use their brain instead of their gut to make decisions.

I don’t know about your gut, but mine has sh** in it.

 

[edward]

Well you got to remember that up there in Alaska a lot of us folks are mavericks up there

 

[Evo]

Asked which is a greater threat, a nuclear Pakistan or a nuclear Iran, Palin seemed to be stalling, or writing a term paper, when she said: “An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider.”

Well, she is getting a bit better at delivering lines, or maybe not.

Millions of Americans were watching Thursday night’s vice presidential debate, waiting for a demolition derby moment — another crash by GOP running mate Sarah Palin, another serving of raw material for the writers at "Saturday Night Live."

By that standard, she got out alive, though there were white-knuckle moments along the way: questions that were answered with painfully obvious talking points that betrayed scant knowledge of the issue at hand and sometimes little relevance to the question that had been asked.

But recent days have given John McCain’s team little reason to suppose that not-that-bad is good enough. The Republican ticket’s sliding polls and narrowing electoral map gave it a different imperative in Palin's showdown against Joe Biden. That was to alter the trajectory of the race in a way reminiscent of how Palin first enlivened Republicans — it seems long ago now — when she joined the ticket in late August.

Absent new polling, there is little reason to think she cleared that bar in St. Louis.

To the contrary, it is hard to count any objective measures by which Biden did not clearly win the encounter. She looked like she was trying to get people to take her seriously. He looked like he was running for vice president. His answers were more responsive to the questions, far more detailed and less rhetorical.

On at least 10 occasions, Palin gave answers that were nonspecific, completely generic, pivoted away from the question at hand, or simply ignored it: on global warming, an Iraq exit strategy, Iran and Pakistan, Iranian diplomacy, Israel-Palestine (and a follow-up), the nuclear trigger, interventionism, Cheney's vice presidency and her own greatest weakness.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14235.html

I've been reading all morning and everyone gives the win to Biden.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My favorite Palin answer was: I may not answer the questions the way that you and the moderator would like.

Now that was funny! What she meant was that when she can't answer the question, she will say whatever she wants. I'm sure that the core thought it was spunky, but I suspect that the Inds saw it as the dodge that it was.

Hah, Rubin Navarrette [Republican pundit] was just saying that this was her best moment in the debate. Why am I not surprised? Spunk over substance? Why not? I am sure that one can spunk their way through any problem. It Putin gets out of hand, just spunk him! If we have a budget crisis, spunk it! Terrorists? Spunk 'em.

Not only predicatable, but scary.

 

[LowlyPion]

Hah, Rubin Navarrette [Republican pundit] was just saying that this was her best moment in the debate. Why am I not surprised?

Not only predicatable, but scary.

Notice that the only thing the Republican leaning commentators can sieeze on are her "cute-isms", her folksy talking to the American People, her winking, etc. Missing however is any thought that by any measure she advanced John McCain's candidacy, or defended, or even added substantively in any policy issue.

She slowed her descent to oblivion, but hardly buoyed the ticket's chances of winning.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Could it be that Republicans no longer offer even the pretense of substance? Is it so blatent now that a lack of substance is considered a positive?

 

[Pythagorean]

But… I don’t get it… Why do Republicans believe “the guy next door” or “soccer mom” is the right pick for Pres? Seems to me that’s the WRONG person for President - just look at Bush.

Could it be that Republicans no longer offer even the pretense of substance? Is it so blatent now that a lack of substance is considered a positive?

I think these two points go together rather nicely. Because they don't really have any fair plans that will appeal to the masses (the middle class) they use pathos to appeal to the masses.

Both these points are along the lines I was thinking of last night through the debate. It's as if Palin unintentionally let us in on the Republican strategy: deception, dodging, and love-bombing. The commentator (right after the debate) immediately said something to the effect of Palin being a good debater because she can dodge questions. At which point I wonder (under this definition) what the point of having a good debater for president would be. In my opinion, a good debater isn't persuasive because he can identify with his audience (or pretend to identify with his audience) but because they use valid arguments whose premises can be falsified (for instance, Biden refers to his record which is available to us to scrutinize his premises. His arguments were all valid as far as I can tell.)

But does logic really matter to the majority of voting Americans?

 

[B. Elliott]

One that irked me a bit is Bidens response to the climate change question. Gives you a good idea how each plans to approach the issue. Seems Palin is still skeptical on the causes while Biden has 'clearly' made up his mind.


Question: What is True and False About Causes of Climate Change?


Palin: "I'm not one to attribute every activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said, also, for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet. But there are real changes going on in our climate, and I don't want to argue about the causes."

Biden: "I think it (global warming) is clearly man-made. If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is man-made. That's why the polar ice cap is melting."

 

[WhoWee]

Come on guys...just admit she didn't do as bad as you expected.

Funniest stat of the night...something(?) about which candidate acted the most like a regular politician (?do they actually pay people to think up these questions?)...

Results:

Biden 70% and Palin 21%

 

[Astronuc]

I thought Palin is more of a non-committed person, and I was surprised by Biden's answer. Biden is a believer, Palin is not.

Nevertheless, the conservative (cautious) approach would be to assume that it is anthropogenic, and the best thing to do is ween the economy of fossil fuels and replace them with non-fossil and renewable energy sources, particularly solar.

In addition to alternative energy, we need to look at more efficient systems and conservation. The automakers are finally doing something - but it took the recent spike in gasoline prices to shock the market, and lo and behold - the Big 3 have seen the light and can build more efficient cars.

 

[WhoWee]

Could Biden have meant that all the HOT AIR from politicians is melting the polar ice caps?

 

[BobG]

Come on guys...just admit she didn't do as bad as you expected.

Funniest stat of the night...something(?) about which candidate acted the most like a regular politician (?do they actually pay people to think up these questions?)...

Results:

Biden 70% and Palin 21%

Yes, she did. Read the transcripts, but toss out the first 20 minutes. She does pull it together to make a good response several times, but there's an awful lot of responses along the lines of:

And Secretary Rice, having recently met with leaders on one side or the other there, also, still in these waning days of the Bush administration, trying to forge that peace, and that needs to be done, and that will be top of an agenda item, also, under a McCain-Palin administration.

The subject is Secretary Rice, but where's the verb that goes with Secretary Rice? That isn't even a sentence. She's spewing fragments.

 

[Astronuc]

BobG, did you try to diagram that comment?

Palin can't even form a complete sentence.

Or she studied grammar based on Feynman diagrams.

 

[turbo]

Or she studied grammar based on Feynman diagrams.

Does that mean that her sentence structure follows the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and that we can only assign a probability of phrase "X" following phrase "Y", and not being in proximity to phrase "Z"? Maybe we can make sense of this somehow.

 

[B. Elliott]

I thought Palin is more of a non-committed person, and I was surprised by Biden's answer. Biden is a believer, Palin is not.

Nevertheless, the conservative (cautious) approach would be to assume that it is anthropogenic, and the best thing to do is ween the economy of fossil fuels and replace them with non-fossil and renewable energy sources, particularly solar.

In addition to alternative energy, we need to look at more efficient systems and conservation. The automakers are finally doing something - but it took the recent spike in gasoline prices to shock the market, and lo and behold - the Big 3 have seen the light and can build more efficient cars.

I agree. Especially with your point on the cautious approach being to assume that it is anthropogenic, to an extent. Both positions aim at reducing emissions, but one is still skeptical. If it's fully accepted that every bit of the climate change is due to humans, that strong position could trickle out and affect other areas. Example; If it's accepted as fact that human emissions are causing changes, that's pretty much also assuming that it's due to CO2. So therefore everything that is a CO2 emitter is therefore 'bad' and will most likely have a restriction or tax places on it. At least some sort of hurdle to jump over.

Also, if we again accept the idea that it's anthropogenic, that could affect another area; situations that involve sea level (housing, insurance, construction, ect).

Again I see your point about accepting the cautious approach, but that does have it's drawback. If the original cause is assumed (anthropogenic), specific aspects of the possible cause (CO2, ect) are then uplifted and can then used by people to further support a cause. I'm having a bit of trouble with the wording, but I'm thinking somewhat like how creationism could be related to constructing a tower. It's based on an original preconceived belief (at the top) and evidence is then placed within and under the penthouse... constructing from the top down. Real science uses observations and evidence (structure) to come to the final conclusion (penthouse).

Sorry to bring religion into this.

 

[Redbelly98]

Just saw this:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20081003/lpo081003.gif

 

[Redbelly98]

Palin presented herself brilliantly as the ‘soccer mom next door’ (the Republican paradigm). But… I don’t get it… Why do Republicans believe “the guy next door” or “soccer mom” is the right pick for Pres? Seems to me that’s the WRONG person for President - just look at Bush.

Yes, look at him. He won the last two presidential elections.

I agree with you, but I'm afraid many voters in this country don't.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Come on guys...just admit she didn't do as bad as you expected.

After the Couric interviews, she did far better than many people expected. I wasn't sure what to think. Even if she is waaaaaaay out of her league, it was hard to believe she could be as stupid as she seemed.

However, I heard one very interesting point made last night. Palin flubbed with Couric on the follow-up questions. If she refused to answer, Couric went right back after her. In the debate, Palin was able to pull her cutesy-pie crap and avoid answering questions that she apparently couldn't or wouldn't answer.

This is what I find so laughable about the "Palin won" crowd. How do you win a debate if you refuse to answer the questions? What they mean is that she stayed on her talking points and didn't torpedo the campaign. By definition, she lost the debate.

Her answer on climate change was priceless though: I don't care what's causing it, but let's stop it! Perhaps that is a tactic in hockey or moose hunting.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think Biden ever took the gloves off...he chose to deal with her comments with the biggest smiles he could muster...looked like he wanted to be more aggressive.

I also think the mediator tried to not look biased under any circumstances...given the discussion about her upcoming book.

I think we watched a watered down version...too bad...for us.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, the right-wing would object and cry foul is she had been forced to provide actual answers, as Biden did.

I thought Biden was stellar! He had a very fine line to toe, and he did so brilliantly. There was a real danger of getting too aggressive, making her look the idiot, and gaining her the sympathy vote. Couric could do this, but not a man. This is the reality of sexism these days.

Very good Joe. You didn't beat-up a girl.

 

[LowlyPion]

Yes, the right-wing would object and cry foul is she had been forced to provide actual answers, as Biden did.

I thought Biden was stellar! He had a very fine line to toe, and he did so brilliantly. There was a real danger of getting too aggressive, making her look the idiot, and gaining her the sympathy vote. Couric could do this, but not a man. This is the reality of sexism these days.

Very good Joe. You didn't beat-up a girl.

Given that her next day corrections were so pathetic in the Fox softball lob interview, it's clear that she can't handle herself even when having the opportunity to work on the answers overnight. I weep to think that Republicans could even begin to think her qualified in the slightest to ever have her hand on the tiller of the Ship of State.

Her next day Fox interview:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1900246&postcount=523

 

[WhoWee]

I think "Stellar" is a reach...if you mean you're relieved that he wasn't "himself"...we understand.

Bottom line = the debate WAS watered down and didn't sway many voters...either way.

 

[Evo]

Bottom line = the debate WAS watered down and didn't sway many voters...either way.

Of the uncommited voters that watched the VP Debate, of those polled, 18% commited to Obama while only 10% commited to McCain.

PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE AMONG DEBATE WATCHERS
(Among uncommitted voters who watched debate)
Committed to Obama 18%
Committed to McCain 10
Still uncommitted

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/2008VPDebate_poll.pdf

 

[WhoWee]

Okay. Any idea how many were actually polled?

 

[wildman]

Okay. Any idea how many were actually polled?

500. That should be enough to give a statistically valid answer if the poll was correctly sampled.

 

[WhoWee]

Were the polls done in conjunction with the viewing groups organized by the various news agencies?

If so, we all know how group members can influence one another...and 8% of 500 would be a net result of 40 persons, period. The closed group results might not be indicative of the population (who watched at home) as a whole.

 

[LowlyPion]

Were the polls done in conjunction with the viewing groups organized by the various news agencies?

If so, we all know how group members can influence one another...and 8% of 500 would be a net result of 40 persons, period. The closed group results might not be indicative of the population (who watched at home) as a whole.

Test groups? Statistics? Secondary conditionals? It's not going to really matter.

McCain and Palin have the stink of panic in their tactics now.

Palin not granting any more interviews?
The Palin ethics investigation about to give birth?
The subpoenas about to be enforced?
The McCain Campaign going desperately negative?
Withdrawing from Michigan?
The economy in the toilette.
Bush-McCain the "stuck on you" twins?

This isn't going to end well for a lot of Republicans besides McCain/Palin.

 

[Evo]

Were the polls done in conjunction with the viewing groups organized by the various news agencies?

If so, we all know how group members can influence one another...and 8% of 500 would be a net result of 40 persons, period. The closed group results might not be indicative of the population (who watched at home) as a whole.

Heh, you don't count just the people in the sample, you extrapolate that over the millions in the uncommitted category.

The polls -

Immediately after the debate, CBS News interviewed a nationally representative sample of nearly 500 debate watchers assembled by Knowledge Networks who were “uncommitted voters” – voters who are either undecided about who to vote for or who have a preference but say they could still change their minds.

These weren't people sitting in a room.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think this is going to end well for ANY of us...hope I'm wrong.