I must admit that the debate took an unexpected turn for me tonight. While I fully expected Obama to come out in the way in which he did. Romney was the larger surprise for me. He came out for the kill tonight at a moment in the race that things were in a dead heat and trending his direction as it was and he decided to take a gamble. This strategy could have worked beautifully and may end up working to his advantage in the long run. However, I did not see the reason for taking the gamble and worry that he could have been much better served to play it slightly safer and make Obama look like the desperate one who saw his job slipping away. Instead I thought they both came across as desperate at times. I honestly feel like this debate did more to turn voters off then to engage them in the race. Past debate polls show this was clearly the case among undecided voters. Both candidates were clearly going for their own party bases once again, yet in the end Romney seemed much more aggressive in going for the all import independent voter.
Their were times in the debate that I thought both candidates fared extremely well and others that they both took huge hits. The story of the entire debate and I also felt like it was the biggest turning point of the night was the issue of Libya. I was thrilled when it was brought up and even liked how the initial exchanges went. If things were to have ended right there then the turning point would have never came and we may very well be talking about Romney scoring more points and post debate polls favoring Romney. Then the unthinkable happened...Romney accused Obama of something that was 100% true, but he...God forbid...said "act of terror", rather then "a terrorist act". Thus driving the story like of the night that what Romney said was 100% false. However, this is not really what drove the attention. You see there was another person in the debate hall who literally changed the course of the debate...none other then the moderator. Who true to form threw out the rules handed to her and blatantly did what the debate commission said was not allowed. Not only did she ask numerous follow up questions, but she decided to score the biggest punch of the night against Romney. She immediately came to the rescue of Obama and knew that Romney had made a slight wording error in his accusation. Thus she told Romney that he was wrong and therefore, the whole issue and I would tend to say the whole debate turned. It became a horrifying and embarrassing moment for Romney. I can already hear the liberals contending that she went on to challenge Obama's facts as well. Here is the problem...no one was listening at that moment because of the intensity of the moment and the eruption of cheers from the audience. I know that I missed it entirely all I could feel was my heart thumping, because of the magnitude of the moment and the applause of the audience for the moderator fact checking a candidate.
In fairness, Romney was responsible for how he responded to this moment and the direction in which he took the follow up. He could have done two things after the initial exchanges that would have been much better. First, he could have dropped it entirely and settle for a slight jab that Obama had to take and did so willingly. But, he was going for broke and came away broke. He could have also drove home the larger point rather then the finer points that people disregard anyway. He could have asked why then did you claim for a week afterwords that the attack came as a result of a video? Why did you claim that there were demonstrations in the streets before the attack when facts show the opposite?
After all the above criticisms it would be easy for people to think that I am viewing the race as over and Obama coming out victorious. But, there seems to be great evidence that this truly was not the case. While both scientific polls from CNN and CBS gave a 7 point edge to Obama I am not so sure that he actually helped his case tonight. As I have stated numerous times all the nonsense of who won the debate is pointless. All that matters is the question, "Did this debate tonight influence your vote and if so, who for?" This is what is giving me the most hope as a conservative. The follow up questions from the CNN debate among registered voters. 33% of whom was democrats, 33% republicans, and 34% independents. Of the three specific areas of who people thought would do better on the economy, taxes, and the deficit; all three areas went to Romney. Romney was also seen as the stronger leader after the debate. In fact even in the CBS poll when people were asked who would do a better job on the economy. A overwhelming 65% said Romney and only 34% Obama. Then the most important question, "Who did this debate influence you to vote for?" 25% Romney, 25% Obama, 50% Neither or the debate had no influence on their vote.
The thing about this debate that drives a projections person like me crazy is the how unpredictable the aftermath of this debate is and how it will influence the electorate. I wish we could fast forward a couple days to get a sense for who really won the debate tonight according to polls and polling trends. Is it possible that Romney's bold strategy backfires and ends up costing him any hope of the election? Possible, but not likely. Is it possible that this strategy continues the momentum for Romney and gives him the election. Possible, but not likely. So what is likely after this debate? No one knows, not even political prognosticators.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Second Presidential Debate...A night for Obama and Crowley?
It is with great fear and in trepidation that I approach this debate tonight! As hard as I try to shake these gut instincts that I hope are wrong, it seems to be impossible. While I do not think Obama can take a page from Biden's play book and get away with it. What I am expecting is a debate in which Obama is crowned as the winner by most journalists and post debate polls. Here are some reasons why...
1. Obama set the bar so low in his first debate that any significant improvement will automatically make it seem as if he is the obvious winner. For those who really think that Obama gave the best he had in his last debate; I think you are sadly mistaken. Obama has always been a skilled debater and has demonstrated a knack for connecting with his audiences.
2. With as good as Romney is at debating he has one basic style that he uses in every debate. The old "pivot and attack" approach in which he responds to his opponents attacks by slightly pivoting or turning the criticism around and then turning the attack into a counter attack before most of the audience even knows what hit them. This format of debate will not be conducive to this strategy as their is very little time for counter attacks.
3. Unless the moderator with a long track record of adoring Obama (I'll get into that later) chooses some unexpected, difficult questions from the audience, this format clearly favors Obama and definitely not the strong suit for Romney.
4. We have already heard some tid-bits from the Obama campaign that he plans to go after Bain Capital and the 47% gaffe of Romney. Romney has always refused to make his own case on Bain and defend himself as forcefully as what he needs to. Obama has successfully taken Romney's investing experience and turned it into a detriment. The only way Romney can really defend himself is to brag on his accomplishments there, something he he always refused to do in a meaningful manner. All that matters is how the American people view these issues and polling data seems to indicate these two areas as especially damaging to Romney.
5. Why I left this for last I will never know. Drum roll please...Obama has an ace in his back pocket...I can feel the tension rising...Candy Crowley! Not only is she a liberal with a long track record but has already made it clear that she plans to defy the rules set forth by the debate commission. Why? She feels like it is her job to challenge candidates when she feels like their answers are out of line and that she should have the right to ask follow up questions. Remember, she already gets to choose what questions the audience asks, but evidently she wants to add her own gotcha questions as well. Lets look at some of her liberal bias after posting some links of artciles detailing her plans to throw away tonights rules.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/crowley-promises-to-defy-debate-contract-138596.html
http://patdollard.com/2012/10/both-sides-formally-protest-debate-moderator-candy-crowley-expressed-intention-to-influence-outcome/
1. Obama set the bar so low in his first debate that any significant improvement will automatically make it seem as if he is the obvious winner. For those who really think that Obama gave the best he had in his last debate; I think you are sadly mistaken. Obama has always been a skilled debater and has demonstrated a knack for connecting with his audiences.
2. With as good as Romney is at debating he has one basic style that he uses in every debate. The old "pivot and attack" approach in which he responds to his opponents attacks by slightly pivoting or turning the criticism around and then turning the attack into a counter attack before most of the audience even knows what hit them. This format of debate will not be conducive to this strategy as their is very little time for counter attacks.
3. Unless the moderator with a long track record of adoring Obama (I'll get into that later) chooses some unexpected, difficult questions from the audience, this format clearly favors Obama and definitely not the strong suit for Romney.
4. We have already heard some tid-bits from the Obama campaign that he plans to go after Bain Capital and the 47% gaffe of Romney. Romney has always refused to make his own case on Bain and defend himself as forcefully as what he needs to. Obama has successfully taken Romney's investing experience and turned it into a detriment. The only way Romney can really defend himself is to brag on his accomplishments there, something he he always refused to do in a meaningful manner. All that matters is how the American people view these issues and polling data seems to indicate these two areas as especially damaging to Romney.
5. Why I left this for last I will never know. Drum roll please...Obama has an ace in his back pocket...I can feel the tension rising...Candy Crowley! Not only is she a liberal with a long track record but has already made it clear that she plans to defy the rules set forth by the debate commission. Why? She feels like it is her job to challenge candidates when she feels like their answers are out of line and that she should have the right to ask follow up questions. Remember, she already gets to choose what questions the audience asks, but evidently she wants to add her own gotcha questions as well. Lets look at some of her liberal bias after posting some links of artciles detailing her plans to throw away tonights rules.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/crowley-promises-to-defy-debate-contract-138596.html
http://patdollard.com/2012/10/both-sides-formally-protest-debate-moderator-candy-crowley-expressed-intention-to-influence-outcome/
- She called the selection of Paul Ryan a ticket death wish..."CROWLEY: ...that this might be, looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish...do we really want to talk about these thing? Is this where we want to go when the economy is so bad? We could have stayed on that.
- She felt it was important to take her daughter to an Obama and Hillary Clinton rally just to attend. While denying that she was a supporter she just felt like it was so historical for the country...She also was unabashed in her spport for Obama when he was a candidate in 2008, telling viewers that she actually made it a point to take her daughter to his announcement and also Hillary Clinton's because she was caught up in the historical moment:"I recall standing out in very chilly Springfield, Illinois, when Barack Obama announced. And a lot of people I talked to there said, 'Oh, you're an Obama supporter?' I said no, but you know, this might be history. I wanted to bring my kid. Same with Hillary Clinton. I brought my daughter, you know, because I think this might be history." Was Crowley ever as enthusiastic about an announcement from a Republican? Source-News Busters
To sum things up I feel like Romney is heading into an impossible circumstance tonight. If he some how were to come out of this with a draw then it would be a major victory for his campaign.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Predictions 10/15/2012
It sure looks like the polls have stabilized over the weekend and it appears as if Biden has in fact stopped the bleeeding leading to tomorrows crucial townhall debate. My confidence in Obama winning the all important state of Ohio has seen a slight increase and Colorado looks to be more of a dead heat then what it did Friday. Still no change on the total count or projected finish. As a reminder the color of the number under the change category indicates which direction it moved since Friday. (Blue is Obama...Red is Romney)
Toss-Up States |
Projected Winner |
EV |
Confidence |
Change |
| Nevada | Obama | 6 | 65% | 0% |
| Colorado | Romney | 9 | 60% | 5% |
| Florida | Romney | 29 | 65% | 0% |
| Virginia | Romney | 13 | 55% | 0% |
| Ohio | Obama | 18 | 65% | 5% |
| New Hampshire | Obama | 4 | 60% | 0% |
| Leaning States | ||||
| Iowa | Obama | 6 | 70% | 5% |
| Wisconsin | Obama | 10 | 70% | 0% |
| North Carolina | Romney | 15 | 80% | 0% |
| Leaning States | Obama | 16 | 70-85% | 0 |
| Romney | 15 | 70-85% | 0 | |
| Safe States | Obama | 237 | 90% + | 0 |
| Romney | 191 | 90% + | 0 | |
| Total | Obama | 253 | 0 | |
| Romney | 206 | |||
| Toss-Ups | 79 | 50-65% | 0 | |
| Projected Finish | Obama | 281 | 0 | |
| Romney | 257 | 0 |
Anyone wishing to see this in map form, with the including of toss-up states may click on the following link
Detailing my Formula on Projecting Ohio
It is no mystery that no republican has ever won the presidency and lost Ohio and I still see that being the case in this election unless Wisconsin swings into Romney's column. Let me illustrate or detail my formula a little bit more. Since Ohio is such a critical states lets examine it further.
1. First I look at all the polls that meet the qualifications of realclearpolitics...
2. Now comes the tricky part...Adjusting polls according to past accuracy and their relationship to the average in come cases. This is done in two different ways. Polls that I consider reasonably accurate I slightly adjust based on past leanings. -OR-Those polls that have very questionable methods that have more clear bias or those that are clear outliers from the norm will be adjusted by comparing their poll results to the partially adjusted results. For example:
1. First I look at all the polls that meet the qualifications of realclearpolitics...
RCP Average
|
10/5 - 10/13
|
--
|
--
|
48.3
|
46.1
|
Obama +2.2
|
10/12 - 10/13
|
880 LV
|
3.3
|
51
|
46
|
Obama +5
|
|
10/10 - 10/10
|
750 LV
|
4.0
|
48
|
47
|
Obama +1
|
|
10/6 - 10/10
|
1313 LV
|
2.7
|
45
|
46
|
Romney +1
|
|
10/7 - 10/9
|
994 LV
|
3.1
|
51
|
45
|
Obama +6
|
|
10/5 - 10/8
|
600 LV
|
4.0
|
47
|
48
|
Romney +1
|
|
10/5 - 10/8
|
722 LV
|
3.5
|
51
|
47
|
Obama +4
|
|
10/5 - 10/8
|
808 LV
|
3.5
|
45
|
44
|
Obama +1
|
2. Now comes the tricky part...Adjusting polls according to past accuracy and their relationship to the average in come cases. This is done in two different ways. Polls that I consider reasonably accurate I slightly adjust based on past leanings. -OR-Those polls that have very questionable methods that have more clear bias or those that are clear outliers from the norm will be adjusted by comparing their poll results to the partially adjusted results. For example:
- PPP- Is probably the most accurate democratic pollster and has a slight democrat bias. But, since they are within three points of the initial average they will only be reduced one point from the average. Obama by 5 now becomes Obama by 4.
- Rasmussen Reports- Is a non-official republican poll that has good accuracy, but generally only in presidential races or when their is not a large enthusiasm gap, since they use the same party weighting in every poll. They do have a slight republican bias but since they are within three points of the average their is only an addition of one point for Obama. Obama by 1 becomes Obama by 2.
- Gravis Marketing- If their is one polling company that I could yet decide to throw out entirely it is this one. They are new in this election cycle so has no track record, but their numbers are normally all over the place and have shown generally unrealistic margins. In this case since they are showing only a three points gap from the average we will treat them as a pollster with questionable findings and compare their poll to the adjusted average at the end and take the median of the two.
- NBC/WSJ/Marist- They are an extremely reputable polling company that generally show slight bias for the democrats, but in this case they have a very questionable weighting scale within the poll. They polled 40% democrats, 29% republicans, 29% independents. Compare these numbers to the lopsided turnout in 2008 in which 39% of the voters were democrat and 32% of the voters were republican, which was higher for dems and lower for the GOP then typical. This poll is predicting the largest voter turnout for democrats in modern history and the lowest turnout for republicans in modern history. They likely way over compensated what they seen as a enthusiasm gap for democrats. I personally think we are going to see more average or normal turnouts by party in this election. Therefore, I treat this poll the same way I do the Gravis poll and that means we will have to compare this finding to the adjusted average at the end.
- ARG- The American Research Group is one with very mixed and more unreliable results throughout the years. They also have on average a more republican leaning. In this case since it is basically within three points of the initial average we will be taking the median of this poll to the initial average and therefore, Romney by 1 becomes Obama by 0.5.
- CNN/Opinion Research- A poll with a long track record of slight democratic bias. Therefore, we discount Obamas margin by one. Obama by 4 becomes Obama by 3.
- SurveryUSA- A long reputable polling agency with no discernible bias. This means that their polls can sometimes slightly favor democrats and sometimes slightly favor republicans. No adjustment is needed in this case.
Adjusted Numbers are...
- PPP-Obama by 4
- Rasmussen- Obama by 2
- ARG- Obama by 0.5
- CNN/Opinion Research- Obama by 3
- SurveryUSA- Obama by 1
Adjusted average of these 5 polls are Obama by 2. Now lets add in the two other polls in strong question.
The median of Obama by 6 in the NBC poll and the adjusted average of Obama by 2 makes this poll become Obama by 4. Gravis Marketing Romney by one becomes a virtual tie.
Therefore the final adjusted polling average is still Obama by 2. Basically the exact same as the polling average of RCP. Not always is this the case and sometimes it can swing the race up to a point or two depending upon the track record of the polls that are done.
3. Now we look at which way the state is trending. For this we use the initial numbers compared to their previous findings, assuming the poll is no more then roughly three weeks told.
PPP- Moved towards Obama by 1
Rasmussen- Unchanged
ARG- Moved towards Romney by 2
Gravis Marketing- Moved towards Romney by 2
NBC/WSJ/Marist- Moved towards Romney by 2.
Therefore, we see a slight trending towards Romney and will give him a .5 bounce. Obama by 2 becomes Obama by 1.5. (In cases of one candidate trending either .5 or 1 point will be added to the final adjusted polling average.
4. Now the first crucial test...Is Obama by 1.5 realistic with the over all state of the race? Yes. Virginia and Florida are both extremely close and slightly favor Romney at the present, but generally they are more republican in past elections then Ohio. I could give several more examples which furthers my assessment. No adjustment is needed.
5. Lastly, the second crucial test...Is Obama by 1.5 realistic to their past voting trends? Definitely. I think every one knows this state in close elections show very similar numbers to the overall popular vote. No adjustment is needed here as well.
How I Make Projections?
In the days leading up to the 2004 Presidential race I took my love for politics, math, and making predictions and merged them all together. While I had been closely monitoring the polling and trend lines for months leading up to the election, I began to look more into the numbers in order to make my own opinion on the presidential race. Of course we seen great success and no doubt some good luck as we correctly guessed the outcome of each state and thus what the final tally for the electoral college would be. I used the same exact system in 2008 and while I correctly predicted a comfortable win for Obama I did miss the outcome of three states. I do not pretend to have some type of secret knowledge or formula which makes my projections error-proof. However, I am also aware that no formula, polling agency, or political insider can ever have an error proof system. The biggest reason I do this in addition to the reasons cited above is that I like to have a good idea on election day which way things will probably go. Here are the answers to the most common questions about my projections...
- Aren't polls terribly inaccurate and practically worthless? The biggest mistake I think people make is putting too much stock in one or two polls and then judge polling accordingly. I never put too much confidence in one poll and would rather look at what the consensus or average of what the reputable polling companies are reporting. I have found that when anyone finds a poll they really like they have a tendency to believe it, but when they find polls that are reporting the opposite they quickly discard it as being false or biased. Polling companies are critiqued heavily on their accuracy and thus they care about their credibility. Historically, the consensus or average of the polls together give a very good picture of what is going to happen. Let us look back to 2008 and consider the real clear politics final polls and average of what the popular vote would be between Obama and McCain. Notice the average of all the polls came within 0.3 of the final results.
| Final Results | -- | -- | -- | 52.9 | 45.6 | Obama +7.3 |
| RCP Average | 10/29 - 11/3 | -- | -- | 52.1 | 44.5 | Obama +7.6 |
| Marist | 11/3 - 11/3 | 804 LV | 4.0 | 52 | 43 | Obama +9 |
| Battleground (Lake)* | 11/2 - 11/3 | 800 LV | 3.5 | 52 | 47 | Obama +5 |
| Battleground (Tarrance)* | 11/2 - 11/3 | 800 LV | 3.5 | 50 | 48 | Obama +2 |
| Rasmussen Reports | 11/1 - 11/3 | 3000 LV | 2.0 | 52 | 46 | Obama +6 |
| Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby | 11/1 - 11/3 | 1201 LV | 2.9 | 54 | 43 | Obama +11 |
| IBD/TIPP | 11/1 - 11/3 | 981 LV | 3.2 | 52 | 44 | Obama +8 |
| FOX News | 11/1 - 11/2 | 971 LV | 3.0 | 50 | 43 | Obama +7 |
| NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl | 11/1 - 11/2 | 1011 LV | 3.1 | 51 | 43 | Obama +8 |
| Gallup | 10/31 - 11/2 | 2472 LV | 2.0 | 55 | 44 | Obama +11 |
| Diageo/Hotline | 10/31 - 11/2 | 887 LV | 3.3 | 50 | 45 | Obama +5 |
| CBS News | 10/31 - 11/2 | 714 LV | -- | 51 | 42 | Obama +9 |
| Ipsos/McClatchy | 10/30 - 11/2 | 760 LV | 3.6 | 53 | 46 | Obama +7 |
| ABC News/Wash Post | 10/30 - 11/2 | 2470 LV | 2.5 | 53 | 44 | Obama +9 |
| CNN/Opinion Research | 10/30 - 11/1 | 714 LV | 3.5 | 53 | 46 | Obama +7 |
| Pew Research | 10/29 - 11/1 | 2587 LV | 2.0 | 52 | 46 | Obama +6 |
- Is their bias in polls? Remember, polls do not simply call a bunch of random people and say here is what is going to happen. They all have specific methods that they use to determine what percentage of each party to call, gender, race, and geographic locations. I do not believe any credible polling company decides to manipulate their findings to favor a candidate. However, their can be a real bias when determining what methods to use. In other words, they believe one party is going to show up more heavily on election day and they then poll a heavier percentage of people within that party. Some polls take in consideration an "enthusiasm gap" in determining what percentage of each party to call. This is done by asking the ones they call two questions. "How excited or enthused are you to vote for..." and "How likely are you to vote for..." Then they weight their poll accordingly. While I believe in the use of enthusiasm to weight party voting I also believe that this is where the bias comes in as companies can have a tendency to over react to what they are finding. I do weight or adjust polls according to their over all past accuracy when making projections.
- Do you ever throw out polls entirely? Almost never. I just take into account their leanings and weight the findings accordingly. The only time I would ever throw out a poll is when their findings are all over the place in comparison the polling average. In other words their polls are always outliers and their seems to be no rhyme nor rhythm in which way they go.
- What does trend lines mean? Which way the race is trending at the moment. In other words has one candidate been seeing consistent steady gains leading up to that moment. Trend lines are only accurate by comparing the same identical polling companies. This is one of the first things I look at in every poll; How does this poll compare to their last poll? Of course the polls need to be taken within one to two weeks of each other to give a more accurate picture.I do look at trend lines in making my projections and will give up to one percentage point gain if their appears to be a strong momentum for one candidate.
- Do you take into consideration past results? Yes, but mainly this is utilized when their are little polls done in a particular state. After I make adjustments to the polls according to their accuracy and past leaning and average them together I ask myself these questions? "Are these results logical in terms of past results?" and "Are these results consistent with the general state of the race" Most of the time these questions do not make much change in my projections unless their is little polling to go by, because the polling is almost always consistent to these two areas. I would generally only adjust the average adjusted polling average by a maximum of one percentage point.
- How much of your projections are formula and how much is your personal assessment? While I go strictly by my formula, which I do not change in the middle of a race, their are times that conjecture has to be used within the frame work of the formula. I would say that 75% of my projections are based on raw data and 25% are based on conjectures.
- How much time does this take? Since I know my formula basically by memory the projections only takes within 15-30 minutes. However, the analyzing of the polls can also take some time on heavy poll days. My final projections which will include a margin of victory column for the swing states will require more detailed study and take a few hours.
- Are the confidence percentages done by formula? No
- How do you decide whether a state is a toss-up, leaning state, or safe for one candidate? Simply by my confidence level with one additional rule of thumb. I am never more then 65% confident of the outcome of a toss-up and more then 85% confident for a leaning state. But, I never consider a toss-up to have more then a 2 1/2 point margin and a leaning state to have more then a 4 point margin.
- Is your formula a secret? Not really, since it requires an element of personal assessment and would thus be impossible to replicate.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Predictions 10/12/2012
More good news for Mr. Romney again today as you consider the polling from the day. Despite the fact that some of the polls came from more right leaning companies it none the less shows another day of the Romney momentum. New Hampshire is now a toss-up and it is not going to take much to bring Iowa and Wisconsin into that column. A few states also moved more towards Romney in my confidence level of victory.
One can click on the link below to see my predictions in map form.
Political Prognosticators Daily Electoral Map
Anyone that has any ideas on how I can present my predictions in an easier to follow format or if you would like me to include other data in my predictions please let me know. As always I welcome any questions, comments, and predictions that you may have. I am getting several page views, but no one has had the courage to comment as of yet.
|
One can click on the link below to see my predictions in map form.
Political Prognosticators Daily Electoral Map
Anyone that has any ideas on how I can present my predictions in an easier to follow format or if you would like me to include other data in my predictions please let me know. As always I welcome any questions, comments, and predictions that you may have. I am getting several page views, but no one has had the courage to comment as of yet.
Post VP Debate Analysis and the Moderator
Those that read what I was expecting before the debate would know that I was not even remotely surprised by how the debate unfolded. One of the craziest debates after a debate is...who won? This is ultimately like trying to predict who won a game before the game was played, since the proof of who won is found in polling trends several days afterwords. Furthermore, who won is generally dependent on who you liked going into the debate, except when one candidate dominates as happened in the first presidential debate. A much better question is did each candidate accomplish what they set out to do?
I am fully aware of the fact that many conservatives will be flustered to no end by what they perceived as a condescending, rude, and overly antagonist approach that Biden took last night. But, this is what gets lost in the conversation. What was Biden's main objective last night? To directly pander to the democrat base that had been so disheartened by the Obama performance the previous week. This is why Biden took the approach that he did and ultimately accomplished exactly what the campaign probably wanted him to. From what I am hearing democrats are extremely pleased with what happened last night and they found all of the same things that Biden did which turned off conservatives, as exciting to them. He also needed the media talking heads and general consensus to be that he at least worked himself to a draw in the match and this was also clearly done.
Ryan also had some clear objectives going into the debate and his is more up to personal opinion. In my estimation he had to not only prove he could in fact be president if he were forced to, but I felt like he needed to drive the Libyan crises to the point that it forced to the main stream media to focus much more attention on it. On the first, I think it was clearly a mission accomplished. On the second objective, I am not so sure that he had the chance to do much more then what he did. It was very "conveiently" brought up in the first question of the debate and probably quickly forgotten by many when the debate was over.
However, what captivated my attention the most was the format of the debate and the moderator. According to the commission on presidential debates the VP debate was to follow the same format as the presidential debate. In an interview with Jim Lehrer in which he was asked about criticism that had been directed his way for not inserting himself more into the first debate and why their were not more follow-up questions, he responded that this was a new format that had been approved by the candidates and it was now the job of the candidates to challenge what was being said and ask their own follow-up questions. (When it was their turn to speak, by the way) No one could have walked away from last night thinking that Martha Raddatz followed the same format as Jim Lehrer. It is not the job of the moderator to ever interrupt a candidate, except when their time allotment is up in this new format. She interrupted more last night then I ever remember in any debate, even when the format was conducive to moderators interrupting. The job of the moderator is to guide the conversation after the initial question is asked to the candidates and ensure that each candidate gets their alloted time. Obviously, this was broken on numerous occassions and unless she thought guiding the conversation meant asking three and four additional questions per sement, she fell short in following the format in this regard as well. I expect a lot of attention to be given to the fact that Preseident Obama attended Martha's wedding as a personal friend and I'm not so sure that the personal connection is not worth considering in light of the debate last night.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-lehrer-presidential-debate-breakthrough-20121009,0,6474107.story
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=format
I am fully aware of the fact that many conservatives will be flustered to no end by what they perceived as a condescending, rude, and overly antagonist approach that Biden took last night. But, this is what gets lost in the conversation. What was Biden's main objective last night? To directly pander to the democrat base that had been so disheartened by the Obama performance the previous week. This is why Biden took the approach that he did and ultimately accomplished exactly what the campaign probably wanted him to. From what I am hearing democrats are extremely pleased with what happened last night and they found all of the same things that Biden did which turned off conservatives, as exciting to them. He also needed the media talking heads and general consensus to be that he at least worked himself to a draw in the match and this was also clearly done.
Ryan also had some clear objectives going into the debate and his is more up to personal opinion. In my estimation he had to not only prove he could in fact be president if he were forced to, but I felt like he needed to drive the Libyan crises to the point that it forced to the main stream media to focus much more attention on it. On the first, I think it was clearly a mission accomplished. On the second objective, I am not so sure that he had the chance to do much more then what he did. It was very "conveiently" brought up in the first question of the debate and probably quickly forgotten by many when the debate was over.
However, what captivated my attention the most was the format of the debate and the moderator. According to the commission on presidential debates the VP debate was to follow the same format as the presidential debate. In an interview with Jim Lehrer in which he was asked about criticism that had been directed his way for not inserting himself more into the first debate and why their were not more follow-up questions, he responded that this was a new format that had been approved by the candidates and it was now the job of the candidates to challenge what was being said and ask their own follow-up questions. (When it was their turn to speak, by the way) No one could have walked away from last night thinking that Martha Raddatz followed the same format as Jim Lehrer. It is not the job of the moderator to ever interrupt a candidate, except when their time allotment is up in this new format. She interrupted more last night then I ever remember in any debate, even when the format was conducive to moderators interrupting. The job of the moderator is to guide the conversation after the initial question is asked to the candidates and ensure that each candidate gets their alloted time. Obviously, this was broken on numerous occassions and unless she thought guiding the conversation meant asking three and four additional questions per sement, she fell short in following the format in this regard as well. I expect a lot of attention to be given to the fact that Preseident Obama attended Martha's wedding as a personal friend and I'm not so sure that the personal connection is not worth considering in light of the debate last night.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-lehrer-presidential-debate-breakthrough-20121009,0,6474107.story
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=format
Vice presidential debate (October 11, 2012, Centre College, Danville, KY)
The debate will cover both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)