US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - The Fifth Installment - Page 29 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-17-2008, 04:56 AM   #561
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 02:12 PM
The transcript if anyone feels the need to quote important parts of the debate:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/...ate.php?page=1


So, everyone with a more than casual interest in politics seems to be disgusted with the debate, but I would be curious how it fared with the less (politically) educated people who sat through the debate.
__________________

Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 05:40 AM   #562
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 08:12 AM
I thought this was an interesting article for both sides and yeah, I find myself guilty.

NY Times

Divided They Fall

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: April 17, 2008

If you’re a Democrat, your candidate won in Wednesday night’s presidential debate — that was obvious, and most neutral observers would recognize that. But the other candidate issued appalling distortions, and the news commentary afterward was shamefully biased.

So you’re madder than ever at the other candidate. You may even be more likely to vote for John McCain if your candidate loses.

That prediction is based on psychological research that helps to explain the recriminations between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — and the reasons why Senator McCain should be smiling as the Democratic campaign drags on.

To understand your feelings about Wednesday night’s debate, consider the Dartmouth-Princeton football game in 1951. That bitterly fought contest was the subject of a landmark study about how our biases shape our understanding of reality.

Psychologists showed a film clip of the football game to groups of students at each college and asked them to act as unbiased referees and note every instance of cheating. The results were striking. Each group, watching the same clip, was convinced that the other side had cheated worse — and this was not deliberate bias or just for show.

“Their eyes were taking in the same game, but their brains seemed to be processing the events in two distinct ways,” Farhad Manjoo writes in his terrific new book, “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” It’s the best political book so far this year.

Mr. Manjoo cites a more recent study by Stanford University psychologists of students who either favored or opposed capital punishment. The students were shown the same two studies: one suggested that executions have a deterrent effect that reduces subsequent murders, and the other doubted that.

Whatever their stance, the students found the study that supported their position to be well-conducted and persuasive and the other one to be profoundly flawed.

“That led to a funny result,” Mr. Manjoo writes. “People in the study became polarized.”

A fair reading of the two studies might have led the students to question whether any strong conclusions could be drawn about deterrence, and thus to tone down their views on the death penalty. But the opposite happened. Students on each side accepted the evidence that conformed to their original views while rejecting the contrary evidence — and so afterward students on both sides were more passionate and confident than ever of their views.

That’s what we seem to be seeing in the Democratic primaries. Even though the policy differences between the two candidates are minimal, each camp is becoming increasingly aggravated at the other. A Washington Post poll published Wednesday found that more than one-third of Democrats say that they may not support their party’s nominee if it is not their own choice.

Another challenge is the biased way in which we gather information. We seek out information that reinforces our prejudices. One study presented listeners with static-filled recordings of speeches that they believed they were judging on persuasive power. Listeners could push a button to tweak the signal, reducing the static to make it easier to understand. When smokers heard a speech connecting tobacco with cancer, they didn’t try to improve the clarity to hear it more easily. But they pushed the button to get a clearer version of a speech saying that there was no link between smoking and cancer. Nonsmokers were the exact opposite.

This resistance to information that doesn’t mesh with our preconceived beliefs afflicts both liberals and conservatives, but a raft of studies shows that it is a particular problem with conservatives. For example, when voters receive mailings offering them free pamphlets on various political topics, liberals show some interest in getting conservative views. In contrast, conservatives seek only those pamphlets that echo their own views.

Likewise, liberal blogs overwhelmingly link to other liberal blogs or news sources. But with conservative blogs, the tendency is much more pronounced; it is almost a sealed universe.

The situation isn’t hopeless. Similar psychological processes govern our perceptions of race, yet we’ve made great progress in revising our views and reducing prejudices. The same is true of attitudes towards gays.

The only solutions I see are personal ones, to work out daily to build our mental muscles. Just as we force ourselves to nibble on greens and decline cheesecake, we should seek an information diet that includes a salad bar of information sources — with a special focus on unpalatable rubbish from fools. The worse it tastes, the better it may be for us.

If that’s why you’re reading this, congratulations! And thanks!
__________________

BonosSaint is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 05:59 AM   #563
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 12:12 PM
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.c.../index.html?hp


No Whining About the Media
By David Brooks

Three quick points on the Democratic debate tonight:
First, Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions.
I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that’s their own fault.
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.
The middle section of the debate, meanwhile, was stupendous. Those could be the most important 30 minutes of this entire campaign, for reasons I will explain in point two:
Second, Obama and Clinton were completely irresponsible. As the first President Bush discovered, it is simply irresponsible statesmanship (and stupid politics) to make blanket pledges to win votes. Both candidates did that on vital issues.
Both promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It’s impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.
The second pledge was just as bad. Nobody knows what the situation in Iraq will be like. To pledge an automatic withdrawal is just insane. A mature politician would’ve been honest and said: I fully intend to withdraw, but I want to know what the reality is at that moment.
The third point concerns electability. The Democrats have a problem. All the signs point to a big Democratic year, and I still wouldn’t bet against Obama winning the White House, but his background as a Hyde Park liberal is going to continue to dog him. No issue is crushing on its own, but it all adds up. For the life of me I can’t figure out why he didn’t have better answers on Wright and on the “bitter” comments. The superdelegates cannot have been comforted by his performance.
Final grades:
ABC: A
Clinton: B
Obama: D+
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 06:34 AM   #564
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


if McCain does get in
I want 60 Dem Senators to shut down any bad Judicial appointments.
You would need at least a margin of 3-4 on top of the 60.

In order to account for the DINOs and the no-balls Dems.
anitram is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 07:06 AM   #565
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 08:12 AM
That debate was a farce. I kept waiting for a real question, I was channel surfing trying to watch other things but somehow I don't think I missed any real questions. I liked the color of Senator Clinton's jacket.

They could have had the various female Fox anchors asking the questions and it would have been the same debate George and Charlie (es) would have just had to wear skirts, cause women have to wear skirts to be real women (*official Fox News manual, page 2)
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 07:42 AM   #566
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

Ok. Good for others to get on this story.
You think Sean Hannity should be feeding George Snuffleuphagus questions?

He doesn't work for ABC. Doesn't George have a mind of his own?
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 08:43 AM   #567
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 12:12 PM
From Washington Post media critic Tom Shales:

Quote:
In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC

By Tom Shales
Thursday, April 17, 2008; C01



When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."

For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.

"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."

Some news may have come out of the debate (ABC News will pretend it did a great job on today's edition of its soppy, soap-operatic "Good Morning America"). Asked point-blank if she thought Obama could defeat presumptive Republican contender John McCain in the general election, Clinton said, "Yes, yes, yes," in apparent contrast to previous remarks in which she reportedly told other Democrats that Obama could never win. And in turn, Obama said that Clinton could "absolutely" win against McCain.

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.
Last I checked, the ABC News site had over 12,000 comments, still 99% negative toward ABC/Clinton.

The Huffington Post put up this video of George and Charlie getting heckled by the audience:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...d_n_97124.html

The voters reaction...the few who could stomach the whole thing...should be interesting.
U2democrat is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 09:06 AM   #568
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 08:12 AM
McCain Seen as Key to Troop-Benefit Bills
As a Veteran, Candidate and Senator, He Faces Pressure From All Sides

By Jonathan Weisman and Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 17, 2008; A06

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is basing his bid for the White House on his credentials as a decorated veteran and leader on defense policy, has become the target of veterans groups pushing hard for more aid and relief for troops returning from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At issue is a growing slate of legislation to boost veterans' education assistance and to rest troops between combat assignments. Two of the bills were written by Sens. James Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), both fellow Vietnam veterans, and are expected to see votes in Congress soon. Those bills would substantially boost college assistance for returning war veterans to cover fully tuition at a state university, while mandating that troops spend a month out of the combat zone for every month in it.

A third measure, introduced yesterday by eight Democratic senators and two Republicans, would provide more education aid to National Guard members and reservists, especially those who have served on multiple tours in Iraq.

It is generally agreed that McCain is key to the bills' prospects for passage.

"John McCain's got a lot of things to focus on right now, but this isn't one of them," Webb said. "He needs to get on board."

For McCain, the growing pressure is not the kind of attention he has been seeking. His status as a Vietnam War hero has helped broaden his appeal with independents and some Democrats. His campaign takes as a given his support among veterans.

But on Monday, the group VoteVets.org, backed by the political action committee of retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark and the liberal documentary film production company Brave New Films, delivered petitions with nearly 30,000 signatures to McCain's Senate office, imploring him to back Webb's updated GI bill.

In an Internet ad, viewed more than 104,000 times, Iraq veteran Joshua Drake intones, "If I could talk to John McCain, I would try to appeal to him as a fellow vet." Robert Lopez, a former tank commander, adds: "He should put himself in our shoes."

McCain told reporters on his campaign plane Monday that he is open to boosting educational benefits for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and is working with colleagues on language changes to the Webb-Hagel bills.

"We are working on proposals of our own. I'm a consistent supporter of educational benefits for the men and women in the military," McCain said. "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military."

All three measures could come up for votes this month or early next month, when the House and Senate consider a $108 billion emergency war spending bill. Some Democrats do not want to put Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in the position of voting for the GI bill and "dwell time" amendments, only to have them vote against the war funding bill. Democrats worry that such votes would put them in a position similar to that of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004, when he said he supported a war funding bill before he voted against it.

But Democrats may break up the war bills into an Iraq funding measure that will pass largely with Republican votes, and an Afghanistan funding bill on which they will try to attach popular policy measures.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Act would substantially boost the higher-education benefit first approved for returning World War II fighters. It carries a cost of $2.5 billion to $4 billion over 10 years.

But it is not the price tag that gives Defense Department officials pause. It is the fear that a generous education benefit would persuade soldiers and Marines ending their tours to pursue an education rather than reenlist in the overstretched military.

For McCain and his allies, the Webb-Hagel "dwell time" amendment -- which mandates a month off for every month in combat -- has proven to be an easier political target.

"The worst thing you can do is let a bunch of politicians worrying about their reelections mandate troop rotations," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of McCain.

But the GI bill has been far more difficult. The measure already has 55 co-sponsors in the Senate, including former Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.).

"I know my friend John McCain is taking a serious look at this legislation, and he'll do what he thinks is right," Hagel said yesterday. "Our country has found enough money to send our troops to war. There surely is enough money to make education opportunities available to those who have earned it and sacrificed for this country."

While Hagel took the soft sell, veterans groups have been considerably rougher. The group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America has begun advertising in Capitol Hill publications. The Veterans of Foreign Wars sent its lobbyists to demand action.

"He's the odd man out," Jon Soltz, chairman of VoteVets and an Iraq war veteran, said of McCain. "You have 55 co-sponsors on this bill, and he's not one of them. He has to lead or follow."
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 09:34 AM   #569
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat
From Washington Post media critic Tom Shales:



Last I checked, the ABC News site had over 12,000 comments, still 99% negative toward ABC/Clinton.


Did you read all 12,000 comments?

I read the first couple and last couple of pages and am not quite seeing your percentages.
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 09:36 AM   #570
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Of course not, but I had been scanning them off and on since last night. Maybe some has changed this morning, but overall it's been mostly negative toward ABC.
U2democrat is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 10:38 AM   #571
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,258
Local Time: 06:12 AM
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080417/D903LAEO0.html

AP-Yahoo poll shows McCain winning back unhappy Republicans


By Alan Fram and Trevor Tompson

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans are no longer underdogs in the race for the White House. To pull that off, John McCain has attracted disgruntled GOP voters, independents and even some moderate Democrats who shunned his party last fall.

Partly thanks to an increasingly likable image, the Republican presidential candidate has pulled even with the two Democrats still brawling for their party's nomination, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo news poll released Thursday. Just five months ago - before either party had winnowed its field - the survey showed people preferred sending an unnamed Democrat over a Republican to the White House by 13 percentage points.

Of those who have moved toward McCain, about two-thirds voted for President Bush in 2004 but are now unhappy with him, including many independents who lean Republican. The remaining one-third usually support Democrats but like McCain anyway.

Also helping the Arizona senator close the gap: Peoples' opinions of Hillary Rodham Clinton have soured slightly, while their views of Barack Obama have improved though less impressively than McCain's.

The survey suggests that those switching to McCain are largely attuned to his personal qualities and McCain may be benefiting as the two Democrats snipe at each other during their prolonged nomination fight.

David Mason of Richmond, Va., is typical of the voters McCain has gained since last November, when the 46-year-old personal trainer was undecided. Mason calls himself an independent and voted in 2004 for President Bush, whom he considers a strong leader but a disappointment due to the "no-win situation" in Iraq.

"It's not that I'm that much in favor of McCain, it's the other two are turning me off," Mason said of Clinton and Obama, the senators from New York and Illinois, in explaining his move toward McCain. As for the Republican's experiences as a Vietnam War prisoner and in the Senate, Mason said, "All he's been through is an asset."

By tracking the same group of roughly 2,000 people throughout the campaign, the AP-Yahoo poll can gauge how individual views are evolving. What's clear is that some Republican-leaning voters who backed Bush in 2004 but lost enthusiasm for him are returning to the GOP fold - along with a smaller but significant number of Democrats who have come to dislike their party's two contenders.

The findings of the survey, conducted by Knowledge Networks, provide a preview of one of this fall's battlegrounds. Though some unhappy Republicans will doubtless stay with McCain, both groups are teeming with centrist swing voters who will be targeted by both parties.

The poll shows that McCain's appeal has grown since November by more than the Democrats' has dwindled. McCain gets about 10 percentage points more now than a generic Republican candidate got last fall; Obama and Clinton get about 5 points less than a nameless Democrat got then.

Underlining McCain's burgeoning popularity, in November about four in 10 considered McCain likeable, decisive, strong and honest while about half do now. Obama is seen as more likeable and stronger now but his numbers for honesty and decisiveness have remained flat, while Clinton's scores for likeability and honesty have dropped slightly.

"You can't trust Hillary and Obama's too young," said Pauline Holsinger, 60, a janitorial worker in Pensacola, Fla., now backing McCain who preferred an unnamed Democrat last fall. "I like him better, he's more knowledgeable about the war" in Iraq.

Voters at this stage in a campaign commonly focus more on candidates' personal qualities. That usually changes as the general election approaches and they pay more attention to issues and partisan loyalty - meaning that McCain's prospects could fade at a time when the public is deeply unhappy with the war, the staggering economy and Bush.

For now, more than one in 10 who weren't backing the unnamed Republican candidate in last November's survey are supporting McCain, a shift partly offset by a smaller number of former undecideds now embracing Obama or Clinton. Of those now backing McCain, about one-third did not support the generic GOP candidate last November.

Among the unhappy Bush supporters whom McCain has lured back to his campaign, about half say they are conservative, yet their views on issues are more moderate than many in the party, with some opposing the war in Iraq. They have favorable but not intensely enthusiastic views of McCain - for example, two-thirds find him likeable while far fewer find him compassionate or refreshing.

"He's known, he's a veteran," said David Tucker, a retired Air Force technician from Alexandria, La., and Bush voter who was undecided last November but has ruled out Obama and Clinton. "I understand him better."

Most of the Democratic-leaning voters now supporting McCain backed Democrat John Kerry in 2004. They are moderates who disapprove of Bush and the war in Iraq, but find McCain likeable, much more so than they did last November.

"He is more open-minded" than Obama and Clinton, said Darlene Heins, 46, a Democrat from North Brunswick, N.J., who has moved from undecided to backing McCain. "He directly answers questions, which tells me he's listening."

Many McCain-backing Democrats express one consistent concern about McCain - his age.

"Let's face it, we're not getting any younger," said retired accountant Sheldon Rothman of Queens, N.Y., who like McCain is 71. "There are too many imponderables when you get to that age, especially with the stress of the presidency."

Whether those now switching to McCain will stay that way once the Democrats choose a candidate is what the fall campaign will be about.

"McCain has a history of doing well with independent voters," said GOP pollster David Winston. He said voters' preference for an unnamed Democratic candidate but McCain's strong performance against Obama and Clinton means "Democrats have an advantage their candidates are not taking advantage of."

Democratic pollster Alan Secrest said the contrasting numbers mean that while the voters' overall mood favors Democrats, they are still taking the measure of Clinton and Obama.

"The Democrats will have to earn their way this fall," he said.

The AP-Yahoo survey of 1,844 adults was conducted from April 2-14 and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Included were interviews with 863 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.3 points, and 668 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 points.

The poll was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no Internet access were given it for free.
2861U2 is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 10:56 AM   #572
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 08:12 AM
no question that McCain is having a good run right now.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 11:37 AM   #573
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 12:12 PM
More like a free run. Just wait until the spotlight shines brightly on him come the fall.
U2democrat is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 12:08 PM   #574
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 12:12 PM
I’ve been perusing the comments at ABCnews.com and while a majority of the comments are negative, most seem to be written by Obama supporters. They’re mostly akin to disgruntled fans bitching about a call that went against their team the night before.

Obama was asked a few tough questions and he answered them poorly. Blaming ABC looks bad. If Obama followers think last night was rough, the impending GOP evisceration of Obama will make the ABC debate look like a tea party. Even if one thinks the questions were biased, petty, etc., Obama is the candidate who is claiming he will transcend this type of politics. He didn’t last night.

Regarding the uproar with Stephanopoulos moderating…my guess is that the Obama campaign had prior knowledge of it. Why didn’t they make a stink before the debate?

If Hillary wins PA by 8-10% on Tuesday, I think DEM leaders and superdelagates will begin to swing back to her.
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 12:16 PM   #575
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 08:12 AM
it wasn't that Stephanopoulos was moderating, it was the manner in which he moderated. it's well documented that he got the bogus William Ayers question from Sean Hannity, and ask yourself, do you really think this question belongs in a debate:

[q]"Does Jeremiah Wright love America as much as you?" [/q]

i wonder, does obama shed one tear when he hears the national anthem, or many tears?

the public needs to know these things.

as for the impending GOP evisceration of Obama ... i agree, the GOP fights dirty and nasty and their attacks have nothing to do with governing the country and it shocks me that people fall for their tactics and allow themselves to be bullied like they were in 2004.

but the Clintons are not to be messed with, as we have seen. she is far, far tougher competition than any of the GOP candidates were.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 12:31 PM   #576
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
it wasn't that Stephanopoulos was moderating, it was the manner in which he moderated.
a lot of the comments I've read are arguing that Stephanopoulos shouldn't have moderated due to his ties to the Clintons.
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 12:34 PM   #577
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher


a lot of the comments I've read are arguing that Stephanopoulos shouldn't have moderated due to his ties to the Clintons.


he's had a fairly public falling out with them, but true, he might retain some loyalties, like Paul Begala and James Carville.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 12:55 PM   #578
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 12:12 PM
10 million viewers last night...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...r-penn-debate/

Top Ratings for Penn. Debate
By Brian Stelter

More than 10 million viewers tuned into Wednesday’s Democratic debate on ABC, making it the most-watched debate of the primary election season.
The debate, the first to air on a weeknight on a broadcast network, attracted an average of 10.7 million viewers between 8 and 10 p.m., according to Nielsen Media Research.
Viewership of the debate peaked between 8:30 and 9 p.m. with 11.8 million viewers, topping the “reality” fare of “Deal or No Deal” on NBC and “Big Brother” on CBS. The broadcast faced stiffer competition at 9 p.m. when “American Idol” appeared on Fox and netted 22.7 million viewers. Still, ABC averaged over 10 million viewers in the second hour of the debate.
The presidential candidate debates have repeatedly broken viewership records during the hotly contested primary season. The bar was previously set in January when a Saturday night debate shown on ABC averaged 9.4 million viewers. CNN attracted almost as many viewers (8.3 million) for another Democratic debate in January.
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 01:06 PM   #579
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,142
Local Time: 12:12 PM
I read George Stephenopoulos's book "All Too Human" several years ago...it was fascinating, and based on that alone, he and Hillary don't seem to get along very well, but for people who haven't read the book or aren't as aware about that relationship, it's understandable that people assume that his being there is unfair. However, as per usual, I agree with Irvine that it wasn't the fact the he was moderating, it was how he moderated, which focused on issues of patriotism and lapel pins rather than the economy, iraq, environment, healthcare, etc.
U2democrat is offline  
Old 04-17-2008, 02:36 PM   #580
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Jeannieco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: If the moonlight caught you crying on Killiney Bay oh sing your song let your song be sung
Posts: 4,992
Local Time: 05:12 AM
HAPPY DANCE HAPPY DANCE!!!



http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1481


Released: April 17, 2008
Newsmax/Zogby Poll: Deadlocked in Pennsylvania!


UTICA, New York—With just five days left before Democratic primary voters go to polls to decide who they want to be their presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois are locked in a battle that is too close to call, the latest Newsmax/Zogby telephone poll shows.


The survey, which was conducted April 15-16, 2008 and came out of the field midway through Wednesday's contentious debate between the two candidates in Philadelphia, shows Clinton at 45% and Obama at 44%, with 12% either wanting someone else or left undecided.


The telephone survey, conducted using live operators working out of Zogby's on-site call center in Upstate New York, included 601 likely Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania. It carries a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percentage points.

Clinton leads by a wide margin in western Pennsylvania, including Pittsburgh, while Obama leads by a large percentage in eastern Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia. In the central part of the state, including the state capital of Harrisburg, Clinton leads by eight points.

Pennsylvania


Clinton
45%

Obama
44%

Someone else
3%

Not sure
9%


Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding

Pollster John Zogby—"This is not a year for negative campaigning and Clinton's pounding of Obama on his controversial description of small town voters in Pennsylvania does not seem to be working. Obama leads in the Philadelphia and eastern part of the Commonwealth, among African Americans, and Very Liberal Pennsylvanians. He also has a slight lead among voters in union households and has an 18 point margin over those who have lost a job. Clinton maintains her lead among whites, Catholics, Liberals, and Hispanics.

"The gender gap is huge with Obama leading among men by 15 and Clinton leading among women by 15. But Clinton holds a wide advantage on the question of understanding Pennsylvania (58%-27%) and handling the economy of the country (47%-38%). She also is ahead in understanding the personal financial situation of individuals (41%-35%).

"On the other hand, Pennsylvanians by a two to one margin (60% to 29%) are more likely to agree with supporters of Obama that voters in Pennsylvania are bitter about their economic situation than with Clinton and critics of Obama that he is an elitist who does not understand working people.


"On the key questions of who they would rather have a beer with: Clinton 38%, Obama 39%—with 15% undecided.

A key demographic group that has changed its mind in the last week is Democratic voters age 35 to 54, who just one week ago favored Clinton by a 45% to 40% margin. Now, Obama leads among those voters by a 47% to 41% edge. Clinton leads among voters older than age 54, while Obama leads among the younger set.

Among men, Obama holds what has come to be a predictable advantage, leading with 50% support, compared to 35% for Clinton. But Clinton makes up for it among women—also a predictable support group for her—leading by a 53% to 38% margin.

Among the very liberal Democratic Party voters, Obama leads, while Clinton leads among mainline liberals. Among moderates, the two are deadlocked, while Clinton has an edge among conservative Democratic voters.


Among whites and Hispanics, Clinton holds double-digit leads, while Obama holds a huge lead among African Americans, winning 82% support.


Two issues were dominant in the minds of these voters—with the economy far and away the most important to voters in deciding whom to support—54% said it was at the top of their list. The Iraq war was a distant second, with all other issues winning just a passing notice from the likely voters.


Asked which candidate was most likely to improve the respondent's personal financial situation, Clinton won 41%, compared to 35% who said Obama would be tops. Six percent identified someone else, while 19% said they were unsure.


Asked which candidate would be most likely to improve the U.S. economy, Clinton also held an advantage, winning 47% support to 38% who said Obama was most likely. Men favored Obama, while women favored Clinton.

Voters Believe Clinton Understands Pennsylvania Better

The Newsmax/Zogby survey asked likely Democratic primary voters which candidate they believed understands Pennsylvania better, and Clinton was seen to be far more understanding of the state. While 58% said she better understood the Keystone State, just 27% said Obama had a better grip on it. This comes nearly a week after Obama, speaking to an audience in San Francisco, said that Pennsylvanians cling to their religion and to guns out of bitterness over bad economic times. The comment has drawn a significant backlash, and Obama has been explaining his comments ever since.

But the issue has apparently had little impact on the broader head-to-head contest, as Obama has closed the lead Clinton has enjoyed for some time.

The survey also asked specifically about the controversy, asking likely voters whether they agreed with the Obama critics who have said the comments show he is an elitist who does not understand working people and their problems—29% agreed. But 60% said they agreed with Obama supporters who have said he is simply telling the truth about these people who are suffering from the results of economic policies in Washington.

For a detailed methodology statement on this survey, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1294

(4/17/2008)
__________________

Jeannieco is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×