Election Central Morning Roundup
Tonight: The Veep Debate
Tonight is the big night for Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, with their debate in St. Louis. The debate will begin at 9 p.m. ET. Palin's challenge at this point is simply to overcome the phenomenally low expectations that have been set as a result of her disastrous TV interviews, while Biden will have to both win on points and come across as a friendly alternative.
Poll: Plurality Disapproves Of McCain's Handling Of Economic Crisis
The new CBS/New York Times poll contains a very interesting piece of internal data, suggesting that John McCain's intervention into the bailout negotiations have really been a bust. A 46% plurality disapproves of McCain's handling of the economic crisis, with only 35% approving. By contrast, Obama's more careful approach is approved 44%-32%.
The Obamas In Michigan Today
Barack Obama is campaigning today in Michigan, with a rally scheduled for 9:30 a.m. in Grand Rapids and another at 2:30 p.m. in East Lansing. Michelle Obama is also campaigning in Michigan, with an 11:30 a.m. rally in Saginaw and a 4:30 p.m. community event in Clinton Township.
McCain In Colorado
John McCain is holding a town hall-style event today in Denver, Colorado, scheduled for 5:45 p.m. ET. The event is officially billed as a "women's town hall meeting," so we might see McCain playing up his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate and going after Democrats for criticizing her.
Another Poll Shows Palin Dragging Down McCain
Newly-released data from the ABC/Washington Post poll further illustrates that Sarah Palin has become a liability for John McCain. Only 35% of respondents said Palin has the experience to serve effectively as president, with 60% saying she does not. And 32% say her selection makes them less likely to vote for McCain, compared to only 23% who say it makes them more likely to vote for him.
Poll: Obama Ahead In North Carolina
For the second week in a row, Rasmussen polling shows Barack Obama ahead in North Carolina, a Southern state that hasn't voted Democratic since Jimmy Carter was the region's favorite son in 1976. The numbers: Obama 50%, McCain 47%, with a ±4% margin of error, compared to a 49%-47% Obama lead last week.
Biden Receives More Coaching On Debating A Woman
The Wall St. Journal reports that Joe Biden has received coaching from Hillary Clinton and other female Dem Senators on how to effectively debate against a female candidate, plus Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who has portrayed Sarah Palin in their debate preparations. Meanwhile, the New York Times says Biden has received advice from a very close long-time adviser: His sister Valerie, who has run his campaigns since 1972.
I'd love to see those debate practices. Does Granholm have to intentionally garble sentences and spew forth right wing talking points?
October 2, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
In 2006 Granholm got some experience debating a person (Dick DeVos) who garbles sentences and spewing right wing talking points, so she will be a good coach in this regard.
October 2, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rasmussen poll showing Obama at 50% in North Carolina?
October 2, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
YUP YUP!
October 2, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Who would have thunk?
The decision by the Obama camp to move paid staff from Georgia to North Carolina might just pay off although Georgia does appear to be tightening in the latest polls.
October 2, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
And this coming from Rasmussen? So what's the real number? Like 60-40% for Obama?
I know that I'm exaggerating but that's certainly encouraging.
October 2, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got polled for both the ARG and the Rasmussen NC polls. How weird is that? I never get polled.
ARG sucks, tho. Not just because I "don't like their data." Their survey design was bizarro, and their track record is bad.
PPP is still the best at polling NC (they are NC based, and understand the geographic complexity involved in polling this wildly heterogeneous state), but a +3 from Rasmussen makes me very, very happy.
Happy Veepday!
October 2, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow - I've never been polled. You're the first person I've ever talked to who has been polled in a presidential race.
I wonder all the time who the hell they talk to - I've never been polled. I guess they do talk to real people -
October 2, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gallup called me a couple of times in the past.
October 2, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Question, geo, landline or cell?
October 2, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Landline. I don't think I've ever been polled via cell.
October 2, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's kind of bizarre.
I have a question about this. Do the people making the phone calls typically identify whom they are working for -- e.g. "I'm calling in behalf of Rasmussen" or something like that?
I was called a couple of weeks ago by someone who, though very polite, refused to tell me who she was polling for. She explained that the pollster was meant to remain anonymous so as not to prejudice my answers in any way. This kinda halfway made sense, on the assumption that maybe she was polling for a particular party or candidate. But what's the standard practice here?
I declined to answer any questions, by the way. I told her it seemed kind of presumptuous of her to refuse to tell me anything, and then to lead off with a personal question (What is my age?).
October 2, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been polled a few times over the years (though never for a presidential race). The pollsters ALWAYS identified themselves but would not say who they were polling for (I always ask). On one occasion the pollster replied, "If you listen to the questions you may get a sense of who commisioned the poll." He was right - it was obviously a Republican poll (I used to be registered as an independent, though I've always voted Dem).
I once got a push poll regarding a local race. It was pretty scurrilous so I answered the slanted questions (Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for so-and-so if you knew he was 70 and had cancer?) To fuck with them I answered "More likely." That pollster, by the way, had a thick Canadian accent. I asked him where in Canada he was and, after a long, stunned pause, he replied Toronto.
I wouldn't answer any poll without the firm identifying themselves. Doesn't sound right to me.
October 2, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is interesting. I've never been polled either. Tell us, did they call you on landline or cell?
October 2, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both were landline calls, both out-of-state numbers that I didn't recognize, both in the middle of the day. So, I got polled because I 1) randomly happened to be home and 2) considered the possibility that, just this once, I might answer my landline before screening through voicemail and 3) took a chance on an unknown number. I don't know what got into me! But after the first time (the ARG poll), I decided that if I saw any similar "looking" calls come in between now and 11/4, I would answer them. :-) And then, the next afternoon, I picked up another call and it was a Rasmussen poll.
Yes, they identify themselves. Both of these were robo/push button, not real people at the other end. It was a bit strange, because I have been "polled"/surveyed before for local races, but I've always talked to a living human being at the other end of the phone.
It's also a bit strange for me because I used to do surveying (for Nielsen, amongst others), so I'm very critical of how questions are put together. Rasmussen always ticks me off with their "opinion" polling, because they give you crap like (in the state polling they're doing right now, and which I had to answer): "What is more important, 1) creating economic growth or 2) reducing the income gap between rich and poor?" and then "What is more important to John McCain/Barack Obama, 1) creating economic growth or 2) reducing the income gap between rich and poor?"
And you just know that they're going to use this as some kind of "John McCain identifies more with voters' values" spin bullshit. All I could think was that this was a totally false choice, because I believe Barack Obama (and I) "think it is more important to create economic growth by reducing the income gap between rich and poor." Arrrgghhh. Bad question!
Anyway, it was still fun to get polled, because I never have before for a Presidential race. Then again, I've never lived anywhere considered "swingy" before. Just based on the political ad volume I'm now seeing in the maybe 30 minutes of TV I watch a day, I have a new-found sense of empathy for Ohio and Florida.
October 2, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thisniss: Am I reading your comment correctly? The call you received from American Research Group was recorded/automated -- you answered by pushing buttons on your phone?
And feel free to email me offline at mark at pollster dot com.
October 2, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Earthling could forsee That Lite Evening News Anchor Katie Couric and comedian Tina Fey Would be destined to lead the inevitable deconstruction of the Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin in the fall of 2008....
October 2, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not? Stephen Colbert is the one who finally cracked the Emperor Has No Clothes ceiling.
October 2, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
This coaching of Biden cause she's woman?
Sexist.
Just treat her like anyone else- that was the point that we women fought for.
This is so stupid.
October 2, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't agree more. Any woman who would stand back and say "Biden is picking on Palin" is an idiot. Did you hear anyone say "Biden was picking on Giuliani" after his famous quip?
If women expect to be treated equally in this society then we need to get over the victim-thing. Women shouldn't deman to play this game and then be expected to be treated differently. If you're a woman and you (euphemistically) attack your opponent, you should expect the same in return.
I certainly never agreed with her politically, but I don't ever recall Margaret Thatcher whining that the big boys were being mean to her.
October 2, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so glad you agree. Frankly this ticks me off because I see it as a full on set back for women. Thank you 'Sarah for making us look different and stupid and in need of help from men.
I'm thrilled about it.
October 2, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree with you, but remember Rick Lazio debating Hillary? There's no stronger or smarter woman in politics than Hillary, but when Lazio came across the stage with that "pledge" for her to sign, it was seen as physically aggressive toward women.
(He lost because he was a complete jerk, but that's a different story.) So, anyway, your point's very well taken, but there are still some old-brain "trigger points" when men talk with women, and the perception of aggressiveness on his part would be one of them...imho. And besides, Joe's capable of turning on the charm and running circles around Sarah intellectually, with a polite smile on his face.
October 2, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know - just see the comment I posted below.
It's complex - but the bottom line is I blame her for making us look like we're all idiots that have to be handled with kid gloves.
I don't want Biden to fuck up -and I realize he has to have this prep.
It's the whole situation with this woman - it's all about the fact that she is a woman that's why he picked her and that's all it is and that's just fucked up.
October 2, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
All good points. Maybe one way to look at it is that the ultimate success of feminism in politics would be that a candidate (of either gender) would be treated as an individual and not as a representative of a gender group. Just as an african-american politician no longer represents *all* african-americans (e.g. Obama versus Rice), then female candidates should be seen as individuals first and women second. That's certainly how it works with white males, right? So, in that light, it's ok for Joe to be preparing to deal with Sarah as a rather, shall we say, unique candidate, without feeling that he would do the same style of preparation if he were debating, say, Jodi Rell of Connecticut, of Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
October 2, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just because McCain asked Palin to meet his friend, Mr. Bono, you thinbk that makes her look like she needs help from men?
October 2, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right about Thatcher - she only whined at the end because like Livia she wanted to be a goddess. She wanted that title -
(I always think of Livia in I Claudius when she was dying and begging Claudius to make her a goddess )
October 2, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If women expect to be treated equally in this society then we need to get over the victim-thing."
But how could she possibly handle being the VP and raising those kids...what if the phone rings at 3am and one of her kids is sick...
That was your side asking that stupid shit so you need to turn your feminist ire towards the left.
October 2, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Attribution, please, and don't tell us it was a comment on a some blog.
October 2, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're down thread slightly.
October 2, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's from SchrodingersCat, above in the same thread.
October 2, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm just pulling this out of my a$$, but i assume they're more concerned about audience perception rather than the opponent.
October 2, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
they are - it's just all the "special prep" cause she's a woman - it goes all over me.
What the fuck - if we're supposedly capable of being president or vice president, then supposedly we're capable of handling a debate without being treated like we were somehow in need of something different than a guy is.
That's just flat out old fashioned sexism. Y'all thought it was racist for McLame to practice with a black person - well.
October 2, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
if biden could bring the tv audience across 50 states into the 21st century with the rest of us here, i'm sure he'd do it. but to quote rumsfeld: "you go to war with the army you have ..."
October 2, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not Biden I'm upset with.
It's Palin and her people. She engendered this attitude.
October 2, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, if mccain's smart, he'll show up tonite in glasses and a bun and joe won't have to go easy on her after all.
October 2, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
if someone's going in drag, they oughta just send in RUDY!
October 2, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
no, rudy would actually enjoy it. i'd rather see mccain. imagine the look on his face for having to plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt. if you thought he was cranky during his debate with obama ...
October 2, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It's Palin and her people. She engendered this attitude."
Bullshit! It was your sides pundits wondering if ashe could be a mother and a politician...that was all you guys.
October 2, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
YOu call me a sexist one more time Wallace and you better hope we never meet in person. I'll show you sexist - your teeth will be all over the pavement.
Just shut up - I'm no mood.
October 2, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just pointing out the fact that all the "sexist" bullshit that you are trying to put on Palin and her people was brought to us courtesy of the left. I know you guys love to revise history but this is recent enough that you can't pretend it didn't happen the way it did.
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02mother.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Dallas Morning News
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/can-palin-handle-role-as-vp-ca.html
American Chronicle
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/72835
Washington Post...Twice
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090902521.html
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/08/sarah_polin.html
October 2, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dallas Morning News as "lefty"?
You're funny.
Next...
October 2, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I heard more of those kinds of concerns among your side. Specifically from the wholesome Christian mothers who homeschool their kids. I never heard it asked seriously by anyone on the left.
October 2, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
True that. Wallace has issues...
October 2, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Specifically from the wholesome Christian mothers who homeschool their kids. I never heard it asked seriously by anyone on the left."
What, do you subscribe to wholesome Cristian mother's magazine? Or maybe you attend a support group...never saw or heard one in print or on tv questioning Palin's ability to serve and parent simultaniously. Only saw it in the articles I actually linked to. I'd be glad to read any link you had to back up your claim.
October 2, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
correct.
the 'debates' are 10% issues, 90% demeanor.
none of the pundits are gonna talk about who won on the issues. although this veep debate will be unusual in that the question of issues will come up insofar as the punditsticks (and viewers) deciding whether or not palin did a good enough job pretending to have any sort of grasp on any of the issues. but they won't be considering whether or not her arguments or biden's arguments on the issues were more the more persuasive arguments. presidential debates are 'debates' in name only. they are political theatre put on for the audience to decide whose performance they liked better.
October 2, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect it goes beyond audience perception, to a desire to minimize the clips that the Rethugs can use in ads to whip up more phoney outrage. Because lies and outrage is all they've got.
October 2, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. What are women delicate sea creatures that fall apart when they are brought up from the depths to the surface? Please! You need to be educated, in you seventh decade, on how to speak to a woman? Say what?!? She's a person, a Governor, a VP candidate, and in the line of succession to the oval office. She deserves the courtesy and respect accorded to anyone in her position, and deserves no quarter on her knowledge and understanding of the policy issues she is expected to assume responsibilty for. May the best person win.
October 2, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
i don't know, i'm betting mccain had to be taught not to call women 'toots' and pat them on the ass and tell them to take their pretty little tits over to the break room and get him some coffee.
October 2, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
In that case maybe Palin should be prepping against Ron Burgundy.
October 2, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is all about perception. There is still a PUMA contingent out there that Obama will woo to the end and are looking for any reason not to vote for him. Biden making her cry (figuratively) may turn enough people off to hurt. Vote differentials could be in the hundreds again in several states (not anticipated, but possible).
McSame Quaylin Blog
October 2, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, no. You have to understand that "you haven't come a long way, baby." Americans are still sexist/racist. You also have to understand that the Repukes know this, and will spin accordingly. It's not that Biden would want to or have to treat her differently. He didn't treat Senator Clinton differently. But then he was playing to an educated, generally not sexist/racist audience, and playing against honorable opponents. Such is not the case tonight.
October 2, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But then he was playing to an educated, generally not sexist/racist audience, and playing against honorable opponents."
This is why you guys lose...you really believe that you are the "Eloi" and we're the "Morlocks."
October 2, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone have any theories on why Obama doesn't seem to be pulling away in CO? Fundy capital?
October 2, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about? Every poll has Obama comfortably outside the margin of error in Colorado. It's simply not in play any more. What else do you want? A 60-40 split?
October 2, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The poll that was just posted today has it 44-43 Obama. I thought others I had seen within the last couple weeks also had it within 1-3 points. I was just wondering, with all the other battlegrounds showing big pickups for Obama, why Colorado still seems close. It may just be the particular polls that have come out recently. The one today was a company I hadn't seen yet.
October 2, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect it's the Daddy Dobson crowd, who have been energized by the Palin pick. I have noticed a steady uptick in McCain/Palin bumperstickers and signs in the last week or two. Course, I live in Tom Tancredo's congressional district, and having any Obama signs here at all is a miracle.
Up in Denver, it's definitely Obama territory. Twice a week, I'm at downtown Denver's Auraria campus (which houses three seperate colleges), and the push to get people registered to vote before Monday's deadline has been relentless for weeks and weeks. The Obama campaign is pretty well organized there.
I still think we'll ultimately go to Obama, but the fundies are pushing back.
October 2, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why the North Carolina poll is important (beyond suggesting we could win the state):
http://strategy08.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/north-carolina/
October 2, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will Palin look at Biden when she speaks ,,,,, or six inches past his right ear??
Will Biden contain the urge to eye roll??
Will Palin be wired a la Bushie with Gore??
October 2, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
i'm betting palin will at least look into the camera.
mccain will even have to look into the camera in his next debates. not looking into the camera was worse for him than not looking at obama. i'm betting his advisers have told him that he needs to look at obama too, but maverick sez: fuck that, i don't need to look at anybody i don't want to!
October 2, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Palin episode reminds me of when Atlanta hosted the Olympics, thereby exposing itself as unready to take the world stage.
(I say this as a Georgia native.)
October 2, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least we got eight lanes of interstate through downtown...I haven't had to slow down through there since.
October 2, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
New McCain ad may turn it all around:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFSSvtaaF-c
Yikes.
October 2, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uggh.
I'm all for democracy and all but if there was every a case for revoking voting rights for someone, that was it.
October 2, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I predict Palin is going to be visibly confused trying to keep up with Rove's voice in her earpiece.
Also, look for a boxy lump between her shoulderblades.
October 2, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is running a poor man's version of Rove's campaign. They'll probably have someone in the front row with cue cards.
October 2, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
cool... we'll finally see how they spell all those bizarre Fargo vowel-sounds, eh?
October 2, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Up 3 in NC and another poll showing Obama up in FL. Is it safe to say yet that FL is now leaning Obama?
October 2, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Happy Veepday everybody.
Very interesting to see the network electoral college maps compared to 538. Their vested interest in a close race is evident in the number of "toss ups" they are keeping.
Pull up a comfy couch and some popcorn. Barbie Spice vs. the Human Filibuster.
Go Joe!
October 2, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
No shit. The idea that Iowa and New Mexico are leaners is just baffling to me. McCain doesn't have the resources to fight in either state. Shit he's going to have a hell of a time holding on to North Carolina at this point (Obama is doing debate prep there).
October 2, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the resources gap has to be putting a knife to McCain's throat. How do you play defense in 5 states when you can't afford to play defense in more than 1?
October 2, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
See if she wasn't so fucking stupid and so fucking incapable that she makes it seem we are all that way - they treat her differently and she lets them.
She's a fucking disgrace to women.
October 2, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen to that. But I do think they are making themselves out to be the greatest sexists of all time. And women are mad about it, and so are a lot of men. It's pretty obvious to anyone with average intelligence that she's not just a woman, she's a "stupid woman." She really is the next generation of George Bush.
October 2, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
She really is the next generation of Cmmdr Coo Coo but she's worse and god this just keeps happening -
Ashcroft quit - everyone is happy - we get worse: 'Gonzales.
Harriet Miers - I was afraid it was a mistake to get rid of her and it was. I'd rather have Miers than Roberts.
Every time - it goes from bad to worse.
Jesus!
October 2, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That McCain picked Palin made me outraged (the perfect embodiment of his "Country First" spirit) but did not surprise me (a well-known pathological gambler). What got me was there are some women who are so easily played. You should feel insulted, but those women are dancing crazy to McCain's music. Incredible.
October 2, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The world has passed those women by, and they deal with it by embracing bondage, of all types. Sympathizing with the oppressor.
October 2, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"By contrast, Obama's more careful approach is approved 44%-32%."
What approach? "Call me if you need me to vote."...that's not an approach...that's abdication.
October 2, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, apparently you weren't paying attention.
October 2, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yesterday, McCain cast his first vote in the Senate since April, my friend. You tell me who's "phonin' it in."
October 2, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was sensitive negotiations and Obama or McCain just showing up and trying to interject themeselves had the high likelihood of derailing those negotiations. Had the negotiators asked for Obama to show up he would up.
Also they intentionally asked Obama not to make appeals to House Dems, letting it be a vote of conscious. They knew they had the numbers they needed for it to past. In retrospect, maybe they should have not counted on the Repub leadership to bring enough to the yes side, but that was more the House Dem leadership fault, not Obama's.
October 2, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, mcCain was really on fire on the senate floor yesterday, defending his support for an unpopular bill.
oh wait, that was obama. mcCain just supported it from the sidelines.
October 2, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate this bullshit way of framing the debate (no offense to you, Eric -- I know you're just illustrating how the MSM has set it up). Because all Palin has to do is utter one or two complete sentences and a couple of poll-tested bromides and she's declared the stunning winner and all of sudden her fortunes are reversed. With expectations this low, there is literally no way for her to fall short unless she spontaneously combusts on stage. Meanwhile, Biden is presented with a virtually impossible task (according to the MSM narrative).
Personally, I'll be happy if Biden doesn't say anything stupid that gives the McShame campaign ammunition. In the grand scheme of things, this debate is unlikely to have any significant effect on the outcome of the election.
October 2, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope they prepped Biden on what to do when she attacks obliquely. She loves antics like, "Well the American people have been out there watching your performance tonight, Senator. I don't know if you think they liked what they are saw after all that you've said, but I hope you can at least give them some credit."
It beats having to put together a logical thought.
October 2, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah has a tough job tonight. She has to make the rightwingers slobber without making normal people puke.
I don't buy the low-expectations argument that, if she shows up and doesn't drool she wins. Polls are showing a majority of voters don't think she is qualified to be veep or president. That means she has to prove them wrong, win them over. That will take more than a drool-free performance.
October 2, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of fluids there, I know. Sorry.
October 2, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's the same thing Obama had to do...show that she's more than her limited resume shows. Obama just needs to do it 3 times to her one.
October 2, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for voters' perception of Obama's qualifications, I think he is closer to making his case than is Palin, who has to overcome a big negative.
Why? Because, unlike Palin, Obama has been exposed to intense media scrutiny for the last two years, he fought and beat the might Clinton Machine and has built a national political movement.
All we know about Palin is that the slack-jaws on the extreme right adore her.
October 2, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from the fact that Obama's resume, abilities and experience far exceed Palin's, she does have to overcome the well-deserved perception that she's way out of her league and completely clueless about almost everything other than moose hunting. I don't think she can screw up on any answers tonight, because that is what will be replayed.
Even if she muddles through, it won't make any difference anyway. The same deadender wingnuts will come out to cheer her, while the majority says "thanks, but no thanks!"
October 2, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
They've set this up to be a huge challenge to Palin. Ifill is obviously against her (sarcasm) and expectations are low. Thus, when she doesn't poke herself in the eye with her pen three or four times, it's a victory. It's a debate. There's no one to say "please expand on that vague ideological statement you just made...give us details." She's going to do fine. I'm more concerned about a Biden gaffe. But he couldn't have prepped with anyone better. I loves me some Jennifer Granholm...she is one bright human being.
McSame Quaylin Blog
October 2, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you about the low expectations and I actually think the opposite of this drooling thing. People already can't abide her. They are watching to see her collapse, like watching a grotesque spectacle at the coliseum. If she doesn't really screw up, they'll feel cheated, but they won't like her any better for it and may resent her for ruining their evening of sport. Her base and her surrogates will want to be all happy about how she really showed herself, but the verdict is already in on this incompetent and a good talking performance by a beauty queen turned TV announcer doesn't erase that at all.
October 2, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did I miss something? Which Democrats have criticized Palin? I've been hearing a lot of conservative journalists noting her woeful lack of qualifications and the implications in regards to McCain's lack of character is choosing her of late. But which Democrats have been criticizing her? Links please.
October 2, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, you forget. Those are "Georgetown Cocktail Party" conservatives. Not real conservatives in John McCain's book because they don't lap up every bit of bile that comes out of his campaign.
October 2, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
actually, hillary has been saying some mean awful stuff about her such as:
October 2, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not "big name" Democrats necessarily, but all of us evil/lefty/blogging Democrats poking our heads into Alaska airspace...
October 2, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I see. McCain is waging war against the voters who aren't voting for him.
Interesting campaign strategy. :)
October 2, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
But that's standard Republican campaign strategy... Collect all the most unappealing (to your audience) characteristics of Democratic voters and define your opponent that way.
A vote for McCain is more than just a vote for a POW, its a vote against all those pointy-headed bloggers who ever said anything nasty about him or his running-mate.
October 2, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, polarizing. Appeals to the base, alienates the middle. And yet - they just don't seem to get it.
October 2, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect tonight will be like watching SNL's Celebrity Jeopardy. Maybe the McCain camp should have insisted on having Sean Connery in the middle.
October 2, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would NOT want to be Palen waking up today, knowing what I was going to face tonight. Yikes, me go back to bed now, pull up covers, world go away...
Gov. Granholm was my pick for Obama's VP but she was not U.S. born, alas...
Biden WILL do fine tonight.
He is often lampooned for TOO long time in Washington, but despite the notion that nothing good comes from longevity there, he actually has sponsored or pushed lots of good, real legislation:
I hope he brings up his Violence Against Women Act.
Or his support of the Equal Pay for Women act,which was voted down by Republicans. (We were tourists visiting the Senate room back in April when that bill was killed by the GOP senators.) McCain skipped that vote but spoke against the bill on the campaign trail.
One Supreme Court decision Sarah Palin no doubt now has boned up on was (Lilly) Ledbetter vs Goodyear. It sought to guarantee equal pay for women. The court ruled against it...
Anyway, we should lay off the "Palen doesn't have the experience to be VP (or Pres.!) because as someone once said:
"Experience! George Bush proved you don't even have to be ELECTED to become president!"
October 2, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
O/T, but the folks over at Mudflats are urging people to send emails to the Alaska Legislative Council. It seems that members of the council are being pressured by the McCain campaign to prevent Branchflower's Trooper-Gate report from being released to the public.
October 2, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
A thick Canadian accent? As a thick Canadian, I wasn't even aware that I had an accent.
October 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too much back bacon, donuts and Molson, eh?
October 2, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
just hard to talk with a mouthful a' poutine, y'know?
October 2, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call me the typical Dem freaker-outter...but while I'm looking for Palin to fail badly, there's this same amount of panic I have that if she just talks fluently, she'll win over the pundits...who will then do their best to pump her back up.
October 2, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck the pundits.
After last week's debate, the majority of pundits I saw called the debate a tie. The people overwhelmingly said Obama won.
October 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yuh, fuck the pundits. They'll be looking for nice things to say about her because they want phoney balance and li'l-bo-beep political correctness anyway. People aren't going to buy it.
October 2, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know, I know. And that actually heartened me. It also heartens me that I think most Americans are going to want specific answers to specific issues that are killing us everyday (economy anyone?). I would like to think that if she speaks in platitudes and doesn't give specific answers, the pundits may be happy, but voters are gonna see through it.
Also, perception is reality. And once people have a negative one of you, it's really, really, really hard to dig out of that. Even more so if you once had a very high approval/perception and saw it fall. You have to work insanely hard to rebuild that and...I'm hoping regardless of how it plays out tonight, there's too little time for McSame/Palin to get out of the trench they've put themselves in.
October 2, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
The electorate is paying attention this cycle more than they have in recent elections. I don't think Palin will be able to skirt by (no pun intended) on generalities and a smile.
I expect Biden to almost completely ignore her, stick to the issues and flex his considerable policy muscle and just let the contrast speak for itself.
October 2, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
October 2, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Biden's priority should be to attack John McCain's Senate record and his behavior in this campaign, rather than going after Palin.
Having said that, I think Biden should directly and forcefully -- but still politely -- call out Palin on her blatant, egregious lies, starting with "saying thanks but no thanks to Congress for the bridge to nowhere", and whatever else he cares to mention from her long list of lies.
Simply point out that since being nominated, Palin has been going around the country repeatedly lying about the "bridge to nowhere", long after it was exposed as a falsehood. Point out the disrespect for the American people that her shameless dishonesty represents. Point out that Palin has proved that nothing she says can be trusted.
And point out that the Republicans seem to be promoting the notion that Palin's dishonesty should be overlooked and she should not be challenged on her lies because she is a woman, which is the most revoltingly sexist attitude imaginable.
And there are plenty of things Biden can bring up, like Palin's association with the anti-American Alaskan secession movement, or her desire to have creationism taught in science classes, to show that she is way, way outside the mainstream to the point of being lunatic fringe.
October 2, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you even have to bring up the Bridge to Nowhere...unless she does it. I think at this point it's common knowledge that she lied her ass off. Why even go there, then? Just attack McCain.
October 2, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't the debate call for two minute responses? And I don't think it allows for much give and take or direct questioning of the other candidate. I just don't see how Palin can provide lengthy coherent responses to substantive questions.
It will be mostly diversions and sarcastic put-downs from Palin, and that's not gonna be good enough this time. Letting "Palin be Palin" will only appeal to the base, and that's not good enough either.
October 2, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've got an idea. Why doesn't Biden get advice from a man who has actually debated against a woman many times. Someone like...Barack Obama.
October 2, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who claims that Sarah Palin is qualified to be the Vice President of the United States, let alone President, is letting their partisan slip show. Actually, I think the same applies with regards to John McCainiac, but that's another tale (or is that tail).
Just sayin'.
October 2, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had a call last night.He asked me if I had time to take a survey,I said ok.
The first question was are you Republican,Independent or Democrat.I told him that I'm a registered Democrat and he said, Ok thats all the questions I have for you.
Next time maybe I should say Independent?
October 2, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink