The Candidates Debates

[FINtastic]

This "Grade the Debate" article gave McCain an A- and Obama a B. I can't say whether I agree because I didn't watch the debate, but given how the tone of a lot of people here I thought it was interesting nonetheless.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2008101...identialdebate

[dalmations202]

This is strictly my opinion, but I have found it to be true throughout my life.

Polls mean jack, IMO.

Obama wins this election because people want change, and Obama has the most charisma.

It has nothing to do with anything said, because that is spun by which side you are on. It has nothing to do with credentials, or half the candidates I have seen in my life wouldn't have been there.

It has nothing to do with best person for the job.

It is a popularity contest --- one that puts the best orator, and looking person who can get people to follow into the winners bracket. Charisma wins -- and Obama wins the charisma battle.


Let me give you an example:
Reagan -- actor wins Presidency.
Arnold -- wins Governor of Cali.
Clinton -- against GHWB
JFK -- need I say more

Reagan -- possibly the best president ever, but won because of charisma/name recognition against Carter.
Arnold -- name recognition and charisma
Clinton -- possibly the best looking and charismatic leader ever -- even if he did nearly destroy the military, and has been accused of multiple scandals including murder and treason - besides the waving the finger issue.
ETC


All won via Chrisma. Heck even GWB won because he had more charisma than Gore.

Semi-Young and vibrant, with a nice voice sells. Unfortunately that is what politics has become a great big Marketing ploy to sell the people on their product.

[Big Boy Laroux]

I did agree with the analysts on CNN - McCain came out strong and his line about president Bush was great (not sure why it took him this long to say it).

But as the debate went on, I think McCain faltered, and the turning point was the Ayers/ACORN/John Lewis discussion.

[u2sarajevo]

I wish this would have the same effect on the ONE that it did on the Mavs....

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

BTW, Flacolaco, you're right that this should be a much bigger lead for Obama in the polls.

Zogby, Rasmussen, and IBD all show this thing to be a 3-5 point race.

Dems are counting their chickens...

I don't think anything is a given. I believe Gore was leading in the polls at this point in time in 2000. I believe the polls fail to capture the racist vote and the youth vote very well so this thing could still go either way.

[mcsluggo]

well... that is perhaps not the best example.

gore was leading in the polls DURING and AFTER the elections as well

[Mavdog]

to me the "winning" of the debate is determined by who acomplished their goals the best.

in that regard, mccain won. he (finally) was able to express the fundamental differences in a simple, easy to see manner. he should see a bounce in the polls, that is if the public was watching and listening.

obama also did what he wanted but to a lesser level. for obama he just wanted to get through the debate without any major screwups and mistakes. that he did, and consequently the bottom line will be that there is no real change in the current advantage of obama.

it's too early to say categorically that it is over, but for all intent and purposes it is over.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

in that regard, mccain won. he (finally) was able to express the fundamental differences in a simple, easy to see manner. he should see a bounce in the polls, that is if the public was watching and listening.

Absolutely agree with your whole post. As for McCain, his problem is that he should have this stuff in the first debate. All that stuff that he crammed in there - that stuff in the last 2 panels of BBL's cartoon are actually very important. But a 1 liner in the debate is useful if 1)it's delivered well and/or 2) people take the time to look up the information later. For instance that "health" thing of the mother is a big deal for the McCain camp only if people know that some people want to include "sadness of the mother" (not clinical depression) at having a baby as a health reason for partial birth abortion.

[Murphy3]

The two reasons why Obama will win this election (if he wins):

1. people want change regardless of what that change is
2. When it comes to speaking in public, McCain does a poor job.

If the Democrats would have had even a mediocre candidate, they'd have a 15-20 point lead right now. Republicans must be very, very thankful that they're going up against Obama.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

The two reasons why Obama will win this election (if he wins):

1. people want change regardless of what that change is
2. When it comes to speaking in public, McCain does a poor job.

3. looks good in tight pants



Maybe Palin should be top of the rep ticket
edit: or maybe people should look a little deeper into who they are voting for

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

3. looks good in tight pants



Maybe Palin should be top of the rep ticket
edit: or maybe people should look a little deeper into who they are voting for

If people were looking a little deeper into who they were voting for, Obama never would have made it this far. Democrats are counting on people not looking deeper into who they are voting for.

[chumdawg]

We've all been looking for 20 months now, and everything from Ayers to live birth abortion to tax policy is on the table. How much deeper can we look?

[Murphy3]

I believe that there's enough people out there that are just looking for change.. No, I don't think they necessarily look deeper into anything... Obama is a Dem ..Bush is a Republican.. McCain is a Republican..That's all that many people need to know.

Chum, you give the average voter WAY too much credit.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

If people were looking a little deeper into who they were voting for, Obama never would have made it this far. Democrats are counting on people not looking deeper into who they are voting for.

keep telling yourself that...even tho it is far from the truth, as obama has gone through a very, very competitive nomination battle, and then after all the crap being thrown at him by the mccain campaign, it is a pretty thin claim that the voters don't know the candidate and what he ios proposing.

the reason obama is ahead is that the voters HAVE looked deeper, have listened to him, and their conclusion is they LIKE him, they WANT him, and they AGREE with his policies.

the voters are rejecting the republican party, and this will be shown up and down the ticket imo. it very well could be a very, very difficult night for the gop on nov 4.

and look no further than george bush and dick cheney if you want to lay the blame. they have set the gop back further than any dem possibly could.

[Murphy3]

Actually, that's exactly what I said in another thread. If the Democrats actually had someone worth a damn running for Prez, they'd have a 15 point lead. But, because it's Obama, it'll be relatively close. People want change regardless of what that change is.. Republicans had little chance this election. Their only chance was that the Democrats would throw out a piece of crap like Obama. That's why the Republicans have to be very, very thankful for the lame dog that the Dem's threw out there..

But, even going against Obama, it's still probably not enough..

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

keep telling yourself that...even tho it is far from the truth, as obama has gone through a very, very competitive nomination battle, and then after all the crap being thrown at him by the mccain campaign, it is a pretty thin claim that the voters don't know the candidate and what he ios proposing..

Obama has made it through because people have not looked very deeply. The press has helped by not investigating. Most people don't know what was meant by McCains reference to "health" of the mother. Most people don't know about Obama's extreme positions on abortion. Most people have not looked deeper than headlines concerning Ayers or Acorn. Most people probably don't want to be bothered to look into details of tax policy, but would rather rely on the headlines "no tax increase" or "tax cuts for 95%".

When chumdawg says, ""we've" looked into it" he's referring to a small subset of the population.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I believe that there's enough people out there that are just looking for change.. No, I don't think they necessarily look deeper into anything... Obama is a Dem ..Bush is a Republican.. McCain is a Republican..That's all that many people need to know.

Chum, you give the average voter WAY too much credit.

Oh, I'm sure that the average voter doesn't look much past the headlines (if they even look at those). Yet, there are many people who *have* looked deeply into the issues, and still a large percentage of those--if not the majority--apparently prefer Obama to McCain.

Another thing to bear in mind is that there is a significantly large number of voters in this country who do NOT want change, in this election or any other.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Obama has made it through because people have not looked very deeply. The press has helped by not investigating. Most people don't know what was meant by McCains reference to "health" of the mother. Most people don't know about Obama's extreme positions on abortion. Most people have not looked deeper than headlines concerning Ayers or Acorn. Most people probably don't want to be bothered to look into details of tax policy, but would rather rely on the headlines "no tax increase" or "tax cuts for 95%".

When chumdawg says, ""we've" looked into it" he's referring to a small subset of the population.

like I said to murph, the idea that obama has not been examined is total bs. you can claim that the voters are choosing a candidate they have no knowledge about, but that is self deception in order to convince yourself that the american public actually wants what the conservatives propose.

sorry, but the american public is saying "no thanks" to the conservative proposals.

the abortion issue will not swing the election. the majority of americans do not want to prevent women from having the right to an abortion.

as for ayers and acorn, a person would need to be under a rock to not have heard the news and the references of these two and obama. it is in every newspaper and has been on every national news network (ad naseum I might add....)

as for tax policy, yes, I'd agree that the average voter is not going to delve into the intracies of each candidate's positions. they will rely on the annotated and catch phrases. yet at the same time what they want is obama's tax proposal and not what mccain is saying, regardless of if it is simplistic or not.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Obama has made it through because people have not looked very deeply. The press has helped by not investigating. Most people don't know what was meant by McCains reference to "health" of the mother. Most people don't know about Obama's extreme positions on abortion. Most people have not looked deeper than headlines concerning Ayers or Acorn. Most people probably don't want to be bothered to look into details of tax policy, but would rather rely on the headlines "no tax increase" or "tax cuts for 95%".

When chumdawg says, ""we've" looked into it" he's referring to a small subset of the population.

So are you saying the American people have elected all the past Presidents by not looking deeper? Then to top it off you believe the "PRESS" has helped by NOT investigating? I would call the American people the MOST informed in the entire world, and I am proud to be an American. I would also say that the thing that the press does the best is "Investigating". Matter of fact I think it is in the job description, and if you cant get to the truth by "INVESTIGATION", then find a story to print..IMO. Lastly, I think the people are divided on the abortion issue.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Oh, I'm sure that the average voter doesn't look much past the headlines (if they even look at those). Yet, there are many people who *have* looked deeply into the issues, and still a large percentage of those--if not the majority--apparently prefer Obama to McCain.

Another thing to bear in mind is that there is a significantly large number of voters in this country who do NOT want change, in this election or any other.

Oh, I agree. You're going to have your base of Republicans and Democrats..then you'll fight over the rest of the voters.. I just think that a huge percentage of the rest of the voters just want change almost regardless of what that change is. How much research they do on the subject isn't something that I have the answer to. But, judging from the people that I know, I'd say the amount of 'research' is next to none.

[Big Boy Laroux]

I was going to post this in the "funnies" thread, but i thought people here would like it... Maybe i'll put it both places. Anyway, McCain spoke at the Alfred E. Smith memorial Dinner. pretty good speech/talk. Some good funny lines, I give him credit (or his speechwriter)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Goaj5V4tZoc

Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrqoSyKsAPw

[Big Boy Laroux]

Here's Obama portion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4gdjTq_6gg

Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBrCz4-couk

[u2sarajevo]

Obama was killing me with his talk. He is quite good.

I loved watching both.

[Big Boy Laroux]

They were both definitely good. I saw the link to the first one and posted it before I watched the Obama one.

The line that made me think immediately of this forum was: "My Middle name was given to me by someone who obviously didn't think I'd be running for President some day"

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

They were both definitely good. I saw the link to the first one and posted it before I watched the Obama one.

The line that made me think immediately of this forum was: "My Middle name was given to me by someone who obviously didn't think I'd be running for President some day"

Oh my gosh, I thought of dude as soon as he said that.

edit: What did he say his real middle name was? Was it Steve? or Scott?

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Laroux

Here's Obama portion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4gdjTq_6gg

Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBrCz4-couk

hahahahaha

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Oh my gosh, I thought of dude as soon as he said that.

edit: What did he say his real middle name was? Was it Steve? or Scott?

Me, three!

And fenceforth, Dude was thought as Dude the Hussein ....


He said he was Steve and that his weakness was that he was a little too awesome! Haha..

[Big Boy Laroux]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Oh my gosh, I thought of dude as soon as he said that.

edit: What did he say his real middle name was? Was it Steve? or Scott?

Steve.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

sorry, but the american public is saying "no thanks" to the conservative proposals.

as has been discussed here. If you think McCain represents conservative proposals, you are just flat out wrong.

the abortion issue will not swing the election. the majority of americans do not want to prevent women from having the right to an abortion.

the majority of americans do not want late term abortions, and the majority of americans do want protection for infants born after failed abortion attempts. If they knew obamas position on abortion issues, it would shock many of them.

as for ayers and acorn, a person would need to be under a rock to not have heard the news and the references of these two and obama.

just because it's in a newspaper doesn't mean it was investigated, and it doesn't mean that what investigation there might have been was fully reported.

yet at the same time what they want is obama's tax proposal and not what mccain is saying, regardless of if it is simplistic or not.

It's more likely that they think that 95% of americans will get a tax cut under Obama's plan

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Me, three!

And fenceforth, Dude was thought as Dude the Hussein ....


He said he was Steve and that his weakness was that he was a little too awesome! Haha..

That was awesome, actually. I couldn't remember why he said he was too awesome. But you are right, it was his "weakness".

Giggle.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

as has been discussed here. If you think McCain represents conservative proposals, you are just flat out wrong.

as has been said before, it all depends on one's perspective. for those not on the far right, he is definitely a conservative.

the majority of americans do not want late term abortions, and the majority of americans do want protection for infants born after failed abortion attempts. If they knew obamas position on abortion issues, it would shock many of them.

gee, you mean all those references in the articles, and palin's and mccain's speeches, and in the debate the other night? nah, the voters don't know about those issues...they've just been mentioned over, and over again.

[QUOTE]just because it's in a newspaper doesn't mean it was investigated, and it doesn't mean that what investigation there might have been was fully reported.

omg! it's a conspiracy to hide all the evidence!

get real, theres been so much ink wasted on these non-issues there is risk of an ink shortage.

It's more likely that they think that 95% of americans will get a tax cut under Obama's plan

whatever you want to believe, but the proof is in the puddin'

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

as has been said before, it all depends on one's perspective. for those not on the far right, he is definitely a conservative.

you are so far left you can't tell middle from right. McCain is to the left of many, many more people than Obama is to the right of.

get real, theres been so much ink wasted on these non-issues there is risk of an ink shortage.

they are not non-issues, and I bet fewer people know about them than know about Palin's book burning, or think that McCain and Bush never disagree. And if you think the press has given equal treatment to the two parties, you are nuts.

whatever you want to believe, but the proof is in the puddin'

do you mean that you think 95% of people are getting a tax cut, or that most people don't think that 95% of people will get a tax cut?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

you are so far left you can't tell middle from right. McCain is to the left of many, many more people than Obama is to the right of.

let's go down the base conservative issues and see...
abortion? check
judiciary? check
school vouchers? check
strong military? check
limited government? check
healthcare? check.

so just what issues is john mccain NOT a conservative on?

they are not non-issues, and I bet fewer people know about them than know about Palin's book burning, or think that McCain and Bush never disagree. And if you think the press has given equal treatment to the two parties, you are nuts.

sorry, the public has read and heard these accusations and the public is giving these accusations a collective yawn.

"book burning"? I'll take that bet! more peole knw of reverned wright and aters than have heard about any "book burning" of palin.

yes, the media has given equal treatment to the two parties, and no I am not nuts.

do you mean that you think 95% of people are getting a tax cut, or that most people don't think that 95% of people will get a tax cut?

well, let's put it this way: in 2006 there were 4,064,884 tax filers with incomes greater than $200k out of 92,740,927 total filers, under the obama proposal they will see their income tax liability increase, (and that is a bit less than 5%), conversely the 88,676,043 tax filers who earned less than $200k, under the obama proposal they will realize a decrease in their tax liability, (and that is a bit more than 95%).

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so just what issues is john mccain NOT a conservative on?

eyeroll.

"book burning"? I'll take that bet! more peole knw of reverned wright and aters than have heard about any "book burning" of palin.

people do know of Wright, and it has hurt him. People don't know the extent of his involvement with Ayers or Acorn, and are only just know getting to know what a crazy organization ACORN is. And they don't know how far out there he is on abortion.

yes, the media has given equal treatment to the two parties, and no I am not nuts.

yes, you are.

well, let's put it this way: in 2006 there were 4,064,884 tax filers with incomes greater than $200k out of 92,740,927 total filers, under the obama proposal they will see their income tax liability increase, (and that is a bit less than 5%), conversely the 88,676,043 tax filers who earned less than $200k, under the obama proposal they will realize a decrease in their tax liability, (and that is a bit more than 95%).

Even Obama has changed his rhetoric to 95% of working families.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

eyeroll.

gee, such a simple question, apparently you don't have a simple answer.

mccain is a conservative.

people do know of Wright, and it has hurt him. People don't know the extent of his involvement with Ayers or Acorn, and are only just know getting to know what a crazy organization ACORN is. And they don't know how far out there he is on abortion.

"how far out there he is on abortion"???

he supports a woman's right, and that's what the majority of americans support.

yes, you are.

ahh, the drumbeat of the media being aginst the republican candidate. that is getting to be a very tired excuse.

Even Obama has changed his rhetoric to 95% of working families.

so? he is being more exact, to be completely accurate it should be 95% of taxfilers.

does it change the position/platform? nah.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

gee, such a simple question, apparently you don't have a simple answer.

If you are really that uninformed it's an indictment of the media.

"how far out there he is on abortion"???

he supports a woman's right, and that's what the majority of americans support.

ok, it's not a matter of being uninformed, cause I answered this question a few posts ago. You are ignoring stuff for some reason.

does it change the position/platform? nah.

no. but most people are relying on a headline that's not accurate.

[fluid.forty.one]

It bugs me when people don't answer "stupid" or "obvious" questions. If it's so stupid or obvious, why don't you just answer it? Not answering it makes you seem like the other person is right.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

It bugs me when people don't answer "stupid" or "obvious" questions. If it's so stupid or obvious, why don't you just answer it? Not answering it makes you seem like the other person is right.

why do you say that?

[chumdawg]

I, too, would like to see UL provide an answer, so I can stack his list up against MD's.

[Murphy3]

[QUOTE=Mavdog;913712]as has been said before, it all depends on one's perspective. for those not on the far right, he is definitely a conservative.



gee, you mean all those references in the articles, and palin's and mccain's speeches, and in the debate the other night? nah, the voters don't know about those issues...they've just been mentioned over, and over again.

just because it's in a newspaper doesn't mean it was investigated, and it doesn't mean that what investigation there might have been was fully reported.

omg! it's a conspiracy to hide all the evidence!

get real, theres been so much ink wasted on these non-issues there is risk of an ink shortage.



whatever you want to believe, but the proof is in the puddin'

You give WAY too much credit to the average voter. I've spoken with many people that had no idea about Obama's views on abortion and live birth abortion. You're obviously out of touch with the average person...