home

CNN Post Debate Poll

CNN just conducted an Opinion Research telephone poll. Obama beat McCain by big margins:

  • The debate: 52% to 38%
  • Iraq: 52% to 47%
  • Economy: 58% to 37%
Update: More than 60% of the CNN focus group in Ohio said Obama won. 64% said they thought he would be the next President.

Update: CBS poll finds more undecideds thought Obama won.

< Tone Deaf Analysis | Debate Highlights >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I know hypothesize. . . (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:35:55 PM EST
    that Obama is running at 52% on the polls -- based on my feeling that people will like the same person coming out of this debate as they liked going in.

    But McCain is bleeding support -- people who are now unsure.  The fight is for them.  But even with none of them, Obama still wins by four percent.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:39:09 PM EST
    CBS did a poll amongst undecideds, and they had:

    Obama win 40%
    McCain win 22%
    Tie 38%

    It seems clear that tonight was a net win for Obama. Maybe not a big one, but a win.


    Parent

    Mebbe (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:48:36 PM EST
    If so, then Obama's going to have a good election night.

    Parent
    They barely talked about the economy. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:38:40 PM EST
    It was all a bunch of bull about earmarks and they both did their best not to say a damn thing about the current problem. How does anyone form an opinion on that?

    it reinforces previous opinion (none / 0) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:44:18 PM EST
    which is not good for McSame

    Parent
    So, Molly, who do you (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:27:50 PM EST
    think "won" and why?  

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#90)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 10:23:14 AM EST
    Its hard for me to say. I can't stand McCain. So anything I say will be colored by that.

    I think Obama was right on substance (but needs to stop the "I agree" NOW. No you don't that why you are running!).

    Visually I think it was a loss for McCain. The inability to look his opponent in the eye and dripping condescension will not play well.

    As an aside, our generation (and our successors) were raised on TV so visuals are important. My parents were raised on radio. Different set of skills -listening and concentration. I wonder if this has something to do with GOP success over the years. Short messages and quick pictures. Whereas Democratic candidates, by nature are more wonkish. I think everyone would agree Hillary talent was the depth of her knowledge on most public matters. Few could match her (Al Gore, Bill Clinton). Classic Democrat. Modern  Republicans tend to be more visual. Other than Reagan (radio performer), since (and including) Nixon, are any of them capable of delivering a great speech? Can they deliver a speech without props? I don't think so.

    Which gets back to the debate and McCain. I found his message to be overall incoherent. He didn't display (to me) a depth of knowledge of the issues. What I heard was GOP bromides. That is why McCain lost and because in a 2 person debate, if one loses, the other (Obama) wins. If this had been Hillary debating, I might be talking about how Hillary won (and therefore McCain lost) - assuming she made no gaffe (unlikely, but possible) and McCain's performance was the same.  

    Parent

    Interesting. Thanks. (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 01:57:00 PM EST
    I took very close friends to the airport this a.m.  First question from my Obama-supporting, Camp Obama-going friend:  what did you think of the debate.  She sd. Obama won.  Her husband, who will vote for Obama, sd. he thought it was a tie and boring. All of us are much closer to McCain's age than to Obama's.  My friends watch a lot of TV.  I don't.  

    P.S.  My friend sd. McCain sd. the wrong name for the new President of Pakistan.  (I sd. I thought it was Bhutto's widower.)  And that he mispronounced the name of the President of Iran.  [My friend always pronounces "Queen Hatshepsut" correctly.  I don't.]

    Parent

    To clarify my previous answer. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 02:11:35 PM EST
    I think it unlikely Hill would have made a gaffe.

    Leo felt the same as your friend who thought it was a tie. We both agree McCain is a condescending jerk.

    I finally broke down and got an Obama-Biden 08 bumper sticker today. Yardsigns are impossible to get. I hope this is a good sign.

    Parent

    I missed the McCain is a (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 04:46:15 PM EST
    condescending jerk part everyone else is agreed upon.  And I was so attuned to Obama's attitude (as perceived by moi) during the primary debates.  If I thought I could bear it, I'd watch the whole debate again.  

    Parent
    The lack of eye contact from McCain to Obama (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by magster on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:40:54 PM EST
    left an impression of shame or lying.  Sincerity is regarded as an eye to eye thing, and McCain looked like he was trying to get away with something every time he tried to slam Obama.  Hopefully viewers had the same impression from these non-verbal cues.

    That's a good point. (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Pegasus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:43:15 PM EST
    And whether people are conscious of it or not, those kind of visuals are absorbed, and they matter.

    Parent
    Oh my goodness you noticed that too?!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:47:48 PM EST
    Also, look at the handshakes at this debate and the National Service forum they had. McCain can't sustain eye contact. I'm a huge fan of body language and try to notice detail (although I myself am a layman.)

    Parent
    It was noticeable (4.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Montague on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:51:07 PM EST
    I have to say, though, that I am not at all a fan of Lehrer's attempts to get them to talk AT each other.  It was far too reminiscent of a schoolteacher instructing children, or a mediator or therapist saying "tell him, not me."  It was like the Dem debates where the moderator told the candidates to raise their hands in answer to a question.  That sort of thing makes the candidates look ridiculous when they comply.

    So I'm not sure that it played badly for McCain to have handled it that way.  On the other hand, it may have made some viewers uncomfortable.  Hard to say whether it was a net plus or minus.

    Parent

    A win is a win (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dave B on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    Kerry beat Bush badly...

    Signs you know Obama won (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:51:15 PM EST
    I just saw one of the very right wing guys on Fox - Charles Krauthammer - say he thought it was a draw. When a right wing nut thinks it was a draw you know the Democrat won. Obama held his own and then some. McCain came across rather patronizing.

    How Is A (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:04:12 PM EST
    a draw for the 2 candidates a win for Obama .... when McCain went into the debate as the LOSER candidate after the week he's had, while Obama had a much better week and is leading in the polls?

    It seems to me that it was a wash for Obama and a gain (not a win) for McCain. Just my opinion.

    Parent

    Because when you're behind (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:05:49 PM EST
    you have to shake up the race. McCain failed to do that tonight.

    Parent
    Yeah but (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:20:07 PM EST
    Foreign policy is McCain's strongest department so for Obama to stand with him, not get flustered and even make a few good jabs works well for him.
    Plus I think McCain's 'contempt' [Chris Matthews used this word] for Obama hurt McCain a bit because it made him seem dismissive.

    Parent
    McCain's Contempt? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:25:35 PM EST
    And we are looking to Chris Matthews for a talking point? Uh-ok.

    All through the debate, McCain addressed Obama as "Senator Obama," while Obama addressed McCain as "John." Where's the contempt there?

    I guess it's individual perception of what is considered 'dismissive' and what one considers 'contempt.' Obama got a good number of zingers into McCain too, so being selective of what each said is, well, dismissive. I wouldn't expect anything less from Chris Matthews.

    Parent

    in the least. Heck, I bet if you went to the transcript and counted, you'd find that half of them were in a context like, "You're right, John."

    McCain, on the other hand, talked and acted very much as if Obama were not in the same room with him -- not looking at him, not engaging him directly, always referring to him politely, but formally and distantly ("Senator Obama" or "my opponent".)

    Parent

    Which is what I always do in trial. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 01:18:35 AM EST
    Always:  "defendant" in a criminal case and "plaintiff" in a civil case.  Never use their actual name--too humanizing.

    I do think Obama did a better job of making sure where to look to be making the best eye contact with the camera.  

    I read somewhere--I think here--that McCain has difficulty turning his upper torso to his left.  No idea if that is accurate information.  

    Parent

    Pat Buchanan, when asked what it (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:37:27 PM EST
    meant that McCain didn't look at Obama, sd., well, McCain doesn't like Obama!

    Parent
    I think PB is very correct (none / 0) (#82)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 02:49:04 AM EST
    in his assessment. I think the two men got off to a very bad start soon after Obama joined the Senate.

    Parent
    well (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:31:48 PM EST
    If you are losing, you need to start winning. Not winning isnt changing the math, especially when this debate was supposed to be McCains strongest.

    All Obama needed here was a tie to seem credible. By some accounts, the public liked him better.

    Parent

    wow. you just answered your own question (none / 0) (#60)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:42:29 PM EST
    when McCain went into the debate as the LOSER candidate after the week he's had, while Obama had a much better week and is leading in the polls?

    Just replace that question mark with a period and the word "when" with a "because" and you're good to go.

    Parent

    Nice try. Thanks for playing. (none / 0) (#64)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:47:07 PM EST
    How about you come up with a game (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:50:18 PM EST
    that's harder than me breathing.

    Parent
    ha (none / 0) (#21)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:58:33 PM EST
    lol. Good point.  

    Parent
    My personal impression is similar to (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:08:15 PM EST
    Oculus. Go ahead and hit me BTD. McCain was better than I expected but Obama was better better than I expected. So, Obama wins.

    I'm not talking about facts or positions, just the overall impression I had.

    my personal reaction (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by sancho on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:26:06 PM EST
    is that obama won. i thought kerry and gore won their debates easily too. as andgarden says, we'll see the tracking polls soon enough.

    Parent
    Oh, good. Perhaps I'm not (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:26:39 PM EST
    demented after all.  Didn't start drinking until the debate was over.  What did Carville say?  He's my guru.

    Parent
    Mine, too. I haven't seen him tonight. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:32:14 PM EST
    When CNN started their replay, I switched to Fox (sorry but I still can't handle Olbermann) and their focus group of 27 said 17-10 Obama.

    Parent
    Oh really? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:43:08 PM EST
    I prefer his wife.

    Parent
    What did she say about the debate? (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 01:19:48 AM EST
    I think the debate was a toss-up. I could say (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:29:29 PM EST
    that both lost but that wouldn't be nice.  Neither one impressed me or gave me a reason to vote for them.  

    Who watched? Funny stuff (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:38:08 PM EST
    on Fox, trying to find out how middle America reacted.  Greta reports calling a bowling alley in Wisconsin (her home state), a newspaper in Ohio, a bar somewhere else, etc. -- and nobody at any of the sites was AWARE of the debate.

    Party down, dudes.  It's Friday night.

    A newspaper in Ohio? (none / 0) (#62)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:45:24 PM EST
    Seriously? LOL. What newspaper was that?

    Thanks for the midnight laugh, CC!

    Parent

    That Iraq number's nice. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Pegasus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:38:56 PM EST
    And I guess a +21 on the economy is nothing to complain about.  Kinda hard to get it too much higher when you factor in the 25% of dead-enders out there.

    John King on CNN (none / 0) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:01:07 PM EST
    said not to take the post-debate polls all that seriously because Dems. watch them, or were expected to watch this one, I didn't get his precise words, in much larger numbers than Republicans.

    The panel agreed, however, that even with that caveat, the "conventional wisdom" among the public about who had a better debate is greatly influenced by those polls.

    Just repeatin' what I heard, not endorsin' it.

    Parent

    Strikes me as a fair point. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Pegasus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:06:41 PM EST
    And that's saying something, because I think John King's a bit of an idiot.  Without that stupid magic election-night touchscreen in front of him, he's got nothin'.

    Parent
    Not only that (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:03:01 PM EST
    But I'll bet Obama had a good day on the trackers too. Those will set the tone tomorrow, even though they don't have anything to do with the debate.

    Parent
    Doesn't make sense... (none / 0) (#35)
    by DudeE on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:07:25 PM EST
    I don't know on what basis anyone would speculate that Dems watch in greater numbers.  If that's true then that's probably a point for Dems anyway isn't it?  Regardless, any poll worth its salt would have a sample representative of the voting population - not one representative of those watching the debate.

    Pundits just like to insert controversy even when none exists.

    Parent

    John King is not a pundit (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 08:51:11 AM EST
    Exactly (none / 0) (#57)
    by Brookhaven on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:38:44 PM EST
    It's like that newspaper a beaming Truman, President-elect, held up with the headline "Dewey Wins!"  

    How did this happen?  A telephone poll was conducted by a large eastern newspaper. They asked voters who they would vote for in the presidential race. Of those polled, a large majority said they would vote for Thomas Dewey. The newspaper concluded that Thomas Dewey would be the next president which they boldly announced in very large type: Dewey Wins. Photo with Truman holding newspaper.

    The overnight vote count however gave the election to Harry Truman.

    What produced the error in their prediction? The problem was that a phone poll was the basis of the poll. Most people who had phones at the time tended to be voters who would vote for Dewey.

    Caveat emptor all over again.  Heh.

    Frankly, I thought McCain had the edge in the debate although not by much. In my view, which is the most important for me because it's my vote, it was more of a draw.

    Also, I never take seriously anymore what any pundit has to say not after the Dem primary. All I do now if I listen to them and their biased guests from both camps is to grin and roll my eyes.

    Parent

    John King is not a pundit (none / 0) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 08:51:36 AM EST
    Other polls (none / 0) (#7)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:43:33 PM EST
    So far are similar.  Look esp. at what undecideds and independents are saying.

    and the FOX poll (none / 0) (#10)
    by kenosharick on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:46:06 PM EST
    had mccain winning 82-13. These insta-polls are useless.

    You mean their internet poll? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:47:59 PM EST
    Well, that's different.

    Parent
    Text Message Poll (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:59:39 PM EST
    It was a text message poll.

    The CNN poll is no more indicative of the debate than the FOX News poll is. They are both non-scientific polls and each network has its core of demographics that support one of the two candidates.

    Taking the poll results seriously would be foolish.

    Besides, after two years of campaigning, it's quite hard to imagine that even the most low-information voter doesn't have an idea about who they are supporting/voting for.

    Every single person who watched tonight's debate went in with a pre-conceived idea about the candidate they were not supporting and saw/heard exactly what they wanted to see and hear.

    PS: I'm not directing my comment, beyond my first sentence, to you andgarden, just so you know.

    Parent

    If you do a traditional phone poll, it's valid (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:01:58 PM EST
    but if you poll the people who visit your website, it's not.

    I think that's common ground.

    Parent

    Again.... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:10:18 PM EST
    it was mobile phone text message poll, not an online poll.

    One thing about text message polls is that it is on the onus of the viewer to send in their vote, and FOX said it received 52,000+ text messages.

    While the CNN phone poll cannot have been a fair poll because we do not know who were called, which states they were in, how many declined to answer and hung up.

    And for both polls, we do not know the demographics of these people who responded i.e. age, income/education level, sex, etc.

    The same goes for the CBS and ABC polls too. These flash or snap polls should not be taken seriously. Let's see what Gallup, Zogby, Rasmussen, Quinipiac and SUSA have to say over the next few days.

    Parent

    The trackers will tell us what we need to know (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:21:15 PM EST
    by Wednesday.

    Parent
    Query: how many people over 50 (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:30:55 PM EST
    will use their cell phones to text message in their vote on who won this debate?  

    Parent
    Not me! (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:32:05 PM EST
    How about at the baseball game (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:33:02 PM EST
    to vote on songs, most of which are unfamiliar to you (well, to me)?

    Parent
    Nope, again. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:34:28 PM EST
    When you have a teenager, if you want (none / 0) (#56)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:38:23 PM EST
    to communicate, you have to learn to text. Even from the other room.

    Parent
    I text message my adult (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:39:46 PM EST
    daughter 'cause it is cheaper for her than phone calls, even if I place to the call to her "mobile."  

    Parent
    My point exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:40:54 PM EST
    These flash polls do not matter at all.

    By principal, I do not trust polls at all. People lie and say what they think is politically-correct, mostly because they are afraid that their true sentiments could come back to haunt them -- especially with telephone polls.

    The only true poll that matters will be as voters exit the voting booth -- and that's with their votes. After 2004, when we thought Kerry should have been shoo-in and still lost, nothing can be trusted anymore.

    Parent

    Yep. Wonkette really had (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:06:15 AM EST
    me convinced with those early exit polls.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#30)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:03:32 PM EST
    Wouldn't most of McCain's supporters be in bed by the end of the debate?  

    Parent
    Ageism doesn't become you. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:32:17 PM EST
    lol (none / 0) (#72)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:12:35 AM EST
    Hey, those folks are my friends, and I KNOW they aren't up past 10:00!  Heck, my own hubby is lucky to make past 9!  

    Parent
    Silly (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:49:26 PM EST
    Come on. you are smarter than this.

    Internet polls are not the same thing.

    It seems clear that Obama won - and I think it was because he looked more PResidential.

    Parent

    Is this the casting-call debate (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:53:48 PM EST
    meter?  What does looking more presidential mean?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:54:50 PM EST
    You can act as if you do not knwo but that is on you.

    You think McCain did not look like a blithering idiot.

    So I leave you to your devices.

    Parent

    Just a reminder: I'm not voting for McCain. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:24:14 PM EST
    Just trying to figure out why we had such different impressions of the debate, although we actually agreed on the economy segment.

    Parent
    Mc Cain looked angry a lot (none / 0) (#79)
    by bigbay on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 01:18:18 AM EST
    a little bit of the sighing that Gore did in 2000.
    I honestly believe Mc Cain scared some voters off tonight.

    Parent
    Obama was much better dressed (none / 0) (#28)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:02:07 PM EST
    His clothes looked much more expensive and they fit much better.  McCain's blue shirt looked hokie.  Obama's tie was fabulous, VERY expensive, VERY tasteful, while McCain looked like a country bumkin in his blue blaser, blue shirt, and cheap tie.

    Parent
    I would be a terrible eyewitness. I (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:05:49 PM EST
    couldn't tell you a single thing either of them wore.

    In an eight grade art class, we had some kind of test (we didn't know we were being tested) about how observant we are. I think I was last in the class.

    Parent

    and then there's the posture issue (none / 0) (#40)
    by sancho on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:24:01 PM EST
    obama has great posture. its one reason he comes across as such a good speaker.

    Parent
    So you are saying...? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Montague on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:54:40 PM EST
    Is it possible that middle America will feel more like voting for a guy who dresses in less expensive clothing?  

    Parent
    No! (none / 0) (#73)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:14:39 AM EST
    I think most people appreciate someone who is sharply dressed.  Obama looked great, perfectly dressed, expensive, well cut, and perfectly tailored.  Who doesn't like that look?!

    Parent
    Someone with extreme ODS? :) (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:18:04 AM EST
    Um... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Montague on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:34:51 AM EST
    It plays right into that "elitist" meme.

    Parent
    But seriously (none / 0) (#78)
    by Montague on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:38:28 AM EST
    This was part of Kerry's problem.  He was far too groomed.  He looked it, and a lot of people thought he was arrogant because of it.  

    You look at Kerry and you think "Botox?"  You look at McCain and you may think "old fuddy-duddy" but that seems more real than Botox.

    Why do we have such problems seeing this?  It's good to look professional if you hope to be president, but to be overly groomed is to look like a celebrity, not a president.

    Parent

    I like my President to wear expensive suits (none / 0) (#83)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 02:56:03 AM EST
    Crisp white shirts, and beautiful, expensive, ties.  Good shoes too.  I do NOT want the country bumpkin look on my President.  

    Parent
    Then we are in some (none / 0) (#84)
    by Montague on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 07:43:40 AM EST
    disagreement.

    Incidentally, McCain didn't look like a country bumpkin.  He did, however, look less polished than Obama.  I like a professional look on our elected officials, but I can cut some slack for a person who has been disfigured by torture because it's true he doesn't look very comfortable in his clothing, and I suspect at least part of it is because of that.

    In fact McCain also looks, overall, considerably less polished than Dumbya, and how'd that work out for us?  OTOH Jimmy Carter, never my favorite prez, DID look a bit like a country bumpkin but that was the part about him that I rather liked.  He said "we have an energy crisis" and he turned down the thermostats and wore cheesy sweaters.  He got mocked for that.  A lot.

    I'm hoping that you don't really expect expensive ties on our presidents?  Because where would that leave a woman who's interested in the job?

    Parent

    At Hermes? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 08:43:21 AM EST
    ABC's focus group (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:53:30 PM EST
    of about 20 or 30 undecideds went roughly 60-40 for Obama.

    Parent
    That's good enough (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:55:25 PM EST
    The CBS and CNN polls.. (none / 0) (#14)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:49:22 PM EST
    ..were telephone polls


    Parent
    Update ... If Anyone Cares (none / 0) (#70)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:02:20 AM EST
    McCain won: 84%
    Obama won: 13%
    Undecided: 1%

    92,000 votes.

    Summary of this poll, just like every other poll taken tonight, in one word: Nonsense.

    Parent

    Does that mean Obama has to leave the island? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:35:10 AM EST
    In other words... no one cares.

    Parent
    Sheeze, McCain is already running a post debate ad (none / 0) (#22)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:59:35 PM EST
    Not surprising... (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by DudeE on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:02:00 PM EST
    ...he was running "McCain Wins Debate!" internet ads this morning...

    Parent
    What a terrible ad (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:00:56 PM EST
    Who is that supposed to convince?

    Parent
    Obama was rather annoying and McCain (none / 0) (#63)
    by Montague on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:46:52 PM EST
    was rather simplistic.  

    Who lost the debate? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Thingumbobesq on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 07:55:43 AM EST
    We are facing a great depression in this nation again. Neither of these candidates have a clue. And yet all the political blogs and television commentators mindlessly carry on about debating style. Barack Obama and John McCain had absolutely nothing to say about what to do to get the nation out of this disaster. Who lost the debate? America.

    ya (none / 0) (#89)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 09:22:19 AM EST
    I think they were both afraid of traps on that issue. It's so fluid it probably scared them both away.  

    Parent
    Easter Quotes (none / 0) (#94)
    by EasterQuotes on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 04:33:46 AM EST
    Easter (none / 0) (#95)
    by EasterQuotes on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 07:21:48 AM EST