Winner of the Vice Presidental Debate

Regardless of what the polls say between now and Friday this election won't be decided by this debate. Even though I think Cheney mopped the floor with Edwards it really doesn't matter. I can't remember any significant developments out of any VP debate in history that swung the election.

In fact the only line I can remember from any VP debate was Lloyd Bentsen zinging Quayle with "Senator, I served with John Kennedy. I was a friend of John Kennedy. Senator, you are no John Kennedy." That line got so much play that Lloyd Bentsen and Michael Dukakis went on to win... oh wait, they won nothing.

VP debates mean nothing.
 
The one thing that is clear that any poll results right now are going to be *extremely* skewed by whichever party has a better populace of blog readers. Every political blog out there is herding their readers to hit up the polls. In the end, they'll be totally false data, but they'll still influence people who are only casually interested. So, it's all bullshit anyway.

seppo
 
I agree with PAD. I don't expect this debate to sway the polls more than a couple of votes. I also agree that Cheney won by a landslide.
 
[quote name='helava']The one thing that is clear that any poll results right now are going to be *extremely* skewed by whichever party has a better populace of blog readers. Every political blog out there is herding their readers to hit up the polls. In the end, they'll be totally false data, but they'll still influence people who are only casually interested. So, it's all bullshit anyway.

seppo[/quote]

You beat me to it. You're also right.

The "instant" polls appearing on news web sites with a click here button are being linked by every political page and message board in existence. In fact, and I didn't see this, the DNC sent out blast emails last week with the links for their supporters to follow to vote.

Polling a VP election debate winner is pointless. Even if I thought Edwards beat Cheney I'm not voting for VP. Also, collectively we're all so set in our ways this year (As a message board.) that none of these debates are going to shift our points of view and definitely won't sway one vote.

The only thing about the debates is they're fun distractions from the daily rants we throw at one another with flip flopping and liar charges.

BTW, I'd really like to make Susan Estrich lie face down, naked, spread eagled in bed and make her bite the pillow. Okay, now that I've put that disturbing thought in your nmind I'm off to bed. :twisted:
 
You forgot an option for "I vote for... who in the hell is Nader's running mate, anyway?" :p
 
Cheney absolutely destroyed that little ambulance chasing liberal. It was good to see him pick up the slack after Bush's poor performance. It's a shame we can't substitute Cheney in the remaining debates.
 
You guys must have seen a different debate. The one I saw had both Edwards and Cheney evenly matched with neither one dominating.
 
They were pretty even, although I did see Cheney as a compulsive liar. He lied about EVERYTHING.

He INSISTED that the US took only 50% of the casualties in the Iraq war, in reality we took 90%. But he kept saying it over and over.
 
[quote name='JCDenton']that little ambulance chasing liberal.[/quote]

What a jackass. Edwards was hired by parents to sue companies for accountability and sue insurance companies for ripping people off.

HE SUED COMPANIES THAT HURT CHILDREN!
 
The debate was fairly even but I favor Edwards' substance over Cheney's style. I was shocked that Cheney mentioned factcheck.org since they so often point out when Bush/Cheney get the facts wrong (last night's debate, for example).

I did appreciate how the moderator asked about "the global test" and a couple of other things that Bush/Cheney have been misleading about.
 
My favorite part was the question directed at Cheney along the lines of "you insinuated that a vote for Kerry would make people die, explain."

pwned
 
I thought Cheney started out stronger and did better for the first half hour, while Edwards sounded like Bush, ognoring the questions and just repeating rhetoric.

However, I thought Edwards did much better once the focus was off noational defense and on health care, education, etc. So it was pretty even.

Also, Cheney kept hunching over and covering up his mic, which screwed up his statements.
 
Edwards killed.

"Mr Vice President, you have not been straight with the American people."

Straight for the jugular. Cheney should get a purple heart...

:)
 
Here's the post-analysis from the Washington Post, NYT, and LA Times:

Washington Post: Cheney vs. Edwards
If this debate mattered in part because Mr. Cheney has been such an integral part of the Bush team, it was also important as a proving ground for his relatively inexperienced opponent. Mr. Edwards has served not quite one term in the Senate, and he has spent much of that time running for higher office. Mr. Cheney was as cutting as a school principal lecturing a delinquent student on the subject of Mr. Edwards's Senate "attendance record." But if the question was whether he has the grounding to assume the presidency if need be, Mr. Edwards delivered a solid performance on both foreign and domestic policy last night. He sought to turn the experience question around by saying, "Mr. Vice President, I don't think the country can take four more years of this kind of experience."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10111-2004Oct5.html

New York Times: The Running Mates Debate
Mr. Edwards is normally known for his wide grin and boyish appearance, but he was serious and tough last night. If his main task was to show that he could stand up to the older and more experienced vice president, he did everything he needed to do, especially during the discussion of foreign policy - the area that is supposed to be his weak suit. Mr. Edwards was particularly on point when Mr. Cheney attacked John Kerry as a lawmaker who had consistently voted against military expenditures. Much of the arms spending Mr. Kerry voted against, Mr. Edwards noted, was for the same programs Mr. Cheney had fought to cut when he was secretary of defense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/opinion/06wed1.html

LA Times: Edwards Woos Another Jury
Mr. Edwards is normally known for his wide grin and boyish appearance, but he was serious and tough last night. If his main task was to show that he could stand up to the older and more experienced vice president, he did everything he needed to do, especially during the discussion of foreign policy - the area that is supposed to be his weak suit. Mr. Edwards was particularly on point when Mr. Cheney attacked John Kerry as a lawmaker who had consistently voted against military expenditures. Much of the arms spending Mr. Kerry voted against, Mr. Edwards noted, was for the same programs Mr. Cheney had fought to cut when he was secretary of defense.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-ed-debate6oct06,1,2322604.story?coll=la-home-
 
I thought Cheney was the clear victor. Unlike Bush, who stumbled into catch-phrases when criticized and too rarely just turned the tables on Kerry, Cheney just destroyed almost every Edwards attack.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
VP debates mean nothing.[/quote]


The smartest thing you ever said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top