Okay, who WON the VP debates?

I wasn’t terrribly interested in this debate, but I chose to watch it instead of the Twins-Yankees game. A shame, really.

I think the debate was a draw, mostly because of the visuals thing. Cheney - despite his numerous errors of fact (OK, lies) - seemed to be in command of the issues and probably reassured some wavering GOPers that there is an adult in charge somewhere.

Taking a long run look, though, Edwards did exactly what he had to do. He handled himself very well, countered most of the Republican talking points effectively and did nothing that would halt the Kerry momentum. In the debate itself, I got a little tired of him spending have of an answer addressing an earlier question. It was a good idea sometimes, especially when calling Cheney on some of his mistakes. But it also got old fast and deprived him of a lot of opportunities to really make a strong case for the Kerry plan.

If I had to choose, I’d pick Edwards, but I don’t think it was a crushing win in the debate. The important thing is that the trends have not been disrupted for the Kerry camp. Cheney really needed a knockout here, and he didn’t get it. So even if you give the VP the win, it’s a Pyrrhic victory at best.

Troy

Edwards showed just how little he knows about federal taxes in his bid to play the class envy card.

He claimed that “millionaires sitting by the pool reading their dividend statements” pay less tax than soldiers on the ground in Iraq.

Members of the U.S. military serving in Iraq don’t pay any federal income tax while they are in Iraq.

As a Kerry supporter I’m going to give the nod to Cheney on this one. Edwards just did not respond to the accusations that were made basically hitting the point home that “[Edward’s] record speaks for itself. And frankly, it‘s not very distinguished.”

It’s definitely a lot closer then last week’s debate and Edwards did score some points, but Cheney stuck to his guns and made his points.

Interesting moment when Cheney gave up his time on the issue of Gay rights. That too me was a loss for the Bush team. It was a clear division within their own ticket regarding the issue. Cheney thanking Edwards for the comments about his daughter then staying quiet was an indication that he disagreed with Bush and there was nothing to be done about it.

Going to said link:

Server Error in ‘/’ Application.

Server Too Busy

Man, how I’d like to be the guy who did advertisement-buys for factcheck.org right now…

Edwards won.
I was watching very carefully and you might say I think Edwards won because I’m generally a Democrat, but I still think he won. He played a better game. If you get a chance to watch it again think about this. Edwards mastered the format - he was in control - and he nailed Cheney at times when Cheney couldn’t respond. Edwards attacked more, but because of his style, Cheney looked more mean. Cheney was left vulnerable far more often and he spent far more time refuting Edwards attacks, than he spent advancing his agenda or attacking Kerry.

Edwards is a gamer. The best example of this came at the end (and I think it was a bad moment for Edwards). Gwen went to Edwards for 30 seconds and Edwards said: “Are you sure?” (because he knew he wasn’t supposed to get that 30 seconds because, that’s not how the game works)

She says she’s sure. Edwards looks quizzical, shrugs, and then starts in. Then Gwen realizes she was wrong and stops him. Edwards goofily stops and says “See? I was right!” obviously pleased he had been right before.

I see this as the equivalent of the DM saying: “Edwards casts a fireball? Thats 5d6 for damage.”
Edwards: Don’t you mean 4d6?
DM: 5d6
Edwards: Okay. (Rattles dice)
DM: No, wait, 4d6!
Edwards: I was right! (smiles!)

Here are Saletan’s thoughts.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107808/

While Cheney has been rightly called on the carpet for his flat-out lie about never meeting Edwards, the unfortunate fact that Edwards didn’t counter it on the spot might mean neither of them remembered meeting until Edwards’s wife reminded them.

Because at that moment, Edwards could have ruled the debate, and he didn’t. It would have been like nuking Lloyd Bentsen’s 1988 JFK comment right in his face.

With that said, I hate Cheney, but I think he pulled a marginal victory last night. He called Kerry/Edwards on the $200 Billion lie, and he twisted them in the wind on the $87 Billion question. If he weren’t such a flaming liar himself, he’d have annihilated Edwards, but hey, this is reality, and Cheney is a scumbag, so Edwards came back swinging with plenty of evidence to back that up.

I keep seeing comments along these lines, and they make absolutely no sense.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ (run by a very partisan democrat, fyi)

http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_Pres04_WTA.cfm

Bush and Cheney are ahead. All they need to do is hold on to that. All they need to do is not screw up between now and November. You’ve got it exactly backwards: Kerry/Edwards are the ones who need knockouts and anything less is pyrrhic for them. The “trends” and “momentum” are in Bush’s favor; Kerry’s been in a slow slide ever since his convention. Disrupting the trends is EXACTLY what Kerry needs to do. Interpreting this any other way is well into spin and delusion.

Bush didn’t do too well in the first debate (and that’s reflected in the Iowa markets) but he hasn’t lost it yet. The domestic debate may still do that, but that remains to be seen.

Another classic example of the “technical non-lie” by pro-Bush forces. You carefully CHANGED the terms you used in mid-paragraph to avoid lying but you clearly give a deceptive impression.

Edwards used the word “tax” which in common usage includes ALL forms of tax. Specifically for federal taxation this means income and payroll (Social Security) taxes. The soldiers do AFAIK pay Social Security payroll tax: every dollar you earn up to $87,900 is taxed at 6.75% right off the top (plus another 5.something % by your employer, 12.something% total is you are self-employed) do not pass go do not collect $200.

However you then try to say Edwards is wrong by saying that US military serving in Iraq don’t pay ANY federal (notice this modifying word) income tax while in Iraq. However they still pay federal tax in the form of payroll tax. And since under Bush dividends are not federally taxed, Edward’s statement is in fact true (in reference to federal taxation).

There are so many examples of the Bushies throwing out the “deceptive technical non-lie”. Changing from talking about taxes (which are only mildly progressive in aggregate) to “income taxes” (which are much more progressive federally) to accuse Demos of waging class warfare. Using the mathematic mean to make an implication when the median is more accurate (as in the amount of tax relief an “average” family would get from the Bush plan). The mean/median one is classic. The Bush camp said something like “87 million families will get an average tax cut of $1,100” - in common usage the implication is that average families will get $1,100 in tax relief. However, that average they used was an arithmetic mean, which includes the very large relief that high earners got. The median average was only about $125 IIRC. So the average family was actually going to get a couple hundred bucks, not $1,100.

Eh, I’m used to it now. But please man, if you are trying to have any credibility don’t use such cheesy tactics. Don’t switch from all taxes to income taxes (or mean to median) or what have you in the middle of a debate without clearly stating the terms you are using. These little modifying words have a big import.

Dan

I’m going to have to disagree on that point. I thought he responded incredibly well, and just demolished Cheney for even daring to bring up the record. Exerpted from the utterly fantastic Salon article linked in this thread:

My favorite moment came when Cheney impugned Edwards’ voting record. Edwards replied that Cheney had voted against Head Start, Meals on Wheels, the Department of Education, and the Martin Luther King holiday. It was such a devastating flurry of kidney punches, so blandly and shamelessly delivered, that my wife and I burst into sobs of weeping laughter. At the skill or the gall, I’m not sure which.

Steff and I burst into uproarious laughter at that moment. It was one of the finest counterpunches I’ve ever seen in a debate. Throughout the entire course of the debate, it seemed as if Cheney was blundering into one trap after another - almost every time that Cheney brought out one of his attacks on either Kerry or Edwards, Edwards was ready, waiting for him, with a response that was much more savage, and exponentially more damaging. The best part, for me, was seeing Cheney start to lose his cool as the tide flowed against him, and begin snapping off nasty little insults as he became too frustrated to conceal his nature and temperment. I’d hoped from the onset that Edwards would use his trial experience to manipulate Cheney into making the kinds of attacks he’s infamous for, and I wasn’t disappointed. I hadn’t dared to expect that he would be so masterful at trapping Cheney into exposing himself to such devastating fusilades of facts, however. I’ve been loving this season of debates.

That was from a Slate article. I don’t go anywhere near Salon, Quatoria.

Haha, yeah, thanks for the correction, Bub - mental slip. Still very early for me. Absolutely fantastic editorial, though. I loved his description of the kidney blows.

called Kerry/Edwards on the $200 Billion lie

Not a lie; see other debate thread.

I keep seeing comments along these lines, and they make absolutely no sense.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ (run by a very partisan democrat, fyi)

http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_Pres04_WTA.cfm

Bush and Cheney are ahead. All they need to do is hold on to that. All they need to do is not screw up between now and November. You’ve got it exactly backwards: Kerry/Edwards are the ones who need knockouts and anything less is pyrrhic for them. The “trends” and “momentum” are in Bush’s favor; Kerry’s been in a slow slide ever since his convention. Disrupting the trends is EXACTLY what Kerry needs to do. Interpreting this any other way is well into spin and delusion.

Bush didn’t do too well in the first debate (and that’s reflected in the Iowa markets) but he hasn’t lost it yet. The domestic debate may still do that, but that remains to be seen.[/quote]

We’ve been discussing this for a while:

  1. The likely voter screens this year are silly - it’s best to just use Zogby and ignore the rest.
  2. Kerry’s slightly ahead in the swing states.
  3. Looking at the spread is misleading. When you start digging into the undecideds, they’re leaning against Bush 2 to 1.

Sure, it’d be nice if Kerry was ahead by a crushing margin, but a 47% approval rating President is in deep shit regardless.

Meanwhile in the land of facts:

Misleading Assertions Cover Iraq War and Voting Records

By Glenn Kessler and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 6, 2004; Page A15

Sen. John Edwards and Vice President Cheney clashed repeatedly in their debate last night, making impressive-sounding but misleading statements on issues including the war in Iraq, tax cuts and each other’s records, often omitting key facts along the way.

Early in the debate, Cheney snapped at Edwards, “The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11.” But in numerous interviews, Cheney has skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers, usually when he cited the possibility that Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, met with an Iraqi official – even after that theory was largely discredited.

On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” that “it’s been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.” On March 24, 2002, Cheney again told NBC, “We discovered . . . the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.”

On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on “Meet the Press,” said that Atta “did apparently travel to Prague. . . . We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center.” And a year ago, also on “Meet the Press,” Cheney described Iraq as part of “the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”

In the debate, Cheney referred to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as having “an established relationship with al Qaeda” and said then-CIA Director George J. Tenet talked about “a 10-year relationship” in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What Tenet cited were several “high-level contacts” over a 10-year period, but he also said the agency reported they never led to any cooperative activity.

Edwards, for his part, asserted that the war in Iraq has cost $200 billion “and counting,” an assertion that Cheney called him on. Cheney said the government has “allocated” $120 billion. As of Sept. 30, the government has spent about $120 billion, and it has allocated – or plans to spend – $174 billion. The tab should run as high as $200 billion in the next year once other expected supplemental spending is added.

Cheney suggested that an agreement had been reached on debt relief for Iraq, saying that “the allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion, by one estimate.” While there are reports of some sort of agreement, no plan has been made public. Cheney also said that allies had contributed $14 billion in “direct aid.” Actually, $13 billion was pledged, but only $1 billion has arrived.

Cheney also said Iraqi security forces have “taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent.” The United States does not keep track of Iraqi casualties, either civilian or in the security services. Recently, a senior U.S. official in Baghdad estimated that 750 Iraqi policemen have been killed but has no estimate of those wounded. The United States as of yesterday has had 1,061 deaths and 7,730 wounded.

Cheney and Edwards tangled repeatedly over each other’s voting records, or the record of presidential challenger John F. Kerry. But many of these votes took place long ago and appear to have little relevance to current issues. Edwards cited a long list of conservative votes by Cheney, made decades ago when he was a House member from Wyoming.

Cheney said Kerry once vowed to allow a veto by the United Nations over U.S. troops. This refers to a statement made nearly 35 years ago, when Kerry gave an interview to the Harvard Crimson, 10 months after he had returned from the Vietnam War angry and disillusioned by his experiences there.

Cheney said Kerry’s tax-cut rollback would hit 900,000 small businesses. This is misleading. Under Cheney’s definition, a small business is any taxpayer who includes some income from a small business investment, partnership, limited liability corporation or trust. By that definition, every partner at a huge accounting firm or at the largest law firm would represent small businesses. According to IRS data, a tiny fraction of small business “S-corporations” earn enough profits to be in the top two tax brackets. Most are in the bottom two brackets.

Edwards asserted that “millionaires sitting by their swimming pool . . . pay a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving” in Iraq. President Bush last year cut the tax rate on dividends to 15 percent, whereas most soldiers would be in a 15 percent tax bracket – and pay an effective rate much less after taking deductions for children and mortgages.

Edwards also asserted that “the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary.” But Bush simply endorsed such an amendment that had already been introduced on Capitol Hill.

Cheney continued to charge that Kerry voted 98 times to raise taxes. But FactCheck.org – a nonpartisan group Cheney cited during the debate as a fair data checker – says nearly half were not for tax increases per se and many others were on procedural motions.

Both candidates promised to cut the deficit in half in four years. Independent budget experts say neither the Republican nor the Democratic ticket can make good on that promise unless it scales back funding promises made during the campaign. The Kerry health care plan, for instance, could cost as much as $1 trillion, experts say, which would eat up most if not all of the revenue generated by raising taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year. Edwards said the Democratic ticket is willing to scale back programs to make the numbers work.

Bush is digging an even deeper hole, experts say, because he has promised to partially privatize Social Security, which carries a transition cost likely to be much bigger than that of Kerry’s health care plan.

Edwards asserted that “in the last four years, 1.6 million private-sector jobs have been lost.” The actual number is close to 900,000 and will likely shrink further when Friday’s jobs reports is released, though Bush is the first president in 72 years to preside over an overall job loss.

Edwards also misleadingly charged that the Bush administration is “for outsourcing of jobs.” The Bush-Cheney ticket has not advocated sending jobs overseas, though administration officials have talked about how outsourcing can be good for the U.S. economy, a position many private economists echo.

Cheney charged that Kerry and Edwards oppose the No Child Left Behind education law, which imposes new accountability standards on public schools. Both senators voted for the law and support some modifications and billions of dollars to fully fund the education program.

Edwards claimed that part of Halliburton Corp.'s money in Iraqi contracts should have been withheld because the company is under investigation. Some funds were withheld but then paid out after an Army audit studied the matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10244-2004Oct5.html

Many other good articles and live chats on the washingtonpost.com site today including a couple editors discussing the debates and Dana Priest on national security.

http://www.washintonpost.com/

After scolding Edwards like a school-marm it turns out that Cheney has a crap senate attendance record as well:

As Senate attendance records show, in the 126 Tuesdays the Senate has been in session during Cheney’s tenure as Vice-President, he has actually only presided over the Senate as President on two occasions. During the same stretch, to fill in for Cheney’s repeated absence, Edwards has served as acting President of the Senate on two occasions.

It’s all there in the congressional record.

All Edwards had to say then was that the $200 Billion includes FY2005 appropriations and that would have been the end of that. This is exactly the sort of thing Edwards kept flubbing in order to go all demagogue.

But hey, it seems to have worked. I kinda thought Edwards lost the debate by a hair, but the masses seem to think he won it.

I’m going to make like Cheney and not know where to start with this statement.

I guess the one thing that sticks out more than anything else is, why Zogby? What’s Zogby? Who’s Zogby? How do you Zogby? Why use that and ignore others - because it gives results you like?

  1. Kerry’s slightly ahead in the swing states.

That and two bits will get you a cup of coffee.

LOOK at the electoral map. Bush is ahead in some states. Kerry is ahead in others. The states Bush is ahead in have consistently totaled to about 280 electoral votes for the past month; Kerry’s have consistently totaled to about 230. I don’t know how you’re defining “swing states” but whatever definition it is, Kerry can win the ones he’s ahead in all he likes and still won’t win the election, assuming the current numbers stay roughly constant.

  1. Looking at the spread is misleading. When you start digging into the undecideds, they’re leaning against Bush 2 to 1.

Then they’re not undecided, are they?

Election prediction isn’t my bag, and I try to avoid paying attention to them, as a rule. From what I’ve heard, however, Rollory, Zogby is the guy who has been closest to dead-on accurate for the last four or five elections, or somesuch, and he’s painting a picture very different from the one appearing in the media.

That said, I’ll step aside and let Jason handle your questions.

There’s this concept of “leaning but haven’t made a decision yet,” you know. Bush’s approval rating with the people who say they’re undecided is like 33% or something; they’ve basically decided they don’t want to reelect Bush, but they’re still evaluating Kerry.

As to Zogby - he’s a pollster. He doesn’t show wild swings from week to week. He doesn’t use voter screens that insist that GOP party identification hit its highest post-WW2 mark in the wake of the 2004 GOP convention. He was the 2nd closest pollster in 2000.

Those electoral college prediction maps show huge gaps because they’re using every poll under the sun, basically - Gallup’s is especially ridiculous this year.

This 2-page thread from last week has more details:

http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=13857&sid=bfc2d9f142123f747d48f9b64f753444

The president’s job approval rating is stuck at 47:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=867

Sure, Bush is up by 3, but the undecideds are 7 percent, over double the margin between the candidates.

It’s going to be extremely difficult for him to get re-elected with that shitty of an approval rating. One way to think of it is “he needs 5% of the people who disapprove of the job he’s done to vote for him anyway.”