Thursday, October 16, 2008

McCain wins debate hands down

I realize the majority disagrees with me, I just can't figure out why. I think McCain objectivly won last night's debate. He stayed on offense for the whole time. He bought up Joe the plumber, Ayers, and ACORN. He hit Obama almost every possible way he could. I don't think he knocked him out but he won a decisive decision. However, I think people that felt McCain needed a knockout saw he didn't get it and immediatly said he lost for that reason only. I think that's the wrong way of judging a debate. McCain hit him on taxes, abortion, the economy, his plan for universal healthcare. The fact Obama lied about his policies doesn't change the fact they are his policies. There's a video on the patriot room of McCain's new Ad. It includes Joe the plummer and calls Obama tax plan welfare. It's worth watching.


  1. I agree with you completely. I believe those that say McCain lost have lost sight of the middle class, the Reagan Democrats, the PUMAs - the people that will decide this election.

  2. Actually, I think it was McCain staying "on offense" all night that caused people to think he lost.

    What was with the eye-rolling, the sighs, the grimaces, and the sarcasm? Did you really think he was going to win independents that way? It was the very fact that he followed through on the base's desire to seem him attack Obama that cost him that debate. 80% felt McCain had been overwhelmingly negative, while only 7% thought Obama was. That gap right there explains why people think McCain lost.

    Everyone seems to agree were it not for his churlish attitude, he could have come out the winner last night. But acting like a six year old in front of 50 million viewers is just recklessly stupid. His performance was designed to please the base, but the base isn't going to win this election.

    And the polls indicate that his decision to stay on the attack all night was not a good strategy.

    This is what most of America saw last night. It was not the performance of a presidential candidate.

  3. big blue, count me as a part of the base. i watched c-span split screen all night - and i saw obama look like a fool a dozen times.

    i don't cotton liars, and obama is precisely that.

    obama is doing nothing but trying to kill the clock. it is way too early to do that. i've watched presidential elections for decades.

    your %'s that you cite are not scientific polling, and carry no margin of error. the samples were not drawn by peer-reviewable standards.

    the youtube you link contains paid ads? wtf, son? it is also a biased and spliced view. go to right wing news to see the opposite bias.

    also, open up your blogger profile - why you hiding?

    if oyu actually want a debate on the issues, then open your views up. stop spamming conservative sites.

    i estimate your age to be 24 plus or minus 3 years. accurate?

  4. i don't have a blogger profile because i don't use blogger except to comment at this site, which i do because i am a long time acquaintance of the author.

    you're welcome to visit my blog at

    i watched the entirety of the debate, and i didn't see obama eye rolling or grimacing at all, and he certainly wasn't being sarcastic.

    i'm not sure where you think i got those numbers from, but it was a scientific poll conducted by opinion research and it had a margin of error of 4%. those numbers do not come from an internet poll if that was what you were thinking.

  5. and yes, i'm 26 years old. i have a degree in political science, and i've worked for three political campaigns.

    i have spent roughly three to five hours a day for the last five years reading political news and commentary.

    if it interests you to know my sources, they are as follows:


    Five Thirty Eight

    Daily Kos

    Talking Points Memo

    Tapped (American Prospect Group Blog)

    Ezra Klein

    Matthew Yglesias

    Google News


    NY Times

    Washington Post

    McClatchy News Services


    Real Clear Politics.

    I also sometimes stop by Red State, and I watch all the videos and read all the links posted to this blog as well.

  6. If you'd like to post a link to a compilation that demonstrates how rude Obama was last night, I'd be happy to watch it.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. funny that you had to parse your responses into several pieces. you write with the clarity of your age. i'm not surprised that you are 26. things will come together for you over the next few decades. you need to be more patient with yourself.

    so if the poll you cite is so reliable, why is there no link on your website? i looked. maybe it's hidden somewhere. little help with a link?

    if you worked on campaigns, which i will take you at your word, then it should be clear to you that no unbiased sample would result in an 80:7 split. think it through. i've been following politics as an adult longer than you have been alive.

    your last comment is precious - you are trying to help mccain? i appreciate the chuckle. thank you. but it is ok to be partisan. i will do nothing to help obama. i've seen his kind come and go. i've seen them succeed and fail. i've watched the clean-up necessary after they've left. if you think there wasn't a massive clean-up necessary after clinton, then you are not familiar with his deferred payments used to create a paper surplus. he set up his successor - W or gore - for failure. it was cute. it built a legacy with those not focused enough to study it. but it was a set up. damn shame he played with the nation's books that way.

    there are two views in this country. and that is a healthy thing for a representative democracy. one view is rooted in strict constructionism. let the country run itself. we do just fine without the government helping us. a central government has a role - collective defense and resolution of intra-country disputes (commerce, judicial).

    the limited role began ugly in 1215 and finally gained ground in 1689 - both english situations. our 10th amendment is the most important of them all.

    the other view is grounded in legal paternalism. it is not the view i hold. i accept finite issues such as speed laws and seat belts, which are the typical examples i give when i lecture on the topic. but i do not accept the broader mandate taken - not given - by the federal government.

    to me, it is clear that government involvement in commerce and society has historically resulted in less collective freedom unrelated to the designed limited role of a central entity. you want "health-care for everyone"? study the NHS and make your argument.

    you want stricter gun control? study the crime stats in england and canada - in particular, rape and burglary - and make your argument. you want your spouse to be exposed to a 700% greater risk of being raped?

    i'll offer you some advice as a lawyer and law professor. your ba in political science is a half-measure. if you are not in school now, go back. if you hold such strong views that you believe are cogently discerned, then you need a forum other than a blog. you need to get at least a master's. that will give you credibility with the liberal wing of this country. it will also give you a better understanding of research methodologies - another course i teach.

  10. The numbers are from the CNN/Opinion Research post debate poll. Couldn't locate the .pdf, but the article laying out those numbers is here:

    CNN Poll

    And while it may seem odd to you that some of us would argue in good faith, and offer an honest analysis of where we think the opposition is going wrong, such is the case with me. I'm glad your cynicism affords you a chuckle of disbelief when confronted with honesty.

    You may also want to think about checking your incredibly condescending attitude. It's unbecoming.

  11. condescending attitude? that's cute. you seem to have emotion tied to political discourse. that, too, will pass as you mature.

    a CNN poll goes up and you quote it. why? because it is CNN? look at the results. completely outside the realm of possibility in a peer-reviewable study. you need to moderate what you believe.

    you have, as the parlance goes, taken it hook, line, and sinker. it's ok. you'll develop a better eye over time.

    if a student of mine ever quoted a study or poll with such disproportionate results, even if i had not seen the event itself, i would socrates them to death until they substantiated the data.

    you have done none of that. you have merely quoted someone's data and ask us all to believe, to taste your kool-aid.

    don't be so emotional. study the data. support your assertions.

    you find that condescending? your call. has no impact on me. but yet again, it is a conclusion you proffer without an analysis.

    do you sense a pattern?

  12. Let me give you a lesson in data analysis, BB.

    The source reads as follows: "Eighty percent of debate watchers polled said McCain spent more time attacking his opponent, with seven percent saying Obama was more on the attack."

    You wrote: "80% felt McCain had been overwhelmingly negative, while only 7% thought Obama was."

    Let's strip out the data and see what was measured.

    CNN: "spent more time attacking his opponent"

    You: "had been overwhelmingly negative"

    The data point measured was misrepresented by you.

    You fail, I suggest, to see the emotion buried within your analyses. That is why I suggest you get your Masters. I am trying to help you. You misinterpret data as any person not forced to work deeply in analyses does. It's not a flaw. it's a lack of exposure.

    The question in data analysis is always: What has we learned?

    Stare at the data. Stare at it. Discern that answer.

    From these data we learn that McCain was perceived to be on the attack more than Obama. Whatever that word "attack" means to someone, it is analytically dishonest to tag a negative meaning to it. One can be on the "attack" for plenty of reasons, both good and bad - both positive and negative.

    You are assuming that the measured audience all had the same definition of that word "attack," the same perception of the word "attack" when asked the question. It could have been merely a statement of fact - Yes, McCain attacked Obama more than Obama attacked McCain.

    You also need to recognize that the sampled audience did not chose the word, such as "List three words to describe McCain's style this evening." CNN supplied the word. And CNN most likely did not define the term.

    Perhaps if additional terms were used - aggressive, domineering, angry, forceful, competitive - then additional insights could be made.

    But you have a classic error in data analysis. Just doesn't cut it.

    Condescending? No. More educated in analysing and interpreting data.

    Learn first, then write. Great little saying. I made it up. You can use it if you like.

  13. The Video that could cost Obama the election: