Montreal Escorts

Debate 1: Obama v McCain...Who Won???

Debate 1: Obama v McCain...Who Won???


  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 16, 2003
2,409
2
0
Her Hot Dreams
Hello all,

Hopefully many of you watched the debate, so lets gauge how you felt about it. Okay, so who won? Please vote. And if you would like to explain your opinion...all the better.

Cheers,

Korbel
 

Doc Holliday

Hopelessly horny
Sep 27, 2003
19,290
717
113
Canada
Obama held his ground in the foreign policy issues, while McCain held his own in regards to the economy. Obama was courteous in mentionning he agreed with McCain on some of the issues being discussed, while McCain went back to lying a few times & tried to make Obama look bad on some issues. People with a brain didn't buy his b.s., so for them it had no effect & Obama did a fairly good job to deny Grandpa's false accusations.

In general, it was pretty much even, as I expected. Since McCain is now losing popularity points every day, the pressure was on him to gain an edge. He performed well, but no edge was gained & if ever there was an edge to be had, i'd slightly give it to Obama. Finally, i found it a tad irritating at times when Mccain appeared to be stuck in the past when he kept referring to Ronald Reagan & his days as a Vietnam POW.
 

Doc Holliday

Hopelessly horny
Sep 27, 2003
19,290
717
113
Canada
juzt_a_girl said:
Canadian media (Radio Canada and CTV) suggested there were no winners tonight.
Most media outlets stated that the debate was fairly even, but added that this was a debate McCain had to win since the issues discussed in this debate were supposedly his strenght. But he failed to convince the undecided that they should vote for him. Obama, however, surprised many.

Oh yeah, FIX News' poll shows that McCain won the debate at 82%. What's new? Only idiots regularly watch that crappy channel anyways. By the way, anyone interested in getting together & putting a bounty on that idiot Sean Hannity's head? Christ that guy's annoying!! Just a good beating to straighten him out & put some sense into him, that's all.
 

centaurus

Member
May 7, 2006
169
0
16
Doc Holliday said:
Only idiots regularly watch that crappy channel anyways [FOX]. By the way, anyone interested in getting together & putting a bounty on that idiot Sean Hannity's head? .


Beats the hell out of watching Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, aka 'Dumb and Dumber'.

BTW, McCain kicked Hussein's ass. If I could vote, I would defenetily cast my vote for McCain.
 

Doc Holliday

Hopelessly horny
Sep 27, 2003
19,290
717
113
Canada
centaurus said:
Beats the hell out of watching Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, aka 'Dumb and Dumber'.

BTW, McCain kicked Hussein's ass. If I could vote, I would defenetily cast my vote for McCain.

Let me guess: you're one of those dumb rednecks who constantly watches FIX News?? Sean Hannity rocks! Billy O'Leilly is The Man!! Am I right? :D
 

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 16, 2003
2,409
2
0
Her Hot Dreams
Doc Holliday said:
Most media outlets stated that the debate was fairly even, but added that this was a debate McCain had to win since the issues discussed in this debate were supposedly his strenght. But he failed to convince the undecided that they should vote for him. Obama, however, surprised many.
Hello Doc,

I watched the debate with a lot of previous bias favoring Obama. But I have to agree with you as far as you went. There's no way anyone can justly say either won decisively. If you listened carefully there was no decided advantage unless you were simply reacting to details you liked a lot or didn't. If you watched it and can say either won decisively it's just a reflection of your previous favoritism.

Obama started stronger on domestic issues, especially when he cited how McCain himself was hitting on how bad things were and still supported Bush's policies nearly all the time. On foreign policy McCain was better with more control of the details and citing his broad experience. In sum it was close to being exactly even.

However, here's the problem for McCain. This was supposed to be his subject and Obama faired solidly on foreign policy. McCain was supposed to stand out clearly ahead on this issue and he didn't. McCain has 26 years of experience and Obama has much less. For Obama to stand there and be very close on all counts is a loss for McCain effectively. He is behind and needed a clear win.

What I paid close attention to was the Independent green line on the graph below. It seemed to balance evenly with equal highs and lows for both men. The only time I saw it get very low was when McCain was scolding Obama who "doesn't understand"...were those the words he kept using over and over? I saw the Independent line nearly bottom out at the end of the debate when McCain kept hammering on that line.

In the end, McCain had to have a clear victory. He didn't get it. So, considering what McCain needed and his much longer experience in years, though the debate was basically even, it's a "strategic" win for Obama for staying very close on foreign policy and scoring slightly better domestically .

Cheers,

Korbel

PS

One thing I was impressed with was the air of confidence, command of facts, and ability of both men to communicate well. It's the kind of skill that Joe Biden has great control of and Sarah Palin totally lacks...especially on command of the facts. She cannot possibly develop that quickly. When she debates she is going to get crushed, and it won't matter how low the expectations are for her when she gets crushed.
 
Last edited:

Red Paul

Active Member
Jun 6, 2003
705
66
28
Visit site
And of course Sarah Palin couldn't get it together to go on tv post-debate. Gov. Albatross has to be kept away from the cameras.
 

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,561
28
48
48
Where I belong.
My initial reaction was that McCain got the best of it, but on reflection, I think that was primarily because I expected McCain to be be bumbling throughout and for Obama to be strong. I also felt that Obama missed a few openings to blast some of McCain's bullshit.

Imagine, then, my surprise, to learn this morning that the two polls of independents that were taken, one by CBS the other by CNN, both came out with Obama the big winner. Not only that, but Republican Pollster was on Faux News with a focus group of undecided voters, split evenly between Kerry and Bush voters. These folks came down strongly for Obama.

Another item: at least as important in swaying voters is body language and demeanor. It's been pointed out all over the place that McCain appeared angry throughout, treating Obama with contempt. He also refused to look at Obama even once.

And only final item: a large part of who wins a debate, in the final tally, is who pulls the public perception. Her, clearly, Obama is the big winner. The only ones saying that McCain won are on Faux News or working for him. Even David Gergen, former Reagan speechwriter, says the night was good for Obama.

With Obama's lead in the polls, now about 5-6 points, growing, time is growing short for Grumpy. It will be interesting if Palin is still on the ticket come debate time this coming Thursday.

Here's Nate Silver's take on Obama's big win last night. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/why-voters-thought-obama-won.html
 
Last edited:

Kepler

Virgin User
May 17, 2006
572
0
0
I thought Obama won during the early part, when talking about the economy.

I thought McCain clearly won during the other part, when they moved on to security and international affairs.


Any chance of having a McCain / Obama ticket? :)
 

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 16, 2003
2,409
2
0
Her Hot Dreams
juzt_a_girl said:
Canadian media (Radio Canada and CTV) suggested there were no winners tonight. I unfortunately don't have cable so was not able to watch the debate (don't worry Korbel, I didn't vote in the poll). But I do think, from the few excerpts I saw, McCain's 'Obama refuses to acknowledge that we're winning the war in Iraq' was tonight's winner. Proof being 'socio-economics' are better :rolleyes: Also, Obama wins for shooting himself in the foot with his numerous 'McCain is right, but...' comments. The buts were edited out: http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec3aC8ZJZTc.
JAG

Hello JAG,

While it's obviously much more advantageous to have seen the debate in order to vote, the election is not being limited to debate watchers. Even those who didn't watch are going to have an opinion on who won simply by seeing or reading information about what was said and how others assess the debate. Many people make up their minds by disseminating recorded information and opinion rather than witnessing. Who is to say that is not valid. It certainly won't stop those who did not see part or all of the debate from voting. So I see no reason why you shouldn't vote here if you have an opinion.

rumpleforeskiin said:
My initial reaction was that McCain got the best of it, but on reflection, I think that was primarily because I expected McCain to be be bumbling throughout and for Obama to be strong. I also felt that Obama missed a few openings to blast some of McCain's bullshit.

Imagine, then, my surprise, to learn this morning that the two polls of independents that were taken, one by CBS the other by CNN, both came out with Obama the big winner. Not only that, but Republican Pollster was on Faux News with a focus group of undecided voters, split evenly between Kerry and Bush voters. These folks came down strongly for Obama.

Another item: at least as important in swaying voters is body language and demeanor. It's been pointed out all over the place that McCain appeared angry throughout, treating Obama with contempt. He also refused to look at Obama even once.

And only final item: a large part of who wins a debate, in the final tally, is who pulls the public perception. Her, clearly, Obama is the big winner. The only ones saying that McCain won are on Faux News or working for him. Even David Gergen, former Reagan speechwriter, says the night was good for Obama.

With Obama's lead in the polls, now about 5-6 points, growing, time is growing short for Grumpy. It will be interesting if Palin is still on the ticket come debate time this coming Thursday.

Here's Nate Silver's take on Obama's big win last night. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/why-voters-thought-obama-won.html

I tried to avoid the element of my bias in favor of Obama when assessing the debate. Of course that cannot be done with total impartiality after having made up my mind who to vote for. The only time I thought Obama made a mistake was in allowing McCain to appeal to Jewish voters. McCain pushed on the importance of keeping Israel secure while Obama didn't seem to mention Israel at all directly. That had me thinking of Florida where a large Jewish vote for Democrats has been cited as critical in that state.

But, I did feel that Obama was more in control of his demeanor seeming calm, professional, focused and resolved. McCain was also very good, but at times seemed a bit condescending and dismissive of Obama. Yes, Obama called McCain, "John" and acknowledged he was "right" on certain points a number of times. McCain seemed to want to put Obama in his place, and Obama clearly wanted to be perceived as McCain's equal. Overall, I thought Obama was successful. He needed to show he could stand next to McCain and measure up to his experience. Succeeding in doing that allowed Independents to feel comfortable about the possibility of voting for Obama, and that's what I think these polls are showing. Since gaining advantage in the Independent vote is the key to victory it becomes clear the debate winner was Obama.

Red Paul said:
And of course Sarah Palin couldn't get it together to go on tv post-debate. Gov. Albatross has to be kept away from the cameras.
Hello Red Paul,

McCain really has himself in a potentially disastrous situation from two angles with the selction of Palin as his Vice President. She obviously, is not going to stand up to Biden on knowledge of the issues if she can't handle interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric where she did not face a real competitor as she will in the debate. Oh, she will please the true believers of ultra-Conservatives by saying the right generalities, but she is not going to have much beyond cherished Conservative dogma to offer. But taking her off the ticket not only alienates the Conservative base that has given McCain any chance of winning, it also makes him look like a person who doesn't know how to make well-considered key decisions about who should help him run the country. Even if he should find some phenominal surprise candidate, he's going to seem desperate and lacking in judgment from his original choice. To put it bluntly...he's got a real mess.

Cheers,

Korbel
 
Last edited:

rumpleforeskiin

It's a whole new ballgame
Jan 20, 2007
6,561
28
48
48
Where I belong.
Korbel said:
The only time I thought Obama made a mistake was in allowing McCain to appeal to Jewish voters. McCain pushed on the importance of keeping Israel secure while Obama didn't seem to mention Israel at all directly. That had me thinking of Florida where a large Jewish vote for Democrats has been cited as critical in that state.
Not a problem, Korbie. The selection of the Christianist Palin for a running mate pretty much sealed the Jewish vote for Obama.
 

well

New Member
Jul 21, 2008
11
0
0
centaurus said:
Beats the hell out of watching Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, aka 'Dumb and Dumber'.

BTW, McCain kicked Hussein's ass. If I could vote, I would defenetily cast my vote for McCain.


I'm sorry to dissappoint you my friend but you are quite naive. Your vote does not really matter, if you want to know who will most likely win these election just follow the money. Whoever was able to get more financial support will most likely be the next president (as off now Obama generated more funds). The different lobby groups and coorporations are the ones who trully elect the next president. You are probably limited to skin color, I beleive that if Obama is elected he will be more concervative than what most people think. His foreing policy will not be as far off as the republicans, It did not air on U.S t.v but for example try to look for his speech infront of AIIPAC (which is a powerful Jewish lobby group based in Washington D.C) you would think that Bush was speaking. His position is very firm on the middle eastern crisis between Israel and Palistine. Obama also got a big cheque from General Electric and G.E' s main line of business is not home appliences but the millitary.

Fox News has allways favored republicans because most of his board members are harcore republican voters.
 

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 16, 2003
2,409
2
0
Her Hot Dreams
rumpleforeskiin said:
Not a problem, Korbie. The selection of the Christianist Palin for a running mate pretty much sealed the Jewish vote for Obama.
Hello Rumples,

I hope you are right. I have not seen polls on this element in several days. But even after the Palin selection, with time for the Jewish population of Florida to disseminate the choice, it wasn't anywhere near a lock for Obama with these voters about 5-7 days ago.

There were two candidates for McCain's Vice Presidential choice I would have feared most. Joe Lieberman and Condoleezza Rice. Lieberman would have reinforced the perception of McCain as a middle ground stalwart willing to keep independence of philosophy from both Republicans and Democrats, while also reinforcing the perception of being able to build bridges between parties. Rice would have been the ultimate darling of the ultra-Right and given them enormous motivation and determination. Whether you like her policies or not, her vast experience would be undeniable. Then, she would probably have split both the women's and African-Amercan's vote more evenly, two segments that are currently great strengths for the Democrats. I don't know why they were not chosen or did not chose to go with McCain, but I am very relieved.

Cheers,

Korbie
 
Last edited:

Kepler

Virgin User
May 17, 2006
572
0
0
well said:
I'm sorry to dissappoint you my friend but you are quite naive. Your vote does not really matter, if you want to know who will most likely win these election just follow the money.


"... in 2004, 57787 votes would have given us President Kerry; and in 2000, 269 votes would have given us President Gore.

In all there have been 12 US Presidential elections that were decided by less than a 1% margin; meaning if less than 1% of the voters in certain states had changed their mind to the other candidate the outcome of the election would have been different."

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/26/1245239
 

Ben Dover

Member
Jun 25, 2006
634
0
16
Korbel said:
There were two candidates for McCain's Vice Presidential choice I would have feared most. Joe Lieberman and Condoleezza Rice....

I don't know why they were not chosen or did not chose to go with McCain, but I am very relieved.


I'm pretty sure either of them could have been convinced to run for VP. The biggest reason that neither of these was chosen was because of fear that they would alienate the Republican base and cause the ticket to lose more votes than it would gain.

BD
 

well

New Member
Jul 21, 2008
11
0
0
Kepler said:
"... in 2004, 57787 votes would have given us President Kerry; and in 2000, 269 votes would have given us President Gore.

In all there have been 12 US Presidential elections that were decided by less than a 1% margin; meaning if less than 1% of the voters in certain states had changed their mind to the other candidate the outcome of the election would have been different."

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/26/1245239


And you actually beleive that? The world is not black and white with a clear painted picture. I am a political science major (got a B.A and an M.A) and if you only knew what really goes on behind closed doors you might reconsider alot of things.

There are alot of votes that do not get through. As far as I am concern Obama is just another politician eager to hold the coporate's crotch and Mc cain, well we all know the result of the bush administration. Do you actually beleive that voters are more powerful and can influence the policies of te U.S than any lobby group and corporation? Or that the voters are the ones who actually have the last word on who will be the next president??

I guess you also beleive that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that the war on terror is to protect the home land right?

The reality is that the American political dream is nothing more than a myth; witness the huge amounts of money being spent by just a few elite candidates shows this is completely untrue; millions of dollars are being spent on sophisticated election campaigns. The reality is that in America, just as elsewhere, Democracy has never fulfilled it's promise; the influence of money has ensured that Democracy remains a flawed system of rule in favour of the rich and privileges.

In the US Presidential election campaign of 2004, George Bush received a staggering $292.6 million dollars in private donations, whilst his then Democrat opponent John Kerry received $253.9 million dollars. The third independent candidate, Ralph Nader, had just over $4.5 million dollars to spend. The total cost of the US Presidential and Congressional election campaigns in 2004 reached $3.9 billion dollars. In the 2008 election Barack Obama has raised $193 million dollars, Hillary Clinton $169 million dollars and John McCain $64 million dollars thus far. In theory the criteria to be a Presidential candidate are very simple: The candidate must be a natural born US citizen, must have been resident for 14 years in the US and be at least 35 years of age. Yet given the huge obscene amounts of money being raised and spent on television advertisements, radio campaigns and other forms of election marketing, the chance of an ordinary person being able to stand as a realistic candidate are nil. Money represents a natural 'market barrier' to entry.

This obvious but powerful conclusion explains why voters in the American political system are losing faith in their entire system. Voter turnout in America has been declining in past years and has one of the lowest turnouts in the western world. Effectively a minority of the eligible electorate has chosen it's incumbent legislators and Presidents.

The masses within the West are beginning to understand that their vote is irrelevant and meaningless as things stand in the American political system. This feeling has been compounded by the fact that in recent years the Democratic and Republican parties have very little real policy differences'. Both have practiced a belligerent foreign policy and have had an agenda that has profited big business at the expense of domestic social spending.
 

johnmbot

Banned
Oct 16, 2004
780
0
0
118
6' under
well said:
...if you only knew what really goes on behind closed doors you might reconsider alot of things... in recent years the Democratic and Republican parties have very little real policy differences'. Both have practiced a belligerent foreign policy and have had an agenda that has profited big business at the expense of domestic social spending.
these are the reasons why i have never voted for president or even local shit, and i've been eligible to vote since 1980. no president has ever made a difference in how i live my life. it is easy to navigate and lead a happy life in the usa without listening to all the bullshit coming out of every politicians ass, errr, mouth. how? easy. don't buy into the "the gov't will provide for me" mentality. in other words, the gov't has never let me down because i don't expect shit from them.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts