So the 1st debate is over

Some think McCain won, some think Obama won. The polls show that OBama has the insta-bump

National Gallup Tracking Obama 49, McCain 44 Obama +5
National Rasmussen Tracking Obama 50, McCain 44 Obama +6
National Hotline/FD Tracking Obama 48, McCain 43 Obama +5

polls

So does it matter who won, as long as the polls show one way or the other? Or do we simply ignore the insta-polls as pointless jargon. I lean on the side of ignoring them. But we do have one debate in the books. What do we have to look forward to as we lead up to the next one??


[edit on 27-9-2008 by bknapple32]

[edit on 27-9-2008 by bknapple32]

Unless their mutual goal was to demonstrate the ease with which a two-hour debate can be turned into a waste of time, they both failed.

The debate itself was a tour de force of zero-content. A cacophony of "you said, no you said," and the ridiculous Republican attempt to create the meme"he doesn't get it." As if either of them do.

Once again they put on a great show, complete with real-time telepathic acceptance metrics righ on the screen, so you know when to agree and when to wince.

Each demonstrated that they were not trained to actually debate each other, they were trained to talk 'about' each other.

The topics were expertly massaged to yield to the sway of political dialectic parsing and symbolic logic's 'null set'.

Suddenly we were treated with finger pointing and histrionics all demonstrating that neither intended to plumb the depths of their party's ideology, and how that is the overriding factor in their candidacies at all.

I am offended actually about the 'real-time' audience tracking foisted upon the viewers.

reply to post by Maxmars


I have to disagree. While I think everything leading up until now was a waste of time, this debate at least held some substance to it. We were allowed to really see where these candidates fundamentally differ. Both brought up great points against the other, and both had to refute it.

Again, as I said in another thread, we did not hear Obama bringing up McCain being old. We did not hear McCain accusing Obama of not being patriotic due to not wearing a lapel.

They brought up voting records. McCain would accuse Obama of shooting down a bill. Then Obama would retort by bringing up that it was pork laden. This kind of debating is crucial.

So it makes me a bit frustrated when I hear people on ATS critique the debate as useless. I assume you are into politics, which is why you watched it. That means you probably contribute to the politics forum frequently.

The kind of debating that occurred could have been happening on ATS this entire time. We knew the MSM wouldn't give us this kind of information, but everyone still continued posting it. Maybe they do it for the points in the breaking news forum, or maybe they do it to push their agenda. I don't know. What I do know is that people need to discuss this kind of politics far more than what is currently being done on this board.

Also, whatever you feel they left out, please contribute it to the forum. You can't possibly expect them to pull out a budget on stage and line by line where they will make the cuts. Pulling out charts and graphs have proven to be failed techniques (see Ralph Nadar).

But you can do that. You can post facts with more substance.

reply to post by bknapple32


I believe Obama won - but that is a bit biased. McCain just kept saying, "You don't understand...", and Obama was able to rebut that the next chance he got to speak. It made it seem as if McCain didn't understand Obama's position, not the other way around.

Of course, this was just the first debate. I don't believe it's going to cause a big surge or fall in either's numbers. I think the next few could be a bit more important.

Edit:

Oh, and I hear the next one is 100% on the economy. Should be interesting.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by bknapple32


None of the candidates "won" the debate. There were no errors of judgement or gaffes by either candidate, so that is always a good sign. They spent too much time on questions on the unfinished bail out that was in progress. How can either be for it if they did not know what the final draft would look like? I though Sen Obama looked presidential and knew his foreign affairs, which he needed to do. Sen McCain showed his deep love for the sacrifice of the veterans out there.
There have been very few perfect debates so far. I do wonder whether they are necessary since they do tend to be a finger pointing exercise. They should try town hall meetings where people in the audience get to ask questions. I know this is a planned style that is coming up, but at least it will be more interesting.

What does everyone think of the fact that John McCain NEVER looked at Obama? smart? Posturing? Made him look bad? Or are you indifferent to such things.

Originally posted by bknapple32
What does everyone think of the fact that John McCain NEVER looked at Obama? smart? Posturing? Made him look bad? Or are you indifferent to such things.

It made him look like he couldn't stand Obama, so much so that he couldn't even bear to look at him and/or that he was intimidated by Obama as well. IMO it didn't look good.

McCain also had a sneer on his face the whole time (one newscaster called it a "nervous smile") and talked down to Obama (probably a tactic); both made him very unlikable to me. I am partisan, but I always liked McCain personally until the debate.

reply to post by bknapple32


It was not good on Sen McCain's part.
It reminded me of the debate in 2000 in which Al Gore sighed and sneered at Pres Bush. That attitude probably helped Pres Bush in the long run.

With regard to why McCain didin't look at Obama, I felt like McCain was trying to keep him temper in check during the debate and Obama was needling him to get a reaction, like with the bracelet comment Obama made right after the bracelet story McCain told.

If you think about the kind of guy McCain is, he usually likes to inject a bit of humor into his remarks, but being that this was a debate, he wasn't able to do that. I think he felt a bit uptight. He did look Obama square in the eye when he walked on stage and shook his hand, so I'm not worried that he didn't look at him during the debate.

Originally posted by Sublime620

Oh, and I hear the next one is 100% on the economy. Should be interesting.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by Sublime620]

I really hope that's not true. The economy may be the #1 issue on voters' minds but that doesn't mean the other issues are any less important. They do need to talk about Energy and drilling (aka gas prices), Health Care, Immigration, Social Security and Education also.

Anyone think from the 1st debate to the last, that we heard anything new from either candidate???? I for sure didnt. I think we heard pretty much everything during the 1st debate. Except for the William Ayers and ACORN things.


Of the three, I thought the most substance was in the first one... The most entertaining was the third. And the one that put me to sleep was the second.

reply to post by bknapple32


I am with you that nothing new was learned in any of the debates. It has been like that since the Carter/Ford debate. The press is just waiting for a candidate to make a mistake. If they are expected to make one and didn't, they are considered to have done well. I think it may be time to get rid of the debate formats, and make them all town hall meetings where the audience can ask a candidate a question.