Draginol Draginol

Cheney trumps Edwards

▼

Cheney trumps Edwards

Debate #2

from JoeUser Forums

Cheney appears to have decidedly beaten Edwards.  Edwards just appeared a little bit out of his depth. I think Edwards could have stood up well against Bush, but Cheney just looked like a seasoned pro.

I don't think this will have much affect on the polls though as the veeps just don't make that much of a difference.

I think the key sound bites were very much in Cheney's favor -- i.e. the sound bites that will get repeated will show Cheney hammering Edwards and that is where it could make a difference.

politics
31,206 views 102 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
I assume both Free Republican and Democratic Underground are trying to influence the poll results. That said, I'm sure the number of poll voters is much greater than the current visitors of those two web sites, and -- as has been noted before -- Free Republic has many more members than Democratic Underground.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa:

The Kerry-Edwards site has their set of plans for what they would do. You just have to look. Bush-Cheney has a similar thing on their website.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #28 from PolMach Forums Top
Here is an interesting quote from the CBS news site

A CBS News poll of 178 uncommitted voters found that 41 percent said Edwards won the debate, versus 28 percent who said Cheney won. Thirty-one percent said it was a tie.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Grim Xiosan:

Ok, so what your saying is that 400,000 people spent 30 minutes of their lives running out to 6 different polling sites and stuffed the ballot boxes, all on the democratic side. While the Republicans didn't have ANYONE? Does that really sound realistic to you?
Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
Now that is a better poll, since it has not been corrupted or tainted by the FR or DU crowd.

- GX
Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top
Interesting that Edwards never brought up one of the main topics of their health care plan:

Cut Your Premiums
John Kerry and John Edwards will cut family premiums by up to $1,000. That's $1,000 in real savings people can use to buy groceries, pay the bills, and save for their children's future. And that will mean more jobs and more competitive American businesses.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/

I think that's because Chaney would have slammed him so hard on how economically and legislatively impossible this would be.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #32 from PolMach Forums Top
Ok, so what your saying is that 400,000 people spent 30 minutes of their lives running out to 6 different polling sites and stuffed the ballot boxes, all on the democratic side. While the Republicans didn't have ANYONE? Does that really sound realistic to you?


FR Crowd just was getting started up, while the DR crowd had the head start, seriously look at both of those Political Partisan sites, I will not trust any online poll because those two exist and both have openly stated to 'hit the polls'. Trell's CBS quote is more sane and realistic than some online poll that can be tampered with.

- GX
Reply #33 from PolMach Forums Top
Daiwa,. A good start to a plan for securing Iraq would have been--as Shinseki argued for and Bremer now admits--putting more troops on the ground to prevent the looting and to provide security. I think they honestly expected to be welcomed as liberators...fools. This just shows that they were wrong to go in and beyond that, they were wrong in how they went in. And, Kerry and Edwards have said as much over and over and over and....
Reply #34 from PolMach Forums Top
Link

Fine then, don't believe the online polls, look at one of the networks via the link above.

ABC had a poll that had Cheney winning by 8 pts, but they also had 8% more republicans in their sample. The CBS poll--even though the sample is too small to draw any hard conclusions, does show that this debate was at best (for edwards) another step toward winning the crucial swing voters and at worst a draw.
Reply #35 from PolMach Forums Top
Fine then, don't believe the online polls, look at one of the networks via the link above.


I said your posted poll from CBS was good and more believeable than an online version.

Or did you miss the following?:

Now that is a better poll, since it has not been corrupted or tainted by the FR or DU crowd.


Trell's CBS quote is more sane and realistic than some online poll that can be tampered with.


- GX
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's been said that if you want to get an accurate assessment of how people score a political debate, you have to turn off the sound on the TV. Frankly, I hope this isn't true, and I've repeatedly said tonight that I thought both Edwards and Cheney performed well. That said, if I had been watching with the television set on mute, I'd probably have favored Edwards.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Trellinator:

Oh sure, they took a poll in Texas and George Bush missed all the drills but they found documents that Edwards won the debates! Obvious forgery done on a Japanese word processor manufactured in China with sanskrit superscripts that couldn't be done except if standing on your head while practicing kama sutra!

Just a moment of levity in another long day.....
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

One thing that I thought was demonstrative happened right at the very beginning.

I forget what the question was originally about, but on rebuttal Edwards came out swinging about Iraq not having ties to Al Qaeda. The problem was, Cheney hadn't mentioned it, and the question wasn't related to it. It was like someone had told Edwards "Try to work this in as early as possible..."

I saw numerous times where Edwards used his rebuttal time to backtrack to other questions or bring up totally different matters. Later, he jabbed Cheyney about talking about education when he had made it the centerpiece about his reply concerning the economy.

I saw Cheney light on his feet, dealing with things in his own words, keeping the bumper sticker rhetoric to a minimum, and Edwards kept hammering on items he had worked in edge-ways.

I don't know if it was a rout, but I think the overall picture of the two left Cheney looking much better as a leader, and Edwards much better as a lawyer...

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa,. A good start to a plan for securing Iraq would have been--as Shinseki argued for and Bremer now admits--putting more troops on the ground to prevent the looting and to provide security. I think they honestly expected to be welcomed as liberators...fools. This just shows that they were wrong to go in and beyond that, they were wrong in how they went in. And, Kerry and Edwards have said as much over and over and over and....


That's a criticism of how events have played out and a legitimate point of debate, but still amounts to second-guessing or Monday-morning quarterbacking. Bremer himself said that he arrived at that conclusion after the fact, not while in the midst of it. But it does not constitute a plan for how to move forward from here. I have no problem understanding that things almost always don't play out the way we expect them to. If we had applied the same microscope and second-guessing to the D-Day invasion's losses @ Omaha beach, we'd have had people saying liberating Europe wasn't worth it and that we had an "inadequate plan." Most people understand intuitively that we cannot know all in advance or anticipate every possible result of given actions, that surprises are the norm in war, not the exception.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #40 from PolMach Forums Top
Daiwa,. A good start to a plan for securing Iraq would have been--as Shinseki argued for and Bremer now admits--putting more troops on the ground to prevent the looting and to provide security. I think they honestly expected to be welcomed as liberators...fools. This just shows that they were wrong to go in and beyond that, they were wrong in how they went in. And, Kerry and Edwards have said as much over and over and over and....


One: Read this article from Robert Novak in the Chicogo Sun-times, it disproves your Shinseki point.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak30.html

Two: Bremer is a Diplomat. When a President want informatioin on troop levels they go to the General in Charge of the operation (Franks). It is so suprising that you want Diplomats to control the military, after what happened in Veitnam.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
For those who follow these things, The online futures markets have raised the likelihood of a Kerry victory -- during the last hour -- at both NewsFutures and TradeSports.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
BakerStreet -

I don't know if it was a rout, but I think the overall picture of the two left Cheney looking much better as a leader, and Edwards much better as a lawyer...


Good nutshell. Sums it up well from my view.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #43 from PolMach Forums Top
I DON'T want diplomats in charge of the army and that's why I think John Kerry should be elected. The biggest difference between John Kerry and Bush--particularly in a time of war--is that John Kerry actually shed blood for his country. W, just seems to like making others bleed. Having said that, I do believe that if John Kerry had been in charge we wouldn't have gotten into this misbegotten war to begin with, but if we had I think we would have gone in there with overwhelming force and got the job done right instead of fiddling around, not securing the borders, letting looters go wild and destabilization to occur.

And by the way. I don't read the column of anyone who publishes the names of our CIA agents and then lies about why they did it. I could point out a hundred more credible sources than bob novak of all people that show just the opposite.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is the democrates tactic:

http://www.democrats.org/debates/index.html

They want all democrates to vote in every poll, even if they didn't even see the debate. If you go to the Philly newspaper website, there is no way that with over 35,000 people voting that only 300 thought that Cheaney won. That's 99% for Edwards and 1% for Cheaney. Talk about screwing up the polls.

Plus on the Chris Matthews Hardball poll. Right when it opened, (I was waiting for it and was refreshing and clearing my cache about every two or three minutes), a few minutes BEFORE the debate ended, there were already 26,000 people who had voted and over 95% of them were for Edwards. The democrates don't seem to care about encouraging people the think for themselves... All they want is for mindless drones to do their bidding. Who cares about truth. The democrates can always have the media craft whatever fits the need into the truth.

So much for a fair election. Right now I'm almost ready to say that there will be a more fair and just election in Iraq than in the USA .
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
" I DON'T want diplomats in charge of the army and that's why I think John Kerry should be elected. "


... ... ...

Urm ... ..

You understand that Kerry is basically running on a dipomatic ticket, right? All the answers to all our problems seem to be diplimatic, and Kerry did nothing but laud his status as "diplomat", dealing with supposedly untold numbers of foriegn leaders, ready to set up untold numbers of summits, etc...

Reply #46 from PolMach Forums Top
The biggest difference between John Kerry and Bush--particularly in a time of war--is that John Kerry actually shed blood for his country.


That’s no a proven fact yet. Kerry refuses to release that info (Check out the Kerry web site his medical records are not posted, Why?).

I DON'T want diplomats in charge of the army and that's why I think John Kerry should be elected.


Since Democrats have a history of letting diplomats control wars and Kerry has not said other wise, I don't think he will do anything different.

exp: Vietnam and Somalia (under Clinton)

I do believe that if John Kerry had been in charge we wouldn't have gotten into this misbegotten war to begin with


Hint, Hint, he voted to go to war. Some people refuse to admit that or make up stories that defies fact. He even did a big speech on the Senate steps arguing the point to go. Selective memory I guess.

but if we had I think we would have gone in there with overwhelming force and got the job done right instead of fiddling around, not securing the borders, letting looters go wild and destabilization to occur.


and we will trust your crystal ball in 2003 for this one and not the commander on the ground.

I don't read the column of anyone who publishes the names of our CIA agents and then lies about why they did it.


Ahh. standard SOP, when backed into a corner attack the source.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry folks...It wasn't the big blowout you claim it was. But after bush 2.0's godawful appearance thursday, anything better than that would look like a victory. I think overall it was more balanced, but cheney had no real arguement about Iraq, healthcare, Haliburton, corporate outsourcing, or the economy. Edwards may have stumbled a couple of times, but he still made more sense on the issues.

Oh but i forgot...you repubs dont care about the real issues this election...my bad!
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
For those who have some sense of humor about these things: Cheney suggested that people go to FactCheck.com. Oops. That said, it was an honest mistake, and he did fine in the debate.
Reply #49 from PolMach Forums Top
For those who have some sense of humor about these things: Cheney suggested that people go to FactCheck.com. Oops.


An John Edwards suggested this picture be used as an advertisement for himself:



He 'psychic channeled' Kerry into his debate, which is the reason he kept breaking the rule by saying John Kerry

Don't you hate it when you 'pyschic channel' somebody and they won't let you speak?

Probably the reason why Bush had trouble, he 'psychic channeled' Elmer Fudd, neither of the two could understand each other.

- GX
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Man you are way off Edwards spanked him badly. What debate did you watch? Cheney almost choked and had a heart attack. He was good, much better then pathetic Bush was, but he did not stand up for anything. Sounds bites? The key thing was Edwards sticking up for the truth while Cheney kept trying to stick with discredting the DEM ticket. This was a classic case of a loosing team doing what they always must do. Discredit the other side and never allow them to take credit for anything.

I figured you would be here stating what you thought about the debate first. The wrong election and wrong party to back. Sorry to say!