V.P. Debate poll

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Somehow, we have confused the idea that political aptitude has anything to do with political success. Palin wins by holding her own, more or less. Period.

Watch as the McCain-Palin ticket locks up a large portion of the swing vote (read ,female vote) and goes on to win in November. Short of a liberal media rally that somehow dienfranchises female voters, I don't see any hope of victory for Obama.

The main problem that Obama faces lies in the fact that women are an important liberal demographic. Therefore, a female vote for the McCain ticket is not +1 vote for the Republicans, but rather, -1 vote for the Dems +1 vote for the Republicans.
Couple that with the relatively high voter turnout of Republicans versus the relatively low turnout of Dems and you have a Republican victory.

Next, factor in that Obama is black. There are a lot of trailer-park democrats who won't vote for him just because of that, civil rights be damned. Even if they won't say it quite like that.

McCain-Palin is the winner in '08. Best start debating what that entails rather than who will win.

Question me if you like but expect to see this post quoted, by me, in November.

I don't like it, and I don't like the alternative, but that's how it is.

I don't see it that way. Clearly, the momentum has shifted back to Obama, and McCain has all but abandoned Michigan to concentrate in states that are more 'winable'. The fiasco on Wall Street and McCain's playing around with campaign suspension has burned him, and has forced the campaign to be on the defensive for the time being. I also don't buy the theory women are going to flock to the polls in record numbers to vote for Palin. That's akin to claiming that every Navy vet is going to instantly support McCain. Now, plenty of things can happen in October, but at this stage, I see the Obama campaign as having the clear advantage.

Neither VP candidate tripped over themselves. This was good for both campaigns, but McCain/Palin had the greatest benefit, as Palin held up well enough that she won't be seen as a detriment by the public. She still may not be a particularly strong asset, and I don't think you'll see much of her from this point on unless she is on McCain's hip.

[mookiemookie]

If Sarah Palin not making a complete idiot out of herself is seen as a "win" by the Republicans, then the standard that we hold our politicians to has reached a new low.

Biden wasn't spectacular...he had his moments (tearing up about his family, the "not a maverick" rant) but Palin was atrocious. Sticking to canned, generic answers and talking points anytime a question was posed that she hadn't the slightest clue of how to answer is not a success. It shows that she can read notecards and memorize slogans.

If that's confidence inspiring in people, then that's scary.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Biden wasn't spectacular...he had his moments (tearing up about his family, the "not a maverick" rant) but Palin was atrocious. Sticking to canned, generic answers and talking points anytime a question was posed that she hadn't the slightest clue of how to answer is not a success. It shows that she can read notecards and memorize slogans.

I disagree. Palin's performance was not a home run, but it was hardly atrocious by any standard. The only thing that any politician is going to say will be phrased as a slogan. It's all they do. Palin is no different than Biden, McCain, Obama, Bush 43, Bush 41, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy any everybody else. All we have ever gotten from any of them are generic answers.

I see it this way: No, Palin did not 'win', persay. She did not convince the populace to turn for her ticket. However, Biden had the opportunity to deliver the knockout punch on Thursday evening. Palin was reeling after several disasterous interviews. McCain was, and still is, in trouble over the financial mess. Had Palin faltered, or Biden really took it to her, the campaign, for all intents, could have ended that night. Biden was tentative in his direct rebuttal, and Palin, for her part, got through the evening without sustaining any bumps and bruises, so the McCain campaign lives to fight another day.

[Zachstar]

A tiny win for Biden....

Mainly because Sarah was not Politically slaughtered during the debate. That alone put her in the ballpark.

Yet he had overall better command of the facts and better command of his positions. And the "That is a bridge to nowhere" was the statement that pushed him into the lead.

[SteamWake]

I guess the fact that Biden flat out lied at least a half dozen times is overlooked.

Oh well.

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

I guess the fact that Biden flat out lied at least a half dozen times is overlooked.

Oh well.

My sentiments exactly. And harping about deregulation when he voted for it isn't exactly brilliant either.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Well they both lied quite a lot to make either themselves or their running mate look better, not really a breaking news.

Im not aware of any lies by Palin, any examples?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Im not aware of any lies by Palin, any examples?

• Palin mistakenly claimed that troop levels in Iraq had returned to “pre-surge” levels. Levels are gradually coming down but current plans would have levels higher than pre-surge numbers through early next year, at least.
  
  
• Palin repeated a false claim that Obama once voted in favor of higher taxes on “families” making as little as $42,000 a year. He did not. The budget bill in question called for an increase only on singles making that amount, but a family of four would not have been affected unless they made at least $90,000 a year.

• Biden wrongly claimed that McCain “voted the exact same way” as Obama on the budget bill that contained an increase on singles making as little as $42,000 a year. McCain voted against it. Biden was referring to an amendment that didn't address taxes at that income level.

• Palin claimed McCain’s health care plan would be “budget neutral,” costing the government nothing. Independent budget experts estimate McCain's plan would cost tens of billions each year, though details are too fuzzy to allow for exact estimates.
  
  
• Biden wrongly claimed that McCain had said "he wouldn't even sit down" with the government of Spain. Actually, McCain didn't reject a meeting, but simply refused to commit himself one way or the other during an interview.
  

• Palin wrongly claimed that “millions of small businesses” would see tax increases under Obama’s tax proposals. At most, several hundred thousand business owners would see increases.

• Palin said, "We're circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries" for imported oil, repeating an outdated figure often used by McCain. At oil prices current as of Sept. 30, imports are running at a rate of about $493 billion per year.

• Biden claimed that McCain said in a magazine article that he wanted to deregulate the health care industry as the banking industry had been. That’s taking McCain’s words out of context. As we’ve said before, he was talking specifically about his proposal to allow the sale of health insurance across state lines.

• Biden said five times that McCain's tax plan would give oil companies a "$4 billion tax cut." As we’ve noted previously, McCain’s plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent — for ALL corporations, not just oil companies. Biden uses a Democratic think tank's estimate for what the rate change is worth to the five largest U.S. oil companies.

• Palin threw out an old canard when she criticized Obama for voting for the 2005 energy bill and said, “that’s what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks.” It’s a false attack Sen. Hillary Clinton used against Obama in the primary, and McCain himself has hurled. It’s true that the bill gave some tax breaks to oil companies, but it also took away others. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the bill created a slight net increase in taxes for the oil industry.

• Biden said that Iraq had an "$80 billion surplus." The country was once projected to have as much as a $79 billion surplus, but no more. The Iraqis have $29 billion in the bank, and could have $47 billion to $59 billion by the end of the year, as we noted when Obama used the incorrect figure. A $21 billion supplemental spending bill, passed by the Iraqi legislature in August, knocked down the old projection.

• Biden said four times that McCain had voted 20 times against funding alternative energy. However, in analyzing the Obama campaign's list of votes after the first presidential debate, we found the number was actually 11. In the other instances the Obama-Biden campaign cites, McCain voted not against alternative energy but against mandatory use of alternative energy, or he voted in favor of allowing exemptions from these mandates.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...in_debate.html