For your information I left of the "e" in "substance" and corrected it before I got busted by the spelling nazis.
I think Cheney got the slight edge...but he made some potentially big mistakes. Problem was, Edwards never challenged him. I guess he was just returning the favor since Cheney rarely called him on his goofs. Mostly, Edwards wanted us to know that he loves Kerry and Cheney wanted us to know that he is right about most things...oh yeah, and Bush is with him. Pretty funny. I actually like Cheney as a politician. His 2000 convention speech endeared me to him and his underlying meanness in just about everything (even towards the moderator when he thought the questions were dumb) is just fun to watch in debates. Both sides just water everything down so much that they agree not to try to make the others look silly. So, it can be frustrating to watch. I try to tell both guys the holes in the other's logic or that they are not answering the question, but they never listen. Oh, the AIDS answer for both candidates were completely pathetic. It caught them off guard and they had no idea how to respond. At least Cheney admitted that he knew nothing about the reality of the situation...so they certainly know nothing about how to fix it. So, yeah, at best Cheney won, at worst it was a draw.
Wouldn't it be great if there were fact checkers at the debate who could stop the debate and call out the wrong facts?
I liked the fact that when Cheney had nothing to add he just passed instead of talking just to be heard.
I honestly thought the debate was a draw, and there was no clear winner. Here is the latest poll results from foxnews.com, they're a bit surprising to me at least: Who won Tuesday night's vice presidential debate? a. Vice President Cheney (41%) 16,445 b. Senator Edwards (57%) 22,621 c. I did not watch (1%) 228 d. None of the above (1%) 345 39,639 total votes
I think that would be great. It would hopefully shame the candidates into having more factual statements in the debates, and would probably allow the audience to trust the candidates a little more. On another note, I'm surprised how many polls say Edwards was a fairly clear winner. Except for Cheney's unnecessary meaness which could come across as defensive, I would have given the edge to Cheney. I'm not upset by the viewer polls, but I am puzzled.
I give up trying to judge debates, well at least for now. I thought the GW Bush / Kerry debate which most people though was a clear Kerry win and for the VP debate I thought Edwards was beating him unmercifully like the Rox did the T-Wolves last March. Cheney to seemed to start out strong with some good tough points and incisive remarks while Edwards seemed a little unfocused, reciting campaign catch phrases than taking questions head on, in what I'll call the first quarter of the debate. In the second quarter things were clearly getting heated and somewaht personal which isn't the best for Edwards but he was holding his own and seemed to get energized going into the domestic portion. By the third quarter Cheney seemed to be flagging a little and was clearly taken off guard by Edward's comments praising his family. By the fourth quarter I felt that Cheney seemed to give up, passing up on rebuttals, giving rote responses, occasionally blocking his mouth while talking, and slouching. Edwards seemed to really be hitting his stride looking more confident and lighting into Cheney on Halliburton and the Admin's record. At that point I was even starting to feel sorry for Cheney like I do to losing teams in Superbowl blowouts. Even though I'm supporting Kerry I'm not saying this as a partisan because I though KErry and Bush tied but to me this seemed like an Edward's blowout.
That's the same way I feel. Here's the results from the chronicles poll: Who won the vice presidential debate? Vice President Dick Cheney: 9% Sen. John Edwards: 90% It was a draw: 1% Total Votes: 4439 http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2831802
Wow, those polls are shocking. I don't think there was a clear winner, both men effectively argued their stances.
Cheney looks like a man who could use a good deal more fiber in his diet. Cheney never looked the camera in the eye when he spoke, like he had something to hide. I strongly suspect that this reason alone is why he is getting beat soundly in the polls. Cheney did not answer one single tough question. Fact checkers are going to have a field day with some of his answers. Edwards also had a poor performance. He missed some lops and he meandered in some answers. This was the worst debate that I have seen him in this campaign season. I suspect that he does not fit the pit-bull role required from him by Kerry. No monumental blunders on either side. Thus, a draw.
That's funny, that's what I hated most. As a debater, I was taught that you don't waste time given to you to further your position. I don't sit down 5 minutes into a 7 minute speech. I reiterate the strong points of my case and try my damnedest to put things in a new light, to avoid being monotonous and repetitive. I would never blatantly pass on a 7 minute speech, which is essentially what Cheney did. Doing so causes you to come across as indifferent and a little arrogant, and is probably not a good way to endear yourself to people. Also, it is petty and superficial, but I think Edwards' youth (and yes, his hair) does a great deal towards increasing his appeal to the American public. I think young and vibrant wins out against old and cranky every time. My favorite part of the debate was the part about "records". After Cheney attacked Edwards' attendace records, ending with that "I didn't meet you until you walked on the stage tonight" bit, I cringed horribly. I thought "He got you, John" in my head, very violently. But then Edwards turns around and, instead of criticizing a petty thing like attendance, attacks Cheney's stances on the various issues, like voting against a holiday for MLK and against freeing Nelson Mandela. Republican or not, you have to admit that he nailed him there. Perhaps the attendance records don't seem as important to me because I'm a horrible student. I don't study, I breeze through my classes, and I don't do my homework. But I'm a National Merit Scholar for getting the highest PSAT score in my school of 5,000, and my peers recognize me as one of the most brilliant among them. So in my mind: Intelligence > Hard work and Stances on issues > Attendance Anyone can work hard, just like anyone can show up to the Senate meetings. Not everyone can go beyond regurgitation of information in school to the real issues behind the ideas, just like not everyone has the moral vision or responsibility to advocate certain issues.
so we've got Batman Jones (a kerry supporter) saying cheney won, rimbaud (i don't know where he stands but he's smart) calling it a draw at best for edwards, and No Worries (not exactly bush's best friend) calling it a draw but we've got polls with between 80% and 90% saying edwards won? where is the disconnect? i didn't watch but i have a hard time believing people could be so hugely impressed by a VP debate to go from the 50/50 split we see in most voting polls to a 90% decision in one guys favor. are the polls somehow flooded with democrats or is there some big factor the more politically inclined on this board are just somehow missing (which i would doubt). even watching the bush/kerry debate, i thought they both just said what i thought they would say and that it was a draw and them bam, 75%-25% victories for kerry. now it seems like the general consensus was that kerry won so maybe i just don't know what i'm talking about but still the lopsidedness of the polls has almost been too big to believe. seems strange.
I can't say either candidate stood out for me, but I can say that even though I don't like something about Edwards (can't quite put my finger on it) and despite the fact that I am a Bush voter, I think either of these guys would have won the presidency and might have gotten my vote
Check out this from the link in the democrats.org ad that is plastered all over CNN and MSNBC. http://www.democrats.org/debates/update.html I wonder if that has anything to do with the weird results on the news polls.
Hmmm. Telling people online to vote in online polls. That's a real stretch, doncha think? BTW, Republicans are doing the same, so are you insinuating that the Democrats are somehow better equiped to fill out an online poll?
Surely a greater percentage of folks online are younger. I'm quite sure that the Democratic profile is younger, too. Yes, I am one of the proud exceptions!
