In Ohio, more Independents think Palin won the debate

[metta 0]

State of Ohio Awards Split-Decision on Palin-Biden Vice Presidential Debate:

SurveyUSA interviewed 900 Ohio adults, of whom 620 watched the debate last night between Republican Sarah Palin and Democrat Joe Biden. Of debate watchers: 37% say Palin was the clear winner. 38% say Biden was the clear winner. 24% say there was no clear winner.

Debate audience was 31% Republican, 37% Democrat, 24% Independent.

Of debate watchers:

47% say their opinion of Palin went up. 18% say their opinion of Palin went down.

38% say their opinion of Biden went up. 22% say their opinion of Biden went down.

Ohio debate watchers say: Palin was more likable. Biden had a better command of the facts. Biden was more ready to assume the office of President, should that become necessary.

50% say that Biden makes the Democratic ticket stronger, 17% say he makes the ticket weaker, 32% say he makes no difference.

51% say that Palin makes the Republican ticket stronger, 33% say she makes the ticket weaker, 16% say she makes no difference.

76% of Republicans and 56% overall think Palin would be a better Vice President than ####### Cheney.

28% of Republicans and 57% overall think Biden would be a better Vice President than ####### Cheney.

SurveyUSA state of Ohio research conducted exclusively for WCMH Columbus, WHIO Dayton, and WKYC Cleveland.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the operative phrase ought to be - "people who are easily impressed think Palin won the debate"

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh brother.

[metta 0]

I think the operative phrase ought to be - "people who are easily impressed think Palin won the debate"

I think the operative phrase ought to be -

"people who are easily impressed by what they see with their own eyes and and hear with their own ears think Palin won the debate

"people who are easily impressed by talking heads

think Palin Biden won the debate..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well as you may remember I said that the debate was very superficial, to my mind - due in large part to the revised format.

I would have been more impressed if there was an actual discussion, and a real attempt to answer questions rather than pulling out rehearsed, generalised talking points. Biden pulled facts and figures out the ying-yang, but didn't provide much context to help understand it. Palin said some very odd things - and I was surprised that she totally ignored the core of the first two questions which basically prompted her to talk about what is wrong with the Washington establishment and how to reform it (something that has been cited as one of her core credentials). She also ignored a foreign policy question about Sudan with a vague reference to "I don't know what you Washington types are talking about".

If people are impressed by what they saw and heard - I'd contend that they weren't really listening.

I was expecting something thought-provoking and engaging - what we got instead was a soap opera.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, pull the other one, you were so not expecting thought-provoking and engaging. Hoping and praying for knowing it wasn't going to happen perhaps, but expecting?

As for Metta, I am not sure how you think McCain will be better than Obama. For all his flaws, and he does have them including a lack of hands on experience, he has better ideas and a much, much better ability to understand the issues compared to McCain or heaven forbid his little side kick Palin. McCain would not be a total disaster, the cogs and wheels behind the scenes would not allow for that, but he would not do anything constructive to help Joe/Jane average. After 4 years of McCain, the average household will be worse off than they are today and that's not something to vote for.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Well as you may remember I said that the debate was very superficial, to my mind - due in large part to the revised format.

I would have been more impressed if there was an actual discussion, and a real attempt to answer questions rather than pulling out rehearsed, generalised talking points. Biden pulled facts and figures out the ying-yang, but didn't provide much context to help understand it. Palin said some very odd things - and I was surprised that she totally ignored the core of the first two questions which basically prompted her to talk about what is wrong with the Washington establishment and how to reform it (something that has been cited as one of her core credentials). She also ignored a foreign policy question about Sudan with a vague reference to "I don't know what you Washington types are talking about".

If people are impressed by what they saw and heard - I'd contend that they weren't really listening.

I was expecting something thought-provoking and engaging - what we got instead was a soap opera.

You would!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh, pull the other one, you were so not expecting thought-provoking and engaging. Hoping and praying for knowing it wasn't going to happen perhaps, but expecting?

Well no - it wasn't really an expectation. I do think we should hold these people to higher standards.

If we did - we'd likely get a completely different set of more qualified candidates.

Well as you may remember I said that the debate was very superficial, to my mind - due in large part to the revised format.

I would have been more impressed if there was an actual discussion, and a real attempt to answer questions rather than pulling out rehearsed, generalised talking points. Biden pulled facts and figures out the ying-yang, but didn't provide much context to help understand it. Palin said some very odd things - and I was surprised that she totally ignored the core of the first two questions which basically prompted her to talk about what is wrong with the Washington establishment and how to reform it (something that has been cited as one of her core credentials). She also ignored a foreign policy question about Sudan with a vague reference to "I don't know what you Washington types are talking about".

If people are impressed by what they saw and heard - I'd contend that they weren't really listening.

I was expecting something thought-provoking and engaging - what we got instead was a soap opera.

You would!

I'd rather not be the "lowest common denominator"

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Oh, pull the other one, you were so not expecting thought-provoking and engaging. Hoping and praying for knowing it wasn't going to happen perhaps, but expecting?

Well no - it wasn't really an expectation. I do think we should hold these people to higher standards.

If we did - we'd likely get a completely different set of more qualified candidates.

Well as you may remember I said that the debate was very superficial, to my mind - due in large part to the revised format.

I would have been more impressed if there was an actual discussion, and a real attempt to answer questions rather than pulling out rehearsed, generalised talking points. Biden pulled facts and figures out the ying-yang, but didn't provide much context to help understand it. Palin said some very odd things - and I was surprised that she totally ignored the core of the first two questions which basically prompted her to talk about what is wrong with the Washington establishment and how to reform it (something that has been cited as one of her core credentials). She also ignored a foreign policy question about Sudan with a vague reference to "I don't know what you Washington types are talking about".

If people are impressed by what they saw and heard - I'd contend that they weren't really listening.

I was expecting something thought-provoking and engaging - what we got instead was a soap opera.

You would!

I'd rather not be the "lowest common denominator"

Your so outta touch with anything close to what americans are about. Get your nose back in those books!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You are right Marc - I am not into NASCAR, or WWE.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

You are right Marc - I am not into NASCAR, or WWE.

I know! Im always right.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, pull the other one, you were so not expecting thought-provoking and engaging. Hoping and praying for knowing it wasn't going to happen perhaps, but expecting?

Well no - it wasn't really an expectation. I do think we should hold these people to higher standards.

If we did - we'd likely get a completely different set of more qualified candidates.

Well as you may remember I said that the debate was very superficial, to my mind - due in large part to the revised format.

I would have been more impressed if there was an actual discussion, and a real attempt to answer questions rather than pulling out rehearsed, generalised talking points. Biden pulled facts and figures out the ying-yang, but didn't provide much context to help understand it. Palin said some very odd things - and I was surprised that she totally ignored the core of the first two questions which basically prompted her to talk about what is wrong with the Washington establishment and how to reform it (something that has been cited as one of her core credentials). She also ignored a foreign policy question about Sudan with a vague reference to "I don't know what you Washington types are talking about".

If people are impressed by what they saw and heard - I'd contend that they weren't really listening.

I was expecting something thought-provoking and engaging - what we got instead was a soap opera.

You would!

I'd rather not be the "lowest common denominator"

Precisely, instead of getting candidates who make a virtue of not being 'into' politics (which I guess is what Palin was getting at with her quip about not being used to Washington ways) and accept that politics is political (amazing, who'd have thought it?) and hold the candidates accountable, and to high standards.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Oh, pull the other one, you were so not expecting thought-provoking and engaging. Hoping and praying for knowing it wasn't going to happen perhaps, but expecting?

Well no - it wasn't really an expectation. I do think we should hold these people to higher standards.

If we did - we'd likely get a completely different set of more qualified candidates.

Well as you may remember I said that the debate was very superficial, to my mind - due in large part to the revised format.

I would have been more impressed if there was an actual discussion, and a real attempt to answer questions rather than pulling out rehearsed, generalised talking points. Biden pulled facts and figures out the ying-yang, but didn't provide much context to help understand it. Palin said some very odd things - and I was surprised that she totally ignored the core of the first two questions which basically prompted her to talk about what is wrong with the Washington establishment and how to reform it (something that has been cited as one of her core credentials). She also ignored a foreign policy question about Sudan with a vague reference to "I don't know what you Washington types are talking about".

If people are impressed by what they saw and heard - I'd contend that they weren't really listening.

I was expecting something thought-provoking and engaging - what we got instead was a soap opera.

You would!

I'd rather not be the "lowest common denominator"

Precisely, instead of getting candidates who make a virtue of not being 'into' politics (which I guess is what Palin was getting at with her quip about not being used to Washington ways) and accept that politics is political (amazing, who'd have thought it?) and hold the candidates accountable, and to high standards.

High standards? Such as Bill Ayres and rev. Wright?

[Peikko 1,575]

What political position are they running for?

I am not sure what your thought process is - I guess the 'guilt by assocation'? Let's not go there, after all, Ms Palin is under suspicion of something far more concrete than Barack Obama when it comes to misuse of public office.

[bhajishah 4]

Wow when are they going to step up to the rest of midwest and east?? Indiana can move its border 20 miles east and improve the IQ of both states jeesh