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

[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.

 

[Evo]

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

How can having Obama in office be worse than Bush?

 

[Redbelly98]

Hmmm. For McCain, 10% of 500 is 50 people. Uncertainty is ±√50 or about ±7 people or ±1.4%

Obama: 18% of 500 is 90 people.
Uncertainty = ±√90 or 9.5 people or ±1.9%

So it's a statistically significant margin for Obama. Of course, there is still the 72% who have yet to make up their minds.

 

[WhoWee]

It was described to me earlier as the "Democratic Tsunami"...I'm not sure what that means...but it can't be good?

Too much unchecked power is never good...Democratic President, Democratic House AND Democratic Senate...who will EVER say NO?

 

[LowlyPion]

It was described to me earlier as the "Democratic Tsunami"...I'm not sure what that means...but it can't be good?

Too much unchecked power is never good...Democratic President, Democratic House AND Democratic Senate...who will EVER say NO?

What's not good is when one party gets the entire country - even the entire world - into difficult straights. They forfeit their right to have the confidence of the people and the power to set the National agenda. A wholesale house cleaning is precisely the remedy prescribed by the balance of powers when a party messes up as George Bush and the Republicans have.

 

[WhoWee]

What's not good is when one party gets the entire country - even the entire world - into difficult straights. They forfeit their right to have the confidence of the people and the power to set the National agenda. A wholesale house cleaning is precisely the remedy prescribed by the balance of powers when a party messes up as George Bush and the Republicans have.

Look, for the record...I NEVER LIKED BUSH...and I'm not making excuses or defending him...but we need a balance of power.

 

[Evo]

Look, for the record...I NEVER LIKED BUSH...and I'm not making excuses or defending him...but we need a balance of power.

Balance of power is one thing, if both sides are honest and intend on doing the right thing. That would be the ideal. If one side is dishonest and deceitful, how is it in anyone's best interest?

 

[WhoWee]

I'm FOR locking up the crooks and public embarrassment of liars...remember my "dunk tank" idea...hooking the candidates to a lie detector and dunking them like circus clowns every time they lie during the debates...it's starting to sound like a good idea.

Anybody 2nd the motion?

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm FOR locking up the crooks and public embarrassment of liars...remember my "dunk tank" idea...hooking the candidates to a lie detector and dunking them like circus clowns every time they lie during the debates...it's starting to sound like a good idea.

Anybody 2nd the motion?

Nah. I say just dump the Republicans all in the can.

Then pick through them and just let the honest ones come back after they have served a term in community service and reacquainted themselves with who they are supposed to be faithfully serving.

 

[WarPhalange]

You're saying that as if Democrats never lied.

Dunk tanks are fun, but they're hardly punishment for something that potentially effects millions of lives.

Unless you want to dunk them in a tank of their own blood.

Seriously, we need higher penalties for white-collar crime and crimes committed by elected officials. Murder one person brutally enough and you get to spend the rest of your life in prison, or get the death penalty. But steal from 50,000 people and you get a slap on the wrists.

 

[mathwonk]

did anyone watch the SNL spoof of the debates? we were laughing so loud I was embarrassed.