f13.net

Cheney pwned Edwards.

Bruce

Ari over at the Kerry/Edwards Blog (http://blog.johnkerry.com/) doesn't think that's the way it went down...but, uhm....He's made progress to convince me otherwise.

America, at this moment, sucks. So, so hard.

Totally unscientific poll (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/?GT1=5472) at MSNBC says Edwards pwned. (Currently 70% to 30% with 323,145 responses.)

Cheney did much better than the Pres, imo.  I missed the last half hour or so of the debate, which was the majority domestic issues, but for the first 50-60 minutes, I think Cheney was well in the lead.  I disagree that he 'smashed' Edwards, but I think he was a clear winner.

--
Alkiera

Almost all the big news online polls have Edwards winning.  It's an orchestrated effort by Democratic groups to spike the polls.  In response, Republican groups have told people not to vote, so the polls look even more embarassingly inaccurate.

Bruce

You're a goddamn looney.

Edwards will win the spin war on this one as well.

Time after time, he spouted several pieces of incendiary rhetoric, leaving Cheney hopelessly unable to debunk all of them in his limited response time.

It takes a lot of facts to debunk a very small amount of specious rhetoric, no matter how false....and the response is nowhere near as snappy and sexy as the accusation.

Example: The allegations Edwards made about Halliburton. Cheney was given 30 seconds to respond. He immediately pointed out that he couldn't possibly respond to all of the allegations within 30 seconds....the moderator replied by saying "thats what you've got".

Lots of situations where Cheney's response was fact, fact, fact, fact...systematically dismantling accusations by Edwards. It was impressive. Edwards is absolutely no match for Dick Cheney v1.5, thanks in large part to his neural net processor from Cyberdyne Systems. It's a learning computer.

Ultimately though...fact, fact, fact, fact in response to accusations by Edwards isn't sexy, it isn't easy to squeeze into a sound byte, and it doesn't win the spin war. OTOH, Edwards prefaced many of his statements with a brief description of "what the other side is trying to do this X", and then responding to THAT instead of what was actually said.

Similar to the last debate, look for the spin to favor the challenger.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

I am soaking this in, and it is hilarious.

Rasix....you think supporters from BOTH sides don't do everything they can to manipulate those polls, knowing full well that the media will pimp various polls in concluding who won...and thus influence people that didn't watch and aren't even following the spin very closely?

And *that* is what makes Bruce a looney?? Here I thought it was the fur suit and penchant for discussing his bizarre sexual escapades.

Bring the noise.
Cheers................

Hey, I win no matter what.  That's why I threw it out there.

If a voter makes their candidate decision based on any of these debates, then they really haven't been paying attention to any of the campaigning for the last 6 months.  Most of what's getting discussed is the same spin that we already know (or have seen).  I've watched both debates and they haven't really shown me anything more than how silly our political system must look to the rest of the world. Especially since we consider ourselves world leaders.  

As for the polls, I think we can agree that they are largely meaningless and full of all sorts of bias.  I'm not even going to comment on push polls.  

The candidates for vice president are very different people with pretty polarized ideals.  I don't think that either of them are of consequence as the presidential race has historically been the focus.  These guys won't win the election, but I can see how they could help lose it for their respective running mates if the race gets tighter nearing election.  My view is that Edwards needs to overcome his perceived lack of experience with charisma while Cheany needs to keep his temper in check while not looking too conservative.  

This debate was largely a waste of the viewer's time.

Hey, I was at work, and that time was going to be wasted anyway.  Listening to Cheney make fun of "John Gone"s Senate attendance record on the radio was at least amusing.

--
Alkiera

The sad thing about these debates is, the media has turned command of facts into a negative.

I thought in the 2000 elections Gore absolutely smoked Bush as far as command of facts, but then people spun it as Gore being a know-it-all, condescending, robotic, etc.

So now, it's good to be a down home guy and not know things...so if Cheney came off as really in command the information that isn't an automatic good thing anymore...

I did not watch the VP debates, I don't care much about them.

We tend to know a hell of a lot more here than the typical mouthbreather that doesn't follow politics. Most of those folks will head for work in the morning, hear one or two co-workers mention "did you see the debate last night", scratch their head, get home, and ***MAYBE*** still give a shit enough to catch the evening news or read the paper to find out what the fuss was about.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

Edwards started strong, on the attack.  Cheney was overall, more even-keeled, and reeled off statistics at a ridiculous rate.  He's more confident on foreign policy than Edwards, and it showed.  When things switched to domestic policies, Edwards clearly had the advantage.  Cheney had to cling to No Child Left Behind and the recent Medicare reform as great victories.  Um, not particularly.  NCLB was largely unfunded by Bush, and the Medicare reform has gone over like a Funeral on Christmas.  By the end of the debate, neither of them could complete coherent sentences and both were stumbling.

Edwards had two major stumblings.  The first was Cheney's pretty nice line claiming "If you can't stand up to Howard Dean, how are you going to stand up to Al Qaeda". I can see Dean as a suicide bomber.  Yargh!  His second major stumbling was when asked how he was worthy to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.  Hard to believe he didn't have a good answer for that.  Cheney looks stumped when asked why we let Afghan warlords hunt for Osama for us.  Two debates in, and the Bushies still haven't prepared a response for that.

But hell, this is the Vice President Debate.  The people aren't voting for Cheney or Edwards to lead the free world.  They're both air bags, designed to deploy if something goes wrong.  And they both talked like air bags tonight.

Nothing that was said tonight is going to make a difference, unless it can somehow turn into news.  This usually translates to someone making a mistake that can be turned into a television ad.  I counted two of those mistake moments for Cheney.  

The conservative pundits claimed that Cheney's best line was that he had never met Edwards.  Turns out that that was simply not true (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEBATE_FIRST_MEETING?SITE=FLDAY&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT).  Cheney also claimed that he had never said there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.    Also not (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/) true (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/kerry.powell.iraq/).  Neither of these are on the level of a Dukakis debate mistake, but they fit well into Kerry's current meme push that the Bush campaign can't be honest with us.  To be honest, even at Edwards' worst, I didn't see a moment that bad on his side.

Overall, I'd call the debate a draw.  Cheney seemed more intellectual and consistent, Edwards more likeable and energetic, who stumbled more frequently but also managed to avoid making any huge mistakes, and hit a couple of good, emotional shots.  His litany of Cheney's house voting record was particulary scathing.

All that being said, I thought the questions were particularly lame.  Two or three times, she asked rephrased versions of the same question to each candidate.  Did we really need two questions about Gay Rights, given that Edwards had just given his stance in rebuttal to Cheney's response?  Did we really need two questions on Tort reform?  Both candidates had to twist and weasel questions to talk about things that they felt (and in my opinion, America feels) are real topics of discussion, such as Edwards shoe-horning in a discussion of Health Care into one of the Tort Reform questions.

The bloggers are all over the place on this, and they often are going against their man.  ABC shows that Cheney won, but had a large GOP sample.  CBS shows Edwards won, but -- they're CBS.  MSNBC thought Cheney crushed, FoxNews gave Edwards some props.  In the long run, with the next presidential debate in three days, I just don't think anything substantial enough to change anything happened tonight.

I enjoyed the "You voted against MLK Jr. Day, etc. " response.

I watched about the first 30 minutes of the debate, and I give the win the Cheney. He had a far better command of facts than Edwards. Cheney could break down his answers and be specific, but Edwards sounded like he was reading campaign bullet points.

Both debates so far have annoyed me. I haven't heard Kerry/Edwards say anything other than, "We'd do the same thing, but do it differently." I can't see how that will win them the election, but people are stupid, so maybe it will work.

I liked the VP debate far more than the Presidential. The first Presidential debate sounded like a reiteration of campaign phrases from both candidates; I thought it was lame as hell.

Something else that keeps irritating me... Why the hell can't Bush/Cheney just say that they invaded Iraq to move the front line in the War on Terror into the middle east? It makes sense militarily, gets rid of a dictator who managed to bribe the UN, ends 10 years of ruinous sanctions that failed, but nobody is saying it.

Yes that's the time he got.  Same time as every other debater.  I heard that line too many times from Cheney.  Yes the topics are complex - someone as intelligent and organized as Cheney should sum them effectively or go home not waste our time.

FactCheck says both candidates spun equally. (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272)  They gave Edwards a slight advantage in truthful representation.  That was my take as well.  I was disappointed when Cheney trotted out the same tired ad hominems used in Bush's stump speeches.  I just about turned off the TV when Edwards brought up Cheney's daughter.

Cheney growls and insults with the best of them.  It's a great way to motivate corporate mid-management lickspittles.  But he's an elected official and he's re-interviewing for his position.  I don't hire people who answer my questions with handwaving.

I'd love to have seen a Powell/McCain ticket... %-)

Cheney clearly won, but Edwards didn't do too badly.  He just came off as a lot less experienced and much less realistic than Cheney.  Cheney scored serious points by continually hammering Edwards' and Kerry's voting record and especially Edwards' continuous absence from the Senate.  Cheney also did well by not getting baited when Edwards tried to use the gay daughter card on him.

Edwards, in contrast, seemed to pull out "Halliburton!" as his catchall fallback whenever he couldn't come up with a good response to one of Cheney's accusations.  I don't think it went over too well, but that's just my opinion.

If, as many people believe, Cheney is really the power behind the throne, judging by this debate I've got no problem with that.  Yeah, Cheney comes off as Darth Vader sometimes, but in this day and age I'm willing to go with Darth Vader setting the national policy.

I liked the part where Cheney turned to the cherubic Edwards and said "Obi-wan never told you what happened to your father..." and reached out in a show of bi-partisanship.

You forgot the rest of the line: "Obi-wan never told you what happened to your father... I fed him to the sharks with the freakin' lasers!

Muwa ha! Muwa ha ha ha ha!"

Edwards looked just like what he is... a lawyer trying to plead a case. That was enough for me. Seriously Hes like my second cousin on my dads side and I wouldnt vote for the dude if he was running with jesus against satan.

I reccomend everyone who thinks Cheny didn't say anything wrong to follow his advice and go to www.factcheck.com

I didn't think websites propgated that quick yet, it's a very good joke I must say.

I thought Ubiq pretty well summed it up.  Cheney may have memorised some facts in preparation, but either lied or didn't remember meeting Edwards on at least two occassions.  Either scenario is not great.  I don't think he won at all.  Both of them are foolish, in my opinion.  Do either of them really think that in this day of everything being caught on tape,  they can mislead people by spinning facts?  Well... maybe some are fooled, but the media makes sure to report the descrepancies.  The media is desperately trying to squeeze anything newsworty from this debate but, considering the calibre of questions asked, I felt it was mostly a waste of time.  I do believe, however, that Edwards scored a few points by pointing out that Cheney, himself, had voted against many of the same things that he was criticising Edwards for voting against.  Weird choice on his part.

I think both had their 'moments'.  However, those moments were cancelled out by the spin on facts recorded and easily proven to not be accurate.

That's if you think winning a debate is based around things like "facts", and "truth".  It's about attitude, style, and impressions.  In that category Cheney whooped Edwards just like Kerry earlier whooped Bush.  You can argue about everything not being truthful 'til you're blue in the face, at the end of the day it doesn't matter and the impression of Cheney winning has already been made.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/debate.main/index.html
says that undecideds think Edwards won by a 41-28 margin, which is the only group that matters.  The overall buzz from the chattering classes seems to be that it was a draw.  Really, it doesn't matter.  Your VP can't get you elected, but he can keep you from getting elected if he shoots himself in the foot, which neither of them did.

My sarcasm detector is not working properly.  Try this site instead www.factcheck.org

Cheney told people to go to factcheck.COM last night during the debate.  D'oh.

   Gee, maybe the GOP could learn from this, and start using that tactic.

Negative. I don't think either pwned the other. Cheney came off as a bitter, grumbling fuck, and Edwards came off as an energetic fresh-faced Senator. Nothing new was said in the parts I saw, a lot of old bullshit was brought up by both sides.

I still can't believe people actually contend somebody "won" any of these debates. This isn't a judged event nor is it scored like a football game. It's 100% POV. I know it's hard to come up with shit to argue about sometimes, but this is a pretty lame excuse.

But that doesn't seem to stop every political thread from turning into a opinionated, self-absorbed, circle-jerk. Carry on.

I think most people are calling it a draw, which I would agree with.  

I know that the standard debate tactic is attack-attack-attack, but in attacking I think the GOP missed the opportunity to put an intelligent, well-spoken person in front of a national audience to explain and defend the GOP strategy and overall worldview directly to the American public.

Now that task, if it is to be accomplished at all, is left to Bush.  With Kerry standing right there to call him on any inaccuracies.  

Should be fun.

You know, it must be somehow relevant that it wasnt untill the fourth time I read that link that I realised it was faCtcheck, and not fatcheck.

I think Ubiq's summary accurately reflects what I saw. I was bored to tears about 45 minutes in, primarily because the questions were so goddamned similar. Cheney knows his shit, and projects an air of competence (in direct contrast to his boss). Edwards was earnest and passionate...really hard to declare a winner. It was much closer than the 1st Pres debate for sure.

Maybe in charge of the NSA or CIA, but for the office of president, I kinda like the whole constitution/amendment thing, which seems a little antithetical to a Darth Vader world view...

Point being that it takes much less time to throw mud at someone than it does to clean it off.

I'll give you an easy one that maybe the average person can relate to a little better. An attractive woman that you have regular contact with visits you and your spouse/girlfriend/etc. Seemingly out of nowhere, she tells your spouse/gf that she has been having an affair with you, that you told her you loved her and wanted to leave your spouse/gf, and that the two of you are now planning on getting married, because she thinks she might be pregnant. Your wife/gf tells you that you have 30 seconds to explain, or she is leaving you for good.

GO.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

Your optimism is so cute. It would taste great on a cracker.

At that point you go beeble beeble beebl with your finger and mouth and pass out from sheer brainlock.

If the allegations she were making were in any way TRUE, I might stammer around for more than 30 seconds.  

But a bald-faced lie is easy to respond to.  I would tell my girlfriend, "That's a complete lie.  You know that I wouldn't go behind your back.  And you know that if I WAS for some insane reason planning to marry this psycho bitch, I wouldn't do this."  Then I'd throw the psycho bitch out of my house.

Anrew Sullivan writes a good analysis (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=vqOmcvILmRoeULPiujRSVh%3D%3D) of who won the debate.

The article goes at length at how Cheney was better at pandering to his base, while Edwards was much more successful reaching the undecided voter.  He makes the assumption that reaching the undecideds is more important.  Debatable, given the race is so polarized that this will come down to making your guys show up on election day.

The undecideds are ALWAYS the important ones, because they are the only ones whose mind you can change at this point. And yes, I do believe they are a larger proportion of the population than the normal frothing conservatives or rabid ABB people.

I thought Cheney won, mostly because he seemed more at ease and didn't sound so rehearsed. Edwards spun a lot of question into topics he could answer, and mostly avoided some pretty important questions. The question that Cheney turned into a NCLB discussion seemed to be at least somewhat relevant, as the training for better jobs starts in schools. Edwards' rehearsal was evident when both candidates were asked not to mention their running mate, and Edwards slipped up twice.

It was close, but to me Cheney was the victor. He pissed me off by slumping over his mic continuously though =)

I am one of the undecided people. I thought Kerry won the first debate, and that Cheney got this one. I guess I'm a sucker for seasoned debaters.

Good ole GW visits town thursday to speak in a little park. I would have gone but I have to work.

I have been reading way the fuck to much Robert Ludlum recently.