Round 2: Who Won The Debate? Clean Sweep For Obama

[skinsfan07]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/07/who-won-the-debate-insta_n_132827.html

The insta-polls, which provide viewers with a somewhat skewed but important insight into how each candidate fared say, by and large, that Obama scored a victory in the second debate.

NBC's focus group of undecided Pennsylvania voters had the Illinois Democrat winning by roughly a 60-40 split. Frank Luntz's focus group, over at Fox, showed undecided voters leaning towards Obama because of his position on health care. CBS's focus group of independents had the Democratic nominee winning the debate at 39 percent to McCain's 27 percent, with 35 percent of the respondents saying it was a tie. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a Democratic polling firm, had a focus group of undecideds leaning to Obama by a margin of 42 percent to 24 percent.

Meanwhile, SurveyUSA interviewed 741 debate watchers in the state of Washington, 54 percent of whom thought Obama was the "clear winner" compared with McCain's 29 percent. That same polling firm had the first debate as a tie. In tonight's survey: 42 percent of respondents said McCain was too forceful.

And the CNN focus group of undecided voters in Ohio had the margin at an even wider spread: Obama 54 percent to McCain's 30.

click link for rest.......

[aszumilo]

I thought both of them avoided a lot of the questions, made snide remarks about each other and were generally both full of crap. They should be focusing on explaining their plans, not telling us they have one, and placing the balme on each other. I want to hear substance. But, I guess if they actually told us something, it wouldn't make them politicians.

[81artmonk]

I thought both of them avoided a lot of the questions, made snide remarks about each other and were generally both full of crap. They should be focusing on explaining their plans, not telling us they have one, and placing the balme on each other. I want to hear substance. But, I guess if they actually told us something, it wouldn't make them politicians.

Holy crap hit the nail on the head!! :applause::applause:

i will say this. most americans are pretty ignorant of economics. Have no idea what's going on with this bailout and our financial future. With that said, anytime someone says they will give them something, especially when times are tough like this, they take it.

This is why I think obama will win. He is promising the sky all the while people aren't aware or even know what that will take and how it will affect them.

I don't know much about economics either, but I know this. The more you spend the more money you need. If you don't have it, how do you get it. Raise taxes. Everything he is proposing isn't going to be free. We are going to pay for it. People just don't get that concept

[scruffylookin]

I thought both of them avoided a lot of the questions, made snide remarks about each other and were generally both full of crap. They should be focusing on explaining their plans, not telling us they have one, and placing the balme on each other. I want to hear substance. But, I guess if they actually told us something, it wouldn't make them politicians.

Exactly how are they supposed to explain their plans (besides does McCain even have one?) when they are being rushed to finish their statement in under a min.

Sorry, you reap what you sow. These debates are set up to be rapid fire exchanges, not detailed in depth discussion on how they are going to fix things because that's the attention span of the typical viewer.

[Mad Mike]

Huffington Compost. Now THERE is a source for unbiased news. :jerk:

Seriously. If you like reading lies and vile garbage that is the site to go to. If you want rational discussion and good information, go someplace else.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

If you want rational discussion and good information, go someplace else.

Where do you get your info from?

[Smoot Point Really]

Did we need to start another thread on this?

I'm curious if people on the West Coast saw this differently than people on the East Coast. Overall, 11:00PM to 11:30PM is late to stay up on a week night. I think most people found it boring because they were also tired. It was boring, but it was also late.

[TrumanB]

Huffington Compost. Now THERE is a source for unbiased news. :jerk:

Seriously. If you like reading lies and vile garbage that is the site to go to. If you want rational discussion and good information, go someplace else.

:applause:

[zoony]

It will be a good day on ES when threads aren't started around articles from the huffington post and similar garbage news organizations

[bird_1972]

Where do you get your info from?

Probably Fox News or Drudge, both of which are just as biased.

[JMS]

I don't think Drudge is as biased..... I think he does a pretty good job typically of being even handed in the articles he posts. The difference between Drudge, Huffington and Fox is Drudge reposts other peoples articles 99% of the time across a wide sampling of papers both liberal and conservative leaning. Huffington and Fox manufacture their own articles.

I thought McCain was on the attack all night. He was throwing buckets of mud on Obama and I thought several of his smears were never addressed by Obama who played defense most of the night. To my mind McCain did very well on this debate. He didn't change my mind, but I though he had command of the issues, showed passion, frankly overwhelmed Obama.

I couldn't believe it when both Sheilds and Brooks on PBS gave the debate to Obama.. I think Obama's tactic of looking Presidencial seems to be attractive with many folks on CNN's approval graph thingy; But after the debate 14 of those 25 "independents" said they had decided to vote for McCain based on last nights performance. That's after the graph showed Obama as having more favorable talking points. So I'm discounting their + - graph...

My perspective is McCain was attacking Obama on the issues and Obama wasn't as good at counterpunching as he was in Mississippi. Obama decided to stop defending himself and try to talk on the issues. McCain just rope a doped him.

What I'm looking for in Obama is to go on the offensive and show a little grit. I didn't see that last night from Obama; I haven't ever seen that from Obama. Overall, I'm a decided voter. I'm voting for Obama; so he's probable smart not to try to please me in these debates. I just hope he's pleaseing somebody...

Right now it looks to me like McCain wants it more than Obama, and is running a much more agressive race.

[Hersh]

What I'm looking for in Obama is to go on the offensive and show a little grit. I didn't see that last night from Obama; I haven't ever seen that from Obama. Overall, I'm a decided voter. I'm voting for Obama; so he's probable smart not to try to please me in these debates. I just hope he's pleaseing somebody...

Come on now. Obama did show a little grit when he counter punched McCain for his bomb bomb bomb Iran comment and other comments after claiming to "speak softly and carry a big stick." It was a great response by Obama.

[JMS]

Come on now. Obama did show a little grit when he counter punched McCain for his bomb bomb bomb Iran comment and other comments after claiming to "speak softly and carry a big stick." It was a great response by Obama.

You don't show grit in my mind on defense. Obama didn't go on the offensive all night. He stuck up for himself on occassion; true enough. But he didn't correct the record on all of McCain's smears; and I thought he allowed McCain to score some body blows.

When McCain said Obama had recieved more money from Fannie Mae than any other senator in the history of the Senate for example... Obama never defended himself and let that charge stand....

I would have smashed that one back at McCain. Like a junior senator from Illinois who doesn't sit on the banking comitee is going to be the most important senator to Fannie and Freddie executives? But that's the point isn't it, Obama didn't recieve significant money from the companies or the CEO's. Obama has raised a lot of money in small donations from a lot of middle income folks; Counting these small personal donations and tallying them up by their employers is the only way to defend McCain's statement. Counting personal donations one could make that statement about most industries and most companies in the country.

Obama just left it unchallenged. There were a number of such points which McCain snuck in which Obama didn't address. Overall Obama did a better job on defense and counter punching in Mississippi, to my mind.

But like I said, I'm not the demographic he's speaking too.

[mjah]

I don't think Drudge is as biased..... I think he does a pretty good job typically of being even handed in the articles he posts. The difference between Drudge, Huffington and Fox is Drudge reposts other peoples articles 99% of the time across a wide sampling of papers both liberal and conservative leaning. Huffington and Fox manufacture their own articles.

I don't think there's any doubt that Drudge is a bit biased to the right. He links predominantly to respectable news organizations, but still has the liberty to pick and choose the stories he links. I have read his site daily for almost 10 years, and over that time I've come to expect a slight right bias from his story selections and worldview.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, as long as you go into it with your eyes open and know what you're getting. Drudge and his afternoon man Breitbart both self-identify as conservative, so neither is pretending otherwise.

Drudge also thinks 1 in 5 of the stories he writes is wrong. Who knows what the real number is -- 80% success, if that's an accurate figure, would be pretty good for the rumor/news fringe he likes to write about -- but it also means that his big "breaking" stories are frequently very inaccurate.

Infotainment. :whoknows:

[JMS]

duplicate post

[The Evil Genius]

I don't think Drudge is as biased.....

Although Drudge does have a history of posting stories that are rumor based and have no factual merit, then removing them later on during the day when they are proven false - without a single retraction on his website admitting the error.

But hey - nobody's perfect right?

[JMS]

I don't think there's any doubt that Drudge is a bit biased to the right. He links predominantly to respectable news organizations, but still has the liberty to pick and choose the stories he links. I have read his site daily for almost 10 years, and over that time I've come to expect a slight right bias from his story selections and worldview.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, as long as you go into it with your eyes open and know what you're getting. Drudge and his afternoon man Breitbart both self-identify as conservative, so neither is pretending otherwise.

I too read Drudge every day and have for more than a decade. I also read the Washington Post, Washington Times, and Occassionally the NY Times. ( front page; then sports page)...

Drudge is definitely to the Right of the Post and NY Times; but to my mind his samplings are both interesting and informative. I wouldn't say Drudge is to the right or equal with the Washington Times; which is a pretty fine paper too.

I think Drudge is more likely to post a story about some derivative of 100 cats living in some home than these other sources; I however, don't typically notice much bias in the stories he refferences.

Drudge also thinks 1 in 5 of the stories he writes is wrong. Who knows what the real number is -- 80% success, if that's an accurate figure, would be pretty good for the rumor/news fringe he likes to write about -- but it also means that his big "breaking" stories are frequently very inaccurate.

Infotainment. :whoknows:

You know Drudge doesn't really write that many stories. Fewer than 1 a week to my recolection; but I haven't been keeping track. Also in 10 years of reading his site; I can't remember any of his stories which were substatially in error. Not one. I can remember quite a few where he broke the news and was well ahead of the conventional media.

Do you remember any stories where he was substantially in error?

[JMS]

duplicate post.

[Hubbs]

Huffington Compost. Now THERE is a source for unbiased news. :jerk:

Seriously. If you like reading lies and vile garbage that is the site to go to. If you want rational discussion and good information, go someplace else.

What? The OP was essentially a list of poll numbers. How exactly did Huffington manage to spin those?

[JMS]

Although Drudge does have a history of posting stories that are rumor based and have no factual merit, then removing them later on during the day when they are proven false - without a single retraction on his website admitting the error.

But hey - nobody's perfect right?

Name one... I've not noticed that behavior and I've been reading him for a long long time. Folks were accusing him for being in the tank for Hillary through the primaries... So go figure. I didn't see that either.

I would add in your favor, that in the last few weeks he has been refferencing some articles critical of Obama on a regular basiss. Also his polls show that most of his readers heavily favor McCain in the upcoming election....

Drudge has had a history publisizing rummors during the Clinton years; but those rummors turned out to be true...

I honestly can't name you a story which Drudge reported which was not correct; and I think I'd be aware of it if he was doing that. Drudge gives one regardless of political beliefs a pretty comprehensive view of the world along with the odd occasional story about cat populations living in confined close proximity with people.

[The Evil Genius]

Name one... I've not noticed that behavior and I've been reading him for a long long time.

Drudge has had a history publisizing rummors during the Clinton years; but those rummors turned out to be true...

I honestly can't name you a story which Drudge reported which was not correct; and I think I'd be aware of it if he was doing that. Drudge gives one regardless of political beliefs a pretty comprehensive view of the world along with the odd story about cat populations living in confined close proximity with people.

From Wikipedia (it was the easiest place to go) -

John Kerry's alleged intern scandal

Similarly, during the 2004 Presidential campaign, Drudge ran a questionable story quoting General Wesley Clark, where Clark claimed that the John Kerry campaign would implode over an intern affair. Drudge reported that other news outlets were investigating the alleged affair. He removed it from the site shortly thereafter when the other news outlets dropped the investigations.

or...

Bill Clinton's alleged illegitimate baby

In 1999, the Drudge Report announced that it had viewed a videotape which was the basis of a Star Magazine and Hard Copy story. Under the headline, "Woman Names Bill Clinton Father Of Son In Shocking Video Confession", Drudge reported a videotaped "confession" by a former prostitute who claimed that her son was fathered by Bill Clinton. The Report stated, "To accuse the most powerful man in the world of being the father of her son is either the hoax of a lifetime, or a personal turmoil that needs resolution. Only two people may know that answer tonight." The claim turned out to be a hoax.

or...

CNN reporter's alleged heckling of GOP senators

On April 1, 2007 Drudge cited an unnamed "official" source saying that CNN reporter Michael Ware had "heckled" Republican Senators McCain and Graham during a live press conference. Drudge reported that

“ An official at the press conference called Ware's conduct "outrageous," saying, "here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I've never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter."

Ware disputed Drudge's report on CNN April 2, 2007, saying that the story was leaked "by an unnamed official of some kind to a blog", that the story was anonymous, and that no one was willing to put their name to it; he advised people to view the tape. Video hosted by Rawstory shows that Ware did not make a sound nor ask any question during the press conference.The Drudge Report did not retract or apologise for the story. Drudge's report was echoed in The Washington Times, which carried opinion questioning Ware's trustworthiness, and in many conservative blogs, some of which called for Ware's resignation.

[JMS]

From Wikipedia (it was the easiest place to go) -

Good examples... So you have three examples spanning 9 years?. That's still not too shabby record, when you consider the stories Drudge has published..

I only remember the Kerry intern scandal.

As I remember it Drudge was reporting on investigations going on at the Washington Post, NY Times, ABC News, The Hill, and the Associated Press where the woman worked. Which was accurate, those organizations were conducting investigations over these allegations. I also believe the main stream media turned around and covered Drudge's story on their story which made it a national event.

The story was false and in the end effected the race for only a day until it was denied by all parties, and the "fled the country on kerry's request" was proven totally wrong, as the woman was actually in Africa on a planned vacation, meeting her future in-laws... All of which Drudge did cover.

[The Evil Genius]

JMS,

I suspect that the ones on Wiki are the more egregious and that there are hundreds or thousands of other stories that had no merit out there.

To me, Drudge hides behind the notion that he is a rumor monger (as he said in the Blumenthal court case that was later dropped). Simply put, Drudge likes to throw a lot of **** against the wall on his website. Most of it sticks. Some of it doesn't, and Drudge rarely acknowledges that. Even if he did, how is this the correct way to report news? But don't get me wrong, Drudge does do a service. You just have to question everything that is reported as truthful - which to me - isn't the way I want my news presented to me.

[JMS]

duplicate post.

[JMS]

JMS,

I suspect that the ones on Wiki are the more egregious and that there are hundreds or thousands of other stories that had no merit out there.

Well I was wrong about there not having been any. But three over 9 years is hardly proof of hundreds or thousands. I hope you are wrong. cause if you are correct that would be proof positive; I've lost touch with reality, which isn't out of the relm of probobilities.. Like I said I read drudge just about daily; and I haven't noticed it, and I voted for Kerry in 2004.

To me, Drudge hides behind the notion that he is a rumor monger (as he said in the Blumenthal court case that was later dropped). Simply put, Drudge likes to throw a lot of **** against the wall on his website. Most of it sticks. Some of it doesn't, and Drudge rarely acknowledges that. Even if he did, how is this the correct way to report news? But don't get me wrong, Drudge does do a service. You just have to question everything that is reported as truthful - which to me - isn't the way I want my news presented to me.

To me Drudge is a guy who puts out a composite newspaper every day. This newspaper is a good smattering of what's going on in the world; and is pretty balanced. Where I work we get a more comprehensive composite of the nation's newspapers and I think Drudge is pretty representative of that larger sampling.

Drudge also on occassion publishes a rummor or two, every few months. These rummors are always pretty astonishing and for more than a decade are always followed up closely in the main stream media. These rummors are mostly correct from my first hand impiracle observance..

There have been noteable exceptions as you pointed out.

I still think I'm a better informed person for reading Drudge, but that's just me....