Ellington

Per Mark Ambinder at The Atlantic:

40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won. 38% saw it as a draw.

68% of these voters think Obama would make the right decision
about the economy. 41% think McCain would.
49% of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. 55% think McCain would.

Previous Comments

ID

138320

Comment

Here is a link to the poll. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/26/politics/horserace/entry4482028.shtml None of the numbers Ambinder posted match the poll on CBS website. The end results are the same, but he should use actual numbers and not round Obama's up and McCain's down.

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-09-26T23:04:45-06:00

ID

138323

Comment

Time's Mark Halperin gave Obama the higher grade. Read the detailed analyses of both men. Chris Matthews said McCain treated Obama with "contempt." This will be talked about a lot. You'd think McCain's advisers would have told him that he needed to look at Obama, or he would look like an old white guy unwilling to look at his younger black opponent. Not good. A CNN phone poll showed Obama as a clear winner, with McCain with only a small lead with men over 50. (!) Obama = clear winner. Will this be fatal?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-27T00:15:05-06:00

ID

138324

Comment

I didn't watch the debate. I was flipping through channels after the debate and most of the news commentators I saw said it was about even. I did hear a few comments on McCain coming across as he just plain hated Obama. Was it that bad?

Author

BubbaT

Date

2008-09-27T01:04:32-06:00

ID

138326

Comment

Yes. McCain was surpringly disrespectful, angry and rude. I expected him to seem annoyed, but not that downright rude. Amazing. Some of the early pundits were calling it even (even Kos!), seemingly because Obama didn't deliver enough "knock-out punches." But the polling is starting to thow that the American people saw something that some of those guys didn't. And the pundits scoring the debate in writing are tending to give it to Obama, not just a tie. Besides, on this one, Obama "wins" a tie, because supposedly foreign policy is McCain's strength. It seems tonight proved that a myth, starting with the disturbing Pakinstan "failed state" gaffe. That will go in the history books.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-27T01:10:40-06:00

ID

138327

Comment

McCain and Obama contradicted each other repeatedly during their first debate, and each volunteered some factual misstatements as well. Here’s how we sort them out: Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran. Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan. McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained. McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply. Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion. McCain repeated his overstated claim that the U.S. pays $700 billion a year for oil to hostile nations. Imports are running at about $536 billion this year, and a third of it comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K. Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households. Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance. McCain misrepresented Obama's plan by claiming he'd be "handing the health care system over to the federal government." Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well. McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter taking responsibility, but he didn’t mention resigning. For full details, as well as other dubious claims and statements, please read our full Analysis section. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...bate_no_1.html

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-09-27T05:13:53-06:00

ID

138328

Comment

I think that those leaning toward or considering McCain will percieve his disrespectful approach in the debate as strength. Leaving Obama trying to interject and get a word in. Certainly the higher expectations to do well were on Obama. So as long as its close perhaps that gives McCain an edge. If there is such a thing as an "undecided Reagan Democrat" in the race, at this point, I don't know that the debate pushed them either direction. Whereas BOTH candidates supporters seem happy with the outcome.

Author

herman

Date

2008-09-27T07:44:06-06:00

ID

138329

Comment

I thought it was a good debate but I honestly don’t think either man scored a clear and decisive win. I know the hardcore supporters on each side are arguing their guy kicked the other’s ass but IMO, both candidates managed to land a couple of bodyblows on their opponent without a clear knockout at the end of the night. Certainly weren't any "soundbite" moments for the highlight reel. I think Senator Obama did very well in holding his own against the *establishment* candidate but he seemed a little too frustrated at times by McCain's aloofness, so I guess that strategy worked. While I like McCain's mantra of reducing government spending, I'm still not convinced his economic policies are going to reduce the national debt and overall he didn't seem as comfortable explaining his economic policy. Obama made several great points on foreign policy, which was *supposed* to be his weakness. Obama had a much steeper hill to climb in terms of convincing the American voters that he’s competent and ready to lead, so I felt he gave a slightly better performance than Senator McCain, even if the media declares McCain the winner.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-09-27T08:24:18-06:00

ID

138330

Comment

A gender gap in response has emerged. Undecided women saw Obama as a statesman who was willing to make his point in a diplomat, conciliatory way (you're right about that, but ...); thus, he's leading the voter polls. Male pundits, and many males, were looking for knockout punches. Sure, the angry (and bigoted) folks McCain appeals would like the way he reacted to Obama, but they're not the ones he needs to attract to win. Thus, Obama scored a pretty clear victory among the people who mattered last week. And they weren't pundits.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-27T09:58:35-06:00

ID

138331

Comment

And the media haven't declared McCain the winner. Even many conservatives are saying it was a "tie," and thus Obama won -- because it was the one debate McCain was expected to win. Obama also shot down any of the silly talk that he is qualified on a level with Palin. She's come across like an idiot for a week; he was presidenetial, smart and composed, and knew what he was talking about on foreign policy. It was a great night for him as a result. He did exactly what he had to do.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-27T10:00:33-06:00

ID

138332

Comment

Real Clear Politics on undecided voter polls. Even Dick Morris said Obama "won" on Hannity & Colmes. Oh, and McCain called the Pakistani leader "Qadari" instead of Asif Ali Zardari. Remember when Bush didn't know Musharaf's name back during his campaign? The country should have paid attention.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-27T10:02:00-06:00

ID

138333

Comment

I don't think a debate can be "won" per se, but I think Obama proved that he can run with the best of them. He was very polite and would mention when McCain was right about something before pointing out where he was wrong. He also looked at his opponent, even when McCain never looked at him. McCain did a lot of name dropping of foreign leaders he met and countries he went to, but I didn't like his belittling, condescending tone: "What Sen. Obama doesn't understand is..." To me, he was calling him stupid because he said it too many times. He also made it hard for Obama to get a word in to respond to him, so I hope Obama will work on that. McCain kept bringing up Reagan, so I guess he was trying to imply that he was like him. Maybe that will work with older voters. Voters under 30 either hardly remember Reagan or weren't born yet. I was in elementary school when Reagan was in office, and the most I remember is a puppet that looked like him and Rich Little impersonations.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-09-27T10:07:29-06:00

ID

138337

Comment

The gender gap revealed by the polls is revealing. It seems that most men (like me) were dissapointed that Obama didn't try to go for a knockout punch. Women polled favored Obama's performance overwhelmingly. It seems that women are more impressed by someone who does not lose his cool and who does not feel the need to go for the jugular. If Obama had been more aggresive McCain may have gotten sympathy points. Instead, it seems that some felt sympathy with "the nice young guy on the grimacing old codger's lawn". L.W. reminds me of a recent article in which the author stated that Obama's "affable persona" was more like Reagan's than McCain's fiery nature. Can Obama be our Ronald Reagan :-)?

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-27T14:13:55-06:00

ID

138340

Comment

If I had an important message, I feel that Obama would listen to me, even if he disagreed. I feel that John Mccain would mock me, laugh right in my face. What example do we want our leader to set? Can the world function without a "tough guy" shoot first ask questions later American president. I'd like to hope so.

Author

Izzy

Date

2008-09-27T14:40:12-06:00

ID

138342

Comment

It seems that women are more impressed by someone who does not lose his cool and who does not feel the need to go for the jugular. If Obama had been more aggresive McCain may have gotten sympathy points. Instead, it seems that some felt sympathy with "the nice young guy on the grimacing old codger's lawn". Exactly, it's very Mars and Venus. I don't want a knock-out. Women like to hear people say, "well, I agree with that part, but ...." Someone also pointed out that Obama kindly and quietly said something, "That's a tough one," when McCain was struggling to say the name of the Iranian leader. That's also impressive. This gender thing also speaks a lot to what many of us think is wrong in the world. Most of us sure aren't going to see the point of sitting down to negotiate with someone if you have already forced them to agree to your side ahead of time. Then it's just an exercise in futility. And it makes no. sense. whatsoever. to try to argue that our loved ones who died, like my cousin Josh, didn't die with "honor" if we don't "win" a war (that clearly will have no real victor). Our soldiers die with honor even if the leaders who put thus there lied to us. I feel very strongly about that, and the most important thing Obama did, for me, was to point that. I have a feeling many families felt that one. If we will, we can claim "honor" and "victory" for catching Saddam and start a smart withdrawal plan to keep us from being there for years and losing more of our young men and women. That's Obama's message, and he's right on. McCain, on the other hand, just wants to win no matter what. It feels like we're watching the old "whose is bigger?" routine, and many of us are sick of it, because look where it's gotten us. Certainly not closer to catching bin Laden.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-27T16:16:03-06:00

ID

138344

Comment

Elderly voters swinging to Obama, per Bloomberg: Barack Obama jumped to a 46-42 percent lead among those 65 and older in the latest Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll. That's an 18 percentage-point swing since mid-August, when the poll showed McCain with a 50-36 percent advantage. People 65 and older are among Americans most concerned about financial upheaval, according to the poll, taken Sept 19-22. Only 11 percent say they're better off than they were four years ago, compared with 24 percent of all respondents; 8 percent of the older Americans say the country is moving in the right direction, compared with 13 percent overall. Obama also has the advantage with younger voters. The Illinois senator leads 52-41 percent among Americans between 18 and 44 years old. Those in the middle, ages 45-64, are going for McCain 47 percent to 42 percent. While McCain gets a majority of Protestants, 51 percent to 41 percent, Obama wins Catholics 47 percent to 35 percent for McCain. * * * Sarah Palin, the first woman to run on a Republican presidential ticket, is getting a little better reception from men than she is from other women. Almost half the women surveyed, 48 percent, say the first- term Alaska governor isn't qualified to be president, compared with 45 percent of men. By 43-39 percent, more men than women say Palin is ready for the Oval Office. Fifty-two percent of men have a positive view of Palin, an opinion shared by 44 percent of women.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-27T16:35:24-06:00

ID

138345

Comment

John Cole on the "The Grumpy Old Man" narrative McCain established last night with his childish behavior: Look for the appearance of the following words in days to come: cranky, grumpy, crotchety, angry, mean, rude, sneering, snarling, contemptuous, off-putting, snide, boorish, and worst of all, not Presidential. SNL will probably drive the point home in a skit that will become the dominant narrative tonight, and McCain will become boxed in regarding his behavior in the second debate, much as Gore was unable to be as aggressive as he wanted in the second debate (I remember the running joke was that Gore had been medicated for the second debate). And if McCain does not tone down the contempt, it will simply feed the narrative. Or, if we are really lucky, as someone suggested in another thread, McCain will overcompensate and spend the entire time comically and creepily attempting to make eye contact with Obama (think Al Gore walking across the stage to stand next to Bush, and Bush looking at him as if to think “WTF are you doing?”). This should be terrifying for the McCain campaign for two reasons. First, the base will not understand it. To them, a sneering, contemptuous jerk is a feature, not a bug. When they try to tone down McCain, it will turn off the diehards. Look at the reaction of the base to Palin’s RNC speech- they LOVED that she was, for all intents and purposes, nothing but an asshole the entire speech. They loved the “zingers” that were written for her. The rest of the country recoiled in horror, and Obama raised ten million the next 48 hours.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-27T16:57:00-06:00

ID

138347

Comment

Someone also pointed out that Obama kindly and quietly said something, "That's a tough one," when McCain was struggling to say the name of the Iranian leader. That's also impressive. Someone mentioned that on another forum with a DailyKos link. If you can, take some time to read the comments, one of which includes a video clip.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-09-27T18:42:16-06:00