predictions about the debate

[FOTD]

Fox has it a tie...

The devil has it a tie.

Obama's lead widened all over the country this week.

Tie goes to the runner.

[Neptune]

I had it as a tie or slight edge McCain.  But everything I'm seeing so far says that things have changed since the last couple of presidential elections.  People aren't reacting the same.  They're looking for something else.  

Consensus seems to be that for those who matter, independents, McCain came off as a grumpy old patronizing man, and Obama came off as intelligent and "presidential."  I think in 2000 or even 2004, McCain would have won this debate.  When things are relatively good, people aren't interested in intelligent.  And sometimes being a "prick" comes off as "decisive."  This time, it might be coming off as being Cheney.

Still, not sure debates matter that much.

[joiei]

According to the FoxNews.com poll Obama won.  I bet the guys upstairs at Fox News are embarrased.  I also bet the poll gets taken down before long unless they have some flunkeys skew the results.  

General Election: McCain vs. Obama
RCP Average: Obama +4.2
Obama 47.9%
McCain 43.7%

Generic Congressional Vote
RCP Average: Democrats +9.7
Democrats 48.7%
Republicans 39.0%

And this was as of 4:30am at this website
http://elections.foxnews.com/

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

I had it as a tie or slight edge McCain.  But everything I'm seeing so far says that things have changed since the last couple of presidential elections.  People aren't reacting the same.  They're looking for something else.  

Consensus seems to be that for those who matter, independents, McCain came off as a grumpy old patronizing man, and Obama came off as intelligent and "presidential."  I think in 2000 or even 2004, McCain would have won this debate.  When things are relatively good, people aren't interested in intelligent.  And sometimes being a "prick" comes off as "decisive."  This time, it might be coming off as being Cheney.

Still, not sure debates matter that much.

Actually, if you're talking about substance, I thought McCain might have had a slight edge.

Problem is, people don't rate these things entirely on substance.

McCain looked like a grumpy old fart.  Sneering, smirking, rolling his eyes and the like.  He probably lost some undecideds to Obama tonight, whom I thought at times was not confrontational enough, but enough so that I think on performance I'd give the edge to Obama.  He especially made his point tonight with the following:

quote:John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

I worried about Obama wandering off topic like he had the propensity to do during the primary debates.  It was actually McCain who wandered somewhat.

But, I'm sure this debate's result will be the same for members of each party.  Their guy won.

[]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

I had it as a tie or slight edge McCain.  But everything I'm seeing so far says that things have changed since the last couple of presidential elections.  People aren't reacting the same.  They're looking for something else.  

Consensus seems to be that for those who matter, independents, McCain came off as a grumpy old patronizing man, and Obama came off as intelligent and "presidential."  I think in 2000 or even 2004, McCain would have won this debate.  When things are relatively good, people aren't interested in intelligent.  And sometimes being a "prick" comes off as "decisive."  This time, it might be coming off as being Cheney.

Still, not sure debates matter that much.

Actually, if you're talking about substance, I thought McCain might have had a slight edge.

Problem is, people don't rate these things entirely on substance.

McCain looked like a grumpy old fart.  Sneering, smirking, rolling his eyes and the like.  He probably lost some undecideds to Obama tonight, whom I thought at times was not confrontational enough, but enough so that I think on performance I'd give the edge to Obama.  He especially made his point tonight with the following:

quote:John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

I worried about Obama wandering off topic like he had the propensity to do during the primary debates.  It was actually McCain who wandered somewhat.

But, I'm sure this debate's result will be the same for members of each party.  Their guy won.

[]

McCain mopped the stage with Obama.

McCain poked so many holes in him with mocking references to actually KNOWING some of the people that Obama was referring to, and inferring that Obama has nil experience, I was just waiting for McCain to call Obama "boy".

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

I had it as a tie or slight edge McCain.  But everything I'm seeing so far says that things have changed since the last couple of presidential elections.  People aren't reacting the same.  They're looking for something else.  

Consensus seems to be that for those who matter, independents, McCain came off as a grumpy old patronizing man, and Obama came off as intelligent and "presidential."  I think in 2000 or even 2004, McCain would have won this debate.  When things are relatively good, people aren't interested in intelligent.  And sometimes being a "prick" comes off as "decisive."  This time, it might be coming off as being Cheney.

Still, not sure debates matter that much.

Actually, if you're talking about substance, I thought McCain might have had a slight edge.

Problem is, people don't rate these things entirely on substance.

McCain looked like a grumpy old fart.  Sneering, smirking, rolling his eyes and the like.  He probably lost some undecideds to Obama tonight, whom I thought at times was not confrontational enough, but enough so that I think on performance I'd give the edge to Obama.  He especially made his point tonight with the following:

quote:John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

I worried about Obama wandering off topic like he had the propensity to do during the primary debates.  It was actually McCain who wandered somewhat.

But, I'm sure this debate's result will be the same for members of each party.  Their guy won.

[]

McCain mopped the stage with Obama.

McCain poked so many holes in him with mocking references to actually KNOWING some of the people that Obama was referring to, and inferring that Obama has nil experience, I was just waiting for McCain to call Obama "boy".

Like that wasn't predictable coming from the resident quadruped.

Have you looked at all the polls regarding the undecideds?  Obviously not.  If he 'mopped' the floor with him, why are the undecideds giving Obama the win.

Bitter old man showed last night.  He better get his act together for the next two.

[Wrinkle]

Despite what statisticians declare, what isn't a clear victory/defeat is a draw, at least from the public's point of view.

Virtually every poll I've seen of late is within the margin of error. A dead tie of 50%-50% could be reported as 54%-46% as the mood determines.

Wanted to add that I very much enjoyed the debate format/style last evening. Smooth transitions, occaisional counter comment mid-stream, etc. without the ticking clock and interruptions by moderator.

More like how a debate should be.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

I had it as a tie or slight edge McCain.  But everything I'm seeing so far says that things have changed since the last couple of presidential elections.  People aren't reacting the same.  They're looking for something else.  

Consensus seems to be that for those who matter, independents, McCain came off as a grumpy old patronizing man, and Obama came off as intelligent and "presidential."  I think in 2000 or even 2004, McCain would have won this debate.  When things are relatively good, people aren't interested in intelligent.  And sometimes being a "prick" comes off as "decisive."  This time, it might be coming off as being Cheney.

Still, not sure debates matter that much.

Actually, if you're talking about substance, I thought McCain might have had a slight edge.

Problem is, people don't rate these things entirely on substance.

McCain looked like a grumpy old fart.  Sneering, smirking, rolling his eyes and the like.  He probably lost some undecideds to Obama tonight, whom I thought at times was not confrontational enough, but enough so that I think on performance I'd give the edge to Obama.  He especially made his point tonight with the following:

quote:John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

I worried about Obama wandering off topic like he had the propensity to do during the primary debates.  It was actually McCain who wandered somewhat.

But, I'm sure this debate's result will be the same for members of each party.  Their guy won.

[]

McCain mopped the stage with Obama.

McCain poked so many holes in him with mocking references to actually KNOWING some of the people that Obama was referring to, and inferring that Obama has nil experience, I was just waiting for McCain to call Obama "boy".

Always with the racist comments.

Can't we put a bear outside and leave him there?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

I had it as a tie or slight edge McCain.  But everything I'm seeing so far says that things have changed since the last couple of presidential elections.  People aren't reacting the same.  They're looking for something else.  

Consensus seems to be that for those who matter, independents, McCain came off as a grumpy old patronizing man, and Obama came off as intelligent and "presidential."  I think in 2000 or even 2004, McCain would have won this debate.  When things are relatively good, people aren't interested in intelligent.  And sometimes being a "prick" comes off as "decisive."  This time, it might be coming off as being Cheney.

Still, not sure debates matter that much.

Actually, if you're talking about substance, I thought McCain might have had a slight edge.

Problem is, people don't rate these things entirely on substance.

McCain looked like a grumpy old fart.  Sneering, smirking, rolling his eyes and the like.  He probably lost some undecideds to Obama tonight, whom I thought at times was not confrontational enough, but enough so that I think on performance I'd give the edge to Obama.  He especially made his point tonight with the following:

quote:John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

I worried about Obama wandering off topic like he had the propensity to do during the primary debates.  It was actually McCain who wandered somewhat.

But, I'm sure this debate's result will be the same for members of each party.  Their guy won.

[]

McCain mopped the stage with Obama.

McCain poked so many holes in him with mocking references to actually KNOWING some of the people that Obama was referring to, and inferring that Obama has nil experience, I was just waiting for McCain to call Obama "boy".

Always with the racist comments.

Can't we put a bear outside and leave him there?

Maybe FB could be McCain's agent after this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE96K01YO24

[pmcalk]

Even if it were a draw, in the big picture that is a problem for McCain.  Last night was suppose to be McCain's debate, and since Obama is likely to beat him on Economic issues, he needed to shine last night.  The momentum is going towards Obama, and McCain needed to change the trajectory.  He didn't.

Rasmussen has Obama up by 6 today--tied with his biggest lead.  Some of that might be from the debate.  It does show that McCain did not get the turn around in polls that he had hoped for by "suspending" his campaign.

[waterboy]

No one has referred to the moment when McCain straight face attempted to paint Obama as a Bush policy supporter. It was classic. The camera caught a view with both men and Obama with a big smile and a genuine, deep enjoyment of the moment.

Obama didn't have to win. He had to prove he was at the same level. He did that. After that it becomes a race for whose positions/views have traction. A draw for him was a win.

[FOTD]

"Obama Won Because His Job Was to Reassure Undecided, Independents and "Leaners" that He Had What It Takes on National Security. He did That with Aplomb. McCain Came off Knowledgeable (If Disingenuous at Times) on International Affairs, But He's on the Wrong Side of the Issues as Far as Polling. He Might Have Pleased His "Base," But He Didn't Win Any Converts. He Was the Candidate from "Wars Past." And Obama Dunked McCain on the Opening Back and Forth on the Economy. There's Been an Emerging Campaign Narrative: Obama is Even-Keeled, Steady, of Sound Judgment; McCain is Obsessive, Reckless, a Warhawk, Smelling of Yesterday's Failures. This Debate Reinforced that Narrative, and That is Good News for the Obama Campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/debate-reviews-go-to-obam_n_129803.html



Landslide coming....better duck!(and cover)
Bwahahahaha!!!!!

[Wrinkle]

Huffington....really?

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Huffington....really?

The devil understands when ole wrinkley folks disrespect a viable news source.

And here is another piece of Journalism out of that NYT paper that you will not see inany Tulsa publications. But he we go with Moe!

Sound, but No Fury
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: September 27, 2008
OXFORD, Miss.


"The first debate seemed like the perfect moment for Barack Obama to re-enact the Code Red courtroom scene from "A Few Good Men," to slide under John McCain's skin and irritate until he goaded McCain into doing exactly what he really wanted to do: tell off the whippersnapper who'd never bled for his country.

It would have been easy for smarty-pants Obama to get in the face of the temperamental older guy, just as Tom Cruise did with Jack Nicholson, to push him into erupting into some version of that climactic speech, like, "Deep down, in places you don't talk about at your fancy faculty club, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall."

The timing was ideal. McCain was so aggressively erratic as he did his free-form break dance around the economy last week that it seemed the only possible explanation was that he was creating a wild diversion to distract people from Sarah Palin's stunningly junior varsity appearance with Katie Couric.

Once Garbo began to speak, and people realized that Palin had a few key lacunae in her understanding of the globe and even of her running mate's record, the myth of the Alaska superwoman continued to unravel.

Between her nonsensical answers and his complicity in the deregulation that led to the financial catastrophe, he felt he needed to take another crazy gamble.

So he theatrically suspended his campaign and rushed back to get in the way of a bipartisan solution to the economic turmoil. When the two macho guys of the Republican Party — W. and McCain — took extreme measures not to look emasculated, they ended up emasculating themselves.

The president, who is so insecure that he could only choose a vice president he knew would never hold his title, and so insecure that he needs proof of presidency emblazoned everywhere, even riding a Trek bike with the presidential seal affixed, was suddenly faced with his bête noire: sitting at a table in the White House with the two men who want his job, either of whom would do a better job, given that nearly everyone in the country thinks things are going horribly.

McCain lost control of his campaign and then, in a gimmicky attempt to gain back ground, ended up in the Cabinet Room with W. when the bipartisan economic meeting collapsed in a humiliating nondeal, causing President Bush to lose control of his White House.

It was quite a memorable moment in history for the M.B.A. president and the nominee of the party of business. Who would have dreamed that when socialism finally came to the U.S.A. it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street bankers in Gucci loafers?

The Republicans had a lot to answer for. The Bush administration had been warned about Osama bin Laden attacking and did nothing. It had been warned that there would be a civil war and insurgency if it attacked Iraq. It had been warned that Katrina was coming. It had been warned that the country's financial casinos were courting disaster.

W. biked through all those eves of destruction.

Given the past week, the debate should have been a cinch for Obama. But, just as in the primaries, he willfully refuses to accept what debates are about. It's not a lecture hall; it's a joust. It's not how cerebral you are. It's how visceral you are. You need memorable, sharp, forceful and witty lines.

Even when McCain sneered, "I don't need any on-the-job training, I'm ready to go at it right now," Obama didn't directly respond, but veered off into a story about his father being from Kenya and how he got his name. (Thanks, Barack, we got that from your book. It's great for a memoir, but not a debate.)

McCain kept painting Obama as naïve, and dangerous, insisting that he "doesn't quite understand or doesn't get it."

Obama should have responded "Senator, I understand perfectly, I'm just saying you're wrong."

On the surge, he could have said that McCain was the arsonist who wanted to be praised for the great job he's doing putting out the fire he started.

When Obama took quiet umbrage at McCain's attack about troop-funding, he could have pounded the lectern and said with real anger: "John, I am sick and tired of you suggesting that I would take funds away from our brave soldiers. I no more voted for that than you did when you voted against our funding proposals that would have imposed a timetable. And unlike you, I did not vote against funding increases for the troops that have come home with devastating physical and mental injuries."

And who cares what Henry Kissinger thinks? He was wrong 35 years ago, and it's only gotten worse since then.

Obama did a poor job of getting under McCain's skin. Or maybe McCain did an exceptional job of not letting Obama get under his skin. McCain nattered about earmarks and Obama ran out of gas.

We're left waiting for a knockout debate. On to Palin-Biden. "


Kinda what the devil felt watching Obama control himself. Smart move first outing, Barack. Can't do that to McCrazy three times. Public would feel McCain's pain. Obama needs to watch the polls and if he's in the clear, just cool it. If it get's closer, "It's not how cerebral you are. It's how visceral you are. You need memorable, sharp, forceful and witty lines."

But all in all, the repiglicans will be singing "I Need a Miracle"  if they aren't already!

[waterboy]

Good insight FOTD. The last thing America wanted to see in the first debate was an angry Black man sniping at a dottering old fool. Obama looked cool and in control. Seriously, folks are starting to feel a little sorry for Mac/Palin and that would have fed the misguided emotions.

Mac controlled his rage by not looking directly at Obama. It was pretty obvious though commentators drew a conclusion different than mine. They thought he was condescending and disrespectful. I think he used the technique because he just couldn't look at him without blowing up.